Out of bounds, self damage and risk

[Teridax68]

16 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

I did clarify my question to that Tenno.

Not clarified, deflected, a move made all the more ineffectual by the fact that the Tenno in question had already answered your "clarified" version of the question in their post.

16 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Instead of spamming the Bramma willy nilly as is currently the case, players would use it more tactically. Damage may still be a bit high, but a combination of a self-damage mechanic along with some sort of 10% damage nerf, would be my preference to something like a flat out 30% damage nerf or some weird DR mechanic. I prefer explosive weapons in games having good damage, but that damage comes with a risk. To each his own.

And as once again pointed out, this was not the case when the Bramma could one-shot a Tenno. If the weapon would need a targeted nerf on top of the blanket nerf aimed most towards it, why even have that blanket nerf at all? Why not just nerf the overpowered weapons and leave the rest alone?

16 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Agree to disagree.

So in effect, your argument was purely subjective from the start, and when challenged on your pretenses of knowing the game on the same level as DE, you suddenly find yourself at an uncharacteristic loss for words. Glad we got that sorted.

16 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

We weren't only talking dominance of the Bramma, we were talking power of explosive weapons overall and maths was used to demonstrate that even "weak" MR5 explosive weapons are, in fact, more powerful than many other weapons that are more popular. You decided maths doesn't suit your narrative and deflected and ignored. 

Correction: you were talking about the power of explosive weapons overall. I specifically pointed to the power of outliers, because most explosive weapons are, as shown by the evidence, unproblematic. The fact that your own baseless reasoning led you to such nonsensical conclusions should have been an indicator that you did things wrong. Despite this, you still choose to repeat your own silly narrative against all facts, claiming to be using math while rejecting statistical data in blithe ignorance of the irony therein.

16 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

We are going in circles. We'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

You can "agree to disagree" all you want, you're just wrong. It's that simple. Of all the arguments in favor of self-damage, you picked the ones that made no sense. Had you picked a different, less self-centered stance from which to argue your point, you could have perhaps contributed something to this discussion, but it's a little too late for that.

[(PSN)ErydisTheLucario]

I like how you made a topic like this, only to not engage in conversation when there's flak. 

[Silligoose]

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Not clarified, deflected, a move made all the more ineffectual by the fact that the Tenno in question had already answered your "clarified" version of the question in their post.

And as once again pointed out, this was not the case when the Bramma could one-shot a Tenno. If the weapon would need a targeted nerf on top of the blanket nerf aimed most towards it, why even have that blanket nerf at all? Why not just nerf the overpowered weapons and leave the rest alone?

So in effect, your argument was purely subjective from the start, and when challenged on your pretenses of knowing the game on the same level as DE, you suddenly find yourself at an uncharacteristic loss for words. Glad we got that sorted.

Correction: you were talking about the power of explosive weapons overall. I specifically pointed to the power of outliers, because most explosive weapons are, as shown by the evidence, unproblematic. The fact that your own baseless reasoning led you to such nonsensical conclusions should have been an indicator that you did things wrong. Despite this, you still choose to repeat your own silly narrative against all facts, claiming to be using math while rejecting statistical data in blithe ignorance of the irony therein.

You can "agree to disagree" all you want, you're just wrong. It's that simple. Of all the arguments in favor of self-damage, you picked the ones that made no sense. Had you picked a different, less self-centered stance from which to argue your point, you could have perhaps contributed something to this discussion, but it's a little too late for that.

Well, you keep claiming the same things you don't have actual evidence for and refuse to debate evidence contrary to it. Have fun with that.

[sitfesz]

2 hours ago, (PSN)ErydisTheLucario said:

I like how you made a topic like this, only to not engage in conversation when there's flak. 

I can't blame him, there are more essays here than in a mexican gang.

[(PSN)DoctorWho_90250]

@Silligoose@Teridax68

 

Breathe, relax, and here's a dog video.

 

[Silligoose]

6 minutes ago, (PSN)DoctorWho_90250 said:

@Silligoose@Teridax68

 

Breathe, relax, and here's a dog video.

 

Situational awareness on display!!!!

Thanks for the vid it was entertaining 

[Teridax68]

4 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Well, you keep claiming the same things you don't have actual evidence for and refuse to debate evidence contrary to it. Have fun with that.

A strange claim to make when the evidence I put forth was also supported by other users and is common knowledge on here given its accessibility, and when I addressed your "evidence" directly. Meanwhile, you have been the one repeating yourself and denying evidence presented to you, as your reply shows. The fact that you don't even attempt to rebut anything here, only project, says enough about where you lie in this discussion.

[Silligoose]

7 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

A strange claim to make when the evidence I put forth was also supported by other users and is common knowledge on here given its accessibility, and when I addressed your "evidence" directly. Meanwhile, you have been the one repeating yourself and denying evidence presented to you, as your reply shows. The fact that you don't even attempt to rebut anything here, only project, says enough about where you lie in this discussion.

On 2021-10-04 at 11:01 PM, Teridax68 said:

If the other AoE weapons "don't see as much play", how are they "still very strong"? What is their play rate relative to other weapons? The Zarr, which you seem to believe is one of these "very strong" weapons, had a 0.47% usage rate in 2020, at a time when the Kuva Bramma dominated already. Before we start talking changes, it would help to first get one's facts right.

On 2021-10-05 at 1:56 AM, Silligoose said:

Look up "Appeal to Popularity". Popularity doesn't equal strength. By your logic the Dread is stronger than both the Bubonico and Kuva Tonkor. Even the MK1-Paris is apparently stronger, because it is more popular? That's not how you measure how powerful a weapon is. What's next? Excalibur is stronger than Excalibur Umbra because it is more popular? Third failed attempt at ridicule, Definitely learn from this one. That was a terrible attempt at discerning whether a weapon is strong or not. You can feel a little shame for this one.

[Teridax68]

1 hour ago, Silligoose said:

Thank you for this, as it neatly sums up both my reliance on evidence when making my points, as noted by the statistical data I linked to you, and your rejection of it, as noted by your repeated accusations of an "appeal to popularity". As it so happens, an appeal to popularity is when one argues that something is real because of a majority belief, not when a general statistical trend itself demonstrates the thing being argued. If statistical data shows the majority of people prefer to eat ice cream during hot weather, arguing that ice cream tends to be eaten more in hot weather isn't an appeal to popularity, and claiming the opposite is, by the way, a logical fallacy (see link). If the claim is that some explosive weapons are dominant while others aren't, and the statistical data shows this, it's not even a matter of belief, it's simply something people do. In other words, there is no point to nerfing weapons you personally believe are OP if nobody's exploiting them despite them being well-established for months or years. This is why you should research the terms you use before using them so loosely, as your insistence upon making a fundamental misunderstanding of both statistics and logical fallacies core to your position is a major reason why your arguments have been so laughable.

[Silligoose]

6 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Thank you for this, as it neatly sums up both my reliance on evidence when making my points, as noted by the statistical data I linked to you, and your rejection of it, as noted by your repeated accusations of an "appeal to popularity". As it so happens, an appeal to popularity is when one argues that something is real because of a majority belief, not when a general statistical trend itself demonstrates the thing being argued. If statistical data shows the majority of people prefer to eat ice cream during hot weather, arguing that ice cream tends to be eaten more in hot weather isn't an appeal to popularity, and claiming the opposite is, by the way, a logical fallacy (see link). If the claim is that some explosive weapons are dominant while others aren't, and the statistical data shows this, it's not even a matter of belief, it's simply something people do. In other words, there is no point to nerfing weapons you personally believe are OP if nobody's exploiting them despite them being well-established for months or years. This is why you should research the terms you use before using them so loosely, as your insistence upon making a fundamental misunderstanding of both statistics and logical fallacies core to your position is a major reason why your arguments have been so laughable.

 

On 2021-10-04 at 11:01 PM, Teridax68 said:

If the other AoE weapons "don't see as much play", how are they "still very strong"? What is their play rate relative to other weapons? The Zarr, which you seem to believe is one of these "very strong" weapons, had a 0.47% usage rate in 2020, at a time when the Kuva Bramma dominated already. Before we start talking changes, it would help to first get one's facts right.

On 2021-10-05 at 1:56 AM, Silligoose said:

Look up "Appeal to Popularity". Popularity doesn't equal strength.

On 2021-10-05 at 7:03 PM, Silligoose said:

Determining whether a weapon is strong or not, based solely on usage statistics, is an Appeal to Popularity. That is what you did. That was your argument: The Zarr isn't strong because it isn't used much. Wrong. Usage statistics shows what is popular, but not necessarily what is strong. Popularity is dependent on many factors, including availability, hype, ease of use, how enjoyable it is etc and yes, relative power, amongst other things. You made the mistake of equating popularity to strength alone.

[LillyRaccune]

5 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

As it so happens, an appeal to popularity is when one argues that something is real because of a majority belief,

Good thing we don't have to argue Covid and Covid Vaccines here. After all, everyone knows Covid isn't real-it's just a propaganda to scare the general population. Heck, even germs aren't real! If you can't see it, obviously it doesn't exist! /s

[Teridax68]

On 2021-10-13 at 3:21 PM, LillyRaccune said:

Good thing we don't have to argue Covid and Covid Vaccines here. After all, everyone knows Covid isn't real-it's just a propaganda to scare the general population. Heck, even germs aren't real! If you can't see it, obviously it doesn't exist! /s

I was thinking just that actually, surely nobody can misunderstand statistics that badly, yet the world's recent events have shown otherwise...

On 2021-10-13 at 9:43 AM, Silligoose said:

 

You are literally just proving my point here. The fact that some factors may occasionally exert some degree of influence on weapon popularity (and you've failed to list what these factors are and how influential they'd be) does not go against the fact that weapon usage statistics are the most direct measure of their dominance one can obtain, and demonstrably correlates to their strength, which is why weapons like the Kuva Bramma and Kuva Nukor are at the top of their respective lists. Parroting out the same denial of basic facts is not going to make you appear more credible, particularly when you've been thoroughly debunked already..

[Silligoose]

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

You are literally just proving my point here. The fact that some factors may occasionally exert some degree of influence on weapon popularity (and you've failed to list what these factors are and how influential they'd be) does not go against the fact that weapon usage statistics are the most direct measure of their dominance one can obtain, and demonstrably correlates to their strength, which is why weapons like the Kuva Bramma and Kuva Nukor are at the top of their respective lists. Parroting out the same denial of basic facts is not going to make you appear more credible, particularly when you've been thoroughly debunked already..

On 2021-10-04 at 11:01 PM, Teridax68 said:

If the other AoE weapons "don't see as much play", how are they "still very strong"? What is their play rate relative to other weapons? The Zarr, which you seem to believe is one of these "very strong" weapons, had a 0.47% usage rate in 2020, at a time when the Kuva Bramma dominated already. Before we start talking changes, it would help to first get one's facts right.

On 2021-10-05 at 7:03 PM, Silligoose said:

Determining whether a weapon is strong or not, based solely on usage statistics, is an Appeal to Popularity. That is what you did. That was your argument: The Zarr isn't strong because it isn't used much. Wrong. Usage statistics shows what is popular, but not necessarily what is strong. Popularity is dependent on many factors, including availability, hype, ease of use, how enjoyable it is etc and yes, relative power, amongst other things. You made the mistake of equating popularity to strength alone.

Your argument wasn't simply that the popularity list showed dominance in popularity, but that that usage was an accurate statistic to determine the relative strength/power of weapons based on their relative popularity, which is an Appeal to Popularity, which is false, which I also proved mathematically. I mentioned some of the factors that contribute to popularity, but now, you want to say because I didn't list every single factor and associated statistical impact, it discredits the notion? You are using Strawman arguments whilst still clinging to Appeal to Popularity, all the while trying to redirect what your argument was.

I also used paper DPS because it is the closest practical demonstration of a weapon's potential damage output and it is not practical for me to go build, potato, forma and re-level MR5 weapons in order to demonstrate that point - paper would be sufficient for anyone with some knowledge of the game to extrapolate at the very least that even when an AoE weapon and a bow has the same damage output, the AoE is far more effective in practical play in most cases in Warframe. Really no point in trying to debate someone who Strawman's their way from maths, because if something as concrete as maths isn't deemed suitable evidence for a someone like you, nothing will be.

I also simply quote past replies, since you love going in circles and no new replies were needed as rebuttals. This time, I decided to spell it out for you since you didn't get what was going on.

I look forward to your next reply so I can quote some of my previous replies.

[(PSN)Unstar]

Oooh I wonder what's going on in this thread...

[LillyRaccune]

31 minutes ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

Oooh I wonder what's going on in this thread...

This is fine. /s

[Silligoose]

58 minutes ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

Oooh I wonder what's going on in this thread...

26 minutes ago, LillyRaccune said:

This is fine. /s

 

[Teridax68]

10 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Your argument wasn't simply that the popularity list showed dominance in popularity, but that that usage was an accurate statistic to determine the relative strength/power of weapons based on their relative popularity, which is an Appeal to Popularity, which is false, which I also proved mathematically.

How is it false? How did you prove this, let alone "mathematically"?

10 hours ago, Silligoose said:

I mentioned some of the factors that contribute to popularity, but now, you want to say because I didn't list every single factor and associated statistical impact, it discredits the notion? You are using Strawman arguments whilst still clinging to Appeal to Popularity, all the while trying to redirect what your argument was.

I am merely asking you to list the factors that would make a weapon dominant without it being strong, which you don't appear all that keen to answer. As the quote you yet again misquoted shows, I didn't ask for "every single factor" nor for some precise statistical impact, I'm just trying to understand what makes you think a weapon can dominate without being strong, and what makes you think a weapon can be unpopular while being overpowered. It is you who are strawmanning this argument.

By contrast, I can offer a very basic explanation in favor of my argument: if I find that a weapon's stronger than others, I'm more likely to use it, especially in high-level content, as it would make it easier and faster to run. Thus, that weapon becomes more popular. If, by contrast, I find that a weapon's weaker than others, I'm less likely to use it, especially in high-level content where it may fail to perform at all. Thus, that weapon becomes less popular, and a collective of players making those same decisions leads to those usage statistics. Simples!

10 hours ago, Silligoose said:

I also used paper DPS because it is the closest practical demonstration of a weapon's potential damage output

And this is your problem -- it's not. It gives no indication of how a weapon handles, what needs to be done to land that maximum paper DPS, what unique mechanics it has, and all of the other factors that make weapons crucially different from one another. The Ignis Wraith, for example, has low DPS on paper, but is dominant despite its low accessibility because of how quickly it burns through masses of enemies at a time at most levels.

10 hours ago, Silligoose said:

I also simply quote past replies, since you love going in circles and no new replies were needed as rebuttals. This time, I decided to spell it out for you since you didn't get what was going on.

I look forward to your next reply so I can quote some of my previous replies.

In effect, you're just here to repeat yourself, rather than move conversation forward, all while projecting your bad faith onto others. Nice!

[LillyRaccune]

4 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

The Ignis Wraith, for example, has low DPS on paper, but is dominant despite its low accessibility because of how quickly it burns through masses of enemies at a time at most levels.

Ignis is a great example. The visible stats don't show how amazing this weapon is. Unlike normal beam guns, it has a wide spray. At the end of the beam is an explosive burst with punch through. Topped off with great target acquisition because it has such a large hit box.

There's probably some other benefits I'm  forgetting

 

... But then there's that other beam gun with really high critical chance and critical damage, it deals corrosive damage. The stats look good, but the weapon is... underwhelming unless you invest many forma into it. And even after all that work it is still a single target weapon with a beam range shorter than the Ignis.

Such disparity between guns is disappointing. 😿

[Silligoose]

25 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

How is it false? How did you prove this, let alone "mathematically"?

On 2021-10-06 at 1:21 AM, Silligoose said:

It seems you have absolutely no idea how strong explosive weapons are these days. Forget about your popularity contest graph and go see how strong they are. I have, in-game, but that is an unreasonable request to make of you, seeing as it would take multiple forma and potatoes for you to do so and it assumes you have access to endgame mods, which you may not. so at least the next best thing is to just take a look at what kind of damage the lesser explosive weapons can deal:

MR5 Tonkor can deal 724,000+ damage in a single hit. Sustained DPS is stated to be around 359,0000, but it doesn't account for Primary Merciless' reload speed bonus. I can change the build around decrease damage per hit and increase increase the sustained DPS to over 450,000 by swapping out Bladed Rounds for Precision Strike.

Make sure you apply the conditionals:
https://overframe.gg/build/new/965/tonkor/?bs=WzEsOTY1LDMwLDEsW1s2MDQsNSwwXSxbNTUyMSwxMCwwXSxbNjA5LDEwLDBdLFs2MjUsNSwwXSxbNTUxOSwxMCwwXSxbNjUyLDUsMF0sWzYxMSwxMCwwXSxbNTUyMCwxMCwwXSxbMCwwLDNdLFs1NTA1LDUsMF1dXQ==

I can set up a viral slash build with Hunter Munitions pumping out sustained DPS of over 460,000. I'm sure you know how strong Hunter Munitions is (personally I don't like to use it, but it is incredibly effective in-game)
https://overframe.gg/build/new/965/tonkor/?bs=WzEsOTY1LDMwLDEsW1s2ODgsNSwwXSxbNjA5LDEwLDBdLFs2MjUsNSwwXSxbNDU1NCwzLDBdLFs1NTE5LDEwLDBdLFs2NTIsNSwwXSxbNjExLDEwLDBdLFs1NTIwLDEwLDBdLFswLDAsM10sWzU1MDUsNSwwXV1d

What about that "weak" little secondary, the Kulstar, that the bad man wants to nerf?

Here's a little Viral Heat setup doing 275,000+ damage per hit, burst DPS of a little over 440,000. This is a secondary weapon, MR5 no less, doing that kind of damage. I don't believe Overframe accounts for the little cluster rockets, which means just under a third of the weapon's potential damage output is not even accounted for:
https://overframe.gg/build/new/996/kulstar/?bs=WzEsOTk2LDMwLDEsW1szOTUsNSwwXSxbNDE2LDEwLDBdLFs1NTE4LDEwLDBdLFsxNDA3LDEwLDBdLFs0MTMsMTAsMF0sWzQzMyw1LDBdLFs0NDksNSwwXSxbNTUxNywxMCwyXSxbMCwwLDNdLFs1NTA4LDUsMF1dXQ==

Go play around with those weapons in-game, or even just in overframe and see how they stack up against weapon that are more popular, like the Baza Prime, like the Arca Plasmor, like the Kuva Kohm, like the Dread, like the Hek, like the MK-1 Paris. Just see how their numbers stack up at the very least. Then account for the fact that explosive weapons can innately hit 5, 6, 10+ targets in an area without the need to line enemies up and it should be clear even though the other weapons mentioned are more popular and some can get close to the Tonkor's single-target damage numbers. even exceed them on paper in some cases, actual in-mission performance isn't even close, because the weapons mentioned above will almost never be able to hit 10+ enemies. 

 

25 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

I am merely asking you to list the factors that would make a weapon dominant without it being strong, which you don't appear all that keen to answer. As the quote you yet again misquoted shows, I didn't ask for "every single factor" nor for some precise statistical impact, I'm just trying to understand what makes you think a weapon can dominate without being strong, and what makes you think a weapon can be unpopular while being overpowered. It is you who are strawmanning this argument.

By contrast, I can offer a very basic explanation in favor of my argument: if I find that a weapon's stronger than others, I'm more likely to use it, especially in high-level content, as it would make it easier and faster to run. Thus, that weapon becomes more popular. If, by contrast, I find that a weapon's weaker than others, I'm less likely to use it, especially in high-level content where it may fail to perform at all. Thus, that weapon becomes less popular, and a collective of players making those same decisions leads to those usage statistics. Simples!

On 2021-10-05 at 7:03 PM, Silligoose said:

Determining whether a weapon is strong or not, based solely on usage statistics, is an Appeal to Popularity. That is what you did. That was your argument: The Zarr isn't strong because it isn't used much. Wrong. Usage statistics shows what is popular, but not necessarily what is strong. Popularity is dependent on many factors, including availability, hype, ease of use, how enjoyable it is etc and yes, relative power, amongst other things. You made the mistake of equating popularity to strength alone.

 

25 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

And this is your problem -- it's not. It gives no indication of how a weapon handles, what needs to be done to land that maximum paper DPS, what unique mechanics it has, and all of the other factors that make weapons crucially different from one another. The Ignis Wraith, for example, has low DPS on paper, but is dominant despite its low accessibility because of how quickly it burns through masses of enemies at a time at most levels.

On 2021-10-06 at 1:21 AM, Silligoose said:

Go play around with those weapons in-game, or even just in overframe and see how they stack up against weapon that are more popular, like the Baza Prime, like the Arca Plasmor, like the Kuva Kohm, like the Dread, like the Hek, like the MK-1 Paris. Just see how their numbers stack up at the very least. Then account for the fact that explosive weapons can innately hit 5, 6, 10+ targets in an area without the need to line enemies up and it should be clear even though the other weapons mentioned are more popular and some can get close to the Tonkor's single-target damage numbers. even exceed them on paper in some cases, actual in-mission performance isn't even close, because the weapons mentioned above will almost never be able to hit 10+ enemies. 

At no point was the argument that higher paper DPS means the weapon is more powerful/efficient/effective. Paper DPS is a piece of the puzzle. You have access to a damage calculator via Overframe, you have access to weapon mechanics via the game/Youtube/wiki. Combine the data and extrapolate performance from there. You just did that with the Ignis Wraith, sort of. 

30 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

In effect, you're just here to repeat yourself, rather than move conversation forward, all while projecting your bad faith onto others. Nice!

In effect, I will reply when the conversation moves in a direction. When you go in circles, I will use previous rebuttals.

Look at the first things I replied here with: How did I show low popularity weapons are strong/powerful? Damage calculator, ie maths, together with an explanation of mechanics in that the weapons can hit multiple targets and I mentioned where the calculator was lacking in that it didn't appear as though the calculator was accounting for extra bomblets from the Kulstar.

The paragraph in which you ask me to list factors that would make a weapon more dominant on the popularity list without it being more powerful, then claiming I'm reluctant to do so: I already listed some those factors 10 days ago and I quoted the reply in which I did that. 

[Teridax68]

7 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

At no point was the argument that higher paper DPS means the weapon is more powerful/efficient/effective. Paper DPS is a piece of the puzzle. You have access to a damage calculator via Overframe, you have access to weapon mechanics via the game/Youtube/wiki. Combine the data and extrapolate performance from there. You just did that with the Ignis Wraith, sort of. 

So effectively, the measure you are relying upon is in fact useless at giving an accurate picture of a weapon's dominance on its own, and in order to do so you must combine it with other factors (in a manner you've failed to specify) to finally arrive at the same result shown by the game's official weapon's usage statistics. Thank you for clarifying!

7 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

In effect, I will reply when the conversation moves in a direction. When you go in circles, I will use previous rebuttals.

That would make sense if conversation hadn't moved without you, as shown by the above. It is you, and only you, who refuse to progress, and so because of incredibly petty reasons that have more to do with your bruised ego than this thread or its topic of discussion.

7 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Look at the first things I replied here with: How did I show low popularity weapons are strong/powerful? Damage calculator, ie maths, together with an explanation of mechanics in that the weapons can hit multiple targets and I mentioned where the calculator was lacking in that it didn't appear as though the calculator was accounting for extra bomblets from the Kulstar.

What this just shows is that paper DPS is a terrible measure of a weapon's power, not that the unpopular weapons are strong. In fact, that enough should have been the evidence, yet still you choose to cling to delusions.

7 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

The paragraph in which you ask me to list factors that would make a weapon more dominant on the popularity list without it being more powerful, then claiming I'm reluctant to do so: I already listed some those factors 10 days ago and I quoted the reply in which I did that. 

The factors you list do not describe in any way the statistics that were posted, given that weapons like the Bramma are difficult to access compared to most other weapons yet still overused, and the hype of weapons like the Bramma and Kuva Nukor were justified given that both those weapons received nerfs (which, incidentally, still kept them top-tier). You're not listing secondary factors, much less describing their impact using any sort of specific examples, so much as throwing around excuses for why we should ignore statistical evidence in favor of numbers you yourself admit to being inherently meaningless.

[Silligoose]

13 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

So effectively, the measure you are relying upon is in fact useless at giving an accurate picture of a weapon's dominance on its own, and in order to do so you must combine it with other factors (in a manner you've failed to specify) to finally arrive at the same result shown by the game's official weapon's usage statistics. Thank you for clarifying!

13 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

What this just shows is that paper DPS is a terrible measure of a weapon's power, not that the unpopular weapons are strong. In fact, that enough should have been the evidence, yet still you choose to cling to delusions.

Paper DPS is vital piece of the puzzle. Do you honestly think a weapon's potential damage output plays no role in how strong it is? Again, you equate weapon power/strength to usage. There may be correlation, but not causation. 

13 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

The factors you list do not describe in any way the statistics that were posted, given that weapons like the Bramma are difficult to access compared to most other weapons yet still overused, and the hype of weapons like the Bramma and Kuva Nukor were justified given that both those weapons received nerfs (which, incidentally, still kept them top-tier). You're not listing secondary factors, much less describing their impact using any sort of specific examples, so much as throwing around excuses for why we should ignore statistical evidence in favor of numbers you yourself admit to being inherently meaningless.

You claimed I was reluctant to list factors, despite me having done so 10 days prior to your claim, in a reply to you, which I showed. Now you claim the factors I listed do not describe the statistics that were posted? What are you trying to claim? Are you claiming they don't play a role in usage? Ease of use plays no role in the Bramma's usage? MR8's (or lower) being able to unlock the Bramma plays no role in it's usage? The Bramma not being locked behind vaulted relics plays no role in its usage? People enjoying blowing up multiple enemies plays no role in its usage? Do you need someone to spoonfeed you why these factors play a role in its usage? Is that why you ask me to describe how each factor plays a role?

[Teridax68]

7 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Paper DPS is vital piece of the puzzle. Do you honestly think a weapon's potential damage output plays no role in how strong it is? Again, you equate weapon power/strength to usage. There may be correlation, but not causation. 

Of course there's causation; if a weapon's stronger than most others, of course it's going to see more play too as a direct result. By contrast, a weapon with vast paper DPS may be undermined by a variety of factors not accounted for by that one stat, just as a weapon with deceptively low paper DPS may be incredibly strong for other reasons, as pointed out with the case of the Ignis Wraith. Not only are you deliberately refusing to acknowledge elementary logic, you are applying a double standard, rejecting weapon usage statistics as evidence of weapon dominance because "there may be correlation, but not causation," all while obsessing over paper DPS despite the fact that there is not only no direct causative relation between paper DPS and weapon dominance, but oftentimes not even a correlation.

7 hours ago, Silligoose said:

You claimed I was reluctant to list factors, despite me having done so 10 days prior to your claim, in a reply to you, which I showed. Now you claim the factors I listed do not describe the statistics that were posted? What are you trying to claim? Are you claiming they don't play a role in usage? Ease of use plays no role in the Bramma's usage? MR8's (or lower) being able to unlock the Bramma plays no role in it's usage? The Bramma not being locked behind vaulted relics plays no role in its usage? People enjoying blowing up multiple enemies plays no role in its usage? Do you need someone to spoonfeed you why these factors play a role in its usage? Is that why you ask me to describe how each factor plays a role?

I do in fact claim that the factors you listed do not describe the statistics that were posted in a manner that would change the conclusions drawn from them, as stated not only above, but also by you both failing to list their impact on specific examples until now, and now you getting their impact wrong. Let's run through the facts:

• The Kuva Bramma normally induces self-stagger, while most weapons do not feature such a drawback, and requires the use of a rare mod, Primed Sure Footed, to eliminate this. Primed Sure Footed only becomes available after 400 consecutive daily logins at the earliest, i.e. over a year's worth of commitment, making the mod outright inaccessible to most users who would get their hands on the weapon. It is therefore, contrary to your assumptions, not the easiest weapon to use relative to alternatives.
• The Kuva Bramma is locked at MR 15, not MR 8. You visibly did not do your research.
• Very few weapons out of the total pool are locked behind vaulted relics, and fewer still are strong by current standards. However, the Bramma does randomly appear as one of over a dozen and a half weapons that can drop from a Kuva Lich, an enemy type itself locked behind a long quest chain. Void Relics, by contrast, do not feature such a lockout.
• People enjoying blowing up multiple enemies has no special quality compared to enjoying sniping enemies, mowing them down with an assault rifle, or blasting them with a shotgun. Unless you have some sort of quantitative measure for how much more people enjoy "blowing up multiple enemies" compared to other means of using a gun, you're merely trying to make up volume while saying nothing.

So effectively, the Bramma doesn't have all that much going for it in terms of accessibility or the like, but it does have its insane strength, which is why it's one of the most popular weapons around. If this is how you choose to make use of these "factors" as a means of detracting from the statistics that were presented to you, it is no surprise that your conclusions have been so consistently far off the mark.

[Silligoose]

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Of course there's causation; if a weapon's stronger than most others, of course it's going to see more play too as a direct result. By contrast, a weapon with vast paper DPS may be undermined by a variety of factors not accounted for by that one stat, just as a weapon with deceptively low paper DPS may be incredibly strong for other reasons, as pointed out with the case of the Ignis Wraith. Not only are you deliberately refusing to acknowledge elementary logic, you are applying a double standard, rejecting weapon usage statistics as evidence of weapon dominance because "there may be correlation, but not causation," all while obsessing over paper DPS despite the fact that there is not only no direct causative relation between paper DPS and weapon dominance, but oftentimes not even a correlation.

I'm not dismissing the statistics showing what is dominant in terms of popularity, I'm dismissing it as a viable source for showing what is more powerful/strong/effective in comparison to other weapons: The Kuva Tonkor is objectively stronger/more powerful/more effective in general than the MK1-Paris, Dread, Hek or Boltor, Despite it being far lower in the usage stats. The Ignis Wraith's paper DPS is pretty good and when accounting for the AoE mechanics, the paper DPS becomes extremely good.

We are not going to agree on this.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

I do in fact claim that the factors you listed do not describe the statistics that were posted in a manner that would change the conclusions drawn from them, as stated not only above, but also by you both failing to list their impact on specific examples until now, and now you getting their impact wrong. Let's run through the facts:

• The Kuva Bramma normally induces self-stagger, while most weapons do not feature such a drawback, and requires the use of a rare mod, Primed Sure Footed, to eliminate this. Primed Sure Footed only becomes available after 400 consecutive daily logins at the earliest, i.e. over a year's worth of commitment, making the mod outright inaccessible to most users who would get their hands on the weapon. It is therefore, contrary to your assumptions, not the easiest weapon to use relative to alternatives.

One doesn't need Primed Sure Footed to negate the Bramma's self-stagger - self-stagger can be rendered moot with Status Immunity and Cautious Shot as well. whilst other mods can increase recovery from the effect  of self-stagger (Handspring, Pain Threshold) or provide a decreased chance of it taking effect (Sure Footed, Power Drift, Fortitude).

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

The Kuva Bramma is locked at MR 15, not MR 8. You visibly did not do your research.

The Kuva Bramma is listed MR 15, but the MR requirement is bypassed since the weapon shows up ready to be claimed from the forge after a Lich has been vanquished, meaning players who aren't MR 15 can still unlock it and use it.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Very few weapons out of the total pool are locked behind vaulted relics, and fewer still are strong by current standards. However, the Bramma does randomly appear as one of over a dozen and a half weapons that can drop from a Kuva Lich, an enemy type itself locked behind a long quest chain. Void Relics, by contrast, do not feature such a lockout.

The Kuva Bramma is available to be farmed by any player who can encounter Liches without the need for Plat. Weapons locked behind vaulted relics can not. The Bramma is more readily available than locked weapons as a result, whether MR locked or locked behind vaulted relics. This is true for all Kuva and Tenet weapons.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

People enjoying blowing up multiple enemies has no special quality compared to enjoying sniping enemies, mowing them down with an assault rifle, or blasting them with a shotgun. Unless you have some sort of quantitative measure for how much more people enjoy "blowing up multiple enemies" compared to other means of using a gun, you're merely trying to make up volume while saying nothing.

Enjoyment is a factor in whether people decide to use a weapon or not, regardless of whether this can be accurately determined. That should be obvious.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

So effectively, the Bramma doesn't have all that much going for it in terms of accessibility or the like, but it does have its insane strength, which is why it's one of the most popular weapons around. If this is how you choose to make use of these "factors" as a means of detracting from the statistics that were presented to you, it is no surprise that your conclusions have been so consistently far off the mark.

Almost every single point you made was wrong. Do your research.

Again, you may think the MK1-Paris, the Hek, the Boltor and the Dread are all more powerful than the Kuva Tonkor or many other Kuva weapons because they saw more usage. I do not, because I account for the various factors in usage, while you don't.

We aren't going to agree on this I'm not interested in explaining more basics or mechanics of the game to you. We are at an impasse.

[Teridax68]

35 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

I'm not dismissing the statistics showing what is dominant in terms of popularity, I'm dismissing it as a viable source for showing what is more powerful/strong/effective in comparison to other weapons: The Kuva Tonkor is objectively stronger/more powerful/more effective in general than the MK1-Paris, Dread, Hek or Boltor, Despite it being far lower in the usage stats. The Ignis Wraith's paper DPS is pretty good and when accounting for the AoE mechanics, the paper DPS becomes extremely good.

We are not going to agree on this.

If we are not going to agree on this, why do you keep repeating yourself? Which calculation exactly factors in the Ignis Wraith's AoE into its paper DPS? Also, are you aware that the statistics feature a heatmap per MR? The reason we're not agreeing on this is because you are flat-out refusing to understand a data set, and rather than analyze it critically as I had when pointing out the case of Nezha Prime, you instead choose to reject all of the information it presents outright, while then attempting to substitute an entirely fabricated narrative of your own making that has nothing in common with any of the evidence at hand.

35 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

One doesn't need Primed Sure Footed to negate the Bramma's self-stagger - self-stagger can be rendered moot with Status Immunity and Cautious Shot as well. whilst other mods can increase recovery from the effect  of self-stagger (Handspring, Pain Threshold) or provide a decreased chance of it taking effect (Sure Footed, Power Drift, Fortitude).

Cautious Shot is an Arbitration mod which requires high-level play, and status immunity is specific only to certain warframes, which would not explain its high usage stats. Mods that only decrease the chance of self-staggers or increase recovery fail to eliminate the problem outright. It is also worth noting that the stats in the data sets were collated in 2020, back when self-damage was in effect -- during that time, Cautious Shot reduced weapon damage overall while failing to prevent one-shots, and there were few ways to avoid that self-damage. Still, the Bramma was overwhelmingly popular, and that popularity has not diminished.

35 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

The Kuva Bramma is listed MR 15, but the MR requirement is bypassed since the weapon shows up ready to be claimed from the forge after a Lich has been vanquished, meaning players who aren't MR 15 can still unlock it and use it.

At that point the MR requirement of 8 is still inaccurate, as the minimum MR requirement to kill Kuva Liches is 5. Even so, that is a low MR for the average player who will have progressed that far.

35 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

The Kuva Bramma is available to be farmed by any player who can encounter Liches without the need for Plat. Weapons locked behind vaulted relics can not. The Bramma is more readily available than locked weapons as a result, whether MR locked or locked behind vaulted relics. This is true for all Kuva and Tenet weapons.

Relics for vaulted frames and weapons get re-released, Liches can be traded, and the Kuva Bramma requires grinding a Lich, which is not easily achievable by every player. As such, the Bramma isn't especially easily accessible.

35 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Enjoyment is a factor in whether people decide to use a weapon or not, regardless of whether this can be accurately determined. That should be obvious.

It is, but whether that enjoyment leans in favor of a certain weapon type is a claim you have yet to justify. That should be obvious.

35 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Almost every single point you made was wrong. Do your research.

Literally no point you made favored the Bramma in its usage statistics, let alone explained its peak position. You are plainly citing bogus reasons that may or may not even factor into the weapons being discussed and expecting me to take you on your word that they're relevant, let alone to the degree you want them to be. Some of your claims don't even go your way, as by your logic the regular Tonkor and Kulstar should be far more popular than they are. Your reasons are inconsistent in addition to still being baseless.

35 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Again, you may think the MK1-Paris, the Hek, the Boltor and the Dread are all more powerful than the Kuva Tonkor or many other Kuva weapons because they saw more usage. I do not, because I account for the various factors in usage, while you don't.

You are clearly ignorant of the fact that the data set has a heatmap by MR, which shows exactly at which levels weapons like the MK-1 Paris peak and fall in populurity. Do I need to explain to you how that one works as well?

35 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

We aren't going to agree on this I'm not interested in explaining more basics or mechanics of the game to you. We are at an impasse.

Are we? You keep repeating this, yet here you are, also repeating yourself and trying to argue. It's like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too by asking for us to agree to disagree, all while desperately trying to have the last word. Either we are at an impasse, in which case you stop repeating yourself, or we're not and you have more to say, in which case you may attempt to contribute something to this discussion. Repeating over entire pages that you're at an impasse merely reflects upon your wilful inability to move conversation forward.

[Silligoose]

5 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

If we are not going to agree on this, why do you keep repeating yourself? Which calculation exactly factors in the Ignis Wraith's AoE into its paper DPS? Also, are you aware that the statistics feature a heatmap per MR? The reason we're not agreeing on this is because you are flat-out refusing to understand a data set, and rather than analyze it critically as I had when pointing out the case of Nezha Prime, you instead choose to reject all of the information it presents outright, while then attempting to substitute an entirely fabricated narrative of your own making that has nothing in common with any of the evidence at hand.

Cautious Shot is an Arbitration mod which requires high-level play, and status immunity is specific only to certain warframes, which would not explain its high usage stats. Mods that only decrease the chance of self-staggers or increase recovery fail to eliminate the problem outright. It is also worth noting that the stats in the data sets were collated in 2020, back when self-damage was in effect -- during that time, Cautious Shot reduced weapon damage overall while failing to prevent one-shots, and there were few ways to avoid that self-damage. Still, the Bramma was overwhelmingly popular, and that popularity has not diminished.

At that point the MR requirement of 8 is still inaccurate, as the minimum MR requirement to kill Kuva Liches is 5. Even so, that is a low MR for the average player who will have progressed that far.

Relics for vaulted frames and weapons get re-released, Liches can be traded, and the Kuva Bramma requires grinding a Lich, which is not easily achievable by every player. As such, the Bramma isn't especially easily accessible.

It is, but whether that enjoyment leans in favor of a certain weapon type is a claim you have yet to justify. That should be obvious.

Literally no point you made favored the Bramma in its usage statistics, let alone explained its peak position. You are plainly citing bogus reasons that may or may not even factor into the weapons being discussed and expecting me to take you on your word that they're relevant, let alone to the degree you want them to be. Some of your claims don't even go your way, as by your logic the regular Tonkor and Kulstar should be far more popular than they are. Your reasons are inconsistent in addition to still being baseless.

You are clearly ignorant of the fact that the data set has a heatmap by MR, which shows exactly at which levels weapons like the MK-1 Paris peak and fall in populurity. Do I need to explain to you how that one works as well?

Are we? You keep repeating this, yet here you are, also repeating yourself and trying to argue. It's like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too by asking for us to agree to disagree, all while desperately trying to have the last word. Either we are at an impasse, in which case you stop repeating yourself, or we're not and you have more to say, in which case you may attempt to contribute something to this discussion. Repeating over entire pages that you're at an impasse merely reflects upon your wilful inability to move conversation forward.

 

40 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

I'm not interested in explaining more basics or mechanics of the game to you. We are at an impasse.