2021 Year In Review Stats

[nslay]

We need to be careful when reading these charts. For example, Xoris is not the most powerful Glaive. Its popularity does not imply Xoris is the best Glaive in the game (it isn't). I do not believe Kuva Nukor or Kuva Bramma are as great as posters think it is.

Also, while nerfs ought to increase viability, the shotgun rework/nerf had the opposite effect. A large portion of primary status shotguns are no longer "viable". None of the secondary status shotguns are "viable" beyond Bronco's gimmick augment. There are fewer "viable" options for shotguns now than there were before. Be careful what you wish for.

[(NSW)RATHURUE]

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Snip

1: "Simply tacking AoE doesn't instantly make them better weapon"

Then explain how people gravitate around AoE weapons? The reason why other AoE weapons are left in the dust are, not really a surprise, was because another nerf rework that is blast radius and the damage reduction% from the center. This is the reason why Lenz, a formerly high-in-use AoE bow and other weapons fell from their throne.

Let's make a hypothetical weapon. We take the Rubico, and add AoE to it. Bam. Stahlta. Was it better than the original? Yes.

Another case. Let us take Seer. Tack AoE on it. Bam, Epitaph. Was it better than the original? Yes.

In almost every case, getting AoE effect on a weapon instantly make those weapon BETTER.

Why?

Because AoE weapons PROCS STATUS TWICE: one from the projectile impact, and another from the blast.

Also, tell me again about how I missed the status chance while I said 'put the status of weapon X into weapon Y', which should, in normal people logic, include the status chance of the weaker weapons into the target weapons.

 Let me say this again so you can understand, even if you changed the whole parameter of Kuva Bramma or Kuva Nukor with MK-1 Paris or MK-1 Kunai, those two weapons will still perform better than the original weapons. Why? Because the Kuva weapons has their gimmicks: Bramma splits into bomblets and Nukor applies Microwave status. Same thing if you swap Acceltra's parameter with MK-1 Braton: Acceltra still wins, because it has secondary AoE blasts, which acts as secondary source of damage. Thus, the problem was actually 'the weapon's PASSIVE was the problem, not ONLY the AoE'.

This ability would get even better if you include any multishot mod, and it will get crazier when you include synergies from warframe abilities. Yes, AoE can be the one-and-all solution to any enemy in the game, which is bad, but that's because DE choose to create a situation where people want to use AoE weapons and gave the tools to do so.

 

2: "Time investment does not justify a fundamental imbalance in weapons or Warframes"

Ok, so go look at the primary weapon usage chart again, will you?

 

Ignis Wraith. MR 9. Blueprint can be gotten for FREE and the building materials/costs are very cheap. 17% Crit, 2.5X crit multi, 29% status.

Acceltra. MR 8. Getting the blueprint can be a chore, and mats can be somewhat an annoyance, especially Hexenon. 32% crit, 2.6X multi, 6% status.

 

What does these words means to you?

BOTH are low MR weapons, with less total damage compared to, say, Synapse/Amprex or Trumna, which can be said as direct upgrade from these two. So why aren't more people using those guns?

Well, BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON TO GET A MEASLY INCREASE OF 20 DPS IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A SOLID WEAPON. Playing Warframe takes time. Crafting weapons needs time. Leveling them, Forma-ing weapons and re-leveling them takes time. Is it an imbalance to have such a strong weapon in early MR? Yes. Was DE wrong for introducing Kuva Liches, which gives you essentially MR-free weapons as long as you can kill them? Also yes. Was it bad for the game in the long run?

NO.

Again, people play games to have fun. People choose how to play the game to have fun. If people can't have fun their way, people won't be having fun.

Nerfs can introduce new meta, but would this new meta as 'fun' as the old meta? Viable does not mean it'll be fun. Comparing the fun from mindlessly mowing enemies down with an Exodia Contagion zaw scythe as Nekros to farm things to needing to prime them first with K.Nukor then finishing them with 12x combo Kronen Prime would be very different experience.

DE, with every new weapon release are essentially tightening the nook on their own neck. If they release a new weapon that's better than old weapons, then old weapons gonna get forgotten. But if they release an underperforming weapon, then nobody gonna use them. Why? BECAUSE PEOPLE PLAY WARFRAME NOT FOR THE WEAPON USING EXPERIENCE. PEOPLE WANNA KILL THINGS AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WARFRAME IS VERY FARM HEAVY. Meanwhile, DE DOESN'T WANT PEOPLE TO SPEND LESS TIME ON MISSIONS BY USING META STRATS, so DE KEEPS NERFING WHAT IS META IN ORDER TO PROLONG PLAYTIME. 

This is what I mean with 'time investment', 'how long would it takes a player to achieve a sweet spot on their power level to continue playing the game without having to work extra'. You change the meta, you change the balance, you force people out of that sweet spot and throw them back to a lower position on the ladder while making the game more challenging. There's only 3 reactions out of this: 1: people accept, but not without anger. 2: People rages, and leave for good. Reaction 3, people accept thinking this is good for the game is only for die-hard fans or those who has convinced themself that DE is always right (spoiler, they don't)

3: "There's no coherent relation in AoE weapons beside they explode"

The logic is there. Explosions did more damage simply because they're hitting TWICE: once when the projectile reach the target, and the second from the shockwave produced when they explode; it's basic science. If you want an explanation why bows and sniper rifles did less damage than a bomb, then you really, really need to let go of that coping mechanism of 'weapon types needs to have their [identity], a specialized field they excel at'.

Think of it logically. Which would do more damage, a pinpoint hole in your brain or having your whole body scattered in a bomb blast? Having your body smashed with 120-pound hammer or having lit firecrackers shoved into your ribcage? Getting bisected in half and being in ground zero of aerial bombing?

If you really want every weapons to have their own speciality, then don't ever expect that gonna happen in Warframe as long as DE was the developer, or if the IPS/elemental damage system was still here; it's plain impossible at this point to rework the damage model without screwing the game royally in the behind.

 

4: "Customability was absolute least of an issue"

Really?

Ok, then please go to Steel Path Exterminate with weapons that has no mod in them, without any help or using any Warframe ability. If you by some chance happen to clear that mission, then reply same mission with same loadout, but with fully modded weapons.

Warframe's mod system has been problematic from the start. You have the 'imperative mods' such as Serration that you might never gonna let out from the modslots, essentially cutting down the available slots to put your mods in. How can you make a non-mainstream setup if you already have your modslot halved? Yes, Split Flights Thunderbolt Cernos Prime won't ever come close to Kuva Bramma's power, but it's a perfect example of how the modding system was flawed: strong weapons will only get stronger, while weak weapons won't ever come to the same level because of the restraints of the capacity and the slots. This is actually a good place to make a change: let weaker weapons has extra mod slots you can put mods without eating into the capacity: the weaker the weapons, the more free slots it can have.

With this system, I'd expect weaker weapons with good gimmick (such as Atomos) took over Kuva Nukor in a flash. But would DE even consider this? Nah, it's easier to just create a new weapon.

5: "Nerfs are inherently bad and limiting to gameplay"

Yes, yes and yes. Why things getting nerfed? Because the maker doesn't design things correctly. Why does the maker fails to design things correctly? Because they didn't understand how their own creation works! Because they never tested it in live condition! Because they don't know all the possible interactions within the system they created!

Any nerfs made was a black spot to a creator's credibility. Moreso if it was made after things being left around for a very, VERY long time people already accepted the thing as usual. Venari and Vazarin nerfs are perfect examples of why nerfs are inherently bad and limiting gameplay. Vazarin nerf, in particular, completely invalidates any reason why you wanted to unlock AN ENTIRE FOCUS TREE. If you wanted any nerf to bring back a game to more sensible state, then you'd first need to contact DE and have them rebalance the entire game, while cancelling the Eximus rework because that will never happen. Warframe being back to sensible state while only nerfing weapons or Warframe? While DE continued to produce things like Yareli, Kompressa and Ambassador that will never, ever reach the 1% usage? Keep on dreaming, that's never gonna happen.

[Teridax68]

1 hour ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

1: "Simply tacking AoE doesn't instantly make them better weapon"

At this point you are simply misquoting me. Please don't do that. Here is what I wrote:

6 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

While it is true that AoE is highly prized in a game that has turned into a horde shooter, simply tacking AoE onto a weapon does not automatically make it top-tier or even viable, as noted by the very many middling and poorly-performing explosive weapons in the roster.

The point I am making is that AoE isn't solely what makes or breaks strong weapons, because not all top-tier weapons are AoE (i.e. the Rubico Prime), and not all AoE weapons are top-tier (e.g. the Lenz, Kulstar, Sonicor, etc.). The straw man you have attributed to me is that AoE doesn't make a weapon inherently better, which is nonsense. Of course tacking AoE onto a weapon would instantly make it stronger, the point is that doing that alone is not guaranteed to make that weapon dominant.

1 hour ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

Then explain how people gravitate around AoE weapons?

People don't gravitate exclusively around AoE weapons, is the point, they gravitate around a handful of weapons that are often AoE because, in addition to being AoE (which is a big plus), these weapons are also just generally too strong. The Kuva Bramma can deal more damage to a single target than most single-target weapons, and as mentioned above, the Kuva Nukor can apply over 24 status effects per second to each of its targets, in addition to dealing massive damage. You don't see people swarming around the Lenz or the Kulstar just because they're AoE, and I invite you to read the stats to confirm this.

1 hour ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

The reason why other AoE weapons are left in the dust are, not really a surprise, was because another nerf rework that is blast radius and the damage reduction% from the center. This is the reason why Lenz, a formerly high-in-use AoE bow and other weapons fell from their throne.

This nerf also affected the Kuva Bramma and Acceltra, which remain top-tier. Your reasoning is inconsistent.

1 hour ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

Also, tell me again about how I missed the status chance while I said 'put the status of weapon X into weapon Y', which should, in normal people logic, include the status chance of the weaker weapons into the target weapons.

As once again pointed out in my prior reply, I made the point that a benchmark should be set for the power of weapons, including both damage and status chance among all the other possible factors, and wrote several lines about how the Kuva Nukor's status chance is out of line. You turned this into a straw man by accusing me of wanting to homogenize the damage of weapons, and wrote some text about how status chance makes a difference, which you've repeated here. You obviously failed to read my comment properly, given that if you had done so, you would've realized that we are in agreement: damage isn't the only determining factor of a weapon's power, and other factors like status chance are important too.

1 hour ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

2: "Time investment does not justify a fundamental imbalance in weapons or Warframes"

Ok, so go look at the primary weapon usage chart again, will you?

I have, and I suggest you do the same, as your breathless and overly caps-locked rant here is starkly contradicted by the facts: the Ignis Wraith and Acceltra are by far among the dominant weapons, showing that there is very much an incentive to get a "measly" increase in DPS even when other weapon options are solid. The gap between the most popular weapons around and the rest has widened since 2020, and the largest nerf this year was to melee and the Kuva Nukor, the latter of which still left it the dominant secondary in the game. You cannot claim in good faith that people only "play to have fun" when a handful of strong weapons stand head and shoulders above the rest, which are left in the dust. By your logic, if "playing to have fun" was even a major factor, then we'd see many more weapons with substantial usage rates, rather than the clear tiering of weapons we see now. The only alternative conclusion is that the only weapons generally recognized as fun are the notoriously overpowered ones, which is self-evidently silly.

1 hour ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

3: "There's no coherent relation in AoE weapons beside they explode"

The logic is there. Explosions did more damage simply because they're hitting TWICE: once when the projectile reach the target, and the second from the shockwave produced when they explode; it's basic science. If you want an explanation why bows and sniper rifles did less damage than a bomb, then you really, really need to let go of that coping mechanism of 'weapon types needs to have their [identity], a specialized field they excel at'.

Think of it logically. Which would do more damage, a pinpoint hole in your brain or having your whole body scattered in a bomb blast? Having your body smashed with 120-pound hammer or having lit firecrackers shoved into your ribcage? Getting bisected in half and being in ground zero of aerial bombing?

If you really want every weapons to have their own speciality, then don't ever expect that gonna happen in Warframe as long as DE was the developer, or if the IPS/elemental damage system was still here; it's plain impossible at this point to rework the damage model without screwing the game royally in the behind.

I'm not really sure what your response has to do with my point: what I'm explaining is that AoE weapons have no other traits truly helping to balance them relative to other weapons, even though they should: in an ideal world, a weapon with AoE would lack key advantages that a weapon without AoE would have, so that when choosing between the AoE and single-target weapon, each would have a clear profile of benefits and drawbacks. As the stats show, AoE alone does not make a weapon top-tier, but several AoE weapons do indeed deal equal or greater damage than single-target weapons, with no tangible disadvantage. Again, we seem to be agreeing on this, but rather than try to have an intelligent conversation, you instead appear intent on down-talking me and arguing over straw men.

1 hour ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

4: "Customability was absolute least of an issue"

Really?

Ok, then please go to Steel Path Exterminate with weapons that has no mod in them, without any help or using any Warframe ability. If you by some chance happen to clear that mission, then reply same mission with same loadout, but with fully modded weapons.

I'm sorry, what? Explain how the necessity of damage mods relates to you believing it wrong to be able to customize a weapon beyond its base capabilities?

Again, this appears to be a situation where we're in agreement, but where you've still chosen to pick an argument: if what you're trying to say here is that Warframe's mod system is plagued by mandatory mods that make true customization close to impossible, then yes, I am absolutely in agreement. This is why I believe customizability to be the least of Warframe's problems, because trying to customize a bow with Split Flights and Thunderbolt is going to come at such a heavy cost in damage-multiplying mods that one may as well not even bother. This is one of the reasons why trying to create an off-brand Kuva Bramma isn't worth it, and even in an ideal game where there are no mandatory mods, going for that off-brand Kuva Bramma build would still come with tradeoffs that would prevent a weapon from completely replacing another.

1 hour ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

5: "Nerfs are inherently bad and limiting to gameplay"

Yes, yes and yes. Why things getting nerfed? Because the maker doesn't design things correctly. Why does the maker fails to design things correctly? Because they didn't understand how their own creation works! Because they never tested it in live condition! Because they don't know all the possible interactions within the system they created!

So clearly, the only viable solution is to travel back in time, reset everything, and expect DE to produce The Perfect Game^TM on the first try, no second takes. /s

More seriously though, I find it difficult to express just how bereft of rational thought this line of reasoning is. It is obviously unrealistic to expect anyone to get it right the first time, every time, and even the most competent person in the world at their craft makes mistakes. More to the point, when a mistake is made, one has to correct it, and that's not something you appear willing to accept. Sure, on occasion DE does mess up a nerf, and makes something that previously saw use completely unviable, which usually happened because the thing in question was desirable only when abused in an edge case (such as Vazarin being used to make defense objectives permanently invincible). However, by and large DE has generally been cautious with nerfs, which is why the Kuva Nukor is still dominant after a nerf, and why the Kuva Bramma is still dominant after two separate nerfs. While they have been reluctant to apply nerfs more frequently, they have nonetheless nerfed stuff, including last year, and more often than not those nerfs were warranted (I, for one, am glad we're out of the Maiming Strike meta before this year, and the Synoid Simulor spam meta before that). Opposing any and all nerfs on principle is not only a losing game, it is simply not a reasonable position for feedback, and generally your stance here has little grounding in critical thinking or facts, despite the thread in which you are posting. I invite you to take a less biased look at the data this thread discusses, as well as Warframe's past history of changes and metagames, and see that nobody is trying to hurt you, much less take away your toys.

[schilds]

DE could not just balance aoe weapons, they would also need to balance aoe abilities. Otherwise things just shift back in favour of aoe frames.

[Tiltskillet]

22 minutes ago, schilds said:

DE could not just balance aoe weapons, they would also need to balance aoe abilities. Otherwise things just shift back in favour of aoe frames.

And melee, and chaining weapons, and vortex effects, and, I don't know, Primed Shred Veldt probably.  Game balance is never ending.

It might be better if DE focuses on one big system at a time and makes some ancillary changes in any case.  Let's say they nerf Firestorm/Fulmination, down-tune some individual AoE weapon's fall offs, make punch through more readily accessible, and add a few more enemies that reward precision weapons.  It's not everything I could wish, and I do see AoE abilities and melee making a big jump again and Prisma Grinlok and its ilk staying almost exactly where they are.   But still...probably a slightly improved and more sensible game experience on average? And one where the other issues are more clear? 

I'll accept baby steps.  Especially as it's not clear to me there will be any steps, lol.

[EdinaMonsoon]

i'm just glad my main weapons aren't anywhere high enough to risk being nerfed lol

[PublikDomain]

Winners and losers for Warframes:

Here we have frames which didn't really change much, having a total change of only ±10%.

There are two I noticed:

1. Khora, since I'm a Khora main. Her LoS nerf and the changes to Steel Essence farming has had a clear effect.
2. Oberon has seen his usage around MR6 decline by about half. Newer players aren't using him like they were before due to his banishment to the Railjack drop tables. More:
   
   
   Ash seems to be affected in the same way, but to a lesser degree. He wasn't as popular to begin with but new players are still using him less often. Players in the highest MRs, who have no problem with access, actually used them more than last year.

And finally our winners. Wukong being the standout winner across every single MR range. His most significant growth (+10%) is among L1 players.

Octavia, Gara, and Nidus are present, having been Primed, along with Sevagoth and Yareli who are new. Caliban and Harrow Prime were too recent to have moved much and are on the "biggest nothing" chart. We'll likely see a little growth in 2022's stats next year.

***

@gbjbaanb I tried grouping frames by type, but wasn't able to decide on a set of categories. If you have some idea of how to group them lmk and I can make the charts.

[LillyRaccune]

3 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Winners and losers for Warframes:

<VOLT>

Wow. That is not the results I was expecting. Seeing on the graph really makes a difference vs numbers on a table. Thanks for the info graphics!

[(NSW)RATHURUE]

1: If I'm misquoting you, then you're nitpicking the facts.

- Rubico Prime wasn't the top best used sniper rifle because it was AoE. Rubico Prime was there because people still uses it in tandem with Volt for Eidolon Hunting (despite there's newer meta like Necramech). 

2: People are using strong weapons, of which AoE is seen as positive values, yes, but you again missed the point why people still uses Kuva Bramma, Acceltra and K.Nukor even after the nerf, which I've tried to explain not once, but two times already: Their Ability was simply better than the other AoE weapons. Ability in this point was a culmination of damage capability, which again a compound stat based on total damage which is comprised by IPS and elemental damage amount, critical chance and multiplier. But you only understand that I'm JUST referring to damage ability...so who's really strawmanning who here? Kulstar has very small magazine of 3, has slow reload and their main uses was making a trap that can be remotely detonated, so you will often skip the initial projectile contact damage. Lenz's main modus operandi was 'damage via an absurdly large AoE bubble' of which it experiences a horrible damage reduction if the target didn't stand directly in the center of the bubble, and has long draw time. Both weapons was also deals Blast damage, a type of damage that generally not favored.

Compare this with Kuva Bramma, which deals a #*!%ton of damage even unmodded, can be spam-fired, have innate 60% element at max of your choosing, has EVEN LARGER AoE than Lenz, High crit, high status, AND spawns 3 extra cluster bomb per projectile. Acceltra was in same line, each of it's minirockets explode at the enemy, helping you to build up slash procs with each critical hit.

My point here was DE was at fault of making blanket nerf to AoE weapons without understanding what makes good weapons good and what turned a good weapon bad. You can take out AoE explosions from Acceltra and it'll instantly be a mediocre or even bad weapon, but you take out AoE from Kuva Bramma and it'll still be a very strong bow based on it's stats alone.

3: "You cannot claim in good faith that people only "play to have fun" when a handful of strong weapons stand head and shoulders above the rest, which are left in the dust. By your logic, if "playing to have fun" was even a major factor, then we'd see many more weapons with substantial usage rates, rather than the clear tiering of weapons we see now."

Well, there's your problem. You cannot try to understand that each people has their own way of having fun. The majority of them, like me, have fun playing the game by completing objectives as fast and efficient as possible. This means using META weapons and tactics, which employs using cream-of-the-crop weapons. That's the reason why only some weapons get used, and nothing else. We're having fun in our way, so stop trying to make us not having fun. Will the skewed usage rate break the game? Nah. It is not even remotely a problem. The game didn't become stale because people just uses a handful of strong weapons.

The game became stale because there's nothing else to do but farm at certain missions so you can get the things you wanted. People are using Wukong's Twin because finding a group to farm, say, Axi relics is harder than doing it solo. People are using Wukong's Cloud Walker because there's no fun in parkouring after you looked at same map pieces for 3000+ hours. Same logic applies to weapons and defeating enemies.

And there's still people trying to blame other people for whining and being stubborn against nerfs or changes in general. It's not ONLY that we, the nerf-nayers know nerfing things won't improve anything in the long run, it's because DE has a bad reputation of Monkey's Paw: you make a wish, it'll be granted in the most twisted way possible. I've been playing Warframe since launch, trust me, I do know all the nerfs and how most of it turned Warframe slightly worse, not slightly better with each of those. You can say 'look at the graphs, these weapons needs a nerf to encourage build diversity' but would a build diversity change ANYTHING about the bad design policy DE have when doing mission or weapons? Just look at the Tenet weapons or Vitrica and say directly to anyone face that 'these weapons are great for general use!' No, they're overspecialized as hell and forces you to use one strategy, which is why they're not popular.

I'll make my point: NERFS CAN BE GOOD AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT JUST KNEEJERK REACTION. If a weapon dominates the usage chart, then it's DE's homework to investigate WHY are those weapons popular, and reverse-engineer it to make people gravitate from that weapons to other weapons. NOT ONLY by slapping nerfs to said weapons and not fixing the reason why people choose them.

At this point DE was risking another Vivergate to happen, which ALMOST did when Scarlet Spear launched.

[Tonyp5]

Calm down folks...

If those graphs weren't zoomed in so closely, the bar lengths would not appear to be so dramatically different.

Based on the numbers in the bars,  Wukong was only used 10% of the time.  That means that other Warframes were used 90% of the time.  Wukong was only used approx. 5% more than the next most used Warframe.    That doesn't seem to be too excessive to me.  Was Wukong used more than other frames?  Yes, but not excessively so.  We should be more worried about the frames that were used the least.

The Ignis Wraith was only used 10% of the time, and only 4% more than the next most used weapon of it's class.  That is not excessive.

The Xoris was only used 6% of the time, and less than 1% more than the next most used weapon of it's class.  That is definitely not excessive.

The Kuva Nukor may be the only weapon that, based on these numbers, might appear to be used excessively.  But still, other weapons were used approx. 77% of the time.   I would be more worried if the Kuva Nukor was used 40% or more of the time.  I, personally, see no reason to nerf the Kuva Nukor for being used only 23% of the time.

 

 

[(NSW)RATHURUE]

14 minutes ago, Tonyp5 said:

Calm down folks...

If those graphs weren't zoomed in so closely, the bar lengths would not appear to be so dramatically different.

Based on the numbers in the bars,  Wukong was only used 10% of the time.  That means that other Warframes were used 90% of the time.  Wukong was only used approx. 5% more than the next most used Warframe.    That doesn't seem to be too excessive to me.  Was Wukong used more than other frames?  Yes, but not excessively so.  We should be more worried about the frames that were used the least.

The Ignis Wraith was only used 10% of the time, and only 4% more than the next most used weapon of it's class.  That is not excessive.

The Xoris was only used 6% of the time, and less than 1% more than the next most used weapon of it's class.  That is definitely not excessive.

The Kuva Nukor may be the only weapon that, based on these numbers, might appear to be used excessively.  But still, other weapons were used approx. 77% of the time.   I would be more worried if the Kuva Nukor was used 40% or more of the time.  I, personally, see no reason to nerf the Kuva Nukor for being used only 23% of the time.

 

 

Ah, an actually observant person instead of people with kneejerk nerf reaction. It's rare to see your kind here.

[PublikDomain]

1 hour ago, Tonyp5 said:

If those graphs weren't zoomed in so closely, the bar lengths would not appear to be so dramatically different.

They're actually zoomed out pretty far. All of the sets are zoomed out to be the same scale as whichever graph needs to be the largest. For example, the biggest winners/losers graphs are all scales to show 80%, since the "winners" graph includes Excal who makes up 75% of use for MR0. Most of the graphs have tended to be about 60%, so they're only zoomed in by a little bit. When making the graphs I felt that zooming in to fit each graph didn't give a clear understanding of the scale, so I zoomed them all the same amount.

1 hour ago, Tonyp5 said:

Based on the numbers in the bars,  Wukong was only used 10% of the time.  That means that other Warframes were used 90% of the time.  Wukong was only used approx. 5% more than the next most used Warframe.    That doesn't seem to be too excessive to me.  Was Wukong used more than other frames?  Yes, but not excessively so.  We should be more worried about the frames that were used the least.

The method I've been using to compare total usage is to get the area of the curve occupied by a given frame. That is, the sum of usage percentages across all MRs. I think this gives us a slightly better idea of how often frames are actually used, like comparing the areas of two circles instead of their radii. Wukong's area is 302.7%, Excalibur's is 400.94%. Only 7 frames total break 100% area: Excal, Wukong, Volt, Rhino, Mesa, Wisp, and Saryn in that order, while most others in the 30-60% range with Garuda at the lowest (excluding Caliban because he's new) at 11.83%. Excalibur is actually the most used frame by far, being used in total 1/3rd more than even Wukong despite appearing to be used only 7.56% of the time compared to Wukong's 10.09%.

I'll make some graphs that shows total usage across all bands, maybe that'll make it clearer.

Anyways, the worrying thing about Wukong, at least to me, isn't his broad usage. It's his broad usage across all MRs. He's not just the most popular frame, he's the most popular in every MR above 8 - and not by a small margin either. He's used excessively more everywhere not dominated by the three starters. The same goes for the Ignis Wraith and Kuva Nukor, they dominate in total usage by a large margin because they dominate across the whole spread of MRs. The Kuva Nukor looks bad at 22.85% average, but when you look at individual MRs it's much worse.

WEAPON	ALL	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31
KUVA NUKOR	22.85%	1%		0%			0%	0%	1%	4%	6%	10%	13%	17%	21%	23%	26%	28%	30%	30%	30%	30%	30%	30%	30%	29%	29%	29%	29%	31%	32%	37%	22%

Sorry for the mangled graph but the forums hates them.

In the MRs where it's actually used it regularly pulls ~30% of total usage per MR in the top half of MR. At MR30 it's almost 37%! That's 1 weapon out of 128 making up 1 out of 3 actually used.

The only item you brought up that's "fine" is the Xoris, because its usage is only abnormally high in low MRs. Above MR10 it's nothing special.

[LillyRaccune]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Anyways, the worrying thing about Wukong, at least to me, isn't his broad usage. It's his broad usage across all MRs. He's not just the most popular frame, he's the most popular in every MR above 8 - and not by a small margin either.

I found a possible contributor to the reason. I just started a new profile and the featured items in the market is totally different than what I'm used to seeing:

Just because users are seeing Wukong, does not necessarily mean that that is the reason he is getting so much usage, but it may contribute to the numbers...

[Monolake]

On 2022-02-01 at 9:51 AM, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

And how is using Wukong is 'unhealthy' for the game where you can deploy Specters, which pretty much does the same or Railjack crew that can delete Apostles in 1h SP survival in seconds using Acceltra?  

Using Wukong for soloing is the best thing you can have in game, especially on overworld bounty missions like Vallis or Plains. You won't trigger the extra difficulty (added mobs) but have a party member that aimbots at all the targets you don't even see in your screen, giving you almost 100% guarantee of clearing bonus bounty as long as you don't do something really, really stupid or encounter a god darned bug that has persisted for 4 years.

You can try and nerf Wukong by making his clone has duration, consume more energy, heck, even uses non-modded weapon like specters did, nerfing the cloud walk so it consume more energy, don't remove status effects or restore health, also remove the random revival buffs or the free 3 revives but it won't do anything to the popularity: because Wukong is an all-rounder built survivalst. You can still spam Defy and subsume his 4 for something like Gloom and you can sit in survival for hours as long as you don't get surrounded by Leech Eximi.

Specters are useless damage-wise and still require a consumable, they are not built-in easy activation  - so you rarely ever see them used. On-call crew member is very time-limited and again require a lot to even obtain and be able to use. (RJ bots completely removed RJ gameplay too but that's another topic)

Bots that play the game for you and remove the need for player are banned from every game for a reason, but DE is so unwise to make it at a press of a button on a frame.  Make his clone an actual active ability that only attacks on command and not a free bot which became even more obnoxious with OP explosive spam. Reward players for playing, not for afk botting.

[Monolake]

BTW DE stats are very inaccurate, at least your profile usage stats are still completely broken and non-representative of actual play time.  It shows me Caliban - which Ive only played for few days maybe 5-6 hours - being used more than frames Ive played for ~hundred hours in the past.

I hope the data they are collecting themselves is different source otherwise its extremely inaccurate

[Teridax68]

10 hours ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

1: If I'm misquoting you, then you're nitpicking the facts.

- Rubico Prime wasn't the top best used sniper rifle because it was AoE. Rubico Prime was there because people still uses it in tandem with Volt for Eidolon Hunting (despite there's newer meta like Necramech). 

You are the one nitpicking here by trying to find an excuse to dismiss one of the data points that contradicts your narrative. At the end of the day, the Rubico Prime is clearly a highly desirable weapon, and by your own admission, AoE isn't the be-all and end-all to every part of Warframe, if only because Eidolon hunts exist. This is a good thing, too, as it shows that there is the possibility for more situations where single-target weapons could shine.

10 hours ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

2: People are using strong weapons, of which AoE is seen as positive values, yes, but you again missed the point why people still uses Kuva Bramma, Acceltra and K.Nukor even after the nerf, which I've tried to explain not once, but two times already: Their Ability was simply better than the other AoE weapons. Ability in this point was a culmination of damage capability, which again a compound stat based on total damage which is comprised by IPS and elemental damage amount, critical chance and multiplier. But you only understand that I'm JUST referring to damage ability...so who's really strawmanning who here? Kulstar has very small magazine of 3, has slow reload and their main uses was making a trap that can be remotely detonated, so you will often skip the initial projectile contact damage. Lenz's main modus operandi was 'damage via an absurdly large AoE bubble' of which it experiences a horrible damage reduction if the target didn't stand directly in the center of the bubble, and has long draw time. Both weapons was also deals Blast damage, a type of damage that generally not favored.

Compare this with Kuva Bramma, which deals a #*!%ton of damage even unmodded, can be spam-fired, have innate 60% element at max of your choosing, has EVEN LARGER AoE than Lenz, High crit, high status, AND spawns 3 extra cluster bomb per projectile. Acceltra was in same line, each of it's minirockets explode at the enemy, helping you to build up slash procs with each critical hit.

My point here was DE was at fault of making blanket nerf to AoE weapons without understanding what makes good weapons good and what turned a good weapon bad. You can take out AoE explosions from Acceltra and it'll instantly be a mediocre or even bad weapon, but you take out AoE from Kuva Bramma and it'll still be a very strong bow based on it's stats alone.

You don't seem to be reading what I wrote, because again, we are in agreement: as per my own original statement, the Kuva Bramma, Acceltra, and Kuva Nukor aren't dominant just because of their AoE, they're good because they're chock-full of power in nearly every other aspect as well. See here for evidence:

On 2022-02-01 at 12:35 PM, Teridax68 said:

Explosives

There is often an assessment that explosive weapons as a group are overpowered: as the stats show, this is not quite true, since despite the prevalence of several explosive weapons, the rest are unpopular. Notably, the near-totality of explosive secondaries are far behind in popularity relative to alternatives beyond even the Kuva Nukor, including single-target options like the Pyrana Prime. Thus, I think it would be wrong to apply some blanket nerf to explosive weapons, because this would harm weapons that are already not performing well. Rather, there is a clear need for nerfs to individual explosive weapons like the Kuva Bramma or Acceltra, much like there likely needs to be nerfs to the Kuva Nukor and possibly the Tenet Cycron rather than the entirety of beam weapons.

By contrast, it is you who strawmanned my argument by claiming I had reduced everything to just damage:

21 hours ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

You're really asking for a benchmark in this game with inflated and weighted values? Really? REALLY? Because you just admitted that you don't know how Damage works.

Suppose you pick Paris MK1's status and apply them to Bramma, then Bramma would still do SEVERAL TIMES of damage compared to what MK1 Paris could ever hope to do. Same thing with if you pick Kunai MK1's status and apply them to Kuva Nukor.

People choose them not only for Damage abilities, but other things such as Crowd Control, Status Procs, Primers, and other things. You can argue that Epitaph or Secondary Sporelacer would be better in case of DPS against group of enemies after K.Nukor's nerf, but why people haven't switched to them? Or how Primary Vermisplicer can deal more DPS because it arcs to 5 maximum target compared to Ignis Wraith, but I don't even see it mentioned in the graph?

So once again, we seem to be saying much the same thing, which is that the current top-tier AoE weapons aren't just there because they're AoE, but because they're just head and shoulders above the rest in overall power (and the existence of top-tier non-AoE weapons in the stats confirms this). We could stand to have a much more productive conversation if you weren't so intent on misattributing to me things I have never said, and doubling down each time you are proven wrong on this.

10 hours ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

Well, there's your problem. You cannot try to understand that each people has their own way of having fun. The majority of them, like me, have fun playing the game by completing objectives as fast and efficient as possible. This means using META weapons and tactics, which employs using cream-of-the-crop weapons. That's the reason why only some weapons get used, and nothing else. We're having fun in our way, so stop trying to make us not having fun. 

So effectively, you are trying to argue the silly notion that more power equals more fun, and that your only way to have fun is to use markedly overpowered weapons. At the end of the day, if you like something only because it's powerful, then not even nerfs should scare you, because no matter which state they leave the weapon in, there will always be options that will at least feel stronger than others for you to latch onto. However, nerfs visibly terrify you, because you seem to be operating on the rationale that anything that makes you take more time or effort to complete in-game objectives is an obstacle to be removed, both in and out of game. Taken to its logical extreme, one might as well just cut out the gameplay entirely and give you pretty pictures of weapons with big numbers attached.

More to the point, this rationale makes for fundamentally unhealthy feedback: at the end of the day, you're asking for the game to be made less engaging and less diverse for everyone else, just so that you can keep on using the same handful of tools to get to the rewards faster and faster. At the end of the day, Warframe is a video game that is meant to be inherently fun, and it is difficult for our regular gameplay to be engaging when some of our weapons can clear a room full of enemies before they can even touch us at most levels. Similarly, it is a waste of DE's time and resources, and a disservice to players who want their personal favorite choice to be viable (i.e. people who actually want to "play for fun"), when a handful of options dominate and the rest are not worth using by comparison. In order to amend this, some weapons are inevitably going to need nerfing, and opposing those nerfs automatically when they've happened already is fighting a battle you've already lost.

10 hours ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

I'll make my point: NERFS CAN BE GOOD AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT JUST KNEEJERK REACTION. If a weapon dominates the usage chart, then it's DE's homework to investigate WHY are those weapons popular, and reverse-engineer it to make people gravitate from that weapons to other weapons. NOT ONLY by slapping nerfs to said weapons and not fixing the reason why people choose them.

At this point DE was risking another Vivergate to happen, which ALMOST did when Scarlet Spear launched.

It is ironic that you attribute knee-jerk reactions to people suggesting nerfs when your own frantic opposition to the mere idea of them throughout this exchange clearly stems from a knee-jerk reaction. You seem to be backtracking here by claiming you only oppose nerfs that aren't "just kneejerk reaction", but this holds little water when you seem to be evaluating all nerfs as such. Case in point: you seem to believe that the Vazarin nerfs elicited negative feedback on a scale comparable to Vivergate. They didn't. A bunch of people complained for a week, the nerfs still went through, and the near-totality of players moved on. By contrast, when DE truly messed up with Vivergate, the negative feedback was so severe that they reverted the nerfs overnight, and when they tried nerfing our vacuum range during the Universal Vacuum incident, the playerbase was so outraged that the developers received death threats. The problem with crying wolf every time something minorly or even just hypothetically inconveniences you is that past a certain point, people just stop taking you seriously.

[(PSN)Vexx757]

On 2022-01-30 at 3:55 PM, Marvelous_A said:

Yes please I like the old Ash except the animation lock which still exists anyway. And it requires more input than Celestial Twin so it doesn't count as AFK.

Really you`re talking about bladestorm. Do I want the old bs back? yes and no, I want the mechanics of the old but not with it`s problems, besides damage the old bs is far superior that the current vision.

let`s just pretend for a sec the old bs is still a thing and DE wanted to revisit it, the solution to remove the old problems while making it better is pretty simple;

• Remove the limit of enemies he can kill.
• Press to bring Ash into the animation and hold to to send the clones out.
• Press the ability again to jump out of it.
• Enemies red get stabbed 3 times.

 

Literally if they did this no one would complain, this removes the issues the old one had, it`s an amalgam of the old and the current and it caters to both side which means everyone's happy.

People say the Ash is "perfect" which is not true and if they want to go their wouldn't Wukong be "perfect" since he is the most used?

[(NSW)RATHURUE]

4 hours ago, Monolake said:

Specters are useless damage-wise and still require a consumable, they are not built-in easy activation  - so you rarely ever see them used. On-call crew member is very time-limited and again require a lot to even obtain and be able to use. (RJ bots completely removed RJ gameplay too but that's another topic)

Bots that play the game for you and remove the need for player are banned from every game for a reason, but DE is so unwise to make it at a press of a button on a frame.  Make his clone an actual active ability that only attacks on command and not a free bot which became even more obnoxious with OP explosive spam. Reward players for playing, not for afk botting.

And there's Protea, which can infinitely sustain her Blaze Artillery and Xaku with their Grasp of Lohk. Both can produce aimbots that 'plays' the game for them, but somehow Wukong has to bear the cross of 'botting' when Wuclone would actually stop after 1 or 2 minutes of the player's inactivity.

 

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

*snip*

Oh hey, going for personal attacks route now? I'm 'fighting a losing battle to oppose nerfs that'll inevitably come'? 'Scared of nerfs?' 'You are backtracking from saying no to nerfs to accepting nerfs that aren't kneejerk reactions?'

Please. You simply don't see the bigger picture.

Nerfing things won't bring 'balance' to the game as long as the underlying problems which causes the popular weapons to be META haven't been addressed. This is why I oppose ALL nerfs that is made without proper reasoning, i.e kneejerk nerfs. I've been trying to put this as my main point of argument for THREE posts straight, but it seems this still doesn't reach you. The reason I'm bringing Vivergate as example and comparing it with Scarlet Spear was: Vivergate ended up in a good note with everybody involved. Scarlet Spear didn't: they still doesn't revert the changes and while community 'moved on', or in actuality 'can't do anything about it'; it was not without almost equal amount of rage. We're talking about the same DE which released Primed Firestorm after nerfing AoE weapons which makes Kuva Bramma even more potent, and giving Sevagoth Gloom after nerfing Limbo's Cataclysm, nerfing Universal Medallion after one twittard user that says it would 'invalidate their effort' so you can't use those to get items in a DEAD game mode, doesn't want to implement Universal Vacuum and remove Charm even after THREE different occasions of Lootcave farming abuse, further proof that they don't even TRY to learn from their mistakes.

Both stems from a kneejerk nerf to an 'unforseen interaction' of old mechanic with new content, something that players already accustomed to. DE still doesn't want to accept that they're in the wrong for making abrupt changes to accomodate new updates, because they haven't planned that much ahead; that design problem continues to create future problems, and the 'fixes' they made were just temporary band-aids.

Now, if you nerfed Nukor, Acceltra, Ignis and Bramma to the ground. What would people do? They switch to Tenet Cyctron, Trumna, Amprex and Tenet Envoy.

And nothing was resolved. Those four weapons will dominate the usage rank next year, and then gets nerfed. Repeat ad nauseam until all weapons are brought down to whatever the 'standard' DE decided it was good.

See? Nerfing was not the solution. It's just a temporary fix. This is why all nerfs are just kneejerk reactions-what Warframe needed was NOT nerfs, but FIXES to the game balance itself. Is it really that hard to understand? I myself won't even gotten in problem with these nerfs, I've been using Vermisplicer primary and Sporelacer secondary even before K.Nukor nerfs, and switched from Kronen Prime from Tenet Agendus as soon as it launched. What I didn't like from this community is the 'nail that stands out needs to be hammered down' mentality, which creates the kneejerk reaction.

[Teridax68]

21 hours ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

Oh hey, going for personal attacks route now? I'm 'fighting a losing battle to oppose nerfs that'll inevitably come'? 'Scared of nerfs?' 'You are backtracking from saying no to nerfs to accepting nerfs that aren't kneejerk reactions?'

As per the quote I referenced above from your very first reply to my comment, you initiated this argument with personal attacks, accusing me of not knowing how damage works. Your tone throughout this exchange has been aggressive and antagonistic to the point where you have been textually screaming at me in all caps and bold format. Meanwhile, I have done my best to remain civil, and what you are listing as personal attacks are not, in fact, personal attacks: telling you that you are fighting a losing battle in opposing inevitable nerfs says nothing about your character, nor does pointing out that you are backtracking from prior statements, which you blatantly did. If you want to tone police people, start with yourself.

21 hours ago, (NSW)RATHURUE said:

Please. You simply don't see the bigger picture.

Nerfing things won't bring 'balance' to the game as long as the underlying problems which causes the popular weapons to be META haven't been addressed. This is why I oppose ALL nerfs that is made without proper reasoning, i.e kneejerk nerfs. I've been trying to put this as my main point of argument for THREE posts straight, but it seems this still doesn't reach you. The reason I'm bringing Vivergate as example and comparing it with Scarlet Spear was: Vivergate ended up in a good note with everybody involved. Scarlet Spear didn't: they still doesn't revert the changes and while community 'moved on', or in actuality 'can't do anything about it'; it was not without almost equal amount of rage. We're talking about the same DE which released Primed Firestorm after nerfing AoE weapons which makes Kuva Bramma even more potent, and giving Sevagoth Gloom after nerfing Limbo's Cataclysm, nerfing Universal Medallion after one twittard user that says it would 'invalidate their effort' so you can't use those to get items in a DEAD game mode, doesn't want to implement Universal Vacuum and remove Charm even after THREE different occasions of Lootcave farming abuse, further proof that they don't even TRY to learn from their mistakes.

Both stems from a kneejerk nerf to an 'unforseen interaction' of old mechanic with new content, something that players already accustomed to. DE still doesn't want to accept that they're in the wrong for making abrupt changes to accomodate new updates, because they haven't planned that much ahead; that design problem continues to create future problems, and the 'fixes' they made were just temporary band-aids.

Now, if you nerfed Nukor, Acceltra, Ignis and Bramma to the ground. What would people do? They switch to Tenet Cyctron, Trumna, Amprex and Tenet Envoy.

And nothing was resolved. Those four weapons will dominate the usage rank next year, and then gets nerfed. Repeat ad nauseam until all weapons are brought down to whatever the 'standard' DE decided it was good.

See? Nerfing was not the solution. It's just a temporary fix. This is why all nerfs are just kneejerk reactions-what Warframe needed was NOT nerfs, but FIXES to the game balance itself. Is it really that hard to understand? I myself won't even gotten in problem with these nerfs, I've been using Vermisplicer primary and Sporelacer secondary even before K.Nukor nerfs, and switched from Kronen Prime from Tenet Agendus as soon as it launched. What I didn't like from this community is the 'nail that stands out needs to be hammered down' mentality, which creates the kneejerk reaction.

Yet again, you are picking a fight with me over a disagreement that simply does not exist. Had you properly read the comment you first responded to, you would've seen that I too am advocating deeper systemic changes, and not just nerfs:

On 2022-02-01 at 12:35 PM, Teridax68 said:

Explosives

There is often an assessment that explosive weapons as a group are overpowered: as the stats show, this is not quite true, since despite the prevalence of several explosive weapons, the rest are unpopular. Notably, the near-totality of explosive secondaries are far behind in popularity relative to alternatives beyond even the Kuva Nukor, including single-target options like the Pyrana Prime. Thus, I think it would be wrong to apply some blanket nerf to explosive weapons, because this would harm weapons that are already not performing well. Rather, there is a clear need for nerfs to individual explosive weapons like the Kuva Bramma or Acceltra, much like there likely needs to be nerfs to the Kuva Nukor and possibly the Tenet Cycron rather than the entirety of beam weapons.

While the stats do not relate to the following, I also feel that there may be a design problem, rather than a balance problem, with certain weapon types: explosives are hard to balance because I think they're gauged on whether they can kill most enemies within less than a second of firing. If they can, then they're top-tier, and if they can't, they suck. This problem I think is compounded by frequently-imposed ammo limitations: if you have the raw damage per shot to kill enemies, you get to then harvest ammo from them and keep the cycle going. If you don't, then you run out of ammo and can't use your weapon anyway. This is part of a series of win-more/lose-more effects DE have inserted into the game, which includes Galvanized mods and gun arcanes.

On 2022-02-01 at 12:35 PM, Teridax68 said:

Weapon Diversity

This is something that likely ought to be verified by a more precise comparison, but at a glance it looks like weapon diversity has gotten worse in 2021 compared to 2020, and specifically among primaries and secondaries: the top-performing weapons are still at the top, but the gap between the best and the rest seems to have widened significantly. Meanwhile, the distribution of melee weapon popularity doesn't appear to have changed much.

The stats obviously don't show why this is, but given that this seems to affect guns rather than melee, my guess is that the weapon changes in the Sisters of Parvos update are to blame: the update somewhat nerfed melee weapons, and buffed primaries and secondaries by giving us Galvanized mods and primary/secondary arcanes, both of which offer stacking bonuses on-kill. This on-kill mechanic I suspect is what's widening the gap: the weapons that are already good at killing most enemies are made even stronger, whereas those that were struggling to kill enemies before can't consistently access these bonuses. There is therefore even less reason to pick middling weapons when the best-in-class guns perform far better than ever before.

On 2022-02-01 at 12:35 PM, Teridax68 said:

And to conclude this wall of text, what I'd personally want for balance/design changes going forward:

• DE really needs to not be afraid to nerf, particularly when it comes to weapons that are clearly far too strong for their own good.
• There really, really needs to be a benchmark set for how much power a weapon should have, and that benchmark needs to be respected by balancing weapons around said benchmark, through both buffs and nerfs as needed. The fact that the Kuva Bramma and Kuva Nukor are still so strong after major nerfs, and that updates continue to drop weapons that differ vastly in power from each other, to me shows that whatever balance methodology is being applied to weapons, if any, is not working.
• The primary/secondary mods and arcanes introduced in Sisters of Parvos need to be either scrapped or reworked, as on-kill mechanics are a win-more/lose-more mechanic that I think have harmed weapon diversity by widening the gap in effectiveness between weapons. This also applies to the Berserker Fury mod, which has become awful to use after its own switch in the same update to an on-kill bonus.
• Nyx needs an update. A proper one, this time.
• When the Kuva Nukor inevitably gets nerfed again, I think DE needs to consider the idea of "status per second" as a stat to compare across weapons: even without its chain or crit stats, the Kuva Nukor remains a weapon that natively applies 5 status effects per second on average, which increases to a ridiculous 24 with a few mods (this is also not counting its innate Microwave status effect, which is counted as such by Condition Overload, Galvanized Shot, and other per-status type mods). I don't think it's ever going to be possible to balance our current system of status effects when one status weapon can inflict a very large multiple of the status effects of another status weapon in the same time window.
• While some explosive weapons need buffs and others need nerfs, I think explosive weapons in general need a change in design: currently, the only somewhat consistent balancing point is low ammo reserves and self-staggers. Not only are these limitations easy to bypass with an ammo mutation mod and Primed Sure Footed, I don't think they're actually good for gameplay: self-staggers, much like self-damage, gel poorly with environments that often get cramped and dump enemies right at our feet, whereas low ammo punishes weapons that take more ammo to kill enemies that they can gather, while leaving top performers largely unaffected in most missions. I'd rather balance explosive weapons around factors that don't widen existing power gaps as much, such as slow fire rates.
• This may not happen in a year, but DE needs to start defining stronger identities for both weapon classes and individual weapons. As the stats show, entire classes of weapons are left in the dust, and beyond the stats there are dozens upon dozens of individual weapons that just have nothing going for them, not even aesthetically. If weapon diversity is to reach a healthy state, this needs to change. 

As is plain to see, I am not advocating to just nerf things: in fact, I want there to be many more buffs than nerfs, and some of the game's issues need to be addressed by wider changes, such as reworks to modding. I even went to great lengths to oppose the common argument on these forums that all AoE weapons need a nerf, since as the stats show, doing so would do more harm than good to a host of AoE weapons that are already not amazing. If your position is that we should take a deeper look into what's causing certain imbalances beyond just individual outliers, then absolutely, I'm all for that too. However, that does not invalidate the existence of outliers that still need to be nerfed, and contrary to your fallacious reasoning, there is not an infinite supply of those, as the stats clearly show once again (the Acceltra, Kuva Bramma, and Kuva Zarr all arguably compete for the same niche, yet coexist nonetheless).

Due to the simple fact that I dared to mention nerfs, you clearly decided to ignore the entire rest of my post, and miscast my position as one advocating pure nerfs. Not only is that kind of rhetorical tactic blatantly dishonest, it is damaging to constructive discussion, as you aren't engaging with anyone so much as the straw men you have built for yourself to take on in their stead. If you would like to have a discussion about the systemic factors behind some of the stats we see, such as our status system, our mods, enemy spawns, etc., I would love that, as those are topics of conversation I enjoy and actively seek to discuss on here in my other posts. However, doing so will require that you actually read what I am writing, and engage with that material instead of the false arguments you have invented and attributed to me.

[----Legacy----]

11 hours ago, Tonyp5 said:

Calm down folks...

If those graphs weren't zoomed in so closely, the bar lengths would not appear to be so dramatically different.

Based on the numbers in the bars,  Wukong was only used 10% of the time.  That means that other Warframes were used 90% of the time.  Wukong was only used approx. 5% more than the next most used Warframe.    That doesn't seem to be too excessive to me.  Was Wukong used more than other frames?  Yes, but not excessively so.  We should be more worried about the frames that were used the least.

The Ignis Wraith was only used 10% of the time, and only 4% more than the next most used weapon of it's class.  That is not excessive.

The Xoris was only used 6% of the time, and less than 1% more than the next most used weapon of it's class.  That is definitely not excessive.

The Kuva Nukor may be the only weapon that, based on these numbers, might appear to be used excessively.  But still, other weapons were used approx. 77% of the time.   I would be more worried if the Kuva Nukor was used 40% or more of the time.  I, personally, see no reason to nerf the Kuva Nukor for being used only 23% of the time.

You're fogetting an important detail, and it's the amount of gear on which the other bigger % is split. 

Wukong is just one of 48 unique frames, with his 11.4% usage (10.09% prime +1.31 from vanilla), which alone nears 1/8th of total usage even though DE has developed other 47 unique warframes.

It gets even dumber for secondaries since the number of them is far bigger than the amount of frames, yet one of them alone gets close to 1/4th of total usage despite the sheer amount of choices.

[PublikDomain]

8 hours ago, LillyRaccune said:

I found a possible contributor to the reason. I just started a new profile and the featured items in the market is totally different than what I'm used to seeing:

Just because users are seeing Wukong, does not necessarily mean that that is the reason he is getting so much usage, but it may contribute to the numbers...

Interesting idea, I wonder if Gauss had higher usage in low MRs as well. I'll check tonight.

[----Legacy----]

9 hours ago, LillyRaccune said:

I found a possible contributor to the reason. I just started a new profile and the featured items in the market is totally different than what I'm used to seeing:

Just because users are seeing Wukong, does not necessarily mean that that is the reason he is getting so much usage, but it may contribute to the numbers...

I think it's worth pointing that vanilla and prime warframes are listed separately from each other. Vanilla Wukong only gets a 1.31% usage while prime is the outlier with 10.09% on his own.

[PublikDomain]

9 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Interesting idea, I wonder if Gauss had higher usage in low MRs as well. I'll check tonight.

@LillyRaccune

He does, but not by much. Growth is higher than some others but it's about a +1% change at best.

It's not a proper chart but it might be better for visualizing general trends; here's the change for frames (2021-2020):

In the very low MR range things are generally about the same, with the exception of the starters who shuffle around a bit and Ember, who for some reason who took kind of a hard hit. Not sure what that's about.

[George_PPS]

On 2022-02-01 at 9:37 AM, nslay said:

We need to be careful when reading these charts. For example, Xoris is not the most powerful Glaive. Its popularity does not imply Xoris is the best Glaive in the game (it isn't). I do not believe Kuva Nukor or Kuva Bramma are as great as posters think it is.

Also, while nerfs ought to increase viability, the shotgun rework/nerf had the opposite effect. A large portion of primary status shotguns are no longer "viable". None of the secondary status shotguns are "viable" beyond Bronco's gimmick augment. There are fewer "viable" options for shotguns now than there were before. Be careful what you wish for.

Agree with that. Xoris is needed to complete a Quest that needs it and players likely try to spend more time to rank it up to make it good enough to complete the mission. That will inflate the hours of players using the weapon. I personally do not even use Kuva Nukor or Kuva Bramma nor Kuva Orgis/Zarr at all either. It might just be so popular the first half of year before the nerf they got a lot of numbers.

Any of these high usage is an indication that they SHOULDN'T be nerfed since they are popular and players like them the way they are. It will be a big mistake for DE to nerf these favorite weapons/frames using the same nerfing mindset from 2017-2020. 

I do not use any of these much and DE please do not nerf them. Instead, BUFF WEAK WEAPONS AND FRAMES!

[George_PPS]

23 hours ago, Tonyp5 said:

Calm down folks...

...  We should be more worried about the frames that were used the least.

The Ignis Wraith was only used 10% of the time, and only 4% more than the next most used weapon of it's class.  That is not excessive.

The Xoris was only used 6% of the time, and less than 1% more than the next most used weapon of it's class.  That is definitely not excessive.

The Kuva Nukor may be the only weapon that, based on these numbers, might appear to be used excessively.  But still, other weapons were used approx. 77% of the time.   I would be more worried if the Kuva Nukor was used 40% or more of the time.  I, personally, see no reason to nerf the Kuva Nukor for being used only 23% of the time.

 

 

Some players somehow deem something used too much not a good thing yet ignore to mention weapons and frames used not much? When something is used much, it means it's a huge success and players love them. So they should be kept as it. What need to be improved or updated are those hopelessly weak weapons/unpopular frames.