Nerfs to abilities for more skill-based gameplay

[Ceadeus]

On 2022-09-12 at 9:29 AM, Gorlust said:

I believe that the most braindead OP options right now is invincibility, invisilibty and non-LoS AoE, which is why I want to change them!

The hurdles consist of avoiding damage and being in LoS of enemies, both things that are already being done by the player.

Not only is fun a very subjective thing so you can't factually claim that, but it's a mindset and not a value. My changes do not take out any ability to have fun.

How so?

All of these can be summed up with "getting one-shot by arbitrary BS for no reason that asks nothing more of the player than to shoot them more times is not fun" you can talk about 'subjectivity' all you want but it's an obvious fact to anybody with any experience whatsoever in videogames that the overwhelming vast majority of players will agree that is not fun.  No amount of raising and lowering numbers will ever increase the "skill" of the game, just the level of tedium.  Skill comes from asking the player to use problem solving skills and a measure of mechanical abilities.  Not testing their patience to see how long they'll bash their head against a wall for the most minimal rewards possible.  This game is already just a grindfest to most players, arbitrarily making everything a damage sponge isn't gonna alleviate that.

[(XBOX)TehChubbyDugan]

Skill based combat.  In a game with suicidal, braindead AI with ridiculously scaling stats and a complete lack of balance on all sides.  You're a funny, funny guy.  This is a hoard shooter.  They literally spawn the enemies on your flanks in limitless numbers.  If you don't kill the ones shooting you immediately, it's not like the game is going to let you take cover or walk it back a little.  You'll be getting shot from somewhere else, that you just cleared.  There's no tactics like other games that actually have rational thought put into enemy spawn mechanics.

Playing skillfully in warframe means you get more kills than the dude with the cookie cutter loadout while wearing off meta gear because you play faster and understand which tools to use for which job.

[Neihel]

OP just play payday 2 it's literally what you want

every police officer is basically a corpus soldier

 

payday 2's kuva zarr equilavent caused all shotguns in the game to get an ammo nerf despite it being 1 weapon attachment and 2 shotguns that could get nerfed

[Kaiune]

14 hours ago, selig_fay said:

I basically don't understand why in a co-op game you have the ability to destroy everything alone... When you have 3 more people in the party who simply have nothing to do. This is a steal path situation now, which is basically absurd. You can talk about the challenge as much as you like, in the form of passing the map only with a harpoon for fish, but this does not change the absurdity that happens when we play the way the developers intended.

Co op is a choice not a requirement with or without self induced challenges. The game is designed around being able to do most content solo. Most "I need/want a group for this" type of content you want to run as fast as possible to maximize returns So if you get the guy who can nuke the map and help finish the mission in a half a min then you got your relic done faster giving you more parts to build or sell. 

You are more than able to coordinate a team and say no aoe.  Though ultimately I just think You want this game to be something it just isnt.  

[Gorlust]

On 2022-09-29 at 1:42 AM, Kaiune said:

This game can be played solo. If you want a challenge no one is forcing you to bring meta frames, builds, or gear.  Throw the game on solo bring an unmodded Inaros and go to town in a exterminate. Find abilities to op don't use flow or energize so you can only use them sparingly.  Want to torture yourself grab This game is a power fantasy not Space Souls. Flipping the whole game for the entire player base will never happen. But hey you can always set up fun challenges for yourself. 

The reason for changing invincibility, invisibility and non-LoS Aoe to require skill, is because I think they are too powerful.

Nerfing myself does not stop them from being too powerful.

[Gorlust]

On 2022-09-30 at 9:35 PM, Ceadeus said:

This game is already just a grindfest to most players, arbitrarily making everything a damage sponge isn't gonna alleviate that.

Huh?

Your whole reply seems confused.

[Gorlust]

I'm looking to have a bit more fun.

I think I'm only going to respond to replies or points I'm interested in, from now on. As responding to everyone, most people seem to be more interesting in stretching my changes to the extremes or tearing me down instead of the information.

Sorry to the people expecting for a response from me, I'm sure a response could be formed from what I've already said. Hopefully this filters out to the people who actually want to discuss, so we can talk about the relevant information and I can stop talking off-topic like this!

[Colyeses]

4 hours ago, Gorlust said:

The reason for changing invincibility, invisibility and non-LoS Aoe to require skill, is because I think they are too powerful.

Nerfing myself does not stop them from being too powerful.

But what's it to you?

Why should everyone else acquiesce to what -you- think is fun, as opposed to you using the tools provided by the game to have your own fun?

Harrow's Covenant providing invincibility does not affect you in any way if you do not play Harrow, and don't go into public matchmaking. Even if you do, the chance of running into a Harrow is really small, because it is not a strong or popular Warframe. Hydroid's Undertow providing invincibility is an even more egregious example, because that won't affect you at all if you don't play Hydroid, even in public matchmaking. 

So why are you so adamant on breaking someone else's toy when it's nothing to do with you?

4 hours ago, Gorlust said:

I'm looking to have a bit more fun.

But you're not. You don't play these frames. You just want this to be taken away from others. These changes would not improve your enjoyment of the game because they're components you don't interact with. These changes would just make the game worse for other people.

[Gorlust]

12 hours ago, (XBOX)GodMasterTP said:

Dungeon Crawler difficulty is based on MANAGEMENT, not reaction speed, pattern recognition and these things.

It's very close-minded to say that Warframe can't have more skill-based gameplay because "it's not what the game is". Even if we consider Warframe a dungeon crawler, why can't we have more skill-based gameplay than what we have right now?

Not only do we already have things in the game that rely on reaction speed and pattern recognition, but what would you consider "management"?

[Gorlust]

9 hours ago, Colyeses said:

But you're not. You don't play these frames. You just want this to be taken away from others. These changes would not improve your enjoyment of the game because they're components you don't interact with.

I think it's funny that you're still here trying to tell me what I think!

If you're still here because you're looking for a reply from me, I'd be happy to respond to your points if they were about the actual information and not assumptions of me (and you explain your reasoning).

[Colyeses]

1 hour ago, Gorlust said:

I think it's funny that you're still here trying to tell me what I think!

If you're still here because you're looking for a reply from me, I'd be happy to respond to your points if they were about the actual information and not assumptions of me (and you explain your reasoning).

Well someone has to fill in the blanks, because you don't. You're not explaining yourself. You set yourself a paradigm and others have to argue against it entirely on your terms. You don't argue your case, you just dismiss people that argue against yours.

I've explained that these abilities employ different skills that offset the surviving challenge. You ignored it.

I told you that what you're asking for already partially exists for an ability you mentioned. You ignored it.

I explained that this invincibility can actually expand skill expression. You ignored it.

Someone tells you that you can simply opt not to use these frames. You ignore it.

And the worst part is that when I tell you to look at these abilities in-depth to develop your understanding of them, you refuse.

So how am I not supposed to think you're just trying to enforce your will on others by tampering with frames you refuse to use?

And I want you to explain your reasoning in a five page essay! ;)

[Gorlust]

13 minutes ago, Colyeses said:

I've explained that these abilities employ different skills that offset the surviving challenge. You ignored it.

I told you that what you're asking for already partially exists for an ability you mentioned. You ignored it.

I explained that this invincibility can actually expand skill expression. You ignored it.

Someone tells you that you can simply opt not to use these frames. You ignore it.

And the worst part is that when I tell you to look at these abilities in-depth to develop your understanding of them, you refuse.

It's disappointing to see that you say that I'm ignoring these, when you're ignoring all the times I've commented on them. My responses are right there!

The only point you had was when you said an ability is already doing what I wanted, which doesn't mean anything until you say what it is! But I see you've now changed to "partially" what I want, which is not what I'm asking for, so there is still no point there. Even if you were right amount that, it still doesn't explain why my changes wouldn't work.

Please stop making us go back and forth like this. Feel free to restart your points that you think I've ignored, but if it's based on me and not the information (and there's no explanation to your statements), I can't be responding.

[Colyeses]

13 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

It's disappointing to see that you say that I'm ignoring these, when you're ignoring all the times I've commented on them. My responses are right there!

And it mostly consists of 'I disregard your reasoning'. Although my first post on this page you didn't respond to at all.

14 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

The only point you had was when you said an ability is already doing what I wanted, which doesn't mean anything until you say what it is! But I see you've now changed to "partially" what I want, which is not what I'm asking for, so there is still no point there. Even if you were right amount that, it still doesn't explain why my changes wouldn't work.

I started off with 'practically what you want'. And my point is that you don't know which ability it is. Which goes to my criticism of your approach to this issue: You do not have any practical knowledge of the things you are talking about. You're stuck in pure, and even incomplete theory, which is why it's so difficult for you to understand anything I say. I'm talking about Warframe, you're talking about a theoretical envisioning of a small fragment of Warframe.

Again: Use the abilities you're complaining about, and get a better understanding of their design before you complain about it. 

On 2022-09-28 at 10:04 AM, Colyeses said:

Because you don't take the other components into account. You consider invincibility a problem when most of these abilities have extensive drawbacks to offset this value. But you blindly assume that they allow you to play the game without having to worry about taking damage. That is a problem, because your base reasoning for these abilities requiring nerfs for 'more skilled play' completely ignores the skill required to negotiate these drawbacks. Which means your changes will simply invalidate the abilities in their entirety.

You did not respond to this.

On 2022-09-28 at 10:04 AM, Colyeses said:

For the reasons mentioned. You want to nerf these abilities, despite the fact that most of these are significantly harder to use properly than ordinary abilities without invincibility. 

Your consideration of these abilities stops at 'They allow you to ignore incoming damage at any point of their usage'. You don't care about the way this impacts gameplay. 

At one point, you stated that the nerfs would shift the ability's gameplay from 'use it and ignore incoming damage' to 'use it and still manage incoming damage'. What you fail to recognise is that this flattens gameplay, since the abilities, upon use, will now play the exact same way as gameplay without the abilities. You have to manage incoming damage at all times, and now when you use the ability, you have to do so again. 

Whereas currently, the invincibility, if you want to make good use of it, forces you to change up your playstyle in order to capitalise on what is offered. 

Your changes would alter the game from players having to master two different styles and switch between them on the fly, to just being stuck in a single style. Which of those gamestates has more skill expression?

That's why your changes won't work.

You did not respond to this.

On 2022-09-28 at 10:04 AM, Colyeses said:

Because it closes off design space that is perfectly fine and fair. This is something that should be getting through to you after -no one- agrees with you. Invincibility is a heavy thing, sure, but that doesn't mean it's unworkable in an ability overall. 

You did not respond to this.

[Gorlust]

1 hour ago, Colyeses said:

Which goes to my criticism of your approach to this issue: You do not have any practical knowledge of the things you are talking about.

How do you have this criticism when it's not based on anything?

I never claimed "it doesn't do partially what I want", I'm claiming it does not do what I want, which is correct!

1 hour ago, Colyeses said:

Because you don't take the other components into account. You consider invincibility a problem when most of these abilities have extensive drawbacks to offset this value. But you blindly assume that they allow you to play the game without having to worry about taking damage. That is a problem, because your base reasoning for these abilities requiring nerfs for 'more skilled play' completely ignores the skill required to negotiate these drawbacks. Which means your changes will simply invalidate the abilities in their entirety.

This has no explanation on how I'm not taking other components into account, why it is needed or why invincibility is justified over damage reduction. After the first sentence it focusses on me instead of the information.

1 hour ago, Colyeses said:

For the reasons mentioned. You want to nerf these abilities, despite the fact that most of these are significantly harder to use properly than ordinary abilities without invincibility. 

Your consideration of these abilities stops at 'They allow you to ignore incoming damage at any point of their usage'. You don't care about the way this impacts gameplay. 

At one point, you stated that the nerfs would shift the ability's gameplay from 'use it and ignore incoming damage' to 'use it and still manage incoming damage'. What you fail to recognise is that this flattens gameplay, since the abilities, upon use, will now play the exact same way as gameplay without the abilities. You have to manage incoming damage at all times, and now when you use the ability, you have to do so again. 

Whereas currently, the invincibility, if you want to make good use of it, forces you to change up your playstyle in order to capitalise on what is offered. 

Your changes would alter the game from players having to master two different styles and switch between them on the fly, to just being stuck in a single style. Which of those gamestates has more skill expression?

That's why your changes won't work.

I want it to be harder to use. I think invincibility is too powerful.

I want players to manage incoming damage all the time. I think it's too powerful to just remove the need.

No explanation on how my changes stick players into one play-style.

1 hour ago, Colyeses said:

Because it closes off design space that is perfectly fine and fair. This is something that should be getting through to you after -no one- agrees with you. Invincibility is a heavy thing, sure, but that doesn't mean it's unworkable in an ability overall. 

I do not think it is fine and fair. That's the point of suggesting these changes.

No explanation on how it's find and fair.

[Colyeses]

6 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

How do you have this criticism when it's not based on anything?

It is based on something. It's based on the fact that you don't use these abilities, you don't want to use these abilities, and you don't know how they work. 

7 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

Even if I didn't know, I never claimed "it doesn't do partially what I want", I'm claiming it does not do what I want, which is correct!

Actually, the ability I'm talking about does do exactly what you want. It doesn't straight up break the invisibility, but it still demands of the player to avoid damage, exactly what you want to achieve. 

And you are unaware of this fact. 

8 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

This has no explanation on how I'm not taking other components into account, why it is needed or why invincibility is justified over damage reduction. After the first sentence it focusses on me instead of the information.

This has absolutely got an explanation on how you're not taking the other components into account. I explicitly state that these abilities have extensive drawbacks that need to be negotiated in order for these abilities to work. I haven't explained what these drawbacks are, because, again, you should know these. You should be familiar with these. 

Since nothing I say seems to get to you, let me ask you this: What would be an explanation that you'd actually accept? Do you need me to explain the physical components of the abilities in question that you are unaware of?

12 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

Yeah, the point is making them harder to use. I think it's too powerful and more skillful plays can still get the most out of it. Increases skill-based gameplay.

This is where your pure theory problem crops up again, because most of these abilities will not become harder to use, they'll just become unusable. The only 'skill' involved at that point is just knowing that they're wastes of a button press. No one is going to use Undertow if all it does is transform you into a sitting duck with no means of defence. 

16 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

Yeah, I want players to manage incoming damage all the time. I think it's too powerful to just remove it. Increases skill-based gameplay.

No explanation on how my changes stick players into one play-style.

No, there is an explanation, you just ignore it. That's the problem with your style of arguing: If you don't agree, you say it's not an explanation. 

Let me turn this around on you: You say that removing invincibility increases skill-based gameplay. Explain how.

17 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

I do not think it is fine and fair. That's the point of suggesting these changes.

No explanation on how it's find and fair.

There is an explanation on how it's fine and fair, that's the drawbacks component mentioned earlier.

No explanation for how it's not fine and fair. 

[Gorlust]

19 minutes ago, Colyeses said:

It is based on something. It's based on the fact that you don't use these abilities, you don't want to use these abilities, and you don't know how they work. 

You wouldn't know.

19 minutes ago, Colyeses said:

Actually, the ability I'm talking about does do exactly what you want. It doesn't straight up break the invisibility, but it still demands of the player to avoid damage, exactly what you want to achieve. 

And you are unaware of this fact. 

Finally, I've been waiting for you to say this!

I know what it does, I'm asking for it to break invisibility.

21 minutes ago, Colyeses said:

This has absolutely got an explanation on how you're not taking the other components into account. I explicitly state that these abilities have extensive drawbacks that need to be negotiated in order for these abilities to work. I haven't explained what these drawbacks are, because, again, you should know these. You should be familiar with these. 

Since nothing I say seems to get to you, let me ask you this: What would be an explanation that you'd actually accept? Do you need me to explain the physical components of the abilities in question that you are unaware of?

I'd like explanations that are easy enough for me to understand where you're coming from. Saying "it doesn't match up to what the game is" then saying "Removing things from it won't make it more skill-based." or saying ""You take these aspects as singular components of these abilities" then saying "Because you don't take the other components into account.", just seems like the same thing but in different words. It hasn't gotten anywhere.

37 minutes ago, Colyeses said:

This is where your pure theory problem crops up again, because most of these abilities will not become harder to use, they'll just become unusable.

Stretch.

37 minutes ago, Colyeses said:

No one is going to use Undertow if all it does is transform you into a sitting duck with no means of defence. 

I've been saying that I'm open to having the ability buffed along with my change. I just don't want it to have invincibility.

42 minutes ago, Colyeses said:

there is an explanation,

42 minutes ago, Colyeses said:

You say that removing invincibility increases skill-based gameplay. Explain how.

42 minutes ago, Colyeses said:

No explanation for how it's not fine and fair. 

The explanations are in the original post.

 

Look, if you really want to have a discussion that gets somewhere:

• Please stop putting me into your points and instead focus on the information.
• Please stop assuming what I know and don't know.
• Please stop using vague or unexplained statements that don't serve to narrow a point.

You could deliver your points neutrally like:

• "I think devour would be too weak, I propose we should do [x] to buff it"?
• "I think the whole ability should be considered because it doesn't address [x]"
• "I think invincibility is justified when [x] because [x]"

Please remember:

• The goal is to add skill-based gameplay, no matter how little.
• If you don't understand something you're able to ask for my explanation, instead of assuming what it is.
• Think about the entire game, not just the situations where almost everything in the game does not work.

This is the last call (lol). Our current discussion is not get anywhere, Have the last say if you want, I will not be responding if your next one does not interest me.

[Colyeses]

8 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

You wouldn't know.

It's a fair assumption. Because if you did know these abilities, you wouldn't be taking these discussions the way they are going. Unless, of course, you are either monumentally obtuse, or a troll.

So I assume you just don't know the abilities. 

9 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

Finally, I've been waiting for you to say this!

I know what it does, I'm asking for it to break invisibility.

But your opening post states that the goal is to make invisibility users have to avoid damage. Which is what that ability does.

11 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

I'd like explanations that are easy enough for me to understand where you're coming from

There is no explanation more thorough than you actually getting to grips with the abilities you're talking about. No explanation I can give can more solidly show you the drawbacks I'm talking about than you going into a mission and actually using the abilities. 

At this point, what you are asking me to do is to CTRL+C, CTRL+V the wiki pages for these abilities. You starting this discussion with such a lacklustre understanding of the material at hand is the reason why someone else has already told you that you're arguing in bad faith. 

Play the game. Please.

13 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

Saying "it doesn't match up to what the game is" then saying "Removing things from it won't make it more skill-based." or saying ""You take these aspects as singular components of these abilities" then saying "Because you don't take the other components into account.", just seems like the same thing but in different words. It hasn't gotten anywhere.

This is just you demonstrating a poor grasp of language, because only the latter two can be somewhat counted as the same argument. The former two are distinct from each other and from the third point. 

15 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

Stretch.

Your typical dismissal. But tell me: What would Devour's value be if it did not grant invincibility? What would its usage accomplish?

16 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

The explanations are in the original post.

No they aren't. You just say it's more skilful than the current state, but you don't explain how.

18 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

"I think the whole ability should be considered because it doesn't address [x]"

Literally what I did and you just disregarded it because you 'didn't understand'. 

19 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

The goal is to add skill-based gameplay, no matter how little.

That is also proven false with regards to the invisibility ability I keep hinting towards, where the skill-based gameplay is there, but then it's suddenly not what you want.

21 minutes ago, Gorlust said:

Think about the entire game, not just the situations where almost everything in the game does not work.

The situations where almost everything in the game does not work are part of the entire game. You are the one narrowing your perception to exclude those situations and are thus not thinking about the entire game.

[selig_fay]

On 2022-10-01 at 7:37 PM, (XBOX)GodMasterTP said:

Warframe is more akin to a Dungeon Crawler (Diablo, Path of Exile, Lost Ark, etc) than something like Dark Souls, Elden Ring. Yet, people keep comparing it to soulslike standards indirectly all the time

Well poe developers have enough spirit of nerf stuff to keep players rage every update. And it's not like anyone is leaving the game too much. So, well, if we're comparing things, let's compare everything, not just the part where we do builds.

[Kaiune]

On 2022-10-01 at 10:50 AM, Gorlust said:

The reason for changing invincibility, invisibility and non-LoS Aoe to require skill, is because I think they are too powerful.

Nerfing myself does not stop them from being too powerful.

Why would you care what is OP if your not using it? 

My whole point to making challenges to your self is that you don't need to kill the fun of the Power fantasy big numbers side of the community to make the game challenging.  

No one is forcing any one in to public matches or group play (till raids come back). You want to make the game challenging Im giving you ways to do it without pissing off the player base. Shoot you see what a mild nerf to aoe and nerfing a bot ability did. Imagine an overhaul like this. 

They need to stop bowing to this crap don't like aoe play solo or even better recruit a clan of like minded players if there are so many of you who don't like it and your not a small vocal minority messing with the fun of everyone else, it should be easy.  That would give you a chat to recruit from and you can all play as much Ig-Naros sabotage as you want. 

If your wanting challenging punishing gameplay you may want to play a Souls-like game cause in order to get WF there it would take overhaulling most frames, guns, melee, and even bigger than that enemy AI. Who knows maybe Soulframe will be what your looking for, maybe they will develop better ai for that and the WF team can steal it and make SP much more punishing. But a new meta will always rise new bugs and interactions and power creep will all come and take over old ones. It is your choice to follow the crowd or not with those things. The game cam be played 100% solo so why rain on others who obviously enjoy being able to have fun with blowing every thing up? And any mission where you want group play like relic runs for better odds. Some one being able to clear the rooms quick makes the run faster thus more relics cracked per play period. 

[George_PPS]

Sounds like a great idea if Warframe is constantly nerfed and to make it slow and play like Counter Strike or Call of Duty. That will recruit new players from both games? Warframe needs a lot more SERIOUS NERFS to achieve this goal. 

[LSG501]

Bit late on this but seriously.... if people don't like the way the game is why the hell do you play it....

The main selling point of warframe is the abilities, if you want to play a game that will essentially be point and shoot there are games like that already out there.

And for the record I do not want this game to go down the 'skill based game', I play warframe because it is 'mindless fun' and I can just relax while playing it... if I want a more challenging game I will play a game that is actually designed around being challenging instead of a hoard based collectors game....

 

If DE listen to all these calls to nerf warframe abilities then you might as well go and close the game down because imo it will literally kill any reason to play the game over other games.

[Mu_Gera]

On 2022-08-17 at 12:26 AM, Gorlust said:

Most nuke / AOE damage abilities changed to line of sight: 

most aoe abilities already have it in some way along with damage fall off, and they shouldn't honestly. instead give LoS to aoe weapons and remove it from abilities since the only consistent advantage they have over weapons is range, but even then they scale WAY worse because their damage just can't keep up if they don't have some scaling mechanic. honestly LoS should just be deleted and replaced with a blanket 100%-0% damage fall off for everything.

 

On 2022-08-17 at 12:26 AM, Gorlust said:

Most invincibility abilities changed to damage reduction with status immunity:

hey if frames can't have it then enemies shouldn't either

[PsychoGlory]

People demanding nerfs are the very people killing this game, if you want nerfs you clearly want to ruin the fun of this game.  It is clear you people are trying to make other people play the way you personally want, but we do not want to play that way.  If you do not like the core game play which makes this game good, that you are trying to change, go play something else.

[YannJin]

Soullike Game？  Why don't u play Sekiro？ 

[Gorlust]

I guess this does interest me. Although I've been attempting to ignore you since you won't allow our discussion to get anywhere on topic, responses have been running through my mind.

On 2022-10-02 at 9:02 PM, Colyeses said:

It's a fair assumption. Because if you did know these abilities, you wouldn't be taking these discussions the way they are going. Unless, of course, you are either monumentally obtuse, or a troll.

So I assume you just don't know the abilities. 

But yet you've confidently stated it as fact. So many of your points are just telling me that I don't play the game (even though I've also mentioned how much I've played the game) or that I'm unaware of something (even though I've mentioned them, like ability drawbacks and how Prowl works), but it's only standing on ego because you don't know. Your points would mean even less, since they are still not targeted at the information but also that it's based on you reaching for assumptions.

Hopefully you can see that, imagine if instead of me constructing something to what you're saying, I just mention your point and say you don't play the game. It's literally what being closed-minded is, just having your own made up reasons as to why someone is already wrong, instead of showing or referencing it in or with information.

To get somewhere in our discussion, just go off the information I've said or ask for information you want to hear. There's no point reaching for an unknown, unrelated argument.

On 2022-10-02 at 9:02 PM, Colyeses said:

But your opening post states that the goal is to make invisibility users have to avoid damage. Which is what that ability does.

Which is great, but I have to repeat myself, (as my opening post also states) I'd like it changed to break invisibility.

To get somewhere in our discussion, you don't need to figure out what I want suggested, I've already done that part.

On 2022-10-02 at 9:02 PM, Colyeses said:

There is no explanation more thorough than you actually getting to grips with the abilities you're talking about. No explanation I can give can more solidly show you the drawbacks I'm talking about than you going into a mission and actually using the abilities. 

At this point, what you are asking me to do is to CTRL+C, CTRL+V the wiki pages for these abilities. You starting this discussion with such a lacklustre understanding of the material at hand is the reason why someone else has already told you that you're arguing in bad faith. 

Play the game. Please.

But I'm asking for an understanding on where you are coming from, not what the abilities do. Our disagreement obviously comes from differing viewpoints, not from anything the wiki can say. If players did not have different viewpoints, my suggestions (or maybe any suggestions) would not be here.

To get somewhere in our discussion, we could actually do the explaining, instead of talking about explaining.

On 2022-10-02 at 9:02 PM, Colyeses said:

What would Devour's value be if it did not grant invincibility? What would its usage accomplish?

I don't think there is a need to have an answer to that question because as I keep saying, I'm fine for it to be buffed along with my change! Never am I trying to keep Devour in this state without allowing it buffed, this whole time I've been open to it and I'm leaving it in your hands.

To get somewhere in our discussion, I encourage you. If you have any discussion on how to buff Devour or alternatives to the invincibility, I'm all for it!

On 2022-10-02 at 9:02 PM, Colyeses said:

This is just you demonstrating a poor grasp of language, because only the latter two can be somewhat counted as the same argument. The former two are distinct from each other and from the third point. 

Ironic.

I was comparing the first two with each-other and then the second two with each-other, I was not comparing all four. They're in your replies.

This is another good example though, that throughout your responses and this one, instead of trying to reach an understanding, you take the route of focusing on me and trying to throw insults.

On 2022-10-02 at 9:02 PM, Colyeses said:

No they aren't. You just say it's more skilful than the current state, but you don't explain how.

Haha, we're just going to back and forth saying "yes", "no", "yes", "no"?

I doubt this entire time you did not know what my changes were based off of. Even though most other people have disagreed, they have still gotten onto the discussion from my explanations, even you.

On 2022-10-02 at 9:02 PM, Colyeses said:

Literally what I did and you just disregarded it because you 'didn't understand'. 

I'm not sure what the point of bringing this one up is.

• Never did I say you don't address your points like that.
• It was a recommendation for all your points, not just one.
• (Although not needed) I would say it still wasn't neutral, which is what that was recommending.
• Asking for explanations is not trying to disregard your point, I'm readily awaiting the explanation.
• I'm trying to understand you, reminding me that I don't, doesn't get anywhere. You could have just provided the explanation instead.

On 2022-10-02 at 9:02 PM, Colyeses said:

That is also proven false with regards to the invisibility ability I keep hinting towards, where the skill-based gameplay is there, but then it's suddenly not what you want.

Just because I said "no matter how little" does not mean I'm looking for the littlest amount.

On 2022-10-02 at 9:02 PM, Colyeses said:

The situations where almost everything in the game does not work are part of the entire game. You are the one narrowing your perception to exclude those situations and are thus not thinking about the entire game.

My comment was about thinking of the entire game, I'm not sure how you took that as me doing the opposite.

 

I don't like having to spell everything out for you, because it makes me think you're helpless, which I do not want to think of you as! But feel like I keep having to do it because you take everything the wrong way. Honestly, you don't need to take:

• My changes, as not knowing how abilities work
• My changes, as asking people to play missions without getting hit.
• Wanting more skill, as asking people to replace their good builds.
• Wanting more skill, as saying nothing about abilities is skillful.
• Wanting more skill no matter how little, as only wanting the littlest.
• An ability doing partially what I want, as it fulfilling what I'm asking.
• An ability doing partially what I want, as me being unware of it.
• Asking for an explanation, as asking for wiki pages.
• Asking for an explanation, as disregarding your point.
• Thinking about the entire game, as me looking to leave parts out.
• Being open to buffs, as asking for the ability to stay as is.
• Nerfing abilities, as me not wanting people to have fun.
• Not liking invincibility, as likely to dislike the pause function in solo.
• Saying you can cc with Condemn, as expecting you to 360 sweep with it (you said Penance but I assume you mean Condemn since it's what you replied to).
• Or literally anything, as a way to divert from the information to guess if I'm the problem to somehow show that the information is incorrect.

I hope you see, going back and forth in this way has lead us nowhere. I still don't know the problem's reasons that you have with my changes, and you still don't see how I thought these changes up. I believe alot of understanding on viewpoints has already been made with other people. All that you've left me, is unconfirmed accusations and insults.

These current points have no use in perusing for you. All it seems you're doing now is just arguing against what you've make up I could be thinking about.

I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt again and hope you came here to discuss presented information, rather than find someone to hate on. If you're really still here because you want our discussion to get somewhere, in your next response you should stop focusing on me and instead talk about the information. Talk about my changes and/or skill-based gameplay!