One simple Styanax change please

[Ceadeus]

6 minutes ago, Hawk197 said:

So you're metric of damage is how many survivors are left after the cast of an ability? By that logic, status has no place anywhere, so we should straight up remove Armors, Shields, and Flesh resistances, with Elemental and IPS damages. When I measure damage, I see how many bodies are on the ground, and how many are going to die by status effects, since Slash is dealing damage still. I'm able to kill 190s reliably, with any remaining enemies suffering Bleed. Bleed, in case you don't know or have forgotten, deals True damage, which is a hidden damage type that has no strengths or weaknesses, and by passes Damage Reduction from armor. So while my 190 corrupt heavy gunner is still alive for a second, it's only a second.

Now compare that to a frame like Mesa, who is an amazing DPS frame, but doesn't have nearly the same tools. Mesa is able to kill most stuff reasonably fast but doesn't have the same tools, so if she runs into something like a lv 500 CHG, you're going to suffer pretty hard since Regulators don't deal enough damage and your kit doesn't have alot of team impact besides Shooting Gallery. Compare that to Styanax who can move and use abilities while in Last Stand to cause Bleed, who can survive with the use SG, buff allies with energy and shield regen, strip armor, cc, while also causing some damage. 

We can also take your example of Gauss. Gauss is an amazing frame who has a perfect kit for every situation he runs into. He can zoom away, DR, armor strip, group or push back enemies, make everything even more potent with his 4, and has a passive that's top tier for all weapons. But he's a selfish frame as well. He doesn't support the team with buffs, and he doesn't really deal damage with anything besides weapons. Compare that to Styanax, who has armor stripping, damage, grouping and pushing back enemies, buffs allies, take heat off allies, and has a passive that (for now) makes all weapons deal more crit. 

NONE of this is to say Styanax is better or worse, just that Styanax has a different playstyle and has things to offer that other frames don't bring to the table. Each and every frame has it's own set of strengths and weaknesses. Mesa is all about that damage with her Regulators and Shooting Gallery buffing weapon damage, with Shattering Shield reflecting some damage back, but tends to fall off harder once levels start getting higher due to scaling. Gauss can do nearly everything, but if he's caught unaware and get's stuck without ammo and/or energy he's dead. Styanax can can mob pretty easily thanks to his 1 and 4, can armor strip most things with his 2, and buff everyone with his 3, but he suffers damage wise against anything that can either cancel powers or are immune to statue/powers, and anything that doesn't suffer from Bleed like MOAs. Of course there are more strengths and weaknesses for each and every frame in the game, I could easily build Styanax in a way that helps his damage output but I lose some cc, or I could go more support but lose my damage. I could go harder into his passive and give up some casting mods, or I could go hard into strength but lose some range. Same goes or Gauss, Mesa, Sevagoth, Ember, Excalibur, Volt, Loki, and everyone else.

Why would my metric of damage not be how many things actually died?  That's literally the entire point of damage is to kill more things faster. And no, the surviving enemies I'm referring to are after all bleed procs have worn off.  I said from the very beginning I don't think Styanax's damage is absurdly low or anything like that, but the fact of the matter is when we put him up against other frames be it through the lens of a support frame or a DPS he's currently underperforming to be considered a meta contender.  Again, we can dance around the subject all we want but the reality here is that the game caters almost solely to damage output and anything else is just a waste of time slowing down efficiency.  Whether you agree with that or not it's the truth and every update the game reinforces that idea more and more so a frame that can't compete on that stage is simply going to be a bad frame by default.  If I offer you a gun that does 1,000,000 damage or a gun that does 250,000 damage but it heals you sometimes, the first one will always be the better choice.  That's not to say that healing might not be helpful in some cases, but the better case will always be for whatever caused you to need that healing to just be dead before it becomes an issue.

[R4bbit0le]

On 2022-09-08 at 10:34 PM, Ceadeus said:

However, he falls off a bit in one area, and that's his raw damage. 

I would think that if a frame "falls off a bit in just one area" his kit is extremely well balanced. He only needs some QoL and bug fixes.
Styanax puts the elite in hoplite. 😎

[Ceadeus]

28 minutes ago, R4bbit0le said:

I would think that if a frame "falls off a bit in just one area" his kit is extremely well balanced. He only needs some QoL and bug fixes.
Styanax puts the elite in hoplite. 😎

I mean... other than that one area, yes.

[Birdframe_Prime]

16 hours ago, Ceadeus said:

Great on paper, not how it works out in practice.  In reality, with even just level 180 gunners (far off from your 780) armor stripping, grouping, and hitting with a 200% strength 4 still leaves survivors, a good number with more than half of their health remaining.

Ah, now, that's a known and reported problem that many people are acknowledging; the grouping creates a dense pack of enemies and his ability has limited punch through on bodies (the spears punch through, but the AoE on them does not), so yes several enemies do tend to survive the combo. This is not because the ability is low damage, but because the ability isn't able to deal damage to those specific enemies.

In effect, it's self-limiting because the functions aren't interacting correctly.

That said, frames do things differently. Rather than taking them in a vacuum or comparing their kit across the entire 50 frame roster, you have to take them as a function against the game itself.

How does this frame stack up against the content available? How does it interact with allies, how is it limited by allies, how does it do without them.

But you did specify the damage. 

And damage can be, and often is, taken as a flat measure to be used against enemies. The other variables, such as allies, or being stacked against other frames, aren't under the umbrella when discussing the raw damage capable by the frame's kit.

The specifics are in isolation, the frame isn't.

So yes, there's a known bug about whether his abilities can actually deal damage to the enemies he's attacking, but the damage itself? Considerable. And it doesn't peak for a very, very long time, providing that you're playing his combos together.

[Ceadeus]

2 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Ah, now, that's a known and reported problem that many people are acknowledging; the grouping creates a dense pack of enemies and his ability has limited punch through on bodies (the spears punch through, but the AoE on them does not), so yes several enemies do tend to survive the combo. This is not because the ability is low damage, but because the ability isn't able to deal damage to those specific enemies.

In effect, it's self-limiting because the functions aren't interacting correctly.

That said, frames do things differently. Rather than taking them in a vacuum or comparing their kit across the entire 50 frame roster, you have to take them as a function against the game itself.

How does this frame stack up against the content available? How does it interact with allies, how is it limited by allies, how does it do without them.

But you did specify the damage. 

And damage can be, and often is, taken as a flat measure to be used against enemies. The other variables, such as allies, or being stacked against other frames, aren't under the umbrella when discussing the raw damage capable by the frame's kit.

The specifics are in isolation, the frame isn't.

So yes, there's a known bug about whether his abilities can actually deal damage to the enemies he's attacking, but the damage itself? Considerable. And it doesn't peak for a very, very long time, providing that you're playing his combos together.

Except yes, you ALWAYS have to compare things against the entire roster.  Otherwise you just wind up with content that objectively doesn't compete with its alternative and that's how you see frames/weapons/etc become either trash or meta.  It doesn't matter how it performs on its own if it's just outclassed in every way by something else.

[nicolajtheking2]

I would love for him to be able to armor strip EVERYTHING including bosses, like have his armor strip work on all enemies not just the majority, maybe also increase the range of the 2. ability, it feels a bit short.

[Birdframe_Prime]

37 minutes ago, Ceadeus said:

Except yes, you ALWAYS have to compare things against the entire roster.  Otherwise you just wind up with content that objectively doesn't compete with its alternative and that's how you see frames/weapons/etc become either trash or meta.

Fun fact?

DE doesn't.

They've come out before and said that they design frames so that they don't overlap, yes, but they design them to be a Warframe for the game content.

Besides, even if a frame is objectively worse at completing the same content as another frame, that's not going to be the case with another bit of content. So the only way to compare the entire roster to each other is to categorise it into the mission types... and into what those mission objectives are, whether those mission objectives change, the methods of completing those objectives in an easy versus an economical way...

So when the only requirement for a Warframe is that it can take on the game's content to a degree only verified by DE...

The only reason to compare them directly to each other is our own internal bickering.

[Ceadeus]

53 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Fun fact?

DE doesn't.

They've come out before and said that they design frames so that they don't overlap, yes, but they design them to be a Warframe for the game content.

Besides, even if a frame is objectively worse at completing the same content as another frame, that's not going to be the case with another bit of content. So the only way to compare the entire roster to each other is to categorise it into the mission types... and into what those mission objectives are, whether those mission objectives change, the methods of completing those objectives in an easy versus an economical way...

So when the only requirement for a Warframe is that it can take on the game's content to a degree only verified by DE...

The only reason to compare them directly to each other is our own internal bickering.

You literally just proved my point though as one of the main problems DE struggles with is promoting build diversity which they've mentioned some kind of effort to improve basically every single patch for the last however many years now.  So the fact that they balance in a bubble is directly hurting the game even by their own standards.

[Birdframe_Prime]

14 hours ago, Ceadeus said:

You literally just proved my point though as one of the main problems DE struggles with is promoting build diversity which they've mentioned some kind of effort to improve basically every single patch for the last however many years now.

Players have rejected every form of build diversity move they've made over the years, campaigning to have every change that would actually promote having to diversify reverted or nerfed.

The basic rock-paper-scissors layout of the enemy types, with shields, armour and high health, is supposed to promote players using weapons that actually deal the most damage to those enemies, but every time DE introduces a more specialised enemy for those factions, players have complained until they can take them on without changing their builds. Give Corpus the nullifier to promote players having to switch away from the Ability nuke meta, to equip one of their weapon slots with a high rate of fire weapon instead of an AoE (because that was always a thing), nope, players consistently complained about how it was unfair that their abilities didn't work, that it was unfair the shields couldn't be taken out with AoE or Sniper weapons. Constant nerfs to how the Nullifiers spawned, how the shields expanded, giving shields a weak point for instant pops... 

Introduce the Nox to the Grineer to try and promote precision weapons instead of AoE or Ability spam, and to try and counter the Melee meta that was prevalent at the time? Nope, switch back the armour so that it is only effective against direct ranged damage, and Melee can chew through it as normal. Reduce the threshold and expand the hitbox of the helmet so that breaking it was easy for all ranged weapons. Nerf the aggressive behaviour so that they have lower chances of charging down the player.

And those are just two off the top of my head.

The player base doesn't want diversity, and the player base is stupid because of it. Every time DE do something to promote actual diversity, players cry 'nerf' or 'unfair' and whine about it until it's rolled back to some degree. Every. Single. Time.

Hell, even the most recent round, where they are trying to control the AoE meta by reigning in the sheer automation that can be accomplished with it. Players are flat-out saying it doesn't need to be controlled, despite direct evidence that it is the overwhelmingly most used strategy for automation, which isn't playing the game, it's getting the rewards of playing without actually playing.

The number of threads massing with the general topic of 'I know DE explained why it needs to be changed, but here's why it doesn't' over and over and over again, because they don't understand that sometimes promoting diversity includes hammering down the one thing that sticks out. 

And it's really difficult to get players to understand the difference in points, especially when it comes to DE's stated design tactics.

Case in point:

I didn't say that DE are designing in a vacuum.

I said that DE are designing each frame in the context of how that frame is able to complete the content of the game. You know... the actual thing we're playing? The thing that a Warframe actually has to do? The thing that a Warframe is for?

If you only design frames by comparing them to each other, you end up with constant power creep in the game, which is already known for power creep in its weapons and systems.

We aren't racing here. This isn't a set one-track method to completing the content and so we aren't designing every single frame to do that one track at the fastest speed possible. It's a game where every single mission can be completed in multiple ways with multiple tactics, at different paces and with different levels of effort. And that's because every frame is, in fact, designed to be good at some content and not so good at other content. 

Designing frames by comparing them to each other, and not the content, is a worse thing than designing in a vacuum. It's designing them without context of the game they need to be part of.

And that's not my words.

That's their words.

I'm just reporting them to you for clarity of the point.

We like to compare a frame against a frame, against the roster, because we care about optimisation and about faster completion of the content. That's our thing.

DE are only interested in the optimisation angle, the speedrun, the efficiency, and the 'which is actually better at activity X, Y and Z' in the form of 'how are our players able to break the game this time?' In the angle of 'please can this change not shift the meta to something even more brain-dead'.

So yes, you, specifically you, not the general 'you', can compare a frame like Styanax to other frames around.

But that is, and always will be, a you thing. Not their thing.

[DeadVoid118]

In my opinion, Styanax falls off in terms of survivability (if you're not abusing shield-gating), and his 4 is a bit below what I would like in terms of damage. Workable, but not preferable.

No frame is perfect, though. It's not like there's a frame who can CC, tank, and boost damage. Please ignore the Nezha and Rhino in the corner.

[HoshunMk201]

8 часов назад, Birdframe_Prime сказал:

Players have rejected every form of build diversity move they've made over the years, campaigning to have every change that would actually promote having to diversify reverted or nerfed.

The basic rock-paper-scissors layout of the enemy types, with shields, armour and high health, is supposed to promote players using weapons that actually deal the most damage to those enemies, but every time DE introduces a more specialised enemy for those factions, players have complained until they can take them on without changing their builds. Give Corpus the nullifier to promote players having to switch away from the Ability nuke meta, to equip one of their weapon slots with a high rate of fire weapon instead of an AoE (because that was always a thing), nope, players consistently complained about how it was unfair that their abilities didn't work, that it was unfair the shields couldn't be taken out with AoE or Sniper weapons. Constant nerfs to how the Nullifiers spawned, how the shields expanded, giving shields a weak point for instant pops... 

Introduce the Nox to the Grineer to try and promote precision weapons instead of AoE or Ability spam, and to try and counter the Melee meta that was prevalent at the time? Nope, switch back the armour so that it is only effective against direct ranged damage, and Melee can chew through it as normal. Reduce the threshold and expand the hitbox of the helmet so that breaking it was easy for all ranged weapons. Nerf the aggressive behaviour so that they have lower chances of charging down the player.

And those are just two off the top of my head.

The player base doesn't want diversity, and the player base is stupid because of it. Every time DE do something to promote actual diversity, players cry 'nerf' or 'unfair' and whine about it until it's rolled back to some degree. Every. Single. Time.

Hell, even the most recent round, where they are trying to control the AoE meta by reigning in the sheer automation that can be accomplished with it. Players are flat-out saying it doesn't need to be controlled, despite direct evidence that it is the overwhelmingly most used strategy for automation, which isn't playing the game, it's getting the rewards of playing without actually playing.

The number of threads massing with the general topic of 'I know DE explained why it needs to be changed, but here's why it doesn't' over and over and over again, because they don't understand that sometimes promoting diversity includes hammering down the one thing that sticks out. 

And it's really difficult to get players to understand the difference in points, especially when it comes to DE's stated design tactics.

Case in point:

I didn't say that DE are designing in a vacuum.

I said that DE are designing each frame in the context of how that frame is able to complete the content of the game. You know... the actual thing we're playing? The thing that a Warframe actually has to do? The thing that a Warframe is for?

If you only design frames by comparing them to each other, you end up with constant power creep in the game, which is already known for power creep in its weapons and systems.

We aren't racing here. This isn't a set one-track method to completing the content and so we aren't designing every single frame to do that one track at the fastest speed possible. It's a game where every single mission can be completed in multiple ways with multiple tactics, at different paces and with different levels of effort. And that's because every frame is, in fact, designed to be good at some content and not so good at other content. 

Designing frames by comparing them to each other, and not the content, is a worse thing than designing in a vacuum. It's designing them without context of the game they need to be part of.

And that's not my words.

That's their words.

I'm just reporting them to you for clarity of the point.

We like to compare a frame against a frame, against the roster, because we care about optimisation and about faster completion of the content. That's our thing.

DE are only interested in the optimisation angle, the speedrun, the efficiency, and the 'which is actually better at activity X, Y and Z' in the form of 'how are our players able to break the game this time?' In the angle of 'please can this change not shift the meta to something even more brain-dead'.

So yes, you, specifically you, not the general 'you', can compare a frame like Styanax to other frames around.

But that is, and always will be, a you thing. Not their thing.

Mostly I can agree, but the problem is as you have said, while we should define how good is warframe beased on the game content, it will be a total mistake to oversee the core gameplay and it is killing enemies. The thing is enemies themselves dont provide any interesting content except the types you have mentioned like Nox and Nullifiers, which i both actually like (except slow debuff from nox, but whtever). But all other enemies are just manekens for damage input and nothing more, and if we move beyond enemy genocide, missions are dull and boring as hell.

One of the best mission types this game had is excavation. And guess why? It had the best effiency! And... IT GOT NERFED! It is very narrow minded to ignore that DE is punishing players for trying to be best at the game they have created.

Limbo got nerfed, cause it was too good and now it s almost deadframe.

Ash's Bladestorm (while i can agree his original ultimate was OP) that got nerfed and presented with pace breaking crap.

Draco EXISTED.

This list can be pretty long but the point is that DE, at first, creating something OP and then nerfing it to nothingness because players, what a surprise, is playing a game to damn good.

And instead of making other things good, so that some playstyle, mission type, build etc. would have a decent alternative, they re just nerfing things. But the players are not stupid and while this game is about numbers, they will always create meta nuke builds

[HoshunMk201]

5 часов назад, DeadVoid118 сказал:

In my opinion, Styanax falls off in terms of survivability (if you're not abusing shield-gating), and his 4 is a bit below what I would like in terms of damage. Workable, but not preferable.

No frame is perfect, though. It's not like there's a frame who can CC, tank, and boost damage. Please ignore the Nezha and Rhino in the corner.

Baruuk slowly moves in the shadows

[Birdframe_Prime]

On 2022-09-11 at 8:28 PM, HoshunMk201 said:

One of the best mission types this game had is excavation. And guess why? It had the best effiency! And... IT GOT NERFED! It is very narrow minded to ignore that DE is punishing players for trying to be best at the game they have created.

Limbo got nerfed, cause it was too good and now it s almost deadframe.

Ash's Bladestorm (while i can agree his original ultimate was OP) that got nerfed and presented with pace breaking crap.

Draco EXISTED.

How many times do players need the concept of balance including both nerfs and buffs being explained to them?

You started to actually debate the topic, but then this devolution into the 'why do they nerf things?' section...

I just... Look, things will get nerfed because you're missing the point of the design process again.

In this case it's to keep players coming back. Giving the things that stand out at trivialising or automating the game a nerf is based on that one overriding statement they've made before this, several times: If the meta becomes so strong that you're playing the game wrong for not using it, then the meta gets nerfed for the benefit of everything else.

And you can't argue that things haven't been buffed over time, either, because we have received so much power creep over time that the game is unrecognisable compared to the meta builds of 2014. Whether it's introducing things like Steel Path Fissure missions to increase the farm of Riven Slivers and Steel Essence, while doing the core mission component of cracking relics, or whether it's introducing a whole second layer of modding in the form of Shards... For every nerf to an over-used strategy, a new farm has opened up with only a slightly less efficient one.

Hell, the fact that our own guns are now apparently the meta, where before Melee was the meta, and Melee literally hasn't been nerfed at all (barring, what, a mod or two for attack speed?) to get there...

We have been buffed over time far more than we've been nerfed.

The reason the nerfs stand out is because players are doing things one way so exclusively that it's too good. Players think they have this new strategy for making the game easy, or efficient, and they forget that it's not supposed to be, it's supposed to be a steady grind for you to work your way through. It's supposed to be a game that you put something into a little at a time over years, just like you and me sitting here for the last eight years, and not a game you can blitz down in a couple of weeks.

It's just so...

Small minded.

And willfully ignoring the entire rest of the changes.

You see it in the micro-cosm of the Riven changes. People complain about this rifle, or that melee, getting a nerf because that's their favourite weapon. And they ignore the literal twenty others in the same category that all got buffs, some of them by massive margins, that could become their new favourite if they looked for it.

I really do hope that the general malaise of 'oh, DE are always nerfing' can lift at some point. It's kind of hard to say it when we literally just got a hundred minor and major buffs to frames and augments across the board last week.

[HoshunMk201]

13 часов назад, Birdframe_Prime сказал:

How many times do players need the concept of balance including both nerfs and buffs being explained to them?

You started to actually debate the topic, but then this devolution into the 'why do they nerf things?' section...

I just... Look, things will get nerfed because you're missing the point of the design process again.

In this case it's to keep players coming back. Giving the things that stand out at trivialising or automating the game a nerf is based on that one overriding statement they've made before this, several times: If the meta becomes so strong that you're playing the game wrong for not using it, then the meta gets nerfed for the benefit of everything else.

And you can't argue that things haven't been buffed over time, either, because we have received so much power creep over time that the game is unrecognisable compared to the meta builds of 2014. Whether it's introducing things like Steel Path Fissure missions to increase the farm of Riven Slivers and Steel Essence, while doing the core mission component of cracking relics, or whether it's introducing a whole second layer of modding in the form of Shards... For every nerf to an over-used strategy, a new farm has opened up with only a slightly less efficient one.

Hell, the fact that our own guns are now apparently the meta, where before Melee was the meta, and Melee literally hasn't been nerfed at all (barring, what, a mod or two for attack speed?) to get there...

We have been buffed over time far more than we've been nerfed.

The reason the nerfs stand out is because players are doing things one way so exclusively that it's too good. Players think they have this new strategy for making the game easy, or efficient, and they forget that it's not supposed to be, it's supposed to be a steady grind for you to work your way through. It's supposed to be a game that you put something into a little at a time over years, just like you and me sitting here for the last eight years, and not a game you can blitz down in a couple of weeks.

It's just so...

Small minded.

And willfully ignoring the entire rest of the changes.

You see it in the micro-cosm of the Riven changes. People complain about this rifle, or that melee, getting a nerf because that's their favourite weapon. And they ignore the literal twenty others in the same category that all got buffs, some of them by massive margins, that could become their new favourite if they looked for it.

I really do hope that the general malaise of 'oh, DE are always nerfing' can lift at some point. It's kind of hard to say it when we literally just got a hundred minor and major buffs to frames and augments across the board last week.

You have just explained everything that is wrong with nerfs. It is so narrow-minded to say that nerfing may bring back people. Like... seriously? Balance? And dont tell me about "balance". I mained Silencer before his big changes on Dota 2.

But, do you know the main difference between Warframe and Dota 2? It is PVP.

What kind of balance DE try to sustain? What kind of playstyle do they want players to implement for the god' sake?

"If the meta becomes so strong that you're playing the game wrong for not using it, then the meta gets nerfed for the benefit of everything else."

Did you understand what you have just said?

You basically said "the game is so bad that you HAVE to use meta", because if the game punishes you for other playstyles other than metastyle than it means that game is poorly designed.

"...for benefit of everything else."

Like what? Yet another meta that players will create and which is going to be nerfed too? You re proposing us a hamster wheel of endless cycles of meta in pve game without a slightest focus on pvp.

This shows that you understand literally nothing what warframe is yet you re claiming that you ve played for years. 

And yet again you have described the problem. DE doesnt solve the problem they are justbhiding them begind yet another grind and power creep. No, comrade, things werent buffed, they ve been patched with cheap knock off of flex tape with the face of riven mods and gelminth system. Bad warframes remain bad, bad weapons are still bad.

And yeah, GOOD LORD, YES, I HAVE TO BE SO EXCITED ABOUT SP FISSURES? RIGHT? What kind of crapscheisesense is that? Instead of getting just a relic reward for basic extermination, defence, interception etc. I will get +1 essence. WOW. What a thrill. Like, really? To prolounge the suffering of grinding and get +1 essence? No, thanks. If you re enjoying this, your call, but dont call it good game design.

And if all you want from warframe is mindeless grinding fest... then I really piry you. Warframe has so many options to develop itself, but if the core playerbase are like you then no wonder this game has identity disorder, trying to have new and interesting mechanics (not upgrade systems) and trying to maintain ephemerical core playstyle while giving players yet more and more powers. And, yes, for enoch s name, yes, people will get mad about nerfing their favorite weapons. Because it was their FAVORITE. Why the heck do they have to look at another weapon if they have already got themselves with comfotable arsenal? But I will answer for you: nerfing is much easier than buffing and reworking.

Reading your response literally sucked soul out of me. You literally describing everything what is wrong with warframe and making an appology for it. 

[ADDgamer45]

Rhino's roar is infinitely better on him than his 2 unless he gets a way to close distance.

[IrnFake]

On 2022-09-08 at 2:34 PM, Ceadeus said:

Styanax is a NEAR perfect frame.  He has good CC, good survivability, a gimmick that works well with his kit, and a passive that is actually beneficial to a LOT of different equipment combos and playstyles.  However, he falls off a bit in one area, and that's his raw damage.  He's not super far behind or anything but currently the only way to get truly suitable damage out of him is armor stripping every single enemy, which can be quite the energy sink when you need to do it often.  All I'd like to see to alleviate this is for his abilities to be able to crit and subsequently benefit from his passive.  With this small change I think Styanax would be in a perfect state (aside from bugs/QoL stuff some people are commenting about obviously).

Agree on giving his abilities crit from his passive. I mean, his abilities are weapons, right~? 

His Final Stand really falls behind in damage in Steel Path by comparison (yet this ability is about dealing damage).

Most importantly, this won't make him overpowered nor upset the game balance cuz I mean no one said to give him way high crit multiplier~ and the crit chance won't be like 100% or red crits. 

In fact, this gives him more synergy!!!!

[Birdframe_Prime]

22 hours ago, HoshunMk201 said:

You basically said "the game is so bad that you HAVE to use meta", because if the game punishes you for other playstyles other than metastyle than it means that game is poorly designed.

Okay, you lost me.

People will always, regardless of how well designed the game is, find a way to optimise any content there is.

I won't say that Warframe is perfect, but no, the game does not punish you for anything other than the meta, the game does not force you to use the meta, this is just what players do.

That's literally what speedrunning is built on, as a concept, as a point.

This happens regardless, completely removed from, how well the game is designed. Nothing about game design influences player desire to make the experience easier, faster or automated.

That statement right there shows me that you know nothing about what players are and do to every game under the sun.

22 hours ago, HoshunMk201 said:

Bad warframes remain bad, bad weapons are still bad.

Pfft...

I just can't with you anymore...

I not only have played this game for years, I joined this game based on the release of Zephyr. A character in a game that moved entirely differently to any other game I'd ever seen.

Imagine my disappointment when I originally picked her up and understood what she actually did in the game... A shield that was purely based on enemy accuracy debuffs, in an era where enemy accuracy could scale up to simply bypass it. A dash that did allow her supreme mobility over a game where parkour 2.0 didn't exist yet, but was even less helpful in confined spaces than it is now. A 2 that was literally able to be slotted into her 1 at no detriment, and cost the same as her 1, and didn't scale, didn't have any redeeming features barring a radial knock-down past level 20. A 4 that not only had some of the worst damage in the game, but also scattered enemies into far corners meaning that any game mode that relied on killing them was literally inhibited by this ability. She was terrible.

And now? She's counted among the high A tier of the frames from a massive section of the community. Because the abilities were changed, buffed and added to. A bad frame didn't stay bad.

Are some frames still bad? Sure. But they've still been buffed over their previous incarnations. They would wipe the floor with content from the era they were released in, even if they still haven't caught up with current era. And they will catch up, because that's the whole point of reworks over time.

I understand perfectly what Warframe is.

I don't defend the bad in the game, because there is plenty that can be improved.

I just don't claim, and never will claim, that every single decision by DE is either a nerf or a band-aid for something, or even just bad design, as you seem to be doing now.

Seeing the positives where you see only negatives isn't me being unaware of the negatives. It's me having not just played, but burned out, come back, discussed with other players for nearly eight years, and actually observed the changes over time with an objective eye.

Also?

I'm a contrarian. If you make an argument to have something changed, I will challenge it to ask why you actually want the change. And if you present negatives, I will always present positives.

Hell, if you'd come in saying Styanax was perfect, I'd be listing off a dozen things that need improvements on him. It's literally why I listed off what his damage was actually capable of if you combo his abilities the right way when you made a statement saying his damage was lacking.

So understand when I say that I've found your arguments lacking and your objectivity absent.

You can't even understand why somebody might change out of their comfortable bubble when DE adjust a Riven. The idea of growing and finding new things to enjoy didn't seem to occur to you there, now, did it? Sitting and stagnating with a build you enjoy isn't healthy for your play, and it will get changed at some point. All of Warframe changes at some point.

[HoshunMk201]

4 часа назад, Birdframe_Prime сказал:

Okay, you lost me.

People will always, regardless of how well designed the game is, find a way to optimise any content there is.

I won't say that Warframe is perfect, but no, the game does not punish you for anything other than the meta, the game does not force you to use the meta, this is just what players do.

That's literally what speedrunning is built on, as a concept, as a point.

This happens regardless, completely removed from, how well the game is designed. Nothing about game design influences player desire to make the experience easier, faster or automated.

That statement right there shows me that you know nothing about what players are and do to every game under the sun.

Pfft...

I just can't with you anymore...

I not only have played this game for years, I joined this game based on the release of Zephyr. A character in a game that moved entirely differently to any other game I'd ever seen.

Imagine my disappointment when I originally picked her up and understood what she actually did in the game... A shield that was purely based on enemy accuracy debuffs, in an era where enemy accuracy could scale up to simply bypass it. A dash that did allow her supreme mobility over a game where parkour 2.0 didn't exist yet, but was even less helpful in confined spaces than it is now. A 2 that was literally able to be slotted into her 1 at no detriment, and cost the same as her 1, and didn't scale, didn't have any redeeming features barring a radial knock-down past level 20. A 4 that not only had some of the worst damage in the game, but also scattered enemies into far corners meaning that any game mode that relied on killing them was literally inhibited by this ability. She was terrible.

And now? She's counted among the high A tier of the frames from a massive section of the community. Because the abilities were changed, buffed and added to. A bad frame didn't stay bad.

Are some frames still bad? Sure. But they've still been buffed over their previous incarnations. They would wipe the floor with content from the era they were released in, even if they still haven't caught up with current era. And they will catch up, because that's the whole point of reworks over time.

I understand perfectly what Warframe is.

I don't defend the bad in the game, because there is plenty that can be improved.

I just don't claim, and never will claim, that every single decision by DE is either a nerf or a band-aid for something, or even just bad design, as you seem to be doing now.

Seeing the positives where you see only negatives isn't me being unaware of the negatives. It's me having not just played, but burned out, come back, discussed with other players for nearly eight years, and actually observed the changes over time with an objective eye.

Also?

I'm a contrarian. If you make an argument to have something changed, I will challenge it to ask why you actually want the change. And if you present negatives, I will always present positives.

Hell, if you'd come in saying Styanax was perfect, I'd be listing off a dozen things that need improvements on him. It's literally why I listed off what his damage was actually capable of if you combo his abilities the right way when you made a statement saying his damage was lacking.

So understand when I say that I've found your arguments lacking and your objectivity absent.

You can't even understand why somebody might change out of their comfortable bubble when DE adjust a Riven. The idea of growing and finding new things to enjoy didn't seem to occur to you there, now, did it? Sitting and stagnating with a build you enjoy isn't healthy for your play, and it will get changed at some point. All of Warframe changes at some point.

"For each bit of light you have, I will cast even greater darkness"

This conversation is pointless, we are speaking of completely different things. And on each good decision DE made I can present even worse ones. It s going to be an endeless cycle.
If you like the current state of warframe, your call. But I cannot be more frustrated with the direction that game has chosen. Instead of creating some awesome stuff DE chose to make our gameplay loop an endless cycle of grind. It is so pathetic considering what options they ve had. And nowadays because of those decisions we are constantly confronting each other and oppose developers on each nerf and buff.

By this point I just hope that DE will wake up and see what they ve done to the game and at least try to fix that. But at the same side, I dont believe that DE will have balls nor motivation to make decisions that will revamp poor state of game. New War was a scam, Railjack/Empyrian was a lie, Old Blood a broken concept, Scarlet Spear a code disaster.

[Caidezes]

Well, I have news for you then!

They nerfed him. RIP