DE should just go ahead and put out rules for how the game has to be played.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

4 hours ago, (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan said:

And how exactly is that evident?  There's no counterpoint there.  You aren't adressing anything, and not a single one of you has.  Your only arguments have been "dev's game, they can do what they want."  

 

It's almost like people are talking about AOE because that's what DE is nerfing right now.  Where's your talking point, outside of staning the devs?  How is nerfing meta while not addressing the glaring flaws in most of the non-meta gear not DE telling everyone how they need to play?  It will shift to the next crowd clear meta after this because they won't address any of the root issues, and all you can do is go "complaint bad."

The counterpoint is that you can still spam AOE if you desire. You can't in quick fissures only because your fun is another person's "walking simulator"...even though you literally still can spam AOE in quick missions. Nothing has changed.

The other counterpoint, is that if you can't spam AOE anymore....your build and timing and aiming is bad. If you're new to the game...then you're simply going to have to play longer to gain more experience/gear.

Another counterpoint, is that people that actually play for fun, because they already have everything or some other reason....do actually use single target just fine. I was literally one shotting steel path eximus with an Akvasto Prime, because I prepared my loadout to do so. 

[zuraja]

3 minutes ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

You can't in quick fissures only because your fun is another person's "walking simulator"

The problem here is not aoe.  The problem is that Warframe's matchmaking puts MR30+ players into the same fissures as people who are literally incapable of putting a full build into any of their equipment.  And by literally, I mean they don't even have access to the content that gives them some core mods, don't have the credits or endo to max out what mods they do have, and quite possibly have never even owned a forma or potato.

[bad4youLT]

2 hours ago, trst said:

Ammo nerfs? Solved by slotting ammo mutation.

It doesn't , if weapon has 1 ammo per ammo pick up you still get 1 ammo regardless of which of the three ammo mutation mods you use simple because their low values . And then paired ammo pool that is smaller then 10 with low ammo drops you will run out off ammo faster then US prints money .

 

2 hours ago, trst said:

Potential self damage reversion? Stop shooting at your own feet.

Stop suddenly closing doors fast in front of me , stop suddenly jumping into my firing line , stop suddenly spawning mobs in front of me , stop covering my screen with particle vomit and screen shakes that you cannot disable .

[SneakyErvin]

2 hours ago, trst said:

Come back when they actually touch their damage or put restrictions on them that aren't overcome by slotting a single mod or not spending a fifth of your ammo on a single enemy.

I'm still of the opinion that AoE guns should be their own seperate slot and work much like how grenades work for Kahl, but with far more scarse ammo drops. It would probably take some work but it would also likely be good for the game. And weapons with different fire modes would simply have different ammo pools, and you'd be able to slot those guns in either their "primary" slot or in the "AoE" slot for their AoE attack, or in both. There could even be a synergy for those weapons that allow you to use alternate fire to launch the AoE instead of swapping over to the AoE gun. Ogris would be the dedicated LAW and Trumna would have an underslung grenade launcher approach if you decide to slot it in both slots. And if you have 2 weapons in your loadout that also have an alternate AoE version, you can only slot one of them in the AoE slot.

They would however need to solve how fully automatic AoE guns like Kuva Grattler should work. Potentially it could recieve a specific non-AoE fire mode for atmosphere use, aswell as an AoE version that could be slotted in the AoE slot. With the archwing version being untouched for that mode.

2 minutes ago, bad4youLT said:

It doesn't , if weapon has 1 ammo per ammo pick up you still get 1 ammo regardless of which of the three ammo mutation mods you use simple because their low values . And then paired ammo pool that is smaller then 10 with low ammo drops you will run out off ammo faster then US prints money .

Nope, you wont. You can sustain probo cernos outside of endless steel path without problems with an ammo mutation sloted. It has below 10 total ammo.

[(XBOX)SweatyPick3L]

[bad4youLT]

6 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

outside of endless steel path 

SP is there I use AoE weapons 

 

[(XBOX)Deputy Facepain]

It’s kinda funny that we’ve gone full circle with the AOE meta. I remember way back when Tonkor got the hammer, and self damage was introduced to balance things out. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen again. 
 

they've pretty much always done what they want with the game. And following whatever Meta that gets slapped all over YouTube usually ends with regret in your investments. Plenty of other less obvious choices to choose from. 
 

I'm still having fun, and you can still take your Bramma into a SP survival, and Merc with it alone for pretty much as long as you want. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[(XBOX)The Neko Otaku]

Keep the AoE nerfs going. 

Don't play like meta scum and you're unaffected, it so simple i can't remember when i was ever actually affected by a meta nerf

[SneakyErvin]

16 minutes ago, bad4youLT said:

SP is there I use AoE weapons 

I dont think you quite got my point. You dont need to have the density of endless SP to keep the ammo topped off, it works in all other content aswell where drops are fewer, like throughout a normal SP mission or even an Archon sortie. Not that I would bring an AoE gun to kill a single target boss, but on step 1 and 2 they work without ammo issues.

[trst]

22 minutes ago, bad4youLT said:

It doesn't , if weapon has 1 ammo per ammo pick up you still get 1 ammo regardless of which of the three ammo mutation mods you use simple because their low values . And then paired ammo pool that is smaller then 10 with low ammo drops you will run out off ammo faster then US prints money .

And a mutation mod effectively doubles that as you now get to use the ammo type your weapon doesn't use. Also, if I'm not mistaken, there is all of six weapons which have a pickup count of 1 being the Kuva Bramma, Kuva Orgris, Kuva Zarr, Lenz, Proboscis Cernos, and the Aegrit. And these are the only ones which have a max ammo count below 10.

And according to the wiki there's only nine more weapons which have a pickup count below 10 which also make up most of the other weapons with a notably small max ammo capacity.

None of those weapons have problems killing enough enemies to maintain ammo counts unless you're wasting ammo to kill individual enemies if you slot mutation. And even then some of those can still do that and be perfectly fine.

22 minutes ago, bad4youLT said:

Stop suddenly closing doors fast in front of me , stop suddenly jumping into my firing line , stop suddenly spawning mobs in front of me , stop covering my screen with particle vomit and screen shakes that you cannot disable .

Unironically, skill issue. If you're hitting yourself with your own explosions that frequently then try standing farther back from enemies (they're guns after all, not melee weapons) and try actually utilizing the mobility we have and fire from the air.

But even then what they described on the devstream wouldn't even have problems with those situations. With the damage being a percentage of your health and reduced by falloff (numbers mentioned were 75-25% max hp). As well as either having it reduced by hitting allies or just can't hit them at all to begin with.

It'd literally be yet another non-nerf to AOE that wouldn't actually impact it's performance.

 

22 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'm still of the opinion that AoE guns should be their own seperate slot and work much like how grenades work for Kahl, but with far more scarse ammo drops. It would probably take some work but it would also likely be good for the game. And weapons with different fire modes would simply have different ammo pools, and you'd be able to slot those guns in either their "primary" slot or in the "AoE" slot for their AoE attack, or in both. There could even be a synergy for those weapons that allow you to use alternate fire to launch the AoE instead of swapping over to the AoE gun. Ogris would be the dedicated LAW and Trumna would have an underslung grenade launcher approach if you decide to slot it in both slots. And if you have 2 weapons in your loadout that also have an alternate AoE version, you can only slot one of them in the AoE slot.

They would however need to solve how fully automatic AoE guns like Kuva Grattler should work. Potentially it could recieve a specific non-AoE fire mode for atmosphere use, aswell as an AoE version that could be slotted in the AoE slot. With the archwing version being untouched for that mode.

I don't think giving us a seventh (eighth if you count your mech's gun) weapon to bring into a mission is necessary. Though while that would work for properly limiting them that would actually remove them from being usable as regular weapons, which would be a valid complaint unlike the existing ammo related ones.

But who knows what the devs might commit to doing with Rebecca pushing these changes at all and not buckling under the backlash. So anything's possible now.

[vanaukas]

I don't understand why people who is pissed at the game direction, devs or whatever for so long haven't stopped playing this game. Seriously, it won't solve any of your complaints, but you (OP) have been spouring this kind of threads for literal years, with the same reasoning, with similar rants, about nerfs of the meta at that time. Not only OP, but active users here may find the same names in every single AOE nerf cry thread.

Why you (royal you, not just OP) are here? How you can enjoy something that makes you feel uncomfort, somehting that is constantly bashing your playstyle, with devs activelly saying "I'm against what you find fun" (in this case, spamming AOE to "go fast"). I've paid for games that I've really liked but changes made me turn away from them, not even money spent or time spent was a reason for me to stay. I'ts completely out of my scope why someone will choose to play something they dislike for YEARS. Is some sort of "sunk cost fallacy"? Is some sort of masochism?

Instead of adapting properly, you restort to this behavior and when you finally realize your complaints aren't important for the development of the game, you'll try to find the "new meta", you'll try to play the less as possible to "optimize" the grind, hoarding contempt against the devs and the players who agree with their decisions (the trolls or white knights someone talked about).

And when you feel comfortable exploiting a bug, exploiting an unwanted (and unnoticed) synergy, this will be smashed again and I'll see your next crying post about the "current thing". How many times it has to happen? How many times you'll disrespect yourself and your time playing something that can't handle balance properly? How you can find fun playing something made by people so incompetent that they cna't go for the root problem? 

For me, devs are competent enough to keep people playing by almost 10 years, even with their missteps and wrongs. I still enjoy the game. I managed to find fun in places that people always made fun of it. I developed an unique playstyle unrivaled by any meta. And this is because there are no true ruleson playstyle here besides playing the game activelly. You can go for whatever playstyle you want, except AFK.

[Lutesque]

6 hours ago, (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan said:

DE should just go ahead and put out rules for how the game has to be played.

Maybe They Should... But you and I both know They Won't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

6 hours ago, (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan said:

Just put out rules and set builds and loadouts and tell us how you expect us to play so that we can finally figure out what fun is.  Obviously we can't do that on our own because they're doing everything they can to herd us into and away from things.

You know... The Melodrama isn't Necessary 👀....

6 hours ago, (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan said:

They won't address that the reason these metas exist is because most of the alternatives are utterly useless in comparison. 

Are They ?

There's only One Way too Find Out.... I propose a Challenge.... Let's See how Long we can Last in Survival with no AoE and how Fast we can Complete Defense aswell 🤔....

I would do it myself But I'm Waiting for my Boosters to Run out so they don't Obscure the Results....

 

[ant99999]

15 minutes ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

You're going WAAAAY too far into the analogy.

I made the same point this person in their post, without this... but it's a real concept that people don't really care about bad things happening to other people, until bad thing happens to them, but nobody is left to speak up for them and what they find bad. It clearly wasn't meant to EQUATE the situation being referenced... my goodness.

I am at the point of very quickly loosing my hope in the Forums right now...

FFS, no, of course I understand what is meant. The analogy is still tasteless and stupid. Because it isn't a nefarious plan to divide and conquer players, it's a balance pass, balance pass, in a video game.

[lowgrav]

dont the aoe weapons still room clear? if your complaining about SP lvls well think there is a post or vid about a dev stream somewhere.....well wherever it is DE stated that thay dont like endurance runs (you think people would have relised that with enimys one shotting everything thats not shield gating) they implemented suptle hints in the enimys dmg lvl when you have over stayed your welcome in the lvl the simulacrum dont alow you to test enimy lvl 1000 as that is not the lvl which the game is based around it currently caps out at lvl 190

sure you can still do what you want and go above and beyond what your suppost to do the devs are not gonna hard lock the mission like the lvl cap on ophix venom event or scarlet spear event or just plain capture missions where enimys stop spawning after a certain time after the objective is finished but for the devs intended content lvl range how is the AOE nurf really?.......well i guess they could but then more would complain as then they would say game is too easy as lvl cap would not be a thing (you ever wonder why there was a nightwave for speed running a capture but the defence one only goes up to wave 20?)

de wants us to play a certain way but knows that too many dont want it that way so they are forced into nurfs to balance things instead of putting cealing caps on things (where as some other games that dont seem to have this issue technicaly alredy have a soft cap power celing

[Lutesque]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

It would probably take some work but it would also likely be good for the game.

It would also be a waste of time because Saryn Exists ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

42 minutes ago, trst said:

Unironically, skill issue. If you're hitting yourself with your own explosions that frequently then try standing farther back from enemies (they're guns after all, not melee weapons) and try actually utilizing the mobility we have and fire from the air.

1) Low Ceilings (usually in Dark Sector Tiles).

2) Infested Bum Rush You... They can easily Close the Distance in between Shots....

3) try Playing on a Controller than Come Talk to me about "Skill Issues".

43 minutes ago, trst said:

But even then what they described on the devstream wouldn't even have problems with those situations. With the damage being a percentage of your health and reduced by falloff (numbers mentioned were 75-25% max hp). As well as either having it reduced by hitting allies or just can't hit them at all to begin with.

It'd literally be yet another non-nerf to AOE that wouldn't actually impact it's performance.

For the Sake of Consistency I would like to see This Apply to Enemies Aswell....

 

[SiriSnugglebottoms]

18 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

What about Corvid's post read as pure rage and hammering their keyboard to you? It was just incredulity at the idea of someone quoting Martin Niemöller, his text, which was about the complicity of many Germans to Nazi horrific actions. Which is... rather fair. Using it in this context, about video game nerfs, and any sort of victimisation of a weapon type, is... well its in poor taste. If serious that is. You'd be much better to avoid the comparison, and just appeal to people that they should be more empathetic and sympathetic to others. Which I think many more people would be receptive towards and wouldn't raise eyebrows at. 

Hi!

The part where both they, and now you, aren't taking the time to understand the meaning of the poem and instead go directly to commenting about it. The poem is about nazi Germany, yes, but what it teaches is much broader than that. It doesn't teach you that "if someone is killing Jews you should say something", it teaches us that it is important to speak up when you disagree with something because then those people will be able to stand up if something happens to you in the future. Failing to understand this comes across as someone taking zero time to understand what they're reading, which is exactly what happens when people are upset.

18 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Aside from all that, insinuating someone is intellectually lacking, and telling them you forgive them, doesn't come off good. Like its not the moral high ground here. Again, unless you are being satirical (and my apologies for thinking otherwise), its just a type of escalation, not defusing. Covid expressed incredulity, and the reaction was to accuse of being in rage, misunderstanding your intent, and lacking intellectually? Better ways to address what they said. 

I understand what you're saying, but I was not trying to be polite or come from a moral high ground.
Their response was not "incredulity", the response was mockery. I definitely lowered myself when I answered, but not to the degree they were already at, and even then I explained why they're wrong to say what they did. They got exactly the response they deserved, and arguably one more polite than they deserved. Both you and ant99999 got significantly nicer answers, because you didn't start out by being an offensive clown :)

[NightmareT12]

4 minutes ago, SiriSnugglebottoms said:

The part where both they, and now you, aren't taking the time to understand the meaning of the poem and instead go directly to commenting about it

I don't think you realize these posters understand exactly your point but point out what an unneeded exaggeration the use of such a poem is, taking into account its original significance and the lack of reasonable (and I want to remark reasonable) connection points for the issue at hand, which is about a videogame and not a human rights or socially crucial threatening issue. That's neither rage nor hammering keyboards, it's pointing out a mistake in the argumentation.

[(XBOX)Ampathetiic]

13 minutes ago, ant99999 said:

it isn't a nefarious plan to divide and conquer players, it's a balance pass, balance pass, in a video game.

quoted for emphasis (and to assure you that you're not crazy): This really is a mundane, pretty inconsequential balance pass that has probably gotten people upset primarily because it was long overdue and in that time so many people grew attached to the overpowered stuff. What I do find weird is the holier-than-thou types who think a lack of personal bias must mean that they're correct in perceiving these nerfs as a big issue, but it seems like they're just paranoid, so I wouldn't pay them too much attention.

[ant99999]

9 minutes ago, NightmareT12 said:

I don't think you realize these posters understand exactly your point but point out what an unneeded exaggeration the use of such a poem is, taking into account its original significance and the lack of reasonable (and I want to remark reasonable) connection points for the issue at hand, which is about a videogame and not a human rights or socially crucial threatening issue. That's neither rage nor hammering keyboards, it's pointing out a mistake in the argumentation.

This.

[Corvid]

47 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

What about Corvid's post read as pure rage and hammering their keyboard to you? It was just incredulity at the idea of someone quoting Martin Niemöller, his text, which was about the complicity of many Germans to Nazi horrific actions. Which is... rather fair. Using it in this context, about video game nerfs, and any sort of victimisation of a weapon type, is... well its in poor taste. If serious that is. You'd be much better to avoid the comparison, and just appeal to people that they should be more empathetic and sympathetic to others. Which I think many more people would be receptive towards and wouldn't raise eyebrows at. 

Honestly, my reaction was more amusement than anything.

Mostly because I recently became aware of another instance of someone using that speech and applying it to a video game (or rather, the comic adaptation of one), and it was just as absurd then.

My view is quite simple: Nerfs happen, and when they do, most people just adapt to the new normal. Miragulor users switched to Maimerax, then to Bramma, and so on. Acting like each balance pass is somehow equivalent to rounding up the users of its target and removing them from the game is... well, I find it hard to take such an idea seriously since most of said players are still here. If anything, the bigger issue is players becoming bored with the game, which can generally be attributed to a lack of engagement with the gameplay, which is the exact issue that changes like Veilbreaker's are trying to solve.

[SiriSnugglebottoms]

29 minutes ago, NightmareT12 said:

I don't think you realize these posters understand exactly your point but point out what an unneeded exaggeration the use of such a poem is, taking into account its original significance and the lack of reasonable (and I want to remark reasonable) connection points for the issue at hand, which is about a videogame and not a human rights or socially crucial threatening issue. That's neither rage nor hammering keyboards, it's pointing out a mistake in the argumentation.

Neither of the two posters in question made any such points.

The first person responded with what would be equivalent to me responding to your post by saying "that's so stupid" and the second made it very evident they think I'm calling DE nazis. What you are now doing is trying to ascribe "that's so stupid" to a much deeper meaning which is not present, because unlike the poem there is no deeper meaning behind it, it's just mockery.

And yes, it has very reasonable connection points. Your problem is you're focusing way too much on the context of why it was written rather than the far reaching meaning of the words. I see DE going after things I personally care little about, but their reason for doing so is something that can be applied to a great amount of things in the game, some of which I do care about. I also think their reasons for doing it are flimsy at best, and in no way warranted touching things that weren't even problematic to begin with. On the contrary, I'd argue you're greatly disrespecting the poem by being so restrictive in what it is supposed to teach. Everyone should care more about things that don't directly affect them.

What they both did was find something they disliked, ceased all further activity relating to understanding, and then lashed out at it. That's the reaction of an upset person.

[Zimzala]

4 minutes ago, SiriSnugglebottoms said:

What they both did was find something they disliked, ceased all further activity relating to understanding, and then lashed out at it. That's the reaction of an upset person.

I stated plainly how silly the underlying argument is, even without the bad prose, clearly in my post, so this statement is bunk.

"Besides, the entire idea of quitting a video game that changes all the time because it changes is silly, the idea that some fantasy change might one day make the other person quit is silly, the entire argument in the context of a video game and it's changes is silly."

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

8 minutes ago, SiriSnugglebottoms said:

Hi!

The part where both they, and now you, aren't taking the time to understand the meaning of the poem and instead go directly to commenting about it. The poem is about nazi Germany, yes, but what it teaches is much broader than that. It doesn't teach you that "if someone is killing Jews you should say something", it teaches us that it is important to speak up when you disagree with something because then those people will be able to stand up if something happens to you in the future. Failing to understand this comes across as someone taking zero time to understand what they're reading, which is exactly what happens when people are upset.

 

You can't just assume we didn't take the time to comprehend the meaning of the quote and its application. Speaking for myself, I don't need to, I am very familiar with the quote, and its application. Enough to know, its not a poem, but exists from post war lectures and speeches Martin Niemöller gave. I posted a link above if you'd like more information. I understand the application here, and why someone might want to invoke it... Its still a bit. Crass in context. Even trying to explain why its crass and could be seen in poor taste to many people, feels a bit surreal. 

Using the quote because of recent racial tension in the USA, using it to show support towards Ukraine, and even the majority of Russians dragged into a war they didn't want, using the quote to spark compassion and to not be complacent to minority struggles etc all follow the intended spirit of the quote and its message. Using the quote, to appeal to people, to feel that way... for AOE weapon nerfs in a game about space ninjas... 

People understand empathy, complacency, apathy, and the dangers of ignoring and turn an eye or a back to the struggles of others, whats the eyebrow raiser is the context of using a quote addressing such heavy, serious and significant issues, literal warcrimes, on behalf of a weapon class in a game. Like the implications that it carries is, well again, it feels surreal to have to actually explain this, to the point, you'd almost seem like a troll, attempting to make AOE weapon users look bad. 

Its like if someone came to the thread and claimed "I am not black, but I also know true oppression just as well, because DE are like the American police. Always looking to brutalise me, after all, look what they did to the Phantasma Prime!" it would be an absurd position to take. No one would be able to take it seriously. 

People can act odd when they are upset yes, but there is nothing inherently wrong with being upset. Passive aggressive remarks like one of your earlier remarks, could also be a sign of being upset as well, but it could also be a sign of misunderstanding, if you inferred that another user was attacking you or engaging in passive aggressive attacks towards you. Then you may not have been upset, just playing tit for tat. Escalation of conflict versus defusing. 

 

27 minutes ago, SiriSnugglebottoms said:

I understand what you're saying, but I was not trying to be polite or come from a moral high ground.
Their response was not "incredulity", the response was mockery. I definitely lowered myself when I answered, but not to the degree they were already at, and even then I explained why they're wrong to say what they did. They got exactly the response they deserved, and arguably one more polite than they deserved. Both you and ant99999 got significantly nicer answers, because you didn't start out by being an offensive clown :)

 

For example. Here you insist/assert their tone was mockery yes? Therefore your reaction was just? Escalation. 

However how can you know the intent of the other user? What if it really was just incredulity? Your response could have been to emphasis that compassion, empathy of the message, how we shouldn't be apathetic to others plights, the spirit of the quote and what it means to you. Defuse. 

My message is mostly nicer because tend to write more, so more of my thought process is transparent. I struggle to leave concise messages, or leave ambiguous short messages, so I over explain and over articulate everything. I imagine many find it annoying, but its semi decent way to defuse situations and advocate for more polite and kind exchanges. The important part, is that many other users can be as cordial and friendly and nice, but they might not write as much, and will be more blunt. 

I appreciate your reply, but to be clear, to all the users that respond to your comparison with incredulity or even hostility? I also get where they are coming from and sympathise. Its a... bold way to use the quote. 

[MechNexus]

Quoting the poem (or whatever you wanna call it) is pointless melodrama in a discussion about a mucking balance pass in a video game.

[bad4youLT]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

I dont think you quite got my point. You dont need to have the density of endless SP to keep the ammo topped off, it works in all other content aswell where drops are fewer, like throughout a normal SP mission or even an Archon sortie. Not that I would bring an AoE gun to kill a single target boss, but on step 1 and 2 they work without ammo issues.

Yeah,let me bring my AoE weapons into none arbitrations,steel path,archon hunts,kuva survival,long endless fissures,bellow lvl 150 mobs who's EHP is less then 2-3 rounds worth of ammo to not have ammo issues with ammo mutation.