Nuke Builds Are Ruining Gameplay Enjoyment

[Merkranire]

5 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

My spicy hot take? Because DE's petrified of the potential tantrum. They've chosen to rock the boat as little as they can, and I understand why, but their approach is flawed and just not very effective - which I say because I have eyes and Google and the ability to read about the game's history.

I won't speak for Bungie, as my knowledge of that game is dated and I don't know enough about what goes on over there.

That's the cool thing about an equalization: it doesn't matter what my idea of fun is. I'm not trying to tell you how to have fun, like you're trying to tell me. I think everyone should choose their own fun, and be free to do so while still participating and being effective. You're included in that everyone. And that freedom of choice can't truly happen when there's such a massive difference between the best and worst gear, or when using that best gear means taking away all the fun from the people around you.

And if not letting anyone else play is your idea of fun, then sorry but I don't care if your "fun" gets toned down a bit. It's a co-op game and you can share.

---

---

And you only continue to say this because you've twisted the idea of "everything should be good" into some horrific boogieman where, for some unknown reason, the idea of "everything should be good" actually doesn't include you? You're included in that statement, bud. The stuff you use is part of everything. Your stuff would be good too. All of it would be. You'd have your power fantasy. It's not going anywhere. It's just that I'd have mine too. The persecution you're perceiving is imaginary. No one is coming for your power fantasy unless your fantasy is to troll others and not let them play.

🤦‍♀️

You know when, as Greybones, I said I’d be fine with DE taking away my toys as well if it meant players who didn’t think about much of anything except how to get their next grind fix were forced into thinking beyond that?

Edited February 11 by Merkranire

[(PSN)Nykili]

OK..I get it  but the problem isn't so much the Nukerframes ,I look at the grind, we are sometimes stuck in the thought of "oh I must play 55 fissures so best we rush through"

Nukerfames became the solution to a different problem.

[darklord122]

7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

My spicy hot take? Because DE's petrified of the potential tantrum. They've chosen to rock the boat as little as they can, and I understand why, but their approach is flawed and just not very effective - which I say because I have eyes and Google and the ability to read about the game's history.

I won't speak for Bungie, as my knowledge of that game is dated and I don't know enough about what goes on over there.

That's the cool thing about an equalization: it doesn't matter what my idea of fun is. I'm not trying to tell you how to have fun, like you're trying to tell me. I think everyone should choose their own fun, and be free to do so while still participating and being effective. You're included in that everyone. And that freedom of choice can't truly happen when there's such a massive difference between the best and worst gear, or when using that best gear means taking away all the fun from the people around you.

And if not letting anyone else play is your idea of fun, then sorry but I don't care if your "fun" gets toned down a bit. It's a co-op game and you can share.

---

---

And you only continue to say this because you've twisted the idea of "everything should be good" into some horrific boogieman where, for some unknown reason, the idea of "everything should be good" actually doesn't include you? You're included in that statement, bud. The stuff you use is part of everything. Your stuff would be good too. All of it would be. You'd have your power fantasy. It's not going anywhere. It's just that I'd have mine too. The persecution you're perceiving is imaginary. No one is coming for your power fantasy unless your fantasy is to troll others and not let them play.

🤦‍♀️

Your logic is fundamentally flawed, You speak of equalizing everyone but provide nothing for how that is supposed to be achieved, When someone brings up that it would more than likely entail equal damage across the board or some kind of perk system you deflect one and ignore the other. Only quoting yourself by saying that you never said every weapon should be equal when that is what you fundamentally mean. Just because there is no quote if you leave things up to interpretation than there is nothing much else one can do other than speculate.

I could easily say yes lets make everything equal, And how would that be accomplished? You never truly answered that as I asked you, Your solution seems to be the holy grail of answers for warframe but when asked DE is just too afraid for it. But apparently its still the best solution. Somehow I really don't believe that, Lets just have everything be fun is your solution but nothing for that gets talked about on how it will be accomplished nor what has to be done.

You also seem to be twisting what my main point about the fun part here is, Im not saying everything being fun is bad. But your idea of everything being fun is so vague and still have not had an explanation as to how that would be achieved in an industry where that has never been achieved, That what I said still isn't wrong.

You can't have everything be equal for everyone, Still expect everything to be unique and fun and also not have things stagnate into becoming mediocre. If that was even possible DE shouldn't hesitate as you say because that would be the biggest cash opportunity in gaming. Why would they be scared if the entire community would rejoice at it? Simple answer would be they aren't. Because there is no grand solution to fixing everyone's problems.

At this point the "potentially ruining gameplay experiences for others" is a matter of speculation on all of your parts, The assumptions that all end game players is a grand big boogeyman is one of the easiest things to claim, If we we talk about nuke builds, yes those are horrible to encounter. Did I ever disagree those should be pulled back? No.

But should endgame players need to suffer for you when there is a multitude of ways to play that cant possibly all result in ruining your gameplay experience. You actively want to ruin endgame players choices in the game of choices. They unfortunately are allowed to play just as you, These things go both ways and its not just your experiences being impacted. And as I said earlier thats the unfortunate part that probably will never change.

But I digress, You pulled a Merk, proceeded to ignore 50% of what I actually talked about and asked you about, Then painted me to say fun was a grand boogeyman when I never said that and all you really want is endgame to no longer be a distinguished thing from the rest of the game.
Your only answer to the problem is for everything to be fun and everyone gets to play, But says nothing or suggest nothing towards how that would be accomplished.
Equalization isn't an answer, Because you either says what that actually entails or don't, And then you proceed to get surprised and offended when people assume what you mean by it.
You quote DE's goal of "Ideally everyone gets a chance to play" when they might be actively working towards that in a different way than what you might imagine. Your solution isn't the only one in existence. Do I know what those solutions are? No, but DE knows far more than both of us no matter what you or I say.


So Im done, Ive made my points and ill still stick by them, You can stick your solution of grandeur that no game has ever achieved while ill see what DE actually does in terms of the games design and balance, Instead of blaming them for a lack of balance when they actively are trying to balance the game.

Edited February 11 by darklord122

[darklord122]

6 hours ago, BansheeAndZephyrMarried said:

If your "fun" is just chasing big numbers like a headless chicken, why should you be afraid? 

Even in a more balanced sandbox where 22 secondaries are viable instead of 11, there would still be metas and best in slot gears for you to chase like the mindless moths your type are. There will still be efficiency. There will still be vertical and horizontal progressions, minmaxing and optimization. There will still be negative integer cap damage numbers. Why are you so afraid? Why would a sandbox where Lex is only ten times as bad as Kuva Nukor instead of multiple hundreds of times as bad be so much worse for your experience? Explain why having 90% of the game's gears being garbage is fun for you and why improving that disparity- not even a perfect solution, just steps to improve them- would lessen your fun. 

Explain how you would accomplish the balance and how weapons in an open ended game with hundreds of choices wont get left behind due to utilization problems. Happens in every game of this type not just warframe and its an endless cycle of weapons getting left behind the more get added and its an issue thats never been solved. If your solution is to lift them all back up that is all fine and dandy but thats not the issue, You cant keep them all balanced equally, If that was possible DE should and would have already done that but its easier to say such things than actually do such things.

Noone is afraid, Nothing has been said about that, Thats just your own speculation and not whats been discussed. Why should I be afraid when endgame gets more subsequent content every update and also gets more mods and weapons to keep it the way it is? Simple answer is im not.

So explain your solutions to a never ending problem, Instead of asking me why things should stay the way they are. Because I never said things shouldn't be uplifted and balanced and be fun for everyone. However doing so equally is an impossible ask. As every game of this type would want that at every turn.

[SneakyErvin]

16 hours ago, Merkranire said:

And you could just jump into Simulacrum or Arbitrations, shoot some bad guys, and see for yourself.

This is verifiable; go verify it. The rest of the kit hasn’t been chosen so, y’know, take your pick and start from the modless base (because a secondary built for Steel Path is going to, y’know, skew things a teensy bit) to figure out what gear and builds you think might compliment it.

 

And that money argument applies to me too, you selfish [moderated word]! I give zero #*!%s what you do in solo, but I’m trying to use the stuff I bought too, and when I’m trying to use it in multiplayer looking to play alongside someone else instead of fighting over scraps and your selfish ass is rendering me obsolete, I’m gonna get a little pissed, yeah??

 

Your belief that I’m actively jumping into a game to not enjoy it is frankly incredibly shocking, and it must be you projecting because I’m sitting here going “Wtf are you talking about?? I don’t boot up a game to not enjoy it”. I don’t have huge amounts of time to play either, so when I do, I want to play, not sit around twiddling my thumbs while you think you’re saving me from myself. That’s why I stick to solo, despite my wanting to play alongside someone else, because if that someone else is you, you’re not interested in anything other than throwing some scraps of gameplay because yyyyyyuoooooooouuuuuu are the one calling the shots and have to either stop doing stuff or rely on accidental consideration!! And I don’t want you to have to do that either, but you keep bringing builds not remotely designed for the content!

And what you claimed is verified as false due to the abyssmal damage it deals in arbitrations even against infested. Jumped into a survival just to see how it would actually kill. I dropped after 3 minutes due to shear boredom. Most kills in those 3 minutes came from destroying drones, and it was not an impressive amount of kills at that. Eximus units were a total slog aswell. If this was a defense or excav you'd have a swarmed operative or destroyed excavators, and if it was a disruption... well you would have entered an auto-fail. Sidenote: I also did this test with a slightly better gun than the Argonak, so even more in favor of having the potential to kill with fewer mods. So you arent even pulling your own weight with this "build" of yours. 4 of you with your "build" would be unable to clear a disruption, since you wouldnt deal enough damage to any demo, chances are high you'd also fail in a defense due to the density being max in a group, so there would be 4x as many "free" mobs gunning for the operative as your kill rate is way too low per person "fighting alongside" eachother.

Also that you say "Simulacrum or Arbitrations" is so hilarious. How the #*!% would you test anything in Sim when there is no objective to fail among other things specifically tied to arbis?

Please also read what is written so you dont make idiotic statements like you using stuff you've bought. Since last time I check frames and weapons do not have a start and expiration date. As @(PSN)AyinDygrakindly clarified to you.

11 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

So? That's fine. Never said it wasn't. Metas will always exist and are not inherently a problem. They're only a problem when there's too much spread and you stop being able to play effectively with a majority of the game's content just because Nukor McSnobface might have an aneurysm over you liking the Vipers. A meta where the best thing is only 50% better than the average is fine. I can make up 50% with my skill and knowledge. I can't make up 1,000% no matter how much I try.

And the same issue would stay even if you streamline stats to be near identical.

11 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Nonsense. Does the Quellor play the same as the Tonkor? No. Does the Grimoire play the same as the Ocucor? No.

Mechanics are what make weapons feel distinct, not the number you see pop off. Making power more equal does not affect mechanics. Your favorite whatever would still play just the same. It's just my favorite whatever would be able to keep up too. How terrible!

The stagnation would still be there, since the idea that you can just alter stats while keeping perks in order to achieve balance and more use is the actual nonsense.

12 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Literal nonsense. Please, Ervin, quote me where I suggested this. I didn't and you know it. You're just making S#&$ up.

No one implied you said it. I'm pointing out it is what needs to be done in order to make more things used, which in itself is still flawed since if there is no difference there is no point trying something else. But aslong as perks are intact, the same meta and off-meta will exsist at the same rate no matter if their damage output is identical, since some perks will just be better than others and weapons without any actual perk will be instantly ignored just as they are now at lower damage potential. @darklord122instantly got the concept I was talking about. Which isnt strange since seeing what he posted he clearly has experience in other games that tries to do streamlined stats while still keeping perks that dominate.

I'll add Outriders here as another example to that. Where it does exactly what you want Publik, streamlined weapon stats that only fluctuate per rarity, where every gun within a class is practically the same. The small changes in stats rest within mag size, fire rate, reload etc. but all are based on the same budget. Those matter very little and the main reason you pick a gun over another is simply due to the innate perk which leads to which combination of perks you can combine in the end. So you are pretty much only ever looking at a couple of guns for your class, which ends up being whatever gun has the most perks you need while also being the right weapon class.

In vanilla that ment you practically looked at 1 out of 2 guns, then whichever gun was the right class became the choice to go with as you stripped the other for its perk to add it to the gun you picked. Like say if you were a Technomancer and you wanted perks from the shotgun and assault rifle classes you would in the end pick the assault rifle and tranfer the perk from the shotty. And as a trickster you'd likely do the opposite. However with the trickster you'd also look at a secondary "perk" in this case what type of shotgun ammo type it was, slugs or pellets. Which would limit you further in your choices. Now with the expansion guns can hold 3 perks, so you are now looking at the gun that preferably has 2/3 perks so you can add the last from the gun you've stripped at some point. Which is still impacted by which weapon class your class utilizes best. So 90% or so of the weapons per class in the game goes unused.

Which would end up being the same in WF if perks are kept. Something that would also lead to the usage spread staying practically as it is now for "power" weapons, while some of the lower use weapon would switch spots with eachother since people would at that point pick the "pretty" one since the stats are the same. So nothing that would actually help in any real way. Just look at Skiajati, no reason to not pick it if it had the same stats as the other Nikanas, since it comes with a bonus perk ontop of that. The few cases where it would be either or are things like Tcycron and Knukor, where you'd pick between battery or mag loading if their stats were the same, since both still have the perk to hit several enemies at once, so their dps would be equal. But then if you look at AoE, things like Zarr and Bramma or Probo Cernos would still be far ahead since they are multi-hit weapons that can produce far more instances of statuses even if their sheet dps would be the same as others. So again perks taking the upper hand and translating directly to power. Resulting in the usage spread likely staying exactly the same. 

Or something as simple as damage type spread. Oh hey look a secondary with impact instead of puncture, we'll impact pistol it is since it allows me to use a mod to add slash. Which would also be a huge part for I/P/S weapons overall, where any weapon with high weighting on slash would still have a far higher appeal. 

Also, I saw you posted usage stats. Many of the weapons at the lowest low are weapon variants or have specific perks tied to them. Ever considered that the perks might be against them and not only the stats? So how would normalizing stats for all weapons help those specific ones? And with variant, if all turn into something nearly identical, what would be the point in picking anything but the base? And what would help one of those low usage weapons that dont have a perk if you normalize its damage together with a low usage weapon of the same class that also has a perk? Not to forget just how many weapons there are in the game, which makes it highly unrealistic to think that normalization in stats would suddenly lift the bottom to any significant point.

[Tsukinoki]

11 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Weapon progression should be more about exploring mechanics progressions and following preferences

And please tell me, how many guns actually have "different mechanics"?

I mean can you honestly say that there is a mechanical difference between the Lato, Marelok, and Vasto?  Or are they all the same thing: A semi-auto pistol.
With your idea they may as well just be skins for each other as mechanically they don't really differ at all.

 

Likewise, with your idea in place what would be the difference between the Lato and the Lato Vandal?  Outside of just being reduced to a skin and nothing more?

 

And that could be said for the vast, vast majority of weapons in the game.
With the idea of "They must all perform at every level roughly equally..." then they all essentially just become skins of each other.

The only standout ones being the ones with additional mechanics/perks (Such as the Vaykor Marelok) which render pretty much everything else in its class pointless to use because it can do something that the others can't....which goes against what seems to be your entire idea of "Equal usage and fun and awesomeness!" because you would have a few weapons that would stand out and be the only things being used....and everything else would be a blend of mediocrity with nothing standing out as they would all just essentially be skins of each other with nothing at all to differentiate them.

And hey, you could once again go "But isn't that what's happening now?" at which I counter "So what does your idea to do change anything?  Other than being a lot of work to end up at what is essentially the same situation that we are currently in?"
Can you actually point out what your idea would change?  What it would accomplish?  If it just ends up with essentially what we have now, a ton of weapons blending into mediocrity with a few outstanding ones that are the only ones used, why bother with the change when it achieves nothing?

 

There just simply aren't enough mechanics to actually go "Oh this pistol is markedly different than this other pistol.....", and if you were to try to do that you would have to push some down right pointless gimmicks to go "No look, this does A if you do X, Y and Z!" and have to jump through so many hoops for just a gimmick no one would seriously consider it....

Edited February 11 by Tsukinoki

[PublikDomain]

5 hours ago, (PSN)Nykili said:

OK..I get it  but the problem isn't so much the Nukerframes ,I look at the grind, we are sometimes stuck in the thought of "oh I must play 55 fissures so best we rush through"

Nukerfames became the solution to a different problem.

It's a chicken and egg thing. Do you need nukes to rush through 55 Fissures, or is overall progress slowed down because we're so fast?

4 hours ago, darklord122 said:

You speak of equalizing everyone but provide nothing for how that is supposed to be achieved,

Because it doesn't matter. I have ideas, I'm just not being prescriptive here. It's about the end goal, not the specific steps to get there. DE has been attempting to achieve the exact same goal as I've talked about in their own way, too, and they have been trying non-stop since at least 2016 when they introduced Rivens. Here's some of the things DE has attempted over the years to achieve this:

Spoiler

• Regular buffs and nerfs, just for some examples:
  • Melee were too weak compared to guns, so base stats of melee were buffed and new mechanics were added
  • Corrosive was too dominant, so it was nerfed when DE rebalanced all status types
  • Melee were too strong now, so mods like Maiming Strike, BR, WW, were nerfed and guns were buffed with Galvanized Mods and Gun Arcanes
  • AoE weapons were too strong now, so ammo was nerfed across the board for them along with other changes
  • Melee were too weak again, so they were just buffed again with Melee Arcanes and Tennokai
  • Archguns as a whole have been buffed (and even nerfed) numerous times, and were again recently buffed along with melee
• Rivens, to make weaker weapons more powerful
• Variants of weapons, like Prisma/Vandal/Wraith, to add stronger versions of weaker weapons
• Kuva Weapons, to buff many unused early Grineer weapons like the Kraken and Hind
• Tenet Weapons, to do the same for unused Corpus weapons like the Flux Rifle and Plinx
• Weapon Augments, like Hata-Satya, to buff specific weapon families
• Frame reworks, either to try and make bad frames good or to make overpowered frames more in line with others
• Subsuming, to allow players to replace abilities on their frames
• Invigorations, to entice players to play less popular frames
• Various augments to damage types, like through Shards, Archon Mods, and some Arcanes, to try to get players to use forever-alone status types like Blast and Magnetic
• Overguard, to attempt to prevent players from vaporizing important enemies
• Attenuation, to attempt to put players on a level playing field in certain areas
• Content like TNW, Kahl missions, Duviri, and the upcoming 1999, to make everyone use the same gear
• The Circuit, to force players to play with different things
• Incarnons, to try and fix inadequacies with unpopular weapons like the Kunai and Lato.

Now I look at this and just see waste. What a massive amount of wasted time and effort! We've got four years of official stats showing us all that their attempts have been ineffective at their stated goals. And hidden in there are mechanics like Attenuation, which just nerf us all to a more level playing field anyways.

4 hours ago, darklord122 said:

Why would they be scared if the entire community would rejoice at it?

Because just like you're showing here, a large enough part of the community won't rejoice. A good many will cry and whine over their made-up fear that someone is coming to persecute them and take away their toys.

4 hours ago, darklord122 said:

At this point the "potentially ruining gameplay experiences for others" is a matter of speculation on all of your parts

Again, this is the developer of this very game saying that people are ruining the experiences of others:

Quote

3) “Is this playstyle disruptive to other players?” 
A majority of sessions are played co-op, so ideally everybody gets a chance to play. We’ve reached a point where players are asking us to change these weapons, because they leave so little for others to do.

https://forums.warframe.com/topic/1321162-veilbreaker-update-32

Quote

We understand the importance of power fantasy, but overbearing abilities can make squadmates feel ineffective by seriously disrupting intended gameplay flow.

https://forums.warframe.com/topic/915093-dev-workshop-warframes-revisited/

Is It just "speculation" on DE's part, too? You can ignore this as much as you want, but DE's words are crystal clear. It's a problem that they are actively trying to solve even if you want to plug your ears and cast doubt.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And the same issue would stay even if you streamline stats to be near identical.

Of course, the meta-chasers would continue to push the envelope as they always have. Again, that's fine. But everyone else would be able to keep up better than they can now, so the issue would be much less impactful. That's still a win. I believe I've told you this before, but I'm not looking for perfect. Perfect is impossible to achieve. I'm looking for better. Things can always be made better, and making something better is better than not making something better.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

The stagnation would still be there, since the idea that you can just alter stats while keeping perks in order to achieve balance and more use is the actual nonsense.

Why would altering stats to achieve balance be nonsense? Here is DE doing literally that in U26:

Quote

8.            Weapon Stats and Mastery Limits

With this new change, there is a broad-sweeping review of Melee weapons and how they function with the new system: 

• Mastery Rank - Weapons have been reviewed to make sure their function and power are aligned with an appropriate Mastery Rank, similar to passes made on Primary and Secondary weapons.
• Base Damage - Since the Combo Multiplier will apply to Heavy Attacks only, the base damage of all melee weapons has significantly increased.
• Base Range - Along with damage, range has also been increased to make sure you get the most chop for your buck. While base range is being increased, Range Mods are going to have a different calculation applied to them. This is detailed in Section 9.
• Mod and Arcane Channeling Functionality - As mentioned above, any Mods or Arcanes with functionality tied to Channeling have had their stats altered to increase Lifted Status, Heavy Attack damage and Combo Counter modifiers.

And again about three months ago in U35:

Quote

HEAVY WEAPON BUFFS
Overall, most Heavy Weapons (a.k.a. Archguns when used via the Archgun Deployer) have had their damage doubled. Some of the Archguns have also received buffs to their Archwing version, which we will indicate below.

So DE's actions are nonsense? Incarnon Adapters include base stat buffs, too. Is that also nonsense? Base stat changes, which to be clear I'm not even specifically advocating for, have been the most effective balancing tool out of the ones DE has made use of.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'm pointing out it is what needs to be done in order to make more things used,

None of what you pointed out would need to be done. Why would it? It's absurd. Like I said, you're just making S#&$ up. You're taking what I've said to its most ridiculous, unreasonable extremes so you can have an argument. Again.

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'll add Outriders here as another example to that. Where it does exactly what you want Publik, streamlined weapon stats that only fluctuate per rarity, where every gun within a class is practically the same. The small changes in stats rest within mag size, fire rate, reload etc. but all are based on the same budget. Those matter very little and the main reason you pick a gun over another is simply due to the innate perk which leads to which combination of perks you can combine in the end. So you are pretty much only ever looking at a couple of guns for your class, which ends up being whatever gun has the most perks you need while also being the right weapon class.

In vanilla that ment you practically looked at 1 out of 2 guns, then whichever gun was the right class became the choice to go with as you stripped the other for its perk to add it to the gun you picked. Like say if you were a Technomancer and you wanted perks from the shotgun and assault rifle classes you would in the end pick the assault rifle and tranfer the perk from the shotty. And as a trickster you'd likely do the opposite. However with the trickster you'd also look at a secondary "perk" in this case what type of shotgun ammo type it was, slugs or pellets. Which would limit you further in your choices. Now with the expansion guns can hold 3 perks, so you are now looking at the gun that preferably has 2/3 perks so you can add the last from the gun you've stripped at some point. Which is still impacted by which weapon class your class utilizes best. So 90% or so of the weapons per class in the game goes unused.

Then it sounds like, at least within an individual class, your choice of gun doesn't really matter. You pick the one you like and can just roll with it. Yes? If so, great! And I'm sure it'd be even better if there were more valuable perks to combine for your class on all the other guns you've looked over. Then you'd have even more options to pick from.

I also fail to see how any of what you describe about "limiting your choices" is any different from how our choices are limited here in this game through things like mandatory modding and the very same "innate perks" you describe. Aren't our choices limited here in the exact same way by things like Kuva and Tenet damage buffs, Incarnons, Augments, etc? If you're going to worry about our choices being "limited" then like I've said to darklord you might want to do some self-reflection. What you're afraid of has already come to pass.

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Which would end up being the same in WF if perks are kept. Something that would also lead to the usage spread staying practically as it is now for "power" weapons, while some of the lower use weapon would switch spots with eachother since people would at that point pick the "pretty" one since the stats are the same. So nothing that would actually help in any real way. Just look at Skiajati, no reason to not pick it if it had the same stats as the other Nikanas, since it comes with a bonus perk ontop of that. The few cases where it would be either or are things like Tcycron and Knukor, where you'd pick between battery or mag loading if their stats were the same, since both still have the perk to hit several enemies at once, so their dps would be equal. But then if you look at AoE, things like Zarr and Bramma or Probo Cernos would still be far ahead since they are multi-hit weapons that can produce far more instances of statuses even if their sheet dps would be the same as others. So again perks taking the upper hand and translating directly to power. Resulting in the usage spread likely staying exactly the same. 

Or something as simple as damage type spread. Oh hey look a secondary with impact instead of puncture, we'll impact pistol it is since it allows me to use a mod to add slash. Which would also be a huge part for I/P/S weapons overall, where any weapon with high weighting on slash would still have a far higher appeal. 

Ok, here's a simple example. You know Rivens? How they have Attenuation? And every weapon has its own number? What do you think those numbers are based on? Ultimately, it's based on how good and popular the weapon is. Simple. And if a weapon gets a big buff, Attenuation goes down. If a weapon gets a big nerf, Attenuation goes up. So we've already got something that balances every single weapon the game individually to try and make them more equal. This already accounts for all of the differences you're talking about. It accounts for power, it accounts for mechanics, it accounts for popularity, it accounts for proc rates and paper DPS, it accounts for variants. Has this resulted in every weapon being the same? No. Have weapons needed to have their unique mechanics stripped away for Attenuation to be calculated? No. Do all weapons need to be identical? No. If a weapon is out of line it just gets adjusted, simple as. You're making a big deal about nothing.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Also, I saw you posted usage stats. Many of the weapons at the lowest low are weapon variants or have specific perks tied to them. Ever considered that the perks might be against them and not only the stats? So how would normalizing stats for all weapons help those specific ones? And with variant, if all turn into something nearly identical, what would be the point in picking anything but the base? And what would help one of those low usage weapons that dont have a perk if you normalize its damage together with a low usage weapon of the same class that also has a perk? Not to forget just how many weapons there are in the game, which makes it highly unrealistic to think that normalization in stats would suddenly lift the bottom to any significant point.

Well, yes. Like you've pointed out from the usage stats it turns out that being a variant or having a special perk isn't always the massive boon you seem to think it is. Turns out, a lot of variants with unique perks still don't get used very much. It's almost like a weapon having a special perk doesn't really matter all that much? Huh.

How would normalizing help them? Because it would effectively buff them and make them stronger. How would a big damage buff not help weaker or less popular weapons?

What's the point of picking them? What's the point of picking them now? If they're stronger then the answer is obvious: because they're strong too.

What if two similar weapons have different or no perks? Then if they're close enough together in power you just pick the one you like more. You don't have to take the one with the perk if you don't want to. And if you're a meta-chaser who can only use the best thing, then you just pick the one with the perk you're already picking anyways and nothing changes for you.

And yes, there are a lot of weapons in the game. There will only be more weapons and mechanics that need further balancing the longer time goes on. But do keep in mind, I don't care how the usage stats change. I don't care if everything is buffed and still no one uses the Carmine Penta. As long as it can be used by those that enjoy it, that's still better than what we have now.

1 hour ago, Tsukinoki said:

I mean can you honestly say that there is a mechanical difference between the Lato, Marelok, and Vasto?  Or are they all the same thing: A semi-auto pistol.
With your idea they may as well just be skins for each other as mechanically they don't really differ at all.

Yes, there is a mechanical difference between those guns. Isn't that obvious? Go into a mission and use them. They feel completely different.

But if you think they're all just semi-auto pistols, then to you aren't these weapons already just skins of each other? So what's the issue? The thing you think is already the case would continue to be the case? It sounds like you have nothing to lose here.

1 hour ago, Tsukinoki said:

Likewise, with your idea in place what would be the difference between the Lato and the Lato Vandal?  Outside of just being reduced to a skin and nothing more?

The Lato Vandal would be a little bit better, just how it already is. While most people would take the upgrade, if someone really wanted to use their base Lato because it was I dunno their first gun or whatever, what's wrong with that? Someone can like a gun for something other than its stats, you know. And as long as the Lato Vandal is only an incremental upgrade, then the choice between a base and its variant could be ambiguous and not immediately obvious like it is now. Maybe you have a Riven for your base Lato, which puts it on the same standing as the Vandal anyways? So you use the base because you've already invested into it or because you like the slightly lower fire rate or because you want to be different or whatever. That ambiguity is good: it means that there's no wrong answer. Every answer is right. Answer however you like.

2 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

And that could be said for the vast, vast majority of weapons in the game.
With the idea of "They must all perform at every level roughly equally..." then they all essentially just become skins of each other.

I disagree with this "they'd be skins" idea entirely, as you can clearly feel for yourself ingame today, but let's just pretend that you're right. Is weapons essentially being skins of each other because they're all good choices really worse than weapons essentially not even existing because they're so bad no one even thinks to use them? In the former you at least get to use all of them.

2 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

And hey, you could once again go "But isn't that what's happening now?" at which I counter "So what does your idea to do change anything?  Other than being a lot of work to end up at what is essentially the same situation that we are currently in?"

It buffs bad weapons and makes them better. That's what it does to change things. If you're stuck on the meta and still wouldn't consider a weapon just because it's still a little bit weaker then nothing might change for you, but that's only because you don't actually care about the weapons to begin with. It'll change for the better for everyone else who has an open mind and broad interests. That is markedly not the same situation we're currently in, where anyone with an interest in a "bad" weapon shouldn't even bother and should just wait a few years for a variant to maybe come out. Still waitin' on my Sobek, btw! Ten years and still no good variant to put it on par with the rest. Or is the Sobek just a skin of the Hek? 🤔

2 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

There just simply aren't enough mechanics to actually go "Oh this pistol is markedly different than this other pistol.....", and if you were to try to do that you would have to push some down right pointless gimmicks to go "No look, this does A if you do X, Y and Z!" and have to jump through so many hoops for just a gimmick no one would seriously consider it....

Personally I don't think there needs to be, but again... isn't this what we already have today? How many gimmick-less weapons does DE release anymore? Everything new needs a special something to make it stand out because if it doesn't then it doesn't get used. And even then a gimmick often isn't enough. The Telos Akbolto have a gimmick, and it's in the bottom 10 least popular secondaries. Alongside other unique weapons like the Acrid, Sancti Castanas, and Rakta Ballistica.

[Merkranire]

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And what you claimed is verified as false due to the abyssmal damage it deals in arbitrations even against infested. Jumped into a survival just to see how it would actually kill. I dropped after 3 minutes due to shear boredom. Most kills in those 3 minutes came from destroying drones, and it was not an impressive amount of kills at that. Eximus units were a total slog aswell. If this was a defense or excav you'd have a swarmed operative or destroyed excavators, and if it was a disruption... well you would have entered an auto-fail. Sidenote: I also did this test with a slightly better gun than the Argonak, so even more in favor of having the potential to kill with fewer mods. So you arent even pulling your own weight with this "build" of yours. 4 of you with your "build" would be unable to clear a disruption, since you wouldnt deal enough damage to any demo, chances are high you'd also fail in a defense due to the density being max in a group, so there would be 4x as many "free" mobs gunning for the operative as your kill rate is way too low per person "fighting alongside" eachother.

It’s a #*!%ing baseline, Ervin, and it’s verifiable as it. You and Dark didn’t try understanding why it’s built that way because you’re not interested in understanding because if you understood, your stance would be undermined. It’s not meant to instant-kill, and you’re meant to use the rest of your kit alongside even as it fulfills a purpose of its own, which means if something else is built for Steel Path while that Argonak isn’t, then your experience is going to be skewed; you’ll be sitting around with no threat if your Warframe is built for higher like an Inaros loaded up on redundant amounts of health and armour, and you’ll gravitate towards your secondary or melee if those are built higher instead of alongside.

The point is that it’s building for the content, and even if you don’t know how to use it when it’s built like that, that doesn’t mean it can’t be used, and if you’re that unable to figure out its usecase (here’s a hint; Infested wouldn’t be my first choice to shoot out of the three factions, do you know why?) then sure, slap on an extra damage mod to start overpowering damage type considerations and go higher (and start running into damage types again) or reconfigure what’s there using whatever mod you might want be it a change in element or a different way of obtaining damage like a conditional mod versus something stable like Serration all while considering how many slots and how much capacity you have leftover for other mods that aren’t just damage and what you’re fighting and how you want the gun to behave and potentially any synergies with the rest of your loadout, just don’t go trying to turn it into a Steel Path build because level 60 Arbitrations are not Steel Path.

That overguard thing, oof. Overguard is meant to have us switch to Operator and blast it with some void, so by design that Argonak isn’t going to do much against the mechanic, and that’s fine if you know how it’s meant to work

last edit: Seriously, @(PSN)AyinDygra had a better sense of just how it’s not-so-obvious how to build for the content, which I can respect because it’s not so obvious even if it’s not as hard as they think it is and just takes some willingness to learn the nuances. So when you try a thing once or twice and so confidently claim to know what’s up when all you’ve done is fallen into the same crowd who have no problem admitting it’s not that easy to grasp, I’m just pulling a 😐 face and listening to you bungle your way through figuring it out if you’re even trying in the first place

Edited February 11 by Merkranire
clarifications, by god I wish I didn’t have to try and address things that should be obvious

[Skoomaseller]

yall mfs still going 🫵🏽🤣

[MutoManiac]

5 minutes ago, Skoomaseller said:

yall mfs still going 🫵🏽🤣

Maybe it’s time to introduce religion or politics into this thread since that’ll get some attention. Something like Donald Trump said he would encourage hostile nations to attack NATO countries that didn’t pay enough to be a member. That would include Canada since we don’t spend all our money on preparing for war.

[Aruquae]

2 hours ago, Skoomaseller said:

yall mfs still going 🫵🏽🤣

Shhhh, it’s getting good

We’ll get to the one-word back and fourth at around page 30. 

1 hour ago, MutoManiac said:

Maybe it’s time to introduce religion or politics into this thread since that’ll get some attention. Something like Donald Trump said he would encourage hostile nations to attack NATO countries that didn’t pay enough to be a member. That would include Canada since we don’t spend all our money on preparing for war.

Of course when you try to be controversial, I end up thinking, “You know, that sounds weird so it’s probably true.”

 

[darklord122]

On 2024-02-11 at 8:26 PM, PublikDomain said:

 

And yes, there are a lot of weapons in the game. There will only be more weapons and mechanics that need further balancing the longer time goes on. But do keep in mind, I don't care how the usage stats change. I don't care if everything is buffed and still no one uses the Carmine Penta. As long as it can be used by those that enjoy it, that's still better than what we have now.

The Lato Vandal would be a little bit better, just how it already is. While most people would take the upgrade, if someone really wanted to use their base Lato because it was I dunno their first gun or whatever, what's wrong with that? Someone can like a gun for something other than its stats, you know. And as long as the Lato Vandal is only an incremental upgrade, then the choice between a base and its variant could be ambiguous and not immediately obvious like it is now. Maybe you have a Riven for your base Lato, which puts it on the same standing as the Vandal anyways? So you use the base because you've already invested into it or because you like the slightly lower fire rate or because you want to be different or whatever. That ambiguity is good: it means that there's no wrong answer. Every answer is right. Answer however you like.

I disagree with this "they'd be skins" idea entirely, as you can clearly feel for yourself ingame today, but let's just pretend that you're right. Is weapons essentially being skins of each other because they're all good choices really worse than weapons essentially not even existing because they're so bad no one even thinks to use them? In the former you at least get to use all of them.

 

These sentences here don't work synonymously as you apparently don't care how the usage stats change, Yet you want weapons to have an equal standing while simultaneously wanting variants to be better than their normal counterpart thus impacting usage stats that you also bring up at every turn but somehow still do not care about, You cant have the same breath of bringing up usage stats for your argument and at the same time say you do not care about them. Its a hypocritical fallacy that ultimately will just end you up in the situation we are now.

If you actually knew how most players play in any game especially for efficiency this is somewhat of what would probably happen: Lato and Lato vandal, Two different weapons similar stats. Lato is worse than Lato vandal with somewhat slight margin. Players picks Lato vandal for its better efficiency. Lato will have usage stats go down. Then if there is a secondary that is better than either = player swaps to that. Usage rates go down etc etc.

How thats actually telling? Its happening right now. For example Nukor gets left behind by K-nukor, While damage wise Nukor wins by quite alot the K-nukor is picked over it due to the slight increase to its already high critical multiplier and status chance, and increased critical chance, magazine, and range, These increase's are not big but combined thats what makes it fundamentally better. But you just expect players to choose between two weapons where one fundamentally does better than the other and then picks the worse option? Its laughable how little you know how gamers work, This is specifically the reason a lot of weapons get thrown away. Sure there are a lot of weapons that outright are bad but some are barely that far apart and still get thrown away.

You know what ill list some more. Latron prime gets chosen over two other variants the normal and the wraith. The normal latron statistically has less critical chance, status chance, multishot, and fire rate than its wraith or prime counterpart, its a given since the other two where specifically made to be upgrades on it and all other weapons.
Wraith and prime however are very similar, The difference is marginally slimmer where the prime sports 2% less critical chance than its wraith counterpart, a slower firerate but slightly higher status. These combined make the prime the more optimal choice thus it gets chosen over the other 2 variants thus making usage stats drop for both and now especially with incarnons the prime only sees higher usage.

Same can be said for lato and lato vandal. They already are not that far apart stats wise, Yet vandal would get chosen in a heartbeat because its still marginally better. Its only issue stems from the current lack of damage but a buff to both weapons would not change much other than they now have been uplifted. One would still get chosen over the other and the average gamer majority always chooses the better option.

And all of this can be said about the other counterparts for their subsequent variants. The stats while not massively higher gets chosen over its counterpart. Some being marginally better exist yes but in a lot of weapon cases the stats are not that far apart yet the worse one still gets dumped. Its the prime example of what you want where there is a small margin of stats yet the better one still gets chosen. So even with your philosophy things just would not change because current examples literally exist.

You see players make a choice, That choice impacts weapon usage stats and will still unless everything is literally the same across the entire board. Then no weapon can be left behind because at that point there is no choice for the player. Rifle A is the exact same as Rifle B. Pistol A is the exact same as Pistol B. Melee A is the exact same as Melee B.
Choice gets removed over similarity. Similarity cause stagnation. Stagnation makes the game fundamentally just boring.

At that point there might as well just be 1 weapon of each type. 1 rifle. 1. Bow. 1. Pistol. 1 sword. 1 nikana etc etc. Because no choice would matter. The only thing that would have any form of impact would be modding if even it would be allowed to exist in its current form.

So either you want to have the game end up the same as players will fundamentally always make the better choice or you want everything to be equal thus no choice has any impact.  Do weapons need buffs due to extreme under-utilization? Yes. And that day will come for those weapons. But your view ultimately is flawed.

You don't seem to understand how gamers work, If any of what I said wasn't the case usage stats would be way higher across the board with exceptions for weapons that under perform way harder.

So again, Feel free to explain how your end goal is such a perfect prospect that ill again mention no game has ever succeeded doing. Because there is no way to have your perfect vision to the game. You cant accept that and thats fine. DE only fails in your eyes after all.

The rest of the community seems fine in that prospect however and lets DE do what they want with the game.

Im pretty much done with this whole discussion as at this point it leads no where and probably never will.

So feel free to argue to the end of time about a concept thats unachievable, Ill enjoy the game with the rest of the community that enjoys it for what it is while still accepting that the game has flaws that can obviously be uplifted and DE keeps working towards that.

Edited February 12 by darklord122

[SDGDen]

2 hours ago, Skoomaseller said:

yall mfs still going 🫵🏽🤣

hangon lemme add to this:

 

*taps microphone*

*clears throat*

powercreep bad, nerfs good.

*the audience erupts into applause, world hunger is solved, grineer across the solar system lay down their arms and choose peace with the corpus*

 

[Aruquae]

10 minutes ago, SDGDen said:

powercreep bad, nerfs good.

I disagree with your opinion thus making me mad. I can not bear to see someone with such a bad opinion. Seeing your opinion simply affects me too much to just ignore it. I must now insult you and make my opinion clear. 

Nerfs bad, powercreep good

I will refrain from ever explaining why I believe that, because you all think like me and should immediately know the reason. If you do not think like me, then you’re simply a grineer. 
 

Quote

peace

Edit: Oh! I also forgot. I need to annoy you by correcting your spelling when that has nothing to do with your (or my) opinion. 
*Pee
 

Edited February 12 by Aruquae
This is satire for that one Tenno who’s going to get offended by this

[darklord122]

23 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

I disagree with your opinion thus making me mad. I can not bear to see someone with such a bad opinion. Seeing your opinion simply affects me too much to just ignore it. I must now insult you and make my opinion clear. 

Nerfs bad, powercreep good

I will refrain from ever explaining why I believe that, because you all think like me and should immediately know the reason. If you do not think like me, then you’re simply a grineer. 
 

Edit: Oh! I also forgot. I need to annoy you by correcting your spelling when that has nothing to do with your (or my) opinion. 
*Pee
 

👏 Fine arguments gentlemen.

[SneakyErvin]

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Of course, the meta-chasers would continue to push the envelope as they always have. Again, that's fine. But everyone else would be able to keep up better than they can now, so the issue would be much less impactful. That's still a win. I believe I've told you this before, but I'm not looking for perfect. Perfect is impossible to achieve. I'm looking for better. Things can always be made better, and making something better is better than not making something better.

Keep up better in relation to what? To the meta users when they end up together? No. Since the thing that makes the meta options (and off-meta options) the pick would still be there. And that "better" part is already there in off-meta weapons since there are currently just so many weapons within each class. So what would happen is just more of the bad weapons being slightly worse in comparison to meta, but it wouldnt do much else than being a different skin for a current off-meta since they'd do practically the exact same.

Currently AoE is prefered, while some still use single target. You increasing stats of bad AoEs and single targets wouldnt change anything since it would still be the same mechanics doing the same thing in the same spots. And the current bad AoE would likely see just as little use since the part that makes those bad are their specific mechanics, which is unrelated to their damage stats. So it would be a pointless rework just in order to hope to get some weapons in a game with too many to a slightly higher stat, while reducing the use of others without making any actual difference to the top. Which is why I implied that in order to see an actual shift you'd need to make fundamental changes to all weapons, not just stats.

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Why would altering stats to achieve balance be nonsense? Here is DE doing literally that in U26:

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

And again about three months ago in U35:

Because it is nonsense. The changes you refer to are unrelated to what we discuss here, since it wasnt aimed to help certain weapons within classes, it was changes to whole classes. The top weapons after those changes are still the same top weapons they were before since everything got changed. Here we are talking about bringing all weapons closer together within a class in order to increase use of lower weapons in comparison to higher. 

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

So DE's actions are nonsense? Incarnon Adapters include base stat buffs, too. Is that also nonsense? Base stat changes, which to be clear I'm not even specifically advocating for, have been the most effective balancing tool out of the ones DE has made use of.

Yes, those are nonsense buffs, since on their own they wouldnt change the use of those weapons. A Burston, Braton, Torid, Furis etc. with only stat increases would see little increase in use since they'd still be the perkless old weapon with slightly more damage. Same would likely be the case for melee weapons like Bo, Ceramic Dagger, Nami Solo and Dual Ichor. Since their would be weapons of their classes with far better pure stats, what pushes them beyond that point are the otherwise unobtainable perks, like absurd range, procs or potential for very high initial combo. And if stats isnt what you are advocating maybe you should specify what you advocate, since the way you talk it sounds alot like it is about the base stats. We arent mindreaders here.

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

None of what you pointed out would need to be done. Why would it? It's absurd. Like I said, you're just making S#&$ up. You're taking what I've said to its most ridiculous, unreasonable extremes so you can have an argument. Again.

But uhm it would. Unless you can actually clarify what you want to change if not just base stats. Since in the end, if you just change stats, whatever weapon has the most or best perks will be used out of that class. Why use any other form of full-auto besides Tenet Tetra or one of the Incarnons if you streamline damage stats? Nothing else comes with free AoE choices.

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Then it sounds like, at least within an individual class, your choice of gun doesn't really matter. You pick the one you like and can just roll with it. Yes? If so, great! And I'm sure it'd be even better if there were more valuable perks to combine for your class on all the other guns you've looked over. Then you'd have even more options to pick from.

I also fail to see how any of what you describe about "limiting your choices" is any different from how our choices are limited here in this game through things like mandatory modding and the very same "innate perks" you describe. Aren't our choices limited here in the exact same way by things like Kuva and Tenet damage buffs, Incarnons, Augments, etc? If you're going to worry about our choices being "limited" then like I've said to darklord you might want to do some self-reflection. What you're afraid of has already come to pass.

No not at all. You quite clearly do not pick the one you like, you pick the one with the perk that is the strongest for your build that can then combine with another perk from another weapon you've subsumed (to put it in WF terms). So in vanilla you practically only ever had 2 guns to pick between, and if you needed a specific weapon class for the character class you really only had 1 weapon to pick while subsuming the skill of the otherwise "option 2" gun. As the Technomancer mentioned. You want a burst gun, and one of the two perks you want only exsists on a burst gun while the other exsists on an LMG. This means you practically must use that specific burst gun since you cant swap over the perk from that gun and the one from the LMG to a third weapon (another burst gun in this case).

Yes, that is the whole point. I'm not saying it is different, I'm saying its the bloody #*!%ing same outcome in a system with streamlined stats since the perks will still rule the choices in the end! So if you squash stats overall like you seem to imply, the perks will still be there. So that Kuva and Tenet weapon will be ahead of the rest simply through the free stat benefit, which increases damage and gives slack on modding choices. Then ontop of that there are also the actual perks tied to how a weapon deals damage (cones, AoE, beams etc.) aswell as their individual damage spread (unless you plan to normalize that to). Then within AoE there are further perks, like I mentioned Bramma, Zarr and Probo Cernos that deal damage multiple times that allows them further benefits from status or things like HM, since they have more chances to proc things.

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Ok, here's a simple example. You know Rivens? How they have Attenuation? And every weapon has its own number? What do you think those numbers are based on? Ultimately, it's based on how good and popular the weapon is. Simple. And if a weapon gets a big buff, Attenuation goes down. If a weapon gets a big nerf, Attenuation goes up. So we've already got something that balances every single weapon the game individually to try and make them more equal. This already accounts for all of the differences you're talking about. It accounts for power, it accounts for mechanics, it accounts for popularity, it accounts for proc rates and paper DPS, it accounts for variants. Has this resulted in every weapon being the same? No. Have weapons needed to have their unique mechanics stripped away for Attenuation to be calculated? No. Do all weapons need to be identical? No. If a weapon is out of line it just gets adjusted, simple as. You're making a big deal about nothing.

But rivens havent helped weapons... which is quite obvious through the lists of usage you yourself have provided. I've never said that buffing something would be nonsense or pointless. I'm saying normalizing everything is, since at that point you will only look at perks, which will result in the same bottom, mid and top, just with a possible switch regarding which ends up where. So nothing is achieved in the end. Simply, more than stat adjustments are needed to make things at the bottom appealing.

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Well, yes. Like you've pointed out from the usage stats it turns out that being a variant or having a special perk isn't always the massive boon you seem to think it is. Turns out, a lot of variants with unique perks still don't get used very much. It's almost like a weapon having a special perk doesn't really matter all that much? Huh.

How would normalizing help them? Because it would effectively buff them and make them stronger. How would a big damage buff not help weaker or less popular weapons?

What's the point of picking them? What's the point of picking them now? If they're stronger then the answer is obvious: because they're strong too.

What if two similar weapons have different or no perks? Then if they're close enough together in power you just pick the one you like more. You don't have to take the one with the perk if you don't want to. And if you're a meta-chaser who can only use the best thing, then you just pick the one with the perk you're already picking anyways and nothing changes for you.

And yes, there are a lot of weapons in the game. There will only be more weapons and mechanics that need further balancing the longer time goes on. But do keep in mind, I don't care how the usage stats change. I don't care if everything is buffed and still no one uses the Carmine Penta. As long as it can be used by those that enjoy it, that's still better than what we have now.

If you actually read what I wrote you'd quite clearly see that I dont think perks are an automatic boon. Why else do you think I hinted that you should probably consider bad perks for the bottom weapons to be a reason for their low use? And for the perkless variants it is simply natural they see little use, since there is a better version of them higher up. Which would be the same if you streamline things, since either you have variants just being skins, or the variants are simply better versions of the base, meaning the base goes unused with some variant being less used than another, just as it is now. So no solution in your changes for that.

But it wouldnt aslong as they are stuck with a bad perk within their type of class. If the weapons is horrible to use it doesnt matter how much closer in stats it gets to a weapon far more userfriendly. Having to deal with manual detonation for instance within the AoE family? Why would I want that when detonation on impact exsists already? Even if the rest of the stats were identical ease of use would determine the choice.

The strength ends up in the perk in the end. So if two weapons end up identical, the one with the best perk would be chosen, or like mentioned with Skiajati, it has a perk without a drawback compared to the other Nikanas. So little reason to use the others if the stats are identical through normalization. Then if you dont normalize stats, so say Nikana prime ends up with the highest slash weighting but with idential total damage, then Nikana Prime would be the better choice, with little reason to pick the others. This obviously without us considering how you'd have to change and normalize rivens aswell.

So then those weapons might aswell just be skins. And I dont see how this would make anything different from now since the meta and off-meta would still exsists and all that would be achieved is mixing it up a bit at the lower end by shifting the usage between weapons a bit.

What stops them from using what they enjoy now? The stat increases are already there for the bad bad bad weapons in the shape of rivens if people really wanna use those weapons. But for some reason people dont want to use those weapons, so it is likely not a case of lacking stats since those can already be improved through the rivens available. I used Tonbo for a very very long time (I think I still have my riven saved), but then as I progressed I simply got access to weapons with more options. And I wouldnt go back to using Tonbo again if it recieved stat increase to be more on par with other polearms without a riven involved. Since it simply doesnt have the options available that come with other weapons. No innate viral like Kripath, no free AS+Toxin like Lesion, no exodia slots like any of the Zaw polearms etc. So in the end it would be pointless to buff the stats of it, since it would (should) also come with riven normalization, resulting in it ending up where it is now when all things are accounted for when compared to other polearms.

[SneakyErvin]

18 hours ago, Merkranire said:

It’s a #*!%ing baseline, Ervin, and it’s verifiable as it. You and Dark didn’t try understanding why it’s built that way because you’re not interested in understanding because if you understood, your stance would be undermined. It’s not meant to instant-kill, and you’re meant to use the rest of your kit alongside even as it fulfills a purpose of its own, which means if something else is built for Steel Path while that Argonak isn’t, then your experience is going to be skewed; you’ll be sitting around with no threat if your Warframe is built for higher like an Inaros loaded up on redundant amounts of health and armour, and you’ll gravitate towards your secondary or melee if those are built higher instead of alongside.

It isnt even a baseline. Since it doesnt work at all for any purpose. You say you know what you build for, yet you undershoot the content in question massively. That is not knowing what you build for, since you pop in and out to experiement at that point before getting to a point through trial and error. Which would be simple luck as opposed to knowledge. If you knew, you wouldnt miss the mark this horribly with as much time in the game as you have. Even with a "Steel Path" built Roar added to it, the thing still had a horrible kill rate. As I said, it practically only recieved kills due to the auto-death mechanic tie between drones and their protectees. So the "rest" of the kit didnt matter, aside from me being allowd full damage uptime due to an unkillable frame. Meaning that with a "arbitration build" (your idea of build) it wouldnt even have 100% uptime for producing damage with the gun, and the roar buff would be far weaker aswell. And the secondary and melee would be of the same poor standard build, so wouldnt improve TTK either. Unless you for some reason build 1 weapon weak for some obscure reasons while using the rest to step in to kill when the "build" cant keep up. At which point I dont see the point in having one useless part in the kit.

Quote

The point is that it’s building for the content, and even if you don’t know how to use it when it’s built like that, that doesn’t mean it can’t be used, and if you’re that unable to figure out its usecase (here’s a hint; Infested wouldn’t be my first choice to shoot out of the three factions, do you know why?) then sure, slap on an extra damage mod to start overpowering damage type considerations and go higher (and start running into damage types again) or reconfigure what’s there using whatever mod you might want be it a change in element or a different way of obtaining damage like a conditional mod versus something stable like Serration all while considering how many slots and how much capacity you have leftover for other mods that aren’t just damage and what you’re fighting and how you want the gun to behave and potentially any synergies with the rest of your loadout, just don’t go trying to turn it into a Steel Path build because level 60 Arbitrations are not Steel Path.

When something doesnt work versus infested it wont work versus anything else either. Since when you face the other factions you will also be facing ranged enemies, meaning you get even less effective with that build. Not to mention armor and shields etc. along with nullifiers in addition to the drones. You simply claimed this build can do arbitrations when it really cant, and this was tested versus the most simple faction in the most forgiving mode available in arbitrations.

Quote

That overguard thing, oof. Overguard is meant to have us switch to Operator and blast it with some void, so by design that Argonak isn’t going to do much against the mechanic, and that’s fine if you know how it’s meant to work

Really no it's not since overguard is part of the game since you first set foot in it and see your first eximus. So long before you ever get access to the operator. And since I cant disable skills my operator would trivialize the whole mode. So would in itself render that low build gun pointless.

Quote

last edit: Seriously, AyinDygra had a better sense of just how it’s not-so-obvious how to build for the content, which I can respect because it’s not so obvious even if it’s not as hard as they think it is and just takes some willingness to learn the nuances. So when you try a thing once or twice and so confidently claim to know what’s up when all you’ve done is fallen into the same crowd who have no problem admitting it’s not that easy to grasp, I’m just pulling a 😐 face and listening to you bungle your way through figuring it out if you’re even trying in the first place

The point is you claim you have knowledge when you revert to trial and error, not even being close to an acceptable end result at the first step. You've likely never even tried your own "build" in any content of the levels you claimed it was "built" for. You were the one that said it was an arbitration build. When something is a build it is done, otherwise it is not an "arbitration build" it is at that point a "build in progress". But you specified it was an "arbitration build" by adding the adjective "arbitration", which means the build is made and ready for that. Which proved to not be the case.

[Merkranire]

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

It isnt even a baseline. Since it doesnt work at all for any purpose. You say you know what you build for, yet you undershoot the content in question massively. That is not knowing what you build for, since you pop in and out to experiement at that point before getting to a point through trial and error. Which would be simple luck as opposed to knowledge. If you knew, you wouldnt miss the mark this horribly with as much time in the game as you have. Even with a "Steel Path" built Roar added to it, the thing still had a horrible kill rate. As I said, it practically only recieved kills due to the auto-death mechanic tie between drones and their protectees. So the "rest" of the kit didnt matter, aside from me being allowd full damage uptime due to an unkillable frame. Meaning that with a "arbitration build" (your idea of build) it wouldnt even have 100% uptime for producing damage with the gun, and the roar buff would be far weaker aswell. And the secondary and melee would be of the same poor standard build, so wouldnt improve TTK either. Unless you for some reason build 1 weapon weak for some obscure reasons while using the rest to step in to kill when the "build" cant keep up. At which point I dont see the point in having one useless part in the kit.

When something doesnt work versus infested it wont work versus anything else either. Since when you face the other factions you will also be facing ranged enemies, meaning you get even less effective with that build. Not to mention armor and shields etc. along with nullifiers in addition to the drones. You simply claimed this build can do arbitrations when it really cant, and this was tested versus the most simple faction in the most forgiving mode available in arbitrations.

Really no it's not since overguard is part of the game since you first set foot in it and see your first eximus. So long before you ever get access to the operator. And since I cant disable skills my operator would trivialize the whole mode. So would in itself render that low build gun pointless.

The point is you claim you have knowledge when you revert to trial and error, not even being close to an acceptable end result at the first step. You've likely never even tried your own "build" in any content of the levels you claimed it was "built" for. You were the one that said it was an arbitration build. When something is a build it is done, otherwise it is not an "arbitration build" it is at that point a "build in progress". But you specified it was an "arbitration build" by adding the adjective "arbitration", which means the build is made and ready for that. Which proved to not be the case.

It does work, your expectations have been warped by perpetual overbuilding for the content and Steel Path.

The scaling on Overguard is such that even when a newbie meets an Eximus, they can still take them down with standard fire until around level 30 where suddenly it rockets into crunchiness and they’re expected to bring the Operator to bear, and stop shooting Radiation-resistant things with a Radiation-built gun! Shoot things that are weak to radiation, you doofus! And since not every enemy in the one faction is weak or resistant to the same things, can I interest you in a secondary or melee that might compliment that damage type deficiency, built to compliment without being the sole answer to everything so that you’re not plugging away at something weak to Gas and resistant to Radiation with the Radiation-built gun without good reason, like positioning, status effect, or ammo concerns?

You straight up aren’t interested in learning while solo, which is fine, you do you, but when you jump into multiplayer, stop acting like you know how to build to not destroy everything when you can’t even figure out this gun designed to have limits (for its damage, at least, and then free slots and capacity left over for whatever else) and work in a certain way. Plus you apparently went in with an invincible frame, which absolutely gets an eyeroll because wtf is that going to tell you when part of anything’s usecase is that it’s part of a whole system of combat, including threat to a player and is why I said to start at the modless start!

edit: Your remark on the enemies with guns shooting back is odd, since enemies don’t need to be either insta-killed or perma-CC’d. It’s an assault rifle with two firing modes, not a sniper, and enemies living after being damaged is part of the ebb and flow of combat and actually enables certain things to take advantage of partially-damaged enemies. You’re also not supposed to always sit there and try and shoot them to death before they shoot you to death, and also, hit them in their weakspots if that’s not obvious, regardless of whether you’re taking your time to safely line up some shots or whether you’re bouncing around and repositioning while shooting on the fly.

You don’t know how to test, you don’t trust the word of someone who’s already done it, you think that because you’ve been sitting in Steel Path builds even before Steel Path was a thing you know what the rest of the game is like even though all you’ve done is flatten it. You think that feeding someone a specific build instead of giving them the chance to experiment in good faith is how it should be done, and your belief in success about something you are failing at the moment is mind-bending.

I keep giving up on you, and then I keep seeing how bonkers out of touch with the game you are, and it’s like “My god, this is one of those vets who think their playtime equals knowledge yet only know how to talk about high-level builds and content with no idea about anything else”, but even worse because I wouldn’t necessarily call someone a useless vet unless they were so cocky about what they claim to know while showing themselves otherwise when someone else who simply wouldn’t know any better is trying to figure out the game on their own terms at their own pace asks for help

Edited February 12 by Merkranire

[Aldain]

Who needs a purpose for each of their weapons when you can just hit the enemies harder and more?

Warframe's at its best to me when I'm slamming my face into it and winning anyway though sheer force of will, elemental weaknesses be damned I'm winning with ruthless application of my face into the wall until the wall shatters and weeps before me.

If you're going to stare into the Void, make the Void turn away and cower in fear, that's my motto.

[Merkranire]

5 hours ago, Aldain said:

Who needs a purpose for each of their weapons when you can just hit the enemies harder and more?

Warframe's at its best to me when I'm slamming my face into it and winning anyway though sheer force of will, elemental weaknesses be damned I'm winning with ruthless application of my face into the wall until the wall shatters and weeps before me.

If you're going to stare into the Void, make the Void turn away and cower in fear, that's my motto.

There’s only so much content to go around; do what you want in solo, but the thing is that that mentality will fit in multiplayer only so well with up to three other people. Even two people is a stretch, because the content’s already been overstretched for just one

Dealing with elemental weaknesses is a result of engaging with the content; you can build in different ways to overpower damage type considerations and make what you’re shooting matters less while technically being built for higher-level content where it’ll rear its head again (though SP is unbalanced as anything), but it’s going to cost you more than if you just worked with the damage type systems across your kit. Kind of like how you’re going to be shoehorned into a comparative few builds if you want to stand around eating bullets if you’re not going to move.

But aside from that, if you’re destroying your own game so effectively that you can handle the content alone when it adjusts itself for four players, there’s not a lot of room for gameplay for the others. The content already adjusted itself as far as it’s going to go and it still isn’t enough, that’s going to have an impact on your teammates.

Less cool-sounding than you might think when instead of “Hero who saves everyone by relying on gear” it ends up more “Clumsy ox flopping around with more power than capability and destroys gameplay for others while wondering why they’re not the ones who’re bored”

Edited February 13 by Merkranire

[Aldain]

9 hours ago, Merkranire said:

But aside from that, if you’re destroying your own game so effectively that you can handle the content alone when it adjusts itself for four players, there’s not a lot of room for gameplay for the others. The content already adjusted itself as far as it’s going to go and it still isn’t enough, that’s going to have an impact on your teammates.

Who said I was that effective? I absolutely deny those allegations and all that is associated with them.

More often than not I'm the one just standing there while other people destroy the content, but when the gap does close (like my Archon Hunt yesterday) I get immense sastisfaction from being that person who by all accounts shouldn't be even half as effective as he's appearing to be.

I brought a Quellor to an Archon Hunt without it being a damage boosted weapon, I carry a Lex Prime (no Incarnon yet) around because I like semi-auto pistols, the most meta thing I probably carry on average is a 2h Nikana (the Azothane) spec'd for heavy attack spam.

I am not a content destroyer who deletes the tileset every three seconds, I just use what I like and do what I feel like doing and more often than not that winds up losing out to nuke frames or super meta boss deletion loadouts by a wide margin.

I'm a random schmuck whose most played frame is Excalibur Umbra because I don't care for whatever is the room clearing meta, if that's what you'd consider "destroying my own game" then I think you might have the bar set too low because I am anything but that.

Edited February 13 by Aldain

[SneakyErvin]

19 hours ago, Merkranire said:

It does work, your expectations have been warped by perpetual overbuilding for the content and Steel Path.

I could go miles and miles away from an "SP build" and still get an enjoyable run out of Arbitrations. Your "build" is simply far far far far off from even that. It is... very likely... not even enjoyable on higher star chart planets, since it is just that low on producing damage.

19 hours ago, Merkranire said:

The scaling on Overguard is such that even when a newbie meets an Eximus, they can still take them down with standard fire until around level 30 where suddenly it rockets into crunchiness and they’re expected to bring the Operator to bear, and stop shooting Radiation-resistant things with a Radiation-built gun! Shoot things that are weak to radiation, you doofus! And since not every enemy in the one faction is weak or resistant to the same things, can I interest you in a secondary or melee that might compliment that damage type deficiency, built to compliment without being the sole answer to everything so that you’re not plugging away at something weak to Gas and resistant to Radiation with the Radiation-built gun without good reason, like positioning, status effect, or ammo concerns?

No, it really doesnt rocket into crunchiness. A newbie will get enough mods to have a gun that kills better than anything their operator can provide for quite some time (the OP never actually comes out on top versus OG). Also "stop shooting Radiation-resistant things with a Radiation-built gun!" is hilarious, since the mobs of the other factions that are actually vulnerable to or non-resistant to radiation have so few enemies that are actually vulnerable or not-resistant to it, that even with the resistance of something like a charger, it still ends up with less eHP for a common mob. Meaning they are still the squishiest out of them all to try it on. Gas would still be too low damage and would do nothing versus the eximus where the build struggled with the OG.

19 hours ago, Merkranire said:

You straight up aren’t interested in learning while solo, which is fine, you do you, but when you jump into multiplayer, stop acting like you know how to build to not destroy everything when you can’t even figure out this gun designed to have limits (for its damage, at least, and then free slots and capacity left over for whatever else) and work in a certain way. Plus you apparently went in with an invincible frame, which absolutely gets an eyeroll because wtf is that going to tell you when part of anything’s usecase is that it’s part of a whole system of combat, including threat to a player and is why I said to start at the modless start!

Your build is a hindrance to multiplayer, since it cant hold its own ground in solo even. And "learning while solo" is something you should tell yourself, since clearly you have learned nothing because you still think you have a viable build. So you jump into multiplayer to get carried, so shouldnt care what others do or how fast they kill, since you yourself provide what could be equal to practically nothing. I mean ffs, your "build" struggles versus chargers. Nothing should struggle versus chargers, the whole idea with the infested is to mow them down Aliens+smart gun style as they just rush you. But you cant even kill those in a decently timely fashion.

If you cant understand what the invincible frame allowed me to check you are utterly clueless. It gave the highest uptime for producing damage with your PoS "build". So allowed it to show the highest potential damage output. So without that the gun is even worse of, since you'd have to move constantly, meaning far far less damage at that point. With a frame "built" by you for that "engagement" you seek you would very likely have no chance to complete a survival, since you have too little uptime, too few kills and too many mobs around to effectively make use of life support towers, since if you'd stop to interact you'd be instantly mauled, stomped and chewed by all those charges you failed to kill.

19 hours ago, Merkranire said:

edit: Your remark on the enemies with guns shooting back is odd, since enemies don’t need to be either insta-killed or perma-CC’d. It’s an assault rifle with two firing modes, not a sniper, and enemies living after being damaged is part of the ebb and flow of combat and actually enables certain things to take advantage of partially-damaged enemies. You’re also not supposed to always sit there and try and shoot them to death before they shoot you to death, and also, hit them in their weakspots if that’s not obvious, regardless of whether you’re taking your time to safely line up some shots or whether you’re bouncing around and repositioning while shooting on the fly.

Which would not advance the objective at hand, or provide you with any of the things you need for the objective not to fail. You slowly taking down 1 enemy as all the rest are gunning fully at a defense objective or extractor just wont work very well. And the moment you kill that enemy you still have the rest to handle aswell, that will keep shooting like maniacs along with more spawning as you kill one. Some of these being eximus, some being drones (in the case of arbis) and so on. And in survival you'd get no life support drops and you'd have even less chance to interact with towers.

Also what advantage is there to a partially damaged enemy? There are no mechanical benefits to that in game like lowered accuracy, limping, incapacitation etc. Either it is alive no matter if it has 1 or 100% health, it still sends death your way from the hole of its thunder stick, just as accurate or inaccurate as before. You talk as if you think WF is real life where wounding an enemy can equal killing it for the sake of combat. Or maybe you played some other game with such mechanics and forgot you are on a WF forum?

19 hours ago, Merkranire said:

You don’t know how to test, you don’t trust the word of someone who’s already done it, you think that because you’ve been sitting in Steel Path builds even before Steel Path was a thing you know what the rest of the game is like even though all you’ve done is flatten it. You think that feeding someone a specific build instead of giving them the chance to experiment in good faith is how it should be done, and your belief in success about something you are failing at the moment is mind-bending.

But you clearly havent done it. Someone else in this thread did though and arrived to the same outcome, it being a worthelss "build" for the content you claimed it was built for. And "feeding someone a specific build" is what you did, since you specified it as "arbitration build". Doesnt get more specific than that. When someone sees that they will assume it will work, otherwise someone wouldnt refer to it that way. But this build isnt even suited for upper star chart levels. Which is without considering anything remotely close to high efficiency runs. This is when considering an acceptable run, and your "build" doesnt come close to acceptable.

I had the feeling you were in a minority, but you are a minority within the minority of a minority with your approach to the game. Because we arent just talking about going slightly slower for higher engagement, we are talking about practically stopping at a dead halt. It is best described as extremely absurd in a arpg/looter shooter. So no wonder you get upset over people destroying things when your idea of fun is that narrow.

19 hours ago, Merkranire said:

I keep giving up on you, and then I keep seeing how bonkers out of touch with the game you are, and it’s like “My god, this is one of those vets who think their playtime equals knowledge yet only know how to talk about high-level builds and content with no idea about anything else”, but even worse because I wouldn’t necessarily call someone a useless vet unless they were so cocky about what they claim to know while showing themselves otherwise when someone else who simply wouldn’t know any better is trying to figure out the game on their own terms at their own pace asks for help

I'm fairly sure you are speaking to yourself here, since you are extremely out of touch with the game. You arent even discussing low, mid or high level builds, you are talking about some very perverted and narrow idea that is a ghost of your mind. You're very like also a "do as I say not as I do", since you arent showing anything that implies that you've even tried your own "builds". Just alot of empty talk for some odd reason.

I wonder if your posting would be considered trolling, since it isnt productive nor beneficial to a new player that might actually look to the forums for help to progress.

[PublikDomain]

On 2024-02-12 at 5:27 AM, darklord122 said:

If you actually knew how most players play in any game especially for efficiency this is somewhat of what would probably happen: Lato and Lato vandal, Two different weapons similar stats. Lato is worse than Lato vandal with somewhat slight margin. Players picks Lato vandal for its better efficiency. Lato will have usage stats go down. Then if there is a secondary that is better than either = player swaps to that. Usage rates go down etc etc.

I don't care how the rates change, I care that they tell us clearly just how undesirable most weapons in this game really are.

And what you're describing in bold about the Lato is what I want, not what we have. The Lato is currently worse than the Lato Vandal with a significant margin, not a slight margin. All things equal it's about three times stronger with better accuracy and a more responsive semi-auto fire rate. That's why most players obviously pick the Vandal over the base. But there are still players who choose the base over the Vandal anyways! Here are the usage rates for the Lato among L4 players, players who by definition have access to just about every weapon in the game:

Lato
0.0017639744337524697

Lato Vandal
0.004632203153449469

Despite the Vandal having triple the damage output in both regular and Incarnon forms, the base Lato still makes up about a quarter of all Lato usage for these players who have everything. This is true for the Lato, the Nukor, the Latron, and any other example you want to choose. Discerning players with access to everything are still choosing the worse version for some reason. Clearly, there's something beyond simple efficiency being considered when players pick their weapon. And this is good! What's not good is that the players who we know prefer the regular Lato over the Lato Vandal are handicapped significantly for no reason.

If the Lato Vandal was only maybe 50% stronger and not the current 300% stronger, then even if usage rates don't change at all at least those that continue to break the mould and try something different won't be so heavily punished for it. That's what I'm talking about. The usage statistics are just an indicator of what's going on, not some end goal.

On 2024-02-12 at 5:27 AM, darklord122 said:

So either you want to have the game end up the same as players will fundamentally always make the better choice or you want everything to be equal thus no choice has any impact.

Yes, I want the latter. The "impact" you're defending is a negative impact. The "impact" is that you'll suck and not get to play the game when yet another Thermal Sunder Titania comes along to hog everything to themselves, or when someone vaporizes the boss you wanted to fight, or when your favorite thing is scaled out of new content and you have to use something else just to keep up. There should be no negative impact from your choice of preference.

On 2024-02-12 at 7:56 AM, SneakyErvin said:

Keep up better in relation to what? To the meta users when they end up together?

No? To the meta users when they end up together with non-meta users. Duh. Isn't that the entire topic of discussion here?

On 2024-02-12 at 7:56 AM, SneakyErvin said:

Why use any other form of full-auto besides Tenet Tetra or one of the Incarnons if you streamline damage stats?

For the exact same reason I prefer to use the Quellor and not the Tenet Tetra now: because you like it.

On 2024-02-12 at 7:56 AM, SneakyErvin said:

Which is why I implied that in order to see an actual shift you'd need to make fundamental changes to all weapons, not just stats.

Or you could make fundamental changes to all mechanics, and leave the weapons functioning how they are. Y'know, like how DE made fundamental changes to ammo mechanics to attempt to curb AoE weapon usage. They didn't need to make the Tonkor a skin of the Penta, or make the Ogris a skin of the Bramma, did they? No, they just addressed a part of the underlying foundation that affects everything.

Contrary to what you say, you don't need to make fundamental changes to all weapons or their mechanics to balance. DE has shown this many times. You can tweak broad damage values, like DE has done with melee and Archguns, you can make changes to underlying mechanics like ammo and damage falloff, you can make changes to combat mechanics like Tennokai, etc.

And once you're done, if there's still a weapon or three that are out of line, then you can address those few weapons by themselves. Y'know, like DE did when changing individual weapons like the Bramma and Catchmoon. Did they need to make the Bramma and Catchmoon skins of each other, or skins of some other gun? Nope. So why would they here?

You'd only need to change the stats and mechanics of every weapon in the game if you were attempting to achieve some absurd, distorted caricature of what I'm saying. It's just hyperbole.

On 2024-02-12 at 7:56 AM, SneakyErvin said:

And if stats isnt what you are advocating maybe you should specify what you advocate, since the way you talk it sounds alot like it is about the base stats. We arent mindreaders here.

How many times have you and I discussed this topic? How many times have I explained what I advocate directly to you in specific detail? It hasn't changed. If you've forgotten then maybe you've never been paying attention in the first place.

On 2024-02-12 at 7:56 AM, SneakyErvin said:

No not at all. You quite clearly do not pick the one you like, you pick the one with the perk that is the strongest for your build that can then combine with another perk from another weapon you've subsumed (to put it in WF terms). So in vanilla you practically only ever had 2 guns to pick between, and if you needed a specific weapon class for the character class you really only had 1 weapon to pick while subsuming the skill of the otherwise "option 2" gun. As the Technomancer mentioned. You want a burst gun, and one of the two perks you want only exsists on a burst gun while the other exsists on an LMG. This means you practically must use that specific burst gun since you cant swap over the perk from that gun and the one from the LMG to a third weapon (another burst gun in this case).

Then I misunderstood you. But in that case I'm not sure why you're saying what Outriders is anything at all like what I'm talking about? If Outriders has balanced weapons that anyone can use whenever they want, but then pushes players to only choose one or two weapons of them because of some class perk system, then it sounds to me like all their work balancing their weapons has been wasted and is being actively undermined by their other design decisions. If Outriders railroads you into only picking between one or two guns out of dozens because of perks, then that's just as bad as Warframe railroading you into one of a dozen guns out of hundreds because of stats. Sounds like both suck and should be improved.

On 2024-02-12 at 7:56 AM, SneakyErvin said:

If you actually read what I wrote you'd quite clearly see that I dont think perks are an automatic boon. Why else do you think I hinted that you should probably consider bad perks for the bottom weapons to be a reason for their low use? And for the perkless variants it is simply natural they see little use, since there is a better version of them higher up. Which would be the same if you streamline things, since either you have variants just being skins, or the variants are simply better versions of the base, meaning the base goes unused with some variant being less used than another, just as it is now. So no solution in your changes for that.

But it wouldnt aslong as they are stuck with a bad perk within their type of class. If the weapons is horrible to use it doesnt matter how much closer in stats it gets to a weapon far more userfriendly. Having to deal with manual detonation for instance within the AoE family? Why would I want that when detonation on impact exsists already? Even if the rest of the stats were identical ease of use would determine the choice.

The strength ends up in the perk in the end. So if two weapons end up identical, the one with the best perk would be chosen, or like mentioned with Skiajati, it has a perk without a drawback compared to the other Nikanas. So little reason to use the others if the stats are identical through normalization. Then if you dont normalize stats, so say Nikana prime ends up with the highest slash weighting but with idential total damage, then Nikana Prime would be the better choice, with little reason to pick the others. This obviously without us considering how you'd have to change and normalize rivens aswell.

So then those weapons might aswell just be skins. And I dont see how this would make anything different from now since the meta and off-meta would still exsists and all that would be achieved is mixing it up a bit at the lower end by shifting the usage between weapons a bit.

What stops them from using what they enjoy now? The stat increases are already there for the bad bad bad weapons in the shape of rivens if people really wanna use those weapons. But for some reason people dont want to use those weapons, so it is likely not a case of lacking stats since those can already be improved through the rivens available. I used Tonbo for a very very long time (I think I still have my riven saved), but then as I progressed I simply got access to weapons with more options. And I wouldnt go back to using Tonbo again if it recieved stat increase to be more on par with other polearms without a riven involved. Since it simply doesnt have the options available that come with other weapons. No innate viral like Kripath, no free AS+Toxin like Lesion, no exodia slots like any of the Zaw polearms etc. So in the end it would be pointless to buff the stats of it, since it would (should) also come with riven normalization, resulting in it ending up where it is now when all things are accounted for when compared to other polearms.

You continue to fail to get the point. Lighting round:

• No, weapons don't need to be perfectly equal. I haven't said this, you have. Again, this is just another one of your exaggerations.
• No, weapons that are equally powerful aren't "just skins of each other". This isn't true today, and wouldn't be true if weapons like the Veldt and Acrid and Velox were good too.
• Yes, there would still be a meta. Again, that's fine.
• Yes, people like you would continue to only use whatever's most meta and ignore most of the other content in the game. Again, that's fine. Other people with broader interests wouldn't.
• Yes, very little would change for people like you. Because it's not about you. It's about elevating the people who aren't you so they can play together with you on the same level while still using what they enjoy.
• What stops people from using what they enjoy now? The overall garbage performance of these items compared to other players they end up playing with. Duh.
• Why not use Rivens? Because Rivens are steeped in RNG, are inaccessible outside of player trade, and fail to address base stat deficiences. That's why Rivens failed to normalize weapons. Compare that to Incarnons, which are deterministic and actually do address base stats deficiencies, and have been a massive success in just the short while since they've been introduced.
• You not wanting to go back to your Tonbo even if it was buffed until it was good is fine. So what? No one cares. Someone else that likes the Tonbo for more than just its stats would. There are still some L4 players using the Tonbo today despite having access to every other better option in the game. And those players shouldn't suck just because you're upsetty spaghetti at the thought of them being almost as good as your Kripath/Lesion/Zar/whatever.

[Monolake]

Do you really think anyone reads your 2 pages of arguments?

Average WF player is a one who wants to succeed with no effort easy-mode only with cheats on and DE caters to them and them only.

[Leqesai]