Nuke Builds Are Ruining Gameplay Enjoyment

[Merkranire]

@SneakyErvin, I’m done. Make your last response a good one with no expectation that I’m going to respond, because I’m taking the huge amounts of points you and Dark just seem absolutely intent on missing and moving on.

The build was an example of a concept you had no idea about. If nothing else, I hope it got you to at least think a little next time you go to jump into someone else’s mission outside of SP with your SP build, and maybe you sit back and go “Hm, do I need this build in this content while doing multiplayer, and would I truly be welcome?”

Edited February 15 by Merkranire

[Kronxito]

This thing still going on???

For god sake…. the game is easy af for soloing everything. 

If public games hurt your weak ego because someone has a instakill build, just play solo or just with your friends. And also seek for some help. Seriously.

If you want to test a build or a weapon, the best way is by playing solo.  

Everything else is just a you problem. Nuke builds arent ruining anything. Let people use whatever they like. 

[Merkranire]

13 minutes ago, Kronxito said:

This thing still going on???

For god sake…. the game is easy af for soloing everything. 

If public games hurt your weak ego because someone has a instakill build, just play solo or just with your friends. And also seek for some help. Seriously.

If you want to test a build or a weapon, the best way is by playing solo.  

Everything else is just a you problem. Nuke builds arent ruining anything. Let people use whatever they like. 

That’s right, Kronxito. You’re…. so right

Edited February 15 by Merkranire

[Merkranire]

Something I’m kind of curious about though, @darklord122, and since you and Ervin seem to share the same brain, I’m guessing you can answer for him;

Had I said that Argonak build was for level 50 content, what would you have said?

[SneakyErvin]

16 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Yes, AoE tools can "kaboom things instantly", and like you seem to understand this gives them a large advantage over single-target tools even if they have a similar output. So shouldn't single-target tools then be buffed to have a higher output than AoE? Since, y'know, you gotta aim them and they affect fewer targets? Just giving single-target weapons an equal output doesn't account for all of the "perks" that AoE have, which again it seems like you understand. So obviously single-target weapons would need an advantage of their own in order to be equally valuable, like killing enemies faster even if it's only one at a time. So why wouldn't things change if single-target weapons are given a few perks of their own to make them equally valuable picks compared to AoE?

There's also the issue of how AoE can "kaboom things instantly" throughout so much of the game in the first place, which is the bigger topic at hand within this thread. If you're allowed to "kaboom things instantly" with so many frames and weapons, then what is left for anyone else to do? This is exactly what DE was talking about when they said that AoE "leave[s] so little for others to do" and "can make squadmates feel ineffective", and undermines the ideal that "everybody gets a chance to play" while "increasing [the] difficulty in creating content that serves to challenge the Tenno".

So if single-target weapons are buffed to sit beyond AoE weapons, and difficult content is made harder to the point where AoE can't just "kaboom things instantly", then now both AoE and single-target tools can work equally in the same spaces and we as players can play the game together in content designed for a knowable standard of power.

And the best way (which will touch on paragraph 1 and 2 here) is to simply introduce content that promotes using single target instead of AoE. Since at that point both will see use and be incentiviced at the same time. Just buffing and nerfing wont solve anything when the incentive is the same. And adding sponge content wont help either, since it will just be slow and overall uninteresting, because it comes down to either slowly cleaving things to death with AoE or killing targets 1 by 1 slowly with an overbuffed single target gun. Which would kill the fast paced nature of WF overall. 

What you describe here is an issue with the game itself, it's an issue with people also. Since DE and people live under an illusion that WF is a co-op multiplayer game and not a game with optional co-op multiplayer. DE have practically done nothing at any point that caters to a co-op multiplayer game if that is their actual intent with the game. They also most often fail at adding things to counter the AoE, they also often fail to add things that engage you. Just the changes to eximus were spotted from afar to be DoA since it was just more standard health, with no incentives to pick anything specific to deal with it. Sure they added some void vulnerability gimmick to it all, but that was just a joke in the end. Then as a contrast they release mechanics elsewhere that would serve very well on units intended to be far tougher and to shake up mission flow. I'm still baffled by the fact they didnt add weakpoints to eximus enemies, the most simple solution to both make them durable and incentivice us to use single target options within our loadout.

Buffing them beyond AoE would be pointless, since AoE already hits hard enough now to 1HK things unless we go very very far into endless. Buffing single target beyond that would be a blanket buff since we cant kill things in less than one hit. It would at the same time throw every encounter that currently incentivices single target weapons into chaos and imbalance, or well further chaos and imbalance. People are already avoiding single target options that can 1HK the content they run, because they just arent very effective in a game designed around killing large hordes of enemies.

It's better that  people accept that they play an ARPG, where the single target gun is like that dedicated single target dps ability you bring soley for the purpose of killing the boss while the rest of your spec/build is made up of AoE damage and buffs. We arent playing some tactical shooter or an rpg with small group encounters, we're playing a horde looter shooter similar in setup to an isometric arpg, where we turn things into pulp and red mist at the speed of light.

17 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

In the Quellor's case, I don't really use the alt-fire that much. I know, right? It's there, and it's nice, but it's not why I like the gun. Maybe I should have explained that better so you can understand. I like the Quellor for how it looks, and how it sounds, and how it reloads, and its big magazine, and how I can dakka for long periods of time without reloading. I like it so much I have a 3D printed model of my Khora holding one. The alt-fire is not why I like it so much. I like the Grinlok too. I like it so much I spent the time to get its Conclave skin. I like the Vipers as well, at least conceptually. Are those weapons featureless enough for you to understand what I'm saying? Is it really so hard for you to grasp the simple idea that people can like the guns they like for reasons other than some special mechanic or perk?

And like I say above, if you understand that a perk can be powerful enough to set a weapon ahead of others, why can't you understand that this can simply be accounted for when balancing? You say...

Doesnt matter. It is still there and an incentive to use it over a gun that doesnt have that extra mechanic. I'm fully with you that it is fun to use weapons you like, even for aestethic reasons, but there is a point in games where you just have to give up those things in order to progress. I love basic looking weapons in games, and I'm sad sad sad whenever I need to go from random low-level-viking-longsword look over to berserk-had-a-threesome-with-sephiroth-and-cloud look due to progress. Just as it saddens me when I cant use a weapon I want for other reasons. But I dont expect a game to throw away they progress or design to cater to me. There are plenty of things I want to use in WF due to their aestethics but I simply cant due to their mechanics. Melee weapons make up most of that due to the stances available, but I wont demand stances to weapon class X be changed to fit me, since someone else may enjoy the stance. So asking DE to go over low level weapons so you can use them since you like who they look isnt realistic either, since it is alot of work for very very little return, because there are enough options already that does practically the same thing while looking different. It would just be work that could be better spent on other things that more people can enjoy.

17 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

... but this is silly! If a weapon currently has no "perk" and is "just another vanilla gun", then can't such a weapon just get a perk like "does a little bit more damage"? Improving the stats is the "perk". Then it would have a "perk" to make it an equally valuable pick too. It isn't rocket science.

An given how we know that even simpler weapons continue to be used even by the L4s who have access to everything, this fine-grained balancing of perks probably isn't even necessary in the first place. It's fine if some weapons are "vanilla" even if you still wouldn't even acknowledge that they exist. Like I said before, others with a broader mindset would.

I covered that already when I said you should really ask to get incarnon made for more weapons. That way you'd have increased stats/more damage for those that just want to use the vanilla, then other mechanics to give other players a reason to use the thing that currently got reworked. More damage in itself would also not be a perk, since it isnt a unique mechanics, it's just more stats. Just as I said regarding Torid and Burston, they wouldnt see much increased use if they didnt have an actual incarnon form.

And regarding the L4 thing. I should have touched on that yesterday but forgot. You are missing some vital things in your "analysis" of it. That the lower version is used doesnt mean that it is an actual choice between variants, not when we look at the weapon you used as an example i.e Lato. You ignore that something like the Vandal could have been obtained very long ago and then sold by those that are now L4 players, and the reason that the normal Lato sees use on those L4 is because they just wanted to try out the Incarnon that arrived during 2023. Which is far less of a hassle to re-obtain over the Vandal. Or maybe you are under the assumption that every player saves every single item they obtain throughout their mastery trip? Only reason I have the Lato Vandal Incarnon instead on Lato Incarnon is because I had nothing to do leading up to Duviri, so I ran ESO since I knew the Lato would come with an Incarnon and I still had to master the Vandal. If it hadnt dropped prior to the Duviri release I would have likely just picked up the Lato to try the incarnon and then ignore the Vandal since I didnt particularly enjoy the incarnon form. If I had obtained the Lato Vandal early on after the ESO release I would have also sold it off after mastering it, since it would have just been another generic single target semi auto pistol out of an ocean of others.

17 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Right, because you know what I'm saying better than I know what I'm saying. Maybe you really are a mind-reader? 🙄

What I talk about is balance, it's you that takes what I say to such an absurd extreme like "removing practically all reasons for options". I've told you before, and you've ignored it every time, that this is silly and unnecessary. This is something of your invention. This is made up fantasy of your creation. These are your ideas. Not mine. And the horrible boogieman consequences you come up with so you can have something to argue about are just that: more fantasy.

No it is simply about what you are saying, which is balance through normalization and homogenization, which leads to reduced reasons for individual choice since things are more similar and less diverse.

17 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I can tell. You'll just have to do some reading if you'd like to know my specifics. I'm certainly not going to waste my time explaining them to you again here when you're not going to listen anyways.

Regarding Rivens, like, come on. Dispositions change every 3 months anyways. Why are you trying to making this an issue when it's already a normal process that's occurred for so many years? And yeah, I'm sure the Tonbo can be alright if you have a Riven. It's that big if that makes Rivens such a poor solution, and why even despite being in the game since 2016 they've never worked.

I've gone through the posts again and there is not a place where you actually go into what you actually want. You do however shift back to stats quite constantly throughout the posts. There are also few approaches that can be made in order to "balance" things, since it is practically either about stats or adding unique mechanics to other weapons. You also repeat in several posts that you arent talking about stats (no only to me) but you never mention what you want to do instead. Then you are here again talking about increasing single target damage beyond that of AoE, which again means you want to change stats, since more damage comes from increasing stats, meaning you want to crunch stats of weapons. So if you changing stats isnt what your plan involves, then dont mention things that involves changing stats.

So you want to leave Rivens as they are even after a change where weapons come closer in stats? So you want to wait an absurd amount of time in order for rivens to normalize, leaving some weapons at that point absurdly overpowered for a long time. So you want a Gram Prime 2.0 situation for over a year?

[SneakyErvin]

14 hours ago, Merkranire said:

You did not use the build in good faith since when you jumped into an actual mission with an invincible frame that result is skewed. Do you remember when I told you what specific frame to bring and how to build it? Because I sure don’t, because the mission combat has all this ebb and flow where things like status effects like CCing Radiation and wounded enemies tie into threat to the player and what on-the-fly decisionmaking, which you did away with! In good faith would be you trusting that the build is going to work and finding out its usecase!

You should likely look up good faith. It'd be the essence of good faith the way I approached it, since I gave it every possible benefit to make it work. Constant uptime, a large chunk of extra damage ontop of your modding, a better baseline gun etc. and the build still didnt perform even remotely decent for the content you labeled it as. How you think that isnt in good faith is very very odd. It also had all the time in the world to make the CC from radiation work its magic, since it did that poorly in damage. Hence why I said that if you ran with Gas to increase damage slightly you instead have to run constantly due to not having any rad procs. Basic simple concepts.

14 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Stop acting like the goal is to destroy everything with as little concern as possible, if that were the goal, I’d point you to some Argonak build guide aimed at SP! The goal is to find what the content asks for and take advantage of spare slots and capacity, which you seem to be struggling with the very notion of, not destroy it! The build performs if you know how to use it and aren’t shooting Infested and Overguard with it.

The problem isnt "little concern as possible", in this case it is about destroying anything at all with that "build". You arent even close to acceptable performance on the lower side. You need to stop bringing up SP because you arent even presenting a build that can do SC content comfortably at slightly higher levels. It is practically 100% worthless at any mission type that doesnt give you all the time in the world you need. And no, your "build" straight up struggles versus all factions, since every faction has higher eHP than the infested versus your gun, since the only units you really have a bonus against are units that are already heavy within those other factions, so take have even more eHP anyways.

14 hours ago, Merkranire said:

And I show zero consideration for you and players like you, ones who apparently know so much that they have to try and convince someone who’s been sidelined why the sidelining is actually a good thing while you spin my actions into some boogeyman troll coming for other player’s games. Oh yes, I’m putting in the effort to find these points so that I can do juuuuuuust enough that I could be considered helping, but in actuality, my glorious plan is to not help! Hah hah!

I dont care if you show no consideration to me and players like me. That is of no interest at all. My point is you speak of people not being considerate to you while you are less considerate to the players that may end up with you, players that arent in the situation where I and others are, players that dont have the option to not care what you bring to a mission. Players that actually might need players of atleast their progression level to get through the content you suddenly make harder while not being able to pull your own weight. I wouldnt notice what "build" you use, or if you go fully modless or not, I wouldnt care since I'd carry the slack, because I expect to end up with a new player at some point if I do run a PuG. So I have no intent going with a build that might make it harder for them to progress, I'll run a build so I know I can pick them up if needed so they can get the loot they came for, so they can stay longer and get most out of their arbi hour and so on. You on the otherhand run a "build" that cannot pull its weight, will likely have the frame downed due to it, needs to quit early and cant really pick others up if they fall.

14 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Obviously I’m going to give consideration to whether I’m host, obviously I’m going to reconsider that build and possibly err on the side of a bit more damage and/or survival than I normally would if jumping into multiplayer because I’m expecting them to go a few more rounds into levels beyond 60, the point all along has been I’m not sidelining my teammates because I’ve got an idea of what the content even asks for while you invent hyperbole about my motivations and actions in order to spin the argument like it’s a madman’s whim!

And how many trial and error run does your "knowledgable" self need before arriving at a point where you arent a dead weight to your team? The whole foundation that allows you to experiment in pugs is due to players like me and dark that go there ready to help others with less options and progress, and people like you. But at the same time you dont want us there, so that implies you want others to suffer and fail as you experiment. Something you shouldnt even need to do in the first place since you claim to already know what you build for. Which apparently isnt the case since you need to test it in steps in live environments, unless of course all you is just BS to argue. And your bolded part itsnt true, you clearly have no clue what the content asks for, hence why you live experiement as opposed to going in ready to pull your weight (which you arent even remotely close to with your "build"). 

Just that you start at the bottom to experiment instead of starting at the top (less impact for other players during your experimentation) is baffling, and that you do it in public is even worse since you have no sense of control in such an environment.

7 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Something I’m kind of curious about though, @darklord122, and since you and Ervin seem to share the same brain, I’m guessing you can answer for him;

Had I said that Argonak build was for level 50 content, what would you have said?

It would be just as misleading if refered to as a level 50 build since it is only a 10 level difference. And normal content doesnt have drone crutches to rely on to help wipe out normal mobs you'll already struggle with.

8 hours ago, Merkranire said:

@SneakyErvin, I’m done. Make your last response a good one with no expectation that I’m going to respond, because I’m taking the huge amounts of points you and Dark just seem absolutely intent on missing and moving on.

The build was an example of a concept you had no idea about. If nothing else, I hope it got you to at least think a little next time you go to jump into someone else’s mission outside of SP with your SP build, and maybe you sit back and go “Hm, do I need this build in this content while doing multiplayer, and would I truly be welcome?”

Yes, it just makes me even more set on using a very efficient build so the majority that play this game for that reason have the best experience they can while also being able to help new players stay longer and get more out of their runs.

Edited February 15 by SneakyErvin

[x90maverick]

Quote

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And regarding the L4 thing. I should have touched on that yesterday but forgot. You are missing some vital things in your "analysis" of it. That the lower version is used doesnt mean that it is an actual choice between variants, not when we look at the weapon you used as an example i.e Lato. You ignore that something like the Vandal could have been obtained very long ago and then sold by those that are now L4 players, and the reason that the normal Lato sees use on those L4 is because they just wanted to try out the Incarnon that arrived during 2023. Which is far less of a hassle to re-obtain over the Vandal. Or maybe you are under the assumption that every player saves every single item they obtain throughout their mastery trip? Only reason I have the Lato Vandal Incarnon instead on Lato Incarnon is because I had nothing to do leading up to Duviri, so I ran ESO since I knew the Lato would come with an Incarnon and I still had to master the Vandal. If it hadnt dropped prior to the Duviri release I would have likely just picked up the Lato to try the incarnon and then ignore the Vandal since I didnt particularly enjoy the incarnon form. If I had obtained the Lato Vandal early on after the ESO release I would have also sold it off after mastering it, since it would have just been another generic single target semi auto pistol out of an ocean of others.

Solid point there

Another thought on some of the higher MR weapon usage stats:
1. Some of the 'meh' weapons are prob being used for MR xp gain, cause well theres not much left at those ranks, and some of those can be grindy to get
2. At those ranks, players likely have the means (mods, arcanes etc) to make "non-meta" weapons that they enjoy viable 

 

[PublikDomain]

14 hours ago, darklord122 said:

The usage does matter when your argument hinges on usage stats and rates.

How does what I say hinge on the usage stats? We can all observe for ourselves that so many mechanics in this game are so vastly imbalanced that no one uses them even without the usage stats. It's just that there are many who refuse to see the obvious, and need additional facts to counter their skewed worldview. The usage stats just turn that general observation that's being disputed into a quantifiable fact.

Stats which, since they don't align with what you seem to think, you then try and nitpick and dismiss even though they're composed of internal data collected and released by the very developers of this game. They're the most objective, factual data any of us could ever hope to have about player weapon usage preferences, but because it lines up with what I'm saying oh well now there are problems with it. Surely all of the L4s spending so many hours using bad weapons or lesser variants are really just testing Rivens. Sure. 🙄

14 hours ago, darklord122 said:

Even in any of these usage case scenarios my point still stands that the majority still pick the better variant.

Which, as I've specifically told you before, is fine. I even agree with you. I just don't see why it matters. Who cares? Once again, this is fine. You're making a stink about nothing.

Within individual weapon families, this is fine. The majority would certainly continue as they have and only consider the "best" variants within a single weapon family. That's fine. The minority who we already know don't think this way would be the ones to see the most benefit, being better able to keep up on more equal footing with those that limit themselves to the meta. It's fine if a change is made to the game that doesn't specifically benefit you or your restricted way of thinking.

More broadly within the game's mechanics as a whole, once again this is also fine. The majority would certainly continue as they have and only consider the "best" tools, whether that's a specific frame or a specific type of weapon or elemental combo or whatever. But the more equal things are, the more of that stuff will be included in the "best". Even within the majority that's only interested in a limited section of the "best" of the game's tools, that section would only grow and become wider as more things become "best" too. And that's more options, not less. You're not being restricted or punished by having more awesome things to play with. And for that minority who we already know doesn't think this way, again they would be the ones to see the most benefit, being better able to keep up on more equal footing with those that limit themselves to the meta. Again, that's the point of making everything good, not achieving perfectly equal usage stats.

14 hours ago, darklord122 said:

These points have been brought to you multiple times but you are so blinded by your agenda that you don't see

Edited February 15 by PublikDomain

[PublikDomain]

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And the best way (which will touch on paragraph 1 and 2 here) is to simply introduce content that promotes using single target instead of AoE.

Which does nothing for any of the existing content, and just restricts players who prefer AoE by not letting them play how they like. It just trades one bad for another. Like, for example, how many bosses just ignore AoE damage. Yes, it effectively forces players to use single-target tools, but only in that one space and at the detriment of players who prefer to kaboom. Wouldn't it be better if all content could be approached using whatever method an individual prefers?

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

What you describe here is an issue with the game itself, it's an issue with people also.

And since you obviously can't fix people, the game should be fixed instead. Yes, DE doesn't do much to promote co-op play. They can't. They tell us this in plain language. What is there they can do when every player is a one-man army that one-shots entire rooms at a time? Ironically the game once did promote co-op play; the very thing you call an "illusion" was what we used to have! It was just lost to a decade of powercreep and the massive imbalance that followed. And just like how we once had it, we can have it again. Having it, which is both DE's goal as well as something preferred by a majority of players (consistently over many years), just requires taking a step back and addressing the massive imbalances within the game's mechanics. But that's hard, and DE would prefer easy.

Spoiler

Quote

So What Happens Next?
Now that we have this information a few key things stick out to us.

• The Mod System could do with some TLC
• Players would like to see Trials come back, in addition to some more challenging end game content
• There are a variety of areas that we can explore for some QoL changes

We will consider these takeaways and more as we continue to build Warframe! It’s exciting to see that a majority of the results align with our current aspirations for Warframe. There’s always room to improve and this survey gave us great consolidated feedback to move forward with. 

https://forums.warframe.com/topic/1301906-the-warframe-2022-survey-results

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Buffing them beyond AoE would be pointless, since AoE already hits hard enough now to 1HK things unless we go very very far into endless.

I can certainly see why it would seem pointless when you omit critical parts of my statements:

23 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

So if single-target weapons are buffed to sit beyond AoE weapons, and difficult content is made harder to the point where AoE can't just "kaboom things instantly", then now both AoE and single-target tools can work equally in the same spaces and we as players can play the game together in content designed for a knowable standard of power.

Stuff still being one-shot by AoE even into higher levels is just a scaling problem. And just like how DE significantly nerfed high level scaling in 2020, they can just as easily adjust scaling curves again to achieve the intended difficulty in areas intended to be difficult.

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I covered that already when I said you should really ask to get incarnon made for more weapons.

Given that we're projected to get a whole *five* new ones this year, that would take decades. Incarnons do work, far better than Rivens ever have, but they're slow. So they're not a good general solution either. Instead of individually buffing every single underperforming weapon in the game by giving it an Incarnon to fix its deficiencies, who not just... make the deficiencies less impactful? Same end result, far less work, plus you could address deficiencies in other mechanics too. You're not putting an Incarnon form on your Warframe's abilities, or your bullet jump damage, or on mounted turrets and stolen Dargyns, or on your pets. Other mechanics deserve to be good too. Incarnons and other weapon-centered buffs don't do anything for those.

6 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I've gone through the posts again and there is not a place where you actually go into what you actually want. You do however shift back to stats quite constantly throughout the posts. There are also few approaches that can be made in order to "balance" things, since it is practically either about stats or adding unique mechanics to other weapons. You also repeat in several posts that you arent talking about stats (no only to me) but you never mention what you want to do instead. Then you are here again talking about increasing single target damage beyond that of AoE, which again means you want to change stats, since more damage comes from increasing stats, meaning you want to crunch stats of weapons. So if you changing stats isnt what your plan involves, then dont mention things that involves changing stats.

Yes, I'm intentionally avoiding being prescriptive. I've said as much. The individual specifics I think are best don't matter. What matters is the end goal of leveling the playing field so players can play together again.

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

It's better that  people accept that they play an ARPG, where the single target gun is like that dedicated single target dps ability you bring soley for the purpose of killing the boss while the rest of your spec/build is made up of AoE damage and buffs.

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'm fully with you that it is fun to use weapons you like, even for aestethic reasons, but there is a point in games where you just have to give up those things in order to progress.

6 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I love basic looking weapons in games, and I'm sad sad sad whenever I need to go from random low-level-viking-longsword look over to berserk-had-a-threesome-with-sephiroth-and-cloud look due to progress. Just as it saddens me when I cant use a weapon I want for other reasons. But I dont expect a game to throw away they progress or design to cater to me. There are plenty of things I want to use in WF due to their aestethics but I simply cant due to their mechanics.

"I've given up".

Well I haven't. What you describe sounds awfully boring and restrictive to me. Why should I have to give up my favorite things just to progress? Why should you? If you're saddened by this, then why don't you want to change it? If this is the only Warframe you can see, sorry but that sounds like a downright crappy experience. No thanks.

[Merkranire]

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

It would be just as misleading if refered to as a level 50 build since it is only a 10 level difference. And normal content doesnt have drone crutches to rely on to help wipe out normal mobs you'll already struggle with.

Huh.

How very odd. I’m pretty sure you just proved that you weren’t paying attention to the points I kept repeating

edit: Man, just… re-reading the things your main post said. So much of it is like you didn’t even read what I said, since I’m seeing accusations leveled at me about things that I already said I don’t do that way

Which, y’know, is fine, seeing as I’m giving up on any sort of expectation that you get anything I’m saying. But wow, it’s just an eye opener that reminds me why I keep stopping.

double edit: Haha. Some of this, like the idea of how frequently I get downed and how useless I’ll be, makes me think that I’ll be playing like you. Which I guess makes sense, since it’s your perspective you have to draw upon since I never showed you what I can do with that build.

Just… go shoot some level 50s now. Make sure you shoot them in the weakspot, since I feel like you haven’t played a shooter much if at all. The gun’s got two firing modes, try both of them. And stop shooting Radiation-resistant or Overguard, since there’s different tools for those. My original points are level independent so long as someone knows what they’re building for in the first place, and if level 60 is too high for that build according to you, try something 10 levels lower and see if you get the idea

Edited February 15 by Merkranire

[SneakyErvin]

19 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Which does nothing for any of the existing content, and just restricts players who prefer AoE by not letting them play how they like. It just trades one bad for another. Like, for example, how many bosses just ignore AoE damage. Yes, it effectively forces players to use single-target tools, but only in that one space and at the detriment of players who prefer to kaboom. Wouldn't it be better if all content could be approached using whatever method an individual prefers?

But it would do something for exsisting content if done correctly. Like the mentioned ways to actually do things like the eximus rework instead of what we got etc. And people that prefer AoE would still be able to use it in that content. There would just be reasons to use single target aswell, and also through that use your whole loadout. I mean, it was in the bloody sentence right after the one you isolated in the quote you decided to go with. You have this thing for taking things out of context completely.

On 2024-02-15 at 1:36 PM, SneakyErvin said:

Since at that point both will see use and be incentiviced at the same time.

There it is again for you to read.

19 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

And since you obviously can't fix people, the game should be fixed instead. Yes, DE doesn't do much to promote co-op play. They can't. They tell us this in plain language. What is there they can do when every player is a one-man army that one-shots entire rooms at a time? Ironically the game once did promote co-op play; the very thing you call an "illusion" was what we used to have! It was just lost to a decade of powercreep and the massive imbalance that followed. And just like how we once had it, we can have it again. Having it, which is both DE's goal as well as something preferred by a majority of players (consistently over many years), just requires taking a step back and addressing the massive imbalances within the game's mechanics. But that's hard, and DE would prefer easy.

Again out of context reading. Again the next sentence would have described what the problem with people refers to. No it isnt about people facerolling, it is about people thinking they are actually playing a game that is designed as a co-op first and foremost, when it isnt. There is nothing to fix, since the game is already what it is supposed to be in that regard. And what they cant do? What I've already said, add content that promotes actual single target, or straight up requires it. Again, like a proper implementation of eximus and other heavy units that cannot just be killed with cleaves passively as you rain death on the trash. Those are things that can be added even with our absurd damage, since it would require pinpoint accuracy at that point and change the pace of missions.

And the game has never promoted co-op outside of arbitrary mechanics that really add nothing in the end. It has been based on "friend door" deluxe setups and nothing else. Combat itself has never been based and scaled around co-op. It has always been "more mobs" where each person simply handles the mobs they add, it doesnt get harder, it is just 4 people fighting 4 pools of enemies on the same map instead of 4 players fighting 4 pools of enemies across 4 maps. The one place were we actually had co-op promoted was RJ, since it wasnt just about friend door mechanics, because it was scaled to a 4 player setup from the start, where fewer players made it harder. Also with added objective setups to promote organized groups in order to be more effective. Then they added crew NPCs that 1HK everything. But as the game is set up, anything that results in forced co-op is bad, since we are at the mercy of peer-to-peer.

19 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I can certainly see why it would seem pointless when you omit critical parts of my statements:

Nope. Since it looks like you dont get at all what I mean.

19 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Stuff still being one-shot by AoE even into higher levels is just a scaling problem. And just like how DE significantly nerfed high level scaling in 2020, they can just as easily adjust scaling curves again to achieve the intended difficulty in areas intended to be difficult.

The point was that if AoE currently 1HKs, adding more damage to single target beyond that would still result in those weapons 1HKing, since even if you buff them beyond AoE they cant kill something in less than 1 hit per shot. You would at that point need to nerf AoE severly, but you would need to do it to a point where it deals several times less damage than a single target weapon so the two will be fairly even for killing a group of X enemies.

If you reduce AoE by say 50% so it cannot 1HK anymore, it would still only take AoE 2 shots to wipe out whatever amount of mobs can fit in the circle that previously pulled off a 1HK. So even if the single target then gets buffed so it 1HKs each mob due to not having AoE available, it would still take that gun so much more time to wipe out the same amount of enemies. And if you further reduce AoE so they both get roughly the same KPM, AoE will be in a state where it feels like just hitting sponges, which I went over already in the first quote where you only decided to provide one single sentence from me out of total context.

This would also #*!% up current content, whch you were concerned above in an earlier paragraph here in relation to the out of context quote. This would do less for current content since it would completely annihilate bosses and other encounters that are already requiring single target. And it would also do what you worried my idea of "content" would do, alienate those that already like AoE. I dont know about you, but I enjoy trash being trash and killed in droves, even if it means there are enemies I need to pull out my precision gun for. I far rather have that than a setting where my AoE gun hits like a noodle that needs to be spammed.

19 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Given that we're projected to get a whole *five* new ones this year, that would take decades. Incarnons do work, far better than Rivens ever have, but they're slow. So they're not a good general solution either. Instead of individually buffing every single underperforming weapon in the game by giving it an Incarnon to fix its deficiencies, who not just... make the deficiencies less impactful? Same end result, far less work, plus you could address deficiencies in other mechanics too. You're not putting an Incarnon form on your Warframe's abilities, or your bullet jump damage, or on mounted turrets and stolen Dargyns, or on your pets. Other mechanics deserve to be good too. Incarnons and other weapon-centered buffs don't do anything for those.

And you seriously think going over the several hundreds of weapons wouldnt take time heh? Like, what #*!%ing magical place do you live in? Changing the weapons would also not be isolated to just changing those weapons, because they'd also go over content etc. if bigger changes happen, like if they go with nerfed AoE and not just buffed weapons etc. They'd already have to reconsider the MR setup, since what would be the reason for a weapon to be locked to MR15 when it no longer is more powerful than the one at MR2? That you now also start to mention frames and pets just borderlines to silly. As in having no concept of reality. First off, pets will never get to a state where they are living blenders, since DE just recently nerfed a frame for that exact reason while also nerfing specters that are even less powerful. Second off, frames would need wide reworks to change so they are all able to be equal enough to have a piece of the killing cake in a mission. Banshee for instance will never be a frame that will keep up due to her abilities, she will always rely on weapons, same deal with Chroma, Rhino and others. We have few frames that dont actually have good kits, but even if those kits improve it wont do anything for them if they enter a group, it will not help them keep up with frames designed around dealing damage and killing through their abilities. And that will likely never chance, since it would kill diversity and the whole point of the game and its "right tool for the job" approach. Some frame will be slower with their kite or have lower utilization of it in some missions, then shine in others when some other frame lags behind. It just isnt a game of mains, so not everything needs to work evenly everywhere.

19 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Yes, I'm intentionally avoiding being prescriptive. I've said as much. The individual specifics I think are best don't matter. What matters is the end goal of leveling the playing field so players can play together again.

But the specifics are important, otherwise it looks like you complain for the sake of complaining with no real idea regarding what can actually be done. And the playing field is leveled enough quite honestly, since it seems to be you and a select few others that run into these problems to a point where you think it is common. You should probably look at a few PrimeTimes or so and see what the avarage outcome tends to be. They never run any top tier builds, sign up for regular mid level missions, with random people, without any preset rules etc. and it looks like everyone is part of the missions they run while having something to do. Which is also the avarage experience I have when I sign up for something public, unless it is the lowest of the lowest maps, at which point there is honestly nothing DE or anyone else can do about it aside from standing around and doing literally nothing with whatever they bring to the mission.

I helped a friend that had been on a lengthy break. He had no Bramma, Zarr or anything else heavy back then while I had access to and used those options. Never once did he find himself without things to do. All he did was stay slightly away from where I was killing, which wasnt a problem, since mobs came from that area too. I guess if you need to squat ontop of a guy with AoE you'll run out of things to do, but if you actually engage enemies where they come from you shouldnt have an issue being productive. It isnt like the game isnt designed for people to spread out when we have buffs that can reach up to 50m or so and heals that affect everything in affinity range etc.

19 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Well I haven't. What you describe sounds awfully boring and restrictive to me. Why should I have to give up my favorite things just to progress? Why should you? If you're saddened by this, then why don't you want to change it? If this is the only Warframe you can see, sorry but that sounds like a downright crappy experience. No thanks.

Because it isnt something realistic to change. I cant ask to have mods changed based on my taste, since as I said others may enjoy them. And if they change to cater to another taste, then suddenly the other person might suddenly be unable to enjoy it. Which is also why most games where people desire to use low level items add cosmetics so you can just skin them the way you want, so a sword can look like any sword you've ever collected etc. Which would really be the best way for WF aswell, getting the look we want together with the mechanic we like within a given weapon class. Crunching numbers only leads to homogenization and a lack further lack of a sense of progression, which is already limited in WF as it is since most items we obtain are side grades.

[SneakyErvin]

18 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Huh.

How very odd. I’m pretty sure you just proved that you weren’t paying attention to the points I kept repeating

edit: Man, just… re-reading the things your main post said. So much of it is like you didn’t even read what I said, since I’m seeing accusations leveled at me about things that I already said I don’t do that way

Which, y’know, is fine, seeing as I’m giving up on any sort of expectation that you get anything I’m saying. But wow, it’s just an eye opener that reminds me why I keep stopping.

double edit: Haha. Some of this, like the idea of how frequently I get downed and how useless I’ll be, makes me think that I’ll be playing like you. Which I guess makes sense, since it’s your perspective you have to draw upon since I never showed you what I can do with that build.

Just… go shoot some level 50s now. Make sure you shoot them in the weakspot, since I feel like you haven’t played a shooter much if at all. The gun’s got two firing modes, try both of them. And stop shooting Radiation-resistant or Overguard, since there’s different tools for those. My original points are level independent so long as someone knows what they’re building for in the first place, and if level 60 is too high for that build according to you, try something 10 levels lower and see if you get the idea

You had no points. You keep trying to claim you have some form of knowledge going etc. when you've proven that you dont.

And what is it you dont do? We've already covered that you would be fine jumping into a mission to experiment, which leads to you either potentially leaving and forcing a host mig if you are host, or staying and making harder than it needs to be for the rest. Even if you do not always end up as a host, you dont actually consider the case if you end up in that position, since there is a risk that happens the moment you sign up for a group. That means, everytime you do sign up to experiment in a group, you dont consider the outcome, and so do not consider how you may impact the others. Which you previously was so concerned about in relation to "us" the others and out "inconsiderate" behavior when using builds that the majority already expect to be there as they sign up for that pug.

Your frequency of getting downed or how often you end up useless due to your "build" doesnt matter. That you enter missions in the first place is the problem since you yourself speak of consideration towards other players when clearly not following your own advice. That is the whole point and the whole problem.

And if you think we play the game in the wrong way, and that your vision of fun is the real way, then you are also saying that DE are playing their own game the wrong way, same as most of the people that join them to have fun. You can just look at their streams to see how exaggerated the core subject of this thread is, and how even more exaggerated you see the problem and just how very narrow your views on fun and engagement is. 

edit: Also to be clear. I'm not saying undergeared players shouldnt sign up and take a chance etc. since if you can enter, well you can enter. I'm saying dont call others inconsiderate when you are inconsiderate yourself. We the "SP builds" cannot sabotage the progress of a mission, you however can and willingly take that risk among others, even though you claim consideration towards others is important to you.

Edited February 16 by SneakyErvin

[PublikDomain]

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

No it isnt about people facerolling, it is about people thinking they are actually playing a game that is designed as a co-op first and foremost, when it isnt.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And the game has never promoted co-op outside of arbitrary mechanics that really add nothing in the end. It has been based on "friend door" deluxe setups and nothing else. Combat itself has never been based and scaled around co-op.

Sorry, but again I think this mindset is just sad. "No no, just give up and stop expecting to play cooperatively with other people in this co-op online multiplayer game". No, lol. Maybe you missed the early days? I sincerely wish you were there to experience it. Also:

Quote

Note On Difficulty

This game mode is intended to be very challenging, and specifically tuned for full squads. Be sure to prepare accordingly!

Quote

Sortie Missions are difficult endgame Missions for experienced Tenno that can be completed alone or with a group.

Quote

Form a Squad with your friends and earn valuable bonus Rewards when you complete Missions together via highly collaborative, co-op gameplay. Utilize your Warframe’s Abilities to heal allies, redirect enemy fire, and achieve your objectives. Stuck on a particular challenge? In-game matchmaking makes it easy to connect with friendly Tenno whenever you need an extra hand.

Anyways.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You would at that point need to nerf AoE severly, but you would need to do it to a point where it deals several times less damage than a single target weapon so the two will be fairly even for killing a group of X enemies.

What's the hold-up, here? Yes, you would at that point need to do something else. That's what I said you would have to do. That's the part you conveniently omitted, the part that answers your very question. Though here I'm saying is that DE could just "buff the enemies" and not "nerf AoE" if it was actually a problem. It's effectively the same thing but y'all would just cry if I said it the other way. And then like you say the two would be fairly even for killing a group of X enemies.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

This would do less for current content since it would completely annihilate bosses and other encounters that are already requiring single target.

This is kind of a two-parter. One: you're again omitting where I said scaling should just be adjusted like it has been in the past, which would also affect current content too, since it's y'know an underlying mechanic that affects the whole game, and two: current bosses and content are already piss-easy and you guys would just cry if I dared suggest that anything currently easy be made harder. For content intended to be difficult, like Netracells, SP, Sorties, Archon Hunts, etc., then of course it just be adjusted until its sits at its intended difficulty. And then like you say the two would be fairly even for killing a group of X enemies. Which is the goal.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And you seriously think going over the several hundreds of weapons wouldnt take time heh?

Yes, because I don't think that's actually necessary. You can achieve the same thing without touching a single weapon. But again, I'm intentionally not being prescriptive here. It doesn't matter, and you'd just whine about any specific I give you.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And the playing field is leveled enough quite honestly, since it seems to be you and a select few others that run into these problems to a point where you think it is common.

Well, I disagree. The usage stats clearly show that this is indeed a common problem, and that's a fact even if you want to close your eyes to it. And while subjectively you might personally feel that our stale meta is "enough", like I said before it can always be made better, and better is always better than doing nothing. Warframe is a game that has constantly grown and evolved, even if there are some who would prefer that it stagnate.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Which is also why most games where people desire to use low level items add cosmetics so you can just skin them the way you want, so a sword can look like any sword you've ever collected etc. Which would really be the best way for WF aswell, getting the look we want together with the mechanic we like within a given weapon class.

Ironically, this coming from the same people who complained that what I suggest would just "make everything skins of each other". 🙄

Edited February 16 by PublikDomain

[Aldain]

You wanna know the biggest issue Warframe has imo?

Comically inconsistent numbers curves.

You go from the standard Star Chart, in which everything is made of paper, to open worlds where things scale wonky as hell at times, to Steel Path where there's so much raw number bloat that it makes me physically ill.

Warframe's numbers problem is in consistency or lack thereof, it's completely non-Euclidian in how it develops (which is fitting considering Warframe itself) which creates this giant gap between "insipidly easy" and "annoyingly hard unless you out stat everything by an absurd degree".

[Merkranire]

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You had no points. You keep trying to claim you have some form of knowledge going etc. when you've proven that you dont.

And what is it you dont do? We've already covered that you would be fine jumping into a mission to experiment, which leads to you either potentially leaving and forcing a host mig if you are host, or staying and making harder than it needs to be for the rest. Even if you do not always end up as a host, you dont actually consider the case if you end up in that position, since there is a risk that happens the moment you sign up for a group. That means, everytime you do sign up to experiment in a group, you dont consider the outcome, and so do not consider how you may impact the others. Which you previously was so concerned about in relation to "us" the others and out "inconsiderate" behavior when using builds that the majority already expect to be there as they sign up for that pug.

Your frequency of getting downed or how often you end up useless due to your "build" doesnt matter. That you enter missions in the first place is the problem since you yourself speak of consideration towards other players when clearly not following your own advice. That is the whole point and the whole problem.

And if you think we play the game in the wrong way, and that your vision of fun is the real way, then you are also saying that DE are playing their own game the wrong way, same as most of the people that join them to have fun. You can just look at their streams to see how exaggerated the core subject of this thread is, and how even more exaggerated you see the problem and just how very narrow your views on fun and engagement is. 

edit: Also to be clear. I'm not saying undergeared players shouldnt sign up and take a chance etc. since if you can enter, well you can enter. I'm saying dont call others inconsiderate when you are inconsiderate yourself. We the "SP builds" cannot sabotage the progress of a mission, you however can and willingly take that risk among others, even though you claim consideration towards others is important to you.

Swing and a miss. Play how you will, but it’s amazing how “Overkill or bust in multiplayer” you are, where consideration only happens when someone carries the team without even being asked to instead of consideration being, y’know, a range of alternative builds and their effectiveness centered around a particular level range of content

When @PublikDomain points out what DE themselves have said about co-operative aspects of this game, I’m just left wondering what you imagine that even looks like

Edited February 16 by Merkranire

[PR1D3]

11 hours ago, Aldain said:

You wanna know the biggest issue Warframe has imo?

Comically inconsistent numbers curves.

You go from the standard Star Chart, in which everything is made of paper, to open worlds where things scale wonky as hell at times, to Steel Path where there's so much raw number bloat that it makes me physically ill.

Warframe's numbers problem is in consistency or lack thereof, it's completely non-Euclidian in how it develops (which is fitting considering Warframe itself) which creates this giant gap between "insipidly easy" and "annoyingly hard unless you out stat everything by an absurd degree".

Funny that you mention this. Many of us, including @PublikDomain here, have said that the game could do well with some stat squishing.

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

2 hours ago, PR1D3 said:

the game could do well with some stat squishing.

I've been for this idea in the past, but with the caveat and realization, that this would take a TREMENDOUS amount of work... more than likely to happen.

It would also have to come with a full MOD rework, removing percentage based increases in favor of controlled set amounts (because percentages and mutiplicative bonuses get out of hand really fast, and interact in ways that may not have been foreseen. Another game with similar issues is Path of Exile.)

The problem of the stat squish, is that it creates a much lower ceiling... one that eliminates, or drastically reduces, the potential for players to progress very far in "endless" missions, where enemies continue to scale upward, well outside of even our current stat ranges, where players rely on similarly scaling mechanics and things like shield gating, to survive and kill enemies...

Endless missions are one facet of the game that has allowed DE to safely ignore adding new content at those extreme levels, as base gameplay modes, and not requiring them to balance around expecting players to interact with the game at those stat levels.

The Star Chart itself, along with Warframes and their abilities, are actually pretty well matched, all the way up to Sorties and Netracell missions, and the void with its modifiers.
Once you hit Steel Path, and Archon hunts with damage attenuation, the cracks in the system start becoming apparent. The stats weren't meant to interact at the higher end of the curve as it exists. Options become narrowed to the few weapons and frames that can be boosted into those ranges and take advantage of mechanics that "work around" the scaling stats or benefit from them in some way, or remove them in some way (which is why armor strip is so valuable.)

 

[SneakyErvin]

20 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Sorry, but again I think this mindset is just sad. "No no, just give up and stop expecting to play cooperatively with other people in this co-op online multiplayer game". No, lol. Maybe you missed the early days? I sincerely wish you were there to experience it. Also:

But it isnt a co-op online multiplayer game, it is an online game with optional co-op multiplayer. You mention the wording of uhm Netracells iirc, which are not at all tuned for a full group. I havent used an optimal setup for that mode a single time in order to carry all debuffs, stay alive and kill efficiently solo.

Second one regarding sorties... funny you bold the last 4 words while conveniently ignore to include the the primary "alone" i.e the word prior to "or". As I said "with optional multiplayer".

And the last quote, nothing there to indicate co-op is anything but optional. It is also straight up inaccurate, since it also refers to bonus loot for being grouped. The last part you bolded also implies it is there to help people if they need it, not that it is required or something the game is centered around. 

21 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

What's the hold-up, here? Yes, you would at that point need to do something else. That's what I said you would have to do. That's the part you conveniently omitted, the part that answers your very question. Though here I'm saying is that DE could just "buff the enemies" and not "nerf AoE" if it was actually a problem. It's effectively the same thing but y'all would just cry if I said it the other way. And then like you say the two would be fairly even for killing a group of X enemies.

Buffing enemies wouldnt help a bit either. Since it would end up with the sponge issue which isnt fitting for the game. It would still also require single target weapons to get further buffed beyond the damage of AoE, which would as I said screw up all current single target encounters in the game. Encounters where single target already serves their purpose very well, like it should be in a game about slaughtering hordes of enemies. So then you'd need to buff those encounters too, all in order to end up where you were already at in the encounters that single target weapons are naturally already designed for. All so that single target can also take the spot of AoE for everything else. Now all of a sudden you've made single taget weapons the weapons of choice, since their kill speed is now equal to AoE for clearing groups, since you just sponged up everything, and it is miles ahead of AoE for heavy units, since not only did you buff enemy health overall, you also increased single target damage and so had to further increase the health of the enemies that were already there to incentivice single target, which made them even more durable towards AoE, which was already a damage approach not really suited for those encounters.

21 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

This is kind of a two-parter. One: you're again omitting where I said scaling should just be adjusted like it has been in the past, which would also affect current content too, since it's y'know an underlying mechanic that affects the whole game, and two: current bosses and content are already piss-easy and you guys would just cry if I dared suggest that anything currently easy be made harder. For content intended to be difficult, like Netracells, SP, Sorties, Archon Hunts, etc., then of course it just be adjusted until its sits at its intended difficulty. And then like you say the two would be fairly even for killing a group of X enemies. Which is the goal.

But why should single target be equal for killing groups when AoE isnt equal to single target for killing bosses and other specific encounters? You end up with a just as uneven system while you try to solve one that doesnt really need solving. AoE is intended for the gameplay. All you would really do is slow down the game for absolutely no reason whatsoever. You wont be able to make single target equal to AoE while keeping the current speed of things. So Netracells for instance, will not stay at the intended difficulty, which is what we have now, it would only every get slower and slower as you push single target to clear as fast as AoE. This doesnt matter if you increase health while buffing single target, or if you reduce AoE damage. The end result will be the same, a slower game and nothing else. And at the same time AoE wont get a benefit to encounters where single target is already promoted and shines.

You'd also need to arrive to a point in AoE and single target damage along with enemy health that results in an avarage. That point would determine the cut off between AoE and single target for killing groups. And since this is something that according to you should affect all content, single target would be the go to for most content at all times unless it has SP specific density scaling while solo. Since no other content would realistically have a desnity high enough to promote actual AoE weapons, since they'd deal too little damage per mob, so would need X amount in order to pull even with single target at that point, and single target would need to be effective enough so high density doesnt become a massive slog for them too quickly.

21 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Yes, because I don't think that's actually necessary. You can achieve the same thing without touching a single weapon. But again, I'm intentionally not being prescriptive here. It doesn't matter, and you'd just whine about any specific I give you.

The point is, whole game would need to be gone over no matter where you place the change. Like ffs, please think a bit outside of the box before answering. Like I've said, it seems like everything needs to be put into words in an exact manner for you to grasp it. Are you unable to form a picture yourself? Sure weapons wont need fixing, if you go with changing mobs, but then mobs need to be looked over instead, which will also require work. But they'd also need to go over the weapons still, so they see what is needed. You are oversimplyfying things without giving any concrete ideas on how things can change. You also dont look at possible downsides of anything you mention, things that will butt heads as one is implemented for one thing as another at that point wont be intact or keep up.

Since you seem to have opinions, you should likely also have a pretty clear picture of the benefits and drawbacks, aswell as a plan on how to achieve what you want. But you are just vague, as if you just complain to complain. Hence why asking for a descriptive idea is what I do, since it would help alot with seeing your goal and intentions and how you plan to solve it. Your whole buff this, buff that doesnt work or give any view on what you actually want. You also earlier claimed here that you have described what you wanted but that I had missed it. Then when I confronted you on that you said you didnt want to be specific. So which is it, did I miss something or did you lie about me missing it?

21 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Well, I disagree. The usage stats clearly show that this is indeed a common problem, and that's a fact even if you want to close your eyes to it. And while subjectively you might personally feel that our stale meta is "enough", like I said before it can always be made better, and better is always better than doing nothing. Warframe is a game that has constantly grown and evolved, even if there are some who would prefer that it stagnate.

It isnt a problem when the game is designed that way. MR is by DE designed and intended to have a power gap tied to it through weapons. Hence why they've gone back to adjust weapon stats to fit their MR requirement already for the most part. And you just recently said usage stats dont matter, but now here you are again picking at usage stats. And you've also said that the meta isnt a problem, but uoi are not here again pointing at the meta being a problem. Is it only a problem when weapons you dont want to use are meta, and then not a problem if those weapons enter that meta? We have a pretty wide top weapon usage. The real problem is that we just have too many weapons overall in the game. In reality we have more top tier weapons in use than most games have as weapons in total.

Personally I probably have 60 or so weapons I could swap into a loadout and still feel very powerful no matter the content I'd do. Which is 15-20 per category along with my handful or so of Archguns.

22 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Ironically, this coming from the same people who complained that what I suggest would just "make everything skins of each other". 🙄

Not really seeing the ironical part.

What you ask wouldnt be the same as skins, it would be pointless work that would end up as if it was just a skin. You would still be tied to that semi-auto if you want that semi-auto "skin" as opposed to an actual skin that you could add to any single handed pistol with regular bullets/pellets, no matter if burst, semi-auto or full-auto. Like, you know, the protocol skins.

 

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

I have to point out, in the whole AoE vs single target balance debate, that equality is not what we should expect, nor what you would get.

Gameplay demands that we kill lots of trash enemies quickly to "farm" resources from said enemies. Buffing enemies, or nerfing AoE abilities, so that we kill slower, will inevitably slow down the game, and the rate at which we acquire materials that we're playing to get. Unless they ALSO buff drop rates at the same rate we're now killing enemies (for a net zero sum result, getting the same rewards per mission, otherwise, you're hurting everyone, just to have a more tactical, slower gameplay... that isn't what Warframe is about. That's Destiny.)

Warframe is a farming game, when we boil it all down. We're collecting blueprints and components and building new stuff to progress our characters. That's the loop. The gameplay that we perform to acquire those things needs to cater to the overall objective.

If the reward is only obtained upon mission completion, and doesn't rely on killing hordes, like Archon hunts (at least the final battle), there is less emphasis on bringing AoE weaponry, and single target weapons, useful against single boss targets, become more competitive.

This is a function of mission objective, not weapon power balance, big picture.

[SneakyErvin]

20 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Swing and a miss. Play how you will, but it’s amazing how “Overkill or bust in multiplayer” you are, where consideration only happens when someone carries the team without even being asked to instead of consideration being, y’know, a range of alternative builds and their effectiveness centered around a particular level range of content

When @PublikDomain points out what DE themselves have said about co-operative aspects of this game, I’m just left wondering what you imagine that even looks like

Only happends when someone carries? Nope. No one said that. I'm saying you are talking about people being inconsiderate to you while at the same time having no problem being inconsiderate to others. That is all that is being said. Considerate players can happen at all points in progression, it is simply about making sure they bring their best to increase mission success no matter where they are at when it comes to options tied to their progression.

So someone might lack mod options to be effective in arbis when it comes to killing. Well he might bring a frame then that makes sure he wont go down, which is considerate since he doesnt know if the other 3 he'll end up with are much further in progress or not, so dont want to rely on them getting him up. Or he has access to a frame that would benefit the group with some debuff or something. Which is also considerate since he brought something beneficial out of what he had access to to increase the success for the group as much as he can within what he has access to.

Your alternate builds are not considerate. Since they arent bringing the potential to make up for someone else less fortunate in their progress. Especially when you underbuild so severly as you've shown, which ends up with others having to pick up your slack even though they shouldnt have to at that point. You arent a new player unlocking access to a new mode heading in there as Bambi. You are a veteran in the game effectively doing less than the content requires, less than the content is designed for. And this is when looking only at the most simple of modes that dont really have a fail state. When we look at disruption it gets even worse, since you not carrying your weight there means failure for the rest if they are just barely scraping by. Since at that point you must carry your weight to help remove that extra health you just slapped onto each and every demo.

No one here said there arent co-op aspects. That isnt the same as a game designed as co-op as main focus. It doesnt even have the most basic features of such games, like increased rewards, actual scaled difficulty or other mechanics designed to keep a group engaged. Everything is WF is a solo experience, you can simply enjoy it with others as an option. A game with co-op desgined with intent are things like D3, where a group means higher difficulty which also comes with a higher reward, a quite significantly higher reward as opposed to playing solo. Or MMOs that provide dedicated group activities that simply cannot be done solo (unless you are several expansions beyond the difficulty).

[SneakyErvin]

5 minutes ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

I have to point out, in the whole AoE vs single target balance debate, that equality is not what we should expect, nor what you would get.

Gameplay demands that we kill lots of trash enemies quickly to "farm" resources from said enemies. Buffing enemies, or nerfing AoE abilities, so that we kill slower, will inevitably slow down the game, and the rate at which we acquire materials that we're playing to get. Unless they ALSO buff drop rates at the same rate we're now killing enemies (for a net zero sum result, getting the same rewards per mission, otherwise, you're hurting everyone, just to have a more tactical, slower gameplay... that isn't what Warframe is about. That's Destiny.)

Warframe is a farming game, when we boil it all down. We're collecting blueprints and components and building new stuff to progress our characters. That's the loop. The gameplay that we perform to acquire those things needs to cater to the overall objective.

If the reward is only obtained upon mission completion, and doesn't rely on killing hordes, like Archon hunts (at least the final battle), there is less emphasis on bringing AoE weaponry, and single target weapons, useful against single boss targets, become more competitive.

This is a function of mission objective, not weapon power balance, big picture.

Well said!

I'd also like to weigh in on the mission completion loot. Adding too much of that in the shape of Archon hunts or assassinates in general would not be a good approach to increase incentive for single target, since it would just be a skippety-tip-hop past all enemies for the deluxe loot pinata of the mission. However, it could be added in other potential ways where AoE wouldnt matter as much. Like timed defense sections or similar throughout the missions, where killing is beneficial but can be done just aswell with a single target weapon for the most part.

Or the disruption approach, which is probably the finest mode ever introduced. AoE is useful, but it isnt needed to be efficient at all in the mode. All you need to do is kill the right mobs for keys to drop, then kill enough to stay alive while focusing on finding the big baddie. It is probably the perfect game mode setup imo since it adds the idea of assassination and capture without bringing all the bagage with it from those modes. It also manage to promote a diverse kit so you can wipe out trash and engage the demo effectively.

[PublikDomain]

21 hours ago, Aldain said:

You wanna know the biggest issue Warframe has imo?

Comically inconsistent numbers curves.

You go from the standard Star Chart, in which everything is made of paper, to open worlds where things scale wonky as hell at times, to Steel Path where there's so much raw number bloat that it makes me physically ill.

Warframe's numbers problem is in consistency or lack thereof, it's completely non-Euclidian in how it develops (which is fitting considering Warframe itself) which creates this giant gap between "insipidly easy" and "annoyingly hard unless you out stat everything by an absurd degree".

Yeah, this is essentially all that I'm trying to convince Sneaky of. Consider these four damage-dealing tools:

Spoiler

It goes from 300 DPS on the left to like 15,000,000 DPS on the right. You'd need 50 thousand Hydroids all standing in a line casting Tempest Barrage to match just one Void Rig that isn't even dealing Viral damage. You'd need ~35 Hydroids just to match one bad Amp, and ~1,350 Tenno using that Amp to again match that one Arquebex. That Arquebex alone is worth about 1,000 Railjacks all shooting their main armaments! How do you even begin to build content around that?

7 hours ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

I've been for this idea in the past, but with the caveat and realization, that this would take a TREMENDOUS amount of work... more than likely to happen.

It would also have to come with a full MOD rework, removing percentage based increases in favor of controlled set amounts (because percentages and mutiplicative bonuses get out of hand really fast, and interact in ways that may not have been foreseen. Another game with similar issues is Path of Exile.)

I think it's actually a lot easier than it looks. It's why I'm always so adamant about these issues: because I know they can be addressed without actually needing all that much in the way of development. For example:

7 hours ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

The problem of the stat squish, is that it creates a much lower ceiling... one that eliminates, or drastically reduces, the potential for players to progress very far in "endless" missions, where enemies continue to scale upward, well outside of even our current stat ranges, where players rely on similarly scaling mechanics and things like shield gating, to survive and kill enemies...

DE already changed this curve once in the past, when they switched from exponential scaling to the current S-curve. It happened with no fanfare, no pain, no massive development costs, they just changed one formula. So if a squish produces a lower ceiling, then enemy scaling coefficients can just be squished down until they fit again. Doing so involves changing just a few constant values; it's a notepad edit! And at the same time, DE could also address the inconsistencies in enemy Armor scaling. We could go from this:

Spoiler

Where pretty much the only thing that matters up to levelcap is Armor, to this:

Spoiler

Where all of the factions are starting to be more on the same page. Now you might have a reason to actually build Magnetic damage! Wild! And while it's not perfect, this is the result of changing just three numbers! Specific adjustments could be made after the fact if it was even necessary. The scale of these curves can also be adjusted up or down to match any desired value by changing just two more numbers. For example:

Spoiler

These two curves have different Health and Shield coefficients but are otherwise identical. The left produces enemies at lvl100 with around 40k EHP, the right produces enemies at lvl100 with around 20k EHP. You can achieve whatever value you want, whether it's 69k EHP or 420k EHP, just by changing those coefficients.

And when you point out modding, you're absolutely correct! Where does most of the power damage outliers have come from? Modding! Because we're allowed to stack a dozen damage buffs on top of each other for our 4,000x damage multiplier weapon builds. That's why moddable tools like guns and melee are so much more powerful than things like Warframe/Operator abilities and Amps and turrets. So how could you change those multipliers to scale more equally with other damage systems? Changing the mods themselves could work, but might make modding feel anemic if individual mods are made too small. Changing the formulas governing how these mods combine could work, but there's a limit to how far you can take that. So what if you just... had fewer mods? 🤔 That's the conclusion I've arrived at, and is about as prescriptive as I'll get here.

53 minutes ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

Gameplay demands that we kill lots of trash enemies quickly to "farm" resources from said enemies. Buffing enemies, or nerfing AoE abilities, so that we kill slower, will inevitably slow down the game, and the rate at which we acquire materials that we're playing to get. Unless they ALSO buff drop rates at the same rate we're now killing enemies (for a net zero sum result, getting the same rewards per mission, otherwise, you're hurting everyone, just to have a more tactical, slower gameplay... that isn't what Warframe is about. That's Destiny.)

But hasn't DE already been buffing enemies for years? Newer zones like the Zariman and the Labs have higher and higher starting enemy levels, and content like SP specifically buffs enemies. Is the game slowing down and becoming more tactical? I don't think so. Whatever kills-per-minute figure you think needs to be maintained can be maintained. And if that figure needs to change so that DE can have enemies that can withstand the player for more than a nanosecond so we can play together again, why does it need to be taken to an extreme? The game can slow down a little without turning into Gears of War.

Edited February 17 by PublikDomain

[PublikDomain]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

But it isnt a co-op online multiplayer game, it is an online game with optional co-op multiplayer. You mention the wording of uhm Netracells iirc, which are not at all tuned for a full group. I havent used an optimal setup for that mode a single time in order to carry all debuffs, stay alive and kill efficiently solo.

If you want to play semantics, then fine. So it's still a co-op game? You can go play by yourself, please do. For the people who choose to engage with the game's multiplayer, as DE have so clearly said, "ideally everybody gets a chance to play".

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

All so that single target can also take the spot of AoE for everything else.

No, so they can SHARE the spot. Good gosh, we're how many pages in and you still won't acknowledge this?

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Hence why asking for a descriptive idea is what I do, since it would help alot with seeing your goal and intentions and how you plan to solve it.

Bud, you won't even agree to the basic premise! So why would I waste time arguing with you about specifics? Let's start with getting you to accept the basic idea that "ideally everybody gets to play".

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

AoE is intended for the gameplay.

Quote

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

🤡

Edited February 17 by PublikDomain

[Merkranire]

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Only happends when someone carries? Nope. No one said that. I'm saying you are talking about people being inconsiderate to you while at the same time having no problem being inconsiderate to others. That is all that is being said. Considerate players can happen at all points in progression, it is simply about making sure they bring their best to increase mission success no matter where they are at when it comes to options tied to their progression.

So someone might lack mod options to be effective in arbis when it comes to killing. Well he might bring a frame then that makes sure he wont go down, which is considerate since he doesnt know if the other 3 he'll end up with are much further in progress or not, so dont want to rely on them getting him up. Or he has access to a frame that would benefit the group with some debuff or something. Which is also considerate since he brought something beneficial out of what he had access to to increase the success for the group as much as he can within what he has access to.

Your alternate builds are not considerate. Since they arent bringing the potential to make up for someone else less fortunate in their progress. Especially when you underbuild so severly as you've shown, which ends up with others having to pick up your slack even though they shouldnt have to at that point. You arent a new player unlocking access to a new mode heading in there as Bambi. You are a veteran in the game effectively doing less than the content requires, less than the content is designed for. And this is when looking only at the most simple of modes that dont really have a fail state. When we look at disruption it gets even worse, since you not carrying your weight there means failure for the rest if they are just barely scraping by. Since at that point you must carry your weight to help remove that extra health you just slapped onto each and every demo.

No one here said there arent co-op aspects. That isnt the same as a game designed as co-op as main focus. It doesnt even have the most basic features of such games, like increased rewards, actual scaled difficulty or other mechanics designed to keep a group engaged. Everything is WF is a solo experience, you can simply enjoy it with others as an option. A game with co-op desgined with intent are things like D3, where a group means higher difficulty which also comes with a higher reward, a quite significantly higher reward as opposed to playing solo. Or MMOs that provide dedicated group activities that simply cannot be done solo (unless you are several expansions beyond the difficulty).

Dude, you have been arguing for overkill all this time. You don’t even know what you’re built for, in fact, in another topic, your whole philosophy is that you live in the highest builds you can make (or highest content you can do, can’t quite remember, but the point remains) because you think the game is a linear progression system. What do you think that translates into? Because I can tell you that most of this game is not designed around the highest builds you can make

I showed you a build that level 60 content pushes it because I want all that free slots and capacity for build customisation, so when I suggest bringing it to level 50, what do you think is going to happen?

It’s going to kill more effectively, without overkilling. It’s going to pull its weight more without carrying.

And when I said I’d reconsider that build for level 60 and potentially add some extra damage mods at cost to something else I’d equipped because I’m expecting players to go further than 60 and do a few rounds, what do you think is going to happen?

It’s going to kill more effectively without overkilling. It’s going to pull its weight more without carrying.

And Warframe does scale things according to amount of players. And you may be surprised at how many options we have to avoid mission failure that extend beyond our builds and how mission failure is actually kind of rare when we consider all the ways we can avoid it, not that you would know since I’m guessing you’ve never even approached it

 

Nuance is absolutely lost on you, Ervin. You may act like you know what you’re talking about, but when it comes to being considerate for the sake of players while building for content, you’re guessing at best and lying at worst. Your idea of consideration isn’t “Pull your weight”, it’s “Carry the team”, because you don’t know what “Pulling your weight” even looks like because all you’ve done is “Carry the team” because you think the game’s so linear you were living in SP builds before SP dropped and you think using something else is doing the game wrong

 

Edited February 17 by Merkranire

[SneakyErvin]

20 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

If you want to play semantics, then fine. So it's still a co-op game? You can go play by yourself, please do. For the people who choose to engage with the game's multiplayer, as DE have so clearly said, "ideally everybody gets a chance to play".

It's not semantics. There is a vast difference between a game designed with co-op in focus and a game with co-op as an optional choice. In a game where co-op is accounted for in design, a solo player will mostly just scrape by compared to playing co-op. 

20 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

No, so they can SHARE the spot. Good gosh, we're how many pages in and you still won't acknowledge this?

But they wouldnt share the spot. If what you want is done, then there will be no distinct use for AoE, since it will only be as good as single target at handling crowds of mobs while not sharing the current distinct use of single target i.e killing... single... targets.

20 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Bud, you won't even agree to the basic premise! So why would I waste time arguing with you about specifics? Let's start with getting you to accept the basic idea that "ideally everybody gets to play".

Everyone already gets to play. And I'm not arguing that we couldnt use balance in the game. Your current vague ideas are just not the way, since they would do nothing but slow down the game and create other problems. What we really need are nerfs in order for future content to be easier to design without needing to add bad mechanics like Exploiter or Nihil for instance. That doesnt mean the current game needs to change aswell and just get slower. They'd need to rethink the whole concept at that point so rewards end up roughly the same over time etc. And changing weapon damage or mob health isnt the solution.

Changing density while increasing health along with loot would be one solution, adding specific priority mobs with good loot would be another, SO/ESO setups regarding rewards but without the need for high KPM in the mission would work too.

20 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

🤡

And the part you quoted can refer to anything and not just AoE damage. There are plenty of non-damaging or low damaging abilities in the game that are far more disruptive to gameplay flow. And last I checked, none of our AoE weapons deal damage in a bigger circle than 10-ish meters. So why is everyone in a 4 man group competing over the same 10m of a map? Enemies tend to pour in from all directions. And not all missions are about killing, or killing many enemies. So your "fix" to make single target stronger wouldnt do anything to solve what you quoted from DE, since you'd still have weapons that 1HK bosses, demos etc. leaving the other 3 with nothing to do for the main objective of those types of missions. While you are at it you should ask for spy to have a 4th vault added aswell and a limit to 1 vault opened per player in a group, just so no one feels "ineffective" or "disrupted" in those missions either.

That you even try to argue that AoE is not intended in a game that spawned the number of mobs it does is hilarious! More so when we constantly also get missions and bounty types that effectively punish low KPM, and not only in the mids of the player because of "less lewt" but to point where they actually fail if you dont kill fast enough.

You also dodged to answer the simple question I asked. Why should single target be equal for killing groups when AoE isnt equal to single target for killing bosses and other specific encounters?