Nuke Builds Are Ruining Gameplay Enjoyment

[Voltage]

3 hours ago, Merkranire said:

So anyways, yeah. 

Because I don’t want DE to take away your toys because they’re my toys too, I’d prefer a filter or something where the community gets split into at most two groups to prevent too much fragmentation, preferably; grinders and game-players (descriptors up for reworking), where people who focus on grind and have fun doing it or who live in a few builds that enable laid-back grinding can join one side, while others looking for something else involving gameplay with alternative and more build options and variety because they’re not so focused on grind efficiency can join the other side.

DE needs to step in and separate us since one player jumping into a group of four and built to grind optimally (or just built for way higher than the content even asks for) tends to call the shots

You're creating a division in player behavior that is simply all in your head. These types of players aren't mutually exclusive. You can be laid back while going fast, and you can care about your efficiency while being laid back.

Think of it like this (in the context of an average non-endless mission): playing Titania for Razorwing doesn't automatically categorize you as a sweat, and playing Nyx doesn't mean you're slow or taking it easy. 

DE used to step in when an AoE setup was a massive outlier compared to the rest (you can see my list in my initial comment). However the "AoE meta" was always there. Outlier AoE was addressed, but core gameplay AoE has always remained. The game has intentionally catered to this type of gameplay. We just got iOS today, and that platform has auto-melee when walking up to an enemy, and auto-shooting when the reticle is over an enemy. The whole "Warframe plays itself for you" isn't a new concept, but it's definitely only leaned more into it over the years.

If you don't want to have the game play for you, that's absolutely fine. I'm with you there. I don't like using On Call/Kahl Beacon/Specters on every defensive mission I play. I don't like the fact that people AFK in Ani/Mot and ruin many aspects of the game for other players. Players rushing objectives though is just part of the game. Always has been, always will be. Fissures exaggerated this issue because it's public matchmaking. Tower Void Keys that predate the Void Fissure system were all pre-made squads. In this way, you'd be recruiting for people and easily seeing when they were doing 50 runs in a row, 4 hours in a Survival, or just a casual few runs. However, even in a "casual" run, plenty of people still brought their Orthos Prime, Tonkor, Synoid Simulor Mirage, or other methods to zip around the map to extract as seamlessly as possible.

What you're advocating for is a gameplay experience that has never been the status quo, but something you need to create for yourself. If you dislike the fact that the game plays this way and matchmaking to play differently is too much of a hassle, you'll just have to bite the bullet solo, search for that one new/old group of friends/clanmates, or quit Warframe. That's just the way it is man.

Edited February 20 by Voltage

[Merkranire]

52 minutes ago, Voltage said:

You're creating a division in player behavior that is simply all in your head. These types of players aren't mutually exclusive. You can be laid back while going fast, and you can care about your efficiency while being laid back.

Think of it like this (in the context of an average non-endless mission): playing Titania for Razorwing doesn't automatically categorize you as a sweat, and playing Nyx doesn't mean you're slow or taking it easy. 

DE used to step in when an AoE setup was a massive outlier compared to the rest (you can see my list in my initial comment). However the "AoE meta" was always there. Outlier AoE was addressed, but core gameplay AoE has always remained. The game has intentionally catered to this type of gameplay. We just got iOS today, and that platform has auto-melee when walking up to an enemy, and auto-shooting when the reticle is over an enemy. The whole "Warframe plays itself for you" isn't a new concept, but it's definitely only leaned more into it over the years.

If you don't want to have the game play for you, that's absolutely fine. I'm with you there. I don't like using On Call/Kahl Beacon/Specters on every defensive mission I play. I don't like the fact that people AFK in Ani/Mot and ruin many aspects of the game for other players. Players rushing objectives though is just part of the game. Always has been, always will be. Fissures exaggerated this issue because it's public matchmaking. Tower Void Keys that predate the Void Fissure system were all pre-made squads. In this way, you'd be recruiting for people and easily seeing when they were doing 50 runs in a row, 4 hours in a Survival, or just a casual few runs. However, even in a "casual" run, plenty of people still brought their Orthos Prime, Tonkor, Synoid Simulor Mirage, or other methods to zip around the map to extract as seamlessly as possible.

What you're advocating for is a gameplay experience that has never been the status quo, but something you need to create for yourself. If you dislike the fact that the game plays this way and matchmaking to play differently is too much of a hassle, you'll just have to bite the bullet solo, search for that one new/old group of friends/clanmates, or quit Warframe. That's just the way it is man.

I’m aware it’s the status quo, I’m saying it doesn’t have to be, and the problem with it being the status quo now is that when someone actively chooses to do something other than cookieclick their way to burnout and they jump into multiplayer to, y’know, play with other players instead of treating those players like an extra relic at best and necessary evil at worst, even though they’re choosing to play the game instead of stress over efficiency, the solo-in-multiplayer player who is either built way beyond the content or is bringing farming builds is deciding for them that the game is going to be cookie-clicker leech simulator.

All it takes is a bit of “Am I really going to be appreciated by the others on the team when I jump into multiplayer with a build designed to hog all the game and enforce the status quo, and what will it really cost me to change a few things around so that we all roughly fit in the same mission”.

Apparently that’s impossible for some players, some of whom sometimes simultaneously lament that it’s the status quo and the game is worse off for it while doing nothing to change and actually argue for the concept despite all the incentive to mix things up in a game where most of the stuff you’re going to earn in this long-ass marathon of a game is optional anyways and there’s the whole other side of this game worth playing using the stuff you’ve earned. They need DE to step in and force them to change for the sake of the other players on the team, because they’re sure as hell not going to do it. Which sucks because DE try and then I lose out because they nerf the fun toys I was using responsibly because some idiots with more power than sense run the community

I don’t know how much you’re patting yourself on the back for being so grind-oriented, but it’s not a surprise that the mindset causes problems, there’s a whole phrase about it lamenting that game designers can’t do anything fun because the players are self-destructive. Most games stop players from extreme optimisation, but DE did something stupid and gave us free rein and trusted us to use it wisely, which means the amount of customisation and gameplay opportunity is unprecedented but it comes with a caveat that we do so responsibly, which in multiplayer means thinking of others and not assuming they’re grindholics like yourself and sidelining them when they just want to play alongside someone else.

 

Every time someone laments the game’s lost its game? You guys are fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way, and I don’t even care what you do in solo because yeah, endless destruction can be a fun every-so-often thing and I’m grateful that DE lets us keep it, but the context changes the moment you jump onto a multiplayer mission and you need to consider your impact on others

[Voltage]

57 minutes ago, Merkranire said:

I’m aware it’s the status quo, I’m saying it doesn’t have to be, and the problem with it being the status quo now is that when someone actively chooses to do something other than cookieclick their way to burnout and they jump into multiplayer to, y’know, play with other players instead of treating those players like an extra relic at best and necessary evil at worst, even though they’re choosing to play the game instead of stress over efficiency, the solo-in-multiplayer player who is either built way beyond the content or is bringing farming builds is deciding for them that the game is going to be cookie-clicker leech simulator.

All it takes is a bit of “Am I really going to be appreciated by the others on the team when I jump into multiplayer with a build designed to hog all the game and enforce the status quo, and what will it really cost me to change a few things around so that we all roughly fit in the same mission”.

Apparently that’s impossible for some players, some of whom sometimes simultaneously lament that it’s the status quo and the game is worse off for it while doing nothing to change and actually argue for the concept despite all the incentive to mix things up in a game where most of the stuff you’re going to earn in this long-ass marathon of a game is optional anyways and there’s the whole other side of this game worth playing using the stuff you’ve earned. They need DE to step in and force them to change for the sake of the other players on the team, because they’re sure as hell not going to do it. Which sucks because DE try and then I lose out because they nerf the fun toys I was using responsibly because some idiots with more power than sense run the community

I don’t know how much you’re patting yourself on the back for being so grind-oriented, but it’s not a surprise that the mindset causes problems, there’s a whole phrase about it lamenting that game designers can’t do anything fun because the players are self-destructive. Most games stop players from extreme optimisation, but DE did something stupid and gave us free rein and trusted us to use it wisely, which means the amount of customisation and gameplay opportunity is unprecedented but it comes with a caveat that we do so responsibly, which in multiplayer means thinking of others and not assuming they’re grindholics like yourself and sidelining them when they just want to play alongside someone else.

 

Every time someone laments the game’s lost its game? You guys are fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way, and I don’t even care what you do in solo because yeah, endless destruction can be a fun every-so-often thing and I’m grateful that DE lets us keep it, but the context changes the moment you jump onto a multiplayer mission and you need to consider your impact on others

You're just getting lost in the sauce buddy.

I was merely painting you reality, not the optimism of you're dream-state with Warframe. The game has hundreds, if not thousands of hours worth of content. We're also playing a game centered entirely around loot and rewards. The way the game plays now is actually compelling for many players, myself included. I have many qualms with Warframe, but it's still my favorite game and I still love the movement, the combat, the builds. and what's possible with my account, even when I know that sometimes I am just blitzing through a low level mission.

Achieving how you want to see Warframe requires undoing a decade of changes that have accumulated to this point. Treating public Fissure players as "an extra Relic" is a symptom of the way Relics were designed as opposed to Void Keys. Archon Shards, Helminth, Arcanes, and several other layers of upgrades have enabled the one-man-army gameplay you dislike playing with.

I'm sorry, but you're just waffling at this point. You're venting to the wrong guy, barking up the wrong tree, and pissing in the wind. Good luck.

[Merkranire]

1 hour ago, Voltage said:

You're just getting lost in the sauce buddy.

I was merely painting you reality, not the optimism of you're dream-state with Warframe. The game has hundreds, if not thousands of hours worth of content. We're also playing a game centered entirely around loot and rewards. The way the game plays now is actually compelling for many players, myself included. I have many qualms with Warframe, but it's still my favorite game and I still love the movement, the combat, the builds. and what's possible with my account, even when I know that sometimes I am just blitzing through a low level mission.

Achieving how you want to see Warframe requires undoing a decade of changes that have accumulated to this point. Treating public Fissure players as "an extra Relic" is a symptom of the way Relics were designed as opposed to Void Keys. Archon Shards, Helminth, Arcanes, and several other layers of upgrades have enabled the one-man-army gameplay you dislike playing with.

I'm sorry, but you're just waffling at this point. You're venting to the wrong guy, barking up the wrong tree, and pissing in the wind. Good luck.

It’s the players that are twisting the game and stepping on each other’s toes, the game itself is perfectly fine and just needs a way to stop you and I from meeting. 

You talk about the things you love, what do you think I love too? The problems start happening when you either build for higher-level content and then take it lower or specifically build to nuke everything (typically achieved by building high and then taking low) so that movement is no longer necessary and combat is a figment of the imagination and the builds someone else is using that’s different to what you’re using don’t get a chance to do anything except fight over the scraps you leave behind while you go on about how you wish the game worked while I’m playing it like the way you wished the game worked right now and you’re getting in the way when I join Multiplayer looking to play alongside someone and you’re there expecting me to beat you in some kind of DPeenS measuring contest like the mission isn’t already blown away by you even before I joined and I’m just superfluous and I drop out and load up the mission in Solo because that at least gives me the chance to even play the damn game using the stuff I earned and the builds I make.

I don’t want to be stuffed into solo by you and your “Oh, this many-thousand hour game needs to be rushed at risk of burnout, new content must be completed ASAP, the game’s just too repetitive and boring” while I’m mixing things up so it’s not repetitive and boring and then you wander into a mission like the sad sack you are and tell me the best way is to play like you while I’m just looking on with a 😐 look and saying “I’ll pass for now, I can get that in solo: please leave the mission so that I can use the stuff I’ve earned to play the objective and so that someone else can join”

Edited February 21 by Merkranire

[PublikDomain]

On 2024-02-18 at 8:09 AM, SneakyErvin said:

In a game where co-op is accounted for in design, a solo player will mostly just scrape by compared to playing co-op. 

Which is precisely how the game was back in the day when it came to endgame things like deep T4D and Raids. Anyways.

On 2024-02-18 at 8:09 AM, SneakyErvin said:

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.

AoE can still be better in general against crowds. Single-target can still be better in general against stronger individual units. I'm not sure why you've deluded yourself into thinking I'm saying that should change. They'd just be more equal in the things they're not good at, too, so players with different preferences will be better able to play together as teammates. That means that the sniper rifle people can play with the kaboom people and the dakka people and we can all have fun together. Bizarre that I keep having to explain this to you.

It's also pretty ironic that you'd continue to complain about this, given, y'know, how there's currently barely any distinct use for single-target weapons outside of a handful of boss fights you do a few times and then never again. Is that not the exact same problem just reversed? Or is it only a problem when I say it?

On 2024-02-18 at 8:09 AM, SneakyErvin said:

Everyone already gets to play.

Nonsense. If they did, then DE wouldn't have had to say that, OP wouldn't have a reason to post, and you and I wouldn't be here arguing. Yet here we are, because you're wrong: everyone does not get a chance to play. You just can't accept that because you refuse to empathize with others.

On 2024-02-18 at 8:09 AM, SneakyErvin said:

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.

On 2024-02-18 at 8:09 AM, SneakyErvin 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.

That part I quoted is specifically talking about AoE abilities. Here's a larger snippet:

Quote

When reviewing the Arsenal over time, our developers often find themselves asking: 'is this fun?’. That's the most important question to us, from the perspective of both the active player and their three squadmates. We understand the importance of power fantasy, but overbearing abilities can make squadmates feel ineffective by seriously disrupting intended gameplay flow. Conversely, when a Warframe doesn’t do enough, players may simply choose a “better” frame, sacrificing personalization and diversity for efficiency. Neither of these situations are ideal, so let’s shake things up!

...

But for many, her gameplay has become centralized around an augment for her ultimate, Resonating Quake. Since sound waves can hit through walls, the humongous area of effect can prevent enemies from getting anywhere near the objective, while the casting player is left with nothing to do but wait. From our own public play experiences, Resonating Quake is what we as creators of Warframe find to be the most unfun ability- “I want to enjoy this horde shooter, but where are the hordes?”

---

Ember is the original damage caster frame, offering low survivability in exchange for high offense. Her ultimate, World on Fire, is unmatched in terms of widespread lethality - while many Warframes specialize in certain mission types, Ember’s specialty is “anything under level 30”. By simply bullet jumping through levels with World on Fire active, enemies become a non-factor, making Ember a ubiquitous pick across most of the Star Chart. Like a mobile Resonating Quake, this monopoly on kills can leave squadmates struggling to keep up, in an attempt to see the enemy before they melt. These changes increase lethality at higher levels, while addressing the ability’s huge range.

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

we as creators of Warframe find to be the most unfun ability- “I want to enjoy this horde shooter, but where are the hordes?”

we as creators of Warframe find to be the most unfun ability- “I want to enjoy this horde shooter, but where are the hordes?”

we as creators of Warframe find to be the most unfun ability- “I want to enjoy this horde shooter, but where are the hordes?”

we as creators of Warframe find to be the most unfun ability- “I want to enjoy this horde shooter, but where are the hordes?”

🤡

On 2024-02-18 at 8:09 AM, SneakyErvin said:

That you even try to argue that AoE is not intended in a game that spawned the number of mobs it does is hilarious!

Where have I said that AoE is not intended? Please, quote me. You won't be able to, since this is just yet another thing you've invented. Just like DE's quote you don't seem to like, I think I've been pretty clear that I'm talking about disruptive AoE not being intended. AoE itself is clearly intended, being a disruptive child that won't share their toys is not.

Edited February 21 by PublikDomain

[PublikDomain]

On 2024-02-18 at 2:06 PM, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

Maybe you should be petitioning DE for a curated power synch'd multiplayer mode that levels the playing field, no matter what builds people bring in, so everyone's playing at the same power.

So........... Damage Attenuation?

On 2024-02-18 at 2:06 PM, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

I don't know why they'd do this, but that's what you're basically asking for...

But they did do this. This was something that they invented all on their own.

On 2024-02-18 at 2:06 PM, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

Do you see how unreasonable this sounds? Do you know what you're asking for? I don't think you do, and if you do, I cannot support you in the least, and will continue to disagree, protest proposals, and present reasons for why it's a bad fit for THIS game, whenever they are presented in whatever forum posts are created.

[eboomer]

There has been a lot of power creep, so now anything in the start chart is trivially easy.  So if you don't want insta-nuking of an entire room, then either play solo or in a pre-made squad with like-minded individuals, or play in the Steel Path.  Sure there is still a fair bit of AOE in Steel Path, but not to where there will not be any enemies for you to attack.

[Leqesai]

1 hour ago, eboomer said:

There has been a lot of power creep, so now anything in the start chart is trivially easy.  So if you don't want insta-nuking of an entire room, then either play solo or in a pre-made squad with like-minded individuals, or play in the Steel Path.  Sure there is still a fair bit of AOE in Steel Path, but not to where there will not be any enemies for you to attack.

Steel path presumes higher use of aoe. This is why enemy density is much higher in steel path. If anything it would be more common to see aoe in Steel Path than non steel path.

[SneakyErvin]

18 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Just tired of repeating myself. I’d forgotten that you insisted I didn’t like SP despite my repeating otherwise, too

edit: ugh, re-reading and… my god. I want you to be a game designer and put some of your ideas to the test, I really do

No you dont like people that say SP is "the place to be". And you dont like that SP is "imbalanced", which you still havent actually explained what you refer to, and you dont like the SP requires "specific" builds that lock you out of some of the "builds" you like elsewhere.

One question regarding your Argonak "build". Since you are dead set on that it is a build, to the point where you even labeled it as a specific "arbitration build", is it the same build if I add another mod to it in your mind? It must be right, since you said earlier it was just to add mods to it to make it work more effectively where you intended it to be used. Would be nice with some clarification on that.

7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Which is precisely how the game was back in the day when it came to endgame things like deep T4D and Raids. Anyways.

Not the same as what I'm talking about. And Raids for instance only had arbitrary mechanics to inflate the need for other players, it was in the end nothing but friendship mechanics i.e like the arbitrary 2-player need to open X door when you enter co-op. Which could have been done just the same with 1 player. Same reason why other games have rethought their forced co-op since it has actually served no purpose aside from inflating the group size numbers, while failing to add actual engagement to justify the need for more than 1 player.

7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

AoE can still be better in general against crowds. Single-target can still be better in general against stronger individual units. I'm not sure why you've deluded yourself into thinking I'm saying that should change. They'd just be more equal in the things they're not good at, too, so players with different preferences will be better able to play together as teammates. That means that the sniper rifle people can play with the kaboom people and the dakka people and we can all have fun together. Bizarre that I keep having to explain this to you.

It's also pretty ironic that you'd continue to complain about this, given, y'know, how there's currently barely any distinct use for single-target weapons outside of a handful of boss fights you do a few times and then never again. Is that not the exact same problem just reversed? Or is it only a problem when I say it?

Not according to what you imply you want. Because you end up either overnerfing AoE or overbuffing enemies/single target, which alienates the use for AoE, or you wont do enough, which will keep single target where it is pretty much. Single target already wipes out targets 1 by 1 without trouble, so what you need in order for it to see more use in general gameplay is to nerf AoE or buff enemies to a point where AoE no longer has the benefit, otherwise the AoE will kill more enemies as single target kills 1. But you arent even giving any concrete examples, you just say "cant still be". So you arent explaining anything, you just say things without any actual value since you fail to include a single example.

So what you'd end up doing is just slow things down without any actual compensation. And it doesnt seem like you think our farm time for loot is the problem, but the usage between single target and AoE for the general gameplay. So how would you compensate a slower farm time? There are in the end only 100% to distribute loot across, should they start introducing more loots per kill? 2 rolls per rotation? Or what?

What is ironic? I'm of the opinion that AoE and single target should not be closer together for general gameplay, and that if single target should see more usage it is solved through adding more encounters that promote single target instead of AoE. As it is, has always been and should continue to be in these types of games.

7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Nonsense. If they did, then DE wouldn't have had to say that, OP wouldn't have a reason to post, and you and I wouldn't be here arguing. Yet here we are, because you're wrong: everyone does not get a chance to play. You just can't accept that because you refuse to empathize with others.

But we do, if we build around how the game is designed. I have no problem getting to play in groups where others use AoE.

7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

No idea what that is supposed to mean. Since I didnt specify AoE nerfs. I'm talking nerfs in general so we dont 1HK bosses for instance. I'm also talking about CC, so we cant lock down a full map, I'm also talking about AoE damage at the same time. This does not mean I want to see normalization and homogenization, that AoE and single will see the same potential for everything etc. No it just means we need a nerf to our power overall. Which would also need a rebalance of the game, most importantly so our time spent is equally respected compared to now. Just nerfing and ending up with things taking much more time would not be a solution.

7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

That part I quoted is specifically talking about AoE abilities. Here's a larger snippet:

And I implied something else? No I said it could be applied to anything and not just AoE damage. Which also the quote you provided shows, since it highlights two very annoying low level abilities that not only killed, but also disrupted gameplay flow through map wide CC. Which in the hands of a horribly built frame would result in massive slowdowns. Which in the end doesnt even matter to what we talk about, which is about single target and AoE really.

7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Where have I said that AoE is not intended? Please, quote me. You won't be able to, since this is just yet another thing you've invented. Just like DE's quote you don't seem to like, I think I've been pretty clear that I'm talking about disruptive AoE not being intended. AoE itself is clearly intended, being a disruptive child that won't share their toys is not.

It's what you imply when you want to see single target close in usefulness to AoE for general content. And since we talk AoE vs single target we talk about weapons for the most part, which are not disruptive in a group when you have that many enemies to kill per player in the group, and the size of maps that we do. The missions with low density and static numbers will not see a fairer spread by nerfing AoE, increasing mob health or buffing single target out the ears. Because those missions are already hogged by whomever is the fastest out the door with the hardest hitting weapon. So what you are really wanting is increased single target use in endless missions centered around killing, missions where you can already spread out and kill by using your 10m AoE or single target if you like as others kill in some other area. If you agree to camp a certain spot, well that is on you, and likely done because you want an efficient run, at which point it gets kinda odd that you ask to make things slower by nerfing AoE or buffing enemy health.

And looking through yet another long post of yours, you still dodge the question asked. Why should single target be close to AoE in clearing groups when AoE is not close to single target for killing single targets?

 

6 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

So........... Damage Attenuation?

 

Not even remotely the same as what was said by Ayin.

6 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

But they did do this. This was something that they invented all on their own.

But... they didnt, since it isnt the same system at all, they dont do the same thing, dont result in the same thing or feel the same even. You just show again that you dont have much info on how things work elsewhere.

Damage attenuation is just a simple regular mechanic that many games use that is seperate from the idea of level sync through PL capping etc. What we do here to an item actually still matters versus mobs with damage attenuation. With a PL cap it practically doesnt matter at all. If you are PL5000 and head to a PL150 mission you will have stats as if you were PL150, with the slight difference that your PL5000 gear might provide 1% more crit, HP and damage.

Then if you go and fight PL5050 content it will practically be the same as if the PL150 is fighting PL200 content. So any sense of progress is completely gone because everything feels the same throughout the whole game. It's like in Martyr where the only real benefit of leveling was to unlock passive perks for your class and some skills. Gearing felt 100% meaningless. It was the same in Diablo Immortal, going from Hell whatever to Hell whatever+1. As you entered that next hell it felt the exact same as when you entered the previous hell, then when you got to that specific PL point it turned as trivial as the previous hell did at that same point in PL difference. And the worst part in many of those games is that if you do go back to a lower difficulty, you are locked to PL loot from that level of difficulty, even if that PL is effectively as easy/hard as the higher one you just came from.

 

Edited February 21 by SneakyErvin

[PublikDomain]

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

No idea what that is supposed to mean. Since I didnt specify AoE nerfs. I'm talking nerfs in general so we dont 1HK bosses for instance. I'm also talking about CC, so we cant lock down a full map, I'm also talking about AoE damage at the same time. This does not mean I want to see normalization and homogenization, that AoE and single will see the same potential for everything etc. No it just means we need a nerf to our power overall. Which would also need a rebalance of the game, most importantly so our time spent is equally respected compared to now. Just nerfing and ending up with things taking much more time would not be a solution.

So it really is only bad when I say it, huh?

Buffs and nerfs are two sides of the exact same coin: a buff to one thing is a nerf to another and vice versa. Nerfing AoE and other disruptive mechanics would in turn be a buff to more focused mechanics like single-target weapons which are currently not considered as often. General nerfs so we don't 1HKO bosses and can't lock down or wipe entire maps would reduce the effectiveness the mechanics currently dominating those spaces, and as a result increase the desirability of other mechanics. Which, importantly, is normalization. What you describe here would achieve the same normalization I'm talking about. And these same "nerfs in general" are what I really mean when I've talked about buffs in this thread: nerfs to overpowered things in order to make underpowered things more powerful in comparison. It's effectively a buff, I just leave out the nerf part since it tends to make people around here soil themselves in fits of rage.

As I've told you before, and apparently need to tell you again: I'm intentionally not being prescriptive here in this thread. @PR1D3 linked my suggestion thread that has many of my overall thoughts about how to actually achieve what I talk about if you're actually interested in discussing that there. Funny enough, it's the same nerfs in general you say are necessary here. I even say the exact same things about respecting time spent, and how tactless nerfs wouldn't be a good solution.

You're now saying the same things I am: you just don't realize it.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

What is ironic? I'm of the opinion that AoE and single target should not be closer together for general gameplay, and that if single target should see more usage it is solved through adding more encounters that promote single target instead of AoE. As it is, has always been and should continue to be in these types of games.

What's ironic, or maybe more hypocritical, is that you often complain about one thing while in the same breath defending the existence of that exact thing. For example, you complain that I want to "make the game slow", despite now saying how you think the game needs general nerfs so bosses can't be 1HKO'd, which would make them slower. You then complain at me about this would make loot drop rates slower. Or how you make a whataboutism about the many mechanics in the game that are underutilized or weak, while at the same time arguing against me as I say that these mechanics should be addressed. You acknowledge how much it sucks that gear has to be given up for progress, while arguing against that gear not needing to be given up any more. Which is why I suggest that with you it's only bad when I say it. You say the same things I do, yet you get mad at me for saying them.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Which also the quote you provided shows, since it highlights two very annoying low level abilities that not only killed, but also disrupted gameplay flow through map wide CC. Which in the hands of a horribly built frame would result in massive slowdowns. Which in the end doesnt even matter to what we talk about, which is about single target and AoE really.

I think you might be lost. Would you care to read the OP again so you understand what this thread is about? It's all about the part I've put in bold that you seem to think isn't actually relevant. DE's also not talking about just CC in that quote, so you might want to actually read that too. They're also talking about the same overbearing AoE damage abilities we see today:

Quote

Like a mobile Resonating Quake, this monopoly on kills can leave squadmates struggling to keep up, in an attempt to see the enemy before they melt.

The same is true of the old World On Fire as it is of today's Thermal Sunder and AoE weapon spam. "This monopoly on kills can leave squadmates struggling to keep up, in an attempt to see the enemy before they melt." That's what OP is talking about. That's what I am talking about. If you're not, then why are you here?

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And since we talk AoE vs single target we talk about weapons for the most part, which are not disruptive in a group when you have that many enemies to kill per player in the group, and the size of maps that we do.

AoE weapons aren't disruptive, huh? Yet here's the developer of the game saying the exact opposite:

On 2022-09-07 at 8:00 AM, [DE]Megan said:

AREA OF EFFECT (AOE) WEAPON CHANGES 

Area of Effect (AoE) weapons are a pretty dominant aspect of Warframe gameplay, especially affected by the removal of self-damage a few years ago. We want AoE weapons to feel impactful, but we feel their current state needs adjustment.

Before we get into the specific ‘WHAT’ of the changes to AoE, let’s talk about the broad ‘WHY’ of these changes. There are 3 core reasons:
...
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. 

🤡

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And looking through yet another long post of yours, you still dodge the question asked. Why should single target be close to AoE in clearing groups when AoE is not close to single target for killing single targets?

Because your question has already been answered: it's a nonsequiter that you've invented all on your own. For some reason you seem to think that I think that AoE shouldn't be good for killing single targets, yet I keep telling you that it should be good too. Everything should be good. I just told you that:

10 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

AoE can still be better in general against crowds. Single-target can still be better in general against stronger individual units. I'm not sure why you've deluded yourself into thinking I'm saying that should change. They'd just be more equal in the things they're not good at, too, so players with different preferences will be better able to play together as teammates.

You even quoted me saying this, and then decided all on your own that this actually implies something totally different.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Not even remotely the same as what was said by Ayin.

It's the same thing. It's literally a power cap. It achieves it in a slightly different way compared to other games, sure, but the goal and the result are the same: player power is mathematically normalized in these areas. That DE did a poor job and let some things fall through the cracks is irrelevant. They're normalizing player power anyways through diminishing returns, damage caps, armor, damage attenuation, proc immunity, proc caps, etc. The thing y'all are so petrified of has already been going on for years, you just don't realize it.

[Merkranire]

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

No you dont like people that say SP is "the place to be". And you dont like that SP is "imbalanced", which you still havent actually explained what you refer to, and you dont like the SP requires "specific" builds that lock you out of some of the "builds" you like elsewhere.

The thing I don’t like is people like you acting like constantly building for SP is the thing to do. I like how unbalanced SP is, I understand and respect that its purpose is to weed out builds that don’t cut it in the mode, but it’s not the only thing to do.

Again, you don’t listen. I think you don’t even realise that I’d already described Warframe as non-linear earlier and then you said as much like you were making a point about it

[Merkranire]

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

One question regarding your Argonak "build". Since you are dead set on that it is a build, to the point where you even labeled it as a specific "arbitration build", is it the same build if I add another mod to it in your mind? It must be right, since you said earlier it was just to add mods to it to make it work more effectively where you intended it to be used. Would be nice with some clarification on that.

Do you remember what I called that build? I use the word a lot in combination with “Modless”, though clearly that build is not modless

[SneakyErvin]

17 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

So it really is only bad when I say it, huh?

Buffs and nerfs are two sides of the exact same coin: a buff to one thing is a nerf to another and vice versa. Nerfing AoE and other disruptive mechanics would in turn be a buff to more focused mechanics like single-target weapons which are currently not considered as often. General nerfs so we don't 1HKO bosses and can't lock down or wipe entire maps would reduce the effectiveness the mechanics currently dominating those spaces, and as a result increase the desirability of other mechanics. Which, importantly, is normalization. What you describe here would achieve the same normalization I'm talking about. And these same "nerfs in general" are what I really mean when I've talked about buffs in this thread: nerfs to overpowered things in order to make underpowered things more powerful in comparison. It's effectively a buff, I just leave out the nerf part since it tends to make people around here soil themselves in fits of rage.

If nerfing is what you really mean, then #*!%ing say it and dont bother with what some people may think. We are here to have a discussion, so say what you mean or say nothing at all. You saying "buff" means a whole different thing than you saying "nerf". But if you want to have people misinterpret what you say, go ahead and keep using opposite words. It seems like you prefer that so you can argue when people dont know what you mean in your head.

And to make it clear, this would not be normalization. Since that occurs when you aim to even the playingfield between things. Which is not my intent, my intent is to reduce our overall power, so it would hit all types of items as needed. You also say that reducing damage and CC would open up for other mechanics... we practically only have those 2 mechanics to rely on. So what other mechanics would we suddenly see? The only thing left is sustain, but we dont have enough options for that to build for further attrition combat, since we already invest in sustain, either in the shape of enough armor+hp to simply survive, or shield gate.

17 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

What's ironic, or maybe more hypocritical, is that you often complain about one thing while in the same breath defending the existence of that exact thing. For example, you complain that I want to "make the game slow", despite now saying how you think the game needs general nerfs so bosses can't be 1HKO'd, which would make them slower. You then complain at me about this would make loot drop rates slower. Or how you make a whataboutism about the many mechanics in the game that are underutilized or weak, while at the same time arguing against me as I say that these mechanics should be addressed. You acknowledge how much it sucks that gear has to be given up for progress, while arguing against that gear not needing to be given up any more. Which is why I suggest that with you it's only bad when I say it. You say the same things I do, yet you get mad at me for saying them.

What I suggest wouldnt slow down the game since as I said before this would be done to pave the way for future content creation only. You were the one that earlier said it had to effect current content aswell. That is not my opinion. We have a very high power ceiling that can be reduced drastically without impacting the current game. Like I've said many times, we cant kill anything in less than 1 hit, so us overkilling things by millions and millions is pointless power.

So your plan on nerfs, or is it buffs? I honestly get confused... Would result in slower gameplay, since you want to apply it, or well have it effect everything current as you've said in this thread. That is the part that I dont agree with. Then you have also talked about buffing other things, which would add more things to the upper end that then needs a nerf in return if we want future content to be more engaging. Which would really also need nerfs because you said that it should apply to all content and not just future content. So uhm catch 22 I guess.

And I'm not saying the same as you regarding giving up gear. Yes it is sad, but I dont see any need to change it. Progress is more important to me than how something looks, since hunting items that are different to use, or more powerful is a large part of the fun in these games for me and many others. Yes I would love an option to change to looks I love, but I'd want that through pure skins, not through item buffing/nerfing and normalization/homogenization.

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I think you might be lost. Would you care to read the OP again so you understand what this thread is about? It's all about the part I've put in bold that you seem to think isn't actually relevant. DE's also not talking about just CC in that quote, so you might want to actually read that too. They're also talking about the same overbearing AoE damage abilities we see today:

You manage to bold a part and then not read it? As I said regarding the DE quote. it isnt just about AoE damage. I never said or implied that they only talked about CC or non-damaging AoE. So one might question whom is lost here. It is also not really a "problem" DE can fix when it comes to the "overbearing AoE damage abilities", since that is really just something that is relevant on the star chart. Volt is a "overbearing AoE damage" frame on the SC, then that AoE (like many other) ability turns into a laughing stock the moment you hit up anyhting remotely "high" in levels. At which point it is a CC+sustain ability. Spamshee is a wet noodle higher up, a bouncy castle simulator, Mirage scales fairly poor aswell and so on. We have a few frames with abilities that can wipe the enemy effectively higher up, few of those do it in a massive radius. Saryn doesnt even kill fast enough to leave people with nothing to do, if she did it would practically be impossible to do anything on her besides reapplying spores and spam miasma as you play solo. Yet she relies alot on weapons, and without any problem to keep spores rolling while playing either melee or ranged. And she is one of the frames that can reach isane range on her AoE damage. So how should they nerf frame AoE so people on SC can feel included while keeping the damage so it is relevant on SP and in other high content aswell?

CC is probably more of an issue since it locks down maps and removes threats.

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

The same is true of the old World On Fire as it is of today's Thermal Sunder and AoE weapon spam. "This monopoly on kills can leave squadmates struggling to keep up, in an attempt to see the enemy before they melt." That's what OP is talking about. That's what I am talking about. If you're not, then why are you here?

It is all just star chart problems. Which is expected in a game going on year 11 and constantly adding higher content and more progress. I very rarely run into a situation where I'm struggling when surrounded by AoE usage in higher content, much less so when it comes to weapons, since there is always a place to go to find mobs. I do run into "issues" in one off missions, but that is mostly due to someone loading in faster and being ahead, and it doesnt matter what type of weapon they use at that point.

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

AoE weapons aren't disruptive, huh? Yet here's the developer of the game saying the exact opposite:

They arent. What they say there doesnt really matter because it's really just blanket statements to justify the "nerfs" they added at that point in time. Which, if that #3 is true, did absolutely nothing to solve that #3 point. Because all that was done with those "nerfs" was an adjustment to ammo economy so people couldnt shoot every single thing with their AoE weapon anymore, and isntead consider using them on only crowds (which is practically everything anyways). I've yet to run into a situation where I go "oh no! my ammo!" since those "nerfs" aside from the very first mission I did right after solo. And I've had to change nothing in my "disruptive" playstyle. 

Also, if AoE is so disruptive heh, then why did they just add ammo-less massive AoE to melee? We now have single target weapons that kill better than any former AoE across a larger area aswell without requiring you to even aim or reload. "Oh I'll just slide in this general direction to hit a few mobs that will then wipe out everything within 20m". I mean, it was understandable when Kullervo released that he specifically recieved a bonkers AoE (cone to be precise) spread, since it was just 1 frame. But as it is now I can pick up practically any decent melee and clear enemies faster than I ever could with an AoE gun or most abilities. It's effective to a point where I rarely if ever even use Curse on Kullervo.

So how disruptive is AoE really when they barely nerf it and then release things like those mentioned after having made a statement like the one you quoted?

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Because your question has already been answered: it's a nonsequiter that you've invented all on your own. For some reason you seem to think that I think that AoE shouldn't be good for killing single targets, yet I keep telling you that it should be good too. Everything should be good. I just told you that:

So then you want something impossible really. AoE to be effective versus single target but not too effective at AoE so single target can be effective in AoE encounters while not being to effective at single target so AoE can also be used on single target encounters fairly effectively. If you make it so single target gets better performance versus crowd and then buff AoE to get close to single target for solo encounters you've practically undone what you did to single target since the AoE would at that point kill individual targets roughly as fast as single target while also adding the cleave ontop of it still. Would be nice if you could reveal your plans for how you'd make that work.

18 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

It's the same thing. It's literally a power cap. It achieves it in a slightly different way compared to other games, sure, but the goal and the result are the same: player power is mathematically normalized in these areas. That DE did a poor job and let some things fall through the cracks is irrelevant. They're normalizing player power anyways through diminishing returns, damage caps, armor, damage attenuation, proc immunity, proc caps, etc. The thing y'all are so petrified of has already been going on for years, you just don't realize it.

No, just no. Go and experience actualy level cap systems first, because they are nothing, nothing like damage attenuation, something that often exsists alongside those level cap systems aswell for certain encounters. Level sync or a power level cap in WF would take the shape of say Earth limiting you to only a certain rank for your mods, potentially deleveling your frame (to reduce stats) and similar.

Damage attenuation would not result in what Ayin said, which was also more directed at Merk by the looks of it. What Merk wants, "engaging" gameplay, would be achieved by the S#&$e that is level sync/power level cap. Since that would impact everything, damage output, incoming damage, ehp, energy, skill ranks etc. Damage attenuation is solvey about our damage output. Extra mitigation since armor, hp and other means just arent enough due to us dealing way too much damage. Not even damage attenuation does anything about it atm. 

And saying DE normalizes out power through diminish return, armor, proc immunity and proc caps is quite a reach. Diminish return is a natural occurance which has nothing to do with DE as it exsists in WF. Some game do add unnatural diminish return untop of the naturally occuring one. Like games where you have crit rating that results in critical %. To get 1% you might need 100, but then when you hit 10% critical chance the game adjusts the needed 100/% to 120/%. That is diminishing return imposed by the designers by intent. What we have is just the natural way of how stacking stats and math works, but there is no internal adjustment ontop of that. 100% critical chance on a 20% critical weapon is +20% critical chance no matter if you are at 200% critical chance or 20% critical chance.

Proc immunity etc. are just normal unique mechanics. And it is really not something that normalizes, it really does the opposite, since you are more likely to bring an additional tool in your loadout to handle those things. Same as if you want to really maximize against status proc caps, you bring more statuses instead of relying on fewer ones. And who is petrified of this? I embrace it all. I enjoy when certain mobs have strengths and potentially weaknesses towards certain things. I love weakspots, I love viral immune enemies, I love nullification/dispells etc. Things that might get me to pick up 1 out of the 3 or so of the other tools I carry with me in my pack for some reason every single mission.

[SneakyErvin]

15 hours ago, Merkranire said:

The thing I don’t like is people like you acting like constantly building for SP is the thing to do. I like how unbalanced SP is, I understand and respect that its purpose is to weed out builds that don’t cut it in the mode, but it’s not the only thing to do.

Again, you don’t listen. I think you don’t even realise that I’d already described Warframe as non-linear earlier and then you said as much like you were making a point about it

But it isnt build for SP. It is building to get the most loot per minute while farming. That it happens to be SP is just how it is now. If that mode didnt exsist I'd use the same builds elsewhere anyways since I'm here to farm and get the most loot possible for the time I spend. I dont have any interest swapping between builds to "fit" the content better, since that in itself also wastes time I could instead use playing the actual missions.

15 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Do you remember what I called that build? I use the word a lot in combination with “Modless”, though clearly that build is not modless

You specifically called it an arbitration build, baseline or not. So I ask again, would it still be the same build according to you if you add to it?

[PublikDomain]

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

If nerfing is what you really mean, then #*!%ing say it and dont bother with what some people may think. We are here to have a discussion, so say what you mean or say nothing at all.

I've tried that, and you know what? Some people aren't here for a discussion. You certainly aren't, I've talked with you enough in the past to know that. It's the same here as it was when we "discussed" what makes a good looter shooter, or how Rivens should work, or what should be done with duplicate Incarnons rewards. You're here to argue with me and get mad at the things you think that I'm saying, regardless of how many times I have to "#*!%ing say it" and correct you.

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You saying "buff" means a whole different thing than you saying "nerf".

Buffs and nerfs are mathematically identical. Simple example, I even colored it for you:

Quote

Weapon has 10 Damage.
Enemy has 100 Health.
Enemy takes 10 hits to die.

Buff Weapon to deal 50 damage?
Now Enemy takes 2 hits to die. This is a buff to Weapon, and a nerf to Enemy.

Nerf Enemy to have 20 Health?
Now Enemy takes 2 hits to die. This is a buff to Weapon, and a nerf to Enemy.

The outcome is the same. It's just math.

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Since that occurs when you aim to even the playingfield between things. Which is not my intent, my intent is to reduce our overall power, so it would hit all types of items as needed.

Reducing overall power evens the playing field between things. Another simple example:

If the Floor is 100 and the Ceiling is 100,000,000, then the Ceiling is 1,000,000x higher than the Floor.
If the Floor is buffed to 1,000,000, then the Ceiling is now only 100x higher than the Floor. This is more normalized than it was before.
If the Ceiling is nerfed to 10,000, then the Ceiling is now only 100x higher than the Floor. This is more normalized than it was before.

It's just math!

Like I said: we're saying the same things, you just can't see it.

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You were the one that earlier said it had to effect current content aswell. That is not my opinion.

Maybe you should re-read what I said, then:

On 2024-02-14 at 11:43 AM, 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.

On 2024-02-16 at 11:18 AM, PublikDomain said:

On 2024-02-16 at 7:55 AM, 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.

Notice how I specifically talk about difficult content being changed? The content that's supposed to be difficult that's currently not difficult? Yes, that current content can change. It should! It's not doing what it's intended to do. It's failing at its purpose. For content that's not supposed to be difficult, then like I said it's already piss-easy and you would just cry if I suggested that this change. Which, drum roll please, is exactly you're doing right here. So, guess what? I'm not suggesting that it change. The easy content can stay right where it is: easy and meaningless.

Here, let 2022 Publik explain this to you:

On 2022-04-18 at 8:14 PM, PublikDomain said:

Players often raise concerns about losing their “power fantasy” during discussions about balance changes. It is for that reason that maintaining the current level (or lack) of difficulty across the Starchart is a core objective, and as you can see one that can be achieved. Even up to Sortie-level content, popular weapons like Kuva variants remain just as capable of one-shotting groups of enemies as before. But now more mechanics like Amps, Archguns, Focus abilities, and non-scaling Warframe abilities are better able to keep up as well, and more of this largely forgotten content becomes more valuable. The “power fantasy” hasn’t gone anywhere and players will always be able to play unchallenging content.

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

So one might question whom is lost here.

I might be, because I'm not sure what your issue is if you can understand that DE's not just talking about AoE damage in that quote. Many things are disruptive, wow you don't say? That's what I'm saying. That's what OP is saying. That's what DE is saying. That's what this whole thread is about. AoE damage is just one of these disruptive mechanics.

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

So how should they nerf frame AoE so people on SC can feel included while keeping the damage so it is relevant on SP and in other high content aswell?

Probably by not balancing the game around SP like DE said they wouldn't do? SP wouldn't have ever been necessary if DE did what both you and I are saying and just normalized player power. SP is also one of those pieces of "difficult content" that isn't intended to be easy, so if it's made harder then.... good? That's the point.

Quote

THE STEEL PATH

It is time to take on a new challenge. The Origin System is ever-changing. Our enemies grow more powerful - only the Tenno with true mastery of their Arsenal will overcome what awaits us. Once you have found yourself with a completed Star Chart, you may choose to arm yourself for a higher tier of enemies in Warframe. With this Update, we are introducing ‘The Steel Path’, a way to replay the Star Chart with all regions receiving +100 enemy levels. You will earn exclusive Emotes and Trophies by completing each region. Team up or go alone - good luck! 

If you are not ready for this challenge, fear not, it’s not going anywhere. One day you may be prepared to take The Steel Path.

🤷‍♀️

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

They arent.

I'm going to take the developer's word on this one, sorry.

As for the rest of what you say, I don't know why you think this would be a surprise? Like I've said repeatedly, we're left with two options about the discrepancy between DE's words and their actions: either DE are all liars and their balance changes are made for some nefarious reason, or they mean what they say and just aren't very good at achieving it. I choose to believe the latter, so I don't know why you think "DE's approach keeps failing" is some sort of gotcha? I know that DE keeps failing. I've said as much. They keep doing what they shouldn't and only make things worse. But that doesn't change their clearly-stated intent in the slightest.

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

AoE to be effective versus single target but not too effective at AoE so single target can be effective in AoE encounters while not being to effective at single target so AoE can also be used on single target encounters fairly effectively.

Yes, it's almost like basic game balance that countless other games have solved?

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Go and experience actualy level cap systems first, because they are nothing, nothing like damage attenuation, something that often exsists alongside those level cap systems aswell for certain encounters.

They are the same. Whether it's mathematically adjusting stats to de-level a player like in Guild Wars or Destiny or Wayfinder or any other game with dynamic leveling, or mathematically adjusting stats to de-level a player when they deal damage, both mathematically adjust stats to de-level the player and cap their power. The only pedantic difference is when this mechanic is applied.

Edited February 22 by PublikDomain

[Merkranire]

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

But it isnt build for SP. It is building to get the most loot per minute while farming. That it happens to be SP is just how it is now. If that mode didnt exsist I'd use the same builds elsewhere anyways since I'm here to farm and get the most loot possible for the time I spend. I dont have any interest swapping between builds to "fit" the content better, since that in itself also wastes time I could instead use playing the actual missions.

Getting the most loot per minute while farming is not the only way to play, and it’s no accident that it was built for SP before SP was a thing. It’s a thing to do, an option to engage in using the stuff you’ve earned, an every-so-often thing that I dip into every once in a while when I want to throw caution to the winds and crack my skull against RNG because I’ve temporarily got a good feeling (just don’t ask me to constantly do it), but I’m certain that you can see how it’s not a thing that players need to always engage in. Between the feeling of burnout that someone can fall prey to (been there, done that), the fact that while you’re efficiently farming you’re earning tons of things that despite a desire to use them you’re not even using because they simply don’t farm as good, and the samey gameplay that ends up as a result of not letting the grindrate slip, the game was probably at its most limited and most samey when I focused solely on grind efficiency instead of using the stuff to actually customise my gameplay to make the earning of new things enjoyable while providing value for near-everything that I earn. Most alternative gameplay requires the game having a chance to breathe, which means that a mission is going to vary in time taken to complete just by dint of playing around in the mission itself against enemies that don’t die instantly and can threaten the player (if not straight up kill them), which runs counter to the notion of efficient grind, and for most of the game you can choose to engage with the content or not (even early on we could bring Inaros to a No-Shield modifier and completely undermine the modifier, which I did until I decided that was kind of boring), and there’s something to be said about engaging with the content 

So I get that you’re building for efficient grind, and when the grind gets boring, you turn to Steel Path if not level cap for your gameplay salvation while remaining in the builds you’ve made because you’ve got a hangup about even temporarily setting them aside when they simply do what you designed them to do and it turns out the novelty’s worn thin. SP is not a balanced game mode and does not make for a good measuring stick for what’s viable and what’s not; the non-SP game, where abilities make sense, spawnrates make sense, armour makes sense, is where to make that distinction. So when you tell players to build and play like you, and they think that SP is representative of game balance, I have a problem with that because that feeds into misconceptions about the game

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You specifically called it an arbitration build, baseline or not. So I ask again, would it still be the same build according to you if you add to it?

🤔 I’d call it a version of the build, I guess. The slots are meant to be open so that I could hand it over to someone and they can play around with whatever they might want to add, and while I’ll tell them that I can take the baseline to level 60 Arbitrations for a round or two, they’re completely free to take it lower or add a damage mod to either go a little further or make the round or two a little more comfortable, aware that the more damage they add the higher they’re building until those free slots are filled with damage instead of something else and Arbitrations is a walk in the park

Those free slots in my case might have things like two punchthrough mods and a crit chance mod to boost the semi-auto’s crit chance and reloadspeed and zoom, while yours might have status to boost the full-auto mode’s status spreading, Amalgam Argonak, reload speed, status duration, some kind of Galvanised mod.

That’s assuming someone’s potatoed the thing; I forget what capacity is leftover using innate polarities and 30 capacity, but it’s not a lot, so not a lot of wiggle room

Edited February 22 by Merkranire

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

On 2024-02-21 at 12:11 PM, PublikDomain said:

On 2024-02-21 at 8:14 AM, SneakyErvin said:

Not even remotely the same as what was said by Ayin.

It's the same thing.

Damage Attenuation is not the same thing as Level Sync'ing players together for content, as Ervin correctly pointed out.

I refer to the systems at play in Final Fantasy 11 online, FF14 online, (and is similar to Destiny's overall system that is different, in that it keeps everyone capped and only underpowered until they meet the correct power level to be on "even ground" with the content.)

In FF11, they stripped down nearly all the stats from your gear, basically making it better to save level appropriate gear for each cap, rather than letting the system destroy it. This lead to inventory issues as people had to keep sets of gear for each level cap (there were missions in endgame content that required level caps... yeah... sneaking through the crags was pain.)

Damage Attenuation is only a boss mechanic. It doesn't apply to the entire mission. It only applies to damage done to the boss. This is only one element of Level Sync, and doesn't come anywhere close to a "curated mode" that is balanced around certain character power levels, like Merkranire is suggesting players do to themselves. It would be much more appropriate to equate it to the Story Missions where we played Kahl, Veso, Teshin, and even just the operator only missions (although, even there, the amp could be greatly powered up and brought in.)

Understand that I found these to be nearly insufferable bits of content that I simply played through because they were required for progress, and have no desire to see incorporated more fully into the rest of the game, personally... but that's the sort of controlled environment that I see being the result of the things being asked for in the realm of making sure "everyone gets to play"... (which again, I must emphasize that I've never encountered a mission where I didn't "get to play" in a PUG, even with people using AoE frames and weapons.)

In the realm of balance, I've already said my piece, that I don't like a flattened broad range of weapons that are "balanced" so that it doesn't matter which one you pick... that removes progress and reasons to play and get stronger... if nothing really makes you stronger in the end... it's even worse of a hamster wheel than we're already in. I like the one we're in more than that. Progress is very important to me, as a gamer. It might not be as big of an issue for you, and you might not even want progress, you might just want lots of options to pick from, never progressing and getting stronger...

(Just as a personal experience: In FF11, there was progress from levels 1-75... and then levels stopped, and gear upgrades were nearly all "horizontal" in nature, not really progressing - there were 3 main endgame sets that were comparable, but not really upgrades to each other. At least, it was that way, until their last main expansion, which introduced item levels that came along with stat bonuses on the gear that were comparable to gaining higher levels without needing to gain those levels through experience, it was all through equipment from that point on. Normally, I'd have liked that they returned growth and progression to the game, but they gated all that gear behind forced group content, boss fights, raid style junk... and I'm mostly a solo player... so my leveling stopped when I couldn't obtain new gear. (most of the people I played FF11 with had left, or the guilds had collapsed through the same player attrition, so, when they added more group content, nobody was around to do it... the people who invited me into the guild had moved on as well, and I don't play games to make new friends, I play with people I know. I still kept playing until they stopped accepting my form of direct payment, transitioning over to requiring us to buy their currency and paying for the sub with that, instead, and it wasn't sold in equal increments to the monthly sub price, so it was the straw that broke the camel's back, after playing FF11 for well over a decade.)

 

[SneakyErvin]

22 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I've tried that, and you know what? Some people aren't here for a discussion. You certainly aren't, I've talked with you enough in the past to know that. It's the same here as it was when we "discussed" what makes a good looter shooter, or how Rivens should work, or what should be done with duplicate Incarnons rewards. You're here to argue with me and get mad at the things you think that I'm saying, regardless of how many times I have to "#*!%ing say it" and correct you.

But you are using nerf and buff as interchangable, which they arent. So you want people to "get mad" (which it really isnt anyways). Say what you mean, simple as that.

22 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Buffs and nerfs are mathematically identical. Simple example, I even colored it for you:

Nope, they are not identical.

22 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

The outcome is the same. It's just math.

Since you only look at one certain outcome. This is not possible when there is a wide variety of weapons that will be impacted when they shouldnt be by the way you handle it. Buff enemy health to nerf the ceiling also results in the floor getting nerfed when it shouldnt. Just as nerfing the health at that point to help the floor would result in buffing the ceiling aswell. So no, they are not interchangable. This also covers your other example. Since there are more than 2 "issues" involved.

22 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Maybe you should re-read what I said, then:

That isnt what I'm refering to. I'm refering to where you said that it wouldnt do anything for current content when commenting on one of my comments. 

22 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Notice how I specifically talk about difficult content being changed? The content that's supposed to be difficult that's currently not difficult? Yes, that current content can change. It should! It's not doing what it's intended to do. It's failing at its purpose. For content that's not supposed to be difficult, then like I said it's already piss-easy and you would just cry if I suggested that this change. Which, drum roll please, is exactly you're doing right here. So, guess what? I'm not suggesting that it change. The easy content can stay right where it is: easy and meaningless.

Here, let 2022 Publik explain this to you:

No one here cares if it gets harder or not. Aslong as our time is as respected as now when it comes to the overall rewards it could be as hard or as easy as they like. The only thing "hard" (we really talk spongeness here) is make it less fast paced so less WF overall. Would it matter in the end? For some. For me it would matter if the content became engaging and fun in return. If it would just be walls of health doing little in return I'd say it would be a bad change, if it would turn WF into something more like Outriders I wouldnt mind, since to me that would be fast paced, dangerous and engaging enough.

Not sure what you self quote has to do with anything. You seem to be under some assumption that I dont want to see nerfs, buff and adjustments just because I dont agree with your vague approach. I'm not of the idea we need to keep a power fantasy to the point it is now. Since power fantasy can really be anything where you fight something powerful and have the means to overcome it. I just dont want to see a homogenized narrowed down arsenal in order to achieve some further equality among our gear. Low "level" items should stay low "level" and high "level" should be "high" level, it is even designed that way and adjusted with that in mind by DE, hence the MR stat adjustments for a multitude of weapons a few years back. Which you seem to ignore while posting other DE quotes at the same time.

22 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I might be, because I'm not sure what your issue is if you can understand that DE's not just talking about AoE damage in that quote. Many things are disruptive, wow you don't say? That's what I'm saying. That's what OP is saying. That's what DE is saying. That's what this whole thread is about. AoE damage is just one of these disruptive mechanics.

And it is the least disruptive since it actually progresses missions even when it happens to be disruptive (which is extremely rare). It is also the hardest one to adjust in order to make it both useful and not disruptive. It is for instance not disruptive in higher content, but nerfing it so it isnt disruptive in low content would kill it in higher content where it isnt a problem. Nerfing CC would have the same impact in both ends, since it isnt required to the extent it is available, so nerfing it to lock down less would end up as an equal nerf, since you dont need to account for CC having to have some form of TTK.

22 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Probably by not balancing the game around SP like DE said they wouldn't do? SP wouldn't have ever been necessary if DE did what both you and I are saying and just normalized player power. SP is also one of those pieces of "difficult content" that isn't intended to be easy, so if it's made harder then.... good? That's the point.

That doesnt answer the question since that only removes SP from the whole thing. I'm asking how they should achieve it when SP is as now part of the game. Even if they had made adjustment so "SP wouldn't have ever been necesary" it would have still have been needed. Because you'd sit either with it forced on everyone through balance, or have SC too easy and people craving for something more (SP). It also again comes down to what to do with rewards and respecting our time. With SP they made it "harder"  and added a loot modifier on it that we simply had to accept since there was no SP before that point. Changing SC through nerfs and adding more loot would still require it to yield practically the same loot/min as it already does, since there is a pre- and post- SC to consider at that point. Which would end up with the people currently avoiding SP having no place to go, since there is no normal version when everything has been nerfed and balanced into a single mode.

Right now I can go to Pluto or Mars SP to increase my yield of specific rare, but a player not wanting to engage with SP can go to those same platest to farm that same rare versus far easier mobs, the difference is that they wont have the increased drop chance. Balancing the whole SC around a certain power level would potentially alienate those players at the same time. Unless of course you are talking about SC being simple enough still, meaning the whole balance idea was uhm pointless.

And now when SP has been live for so long nerfing us to a point where it makes SC relevant and engaging is even harder, since they still need to consider respecting our time the same in SP, since it has now become a norm, and it has an expected loot yield per time spent etc. They can reduce our power to a point without impacting the respect for our time in current content, since there is indeed wiggle room, but that will really only serve future content creation where they can then balance it around that with proper risk vs reward/time in mind.

23 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I'm going to take the developer's word on this one, sorry.

As for the rest of what you say, I don't know why you think this would be a surprise? Like I've said repeatedly, we're left with two options about the discrepancy between DE's words and their actions: either DE are all liars and their balance changes are made for some nefarious reason, or they mean what they say and just aren't very good at achieving it. I choose to believe the latter, so I don't know why you think "DE's approach keeps failing" is some sort of gotcha? I know that DE keeps failing. I've said as much. They keep doing what they shouldn't and only make things worse. But that doesn't change their clearly-stated intent in the slightest.

Then you shouldnt say it is disruptive, since what the devs say is in relation to why the nerfs occured. So, AoE damage specifically on weapons is no longer disruptive since the changes have gone live and been live for a long time now. Not that they actually did anything really, but still, they are live so that "problem" is officially uhm fixed and explainations as to why it happened got presented.

Or it simply was an issue and what we got as "nerfs" was what they saw fitting as the fix, while also thinking later on that melee could get something to help it keep better up with the rest of the intended AoE of the game that is left after the "nerfs". Or they realized that there are 2 whole seperate ways to engange with the Star Chart, where AoE is really just a problem if you are hell bent on not progressing naturally and sticking to the very very low level star chart. I mean it isnt like we've gone from SC to SP, there have been many gradual increases to content levels between that, content where AoE has not been an issue, some where insane AoE has even been promoted further. So I really think people should literally move on if they find themselves disrupted by AoE, since they have a whole freakin chart available and a couple of seperate modes where they wont get disrupted.

23 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Yes, it's almost like basic game balance that countless other games have solved?

Nope. In these types of games it is pretty much always set up as it is here, with AoE seeing most use due to killing massive hordes, then dedicated single target being used for specific encounters. It doesnt matter if you play an isometric arpg or a third person looter shooter, it is always the same when you are promoted to kill large groups of enemies as the bread and butter activity of the game. Even in MMORPGs you will nearly exclusively use AoE no matter if you are tank or dps unless you encounter a very specific enemy.

23 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

They are the same. Whether it's mathematically adjusting stats to de-level a player like in Guild Wars or Destiny or Wayfinder or any other game with dynamic leveling, or mathematically adjusting stats to de-level a player when they deal damage, both mathematically adjust stats to de-level the player and cap their power. The only pedantic difference is when this mechanic is applied.

No.

[SneakyErvin]

20 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Getting the most loot per minute while farming is not the only way to play, and it’s no accident that it was built for SP before SP was a thing. It’s a thing to do, an option to engage in using the stuff you’ve earned, an every-so-often thing that I dip into every once in a while when I want to throw caution to the winds and crack my skull against RNG because I’ve temporarily got a good feeling (just don’t ask me to constantly do it), but I’m certain that you can see how it’s not a thing that players need to always engage in. Between the feeling of burnout that someone can fall prey to (been there, done that), the fact that while you’re efficiently farming you’re earning tons of things that despite a desire to use them you’re not even using because they simply don’t farm as good, and the samey gameplay that ends up as a result of not letting the grindrate slip, the game was probably at its most limited and most samey when I focused solely on grind efficiency instead of using the stuff to actually customise my gameplay to make the earning of new things enjoyable while providing value for near-everything that I earn. Most alternative gameplay requires the game having a chance to breathe, which means that a mission is going to vary in time taken to complete just by dint of playing around in the mission itself against enemies that don’t die instantly and can threaten the player (if not straight up kill them), which runs counter to the notion of efficient grind, and for most of the game you can choose to engage with the content or not (even early on we could bring Inaros to a No-Shield modifier and completely undermine the modifier, which I did until I decided that was kind of boring), and there’s something to be said about engaging with the content 

So I get that you’re building for efficient grind, and when the grind gets boring, you turn to Steel Path if not level cap for your gameplay salvation while remaining in the builds you’ve made because you’ve got a hangup about even temporarily setting them aside when they simply do what you designed them to do and it turns out the novelty’s worn thin. SP is not a balanced game mode and does not make for a good measuring stick for what’s viable and what’s not; the non-SP game, where abilities make sense, spawnrates make sense, armour makes sense, is where to make that distinction. So when you tell players to build and play like you, and they think that SP is representative of game balance, I have a problem with that because that feeds into misconceptions about the game

Good you understand that. Still you fail to realize a massive thing. You assume everyone is bound to a burn out because you yourself have been there, you project that onto others as some form of reasoning why X is bad as an approach while Y is good. It just isnt how it is. I practically do not burn out, especially not from farming in games. Heck, me using the term farm and not grind should be a dead givaway regarding that. So I play the way I enjoy the game, if I didnt enjoy playing the way I do I uhm wouldnt play that way.

You also seem to assume I dont use many of the things I farm, and that I must always hit the exact same efficiency. That isnt the case. I play several different frames and each of them have atleast 3 different builds I enjoy. All are also acceptably efficient to a point where I enjoy the farm. Right now my most played frame is Kullervo because he is just so increadibly fun, not only due to his insane damage potential, but due to his movement and his passives that fall perfectly inline with me enjoying melee again. But I also play Frost, with a completely different setup that is not melee focused, then a Dagath that is full "corridor/lane" wipe caster where I barely touch my weapons. I also play a Bo wielding Saryn, a punchy Atlas and a mobile whipping Khora, this mixed in with some Rhino, Protea and Garuda at times, with a side dish of Lavos, Hydroid and Citrine. All with different playstyles, which is the part I tend to want to switch out mostly in order to not run into monotony. But I never think "ugh, another survival run to grind zzZZzzzz", I think "Hmmm which loadout do I wanna farmw ith today?", where the answer has been "lets chop and stab things with Kullervo!!!" for a good while now.

I'm practically always farming steel path, since I enjoy it the most and it increases the chance further to get rare loot. No reason to run SC when the density is so low that it turns the whole thing into a highly inefficient farm. And saying SP isnt balanced just isnt true, because you cant dump blank statements like that when you dont even know what the people asking for builds are looking for. Most people want to use everything they've unlocked simultaneously, so SP is balanced in that sense, since it does allow people to use and get value from everything they've currently gathered.

So you need to realize that the farm does not get boring for everyone even if it did burn you out. And at the same time, consider why I should give up what I find fun so you can have more fun at the same time in content where we both signed up under the same random rules for the outcome. I mean yeah, it sucks that you wont see your fun happen as often as mine, but you are also seeking something very specific in your fun. But you have that right, just dont expect it to occur more often than it does and dont paint others out as bad people due to it.

And I again want to make it perfectly clear. I have zero issues with how you want to play the game. I only have a problem with you calling others inconsiderate for enjoying what they enjoy the way they want to. I wouldnt mind you ending up in my group with any loadout at all, I would however mind if you get grumpy at me in that group for playing the game the way I like when we both join something with a random outcome.

Anyways, cheers!

[PublikDomain]

18 hours ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

Damage Attenuation is only a boss mechanic. It doesn't apply to the entire mission. It only applies to damage done to the boss. This is only one element of Level Sync

Yes. That is indeed what I said.

On 2024-02-22 at 11:10 AM, PublikDomain said:

The only pedantic difference is when this mechanic is applied.

"Oh, but Warframe only does it to some enemies" or "oh, but Warframe only does it when applying damage and not before" doesn't change what the mechanic is, what it does, or what it's for. It's doing the same thing for the same reason, it just applies it at a different time. That's it. The specific ways any individual game chooses when and where to apply this adjustment does not change the fact that it is still mathematically adjusting stats to de-level a player.

And just like you say, and just like I'm saying: this is one element of Level Sync. IE, it's a Level Sync. Damage Attenuation is just one of Warframe's versions of the same Level Sync you're talking about not wanting. We've already got it and have had it its various forms since Liches and before. It's already happened, and this is the direct result of the community's chronic aversion to balance.

18 hours ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

It might not be as big of an issue for you, and you might not even want progress, you might just want lots of options to pick from

Yes, I just want lots of options to pick from. Why don't you? More options means more variety and more exploration and more creativity and more room for fun. It even creates more room for progression. Consider:

With a vertical progression, you progress forward. Right? And everything behind you in progression is worse than what you already have so it might as well not even exist. Why even acknowledge it? Do you really get excited at the prospect of becoming weaker? And once you get the strongest thing, you're done. That's the end of the progression, and there's nothing new to progress to. Even if new content new is added, if it's not pushing the boundaries then why bother getting it? Ain't like you're gonna use it anyways.

But with a horizontal progression, every direction you go is progress. Every new addition is always something you know will be worth progressing to and acquiring. The only end to this progression is when you've collected everything, and any new addition to the game pushes that everything farther and farther away. And while it's true that this way the number won't get much bigger over time, so what? Numbers aren't progress: as mechanics like Damage Attenuation plainly show, when push comes to shove those big numbers you've worked so hard for are just going to get scaled out or rounded away anyways. There are many more interesting ways to progress than just making the number bigger, like getting access to newer and more complicated mechanics to use and combine with what you have, through variety, preference, exploration, and personal expression, through skill and knowledge, through your ever-more-awesome actions, and so on, and none of that can be taken away from you.

It's also just way more practical. In a game that many of us have played for thousands of hours, it doesn't make sense to prioritize even 100 hours of vertical progression over the continued enjoyment of the following 1,000 hours or 5,000 hours or 10,000 hours you're going to spend here. Kuva weapons remain some of the most powerful weapons in the game, and can be acquired after completing The New War. My MR5 test account, which has only 15-20 total hours of playtime, can get Kuva weapons. Where do you progress from there? Incarnons, which are just three short quests or some plat away? And then what? What's left but going backwards? So if a few dozen hours of play is all your progression amounts to, then there's just not a whole lot there.

Edited February 23 by PublikDomain

[Merkranire]

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Good you understand that. Still you fail to realize a massive thing. You assume everyone is bound to a burn out because you yourself have been there, you project that onto others as some form of reasoning why X is bad as an approach while Y is good. It just isnt how it is. I practically do not burn out, especially not from farming in games. Heck, me using the term farm and not grind should be a dead givaway regarding that. So I play the way I enjoy the game, if I didnt enjoy playing the way I do I uhm wouldnt play that way.

You also seem to assume I dont use many of the things I farm, and that I must always hit the exact same efficiency. That isnt the case. I play several different frames and each of them have atleast 3 different builds I enjoy. All are also acceptably efficient to a point where I enjoy the farm. Right now my most played frame is Kullervo because he is just so increadibly fun, not only due to his insane damage potential, but due to his movement and his passives that fall perfectly inline with me enjoying melee again. But I also play Frost, with a completely different setup that is not melee focused, then a Dagath that is full "corridor/lane" wipe caster where I barely touch my weapons. I also play a Bo wielding Saryn, a punchy Atlas and a mobile whipping Khora, this mixed in with some Rhino, Protea and Garuda at times, with a side dish of Lavos, Hydroid and Citrine. All with different playstyles, which is the part I tend to want to switch out mostly in order to not run into monotony. But I never think "ugh, another survival run to grind zzZZzzzz", I think "Hmmm which loadout do I wanna farmw ith today?", where the answer has been "lets chop and stab things with Kullervo!!!" for a good while now.

I'm practically always farming steel path, since I enjoy it the most and it increases the chance further to get rare loot. No reason to run SC when the density is so low that it turns the whole thing into a highly inefficient farm. And saying SP isnt balanced just isnt true, because you cant dump blank statements like that when you dont even know what the people asking for builds are looking for. Most people want to use everything they've unlocked simultaneously, so SP is balanced in that sense, since it does allow people to use and get value from everything they've currently gathered.

So you need to realize that the farm does not get boring for everyone even if it did burn you out. And at the same time, consider why I should give up what I find fun so you can have more fun at the same time in content where we both signed up under the same random rules for the outcome. I mean yeah, it sucks that you wont see your fun happen as often as mine, but you are also seeking something very specific in your fun. But you have that right, just dont expect it to occur more often than it does and dont paint others out as bad people due to it.

And I again want to make it perfectly clear. I have zero issues with how you want to play the game. I only have a problem with you calling others inconsiderate for enjoying what they enjoy the way they want to. I wouldnt mind you ending up in my group with any loadout at all, I would however mind if you get grumpy at me in that group for playing the game the way I like when we both join something with a random outcome.

Anyways, cheers!

Just because you don’t have a problem with it does not mean you should expect others to be like you, or worse, make them feel like they’re doing something wrong.

I showed you examples of an alternative, explained the thinking, described how it lets this third person shooter be a third person shooter, complete with balanced gameplay and intrinsic/extrinsic incentives, and you turned your nose up at it and acted like the right way to play is your way. Don’t do that to people! You do what you want in solo, but you’re a useless vet with a narrow view, who would be someone not worth talking to because all you can do is act like there’s one right way to play and that’s how you play. You talk about your builds and playstyles like I’m supposed to be impressed with the variety you’re referencing, but when alternatives that draw upon every other way to build a Frame and its loadout for whatever mission (if not using the same frame build you’re referencing but different loadouts) are presented you think they make zero sense and I have to hit you over the head repeatedly with why it’s a thing and why the game lets it work and actively rewards using it from both a gameplay and reward perspective.

And all of this would be fine in Solo (I’d absolutely every-so-often play like you in solo, it can be fun in moderation), but when you jump into multiplayer thinking you don’t need to reconsider anything you’re doing, you’re enforcing your playstyle on others because the mission simply can’t fit you and three other people. I wouldn’t have a problem with you either if you didn’t end up hogging the game, but as it stands you take all the kills, defend the objective alone, and sideline your teammates who want something to do alongside other players.

Of course you don’t have a problem with my playstyle, I could be gone and you wouldn’t miss me that’s how much of an impact I have on you in multiplayer, but when you step onto the scene, you have a huge impact on not just mine but anyone else’s gameplay, and what’s particularly egregious is that you think that other players are of the same mindset as you, so when you sideline them you’re imagining they’re like “Fair play, I’d do the same to you”

Edited February 23 by Merkranire

[PublikDomain]

12 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Nope, they are not identical.

Mathematically, yes they are. 2X = Y is the same as X = Y/2. If you are saying that this is not true, I welcome you to try and prove me wrong with some mathematics of your own and not just blind repetition. Show your work as I have.

12 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Buff enemy health to nerf the ceiling also results in the floor getting nerfed when it shouldnt.

I think you might have missed the entire point of that example? You can replace Weapon A and Enemy with anything. Weapon A and Weapon B. Enemy A and Enemy B. Player A and Player B. Player A and Enemy B. Car 1 and Car 2. A and B. X and Y. It's just an example to illustrate the incredibly basic elementary school math principle that 2X = Y is the same as X = Y/2.

But I can expand the example for you if that helps you better understand it?

Quote

Weapon A has 10 DPS.
Weapon B has 100 DPS.
Enemy has 100 EHP.
Enemy takes 10 seconds to die to Weapon A and 1 second to die to Weapon B.
Spending 10 seconds killing a single enemy is so slow and bad compared to Weapon B that barely anyone ever uses Weapon A.

If you want to make Weapon A and Weapon B more equally desirable choices, you can:

1. Buff Weapon A to deal 50 DPS?
Now Enemy takes 2 seconds to die to Weapon A and 1 second to die to Weapon B. This is a buff to Weapon A, and a nerf to Enemy and Weapon B. Enemy now dies faster to more weapons, and Weapon B is now only 2x faster than Weapon A instead of 10x faster.

2. Nerf Enemy to have 20 EHP and nerf Weapon B to have 20 DPS?
Now Enemy takes 2 seconds to die to Weapon A and 1 second to die to Weapon B. This is a buff to Weapon A, and a nerf to Enemy and Weapon B. Enemy now dies faster to more weapons, and Weapon B is now only 2x faster than Weapon A instead of 10x faster.

See? You can achieve identical outcomes by applying either nerfs or buffs. Nerfs and buffs both achieve the same outcome. They do the same thing. They're two sides of the same coin. That's what I was showing with that example.

12 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

If it would just be walls of health doing little in return I'd say it would be a bad change, if it would turn WF into something more like Outriders I wouldnt mind, since to me that would be fast paced, dangerous and engaging enough.

I agree. Walls of health would be a bad change. I haven't any interest in Outriders, but if it's fast-paced, dangerous, and engaging then that certainly sounds like what I've been saying. So again: you're saying the same things I am.

Here, here are some (very old) gifs showing what my horrible, no-good, slow-paced ,"not WF overall" evil plans to ruin the game would do:

Spoiler

These all simulate about a Sortie 3 with the changes I personally believe should be made. Remember, Sorties "are difficult endgame Missions for experienced Tenno". I can't simulate higher spawn rates this should entail, so you'll just have to look at how long it takes to kill individuals and use your 🌈 imagination 🌈 to do the rest.

This is the Twin Vipers Wraith against enemies found in these "difficult endgame Missions for experienced Tenno". About Sortie-3 enemies which, uh, still die really quick. How slow!

How about the Kuva Twin Stubbas? Kuva Weapons are really strong, right?

Well... yeah, they're a little bit more powerful than the previous clip, but not by so much that the Twin Vipers Wraith might as well not even exist.

Oh but surely I want to nerf the Bramma and other explosive weapons so they don't one-shot anymore!

Oh, nope, it still wipes fodder enemies. It just might take a second shot on bigger units, y'know just like I've been saying.

Anyways. The thread these are from has already been linked here, btw. I even told you who linked it, and told you that they linked it, and invited you to talk to me about my specifics there. You're free to read up whenever you like.

12 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I just dont want to see a homogenized narrowed down arsenal in order to achieve some further equality among our gear. Low "level" items should stay low "level" and high "level" should be "high" level, it is even designed that way and adjusted with that in mind by DE, hence the MR stat adjustments for a multitude of weapons a few years back. Which you seem to ignore while posting other DE quotes at the same time.

But why? I won't dispute that there is a sort of power progression through MR locks, but given that it ends up not actually doing anything I definitely do question its purpose. For example, you can just buy your way past it. So does it serve to limit your power progression, or is it really just a F2P monetization strategy to get you to skip the wait and buy the cool shiny? When you can get Kuva Weapons as early as MR5, well, what are these limitations actually doing?

More generally, what good does having "high level" and "low level" items do for us as players besides give us fewer items to play with when we all inevitably hit the "high level" part of the game? I imagine you'll say the typical things about protecting some "progression", as Ayin has, and you can refer to my reply to them about that.

12 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And it is the least disruptive since it actually progresses missions even when it happens to be disruptive (which is extremely rare).

And yet they're both still disruptive, and both should be addressed. "Progressing a mission" doesn't excuse it. Limbo's old Stasis might have "progressed" defensive missions by making the objective nigh unkillable, but it was still disruptive as hell and did eventually get changed despite the insistence from Limbo players at the time that they were just being efficient and that they were actually helping and that you should just go play solo if you don't like it and so on.

12 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

That doesnt answer the question since that only removes SP from the whole thing. I'm asking how they should achieve it when SP is as now part of the game.

How does what I say "remove" it? I only said that I don't think it should have ever been necessary, not that it should be removed. Like you say, it's now a part of the game, so what does DE do about it? Well, nothing! It gets left right where it is, and if adjustments actually end up being necessary to make it hard like it's supposed to be then it can just be adjusted. Adjusting the multipliers is a trivial task that already happened once before in the weeks before its addition to the game, so it's not like this would be a big ordeal.

12 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

So, AoE damage specifically on weapons is no longer disruptive since the changes have gone live and been live for a long time now. Not that they actually did anything really, but still, they are live so that "problem" is officially uhm fixed and explainations as to why it happened got presented.

"They didn't actually do anything really, but they were also totally fixed and are no longer disruptive".

🤔

12 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Nope. In these types of games it is pretty much always set up as it is here, with AoE seeing most use due to killing massive hordes, then dedicated single target being used for specific encounters. It doesnt matter if you play an isometric arpg or a third person looter shooter, it is always the same when you are promoted to kill large groups of enemies as the bread and butter activity of the game. Even in MMORPGs you will nearly exclusively use AoE no matter if you are tank or dps unless you encounter a very specific enemy.

Cue the "you should go play more games then" retort you like so much. The benefits of AoE can be balanced by adjusting things like ammo and damage economy to give it some downside that prevents it from being the right answer to every problem. An AoE weapon might deal insane damage to a large area, but that's almost always paired with having severely limited ammo that only appears in controlled amounts. An AoE weapon could also deal a small amount of damage over a large area repeatedly, like a poison cloud or something. Then it probably doesn't need as strict of an ammo economy. AoE weapons can also have self-damage so the user needs to be mindful of when and where they use it, a limitation not present for other weapons. Even in MMORPGs, powerful AoE abilities will be paired with an appropriately high resource cost like mana or a long cooldown. It's super basic game design.

Edited February 24 by PublikDomain

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

I have already described my ideal progression within Warframe, and it doesn't equate to a single line of each item more powerful than the last in the entire game, leaving you only one option at a time (or one primary, one secondary, one melee). The progression system I explained expands upon the existing mastery rank divisions, retaining each weapon niche from whereever it appears in the game (not all have to appear at low levels, but when they do, they would see evolutions and more powerful versions as you go through the progression tree into higher mastery ranks, so that one variation of it continues to exist as a viable alternative weapon at each stage.)

This retains the horizontal progression, only when a weapon is different enough (and perhaps popular enough or useful enough) to warrant its own branching tree of weapons.

In such a system, we continue to increase in power as variations are added at different power levels... and they'd be staggered, so you wouldn't get one of each weapon in each update... maybe 2 or 3 at a time, so different branches are growing at different times, but never going 2 levels above the next lowest branch to prevent gaps in power across the weapon types.

Now, you'd say we just keep getting stronger, so eventually enemies would become weaker and weaker and remove challenge from the game. My counter to this is in the stat squish that I proposed long ago, and brought up again here, wherein player stats would be strictly controlled and mods would grant only static bonuses, so there would always be a known stat min and max at any given time, so the highest content could be balanced to the "time to kill" amounts DE wants players to experience. New content could be created with this in mind, and weapons introduced during each period would have known min/max damage outputs, given optimal mod setups that no longer scale out of control with hundreds of percents multiplying on top of each other.

Going back into older content with the strongest weapons and mods would still result in the issues that Merkranire has with PUGs currently, but that's not an issue I care to try to fix.

Edited February 23 by (PSN)AyinDygra

[PublikDomain]

4 hours ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

In such a system, we continue to increase in power as variations are added at different power levels... and they'd be staggered, so you wouldn't get one of each weapon in each update... maybe 2 or 3 at a time, so different branches are growing at different times, but never going 2 levels above the next lowest branch to prevent gaps in power across the weapon types.

But then you have to wait for those variations. Growth takes time. Like I mentioned before, I'm still waiting on my Sobek variant - and it's been eleven years since it was added to the game! How much longer do I have to wait for a Kuva or Prisma Sobek or a Sobek Wraith? Haven't I waited long enough? Do I have to wait for Infested Liches to be added before my Paracyst can maybe be good? Do I have to wait four years for Velox Prime for it to be good? Why? DE's said they're only planning to add 5 new Incarnons this year. We only get 4 new sets of Primes a year. It'd be great if every single weapon in the game had some special variant that made it good, but that's just not the game we have and DE is definitely not capable of keeping up with the vast amount of content already in the game.

It also depends on what you mean by "weapon types". If you mean broad categories like "burst fire rifles", well the Paracyst and the Harpak aren't the Kuva Hind or Burston Prime. All four are just fundamentally different weapons which are going to appeal differently to different people. So if I want to play with burst fire rifles and my favorite one isn't in the "right" power level, then what? I don't get to play with my favorite thing because someone at DE decided to put it in a bad category?

Even if there are strict controls like you say on player stats, and even if mods are only static bonuses, and even if there are known mins and maxes, and even if content is balanced to a specific TTK that DE wants for the experience, this issue would still remain: what do I do if my favorite hasn't been improved yet? I think we're talking about the same overall end goal here, but this point still remains.

4 hours ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

Now, you'd say we just keep getting stronger, so eventually enemies would become weaker and weaker and remove challenge from the game.

I'd say the opposite, actually. DE just showed their new Deep Dives game mode in today's DevStream, and while the levels aren't final it was shown starting at lvl325-350. They're already forced to make enemies stronger and stronger to keep up with players and have been doing so for years, whether it was buffing the wazoo out of Railjack enemies, or creating SP, or Sortie modifiers, or Overguard, or by raising levels, or by any of their other mechanics like Attenuation, and so on. But this only keeps up with the players on top of the curve! Anyone that can't handle this content can just... get #*!%ed I guess? Join the meta or quit? Much in the same way that players who like weapons unlucky enough to be placed in a "weak" power bracket would be left behind and have to give up what they like just to keep up. That's not something I'd want to happen to me, so it's not an outcome I think others should be condemned to either.

[HARDBALLER]

So..... just play solo and then you can take 15 minutes to complete missions that take normal players less than 2.   Have fun raffling off 4 relic runs per hour at turtle speed as opposed of doing 30.  You don't see the math in this?  Warframe is rinse and repeat ad nauseam.   For me, the only competition is to out-nuke other nukers and get missions done as quick as possible so I can start the next one, not to appease to the slowest player in the squad so he can also get a few kills in.