i feel like dante is too good ?

[Ventura_Highway]

6 hours ago, Kaiga said:

It actually seems like (good players, anyway) have the opinion that much of the content is actually underpowered, and deserve reworks rather than just  nerfing the one good thing and calling it a day- like the response to the nourish changes, where DE's nerf announcement was met with a wall of underpowered or zero equip rate helminth abilities that needed buffs.

They actually did this to let you self regulate or wind back the forma build timer if you forgot one day, the 23hr change was universally lauded as good

I'm not sure if you remember the release, but you literally could go months at a time and get zero tau shards because there was no bad luck mitigation- and the subsequent systems have you regularly destroying your shards for upgraded or combo variants, so to not add this would have been utterly absurd 

If I mained Limbo, I'd have been upset about scarlet spear but that was like 7 years ago

YOU! You DONT. GET. IT. I play Warframe to see BIG NUMBERS. NOT WAIT. *shakes fist* I am a CUSTOMER. Look at this star! I paid money on this game and the customer is always right! Waiting for things, not getting to kill because someone put a toxic build... my playtime isn't meant for these things. And I will scream to be heard if I must.

Spoiler

This whole powercreep situation would have been much easier to tamp down on in 2018 or so but the prevailing sentiment of the time was that "ThIs iS a PvE gAmE nerfs bad" so much so that the forums were set on fire when Scott? Steve? someone mentioned something like Multishot consuming ammo. It's very funny in hindsight.

I'd like to say I care but the bell's been rung, the precious china's in pieces on the floor. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure but we're past that. This is the collective hell we asked for.

EDIT: Also remembered Overguard showing up and players getting upset they couldn't disarm, paralyze and force every single Grineer to start choking out their nearest comrade. "How dare Digital Extremes nerf my extremely thoughtful and cunning playstyle! Warframe wasn't meant to be Dark Souls!!"

 

Edited April 1 by Ventura_Highway

[KitMeHarder]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

The surveys were not only available to the forums, they were spread on the subreddit as well. The 2022 survey was even posted to the sub directly by DE themselves. Please try to get your history right before making excuses. And the survey's sample size is also included: almost 28 thousand people responded to the 2019 survey, and a little over 70 thousand people responded to the 2022 survey. That's quite a lot of bored, disgruntled vets!

My bad, it's very hard to know everywhere DE post things on unofficial sites. Just like when Pablo drops massive information on Twitter and Twitter alone. Not that Reddit isn't essentially a very similar subset of players. And it's not like it was an in-game survey or something that with was heavily promoted on a stream like the recent Eclipse feedback thread was.

Also, 70k is next to nothing in a game like Warframe (more players played today on Steam alone than that) and 28k is even worse. It's not indicative of the player-base, especially with where it was posted. And for the disgruntled vet part, the key words are "in large part". Which hate you break it to you, almost everyone here is a disgruntled vet for different reasons. I myself am disgruntled over the fact Garuda has been bugged/broken for almost 2 years now, with how horrendous the Eclipse nerf was, etc... and I'm on the forums to discuss just such things. But the nerf/kill the genre crowd tends to gather more-so, as it's just human nature to voice when something is unliked over when something is liked.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

It is still a majority. And there was also no option to say that powercreep is good, only that it had no impact good or bad or that you were unsure. There is no "defacto for it", that's just wishful interpretation of the data.

It's willfully misleading. And I was just pointing out your interpretation is just as wishful.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

So unless you're choosing to believe that all of the people saying "powercreep has no impact" are actually saying "powercreep is great and we should have more"

If we're just talking about progression? Yes, in large part it's great. Your use of misnomenclature to try and demonize it doesn't change that fact. And even if I didn't think it was great, it's still what Warframe has used to grow it's player base for 8+ years. For 8-11 years DE has basically been telling players through their design, that if you like progression-based RPGs, you should play Warframe.

Why would DE cease that and drive off their player-base? It's game killing, like it was for Paragon (that game changed to be more my liking, but not for the player-base they grew the game on). Not to mention it's how they make money. Very few people would buy/farm for a side-grade if they already have the original that is just as good.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

How convenient that you've chosen to count the neutral response as negative.

Again, you're doing the same is the point. And none of the questions are inherently bad, so logically you can't choose to give them 1s. Because for something like "Gear Balance" a 1 would mean leaving Warframe to die in a ditch. No buffs, no fixes, arguably nothing new, etc... 3 is about as low as you can go for the other side of the isle. It would have been better to separate the question in to parts such as "are nerfs good", "are fixes good", "buffs good", etc.... But you can choose to interpret it however you want.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

You and I both know this doesn't make one lick of difference to what I'm saying.

It makes a massive difference. Warframe is progression, they are synonymous. Everything you've done in this game from mods, to companions, to arcanes, to helminth, to shards, to archwings, to railjack, to necramechs, to gear, to weapons, to parazon, to focus, etc... is progression. And it has been here since 2013, and it has been hard leaned into since 2015. Your attempt to decry progression is to decry Warframe itself. I don't understand what fallacy or syndrome or whatever else you have to be under to think it's any other way.

The game literally ceases to exist if there is no more progression worth grinding for.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

I think you should read more and generalize less.

Again, you did the same. And AKFing has nothing to do with this subtopic, so we can drop that. And yes, when you do read more and you press the OP for details, more-often-than-not their reason for requesting nerfs because "they don't even get to play anymore because one person can hog the entire game to themselves" is almost always fissures. Be it World on Fire, Null Star, Thermal Sunder, infinte ammo AoE weapons, etc... Almost never is it a post about X frame nuking something like a SP survival too fast... because almost never can a frame kill fast enough for the other players to "never see enemies" in SP endurance.

Edited April 1 by KitMeHarder

[Xzorn]

Only issue I see is no line of sight restrictions. Not even Octavia's Mallet has that and she's also a "sound frame".
DE has gotten very sloppy with line of sight conditions since I came back. Esp with weapon radial damage.

My Rhino gets avg 150k Overguard with Shield Gate letting him get the same value over and over while giving the group x3 damage, x6 if it's Slash.
I don't get why players think Chroma is just some Eidolon killer. He's got two functioning abilities which were nerf'd under the guise the math wasn't correct and he's still sporting 120k eHP and +1000% additive damage. Give him Nourish with busted Viral status to add x4.25 on top.

 

2 hours ago, Rathalio said:

They didn't nerf Chroma they fixed some math that weirdly enough had been wrong since his release.

 

It's not true.
There was a bug with his damage calculation but it was only base dual element weapons like Staticor's Radiation. This wasn't previously a bug either. Their words. "In line with other damage boost effects". Mirage, Rhino, Ivara, Octavia, Saryn, Volt all left alone. Then they added more multiplicative buffs anyways like Xaku and Yareli.

If you want to get finite about it. Every fire rate buff is a multiplicative too. It's nothing but cherry picking.
They just didn't want Chroma to pop their Eidoloons content that was coming up.

[0_The_F00l]

I feel OP has opinion bias ,

I have seen both requests for nerfs and buffs , and buff requests tend to be more than nerf requests.

Both are necessary for a healthy live service game , and players are entitled to have their opinions for both as well.

[PublikDomain]

29 minutes ago, KitMeHarder said:

My bad, it's very hard to know everywhere DE post things on unofficial sites. Just like when Pablo drops massive information on Twitter and Twitter alone. Not that Reddit isn't essentially a very similar subset of players. And it's not like it was an in-game survey or something that with was heavily promoted on a stream like the recent Eclipse feedback thread was.

Also, 70k is next to nothing in a game like Warframe (more players played today on Steam alone than that) and 28k is even worse. It's not indicative of the player-base, especially with where it was posted. And for the disgruntled vet part, the key words are "in large part". Which hate you break it to you, almost everyone here is a disgruntled vet for different reasons. I myself am disgruntled over the fact Garuda has been bugged/broken for almost 2 years now, with how horrendous the Eclipse nerf was, etc... and I'm on the forums to discuss just such things. But the nerf/kill the genre crowd tends to gather more-so, as it's just human nature to voice when something is unliked over when something is liked.

The population of a small city responds to an official survey and y'all act like it's nothing. What have you got, then? Where are your surveys? Where is your proof? I can back up my claims with official numbers, surveys, and statements by the game's developer. Can you?

29 minutes ago, KitMeHarder said:

It's willfully misleading. And I was just pointing out your interpretation is just as wishful.

29 minutes ago, KitMeHarder said:

Again, you're doing the same is the point.

How do you figure? We're not doing the same things, you tried to count neutral responses as actually being in support of your position while I left the neutral responses as they are: neutral. The results of those surveys is clear, and the only way to turn the clear majorities in the results into the minorities you claim is to get creative with your counting. And when that fails, to attack the source and invent reasons for why it's inaccurate or that it's not enough or that the questions are wrong or that there's some other problem with it. I don't need to resort to that! Why do you?

29 minutes ago, KitMeHarder said:

If we're just talking about progression? Yes, in large part it's great.

For you, maybe. But just know that despite your unsupported claims otherwise, a great number of people feel differently.

There's also the fact that there can be other types of progression than just vertical progression. Horizontal progression exists too. So maybe this definition you're insisting on here isn't actually as useful as you think it is? Come to think of it, even the official survey specifically asks about powercreep. It doesn't ask about progression, does it? It's quite specific.

29 minutes ago, KitMeHarder said:

And yes, when you do read more and you press the OP for details, more-often-than-not their reason for requesting nerfs because "they don't even get to play anymore because one person can hog the entire game to themselves" is almost always fissures. Be it World on Fire, Null Star, Thermal Sunder, infinte ammo AoE weapons, etc... Almost never is it a post about X frame nuking something like a SP survival too fast... because almost never can a frame kill fast enough for the other players to "never see enemies" in SP endurance.

And yet DE, the only entity in the known universe with access to the relevant first-hand data, has still chosen to address those concerns. Maybe because, unlike what you're suggesting, those concerns are actually widespread enough for the developer to acknowledge them as a problem?

Edited April 1 by PublikDomain

[Pragmatic_2015]

Because they are all secretly working for Hasbro

[(XBOX)XYZ RUMBEL]

No

[KitMeHarder]

5 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

The population of a small city responds to an official survey and y'all act like it's nothing.

Everything is relative. When the max player count on a random single day and on a single platform is higher than your survey participants, it's a small survey. It's like trying to tell me a city population is big when the scale is global population. How many tens of millions of register losers users are we up to?

8 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

I can back up my claims with official numbers, surveys, and statements by the game's developer. Can you?

You can't anymore than I can. The survey is both small and biased towards a select subset of the player-base. And taking the interpretations out of it and where the neutral groups should go, I don't see how you think having a 0.2% difference "backs up" your claims.

11 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

There's also the fact that progression can be horizontal and not vertical

Name one (successful one) that's in Warframe. And if you can't find one, describe what you're think would work.

12 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

has still chosen to address those concerns

Yeah, usage rate. DE at large does not care about your point. They care that 44% of people were using the Nukor, which meant those people weren't spending money via various means on the other secondaries. And don't even begin to defend usage rate based balancing, it is extraordinarily lacking.

16 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

I don't need to resort to that!

You didn't have to resort to it because you misrepresented it to fit your view in the first place. You also didn't account for any minutia. 0.2% is not some "win" to declare your point as valid. Looking at the "Game Balance" and pushing your "powercreep" agenda because almost no one picked 1 doesn't mean people in the higher numbers want nerfs. Game balance goes both ways. Who are you to say all those 3, 4s, and 5s weren't just thinking the game needs lots of buffs? Etc...

[Joylesstuna]

7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

When surveyed by DE themselves the majority of players report valuing build customization, gear balance, cooperative missions, and difficult content, and a majority of players feel that powercreep should be avoided.

  Reveal hidden contents

This is reality. The game has powercrept to the point where the consequences can't be ignored or hand-waved away, and it's obvious to anyone paying even a little bit of attention. The starting level for content in quests and on the starchart is getting higher and higher. DE says out loud that they have trouble developing content that challenges us, and they're constantly inventing new ways to counter player power like Damage Attenuation or Overguard or random gear or no gear at all. Console hosts can't even spawn enough enemies to match the current level of player power, for one player let alone four! And it's becoming more and more common to see complaints that some players feel they don't even get to play anymore because one person can hog the entire game to themselves. The AoE and AFK nerfs were made in part because of this very problem!

All that really seems to have changed is that this majority of players aren't putting up with the tired "just play solo" retorts anymore.

That's quite a stretch saying the majority when that pie chart is pretty even out between the three opinions.

[PublikDomain]

54 minutes ago, Joylesstuna said:

That's quite a stretch saying the majority when that pie chart is pretty even out between the three opinions.

 Ok, and what are those three opinions?

1. Powercreep should be avoided.
2. Powercreep has no impact.
3. I don't know.

So where do you think the "powercreep is good" opinion is represented?

And if you don't like that survey you can look at the others, which are far more clear-cut.

56 minutes ago, KitMeHarder said:

When the max player count on a random single day and on a single platform is higher than your survey participants, it's a small survey.

And surveys don't need to be given to every single person. Isn't that kind of a central idea in the field of statistics? 70 thousand people is a lot of people. It's a more than large enough sample size to draw conclusions from, and quite a lot more than just you or I making our claims alone. But again - where's your survey? I at least have something. What do you have?

56 minutes ago, KitMeHarder said:

You can't anymore than I can.

Of course I can? I just did by providing official surveys. I can also quote the developer of the game, for example saying here that we've reached a point where players are asking for change because playstyles are disruptive to others:

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

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. 

With our motivations clear, we can now get into specifics.

I have many, many more quotes to throw around beyond this. Like the many places DE talks about certain weapons being too powerful and making others feel irrelevant, or how they want there to be many options instead of just one, or how they talk about disruptive abilities breaking the intended gameplay flow, or how they explain that they're unwilling to fix something because of how hard it was getting to make challenges for us. Now maybe you believe that none of what DE says here is real, and that they're lying for some nefarious purpose like you suggest here:

56 minutes ago, KitMeHarder said:

Yeah, usage rate. DE at large does not care about your point. They care that 44% of people were using the Nukor, which meant those people weren't spending money via various means on the other secondaries. And don't even begin to defend usage rate based balancing, it is extraordinarily lacking.

For my part, I'd much prefer to believe what the developer of the game says over some rando who thinks that this is all just a conspiracy to get us to spend plat.

56 minutes ago, KitMeHarder said:

Name one (successful one) that's in Warframe. And if you can't find one, describe what you're think would work.

Ok, Warframes. The idea that all frames are/should be good is well-accepted. That's why we get so many reworks to bring old frames back up, and why when frames like Dante show up there's talk of nerfs. You can also look at weapon variants, like the differences between Primes and Vandals and Wraiths and Prismas. Focus schools, damage types, it's really not that hard to find examples of sidegrades and horizontal progression in this game.

56 minutes ago, KitMeHarder said:

You didn't have to resort to it because you misrepresented it to fit your view in the first place. You also didn't account for any minutia. 0.2% is not some "win" to declare your point as valid. Looking at the "Game Balance" and pushing your "powercreep" agenda because almost no one picked 1 doesn't mean people in the higher numbers want nerfs. Game balance goes both ways. Who are you to say all those 3, 4s, and 5s weren't just thinking the game needs lots of buffs? Etc...

I don't have to resort to it because I can look at a graph and see that one side is bigger than the other. It's obvious. But sure, the many people who said they value game balance and cooperation and difficulty actually didn't and meant something else. Sure.

Edited April 1 by PublikDomain

[AzureTerra]

Forums ~ where the vocal minority tends to congregate

[Black_Cat_Jinx]

10 hours ago, Waeleto said:

It's really fascinating that there is a select group of people on the forums who CONSTANTLY ask for nerfs to almost everything and what's even funnier is that you won't find this sentiment anywhere else, not in-game chat or reddit or twitter or discord, it's just here.

If I may take a moment to introducce you to a game called Destiny. It doesn't surprise me you have not heard of it, as it is not a fun game to play, it's player base is among the most toxic in all of gaming, it is designed by an incompetent and greedy developer, and every weapon in the game feels exactly the same even though it's a "loot" and "build focused" game. 

In destiny, if a weapon or skill is fun to use, it is because it is bugged, a fact which the nerf centered playerbase is quickly to take note of, so that the developer can disable the weapon or skill for the next three months until they decide to put in the effort to fix it. 

That said, balance is a difficult thing to maintain, and sometimes things do need to be tuned down, but if they need to be tuned down because they are the only thing that is working, you need to address that problem as well. The problem with nerfing things is that it seldom addresses the actual problem, if it is problematic for most players to complete x without exploiting y, then x isn't, ultimately, the problem, y is. 

In Destiny especially, the devlopment team is quick to say "we don't want to make you feel like you have to use specific weapons to complete an event... So we are nerfing the weapons you were using to complete the event to remove their appeal." Yeah, or you could address the event being the problem. With destiny, the biggest problem is that they choose to make many of their events unapproachable. So in that, I kind of feel that people who would want this game to be more like that game should go back to playing that game. It is currently floundering for survival so clearly their design choices are not as wise as their defenders would have you believe. 

[KitMeHarder]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

70 thousand people is a lot of people. It's a more than large enough sample size to draw conclusions from

That's less than 0.094% of all registered accounts based on a month old article. Yes, not all of those accounts will have anywhere near the playtime required to really grasp your gripe. But a very large number will. The 70k is not significant enough.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

But again - where's your survey? I at least have something.

It's the same survey, and it's not your survey. You've just interpreted and portrayed it in a way I don't agree with/condone. And also, I have 8+ years of DE's own game design doing the opposite of what you're asking for. As well as the steam player data showing that Warframe's player count has not suffered at all throughout these years despite the "massive" problem you bring up.

In fact, there's a bunch different reasons this could be the case... But do you know what the most popular update of all time for WF is? Yeah, that's right, it's the update that gave birth to the massive infinite ammo AoE meta, the Sisters of Parvos. With galvanized mods being added, gun arcanes, multiple new massive AoE guns (Zarr), etc.... But it doesn't mean anything, because there's no way to know for sure for this conversation.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

For my part, I'd much prefer to believe what the developer of the game says over some rando who thinks that this is all just a conspiracy to get us to spend plat.

Believe what you want.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

That's why we get so many reworks to bring old frames back up [...] You can also look at weapon variants, like the differences between Primes and Vandals and Wraiths and Prismas.

So we're too powerful, but buffing old frames to match modern expectations of power is "horizontal progression"? Don't you think that "horizontal" would mean every frame would have stayed around the same power level as the 2013 original 8? You do know when Hydroid was massively buffed, it made my account stronger, it didn't just stay the same. Right?

And our weapons are too strong, but adding new variants with (at times significantly) buffed stats is just DE giving us the same exact power again? It's not like the Knell prime does over 1.52x more DPS than the normal Knell or anything.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

it's really not that hard to find examples of sidegrades and horizontal progression in this game.

We must not be playing the same game.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

But sure, the many people who said they value game balance and cooperation and difficulty actually didn't and meant something else. Sure.

The point you're missing is it's subjective. Like your idea of balance is not everyone else's. And balance, comprises of both buffing and nerfing, and the question was directed neither way. So it was open to interpretation.

[SDGDen]

ya know, it kinda does say something when someone makes the statement "nerf crowd is dominating the forums" and the first ten reactions to their post are all people who fully agree.

if the nerf crowd WAS dominating the forums, you'd expect to see someone immediately make the claim that either they aren't or that it's a good thing.

 

 

anyways, hi. its me. i'm the nerf crowd. and uh, unpopular opinion but: warframe doesn't have an endgame BECAUSE DE listened to the "please dont nerf my OP gear" crowd. yes, that's you. congrats, you've made it onto the blame show.

DE has listened to the community as a whole for YEARS, and the community as a whole apparently thinks nerfs are bad and buffs are good (Which is an emotional reaction because buffs feel good and nerfs simply don't)

that same community has NO CLUE how game design works, why even in a power fantasy PVE game you need balance and why nerfs are an important part of game balance.

 

the game is boring in the endgame because literally one player with one of MANY builds can take every last drop of challenge out of the game. if you want challenge you literally have to play solo and explicitly use severely underpowered setups (effectively nerfing yourself back down to early-mid game. then what did you do all that grind for to get to endgame?) 

the game is so easy that there's been multiple points in time where a monkey could have successfully completed end-game content. the solution to this is system-wide nerfs. nerfs to the ammo economy, nerfs to AOEs, nerfs to the energy economy, nerfs to survivability, a full enemy rebalance. we need these things to put the game back in a place where it can provide an endgame.

 

[Circle_of_Psi]

Likewise, I said to Prof-Dante in his post

People either scream for a Nerf to cause trolling/harassment or think X frame is too strong because it overshadows their favourite frame, but look at any other frame in the tier list, Rev, Mesa, Saryn, Voruna and now Nezha, etc

 

think it's just a simple as that

Edited April 1 by Circle_of_Psi

[Circle_of_Psi]

5 hours ago, Xzorn said:

Only issue I see is no line of sight restrictions. Not even Octavia's Mallet has that and she's also a "sound frame".
DE has gotten very sloppy with line of sight conditions since I came back. Esp with weapon radial damage.

Okay on this I have to agree

If they simply gave him an LoS Restriction (and Nezha's new augment) I think Dante will be in the clear, maybe adjust the cap on the overgaurd a tat, since you can just regen it?

Only problems I see with him rn

[Aruquae]

17 hours ago, Rathalio said:

Anyways, I don't remember DE ever nerfing a Warframe directly apart from some side effect of a fix on some broken code. So I'm not sure that you should be worried about a nerf tbh.

Limbo

You might have forgotten about him, but I sadly can never

My boy…

10 hours ago, Rathalio said:

It nerfed him indirectly yes but that's not targeted towards Limbo.

“Fixed fire Eximus blast not affecting Limbo while he’s in the rift”

It was personal 

[Slayer-.]

 

15 hours ago, Aruquae said:

I personally like the fact that everyone can share their opinions

Even if they're opinions I don't agree with

 

13 hours ago, UnstarPrime said:

Both of the above are just two ways to perceive the same reality.  In reality, there are people we disagree with.  But if we want to engage in self-serving fantasies, then we can dismiss the stated rationale of the people we disagree with and instead imagine that they're just nasty brutes trying to get their arbitrary way.

So I'm personally hoping that your guess is incorrect and that OP isn't getting it twisted.

[Aruquae]

7 minutes ago, Slayer-. said:

 

 

Precisely 

I don’t have time to prove the stubborn anything, not like they want to be convinced anyways.

[Rathalio]

49 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

Limbo

You might have forgotten about him, but I sadly can never

My boy…

“Fixed fire Eximus blast not affecting Limbo while he’s in the rift”

It was personal 

11 hours ago, Rathalio said:

If you talk about eximus, they didn't nerf Limbo, they just reworked eximus. It nerfed him indirectly yes but that's not targeted towards Limbo. The only instance where they really nerfed him it was against Sentients specifically during scarlet spear because of how underwhelming it was at the time that sentient were trivialized by the time stop forever. And overall it's some power that has to be under control since how cheesy by nature Limbo's kit is.

Yet Limbo is today still extremely strong. You have one and one only threat, namely eximus units. And it's more than fair.

Seriously you all seem to talk more about personal emotions towards you favourite warframes that got some adjustments over the years. Rather that acknowledging how nerfs are rare and most of the time strongly justified. And on the opposite side how buffs are very common instead.

Here the topic is about if Dante would be in line for a nerf or not. And he hardly fits in any specific category that justified nerfs over the years. And one of his strongest asset is overguard which isn't just a Dante thing. He's only responsible for accessing it maybe a bit too easily.

 

[Aruquae]

59 minutes ago, Rathalio said:

Yet Limbo is today still extremely strong. You have one and one only threat, namely eximus units. And it's more than fair.

…

……Have you played Limbo recently?

1 hour ago, Rathalio said:

Seriously you all seem to talk more about personal emotions towards you favourite warframes that got some adjustments over the years. Rather that acknowledging how nerfs are rare and most of the time strongly justified. And on the opposite side how buffs are very common instead.

I would agree with this except for the fact nerfs aren’t supposed to make a Warframe downright broken (not busted broken, just broken). Sure Limbo was overpowered before, but now he’s in a really bad state

[Rathalio]

6 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

Have you played Limbo recently?

Yes, quite a bit even. Also did 3 runs to level 9999 Steel Path circuit with him when I still had to get some incarnons here. His weakness towards eximus is not that big of a deal with shield gate and rolling guard. Especially since that the only thing you really have to be careful about.

And for instance I consider Limbo to be one of the strongest Warframes in game as I was able to push him towards very challenging content with some ease. Not every Warframe has access to enough tools to achieve that.

If you can believe me on that, do you understand why I claim that "it's more than fair" that you have to at least deal with eximus units?

Are you interested about builds and strategies you might have missed about Limbo? I can DM what I'm using if that's interesting for you.

PS : It's still annoying to play against Corpus when Nullifier units spawns though. But it has always been a thing and they are not present in most of the content anyways.

[Joylesstuna]

2 minutes ago, Rathalio said:

Yes, quite a bit even. Also did 3 runs to level 9999 Steel Path circuit with him when I still had to get some incarnons here. His weakness towards eximus is not that big of a deal with shield gate and rolling guard. Especially since that the only thing you really have to be careful about.

And for instance I consider Limbo to be one of the strongest Warframes in game as I was able to push him towards very challenging content with some ease. Not every Warframe has access to enough tools to achieve that.

If you can believe me on that, do you understand why I claim that "it's more than fair" that you have to at least deal with eximus units?

Are you interested about builds and strategies you might have missed about Limbo? I can DM what I'm using if that's interesting for you.

PS : It's still annoying to play against Corpus when Nullifier units spawns though. But it has always been a thing and they are not present in most of the content anyways.

Just because you like a frame does not make them good. Limbo is in a terrible spot balance wise.

[Aruquae]

10 minutes ago, Rathalio said:

And for instance I consider Limbo to be one of the strongest Warframes in game as I was able to push him towards very challenging content with some ease. Not every Warframe has access to enough tools to achieve that.

I agree, only it takes too much work to do so. I just wish DE was more consistent on what affects the rift or not

 

10 minutes ago, Rathalio said:

Are you interested about builds and strategies you might have missed about Limbo? I can DM what I'm using if that's interesting for you.

It’s all good, I’ve been having fun with the dps/tank hybrid build using eclipse helminth. 

 

11 minutes ago, Rathalio said:

If you can believe me on that, do you understand why I claim that "it's more than fair" that you have to at least deal with eximus units?

I agree, but I believe you can also agree with this: being good with a frame doesn’t mean they are in a good spot. Limbo does need his share of tweaks, but he is beyond “useless” as some claim.

 

12 minutes ago, Rathalio said:

PS : It's still annoying to play against Corpus when Nullifier units spawns though. But it has always been a thing and they are not present in most of the content anyways.

Ehhh they truly are just an annoyance, nothing else

[Rathalio]

10 minutes ago, Joylesstuna said:

Just because you like a frame does not make them good. Limbo is in a terrible spot balance wise.

If you can do the most challenging kind of content by using this Warframe strengths and succeed. I don't see where it has to do with "liking" the Warframe too much. It's not because you convinced yourself Limbo is unplayable that it is true. You statement is incoherent not constructive, you just say something false then try to use it to claim "Limbo bad". It neither make sense nor justify your claim.

Also again that's deviating from the initial topic.