What's Wrong With Op Weapons?

[sewens]

I want a simple reason besides "balance". Every weapon should be "op" in it's own class. Having reasonable drawbacks is fine but asking that weapon with good all-around utility should get dumbed down to deal mediocre damage is terrible. 

[KvotheTheArcane1]

OP weapons are bad because it more or less removes player choice in a way. They COULD use a worse weapon, but why when there's an OP weapon that beats everything? Players kinda then get trapped into "I gotta have this, and that, and then this too" with little variation.

 

Oh, and balance is a good reason too.

[bejuizb]

The game becomes a bore when you have OP weapons. Try playing any GTA game with all cheats enabled. It'll get stale within a day or two.

[xRufus7x]

It also damages the long term appeal of the game. If the game is too easy players will get bored quickly and move onto other things.

[NoeleVeerod]

With OP weapons, you could as well forget about ALL the other ones - who cares if I have a gun that does all the others can do and better? Using low-tier gear will make you feel masochist.

 

Granted, with Damage 2.0 now OP weapons feel much less OP. (that's my point of view)

[immolator1001]

For me OP weapons should be endgame (like the synapse but even that could have its mastery rank bumped up a bit). They should be a reward for all of your hard work and allow you to play against incredibly hard endgame enemies (which we need more of)

[sewens]

With OP weapons, you could as well forget about ALL the other ones - who cares if I have a gun that does all the others can do and better? Using low-tier gear will make you feel masochist.

 

Granted, with Damage 2.0 now OP weapons feel much less OP. (that's my point of view)

 

People choose OP weapons because of the flood of weapons that are badly balanced. Damage 2.0 has nerfed more OP weapons in damage than buffing less desirable ones in utility.

[Archon357]

I want a simple reason besides "balance". Every weapon should be "op" in it's own class. Having reasonable drawbacks is fine but asking that weapon with good all-around utility should get dumbed down to deal mediocre damage is terrible. 

If every weapon is "OP in its own class", they are, de facto, no longer "OP". This term is used to imply that a weapon/character/whatever not only outdoes everything else in it's own class, but other classes as well. Hek used to be a better sniper than Vulkar or Snipetron until they introduced damage falloff.

"Good all-around utility" should, in my opinion, be offset with mediocre damage. If it has a good clip size and firerate and reload speed, of course it should have mediocre damage. Same if it's efficient against all three factions.

 

Making one weapon excel at everything is a really bad idea because it discourages use of anything else. Simple as that.

 

Take a look at Soma and compare it in a mission to Gorgon... which most people can't anymore, since it's no longer buildable, because no one wanted to use it. Because Soma outdoes it in every single aspect. Grakata too. See where I'm going?

Here's someone who can explain it well: 

[Flackenstien]

The majority of people only use overpowered S#&$, just look at Call of Duty or Yugioh. (Two games that have no clue how to keep themselves balanced.)

The same mindset is carried over to non-competitive co-op games like Warframe or Borderlands.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Flackenstien

[sewens]

If every weapon is "OP in its own class", they are, de facto, no longer "OP". This term is used to imply that a weapon/character/whatever not only outdoes everything else in it's own class, but other classes as well. Hek used to be a better sniper than Vulkar or Snipetron until they introduced damage falloff.

"Good all-around utility" should, in my opinion, be offset with mediocre damage. If it has a good clip size and firerate and reload speed, of course it should have mediocre damage. Same if it's efficient against all three factions.

 

Making one weapon excel at everything is a really bad idea because it discourages use of anything else. Simple as that.

 

Take a look at Soma and compare it in a mission to Gorgon... which most people can't anymore, since it's no longer buildable, because no one wanted to use it. Because Soma outdoes it in every single aspect. Grakata too. See where I'm going?

Here's someone who can explain it well: 

 

Thanks for bumping this thread, the threads on these forums have a quick lifespan. That's why I didn't want to re-bump my thread here which I had already made the final post in.

 

I saw your youtube video on power creep and i see how that applies to warframe. Though recently the phenomenon has been happening in reverse, with weapons starting off intentionally weak. The devs have put fourth so much effort into preventing it that they make new weapons weaker than their peers. That's my point with both of my threads.

 

As for the title of OP, I think im using the wrong word for my idea.. What I mean is that each weapon can be very good for something and not just damage. If DE released a melee weapon tomorrow that dealt no damage it should have a 100% chance to inflict status effects or a push/stun utility. Likewise a weapon with 100% accuracy, a huge clip, and decent damage would be difficult to use by default on close ranged enemies.

[Asynaptic2]

Would some kind soul please define exactly what an OP weapon is?

Is it just any weapon that you see that works better than the one you happen to have?

 

I seriously want some defined stats.

The "OP OP NERF NERF" chant has been parroted so many times now as to be completely meaningless.

Is a melee weapon that does 65 damage as opposed to 60 OP?  What if i charge with it for 160?

Is a shot gun that does combined damage of 190 OP? or is 150 OP?

Or is it going to be the lame supreme court definition of pornography - "I cant define it but - well -  you know it when you see it".

 

If there is to be a meaningful discussion of weapons then we need to resolve two simple issues first

#1) Powerful weapons that are efficient and effective playing solo or with a partner against high level end game enemies - and that means above level 60 grineer and corpus (about wave 15 on outer terminus) - are either going to exist or not exist in this game.

#2) What are the exact parameters that will constitute the "damage cap" for such weapons.

 

Once that is resolved we may be able to make sense of things.

And to all the OP chanters who say certain weapons "break the game" because they land in a mission where other players get more kills than they do - guess what --- There is a recruiting channel. 

Use it. 

If there is such a plethora of people unhappy with the decent weapons (all of which have been nerfed now and none of which made places like outer terminus unchallenging) then you should have no trouble at all finding "No OP Weapons Groups" in the channel.

Go jump into your ever popular NO OP group and shoot em up on Saturn and Eris.

Meanwhile i am sure you have totally completed all the maps and are absolutely bored and unchallenged by the outer terminus mission.

thank you

[KvotheTheArcane1]

Would some kind soul please define exactly what an OP weapon is?

Is it just any weapon that you see that works better than the one you happen to have?

In the case of brakk/soma it's dealing ~2-3 times more DPS than any other gun for example. Another definition (which is closer to power creep I guess) is a weapon that's easier to build/lower MR, but has less DPS (shot or second) than another similar gun that is harder to make/higher MR.

 

And to all the OP chanters who say certain weapons "break the game" because they land in a mission where other players get more kills than they do - guess what --- There is a recruiting channel.

Not balancing weapons because some people like them (or even if EVERYONE liked them) is no reason to leave OP gear as is. It doesn't destroy the game, but it funnels players into a preset loadout of the "best" weapons.

Edited December 8, 2013 by KvotheTheArcane1

[ra9una]

People believe it forces players to use that particular weapon because of how overly effective it is. On one hand it's true that giving any one weapon more power than others is no way justified. The problem, as it appears to me, is that, people take there emotions (like/dislike of a weapon, there pride, there old favorite weapons) into account more that general balance, and the over all good of the game.

So, in the end, there is a problem with "OP" weapons, but the truth is there aren't a lot of them, the real problem is how people evaluate whether a weapon is op or not. That's what I think anyway. 

[Asynaptic2]

It seems that the answer to my first question:

#1) Powerful weapons that are efficient and effective playing solo or with a partner against high level end game enemies - and that means above level 60 grineer and corpus (about wave 15 on outer terminus) - are either going to exist or not exist in this game.

is:

"No there should not be more powerful weapons available to play against level 60 + Grineer and Corpus."

 

Ok then are we going to carry our same little pea shooter that we use on Mercury to Pluto?  Because perhaps in some one's opinion the pea shooter is just fine if you only L2P?  Although I dont mean to assume (despite hearing this over and over).

 

Well, that folks is precisely why the outer planet missions are basically a tomb in this game.

(Which people who actually play a lot can see.)

 

Absent advanced weaponry to deal effectively with the newly buffed enemies, players are simply choosing not to go to the outer planets.

And that is sad.

 

The response that one weapon may do 2-3 x the DPS when compared to another is not a convincing criticism of a weapon or a definition of OP.

 

There are buffed enemies on higher level missions at higher wave levels that scale to 4 and 5x the difficulty level  particularly after the buff making the new 40 the old 100.

The weaponry should reflect that.

 

It is pretty clear that people are not flocking to Outer Terminus to Key hunt with all their alleged "OP weaponry" - despite the frantic demand for those coveted keys. 

Despite the enhanced reward potential, few if any people were playing there before the nerfs and they are not playing there after the nerfs.

 

Because, despite the assertions of a few, truly effective weapons do not exist for this level of play for the majority of players who are quite clearly voting with their feet when they chose missions and are abandoning the outer systems.

The lack of advanced weaponry is also part of the reason you hear screams for "Taxi Taxi" when alerts pop up past Jupiter.   I said "part of the reason" because some people are just lazy.  But others are having a very hard time completing maps because the weaponry just does not cut it.

And i am not talking about Mr Jock pro-gamer in the corner who can solo every map with his Furax. 

I am referring to an obviously large percentage of the current players of this game who are struggling - ergo the outrage at the nerfing of promising helpful weapons designed with the outer reaches (not earth) in mind.

 

Since we are going to have such a narrow range of weapon levels - then how about an equally narrow range of enemy levels?.

I am completely baffled by the concept that all weapons must be created equal when all enemies and all environs are not.

 

Given the negative answer to my first point - the second point regarding a suggested damage cap is moot.

Namely the damage cap for weapons will remain precisely what it is now - no advanced weapons (2-3 times the DPS of any other) will be tolerated by a certain vocal crowd.

Got it - Saddens me but i got it.

thank you for your quick response(s)

[GTG3000]

Because the game turns into uninspiring blur as is, no need to make the pool of viable weapons even more shallow.