Ogris, Penta And Torid Nerf

[SIDESTRE4M]

1. Most of us have called for a "rebalance" of the Penta's ammo reserves.

A "nerf" implies a weapon/item/mechanic is overpowered to begin with.

Maybe I'm arguing in the wrong thread because the title has "nerf" in it so I'm automatically labeled a whiner/nerfhead.

 

2. Let me refute some of your points in the spirit of being politically correct:

 

1. Infinity is a concept, it's impossible to measure or calculate. It's a weak point to argue for both sides.

2. So Carriers don't exist then? The problem now that wasn't available before is that with the Penta, you have an "infinite" amount of room-clearing capabilities. Lemme' guess, you didn't like the Brakk's nerf because it couldn't room clear 420 nomouseblazeit across the room anymore? I can make assumptions too.

3. Some of us never advocated realism, only balance. A weapon which has great range, great AoE, insane damage, and godlike ammo efficiency needs to be balanced in one way or another. IE: Brakk

 

3. Now let me give you a reason why the Penta deserves an ammo tweak:

 

Sniper rifles and bows are known for a few things: range, massive damage one-shot potential, and looking stylish.

The Penta covers all bases (looks are objective), but also has AoE and amazing ammo efficiency. Both of which the snipers and bows do not have.

"But they both can have it with the right mods!" Well, why is Penta an exception? It's advertised and known as a grenade launcher, but it's able to cover all fields and more of sniper rifles and bows, so what's the point of having those two weapon classes then?

 

4. Again, bring the Penta total ammo down to 72 and have it draw from the sniper pool.

That's literally what the "whiners/nerfheads" are asking (or should be asking at any rate); you still have the same insane damage with AoE, the same grenade mechanics and physics, and the same firerate. Sensible balance.

 

5. You're saying that the risk of using it is that it kills the user more often than not. Is it really fun to pick up that same person many times and is it really that fun to get yourself killed in the midst of battle so much? If you had a arbitrary limited pool, you would be more smart on how to use your Penta. And since we're using slippery slope a lot, allow me to contribute: If you keep the ammo pool of the Penta at 540 and have it draw rifle ammo, it would make the game too easy, therefore Penta's total ammo pool should not be 540 and it should not draw from the abundant rifle ammo. 

 

Ok, for better overview. I refer to the numbers. And what I really think is needed, is a buff of post options...

 

1. Most of you called for a rebalance of the ammo reserves... that's entirely true. Haha.^^

 

2. I didn't really notice the brakk nerf because I used it some time and retired for a while. Carriers do exist... but I thinks it's more for comfort. I once thought too, how could I go on without its vacuum feature but in the end, collecting stuff is just a subconcious part of the gameplay for me. Often I don't even recognize what I collect at all except sometimes. That may be due to downsampling that the numbers are so small so whatever.^^

 

Infinite ammo became the catchphrase of the thread... or maybe the other thread or both, so I refered to that accordingly.

 

However I don't think that the game gets too easy just because of the ammo capacity of Penta, because... well, I couldn't describe it better than LocoWithGun.

 

3. On the paper it may seem as you describe it but in reality the Penta doesn't play like a bow at all and so the bow has its own disadvantages/problems gameplay-wise. Penta has the problem, all toptier weapons have. They totally wreak havoc on lower missions. I would never dare to bring it to a lvl35-38 Grineer alert mission because at this rate I wouldn't want to be the tactical one using it wisely. I would rather bring a bow...

 

4. This point is confusing me a litte, because you stated that it needs a rebalance, but sniper ammo doesn't cut it... as you explained even in the same part.

 

5. It is one point. Maybe not even the most risky one. I realized this, when I did a T2 defense mission and suddenly those big laser robots came near targeting me and the pot. I had my Penta in my hand and just thought: S#&$.

So you have more disadvantages as a bow for this instance. At least without explosion arrows...

So in reality it's not just like a foolproof weapon every noob can use. It's rank 6 and I give DE credit for ranking it there because the target audience is smaller than below R6.

You are advertising smart use of the penta but the places where penta is abused won't be affected and the losers would be those that the nerf hits really and that is in higher-level content. Of course with the premise that the so said nerf would really be so hard, that it really affected the use of Penta.

 

------

 

So I'm not sure what we are talking about now or what your point really is...

 

To sum it up:

Rebalance needed, but only sensible.

Sniper ammo instead of Rifle ammo, but you are aware of the fact, the effects wouldn't be noticable?

[Kagumin]

It's baseless conjecture because you have no proof or logic behind it. Saying that players will change their behavior based on ammo count is baseless. I said that players will change their behavior based on experience, which is much more feasible. Hence the tendency of players to kill themselves stems from their inexperince and changing ammo count will have no effect on it.

 

What I have is simple reasoning. You change ammo count, this will have outcome. Outcomes are as thus:

 

It makes the weapon performance stronger (I felt that this could be dismissed, wouldn't you agree?)

It makes no difference to weapon's performace, hence this change is cosmetic <- Here I argue that it would be pointless to even bother with it

It makes the weapon performance weaker <- Here I argue that the weapon doesn't need to be weaker

 

But I never once said that it would DEFINITELY make the weapon weaker. No, my core argument was that no matter the outcome, all possible outcomes are bad. Either DE wastes their time for something that makes no difference. Or they makes alright weapon worse.

 

You see.. you fancy yourself great at argumentation.. but you're really not. You completely missed the core of my argument and went straight for attacks and fallen for biases yourself.

 

A spammable weapon capable of decimating large groups of enemies with a single projectile coupled with the fact that it arbitrarily has infinite ammo. You're saying that I have no logic and reasoning because I suggested that the total spam potential could be lowered and that would change how the player uses the weapon because of it?

 

How would changing the potential of the gun, not change how the user uses it?

 

Now you see, I'm aiming for a cosmetic change myself because it "feels" right and balanced. After all, we're going for the "feeling" of a "fun weapon" to use too right?

 

 

Fixes

- Fixed container explosion FX not appearing.

 

 

Are you arguing that this is a waste of time? They did it is the only difference.

I agree that it would be a waste of time for a slight cosmetic change, but the fact that DE changed something that didn't have threads on it (I'm pretty sure it doesn't), means it could be changed too, so why shouldn't it be? Please give me a valid reason instead of a baseless guess of making it useless.

 

You're victimizing yourself to try to further strengthen your point. I asked valid questions and gave counter-arguments, you misinterpreted it as a disguised attack. That is not a valid way to argue.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Kagumin

[Otaiken]

To simplify things:

 

What I have is simple reasoning. You change ammo count, this will have outcome. Outcomes are as thus:

 

It makes the weapon performance stronger (I felt that this could be dismissed, wouldn't you agree?)

It makes no difference to weapon's performace, hence this change is cosmetic <- Here I argue that it would be pointless to even bother with it

It makes the weapon performance weaker <- Here I argue that the weapon doesn't need to be weaker

 

But I never once said that it would DEFINITELY make the weapon weaker. No, my core argument was that no matter the outcome, all possible outcomes are bad. Either DE wastes their time for something that makes no difference. Or they makes alright weapon worse.

 

This is my stance.

 

 

Feel free to argue it, you can do that by: 

 

1) Suggesting there's another outcome

2) Arguing why this cosmetic change is worth it for DE

3) Arguing why this change couldn't possibly nerf the Penta or why such nerf is warranted

4) Maybe I forgot something?

 

This is all. Keep on topic and mybe we'll get somewhere.

[SIDESTRE4M]

@Kagumin: Ever replied to your boss, the calculations "feel" right, when he asked you about whether they are correct?

Or your teacher for instance... I don't know you really.

Edited January 2, 2014 by SIDESTRE4M

[Kagumin]

To simplify things:

What I have is simple reasoning. You change the ammo count, this will have outcomes. Outcomes are thus:

The attitude towards the gun is changed.

More people will know when to effectively use the gun.

Change is cosmetic, as such in a subsection of the Fixes section in Hotfixes. <--- If the change is cosmetic, it will NOT make the weapon weaker.

You look at the potential negatives while not listing the potential positives. That is a biased argument.

That is my stance.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Kagumin

[Otaiken]

Are you arguing that this is a waste of time? They did it is the only difference.

I agree that it would be a waste of time for a slight cosmetic change, but the fact that DE changed something that didn't have threads on it (I'm pretty sure it doesn't), means it could be changed too, so why shouldn't it be? Please give me a valid reason instead of a baseless guess of making it useless.

 

Do you consider the ammo count a bug? An error.. mistake? I certainly don't. And arguing this won't get us anywhere unless DE comes out and says it was a mistake/placeholer or something of the sort. I could also argue that not being able to see explosion can get confusing. The small number on the corner of the screen doesn't really confuse me or take away from my user experience.

[Kagumin]

Do you consider the ammo count a bug? An error.. mistake? I certainly don't. And arguing this won't get us anywhere unless DE comes out and says it was a mistake/placeholer or something of the sort. I could also argue that not being able to see explosion can get confusing. The small number on the corner of the screen doesn't really confuse me or take away from my user experience.

 

But you brought up the possibility of it being a waste of time in the first place.

You just said the small number on the corner of the screen doesn't confuse you or take away from the user experience, if changing that number had no negative effect to you and others, but a positive effect on others, why is that change "bad"?

[Otaiken]

To simplify things:

 

What I have is simple reasoning. You change the ammo count, this will have outcomes. Outcomes are thus:

 

The attitude towards the gun is changed.

More people will know when to effectively use the gun.

Change is cosmetic, as such in a subsection of the Fixes section in Hotfixes. If the change is cosmetic, it will NOT make the weapon weaker.

 

You look at the potential negatives while not listing the potential positives. That is a biased argument.

 

That is my stance.

 

1) Suggesting there's another outcome..

 

I even put it as first dude. I can't think of EVERYTHING that's what you're here for.. sure there is a possibility it would make the gun stronger, but I dismissed that initially cause it makes no sense.

 

So if you see a positive outcomes, feel free to post it and I'll discuss it. So far you're just attacking my points.. but you have to make your own first. And sometimes things don't have positive outcome... that's not bias really. Unless you say that everything has at least one positive outcome.. which in itself would be bias.

[Otaiken]

But you brought up the possibility of it being a waste of time in the first place.

You just said the small number on the corner of the screen doesn't confuse you or take away from the user experience, if changing that number had no negative effect to you and others, but a positive effect on others, why is that change "bad"?

 

Because there's also possibility it would hurt the weapon. And we probably won't know for sure until they change it. I have one thing in mind how it could at least hurt the user experience (or the fun you talk about), but not necessarily the performance. If this change had clear advantage apart from people being bothered with the number, then I could start weighting if the risk is worth it, but as it stnads its not imho.

[Kagumin]

@Kagumin: Ever replied to your boss, the calculations "feel" right, when he asked you about whether they are correct?

Or your teacher for instance... I don't know you really.

 

Yes, half the time I'm correct, the other half, I'm incorrect.

 

1) Suggesting there's another outcome..

 

I even put it as first dude. I can't think of EVERYTHING that's what you're here for.. sure there is a possibility it would make the gun stronger, but I dismissed that initially cause it makes no sense.

 

So if you see a positive outcomes, feel free to post it and I'll discuss it. So far you're just attacking my points.. but you have to make your own first. And sometimes things don't have positive outcome... that's not bias really. Unless you say that everything has at least one positive outcome.. which in itself would be bias.

 

What. I'm pointing out your bias as you have done mine. I've already stated my point; the weapon is imbalanced due to the total ammo count and what it draws from coupled with how the weapon works itself. 

 

I never agreed that it would make the gun stronger, but the use of it would be more effective.

 

"My gun got balanced slightly so I have to think about how to effectively use it again."

 

How is that not a logical thought?

 

I don't understand how you could dismiss the positive possibilities and then only address neutral or bad possibilities. 

You have to address both sides to make your argument stronger.

 

There is no way in hell nerfing the ammo would make the gun possibly stronger.

But, nerfing the ammo count would possibly make users smarter on how to use the gun.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Kagumin

[Kagumin]

Because there's also possibility it would hurt the weapon. And we probably won't know for sure until they change it. I have one thing in mind how it could at least hurt the user experience (or the fun you talk about), but not necessarily the performance. If this change had clear advantage apart from people being bothered with the number, then I could start weighting if the risk is worth it, but as it stnads its not imho.

 

Essentially, you're right, we don't know until it actually happens but that is why we are discussing it.

[Otaiken]

I never agreed that it would make the gun stronger, but the use of it would be more effective.

 

"My gun got balanced slightly so I have to think about how to effectively use it again."

 

How is that not a logical thought?

 

I don't understand how you could dismiss the positive possibilities and then only addressing neutral or bad possibilities. 

You have to address both sides to make your argument stronger.

 

There is no way in hell nerfing the ammo would make the gun stronger.

 

I already have to think to use it effectively. That is a must with Penta.. you have to bounce the grenades to hit legs or back with Corpus and airburst against Grineer. Ammo capacity has no effect on that.

 

You really can't spam with Penta on higher levels.. or you can, but it won't really help you. You CAN do it, but it's not effective. Only thing reducing the ammo count could achieve here is making the penalty for spamming even higher. That is it's ineffective both because of damage and because you're wasting ammo. But Penta is still ammo efficient and on lower levels this would make no difference.. and on higher levels players already have to use Penta this way to be effective.. so you're not teaching anyone anything.

 

What difference it WOULD make is it would make Penta even more annoying to use. Apart from already having to play tactically and hitting those shots (as opposed to pretty mindless rifle gameplay), you now also have more downtime running around collecting ammo.

 

I don't see how that is worth it. You're saying that it would make the gun more fun.. I argue that it would make it less fun, while it would not fix the issue with spamming... as people mostly spam on lower levels, and on those levels Penta is still efficient enough for it to not matter.

 

Penta is already just about the least convenient weapon in Warframe to use, making it even less convenient to make some OCD people happy is not a way to go imho. It's a waste of time, it won't affect the performance and when it does it will affect it in a way that makes the gun less fun to use more than anything else.

Edited January 2, 2014 by LocoWithGun

[Kagumin]

I already have to think to use it effectively. That is a must with Penta.. you have to bounce the grenades to hit legs or back with Corpus and airburst against Grineer. Ammo capacity has no effect on that.

 

You really can't spam with Penta on higher levels.. or you can, but it won't really help you. You CAN do it, but it's not effective. Only thing reducing the ammo count could achieve here is making the penalty for spamming even higher. That is it's ineffective both because of damage and because you're wasting ammo. But Penta is still ammo efficient and on lower levels this would make no difference.. and on higher levels players already have to use Penta this way to be effective.. so you're not teaching anyone anything.

 

What difference it WOULD make is it would make Penta even more annoying to use. Apart from already having to play tactically and hitting those shots (as opposed to pretty mindless rifle gameplay), you now also have more downtime running around collecting ammo.

 

I don't see how that is worth it. You're saying that it would make the gun more fun.. I argue that it would make it less fun, while it would not fix the issue with spamming... as people mostly spam on lower levels, and on those levels Penta is still efficient enough for it to not matter.

 

See the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that you're implying the Penta needs a buff then for a high mastery-locked weapon.

If we're assuming that the Penta is fine where it is, keep the total count to 540 and change it so it only takes sniper ammo?

That would be a compromise.

[SIDESTRE4M]

Yes, half the time I'm correct, the other half, I'm incorrect.

 

 

[...]

 

Well, feel free to ignore my other post.

 

However, since your only point seems to be a psychological one because less ammo implicates a better use... 

 

You should stop running, when you notice you are stumbling.

[Otaiken]

See the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that you're implying the Penta needs a buff then for a high mastery-locked weapon.

If we're assuming that the Penta is fine where it is, keep the total count to 540 and change it so it only takes sniper ammo?

That would be a compromise.

 

I don't think Penta needs a buff. But I think that the game is dominaned by high DPS weaponry such as Soma, Flux Rifle, etc. and it could use some diversity. Penta still has a lot of weaknesses compared to those weapon and you'll mostly see just fans of it using it on high levels. The difference is that Penta because of its weaknesses and its gameplay is much less convenient to use. So it could even use a buff so more people pick it up even with all of its weaknesses and quirks. I'm not saying it NEEDS one, but it would be alright. But reducing ammo reserve would just make Penta less fun to use and even less convenient (you now have to spend more time collecting ammo and isn't fun).

 

What you propose is certainly a compromise, but it's such a strange and unintuitive change that I don't really think it's necessary. Maybe DE could reduce the ammo pool to something like 200? I still think it's waste of time though.

 

Also, this is probably as much as I can say about this issue. I already spent way too much time on forums again.

Edited January 2, 2014 by LocoWithGun

[Kagumin]

Well, feel free to ignore my other post.

 

However, since your only point seems to be a psychological one because less ammo implicates a better use... 

 

You should stop running, when you notice you are stumbling.

 

I'll reply to your other post eventually.

I didn't see it when I was replying to you and Loco. Sorry.

[SIDESTRE4M]

Yeah this thread has become a bit confusing with that high posting frequency.

To make things worse, I sometimes have to look up words in the dictionary, because I'm not a native english speaker. that makes me even slower.^^

[Kagumin]

Yeah this thread has become a bit confusing with that high posting frequency.

To make things worse, I sometimes have to look up words in the dictionary, because I'm not a native english speaker. that makes me even slower.^^

 

That's fine, I won't insult you or ignore your posts because you don't speak English.

 

There's a reason why I'm not suggesting to nerf Nova but "nerfing" the Penta ammo count.

I strongly think Nova is fun and "balanced" because all warframes have the innate balance of base energy while I believe the Penta's capabilities coupled with almost infinite ammo is "unbalanced".

 

Remove one part of that last sentence and I'm fine with it.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Kagumin

[Otaiken]

That's fine, I won't insult you or ignore your posts because you don't speak English.

There's a reason why I'm not suggesting to nerf Nova but "nerfing" the Penta ammo count.

I strongly think Nova is fun and "balanced" because all warframes have the innate balance of base energy while I believe the Penta's capabilities coupled with almost infinite ammo is "unbalanced".

Remove one part of that last sentence and I'm fine with it.

It's strange you say that.. because I believe the core of this argument is that people are unhappy about how people with Penta can spam and kill entire rooms at once.. which can get annoying and they believe limiting ammo will change that.

Nova is essentially like that except 100 times worse... and that's why many people hate her and want her nerfed. And Novas with Fleeting Expertise (and they very often have that on higher levels) can spam like crazy, so they have "infinite ammo" too.

Edited January 2, 2014 by LocoWithGun

[Kagumin]

It's strange you say that.. because I believe the core of this argument is that people are unhappy about how people with Penta can spam and kill entire rooms at once.. which can get annoying and they believe limiting ammo will change that.

Nova is essentially like that except 100 times worse... and that's why many people hate her and want her nerfed. And Novas with Fleeting Expertise (and they very often have that on higher levels) can spam like crazy, so they have "infinite ammo" too.

 

Yeah but you sacrifice precious mod slots for Nova's ability to have "infinite ammo".

Penta just has innate "infinite ammo", like, you don't need mutations for it at all to even worry about running out.

That's probably the reason why it irks me and probably a lot of other people

[Otaiken]

Yeah but you sacrifice precious mod slots for Nova's ability to have "infinite ammo".

Penta just has innate "infinite ammo", like, you don't need mutations for it at all to even worry about running out.

That's probably the reason why it irks me and probably a lot of other people

 

Doesn't make Nova any less annoying to play with. And even without that.. let's be honest here.. Streamline is standard loadout on most frames and even without Fleeting Expertise Novas spam pretty often. Also, MPrime has MUCH larger AoE. It accomplishes what you would need multiple grenades for.

 

The point is though that people find the spam annoying.. so if I was calling for CD on Nova's abilities.. let's say 30 second CD on Nova's M Prime. It wouldn't affect her damage output that much, she just couldn't spam. Would you be against that? Would you call it nerf? I could call it cosmetic change... but it sure would made Nova less convenient to play huh? :D

[Kagumin]

Doesn't make Nova any less annoying to play with. And even without that.. let's be honest here.. Streamline is standard loadout on most frames and even without Fleeting Expertise Novas spam pretty often. Also, MPrime has MUCH larger AoE. It accomplishes what you would need multiple grenades for.

 

The point is though that people find the spam annoying.. so if I was calling for CD on Nova's abilities.. let's say 30 second CD on Nova's M Prime. It wouldn't affect her damage output that much, she just couldn't spam. Would you be against that? Would you call it nerf? I could call it cosmetic change... but it sure would made Nova less convenient to play huh? :D

 

I wouldn't mind that at all actually.

Just means I have to judge when I should use my "Ultimate" ability.

[Otaiken]

I'll be honest.. Nova's annoy me. Yet I never called for nerf on these forums. Why? Because me disliking it doesn't warrant that kind of response. I think that Nova shines because otehr frames are underpowered and I want them to be brought up. 

 

That's one of the reasons these topics irk me. It IS very similar case, if not the same.

Edited January 2, 2014 by LocoWithGun

[Otaiken]

I wouldn't mind that at all actually.

Just means I have to judge when I should use my "Ultimate" ability.

 

What about a minute? What about two minutes? Cause all the lower ammo cap would do is force you to run around collecting ammo some more. I'm pretty sure you still wouldn't completely run out. But it would increase the unfun part of the game.. that is collecting ammo. You can't even do that naturally on the move as you have to be in cover and positioned often when you use Penta.

 

I'm just thinking of how would I transcribe that level of inconveniece into CD on M Prime. 30 seconds might be too little.. standard MOBA is 60-90 seconds, so maybe something like that?

 

Or better yet, increase the power cost to 200. That way it is still affected by mods, so you could argue that you can get around that with mods. But you no longer get to spam and you have to run around collecting orbs.

Edited January 2, 2014 by LocoWithGun

[Kagumin]

What about a minute? What about two minutes? Cause all the lower ammo cap would do is force you to run around collecting ammo some more. I'm pretty sure you still wouldn't completely run out. But it would increase the unfun part of the game.. that is collecting ammo. You can't even do that naturally on the move as you have to be in cover and positioned often when you use Penta.

 

I'm just thinking of how would I transcribe that level of inconveniece into CD on M Prime. 30 seconds might be too little.. standard MOBA is 60-90 seconds, so maybe something like that?

 

To be fair, a more suitable comparison is if you decreased Nova's total max energy, and I would be fine with that.

 

That last sentence; in my eyes, this game with it's terrible AI and lack luster map design, endgame would just require more thinking and timing due to the "nerfs", that's it. I don't mind that at all.

 

There's a difference between fun and unfair.