So, De Does Care About Balance, Eh?

[NikolaiLev]

Weapon Balance

Weapons appear in many different forms - from event weapons, to Prime weapons, they all serve a role and must fit within the balance. Initial reactions on the Gorgon Wraith is that it ‘wasn’t worth it’, but it’s important for us to introduce all weapons within balance.  The idea of Prime/Dual variants being more challenging to use is interesting in concept, but not an overnight change that can be done. We want all weapons to be viable whether they have a Prime/Dual variant or not, and further discussion needs to be had. 

If this prove to be more than just PRspeak then I am quite excited.  While I fear it'll be wrapped up into yet another "2.0" bundle, something is better than nothing, and Balance 2.0 would not go remiss.

 

"whether they have a Prime/Dual variant or not" is a little worrying, because it implies that if a weapon has a Prime or Dual version, that weapon doesn't need to be balanced; i.e. the Furis can be underpowered as long as Akfuris Prime is viable.  Hopefully this isn't the case and is just poor wording/misinterpretation on my part.

 

At the end of the day, balance will be achieved when all weapons are viable.  That means the disparity between the most powerful weapon and the weakest weapon must be sufficiently small not to make a huge difference.  This also means that the notion that the Gorgon Wraith was "not worth it" must be ignored, because as it is it's already far more powerful than the Gorgon itself.

 

Some people do not care about balance, and only care about being as powerful as they can.  In order for balance to be achieved, this sort of feedback has to be ignored.  As risky as that seems, it really is the only way to create a balanced game; otherwise it'll just be a compromise that fails on its goal.

 

It really is confusing to me why people dislike balance.  I suppose it comes from the myth that balance means "every weapon is the same."  Balance refers to all objects in the game being useful to the extent to which they're intended.  Everything should have weaknesses to outweigh their strengths.

 

Some people would cite that because this is a PvE game, balance doesn't matter.  However, balance is important for the same reason it's important in PvP games; because it's necessary for variety.  Arguably, it's more important, because it's also necessary for challenge.  Assuming the most challenging content is balanced for the best weapons, then a player with underpowered gear will inevitably meet far less success, simply because of their gear.  And if challenging content isn't balanced for overpowered gear, then it will be too easy for those who use it.

 

Of course, some would say, "You don't have to use overpowered gear."  But then, other players will, and the mission will be too easy anyway.  "You can play with people who don't use it."  But at this point it's just getting unreasonable; cherrypicking players just to have fun is hard enough when you're already trying to cherrypick players who want to work together.  Adding another condition to that would result in seldom ever getting to play.

 

There's also the question of whether or not something should be balanced for how difficult it is to acquire.  This leads me to posit that everything should be roughly equally difficult to acquire; the only thing that should differ is how you acquire it.  Otherwise, there's just no way to achieve balance in the game.

 

This would ultimately (at least, ideally) mean reducing grind, especially for prime parts.  However, reducing grind is something DE seems ultimately against.  To an extent, players are against it too, for the reason that "without grind, there's no gameplay."  I would respond with the notion that substantial and replayable gameplay can handily replace grind and create a net benefit for the game as a whole.

 

Mastery rank is also an issue for some players.  There's the idea that weapons are supposed to be balanced for "tiers."  However, this is yet another thing that stifles balance design.  If weapons at the highest tier are the most powerful, then naturally players will only end up using those, and the lesser weapons will never see use once they're leveled.  This leaves far less variety than what is possible.

 

It's also simply not the case; one of the best sidearms is Akbolto, which is available at rank 0.  The Galatine is available at rank 3, as well.  Meanwhile, the Flux Rifle requires rank 6 and is one of the lesser weapons in the game, with poor range and mediocre DPS.

 

There is so much to say about Warframe's atrocious state of balance.  Hopefully, this will be addressed sooner than later.

Edited March 16, 2014 by NikolaiLev

[immolator1001]

1. Wall of text

2. The first sentence you highlight "We want all weapons to be viable whether they have a Prime/Dual variant or not, and further discussion needs to be had. " Means that no matter what the weapon needs to be viable, whether or not it has a prime/dual version doesn't matter. You misinterpreted this sentence.

Edited March 16, 2014 by immolator1001

[gnat6]

At the end of the day, balance will be achieved when all weapons are viable.  That means the disparity between the most powerful weapon and the weakest weapon must be sufficiently small not to make a huge difference.

That is not what viable means viable means that the gun is well balanced against the enemys that it is supposed to kill how well other guns perform compared to it has no affect on whether or not a gun is viable unless you are saying that the bolter prime's dps means that the soma is no longer viable or that the bow buff made the vectis no longer viable.

[(PSN)ariaandkia]

People sure hate reading these days...

 

As to above, that is about right.

 

A balanced weapon does not need to be viable.

 

But I have to say that balance really needs to be done else a large number of players will tend towards certain gear.

 

Part of why you see so many novas is that nova is one of the easier nuke classes to use.  Doesn't require much effort to use one as a nuker.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean the others aren't viable, nor does it mean that they aren't balanced.  It just means that Nova is that much easier to use that people will tend to go for it rather than other frames.

 

However, when you start getting weapons that are clearly superior, that trend is going to be even more common of going for the clearly superior.

[immolator1001]

People sure hate reading these days...

 

As to above, that is about right.

 

A balanced weapon does not need to be viable.

 

But I have to say that balance really needs to be done else a large number of players will tend towards certain gear.

 

Part of why you see so many novas is that nova is one of the easier nuke classes to use.  Doesn't require much effort to use one as a nuker.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean the others aren't viable, nor does it mean that they aren't balanced.  It just means that Nova is that much easier to use that people will tend to go for it rather than other frames.

 

However, when you start getting weapons that are clearly superior, that trend is going to be even more common of going for the clearly superior.

The problem is this post was motivated by OP not understanding that DE said that no matter what, whether there is a prime or dual version, the weapon has to be viable.

[(PSN)ariaandkia]

The problem is this post was motivated by OP not understanding that DE said that no matter what, whether there is a prime or dual version, the weapon has to be viable.

 

Even if part of his post was based on misunderstanding and his motivation was misunderstanding, doesn't mean the rest is bad.

[Aishi]

A balanced weapon does not need to be viable.

You need to look into your terminology a bit better /or/ clarify your stance on what your viability relates to.

Your point is non-existent otherwise.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Aishi

[neKroMancer]

A balanced weapon does not need to be viable.

You need to look into your terminology a bit better /or/ clarify your stance on what your viability relates to.

Your point is non-existent otherwise.

The sentence is correct based on tiered weapon system.

Many ARPGs use this sentence as a basis of game design.

For example, lv1 barbarian begins the game with cleaver that deals 5 damage. Beginner's area populated with goblins which have 5 HP. The weapon is clearly viable and balance within it's designated area of difficulty.

Progressing further into the game, your warrior meets an area which is populated by trolls which have 40 HP which means he needs 8 hits to kill the troll. His initial weapon weapon is no longer sufficient to progress the game further because it's no longer within it's designated area of difficulty. He needs a new weapon which can kill one troll fast enough to reasonably progress through the area.

Therefore a concept of balanced weapon doesn't need to be viable(through the entire game) is used agin and again to introduce new weapons, armors, higher mastery rank requirement weapons into the game. These weapons supposed to work reasonably well within it's bracket.

[GeoffFromAccounting]

there's one thing everyone keeps forgetting about when it comes to tier systems: POTATOES! If someone potatoes a lower tier weapon, they're going to be reluctant to move up to the next tier due to their potatoed weapon being much less useful, and then being near useless on the tier above that, now I can tell someone's going to say "Well have potatoes buff weapon stats," but then it becomes stupidly OP for that tier it's designed for, and I already know that everyone is against potatoes being removed from weapons in any shape way of form, so in that case there is no way out of DE screwing themselves over if they add a tier system and are in fact making the right choice of using a tier-less system

[WARLOCKE]

there's one thing everyone keeps forgetting about when it comes to tier systems: POTATOES! If someone potatoes a lower tier weapon, they're going to be reluctant to move up to the next tier due to their potatoed weapon being much less useful, and then being near useless on the tier above that, now I can tell someone's going to say "Well have potatoes buff weapon stats," but then it becomes stupidly OP for that tier it's designed for, and I already know that everyone is against potatoes being removed from weapons in any shape way of form, so in that case there is no way out of DE screwing themselves over if they add a tier system and are in fact making the right choice of using a tier-less system

 

No. This is a progression based game. In those types of games you need "tiers" of weapons and armor. Having a tierless system destroys the game. Not every weapon is meant to be equal. Plus, no one is forcing players to potato low tier weapons.

[Azamagon]

I personally don't mind there being a slight progression from the first weapons you can acquire up towards the more difficult to acquire weapons. However, that difference is FAR too big right now.

 

Another way that progression can be made without keeping too big of a gap between the lower tier and higher tier weapons is that lower tier weapons should be less powerful but also less SPECIALIZED, while higher tiers are the opposite; more powerful and MORE specialized.

 

Take the Braton. This is the perfect example of a non-specialized weapon. It's an assault rifle, the most allrounded type of weapon you can find in most videogames. It also comes with evenly spread out stats between Slash, Puncture and Impact. This SHOULD be the starting weapon #1 (MK-1 Braton needs to be changed imo). You can take this weapon anywhere, but it will never really excel anywhere either.

Same should be done for the Lato.

 

As you get more powerful weapons, they should have their niches and specializations, but at the cost of flexibility. Soma, which is currently TOO powerful and too easy to use, could be a weapon which deals enormous amounts of damage, but that should only be on headshots! That way, it is very powerful, but only when used right. If not used right (shooting bodyshots), it fluctuates between being WEAKER or equal in power to the Braton, due to relying on crits for its damage.

THAT's how I could see the balance work out in this game.

 

Bows, are decently well balanced (maybe a bit over the top in damage, I'd say). They are quite requiring to use right (chargeup, arced shots, projectiles, one-by-one shots etc), but rewards you with enormous power when you use them right!

Edited March 16, 2014 by Azamagon

[NikolaiLev]

People sure hate reading these days...

 

As to above, that is about right.

 

A balanced weapon does not need to be viable.

 

But I have to say that balance really needs to be done else a large number of players will tend towards certain gear.

 

Part of why you see so many novas is that nova is one of the easier nuke classes to use.  Doesn't require much effort to use one as a nuker.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean the others aren't viable, nor does it mean that they aren't balanced.  It just means that Nova is that much easier to use that people will tend to go for it rather than other frames.

 

However, when you start getting weapons that are clearly superior, that trend is going to be even more common of going for the clearly superior.

 

I don't know why you think a balanced weapon doesn't need to be viable, because it does.  That's what makes it balanced.

 

The problem is this post was motivated by OP not understanding that DE said that no matter what, whether there is a prime or dual version, the weapon has to be viable.

 

No, it wasn't.  It was motivated by the desire to see Warframe balanced, which was there ever since I joined.  Frankly, I'm not sure if DE understands what they meant when they said that.

 

A balanced weapon does not need to be viable.

You need to look into your terminology a bit better /or/ clarify your stance on what your viability relates to.

Your point is non-existent otherwise.

 

Pretty much.

 

The sentence is correct based on tiered weapon system.

Many ARPGs use this sentence as a basis of game design.

For example, lv1 barbarian begins the game with cleaver that deals 5 damage. Beginner's area populated with goblins which have 5 HP. The weapon is clearly viable and balance within it's designated area of difficulty.

Progressing further into the game, your warrior meets an area which is populated by trolls which have 40 HP which means he needs 8 hits to kill the troll. His initial weapon weapon is no longer sufficient to progress the game further because it's no longer within it's designated area of difficulty. He needs a new weapon which can kill one troll fast enough to reasonably progress through the area.

Therefore a concept of balanced weapon doesn't need to be viable(through the entire game) is used agin and again to introduce new weapons, armors, higher mastery rank requirement weapons into the game. These weapons supposed to work reasonably well within it's bracket.

 

Except a level 1 cleaver has no gameplay difference from a level 50 one.  A Braton has gameplay difference from a Soma, thus it should be equally viable.  Mods are what makes the difference between a level 1 Braton and a level 30 Braton; so the Braton being ridiculously underpowered in comparison just doesn't make sense.

 

there's one thing everyone keeps forgetting about when it comes to tier systems: POTATOES! If someone potatoes a lower tier weapon, they're going to be reluctant to move up to the next tier due to their potatoed weapon being much less useful, and then being near useless on the tier above that, now I can tell someone's going to say "Well have potatoes buff weapon stats," but then it becomes stupidly OP for that tier it's designed for, and I already know that everyone is against potatoes being removed from weapons in any shape way of form, so in that case there is no way out of DE screwing themselves over if they add a tier system and are in fact making the right choice of using a tier-less system

 

Indeed!  A tiered system does not work for Warframe because it encourages you to invest in your weapons.

 

Mind you, I'm not against removing potatoes from weapons at all.

 

No. This is a progression based game. In those types of games you need "tiers" of weapons and armor. Having a tierless system destroys the game. Not every weapon is meant to be equal. Plus, no one is forcing players to potato low tier weapons.

 

Why aren't mods enough for progression?  Why do we need tiers?  How does a tierless system destroy the game?  And given the amount of time needed to progress, how do you expect players not to potato low tier weapons, especially when they like them?

Edited March 16, 2014 by NikolaiLev

[(PSN)ariaandkia]

@NikolaiLev  simple english.

 

Balanced: Verb:   

19.   to arrange, adjust, or proportion the parts of symmetrically.

20.   to be equal or proportionate to

 

Balance: Noun: a state in which different things occur in equal or proper amounts or have an equal or proper amount of importance

 

Viable: adjective:

 

3a :  capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately

3c (1) :  having a reasonable chance of succeeding (2) :  financially sustainable

 

And neKroMancer already explained it except you weren't paying attention.

 

The sentence is correct based on tiered weapon system.

Many ARPGs use this sentence as a basis of game design.

For example, lv1 barbarian begins the game with cleaver that deals 5 damage. Beginner's area populated with goblins which have 5 HP. The weapon is clearly viable and balance within it's designated area of difficulty.

Progressing further into the game, your warrior meets an area which is populated by trolls which have 40 HP which means he needs 8 hits to kill the troll. His initial weapon weapon is no longer sufficient to progress the game further because it's no longer within it's designated area of difficulty. He needs a new weapon which can kill one troll fast enough to reasonably progress through the area.

Therefore a concept of balanced weapon doesn't need to be viable(through the entire game) is used agin and again to introduce new weapons, armors, higher mastery rank requirement weapons into the game. These weapons supposed to work reasonably well within it's bracket.

 

A level 1 weapon would be like a MK-Braton.

 

A level 50 weapon would be like a Braton Prime or a Soma.

 

Essentially, with a tier'ed weapon system, each weapon could be balanced within their own tiers, but lower tier weapons would not be viable against higher rank /level enemies.

 

Also, There is no level 30 Braton.  There is a RANK 30 Braton.

[Monolake]

Guns dont kill people do damage.

Mods do.

[GeoffFromAccounting]

No. This is a progression based game. In those types of games you need "tiers" of weapons and armor. Having a tierless system destroys the game. Not every weapon is meant to be equal. Plus, no one is forcing players to potato low tier weapons.

 

I remember DE distinctly saying "We want all weapons to be viable in all areas" and not "We want a tier system." Also, I wasn't forced to potato my Latron Prime, but I did because I like the weapon, I couldn't care less about min-maxing, I like the weapon, and I'm sure there's going to be someone who likes a low tier weapon but they can't potato it due to it going to be inevitably obsolete

Edited March 17, 2014 by Ninjaboy00

[(PSN)ariaandkia]

I remember DE distinctly saying "We want all weapons to be viable in all areas" and not "We want a tier system." Also, I wasn't forced to potato my Latron Prime, but I did because I like the weapon, I couldn't care less about min-maxing, I like the weapon, and I'm sure there's going to be someone who likes a low tier weapon but they can't potato it due to it going to be inevitably obsolete

A lot of low tier weapons are great, but completely obsolete in higher areas.  Thus why some games have introduced the concept of fusing the appearance of one weapon with the stats of another.

 

I mean, it would be really nice if we DE could balance the weapons a bit, but the more items you have, the harder it is to balance without some form of tier system.

[GeoffFromAccounting]

A lot of low tier weapons are great, but completely obsolete in higher areas.  Thus why some games have introduced the concept of fusing the appearance of one weapon with the stats of another.

 

I mean, it would be really nice if we DE could balance the weapons a bit, but the more items you have, the harder it is to balance without some form of tier system.

 

it's not the looks I love about my Latron Prime (thought it does look good) it's the feel of the gun, aesthetics alone don't make a gun the same as another

[(PSN)ariaandkia]

it's not the looks I love about my Latron Prime (thought it does look good) it's the feel of the gun, aesthetics alone don't make a gun the same as another

How did I know someone wouldn't get the point I was trying to make...

 

My point wasn't so much the appearance thing but the idea of bringing a weaker weapon up to par with a stronger weapon.

[Monolake]

I remember DE distinctly saying "We want all weapons to be viable in all areas" and not "We want a tier system." Also, I wasn't forced to potato my Latron Prime, but I did because I like the weapon, I couldn't care less about min-maxing, I like the weapon, and I'm sure there's going to be someone who likes a low tier weapon but they can't potato it due to it going to be inevitably obsolete

Doesn't matter what they say, what they do is clearly different: some weapons outclassing others by several times and some frames outclassing others likewise.

And "viable in all areas" is also very vague, as you can technically beat Pluto and T3 with starting weapons, since the game is super easy once you get the right mods. But good weapons make it absolutely effortless. 

[MixterFox]

I really feel that prime/wraith whatever should only be side grades. Like going from braton vandal to braton prime, Vandal has a harder hitting round but a slower fire rate. The prime does more DPS but also burns more ammo to do it.

Or they could be quality of life buffs like going from gorgon to gorgon wraith just having the base reload makes it a better weapon but you do lose out on some of your base damage types(which currently don't matter as much as elemental mods). Everything else about the wraith just makes it a flat out upgrade and not part of the point I'm trying to make.

Deuls should be double the magazine and fire rate but double the reload time and double both recoil and spread. You'll now be trading your ability to land most of your hits for the potential to deal higher dps. This makes singles more better for landing head shots at longer range and duels better for in your face styles of play.

This kind of balance would make all weapons usable as there are no flat upgrades like we have now. And encourage people keep their weapons instead of just throwing them away when they hit 30, so they can grind mastery and get something better. It really makes more sense for DE to try to balance the weapons out so people will want to have more weapons and buy potatoes and formas for them all instread of having 10 good weapons in a game with more than a hundred weapons.

[NikolaiLev]

@NikolaiLev  simple english.

 

Balanced: Verb:   

19.   to arrange, adjust, or proportion the parts of symmetrically.

20.   to be equal or proportionate to

 

Balance: Noun: a state in which different things occur in equal or proper amounts or have an equal or proper amount of importance

 

Viable: adjective:

 

3a :  capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately

3c (1) :  having a reasonable chance of succeeding (2) :  financially sustainable

 

And neKroMancer already explained it except you weren't paying attention.

 

 

A level 1 weapon would be like a MK-Braton.

 

A level 50 weapon would be like a Braton Prime or a Soma.

 

Essentially, with a tier'ed weapon system, each weapon could be balanced within their own tiers, but lower tier weapons would not be viable against higher rank /level enemies.

 

The dictionary does not have denotations regarding balance in video games; your argument is invalid.

 

Your last sentence makes it obvious why we disagree.  I am against a tiered system.

 

Guns dont kill people do damage.

Mods do.

 

This would be true.  But some weapons scale far better with mods.  You put Serration and Split Chamber on an Mk1 and a Soma and the difference will be even more illuminating.

 

I remember DE distinctly saying "We want all weapons to be viable in all areas" and not "We want a tier system." Also, I wasn't forced to potato my Latron Prime, but I did because I like the weapon, I couldn't care less about min-maxing, I like the weapon, and I'm sure there's going to be someone who likes a low tier weapon but they can't potato it due to it going to be inevitably obsolete

 

Indeed!  I want to see a game where you can use any weapon if you want, and you won't be at a large disadvantage because of it.  Every weapon should be relatively unique and serve a role, that includes starter gear.

 

I really love the Braton's aesthetic, but using it in endgame content would just be laughable.  

 

A tiered system is bad because it reduces variety, in exchange for a semblance of progression that is already fulfilled by mods and ranking the weapon itself up.  And really, progression still exists, it's just that you progress in variety and roles, not power.  You get access to more specialized gear, like rocket launchers and sniper rifles and assault rifles that look and function differently; that doesn't mean they're more valid choices, and they shouldn't be.

 

People should be going for the Soma or Prime gear because it looks, sounds, and feels cooler to them; not because it's just more power.  That would be more fun.

[Llyssa]

You wrote an awful lot about this, but your big mistake was quoting the wrong half of the sentence. Important part:

"We want all weapons to be viable"

 

That kind of answers all of your questions on the topic. They weren't implying "balance is irrelevant", they were stating, straight up, "even if there's a whachamacallit wraith prime, we still want basic old whachamacallit to be viable/balanced/cool-in-it's-own-right".

[Onisa]

You do realize most tier systems (that I've seen anyways) use the weapons base potential and no the supercharged potential?

Or in other words that any given weapon would be classified before forma or potatoes were factored in.

So if you really like that gun, you'd still be able to make it usable a tier or two above it's designation.

[(PSN)ariaandkia]

The dictionary does not have denotations regarding balance in video games; your argument is invalid.

 

Your last sentence makes it obvious why we disagree.  I am against a tiered system.

 

 

This would be true.  But some weapons scale far better with mods.  You put Serration and Split Chamber on an Mk1 and a Soma and the difference will be even more illuminating.

 

 

Indeed!  I want to see a game where you can use any weapon if you want, and you won't be at a large disadvantage because of it.  Every weapon should be relatively unique and serve a role, that includes starter gear.

 

I really love the Braton's aesthetic, but using it in endgame content would just be laughable.  

 

A tiered system is bad because it reduces variety, in exchange for a semblance of progression that is already fulfilled by mods and ranking the weapon itself up.  And really, progression still exists, it's just that you progress in variety and roles, not power.  You get access to more specialized gear, like rocket launchers and sniper rifles and assault rifles that look and function differently; that doesn't mean they're more valid choices, and they shouldn't be.

 

People should be going for the Soma or Prime gear because it looks, sounds, and feels cooler to them; not because it's just more power.  That would be more fun.

 

For someone that writes so much, you don't really do much reading.

 

I never said I didn't want balance.  In fact, if you paid attention, you'd realize that balance is exactly what I want.

 

Balance in video games is included in the definitions I pointed out.  Obviously, you just don't want to hear anything that goes against your opinion even if it is simply pointing out the mistakes you made in your wording and not actually going against what you are saying.

 

Balance would be to make all weapons about equal.  HOWEVER, that does not make them all viable.  That is a DIFFERENT issue altogether.

 

For example, with a balanced system, one weapon might be good in some areas but useless in others.  Another weapon might be good in all areas, but not particularly strong in any.  In other words, their being viable does not have to match their being balanced.  That is what I'm trying to say, in slightly more direct words since you seem to not understand that.

 

As far as tiers go, tiers are not a bad thing.  Tiers are actually a good way to increase diversity if done well.  On the other hand, tiers can also limit diversity if not done well.

 

Let us take fighting games as an example.  Top tier characters are generally what people tend towards because they are stronger.  Personally, I've never cared about tiers.  I use the character I think is the hardest to master (which while it often ends up being a top tier character, but that isn't why I choose them).  However, there have been many cases of people using lower tier characters to beat top tier characters.

 

Now, here is the issue of not having a tier system.

 

You now have over say 1000 weapons.  How are you going to balance ALL of them so that they are all equally strong?  Realistically, you cannot without making several weapons the exact same except with different appearances.

 

That is where tiers come in.  By using tiers, you can now make say 100 weapons the lowest tier and make them slightly weaker.  The next tier could be a minor upgrade, then another minor upgrade.  So while the top tier weapon might be say twice as strong as the lowest tier, there isn't a huge difference between each tier.  This way, people can use a tier or two below the max tier and still feel comfortable using it.  This is especially true for weapons that are a straight upgrade (mk-braton, braton, braton prime).  If we assume the mk is the lowest tier and the prime is the highest tier, then we could potentially not only have the prime stronger, but also potentially make it skin capable and put on the "lower" version skins.  Among other possibilities.  Possibly even adjust things so that there is a stat change so that with the skins on, it feels more like the original weapon but stronger (as if you had put, say, a serration on the weapon).

 

And when I suggest the top tier being twice as strong, I don't mean like 10 tiers higher.   If say each tier was +0.05x, then it would take 20 tiers to be twice as strong.  If say each tier was +0.01x, then it would take 100 tiers.  Each tier would only be a minor increase and thus there would be very little difference, most people wouldn't even notice the difference between a few minor tiers.

 

And don't mistake me as someone who uses the best gear in the game.  I love using gear for the FEEL of the gear.  Older players will do that, using what feels right for them rather than using what is the strongest.   Newer players will go straight for whatever does the highest DPS.  Me, I like being balanced.  I'll use my glaive for long range, my kunai or vipers for medium range, my paris prime for sniping or my boar for close range.  Actually, generally I use my glaive for everything but sniping since I forget I have firearms, but that isn't the point.

 

But regardless, as my point was saying, people go for highest DPS.  They don't care about anything else.  Isn't that why there is a DPS calculator for warframe?   Regardless of balancing, they will go for whatever does the highest dps.  That means that even with balancing, people will still trend towards the same gears.  Why? Because even with balance, there will always be a few weapons that just do higher dps.  Unless all weapons are made perfectly equal.  But how would you make them perfectly equal?  Essentially you'd make all of them the exact same weapon but with different appearances.  Specialized weapons would not be possible with that.   Thus, once you want specialized weapons or different stats, you start to lose the ability to keep all of them at the same DPS.  Once you lose that, you will start seeing the trend.  In other words, it becomes impossible to prevent a trend without a tier system.

 

By using a tier system, you will see some trends, but if done well, you will also get a lot less of the trends.

 

Now, if there is a way to make a perfect balance and not have trends, I would support that.  I'm not stuck on the idea of having tiers, in fact, I hate tiers.  Even so, I understand the need for them due to the amount of work required to make a perfect balance and have great diversity without tiers..

[NikolaiLev]

You wrote an awful lot about this, but your big mistake was quoting the wrong half of the sentence. Important part:

"We want all weapons to be viable"

 

That kind of answers all of your questions on the topic. They weren't implying "balance is irrelevant", they were stating, straight up, "even if there's a whachamacallit wraith prime, we still want basic old whachamacallit to be viable/balanced/cool-in-it's-own-right".

 

Awesome, that means there will be no tiered system and that every weapon will have a purpose, even for the endgame user.

 

That's that settled!

 

Now the question is whether or not they're going to roll this up into yet another "2.0" that'll take months to get done.  Still better late than never, and it gives the opportunity to make drastic changes for the sake of balance and to make weapons even more unique.