The Eternal Fight Between Op Or Not Op Gear.

[locojuan]

i was just posting at some other guys thread, and he was asking to nerf fleeting expertise.
i do not agree with this for a very simple reason, i like it.
i have the freedom to choose whether i want to use it or not.

now, this has been an eternal fight between ppl who like op stuff, and ppl who doesnt. but i think this issue could end once and for all with a very simple solution:

match making filters.
 

easy example:
 

options> matchmaking filter> play under "concalve" stats / play free. (where "conclave stats" is just a placeholder to give you an idea)

so now you are lvl capped to some sort of conclave rating, where you can only use regular gear or no corrupted mods and stuff, or you can choose to go free about it. then you will only join to ppl with the same filter you have.

in addition to this, A,B,C loadouts would change depending on your filter. so if your filter is set to "free", your abc loadout changes to that you made with "op" mods. if you change to "conclave stats", your abc loadout changes to basic mods.

how to decide what mods ar op what not? corrupted and nightmare are op. the rest is regular. very simple.
 

can we now stop arguing about op gear???? PLZ!

opinions on the system are welcome. opinions about op gear are not. thanks.

[Cwierz]

So what you are saying is that you want for DE to waste time to create a system that only fixes a broken system for whoever elects to gimp themselves?

Good luck with this.

 

What you are not getting is that we are not arguing about the various things because we don't necessarily enjoy them, but for what the game needs to have happen to it. Sure being immortal firing off abilities and 540 penta grenades can be fun, but it ultimately will lead to an unsatisfying game, in which people simply wont come back to it, and will have regretting spending some money on it. I am almost at this point, and I have like 1/10th of the hours of some people I know. (which is crazy to me at least)

 

When we design the game correctly, we will ultimately make it better. 

 

The reason these debates ever occur is because the majority of people playing the game atm are trapped in a skinner box, hard. Like they can't even see it. They become attached to whatever content helps them grind better.

Endgame players, are playing artificially inflated meaningless content for a variety of reasons, maybe because they enjoy the core game mechanics, want to top the leaderboards, or whatever have you.

 

This is well and good and all, and it is perfectly natural for players to like equipment that makes them feel powerful and as if they mastered the non existent skill progression in this game. But because DE is neglecting some of the fundamental issues with their game, and not capitalizing on what really needs to be improved, they are shortchanging this game from reaching its full potential.

 

I want to see this game do well, because I like the concept. I remember being enthralled when I first joined in U7. But now that I have actually sat down and looked at this, I have realized that DE could really make themselves a much more engaging, full, good game.

[ThePresident777]

This is not a terrible idea.  I've advocated for something else but with the same basic premise, people of like mind should play together. 

 

My idea is for DE to take nerf, or buff, ideas and convert them into missions.  Nightmare Mode has some already.  And NM should have it's own fixed locations and missions, not just random.  Most of the solar map is the same small set of missions repeated many times.  Some locations have a particular drop table.  But, it's still to much repetition.  Does anybody play any Sedna location other than Kappa?  It's the same for every planet.  Players are interested in only a few locations in each planet.  And we've have only a few missions, for a long time now.  So why not solve two problem with one easy and effective shot?

[ThePresident777]

Players must never gimp themselves.  Gimping is the job of the developer and it's not really gimping unless players are miserable about it. 

 

The needs of the game out weigh the enjoyment of the players, the purpose of playing games not with standing.  It doesn't matter if you're having fun now.  I know that you will get bored, someday.  So, I will make sure that you get bored now, before you have the chance to enjoy the game.  Because I know what is best for you.  Therefore, choice mechanisms are a waste of time.  I got this.  Stand back people.

 

The skinner box argument holds no water because people play the game for the fun of exploding and shooting hordes to oblivion and parkouring around speedily.  You can do that with a few mods.  The only thing preventing players from having those mods is the currently broken drop tables.  If players have the mods then there is no skinner box.  The skinner box has nothing to do with blowing stuff up or flying around at the speed of light.  That's not what causes a skinner box.  What causes a skinner box is withholding satisfaction.  In Warframe, that means withholding mods.

Edited April 30, 2014 by ThePresident777

[neKroMancer]

No. I don't see the point of doing this at all.

If DE decide to do what you asked, we probabably have every build of the game running parallel to one another just to cater all of us and our preference. That is impossible to achieve.

[Archistopheles]

As soon as it was possible to Min/Max in games like Diablo, Ultima, and Everquest, there was no going back.

 

 

We were fine for awhile, but as soon as Forma were introduced, this game also became about Min/Max.

[LukeAura]

Filters don't work. 

Pres777's been at this idea a lot longer than you. 
He's absolutely right when he says you can't ask players to gimp themselves. 
It has to be a system decided and controlled by the game. 

casual mode
challenge mode
Each has a copy of the mods, and their own drop tables. 
mods can't be transferred between systems. 
challenge mod is very heavily and carefully managed/balanced/tiered/structure, casual mode is anything goes. Bring back Zeus Volt if you want.   
Certain aspects and rewards would be unique to challenge mode. But the overall difficulty would be more at the end of challenge mode to compensate the increase in potential power over casual. Challenge mode sees a higher level of power achievable than casual, but enemies difficulty increase is more, and also more complex to compensate, over casuals enemies.
Challenge enemies>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casual enemies
Challenge player power >>>> casual player power.  
 

[Wolfstorm18]

I like OP stuff and want to see more. Fleeting Expertise should be buffed to 90% efficiency and duration reduction, but at high cost. The same can be done with other corrupted mods. 

 

A matchmaking option would be good for both parties.

 

Recently nerfers had pratically killed Fury mod for melee weapons. At start was 90% increase, then nerfed to 60%, and now its 30% increase in melee speed. Thats the reason why melee now looks slow to me, since I always used Fury mod. 

[Cwierz]

Players must never gimp themselves.  Gimping is the job of the developer and it's not really gimping unless players are miserable about it. 

By adding in two matchmaking, one where the game is actually balanced correctly, and one where blatantly overpowered content is allowed is pretty much the exact same thing as gimping. If you have to lower your power level for any reason that isn't explicitly forced, suggested, or helps out in a certain way that is gimping yourself. Even people advocating for balance won't play this. 

 

The needs of the game out weigh the enjoyment of the players, the purpose of playing games not with standing.  It doesn't matter if you're having fun now.  I know that you will get bored, someday.  So, I will make sure that you get bored now, before you have the chance to enjoy the game.  Because I know what is best for you.  Therefore, choice mechanisms are a waste of time.  I got this.  Stand back people.

What you fail to understand is that enjoyment of the players is not related at all to the needs of a game. Ask yourself if you really like this piece of content for what it is, instead of it being the biggest and baddest thing out there. If you really liked a piece of content for what it actually was, and it remained viable after a nerf it shouldn't affect your enjoyment. If you don't don't actually enjoy the content, you enjoy the power. 

When things are balanced you don't have to worry about your content feeling weak, because everything will feel fair, viable, and a well crafted enjoyable piece of content.

 

The skinner box argument holds no water because people play the game for the fun of exploding and shooting hordes to oblivion and parkouring around speedily.  You can do that with a few mods.  The only thing preventing players from having those mods is the currently broken drop tables.  If players have the mods then there is no skinner box.  The skinner box has nothing to do with blowing stuff up or flying around at the speed of light.  That's not what causes a skinner box.  What causes a skinner box is withholding satisfaction.  In Warframe, that means withholding mods.

You say you enjoy nova correct? I have heard you say it on multiple occasions. Well then, what would you do, if another more powerful warframe came out? Would you immediately abandon your nova after getting it to 30 with a catalyst and a couple forma? Or do you actually enjoy that nova you are using, and want it to remain viable? 

Really to be honest, the game if changed in ways you want it to be would be much less fulfilling, polished, and generally good.

 

I will admit that skinner box is not actually the correct term for endgame players or people who have everything they want. You are more trapped in power progression.

[locojuan]

i see so much diversity of opinion about what makes this game fun and what not.
 

while i put over 800 hours in 5 months and still enjoy this game so much, other find it booring much sooner.

i have all corrupted mods, all frames, and lvled up every single weapon the game gives me in this period of time, in pair with ppl what did the same but over 1 year under the same amount of hours or so.
 i am lvl 15 mastery rank and im exploring more options of the game while i wait for new systems like focus and proxy wars.
i can kill a boss in less than 5 seconds, or the same boss can take me 1 hr, depending on what gear i want to use. am i the only one that can control the hunger for power and decide when and where to use said power? i do not think i am.

so, gimp would be something like reducing power or increasing it beyond the game boundries? in any case, that is not my suggestion. what i meant was to allow players that want to avoid all mighty somas and novas, to have better matchmaking options, so they don't have to watch the whole map blow up and feel useless. and at the the same time, give the players that actually want to see the whole map blow up a place to play with the rest of their "kind". this would imply to nerf nova for example to certain cap, which it might be happening at DE as we speak if you let me guess. i want to clarify that when i say nova, i use it as a stereotype of an op frame.

 

i think that lukeaura just got my point somehow? could you expand on it in a very simple childish way lol (spanish language here)? this is what i think might work.

i would like to reffer in this case, to builds as OP or normal in terms of power, as a placeholder that is. corrupted builds (blind rage etc) are op untill you reach lvl 40 aprox.. normal mods (intensify, etc) die earlier in this scenario.
 so, "filter is set to op build". so "op joe" goes to "planet lvl 30", enters a mission, and finds "op john" in there, and they nuke it all. op joe and op john are happy they could clean the map without worrying about "normal joe" and "normal john" feeling like crap about it.
 
"filter is set to normal". on the same planet, normal joe enters the same mission and finds that normal john is there, so they fight with all they got and after some work, they clean the map. normal joe and normal john are happy they could clean a map by theirselves, and didn't have to worry about op joe and john annihilating everything in their path.
 Later on, all 4 decide they want to play a together, they all set filter to normal, and have a wonderful match.

i dont think i can be more clear than that. based on that, what is wrong with it?
remember, its about givin ppl room to seat down and press 4 if the wish to do so, or to look for challenge... without anoying eachother. i do understand the loot problem that it implies, but as in right now, i can get tier 3 keys or hellschamber at lares/mercury. if anything needs to be balanced, is that.

 

[locojuan]

<<<< ash player here, you can look it up in my ingame profile. i said i enjoy nova time to time, specially when i get back from work and things didn't go so well.

i don't know where you got that copy/paste thing from, but since we posted almost at the same time i'll let it pass. do not take for a hungry of power corpus. you don't know me at all.

edit: once again, posted at the same time. still didnt get thing about that text. clarify plz.
edit 2: ok ok i've been reading too much today, that last post got me confused lol. press777 i think we will get along very well.

Edited April 30, 2014 by locojuan

[ThePresident777]

Any time there is a difference in DPS in a game based on destruction, there is min/max.  So, there was min/max in Warframe long before forma.

 

Casual vs. Challenge is a filter.  What the OP is proposing is doing it numerically.

[locojuan]

By adding in two matchmaking, one where the game is actually balanced correctly, and one where blatantly overpowered content is allowed is pretty much the exact same thing as gimping. If you have to lower your power level for any reason that isn't explicitly forced, suggested, or helps out in a certain way that is gimping yourself. Even people advocating for balance won't play this. 

 

hmmm, help me understand this words i underlined. if im getting it right, i wonder what endless defenses and survaival do? cos' at the very moment you decide to stay more and more time in those missions, you are basicly deciding to gimp yourself, since enemies grow stronger and you don't, thus creating a situation where you are underpowered. i don't think i am asking ppl to do something the game is not already offering. gimp or "self-nerf" as i like to calle it, is already an option in this game, since you can choose to remove mods, or use gear that is in many ways inferior ot other, or stay in a mission where your enemies increasingly grow stronger.

 

 this is the reason why i feel like this kind of ideals;  "When things are balanced you don't have to worry about your content feeling weak, because everything will feel fair, viable, and a well crafted enjoyable piece of content."  remind me of communism somehow. i am not trying to be rude i swear, i am consiously exagerating when i say it. but to balance a game like this through making all content equal is to destroy it's roots in a way. all the elements in the game (as i see it) bring the oportunity to buff or nerf yourself as you please in any moment you want, always in a way where you won't feel forced to by any other person than yourself. i don't want ppl to feel forced to play in a especific way. bringing us back to the relevant issue where player A likes things challenging and B is more causal (or in my case C being one that goes through A or B as i feel that day) are affecting eachothers tastes of gameplay, thus creating a forced situation. i am sorry if my examples are poor in content or leave relevant aspects out, like loot for example. once we solve the "A and B not being able to get along" problem, we can move to balance loot and the rest of the content for each type of gameplay. i dont want to force ppl to gimp themselves, i want em to a able to decide if they want to go A OR B  without anoying eachother.

Edited May 2, 2014 by locojuan

[Cwierz]

hmmm, help me understand this words i underlined. if im getting it right, i wonder what endless defenses and survaival do? cos' at the very moment you decide to stay more and more time in those missions, you are basicly deciding to gimp yourself, since enemies grow stronger and you don't, thus creating a situation where you are underpowered. i don't think i am asking ppl to do something the game is not already offering. gimp or "self-nerf" as i like to calle it, is already an option in this game, since you can choose to remove mods, or use gear that is in many ways inferior ot other, or stay in a mission where your enemies increasingly grow stronger.

 

 this is the reason why i feel like this kind of ideals;  "When things are balanced you don't have to worry about your content feeling weak, because everything will feel fair, viable, and a well crafted enjoyable piece of content."  remind me of communism somehow. i am not trying to be rude i swear, i am consiously exagerating when i say it. but to balance a game like this through making all content equal is to destroy it's roots in a way. all the elements in the game (as i see it) bring the oportunity to buff or nerf yourself as you please in any moment you want, always in a way where you won't feel forced to by any other person than yourself. i don't want ppl to feel forced to play in a especific way. bringing us back to the relevant issue where player A likes things challenging and B is more causal (or in my case C being one that goes through A or B as i feel that day) are affecting eachothers tastes of gameplay, thus creating a forced situation. i am sorry if my examples are poor in content or leave relevant aspects out, like loot for example. once we solve the "A and B not being able to get along" problem, we can move to balance loot and the rest of the content for each type of gameplay. i dont want to force ppl to gimp themselves, i want em to a able to decide if they want to go A OR B  without anoying eachother.

This analogy is flawed.

If you are running a defense mission you are not actively lowering your power level. 

You also just compared a fair balanced game environment to communism. You do realize what makes them different right?

A game where it is balanced isn't automatically inaccessible to casual players, and it is foolish to think so. A balanced game also doesn't create challenge. That challenge was already there, you just couldn't see it. Challenge also is not exempt from casual games either, where do people get these misconceptions?

The thing is, with a balanced game this argument doesn't exist at all. The only reason this is happening is because a vocal group of players who I do not know the size of is desperately clinging to the content that makes them feel the most powerful. No matter how many ways you try to mask it, that is pretty much the problem. The thing is, in a balanced game EVERYTHING feels appropriately powerful, but people are scared of the temporary changes.

 

EDIT: Wow I typed this badly lol

Edited May 3, 2014 by Cwierz

[locojuan]

"This analogy is flawed.

If you are running a defense mission you are not actively lowering your power level". well, enlight me by explaining what is your definition of power level? cos' if my power level is "30", and the enemy power level is "50" i'd say im definetely underpowered in that situation. and if im stataying in a mission where the enemies's power level increases and mine becomes lower and lower than theirs...am i not then lowering my power lvl by decision?

 

wait as second, this is not what i want to discuss. lol

i get your points, farming pluto (example) shouln't be an easy task. and it is not what i want either. what i want is to be albe to go OP without anoying ppl. i play solo or only with ppl that likes to play op when i want to. what makes me mad, is that the other ppl that likes OP does not care about trivializing other ppl's content, AND that ppl that does not like OP gear makes "Joe OP" gameplay booring by being too slow or whatever, thus creating this situation where a lot of "nerf 'em" fan boys are asking to ruin MY gameplay, while they have a lot of options to avoid said situation. since they dont seem to be able to do it by themselves, i proposed a filter where players can choose if they want their gear to be op or not, and then be able to play with ppl under the same filter.

Loot is obviously an issue, and i've never suggested that OP gear should be able to facilitate said loot. but loot or not loot involved, ppl is still complaining about OP gear users "stealling their kills" and such, and that has nothing to do with looting. if you nerf OP gear in order to make op haters happy, you make other ppl unhappy. yes, loot should be separated by this filter. so, as an example, only if you are playing under "challenge" mode, you'll be able to find the mods that  you can use only under "casual" mode. (plz, before attacking the names "challenge" or "casual" remember that they are just placeholders). and when under "casual" filter, as pres777 said, bring back volt zeus, super nova, or whatever. also, "casual" mode loot is the more complicated, since it is loot that in the end makes things interesting. what could be a fair loot for "casual" players?? i dont know.

 

i understand the balance issue. where there is a nova, an ash becomes just an expectator (so to speak). that aint right. so yes, balance the frames and weapons to certain point. but lemme go perma invi, or super nova on a mission if i want to, with it's respectives penalties. some ppl is asking to take that away, and they shouldn't. ask for balance? yes. ask to remove ppl's choices by nerfing the gear or mods that makes em feel cool??? definitely not.  what do we do? keep both options viable, and apply "penalty" accordingly... damn, i'd go for no loot at all just to keep that perma invi viable lol.
 

[Cwierz]

"This analogy is flawed.

If you are running a defense mission you are not actively lowering your power level". well, enlight me by explaining what is your definition of power level? cos' if my power level is "30", and the enemy power level is "50" i'd say im definetely underpowered in that situation. and if im stataying in a mission where the enemies's power level increases and mine becomes lower and lower than theirs...am i not then lowering my power lvl by decision?

 

wait as second, this is not what i want to discuss. lol

i get your points, farming pluto (example) shouln't be an easy task. and it is not what i want either. what i want is to be albe to go OP without anoying ppl. i play solo or only with ppl that likes to play op when i want to. what makes me mad, is that the other ppl that likes OP does not care about trivializing other ppl's content, AND that ppl that does not like OP gear makes "Joe OP" gameplay booring by being too slow or whatever, thus creating this situation where a lot of "nerf 'em" fan boys are asking to ruin MY gameplay, while they have a lot of options to avoid said situation. since they dont seem to be able to do it by themselves, i proposed a filter where players can choose if they want their gear to be op or not, and then be able to play with ppl under the same filter.

Loot is obviously an issue, and i've never suggested that OP gear should be able to facilitate said loot. but loot or not loot involved, ppl is still complaining about OP gear users "stealling their kills" and such, and that has nothing to do with looting. if you nerf OP gear in order to make op haters happy, you make other ppl unhappy. yes, loot should be separated by this filter. so, as an example, only if you are playing under "challenge" mode, you'll be able to find the mods that  you can use only under "casual" mode. (plz, before attacking the names "challenge" or "casual" remember that they are just placeholders). and when under "casual" filter, as pres777 said, bring back volt zeus, super nova, or whatever. also, "casual" mode loot is the more complicated, since it is loot that in the end makes things interesting. what could be a fair loot for "casual" players?? i dont know.

 

i understand the balance issue. where there is a nova, an ash becomes just an expectator (so to speak). that aint right. so yes, balance the frames and weapons to certain point. but lemme go perma invi, or super nova on a mission if i want to, with it's respectives penalties. some ppl is asking to take that away, and they shouldn't. ask for balance? yes. ask to remove ppl's choices by nerfing the gear or mods that makes em feel cool??? definitely not.  what do we do? keep both options viable, and apply "penalty" accordingly... damn, i'd go for no loot at all just to keep that perma invi viable lol.

 

I guess that works, but when you dramatize weaknesses (I presume thats what you meant by penalties) you need to do so largely. But I disagree with you, some things need to be nerfed. It doesn't matter if it makes them feel cool, because by the time you are finished with everything every piece of content feels fair, good, and fun to play. 

[Joyfulmama]

Will be quite harder to find matchmaking players sometimes

[ThePresident777]

I have yet to see anyone present proof that nerfs feel fine.  I doubt they can considering that everything that has been nerfed has seen it's popularity crash.  If nerfs felt fine then people would be flocking to nerfed things, but, they are not.  And this game has tons of nerfed content.  There is a lot of choice in nerf here.  To say that something is OP is to imply that the rest are nerfed, therefore, Warframe has tons of nerfed content.  Yet, the majority of the players are flocking to more player power rather than less.  So, no, nerfs will not feel fine.  They'll feel terrible for most people as past experience and current usage has shown. 

 

And, if you think that feel does not matter, then I invite you to take a dose of your own medicine.  Look in the mirror and say it to yourself about your opinions and preferences.  Say to yourself, "I will embrace the OP, and I'll feel fine about it."  Take a dose of your own medicine.  Don't listen to yourself.  Listen to us, a bunch of strangers.  We know best. 

 

It is a sign of deep seated disrespect, contempt, for people, to tell them, without proof, even worse, contrary to proof, that they'll enjoy their loss.  You're telling them that you, a stranger, know them better than they know themselves.  It's really a veiled insult, to assume that a person doesn't have the mental acuity to know themselves better than a stranger, without any proof, does.

[-SLX-J3tAc3]

I have yet to see anyone present proof that nerfs feel fine.  I doubt they can considering that everything that has been nerfed has seen it's popularity crash.  If nerfs felt fine then people would be flocking to nerfed things, but, they are not.  And this game has tons of nerfed content.  There is a lot of choice in nerf here.  To say that something is OP is to imply that the rest are nerfed, therefore, Warframe has tons of nerfed content.  Yet, the majority of the players are flocking to more player power rather than less.  So, no, nerfs will not feel fine.  They'll feel terrible for most people as past experience and current usage has shown. 

 

And, if you think that feel does not matter, then I invite you to take a dose of your own medicine.  Look in the mirror and say it to yourself about your opinions and preferences.  Say to yourself, "I will embrace the OP, and I'll feel fine about it."  Take a dose of your own medicine.  Don't listen to yourself.  Listen to us, a bunch of strangers.  We know best. 

 

It is a sign of deep seated disrespect, contempt, for people, to tell them, without proof, even worse, contrary to proof, that they'll enjoy their loss.  You're telling them that you, a stranger, know them better than they know themselves.  It's really a veiled insult, to assume that a person doesn't have the mental acuity to know themselves better than a stranger, without any proof, does.

^ This man gets it, give him a steak.

Edited May 5, 2014 by -SLX-J3tAc3

[locojuan]

pres777 is right about that. i didn't want to go there, but he has a point.

this issue is demanding more energy and time than it is worth of. i need to sit back for a bit.

Edited May 5, 2014 by locojuan

[Cwierz]

I have yet to see anyone present proof that nerfs feel fine. 

if you like a piece of content why are you concerning yourself with the end power level? Are you trying to imply that you only like a piece of content because it is better than everything else made so far? Because at that rate you end up with a game that has no substance, but traps players in power progression until they burnout or realize how stupid it is. 

 

I doubt they can considering that everything that has been nerfed has seen it's popularity crash. 

I would attribute this mostly to DE taking things to far, and over doing it. But an example from this game? Rhino eventually turned out fine (without vanguard at least, but I digress because that isn't actually part of the warframe) after he was finished with that o' so dreadful nerf that makes kittens in Africa with rare physical disorders cry about how they became orphaned in the war that gave them ptsd.

 

If nerfs felt fine then people would be flocking to nerfed things, but, they are not.  And this game has tons of nerfed content. 

If you wouldn't kid yourself right now you would realize that this community has the stubborn habit of clinging to the most powerful item in the game until the next is released, forgetting about it in favor of the next, leading to wasted design hours for the devs, and wasted irl time for the players. Wouldn't you like to see a game where something you actually enjoyed was also viable that also felt like it was up to par with everything else? or are you still advocating that we let the creation of new content have the sensibility of &!$$ing in the wind? 

 

There is a lot of choice in nerf here.  To say that something is OP is to imply that the rest are nerfed, therefore, Warframe has tons of nerfed content. 

No it doesn't. When I say something is overpowered I mean it is overpowered. Don't confuse what I say for what you feel. If something is overpowered there are ways to deal with it. Some people say that we should buff things. I say that it varies based on the situation, and others lie on the other end of the extremes, whereas you seem to take the stance of saying we shouldn't even do anything despite it clearly being a problem and trying to convince other people that seeing the problem is just their personal preferences making it seem as if it is a problem. I guess its heresy to disagree with that notion, and I actually have a thinly veiled notion of contempt for the fellow player.

 

Yet, the majority of the players are flocking to more player power rather than less.  So, no, nerfs will not feel fine.  They'll feel terrible for most people as past experience and current usage has shown. 

Man, sure wish I haven't already said that this game has a terrible problem with burnout (proven btw, cite: threads complaining about burnout) and that instead of actually fixing it DE has satiated consumers with power progression with temporary content that doesn't actually add to the game. Oh wait..... Hmm. I guess that if somebody says the word nerf the wrong way people might just die on the inside and never be able to play this game ever again because they didn't actually enjoy the game but rather enjoyed the power.  I understand if you want a game where you can feel powerful, but if you really feel this way I don't think games that take themselves seriously are made for you.

 

And, if you think that feel does not matter, then I invite you to take a dose of your own medicine.  Look in the mirror and say it to yourself about your opinions and preferences.  Say to yourself, "I will embrace the OP, and I'll feel fine about it."  Take a dose of your own medicine.  Don't listen to yourself.  Listen to us, a bunch of strangers.  We know best. 

Ha. No. I never said I know best, nor have I said anything of the sort. I simply said these debates don't happen in well designed games because the content feels fair, appropriately powerful, and fun to use. I am really starting to get annoyed at how you continuously try to interpret things I say for what they are not.

 

It is a sign of deep seated disrespect, contempt, for people, to tell them, without proof, even worse, contrary to proof, that they'll enjoy their loss.  You're telling them that you, a stranger, know them better than they know themselves.  It's really a veiled insult, to assume that a person doesn't have the mental acuity to know themselves better than a stranger, without any proof, does.

Except you mistake this entire thing. This isn't about any persons loss or gain. This is about the game. Once you wrap your head around the fact that nerfing isn't something you use out of spite and kills games, but rather a tool you use in designing a game we can come back and try this conversation again.

 

 

I don't care if you think this is a thinly veiled insult towards yourself, or an attack on your competence in regards to agency.

 

I also don't appreciate you implying that I agree with all design choices made by DE when it isn't the case.

 

My original point, which you have greatly taken out of context is that these debates don't happen in well designed games because the content feels fair, appropriately powerful, and fun to use. 

Ill leave things in the body of the quote. 

 

[ThePresident777]

Games are tools for creating profit for gaming companies and entertainment for players.  In other words, games are of no worth if they are not Fit For Purpose.  Games are subservient to purpose.

Content metrics have no inherent significance.  Content metrics are significant only in terms of the results derived from the use of content.  Results are significant only in terms of purpose.  For players. the purpose of a game is entertainment.  If content results in entertainment then that content is Fit For Purpose as far as players who enjoy it are concerned.  To expect players to surrender their entertainment in a situation that is entirely about their entertainment is not rational, nor respectful.

Warframe has a content set with a wide performance range.  Players who find low performance content entertaining already have access to low performance content.  It is not fair to the players entertained by high performance content that their high performance content should be destroyed to appease those players who prefer lower performance content.  A company is less profitable if it fails to accomodate players that it could afford to accomodate.  As such narrowly tailored games are not Fit For Purpose.

OP proposes an objective means for players to objectively choose their content's performance level and to play with others of the same preference thereby reducing interference from players using content of different performance levels.

In my opinion, OP's approach is not terrible.  However there are other objective factors that players have strong preferences about and can be used to entertain players and provide them with enhanced match making such as various missions and attendant conditions such as environment, enemies, etc.
 

[Cwierz]

Games are tools for creating profit for gaming companies and entertainment for players.  In other words, games are of no worth if they are not Fit For Purpose.  Games are subservient to purpose.

Content metrics have no inherent significance.  Content metrics are significant only in terms of the results derived from the use of content.  Results are significant only in terms of purpose.  For players. the purpose of a game is entertainment.  If content results in entertainment then that content is Fit For Purpose as far as players who enjoy it are concerned.  To expect players to surrender their entertainment in a situation that is entirely about their entertainment is not rational, nor respectful.

Warframe has a content set with a wide performance range.  Players who find low performance content entertaining already have access to low performance content.  It is not fair to the players entertained by high performance content that their high performance content should be destroyed to appease those players who prefer lower performance content.  A company is less profitable if it fails to accomodate players that it could afford to accomodate.  As such narrowly tailored games are not Fit For Purpose.

OP proposes an objective means for players to objectively choose their content's performance level and to play with others of the same preference thereby reducing interference from players using content of different performance levels.

In my opinion, OP's approach is not terrible.  However there are other objective factors that players have strong preferences about and can be used to entertain players and provide them with enhanced match making such as various missions and attendant conditions such as environment, enemies, etc.

 

Well and good, but thats not exactly what I am saying. Sorry if the last post looked like a jumble, late night typing and all.

 

Balancing a game is about making sure that each piece of content is appropriately powerful. In this instance, both camps would be appeased in the long run because the difference between low and high preforming would be negligible(not because I am highmightyIknowbest). 

Buffs are needed, but so is taking away some things. Of course, removing the slowdown effect from M Prime would come off with a trade that makes antimatter drop more controllable. You don't just remove and remove nor add and add, it wont ever work out. Nor do you just ignore the issue saying it boils down to player preference.

Sure it does eventually boil down to that, but when content is equalized fairly (especially though the use of incomparable elements which DE isn't exploiting to often) everybody can agree that no object is neither to powerful or weak.

So in this environment, you would have to work to be high preforming through skill or dedication, and you still have the agency to be underpreforming.

[locojuan]

perhaps this is all about the wrong use of certain words or the lack of expansion of ideas. nerf is a word associated with reduction of power. if we could use the word "re-balance" or "re-work" instead, ppl would look at it with a more opened mind.
We know that nova and triny are the most attacked ones, since they have the ability to make everthing easier, even for those that don't want things to be easy. i don't want to turn this into a "how to balance" thread. but you well know that if for example, i suggest that blessing should be promted to the rest of the squad as an option to acept or deny the ability, ppl will still claim that even if one person gets to be immortal, its wrong... well it is not wrong. if someone is using triny, and blessing, is because that person enjoy it. to say that said person is wrong, and he is ruining his own gamplay is to call this person an idiot. and that my friend, is waaaaay worse than stealling kills or trivializing other ppls content.

ok ill get a lil bit more serious:

 

1-Autonomy, to a psychologist, is our ability and desire to have freedom over our own actions. It’s important in order to feel fulfilled, and it’s something games designers can harness to make their games more enjoyable through giving the player choice.

2-Similary relatedness – the intrinsic need for interaction with others – and competence – the necessity of achieving in life – can be specifically applied to games design.

Games can really address intrinsic needs we have as human beings. Being able to make your own choices in life can help self-esteem, make you feel happier and motivate you. Incorporating that thinking into the design of a game, through things like player choice, will really improve the experience for the game player.

as you can see our goals are not too far from eachother. the thing is, that asking for balance is always a delicated issue, since you have to contemplate players choices. point #2 is were we the game shows weakness. the precense of "Super" gear in a mission may result in one of the parties being affected by it. while the "OP" user is enjoying the game, the other players are being frustrated by the fact that they can't achieve statisfaction or may feel left out of the "competition" (even when this is pve, there is competition involved, in order to feel usefull or helpfull throughout the mission) because this player is taking care of everything. in order to deal with this, you have 3 options: leave it as it is, cap ppl's choices, give more choices. which one do you think is more profitable?

and about balance. when ppl asks for all items in the game to perform equally, im guessing that a soma would deal the same damage as mk1-braton and vice versa, but maybe excell in different areas (procs and AoE for example), you are basicly leaving players to only choose aesthetics. and while it may work for many F2P games out there, i am positive that this is not DE's direction, or thats what i think.
The right tool for the job. We are facing here an obvious and even more delicated problem. Tools are not the problem, workers are. If we have workers bringing a sledge hammer to nail a picture on the wall, then we have a human problem, not a tool problem.
when we call a pice of gear "overpowered" we are implying that said gear is unnecesarely powerful. what makes gear OP? the lack of content that requires said gear to exist. and this is not the case, cos if you ever went over 50 waves in ODD you well know you need pentas and novas. though most of the rewards for said adventures are not actually worthy, so far, the simple feeling of achievement by reaching those levels is a reward in itself. thus, whenever you have in-game options of endless growing enemy power level, you need gear that fits siad mechanics.

if all gear performs equally, then what is the point of having especific tools for especific jobs? what is the point of mods for that matter? mods are meant to convert a normal piece of gear into a more powerfull piece of gear. with what purpose? with the purpose of 1-giving the player the experience of achieving something, 2-giving the player the tools to enter higher levels of gameplay, and 3- giving the player the oportunity to do things that are otherwise imposible by tweaking their tools as they see fit.
This game does not seem to be a brain burner. it is easy to play, somehow easy to progress, and it is the new content that keeps it going.

why would i wait for the next weapon/frame, if i already know that it will deal X damage top, no matter what i do to it? aesthetics?? not me, no sir, im not down for that. Type of damage then?? how long it would take to reach the limits of damage type?? once there are 3 weapons doing the same aoe or procs, and same damage.... i have no need to choose anymore, whichever weapon will do the same for me... thus leaving me with less choices. and this is all about choices. we can't have that kind of balance in this game. though, i know this is not what you are asking for. im just saying that we can't just go reaaaaally balanced about gear, cos yes, there is ppl that like things to be super easy... and it seems to be a large amount of ppl. we cant have one thing whithout destroying the other, or so it seems. that is why i do want balance, but in the name of profit and choices, i also do want ppl to feel the game is easy for those lazy guys :P. separating this 2 parties give us the chance to develop a game that holds both players. and the content can be then separated into "deep and shalow", like in the pools you know. theres ppl that don't want to spend their time in floating in the water, they just want to be in the water, but do not wish to swim. if we only add deep content, shalow seekers wont find a place in warframe.

damn, that wall of text. im sorry about that and all the mistyped words.

[Cwierz]

 

1-Autonomy, to a psychologist, is our ability and desire to have freedom over our own actions. It’s important in order to feel fulfilled, and it’s something games designers can harness to make their games more enjoyable through giving the player choice.

 

Gonna have to stop you right now.

There is no way you can create a fulfilling shooter where there is NO loss/penalty condition. It won't work.