Balance 2.0 - The Cost Of Power

[taiiat]

I might add that we could achieve some of the things mentioned in Notionphil's original post by adding an aura/stance slot or something similar to all weapons, that could change the mechanics of the weapon.

 

But there are also weapons out there that just have no real benefit like the Gorgon

just to note - Primary and Secondary Weapons absolutely do not whatsoever need more Mod Points. they already largely blow away any other form of interaction with the game, we don't need to give them more Mod Points to save Polarizations. being able to change their mechanics is good, but getting more Mod Points is not.

 

 

this is true, Gorgon has some serious issues. and Supra has some minor issues as well. now if we were to round it off with a Physical(only moderate(~7.5% for each is probably fair) Crit and Status Chances, primarily just raw Damage Weapons) Slash Machine gun, we'd have a trio of Weapons that we can reflect off each other and to keep in line with each other, but still provide unique traits. 

Edited June 11, 2014 by taiiat

[(PSN)ElZilcho]

Can't say I like the negative traits. Losing status chance (but not elemental damage) is almost no penalty at all, while a weapon collecting less ammo is an enormous penalty in some modes. Collecting less ammo will always happen but status is random anyway and is already unreliable.

I do, however, like the positive traits. Choosing the correct equipment for a mission (or failing and then choosing correctly to adapt) is where strategy and playstyle really come together.

Basically, I think giving up a positive trait takes more deliberation than dealing with or avoiding a negative one. In other games, most of my hard choices are from wanting X and wanting Y, but not being able to have them at the same time. Lacking a bonus you wish you had is penalty enough, because you could have had it.

Edited June 11, 2014 by (PS4)ElZilcho

[SockBadger]

just to note - Primary and Secondary Weapons absolutely do not whatsoever need more Mod Points. they already largely blow away any other form of interaction with the game, we don't need to give them more Mod Points to save Polarizations. being able to change their mechanics is good, but getting more Mod Points is not.

 

 

this is true, Gorgon has some serious issues. and Supra has some minor issues as well. now if we were to round it off with a Physical(only moderate(~7.5% for each is probably fair) Crit and Status Chances, primarily just raw Damage Weapons) Slash Machine gun, we'd have a trio of Weapons that we can reflect off each other and to keep in line with each other, but still provide unique traits. 

 

Is why I didn't mention additional mod points and only optional changes to mechanics. So for example OP has given us some suggestions for negative and positive traits, but by slipping in our for want of a better word 'Stance' slot mod, we could alter the negative traits and positives more to our playstyle. Not in a 'Hahaha I have this rare mod, no more negatives on this weapon for me.' but in the sense of 'Hmm I really like to run and gun, the longer reload would ruin it for me, could I lose accuracy instead?' It would need balance passes, less it become too much of a minmax thing like Arcane helmets have been, but it's the sort of player choice that can augment their playstyle, rather than their playstyle change to suit the weapon.

[taiiat]

-snip-

was more of a shoutout to Steve, who seems to think players will get butthurt(seriously, they'll be fine, it's a new thing either way, they'll be happy about it) if Auras and other Aura like things don't give us more Points :/

even though they should have just been neutral, taking none, giving none.

 

'raising the levelcap' as he calls it, when it's more like "laugh in the face of the new player as he doesn't have the items for that yet, that way we can make the new player experience as garbage as possible to scare away as many customers as possible".

 

/annoyed rant

Edited June 11, 2014 by taiiat

[SockBadger]

~-/snip/-~

 

/annoyed rant

 

I like the cut of your gib taiiat have an upvote.

[SockBadger]

I just decided to play Warframe with the Starter weapons and frame I have not touched since soon after starting playing the game. Platinum had taken me to bigger and better things quite quickly. But playing through even with high end mods in place it's easy to see what this thread is getting at. Then remembering that new players wouldn't have things like maxed out Hornet Strike or Crimson Dervish possibly not even the mods themselves at any level.

 

I can't help but think that giving bonuses to these weapons, even as an interim measure would help new players stick with the game longer.

 

(end of poorly veiled attempt to bump this important thread)

[Calayne]

I believe I recall reading somewhere that starter weapons will soon be selectable, just as Warframes are!

 

NOTION! You should probably get some signatures now. ;)

 

As starter weapons are basically the appetiser before the main course of this 73-course meal of kings, we should probably ensure that it is as juicy, delectable, absolutely irresistible as we can humanely make it. 

 

The time is nigh, where players will touch a new gun and will marvel. No more will players grind for weapons just to toss it aside, another three inches on a growing pile of discarded polymer-metal composite implements of doom. Fortunately, Rebecca has already given us some hope by confirming that she has read it! 

 

Better still, if they act on it, and we are able to introduce newbies in a more exciting way to the murder-companions we shall soon be naming through our journey of indiscriminate genocide. 

 

.... That is to say, we are going to kill the FRIGGEN' BRAINS out of everything.

[SockBadger]

Certainly the option to choose is long overdue. But it still has the underlying problem of early weapons being so much poorer in terms of performance.

 

A step in the right direction, but the shoe laces are not yet tied ;)

[t3hsquirr3l]

Balancing suggestions

Now, this is a game I'd love to play.  The weapon variety staggered me initially and played a big part in drawing me in, but the lack of actual variety in mechanics made all the weapons feel samey, with an obvious best-weapon list.

 

I'm particularly in love with your list of positive and negative traits for weapons.  Having a clear choice in a weapon because it supports my playstyle rather than just does the most damage is an awesome feeling.  Your suggestions also seem to encourage the use of a wider variety of mods, since many will work to a greater/lesser degree based on the weapon you apply it to.

 

It'd be nice to have every tier offer a variety of playstyles using these traits, so that there's always a weapon choice that would support how you like to play no matter what rank you are.

Edited July 14, 2014 by t3hsquirr3l

[notionphil]

Certainly the option to choose is long overdue. But it still has the underlying problem of early weapons being so much poorer in terms of performance.

 

 

 

Now, this is a game I'd love to play.  The weapon variety staggered me initially and played a big part in drawing me in, but the lack of actual variety in mechanics made all the weapons feel samey, with an obvious best-weapon list.

--

 

It'd be nice to have every tier offer a variety of playstyles using these traits, so that there's always a weapon choice that would support how you like to play no matter what rank you are.

 

 

Thanks for the continued feedback.

 

As the thread made it to hot-topics, I will update the proposal soon to address some of these concerns!

[(PSN)Khuon23]

While Status builds exist in WF, they are hampered by the fact that every damage type on a weapon has an (equal?) chance of proccing.

 

Status Chance for a specific damage type is calculated by the proc chance multiplied by the quotient of total damage per shot and the damage type per shot that you want to proc [proc chance * (damage type you want to proc / total damage per shot)].  

  

Using this Dread build (http://warframe-builder.com/Primary_Weapons/Builder/Dread/t_30_33002222_133-0-5-137-5-10-138-2-5-140-3-5-141-1-5-149-7-5-150-6-10-159-4-5_133-6-141-6-138-11-140-9-159-5-137-7-150-8-149-5/en/2-0-26/0) as an example:  

 

If you wanted to proc Corrosive, it would be 0.20 * (774 / 1591) = 0.0973 = 9.73% chance to proc Corrosive.

If you wanted to proc Heat, it would be 0.20 * (387 / 1591) = 0.0486 = 4.86% chance to proc Heat (same calculation for Slash).

If you wanted to proc Impact, it would be 0.20 * (21.5 / 1591) = 0.0027 = 0.27% chance to proc Impact (same calculation for Puncture).  

  

I didn't use Split Chamber in the build for simplicity's sake.

[Nyss]

I wholeheartedly endorse this post.

[voltocitygel]

excellent analysis, and defining the problem.

 

however, I only partially agree with your ideas for a solution. Yes, the game needs more diversity. Yes, weapons should be at least reasonably balanced. And yes, an excellent way to do this would be through diversity. I guess I just don't like your examples...

 

well it is midnight. who knows, maybe I can't think straight. but I like the way your brain works.

[HurpadurpusRex]

but the same effect could be had from doing a balance pass on the weapons. I don't support locking content in favor of pushing people through a locked gear pipe, with highlighted weapons of power. It is infrastructure for cookie cutter gaming.

 

The only control I want to see, is every weapon a tool, every tool a task. Why should we ever want more than a weapon with purpose, and the freedom to learn its strengths through our failures and successes.

 

Also though I'm against the origonal post generally, its a very large post with some very good brain food and strong points. Very worth the read.

Edited July 17, 2014 by HurpadurpusRex

[Calayne]

but the same effect could be had from doing a balance pass on the weapons. I don't support locking content in favor of pushing people through a locked gear pipe, with highlighted weapons of power. It is infrastructure for cookie cutter gaming.

 

The only control I want to see, is every weapon a tool, every tool a task. Why should we ever want more than a weapon with purpose, and the freedom to learn its strengths through our failures and successes.

 

Also though I'm against the origonal post generally, its a very large post with some very good brain food and strong points. Very worth the read.

 

All content is gradually locked, whether one realises it or not. 

 

Weapons are more openly locked in this manner by Mastery Rank. 

 

Planets are less obviously locked by game difficulty, versus player skill.

 

Gear is locked by RNG, which is partially locked behind the planet, player skill, and a lot of RNG.

 

Whether you realise it or not, things have to be locked, and procedurally unlocked, bit by bit. Both for the sake of the longevity of the game, as well as the player. For example, Bastion: Ever played that game? You start with a hammer, get a bow, then a repeater, and so on, and you slowly upgrade it.

 

What you are saying is, you should get ALL your weapons right at the start. Get your Mortar, your BFG, your flame thrower, all at the start, because each has its purpose. In that case, we should be able to craft the Soma right off the bat. The idea is as preposterous as it sounds. 

 

True, each weapon should have its purpose, but that by no means suggest you should be allowed to get them all now, or really soon. That's simply not true for any game. Even Magicka, a highly skill-based game, has Magickas, attained spells, which you need to find, though you already have more than 50% of your power at the start of the game. 

 

My point, therefore, being that: I support weapons being appropriately locked by Mastery Ranks, so they can more wholesomely enjoy the game as they progress from weakness to strength, and trying many different weapons, powers and styles, before they settle into something they like. This allows all content to be more equally powered according to their acquired Rank, and also allows exploration, and the feeling of progression. 

 

 

Edit: That aside, I would also like to say that simply doing a "Balance pass" as you put it would be a welcome thing indeed. However, it does not address the fundamental issue of the Karak being somewhat the same as the Braton, which is somewhat the same as the Gorgon, which is somewhat the same as the Soma. They're all very minorly differentiated between power levels in that some have more bullets in their magazine, some do a bit more damage, some need to be built with crit, but fundamentally, they are all automatic hit-scan weapons, which do the same thing at all ranges, minorly differentiated, again, by their accuracy, damage and other factors.

 

It's as boring as it sounds. These weapons look too good to be condemned to a life of being shadows of one another. For the sake of the game, for the sake of variety, for the sake of choice, any semblance of the changes Notion suggests should be adopted. It can only make the game better. 

Edited July 17, 2014 by Calayne

[Corvid]

Hm... I do like the idea of positive/negative effects to a gun's performance based on its standard DPS. This is certainly omething to consider.

[HurpadurpusRex]

All content is gradually locked, whether one realises it or not. 

 

Weapons are more openly locked in this manner by Mastery Rank. 

 

Planets are less obviously locked by game difficulty, versus player skill.

 

Gear is locked by RNG, which is partially locked behind the planet, player skill, and a lot of RNG.

 

Whether you realise it or not, things have to be locked, and procedurally unlocked, bit by bit. Both for the sake of the longevity of the game, as well as the player. For example, Bastion: Ever played that game? You start with a hammer, get a bow, then a repeater, and so on, and you slowly upgrade it.

 

What you are saying is, you should get ALL your weapons right at the start. Get your Mortar, your BFG, your flame thrower, all at the start, because each has its purpose. In that case, we should be able to craft the Soma right off the bat. The idea is as preposterous as it sounds. 

 

True, each weapon should have its purpose, but that by no means suggest you should be allowed to get them all now, or really soon. That's simply not true for any game. Even Magicka, a highly skill-based game, has Magickas, attained spells, which you need to find, though you already have more than 50% of your power at the start of the game. 

 

My point, therefore, being that: I support weapons being appropriately locked by Mastery Ranks, so they can more wholesomely enjoy the game as they progress from weakness to strength, and trying many different weapons, powers and styles, before they settle into something they like. This allows all content to be more equally powered according to their acquired Rank, and also allows exploration, and the feeling of progression. 

 

 

Edit: That aside, I would also like to say that simply doing a "Balance pass" as you put it would be a welcome thing indeed. However, it does not address the fundamental issue of the Karak being somewhat the same as the Braton, which is somewhat the same as the Gorgon, which is somewhat the same as the Soma. They're all very minorly differentiated between power levels in that some have more bullets in their magazine, some do a bit more damage, some need to be built with crit, but fundamentally, they are all automatic hit-scan weapons, which do the same thing at all ranges, minorly differentiated, again, by their accuracy, damage and other factors.

 

It's as boring as it sounds. These weapons look too good to be condemned to a life of being shadows of one another. For the sake of the game, for the sake of variety, for the sake of choice, any semblance of the changes Notion suggests should be adopted. It can only make the game better. 

This implies that because there is structure in place to limit players, you assume I will be swayed to want more systems that lock content for players.

I don't think you really thought this through, or clearly didn't understand the premise.

 

If my realization had no bearing yes or no, then I thank you to not try and imply ignorance to lend credit to your points. I think you will find me versed in bastion.

 

I say what I'm saying. You shouldn't make a habit of saying things for people as if they decide you are wrong, then you are. which in this case you are; as no, that is not what I was saying. I agree it is preposterous to start with all things accessible on your account its weird you bring it up, and i wish you hadn't.

 

We disagree on our points, and I have already made mine. Though I disagree with yours, I believe there are limited gains to be had for me in explaining. Nor do I need to tear yours down to improve my own.

 

There is no issue with similar weapons preforming similar tasks as far as my statement of every weapon a tool, and every tool a task. The more diversity the better. The similarities of rifles is also outside the scope of the threads proposal, and certainly has nothing to do with what I said.

[notionphil]

There is no issue with similar weapons preforming similar tasks as far as my statement of every weapon a tool, and every tool a task. The more diversity the better. The similarities of rifles is also outside the scope of the threads proposal, and certainly has nothing to do with what I said.

 

This is incorrect. Many weapons have near perfect overlap in the "task" they perform, one simply does that task more effectively.

 

Please explain, what is the difference in "task" between a Paris and a Paris Prime? Or between a Seer and a Lex Prime?

 

Minor differences in physical damage types and reload speeds means nothing in combat compared to the massive differences in DPS and combat effectiveness.

 

The similarities of rifles (or any weapons which serve the same purpose) is certainly within my thread's scope - the core of the proposal is to increase diversity between weapons which have the same/similar DPS.

Edited July 17, 2014 by notionphil

[HurpadurpusRex]

P

This is incorrect. Many weapons have near perfect overlap in the "task" they perform, one simply does that task more effectively.

 

Minor differences in physical damage types and reload speeds means nothing in combat compared to the massive differences in DPS.

 

The similarities of rifles (or any weapons which serve the same purpose) is certainly within my thread's scope - the core of the proposal is to increase diversity between weapons which have the same/similar DPS.

Phil hes suggesting that a balance pass wouldn't fix similarities of weapons. Your suggesting rebalancing the similar weapons he mentions. It is completely unrelated to your OP. re read his post.

 

Edit: I mean unless he were aiming to argue against your proposal. But he addressed the message to me.

Edited July 17, 2014 by HurpadurpusRex

[HurpadurpusRex]

This is incorrect. Many weapons have near perfect overlap in the "task" they perform, one simply does that task more effectively.

 

Please explain, what is the difference in "task" between a Paris and a Paris Prime? Or between a Seer and a Lex Prime?

 

Minor differences in physical damage types and reload speeds means nothing in combat compared to the massive differences in DPS and combat effectiveness.

 

The similarities of rifles (or any weapons which serve the same purpose) is certainly within my thread's scope - the core of the proposal is to increase diversity between weapons which have the same/similar DPS.

Me: "The only control I want to see, is every weapon a tool, every tool a task. Why should we ever want more than a weapon with purpose, and the freedom to learn its strengths through our failures and successes"

 

there is no quote of me where i say they currently have a different task, prove me wrong. I will do you the honer of assuming you did read my post and are just being conniving by your edit. I really dislike that conversational tactic. Classless after post edit attack on point as well.

[LukeAura]

Me: "The only control I want to see, is every weapon a tool, every tool a task. Why should we ever want more than a weapon with purpose, and the freedom to learn its strengths through our failures and successes"

 

there is no quote of me where i say they currently have a different task, prove me wrong. I will do you the honer of assuming you did read my post and are just being conniving by your edit. I really dislike that conversational tactic. Classless after post edit attack on point as well.

So what are you saying then if not that they already have different tasks? 

You might want to clarify yourself.

Is this something against the idea of mastery locked progression? 

[HurpadurpusRex]

So what are you saying then if not that they already have different tasks? 

You might want to clarify yourself.

Is this something against the idea of mastery locked progression? 

My original post was concise. that is a snip.

 

Edit: Also it should be said i don't hate the idea. If it happened I'd still play and have a good time. I'm not very against it. I don't think it would shatter the world of WarFrame.

Edited July 17, 2014 by HurpadurpusRex

[Calayne]

Me: "The only control I want to see, is every weapon a tool, every tool a task. Why should we ever want more than a weapon with purpose, and the freedom to learn its strengths through our failures and successes"

 

there is no quote of me where i say they currently have a different task, prove me wrong. I will do you the honer of assuming you did read my post and are just being conniving by your edit. I really dislike that conversational tactic. Classless after post edit attack on point as well.

 

My dear man, I'm not sure why you're so vehemently defending yourself, and attacking Notion over his edit. We all make spelling mistakes here and then, and I can assure you, we're not trying to pit ourselves against others. Notion is as honourable a Tenno as they come. 

 

The point is, you suggested that weapons should not be mastery locked, so that they're not forced to progress to get those weapons; Is what I've understood of it correct? 

 

Therefore, I offered my counter-argument, supporting what I believe to be a better scenario for players: Progressive increase in power. 

 

I have, also, later added in an edit that a balance pass would be a tremendous help; However, I have also added in the same sentence that it is by no means the best addition to the system. That is to say, it is good, but can be better. Lacking the changes Notion recommended, a balance pass is better than nothing. But if we can do one better, then that is, I feel, for the best.

 

Now, I'd like to ask you a question, fellow Tenno: If you had a rapier and a pointy stick of the same length, what weapon would you, or your enemy, logically choose? I'd prefer the rapier over the pointy stick simply because it's better balanced, has an edge as well as a point, and is made to handle far better than the pointy stick. Forgive the exaggeration, but that is the difference between, say, a Karak and a Soma when exaggerated. 

 

Allowing the Soma to be chosen at the same Mastery Rank as the Karak's available would do the Karak a vast disservice: No one would pick the Karak over the Soma, ever, especially if they ask a veteran who has used both. The Karak is simply outperformed at later levels by the Soma, hands down.

 

Therefore, logically, the Soma can be said to be of a higher class than the Karak. In that case, it must be appropriately dealt with. As you rank up as a Tenno, you're allowed more powerful and exotic weaponry, and not the opposite of getting weaker weapons as you rank up. That would defeat the purpose of levelling up, indeed. 

 

Thus, using this understanding, I've always supported the division of weapons by the Mastery Rank you're meant to obtain them in. 

 

Forgive me, if you'll be so kind, if I've offended you earlier. It was not my intention. But, perhaps, we may suspend any feelings of perceived hostility from before, and start anew. What say you?

[notionphil]

Me: "The only control I want to see, is every weapon a tool, every tool a task. Why should we ever want more than a weapon with purpose, and the freedom to learn its strengths through our failures and successes"

 

there is no quote of me where i say they currently have a different task, prove me wrong. I will do you the honer of assuming you did read my post and are just being conniving by your edit. I really dislike that conversational tactic. Classless after post edit attack on point as well.

 

 

There is no issue with similar weapons preforming similar tasks as far as my statement of every weapon a tool, and every tool a task.

 

As LukeAura just said, I thought it was pretty clear you were saying exactly that they already had different tasks. If not, please explain what you were trying to say....

 

Also, my edit was simply to add an example to my post to clarify it, not to trip you up in some way.

 

The edit was - "Please explain, what is the difference in "task" between a Paris and a Paris Prime? Or between a Seer and a Lex Prime?"

[HurpadurpusRex]

My dear man, I'm not sure why you're so vehemently defending yourself, and attacking Notion over his edit. We all make spelling mistakes here and then, and I can assure you, we're not trying to pit ourselves against others. Notion is as honourable a Tenno as they come. 

 

The point is, you suggested that weapons should not be mastery locked, so that they're not forced to progress to get those weapons; Is what I've understood of it correct? 

 

Therefore, I offered my counter-argument, supporting what I believe to be a better scenario for players: Progressive increase in power. 

 

I have, also, later added in an edit that a balance pass would be a tremendous help; However, I have also added in the same sentence that it is by no means the best addition to the system. That is to say, it is good, but can be better. Lacking the changes Notion recommended, a balance pass is better than nothing. But if we can do one better, then that is, I feel, for the best.

 

Now, I'd like to ask you a question, fellow Tenno: If you had a rapier and a pointy stick of the same length, what weapon would you, or your enemy, logically choose? I'd prefer the rapier over the pointy stick simply because it's better balanced, has an edge as well as a point, and is made to handle far better than the pointy stick. Forgive the exaggeration, but that is the difference between, say, a Karak and a Soma when exaggerated. 

 

Allowing the Soma to be chosen at the same Mastery Rank as the Karak's available would do the Karak a vast disservice: No one would pick the Karak over the Soma, ever, especially if they ask a veteran who has used both. The Karak is simply outperformed at later levels by the Soma, hands down.

 

Therefore, logically, the Soma can be said to be of a higher class than the Karak. In that case, it must be appropriately dealt with. As you rank up as a Tenno, you're allowed more powerful and exotic weaponry, and not the opposite of getting weaker weapons as you rank up. That would defeat the purpose of levelling up, indeed. 

 

Thus, using this understanding, I've always supported the division of weapons by the Mastery Rank you're meant to obtain them in. 

 

Forgive me, if you'll be so kind, if I've offended you earlier. It was not my intention. But, perhaps, we may suspend any feelings of perceived hostility from before, and start anew. What say you?

With words like those there is nothing to forgive. You rewrote your whole text in a completely non attacking way. Not many people would do that, serious integrity. I will definitely respond. I have to catch some sleep though first or I will sleep through 14.0 .