Psa: Nerfs Aren't One-Click Solution To Power Creep

[(PSN)kiddplay13]

We need incomparables, not nerfs. Here's a post i wrote a while back, worth a read.

*INCOMING WALL OF TEXT*

 

People who don't go very far in Endless Missions think certain Weapons are Overpowered (Boltor, Soma,Brakk, etc.) But in reality just like every weapon in the game, it has a fall-off point. I usually go 45mins-70 Mins in T4 Surv, and the drop-off of my Boltor is about 1 hour, after that we're usually relying on Nyx. Like i said before, a weapon that is "Overpowered" in a lower tier, is perfectly balanced in a higher tier. Anyone who's gone a hour in T4 Surv knows that all weapons have a drop-off point at around that mark(Except Launchers, but who would bring a Penta/Ogris to Survival). And yes, more people ask for Buffs more than Nerfs, but the nerfs actually happen more. The Buffs in this game are more like Reworks, while the Nerf can completely destroy one's Playstyle. 

 

I propose we put a poll into the game (Under the News Section) That you click take the poll just like the forums and then [DE] decides. Because not matter what we're thinking, we don't know what majority of the actual game is thinking and that's a fact. Of Course, first thing comes to mind is Power Creep,and sadly Warframe has a lot of it. To get rid of it, we need to add different playstyles, which DE is currently trying to do with the addition of new Warframes.

 

People say Mirage is OP, but all she does is add a damage multiplier just like Excalibur, Loki, and Ash. This is called an incomparable. No matter how much we argue which is better, it will never end due to the Warframes all having different playstyles. Warframes are quite a bit easier than say weapons. [DE] has successfully done this once (To my knowledge) with the Amprex and Synapse. People argue "Amprex is better because of AOE", but the Other might say "No Synapse is better because of higher damage and it's not ammo hungry". While some weapons/Warframes are not as easy to add an incomparable such as Boltor Prime and our Explosive friends. By DE trying to create incomparables for them (Boltor Prime and Soma; Ogris and Penta) they have instead created more Power Creep as both weapons are still great for any situation and offer little to no drawbacks. DE has solved our Armor Power Creep (Warframes), but weapons are not so easy.

Edited August 14, 2014 by (PS4)kiddplay13

[Yazeth]

Cool post. here's a video I found about Power Creeps as well, and how to counteract it. It's by the Youtube user "Extra Credits".

 

 

As for playstyles, I do agree that we need more unique weapons that are on par with the generic over-powered weapons to allow players to have a larger variety of playstyles ti choose from. I find the Vectis to be the most enjoyable weapon, but not even the buff made me use it over the Boltor Prime.

[Arabaxus]

Cool post. here's a video I found about Power Creeps as well, and how to counteract it. It's by the Youtube user "Extra Credits".

 

 

As for playstyles, I do agree that we need more unique weapons that are on par with the generic over-powered weapons to allow players to have a larger variety of playstyles ti choose from. I find the Vectis to be the most enjoyable weapon, but not even the buff made me use it over the Boltor Prime.

 

I'm waiting for a Prime Sniper Rifle to be on Boltor, Paris, and Latron P level. That would be snazzy. Vectis Prime when? Plus if that is released, we can say that there are other choices (even though Paris and Latron are better than Boltor if used correctly) without having to nerf-hammer every other weapon to go with the whining of the vocal minority.

[Ionus]

I'm fairly certain most people thought it was absurd that all of the explosive weapons had effectively infinite ammo. Even more rockets than some automatic weapons too.

People are also overlooking the torid buff.

[Yazeth]

I'm fairly certain most people thought it was absurd that all of the explosive weapons had effectively infinite ammo. Even more rockets than some automatic weapons too.

People are also overlooking the torid buff.

 

I think DE chose 20 for the explosive primary's ammo cap so that it would be similar along the lines of TF2...

 

Wait, what?

[Ionus]

I think DE chose 20 for the explosive primary's ammo cap so that it would be similar along the lines of TF2...

Wait, what?

Yep, torid got buffed big time. Edited August 14, 2014 by Ionus

[Yazeth]

Yep, torid got buffed big time.

 

Looks nice. Though, explosives aren't my thing anyways. :p

[Ionus]

Looks nice. Though, explosives aren't my thing anyways. :p

It's not explosive. It is gas, silly.

[(PSN)nathanuc1988]

I feel like out of most online games I've played, this one has very minimal power creep issues for most players.

 

As long as it has a potato and/or some forma, everything is viable for most of the games content. I know some people feel pressured to always use "the best" and "most powerful" frames/weapons, but it's not really necessary in most situations anyways. 

 

Personally, I like the nerfs to rocket weapons. The sniper based buffs were a tad underwhelming, but welcomed changes that show progress.  

[Yazeth]

As long as it has a potato and/or some forma, everything is viable for most of the games content. I know some people feel pressured to always use "the best" and "most powerful" frames/weapons, but it's not really necessary in most situations anyways. 

 

The problem is, is that it's the veterans that are calling for better gear. We (since I do it too) like to run T3/4 missions for as long as possible in one sitting. If you are a Casual/Semi-Casual Player, any weapons is fine. But, If you are willing to sit for an hour or more straight in a single mission, then you gotta have the best loadout and team.

[(PSN)Rauko]

Ogris was really only useful for defense on maps with a vertical component. It was basically unless in any other situation.

There was really no need to reduce its ammo.

[(PSN)nathanuc1988]

The problem is, is that it's the veterans that are calling for better gear. We (since I do it too) like to run T3/4 missions for as long as possible in one sitting. If you are a Casual/Semi-Casual Player, any weapons is fine. But, If you are willing to sit for an hour or more straight in a single mission, then you gotta have the best loadout and team.

 

Call me crazy, but I think the real issue there is simply having a few things strong enough to support the idea of hour+ long missions. With just about any weapon/frame I put some time/love into, I can comfortably hit about 40 minutes t3/4s with my friends. None of us really use the cheeseball weapons anymore since they take the fun/challenge out of missions anyways. This means a 60+ minute run with a cheeseball weapon is still less fun than doing content with gear we actually like. 

While nerfing guns like the boltor prime sounds like a reasonable request... a lot of individuals obtained it via Prime Access. Nerfing a gun that many people spent real money to obtain might not make for the best press. Risking bad press to work towards fixing what I feel is a minor issue just doesn't sound that viable. 

 

EDIT: If anything, it stigmatizes OP gear for my friends and I. I dare not use Rhino or my formad boltor prime/paris prime or they'll grill me the entire mission. Those few pieces are gear are a good example of power creep, but since I still feel very few players feel their old gear is OBSOLETE, it seems like a minor issue in Warframe.

Edited August 14, 2014 by (PS4)nathanuc1988

[Yazeth]

This means a 60+ minute run with a cheeseball weapon is still less fun than doing content with gear we actually like.

 

Trust me, there are people who like to feel over-powered as fk and go for as long as possilbe. It's nice to use the "fun" weapons (quotations b/c of players' preferences), but there are those who just likes to feel powerful. 

[n0b0dyimp0rtant]

While nerfing guns like the boltor prime sounds like a reasonable request... a lot of individuals obtained it via Prime Access. Nerfing a gun that many people spent real money to obtain might not make for the best press. Risking bad press to work towards fixing what I feel is a minor issue just doesn't sound that viable. 

 

Yeah, cause people havn't paid real money for any warframe/weapon/mod/etc. that has been nerfed.  Not trying to be rude, but this statement has no place here.  There are many counts of weapons and frames being nerfed and people having spent money on them.  Prime Access should be no different.

[Farlander]

The launcher nerfs were long overdue. 540 ammo capacity was just silly...

but 20? May as well just throw my launchers away...

20 rockets might last for about...2 rounds of defense...maybe a bit more

 

I mean, additional ammo might drop, but still...20? really?

 

I agree though, we certainly need more incomparables. For the lifetime of warframe, I was always able to look at the list of weapons and boil it all down and say to myself, "X, Y, and Z are the best weapons." Then they added damage 2.0 and that equation became, "X, Y, and Z are the best weapons for X enemies." But no matter what, it was always a shining selection of weapons radiating out from a massive pile of utter garbage, and one needed only to do the math.

Granted, it's true...anything in this game can be viable if modded and potatoed and forma'd, but who wants "viable?"

Who wants to be able to say, "yes, my weapons are merely adequate for the task at hand." Not me, that's for sure.

 

Even a weapon that I've adored for months will be tossed away like a piece of junk should something better roll around.

And that's another thing. DE has got to stop with these nerfs. REWORKS good. NERFS bad.

I mean, let's say you put 8 forma into your ogris. You loved your ogris. Yes it was OP, yes it was kinda cheap, but you loved it.

And now, you're probably going to throw your ogris away. So...now what? This can trigger a sense of burnout in a lot of people.

I mean, you might have invested hours and hours of love and attention into that weapon...and now a nerf has pretty much devalued every bit of that.

It wasn't even a subtle nerf, either. The devs may as well had sent little grineer gremlins to break into our armories and eat our ogrises...(ogrisii?)

Not that it would have been a good idea to ignore the problem, but ultimately, careless nerfs like this will do more harm then good.

Now...if you'll excuse me...I'm going to go mourn the death of my launcher weapons...a third of my arsenal.

Except for Torrid...so that's good...I guess... 

[CatScratch]

I'm fairly certain most people thought it was absurd that all of the explosive weapons had effectively infinite ammo. Even more rockets than some automatic weapons too.

People are also overlooking the torid buff.

yeah I agree 20 is plenty, It's good balance now, I like it.

[Arabaxus]

Trust me, there are people who like to feel over-powered as fk and go for as long as possilbe. It's nice to use the "fun" weapons (quotations b/c of players' preferences), but there are those who just likes to feel powerful. 

 

Thank you. I'm glad people understand that the people that are around to have fun are not the only players, there are some players who enjoy fielding and using the strongest gear, and that we as a community should not be trying to dampen their experience because we think one thing is overpowered.

 

The problem with the current launcher nerf is that it is so extreme that it invalidates some legitimate builds and play-styles that involve having ample ammunition. This would not have been an issue if in the first place they had started off with such paltry ammunition reserves, but you cannot expect to make such a drastic change after such a long period of time and not have any consequences. 20 rounds of reserve or giving them Sniper Ammo, and a maximum of 72 would have been reasonable, but not both of them.

 

I also hope that this is a good learning opportunity for Digital Extremes as a company and I hope they realize that the majority of the complaints about weapons are voiced by the vocal minority. Note the massive number of threads stating that the nerf to launchers was over the top. These are fueled by what are the silent majority. When gameplay and balancing begin to cater towards the vocal minority, it will upset the majority, which is the cause of so many of the threads explaining, and with good reason, why these nerfs were too much. Hopefully this will be a good field lesson in taking what anything the whining of the vocal majority has to say with a grain of salt.

[RedMasa]

Lots of good thoughts in this thread.

[jennibear]

Cool post. here's a video I found about Power Creeps as well, and how to counteract it. It's by the Youtube user "Extra Credits".

I love extra credits!!! he is one of my favorites! =)

[(PSN)nathanuc1988]

Yeah, cause people havn't paid real money for any warframe/weapon/mod/etc. that has been nerfed.  Not trying to be rude, but this statement has no place here.  There are many counts of weapons and frames being nerfed and people having spent money on them.  Prime Access should be no different.

 

I know the potential is always there for people to buy pretty much anything with plat, but many of the people I know saw that boltor prime as one of the selling points to that specific Prime Access package. Obviously only the marketing department would know, but I'm willing to bet my loki prime that Prime Access is the premier revenue source within their market. I'm not trying to downplay those who spend real money on a weapon to get it nerfed, I'm just explaining why I think nerfing a Prime Access item could potentially impose a lot more harm on the reputation of DE. 

[Babellon]

Here in Warframe I notice two major camps:

those who want to see content become more challenging, with diverse weapons, and options for load outs, whether soloing or grouping. 

and those who want to keep making things weaker, mobs, gear both equally. 

 

One group says We want challenging game play, we want all weapons to be viable and all frames to have purpose. soloists and coop players alike agree on the premise in this group. I am a member of this group.

 

the other group says Its unfair to expect them to deal with more mobs, or harder mobs, and all weapons, frames and mobs are too strong and need to be weaker. 

 

Now, both of these camps in some ways have valid input. How ever what needs to happen on both sides of the argument is that we all need to realize that between your opinion of what the game "should" be, and mine, is a middle area, an area that makes the game fun/easy for you, and fun/challenging for me. That is balance. Alot of people throw that word around, but they don't really make an viable argument toward honest balance. 

 

There's no real structure to weapons, frames, or maps in this game. In any other game, you wouldn't take a lvl 1 weapon into a lvl 30 area and expect it to function. LIke wise, you wouldn't take a lvl 30 weapon into a lvl 1 area and be surprised that it killed everything. If true balance is what we're all trying to achieve, then we need to find that area between our mutual arguments and work towards it. 

Edited August 14, 2014 by -Malachi-

[Arabaxus]

Here in Warframe I notice two major camps:

those who want to see content become more challenging, with diverse weapons, and options for load outs, whether soloing or grouping. 

and those who want to keep making things weaker, mobs, gear both equally. 

 

One group says We want challenging game play, we want all weapons to be viable and all frames to have purpose. soloists and coop players alike agree on the premise in this group. I am a member of this group.

 

the other group says Its unfair to expect them to deal with more mobs, or harder mobs, and all weapons, frames and mobs are too strong and need to be weaker. 

 

Now, both of these camps in some ways have valid input. How ever what needs to happen on both sides of the argument is that we all need to realize that between your opinion of what the game "should" be, and mine, is a middle area, an area that makes the game fun/easy for you, and fun/challenging for me. That is balance. Alot of people throw that word around, but they don't really make an viable argument toward honest balance. 

 

There's no real structure to weapons, frames, or maps in this game. In any other game, you wouldn't take a lvl 1 weapon into a lvl 30 area and expect it to function. LIke wise, you wouldn't take a lvl 30 weapon into a lvl 1 area and be surprised that it killed everything. If true balance is what we're all trying to achieve, then we need to find that area between our mutual arguments and work towards it. 

 

The issue here is when one camp is noticeably more proactive (which is not a bad thing when trying to get your way), and louder, while the other camp is reactive, albeit larger, but more quiet. However when only one camp's opinions are taken into consideration, the other camp cannot remain quiet and must also voice their concerns.

[insaninater]

Explosive weapons were perfectly balanced by the fact that they were tough to use without them killing you.

[Babellon]

The issue here is when one camp is noticeably more proactive (which is not a bad thing when trying to get your way), and louder, while the other camp is reactive, albeit larger, but more quiet. However when only one camp's opinions are taken into consideration, the other camp cannot remain quiet and must also voice their concerns.

Agreed, What both sides need to do is come together, and formulate some viable ideas that actually speak to the problem, rather than playing at the tug of war we get into far to often in the forums here. 

for example: I think weakening mobs, lowering mob counts, simply making everything easy one shot kills, and simultaniously blanket nerfing powers and weapons trully takes away from the spirit of the game, and the over all enjoyment of playing. If we completely reduce everything to its lowest possible denominator we end up with a game no one wants to play, simply because its so simple. 

At the same time, I don't think we should have massively hard to kill mobs or powers/weapons that negate or nullify everything we encounter.

 

It happens to often in this forum, someone makes a post from one side of that argument or the other and they get bombarded by the opposing position. 

 

I say make the game harder, someone says Im being unfair, but isn't it equally unfair to ask me sacrifice my enjoyment of better more challenging mobs, so another person can have no challenge? Some of the arguments about weapons and powers and even mobs are applied to that person or groups desire to play 60 minute or longer defences and survivals. well we can't make everything supremely powered in that direction, it makes all the content below that irrelevent. Likewise, we cant expect something at lvl 30 witih formas and such to still be so weak that mercury feels like a massive ordeal either. 

 

I think part of the core problem between both arguments is the nature of the core system. The planets themselves, and the progression, and impression of difficulty inherent in each area. That person who goes to mercury with that frame and weapon he's maxed out, shouldn't be arguing that the game is to easy, and by equal measure that person who's going to pluto with the unranked weapon and frame shouldn't be arguing that the game is to hard. I just think sometimes we're arguing the wrong things. The weapons and mobs aren't the problem in all cases, in many cases its the players and the time and place they use those weapons frames, and what mobs they encounter when they do. 

[insaninater]

Agreed, What both sides need to do is come together, and formulate some viable ideas that actually speak to the problem, rather than playing at the tug of war we get into far to often in the forums here. 

for example: I think weakening mobs, lowering mob counts, simply making everything easy one shot kills, and simultaniously blanket nerfing powers and weapons trully takes away from the spirit of the game, and the over all enjoyment of playing. If we completely reduce everything to its lowest possible denominator we end up with a game no one wants to play, simply because its so simple. 

At the same time, I don't think we should have massively hard to kill mobs or powers/weapons that negate or nullify everything we encounter.

 

It happens to often in this forum, someone makes a post from one side of that argument or the other and they get bombarded by the opposing position. 

 

I say make the game harder, someone says Im being unfair, but isn't it equally unfair to ask me sacrifice my enjoyment of better more challenging mobs, so another person can have no challenge? Some of the arguments about weapons and powers and even mobs are applied to that person or groups desire to play 60 minute or longer defences and survivals. well we can't make everything supremely powered in that direction, it makes all the content below that irrelevent. Likewise, we cant expect something at lvl 30 witih formas and such to still be so weak that mercury feels like a massive ordeal either. 

 

I think part of the core problem between both arguments is the nature of the core system. The planets themselves, and the progression, and impression of difficulty inherent in each area. That person who goes to mercury with that frame and weapon he's maxed out, shouldn't be arguing that the game is to easy, and by equal measure that person who's going to pluto with the unranked weapon and frame shouldn't be arguing that the game is to hard. I just think sometimes we're arguing the wrong things. The weapons and mobs aren't the problem in all cases, in many cases its the players and the time and place they use those weapons frames, and what mobs they encounter when they do. 

 

That doesn't make much sense, you can always make challange for yourself if you want to. Nobody is stopping you from going solo on a t4s equiped with only unmodded oberon, unmodded dragoon, unmodded lato, and umodded skana. Challange is readily available whenever you want it.