The Valkyr Hysteria Debate - Make Her A True Bloodlust Frame!

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

Again, a passive play-style versus an proactive play-style. Discriminatory changes are not right.

Why don't you eat poison instead of food?  Not eating the poison is discriminatory. Discriminatory eating is not right.

 

You see the thing is, discriminating between good and bad is something that SHOULD be done. Throwing a tantrum and saying no one should be allowed to eat food because you can't eat poison helps nothing.

[Arabaxus]

Why don't you eat poison instead of food?  Not eating the poison is discriminatory. Discriminatory eating is not right.

 

You see the thing is, discriminating between good and bad is something that SHOULD be done. Throwing a tantrum and saying no one should be allowed to eat food because you can't eat poison helps nothing.

 

The point is both are legitimate styles of play, and there have been repeated incidents where players have things they have enjoyed just fine, and the existence of which did not affect the enjoyment of players who proposed a change, but yet the proposers were appeased to.

 

This isn't a tantrum, this is a simple attempt to prevent the same mistakes that have occurred repeatedly, where one group of players is affected in order to appease another group that gains nothing at the cost of the first group.

 

Of course, you could try to pull a far-fetched analogy between poison and food, which are subjective, and your objective opinion of what is good or bad, which seems to be what you are pulling, but as far as I am concerned, that fits perfectly under the definition of a false analogy. 

Edited September 17, 2014 by Arabaxus

[Azawarau]

The point is both are legitimate styles of play, and there have been repeated incidents where players have things they have enjoyed just fine, and the existence of which did not affect the enjoyment of players who proposed a change, but yet the proposers were appeased to.

 

This isn't a tantrum, this is a simple attempt to prevent the same mistakes that have occurred repeatedly, where one group of players is affected in order to appease another group that gains nothing at the cost of the first group.

 

Of course, you could try to pull a far-fetched analogy between poison and food, which are subjective, and your objective opinion of what is good or bad, which seems to be what you are pulling, but as far as I am concerned, that fits perfectly under the definition of a false analogy. 

Hysteria does affect other players

 

That argument means nothing

[Arabaxus]

Hysteria does affect other players

 

That argument means nothing

 

How does it affect other players?

[Magnar21]

As an avid (PvE) Valkyr, I have to say I think Valkyr's Hysteria is quite balanced. No guns, a laughable lack of skill at hitting airborne enemies, but in exchange, having complete invulnerability? Pretty balanced, when you consider that it is in the Valkyr's best interest to remain outside of Hysteria, where you can use melee weapons+Lifestrike+Rage. Just got Dakra Prime, we'll see how that works compared to my typical Dragon Nikana loadout, but the point still remains: While Hysteria could use things to make it more meaningful/interesting, I strongly hesitate to rework her only reliable escape button. Now, if Warcry was changed to be a persistent Aura rather than the one-shot buff/debuff it is currently, something else might be able to be done, but I still feel like the skill is quite balanced in the endgame (PvE). And in Dark Sector conflicts, I feel like the skill is a "feel free to ignore me for a few seconds" button, which it should never be. But that's my two cents....

[Azawarau]

How does it affect other players?

3 words

 

Competitive PvE Environment

[Arabaxus]

3 words

 

Competitive PvE Environment

 

2 words:

 

Internet Ego.

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

The point is both are legitimate styles of play, and there have been repeated incidents where players have things they have enjoyed just fine, and the existence of which did not affect the enjoyment of players who proposed a change, but yet the proposers were appeased to.

 

This isn't a tantrum, this is a simple attempt to prevent the same mistakes that have occurred repeatedly, where one group of players is affected in order to appease another group that gains nothing at the cost of the first group.

 

Of course, you could try to pull a far-fetched analogy between poison and food, which are subjective, and your objective opinion of what is good or bad, which seems to be what you are pulling, but as far as I am concerned, that fits perfectly under the definition of a false analogy. 

The point is that true invincibility with mobility trivializes the game.  You can activate it then go make a sandwich and come back to continue on without issue.

 

At least life strike requires you to actually play the game to survive.  That is why it is legitimate while Hysteria is in need of a nerf.

 

"but it doesn't bother anyone" is not a legitimate excuse not to balance something.

 

You know one of my frames is Valkyr, right?

 

It's an analogy for a reason.  It is meant to illustrate the relationship between things, such as why discrimination is not always "bad" and why your argument was illogical.

 

It's not a false analogy because I am not fallaciously inferring that a property of A means that a similar property exists in B because they are similar in regards to their other properties.  I am just using the analogy  to prove that discrimination is not always bad.  The analogy holds.

 

Objective -adjective- : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

 

Subjective -adjective- : based on feelings or opinions rather than facts

 

/lesson

Edited September 17, 2014 by (PS4)DesecratedFlame

[Arabaxus]

The point is that true invincibility with mobility trivializes the game.  You can activate it them go make a sandwich and come back to continue on without issue.

 

At least life strike requires you to actually play the game to survive.  That is why it is legitimate while Hysteria is in need of a nerf.

 

"but it doesn't bother anyone" is not a legitimate excuse not to balance something.

 

You know one of my frames is Valkyr, right?

 

It's an analogy for a reason.  It is meant to illustrate the relationship between things, such as why discrimination is not always "bad" and why your argument was illogical.

 

It's not a false analogy because I am not fallaciously inferring that a property of A means that a similar property exists in B because the are similar in regards to their other properties.  I am just using the analogy  to prove that discrimination is not always bad.  The analogy holds.

 

Objective -adjective- : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

 

Subjective -adjective- : based on feelings or opinions rather than facts

 

/lesson

 

Poison and Food are clearly objective. Food does not kill you. Poison Kills you.

Mobile Invincibility being good or bad is subjective. Why? Invisibility and Smoke Screen serve the exact same purpose, at lower cost, a stronger damage booster, and does not draw enemy aggression. You can argue that bumping into enemies makes them notice you, I would like to ask when was the last time an enemy killed you because of that reason. The difference here is you get a flat 400% melee buff and you can take collateral damage. If you were to hit invisibility and go do something else, the chances are, just like Hysteria, you will be completely safe. 

The only point you have going for your argument is that it is "true invincibility" with movement, which other than this idea, Invisibility and Smoke Screen serve the same function, and they do not even draw aggression unless you fire a non-silenced weapon or bump into an enemy, which even then rarely results into an enemy attacking, if ever.

 

Again, there is clear discrimination against this idea of "true invincibility" where the only justification for Smoke Screen and Invisibility is that you are not "truly invincible", which is true, but the rest of the justification of trivializing gameplay does not fit, as both arguably do. Meanwhile, Invis and Smoke Screen again do not draw aggression, and thus even when the duration is exhausted, there is even less immediate danger than Hysteria. 

 

At least with Hysteria, you are locked into melee and continue to draw aggression, alongside it being a 4 ability and costing 100 energy base. Invis and Smoke Screen grant non-aggression, which provides effective invincibility, Invis grants 400% melee damage (not sure if Smoke Screen provides this), and you have full access to your primary, secondary, and melee. 

 

By this chain of logic, Invisibility and Smoke Screen are the next that must go. Any attempt to discredit this on the basis of "true invincibility" just shows how much the attempting individual is trying to push an irrelevant definition with no deeper thought. 

 

If you wish to make meaningless analogies, consider this. What is the difference between a person committing a murder, and a person forcing someone to commit suicide? By sticking to this concrete definition, the second person has not committed murder, because it does not fit the definition:

 

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

 

When in actuality, both are just as bad. Sure, you did not unlawfully kill a person, but you caused the incident that led to the loss of life. Of course all these analogies mean nothing, but since these have been brought up, perhaps this is the easiest way to explain it.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Arabaxus

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

Poison and Food are clearly objective. Food does not kill you. Poison Kills you.

Mobile Invincibility being good or bad is subjective. Why? Invisibility and Smoke Screen serve the exact same purpose, at lower cost, a stronger damage booster, and does not draw enemy aggression. You can argue that bumping into enemies makes them notice you, I would like to ask when was the last time an enemy killed you because of that reason. The difference here is you get a flat 400% melee buff and you can take collateral damage. If you were to hit invisibility and go do something else, the chances are, just like Hysteria, you will be completely safe. 

The only point you have going for your argument is that it is "true invincibility" with movement, which other than this idea, Invisibility and Smoke Screen serve the same function, and they do not even draw aggression unless you fire a non-silenced weapon or bump into an enemy, which even then rarely results into an enemy attacking, if ever.

 

Again, there is clear discrimination against this idea of "true invincibility" where the only justification for Smoke Screen and Invisibility is that you are not "truly invincible", which is true, but the rest of the justification of trivializing gameplay does not fit, as both arguably do. Meanwhile, Invis and Smoke Screen again do not draw aggression, and thus even when the duration is exhausted, there is even less immediate danger than Hysteria. 

 

At least with Hysteria, you are locked into melee and continue to draw aggression, alongside it being a 4 ability and costing 100 energy base. Invis and Smoke Screen grant non-aggression, which provides effective invincibility, Invis grants 400% melee damage (not sure if Smoke Screen provides this), and you have full access to your primary, secondary, and melee. 

 

By this chain of logic, Invisibility and Smoke Screen are the next that must go. Any attempt to discredit this on the basis of "true invincibility" just shows how much the attempting individual is trying to push an irrelevant definition with no deeper thought. 

You might want to reread your last post.  You said poison being danagerous was subjective and my opinion was objective.  You even used bold text for emphasis.

 

Enemies react to the sound of an invisibly Loki firing his weapon.  I have also taken damage while trying to revive someone while invisible because someone else, needlessly, came a tried to revive them after I had started.  Invisibility does not stop you from taking damage.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2014 by (PS4)DesecratedFlame

[Arabaxus]

You might want to reread your last post.  You said poison being danagerous was subjective and my opinion was objective.  You even used bold text for emphasis.

 

Enemies react to the sound of an invisibly Loki firing his weapon.  I have also taken damage while trying to revive someone while invisible because someone else, needlessly, came a tried to revive them after I had started.  Invisibility does not stop you from taking damage.

 

 

Poison and Food are clearly objective. Food does not kill you. Poison Kills you.

 

I stated that your analogy is simply objective, but your reasoning for Hysteria is subjective. If the wording was unclear I would like to apologize.

 

Again, invisibility does not stop you from taking damage, but it does not draw aggression. Enemies do not actively fire at you. When you fire while invisible, melee enemies with get close to you, ranged enemies will turn, but neither will attack, and if you leave the area, they do not follow. 

 

Again, you can die while invisible, which is a good point, but again, you could die with QT and Rage even without the interaction of another player. By that logic, QT + Rage before the previous fix is justifiably reasonable, because again, you could die, which appears to be the biggest issue of debate. I still cannot see how to support the QT + Rage fix while supporting Invisibility currently without hypocrisy.

 

My main issue is that many of the opinions in favor of changing hysteria are two-faced. Which is where my calls of discrimination come from, much like the accusations I make when players say required/band-aid mods are bad, but when launchers were nerfed, they simply said "put on ammo mutation and deal with it". 

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

I stated that your analogy is simply objective, but your reasoning for Hysteria is subjective. If the wording was unclear I would like to apologize.

 

Again, invisibility does not stop you from taking damage, but it does not draw aggression. Enemies do not actively fire at you. When you fire while invisible, melee enemies with get close to you, ranged enemies will turn, but neither will attack, and if you leave the area, they do not follow. 

 

Again, you can die while invisible, which is a good point, but again, you could die with QT and Rage even without the interaction of another player. By that logic, QT + Rage before the previous fix is justifiably reasonable, because again, you could die, which appears to be the biggest issue of debate. I still cannot see how to support the QT + Rage fix while supporting Invisibility currently without hypocrisy.

 

My main issue is that many of the opinions in favor of changing hysteria are two-faced. Which is where my calls of discrimination come from, much like the accusations I make when players say required/band-aid mods are bad, but when launchers were nerfed, they simply said "put on ammo mutation and deal with it". 

See colored sections:

 

Of course, you could try to pull a far-fetched analogy between poison and food, which are subjective, and your objective opinion of what is good or bad

 

Invisibility draws aggression as soon as you fire a weapon. You can avoid this by Kiting around while still invisible, and again, this requires active participation,

 

Tossing out insults isn't going to strengthen your argument.  There is nothing two-faced or hypocritical about it.  My stance has remained fair throughout.

 

No "true-invincibility with mobility" should exist within the game. Anything approaching "invincibility with mobility" should require active input from the player to function, meaning that a mistake on the player's part can result in a failure state.

 

-

 

A well modded launcher can function just fine with out ammo mutation mods. If you can't get by with that amount of ammo then put on an ammo mutation mod.  They are functional so the mods are not bandaids, but rather, perform their intended function.

 

That said, I think they could use double their current PC ammo pools, and the change would not be broken nor unbalance the game.  The 540 ammo they had before was simply unbalanced, but I think that 40 penta ammo and 60 angstrum ammo would allow players to go a little explosion-crazy without allowing them to perch for hours, without coming down, in infested missions, especially after the infested buff.

Edited September 17, 2014 by (PS4)DesecratedFlame

[crafturtoemc]

Valkyr's hysteria is just too freaking OP....WHAT AND WHY DE? Rhino are supposed to be a tanky frame...and his iron skin dont even last for 1 second in T4S..WHY? WHY? thats VERY unfair to me atleast...Iron skin buff plz hysteria= godmode AND ITS THE REAL GODMODE YOUR TALKING ABOUT... I dont see rhino being a tanky frame at all.

[fishworshipper]

2 words:

 

Internet Ego.

2 words:

 

It matters.

[Eyeless]

Not skimming through everyone elses stuff here because it'd take too long. I'm only going to offer my take on it for those defending her invulnerability:

 

Her ult goes against the very concept of Berserker. At no point in most games that do the class right is the class simply totally invulnerable to all damage.

 

You're supposed to take damage on the catch that so long as you deal out just as much, if not more, then you'll be sustainable. High risk High reward. 

 

What this current iteration of Hysteria does is trade your superior ranged weapons and higher scaling melee weapon of choice for short ranged claws with damage that scales too slowly with the use of combos, and we all know how hard it is to keep even five combos going until Valkyr can't even scratch even just one Napalm or Heavy Gunner, and by that point she'll need the 30+ hit it takes to have a fighting chance against those heavier unit swarms at late-game.

 

In short, as a damage Ult Hysteria doesn't scale, but it offers this no-brain safety net, aka godmode. So rather than being encouraged to be an offensive frame, gearing towards her ult tends to result in a far more defensive Valkyr player from what I've personally seen. It's not used to get in the enemies face as a Zerker should to keep the damage rolling. It's a glorified revive/get out of jail free card. 

 

It needs reworked so that it synergizes better with all the points the author of the OP made on the rest of Valkyrs stats/abilities and removes the easy way out.

[Arabaxus]

2 words:

 

It matters.

 

http://strawpoll.me/2585570/r

 

This forum sample suggests otherwise.

 

See colored sections:

 

 

Invisibility draws aggression as soon as you fire a weapon. You can avoid this by Kiting around while still invisible, and again, this requires active participation,

 

Tossing out insults isn't going to strengthen your argument.  There is nothing two-faced or hypocritical about it.  My stance has remained fair throughout.

 

No "true-invincibility with mobility" should exist within the game. Anything approaching "invincibility with mobility" should require active input from the player to function, meaning that a mistake on the player's part can result in a failure state.

 

-

 

A well modded launcher can function just fine with out ammo mutation mods. If you can't get by with that amount of ammo then put on an ammo mutation mod.  They are functional so the mods are not bandaids, but rather, perform their intended function.

 

That said, I think they could use double their current PC ammo pools, and the change would not be broken nor unbalance the game.  The 540 ammo they had before was simply unbalanced, but I think that 40 penta ammo and 60 angstrum ammo would allow players to go a little explosion-crazy without allowing them to perch for hours, without coming down, in infested missions, especially after the infested buff.

 

Hysteria draws aggression whether or not you do anything. You are practically invincible under Invisibility if you go AFK, other than if you stand in the line of a laser, unless there is active participation by other players to get you killed. Both invisibility and hysteria have a similar situation; if you AFK while the duration is active, you are practically invincible, if not wholly invincible. Both require active participation to get things done, or kill enemies/revive allies. 

 

Hysteria already requires active participation in the fact that unlike Invisibility, where you can go to a place with no enemies and have the enemies not follow you, you have to know when the duration runs out and recast, or take proper positioning. In that respect, Hysteria actually requires more player interaction than invisibility. Meanwhile, if you were to hypothetically stand in one place and cast Invisibility and Hysteria repeatedly, Valkyr would constantly draw aggression, and the moment it is over, you risk immediate death, whereas the same cannot be said about Loki. Both require player interaction during the duration, except the failure state risked by Loki is very rarely, but possibly immediate, alongside at the end, while Valkyr's is solely at the end of the duration.

 

Another note about your idea of ammo mutation not being a band-aid mod. Note this player's opinion:

 

 

Is the concept too hard for your head to wrap around or are you still trying to play dumb to draw out something other than what ive already aid?

 

Hysteria is broken and useless

 

Its Low risk/Low reward in end game and easymode in most anything else

 

Its less useful than simply not using it in terms of damage output and various utilities

 

Its often used to bypass challenges set such as nightmare mode,bosses, limiting or high damage events

 

Its broken and useless and OP all at the same time

 

It was completely relevant

 

Those are the issues with hysteria

 

"Hysteria is broken and useless"

 

"It is less useful than simply not using it"

 

In the same way you suggest that if you don't need mutation, don't use it, if you do, use it, the same idea follows that if you need it, use it, if you don't need it, don't use it, because he is suggesting that it is useless to him. It's great that people use it to clear Nightmare mode or high damage events, and again, "if you need it, use it, if you don't, don't use it."

 

I believe there is a line between blatant insults and stating an observation based on past evidence. I am not attacking your character by calling out hypocrisy, I am simply stating a flaw in your argument. Meanwhile, accusing me through "Is the concept too hard for your head to wrap around or are you still trying to play dumb to draw out something other than what ive already aid?" I believe more closely fits as what you define as an insult, as he states that a concept is too "hard" for me to understand, accuses me of playing dumb, while not using proper grammar. If my observation came off as a personal attack, I'll apologize, as that was not intentional.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Arabaxus

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

Not skimming through everyone elses stuff here because it'd take too long. I'm only going to offer my take on it for those defending her invulnerability:

 

Her ult goes against the very concept of Berserker. At no point in most games that do the class right is the class simply totally invulnerable to all damage.

 

You're supposed to take damage on the catch that so long as you deal out just as much, if not more, then you'll be sustainable. High risk High reward. 

 

What this current iteration of Hysteria does is trade your superior ranged weapons and higher scaling melee weapon of choice for short ranged claws with damage that scales too slowly with the use of combos, and we all know how hard it is to keep even five combos going until Valkyr can't even scratch even just one Napalm or Heavy Gunner, and by that point she'll need the 30+ hit it takes to have a fighting chance against those heavier unit swarms at late-game.

 

In short, as a damage Ult Hysteria doesn't scale, but it offers this no-brain safety net, aka godmode. So rather than being encouraged to be an offensive frame, gearing towards her ult tends to result in a far more defensive Valkyr player from what I've personally seen. It's not used to get in the enemies face as a Zerker should to keep the damage rolling. It's a glorified revive/get out of jail free card. 

 

It needs reworked so that it synergizes better with all the points the author of the OP made on the rest of Valkyrs stats/abilities and removes the easy way out.

This guy gets it. +1

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

Hysteria draws aggression whether or not you do anything

 

In the same way you suggest that if you don't need mutation, don't use it

Doesn't matter, as long as Hysteria is active you can't be damaged, at all.  That doesn't require active effort in not dying.  Invisibility can still get you killed. Not drawing aggro is not the same as not taking damage. This is not a difficult concept.

 

If you feel strongly about it though, make a new thread suggesting a reasonable change to invisibility, but stop trying to use it as an excuse for not balancing hysteria.

 

Using it or not has no effect on its balance. Hysteria is OP and in need of a nerf.

[Azawarau]

2 words:

 

Internet Ego.

I do believe that applies more to people who dont believe in competitive PvE environments

 

http://strawpoll.me/2585570/r

 

This forum sample suggests otherwise.

 

 

Hysteria draws aggression whether or not you do anything. You are practically invincible under Invisibility if you go AFK, other than if you stand in the line of a laser, unless there is active participation by other players to get you killed. Both invisibility and hysteria have a similar situation; if you AFK while the duration is active, you are practically invincible, if not wholly invincible. Both require active participation to get things done, or kill enemies/revive allies. 

 

Hysteria already requires active participation in the fact that unlike Invisibility, where you can go to a place with no enemies and have the enemies not follow you, you have to know when the duration runs out and recast, or take proper positioning. In that respect, Hysteria actually requires more player interaction than invisibility. Meanwhile, if you were to hypothetically stand in one place and cast Invisibility and Hysteria repeatedly, Valkyr would constantly draw aggression, and the moment it is over, you risk immediate death, whereas the same cannot be said about Loki. Both require player interaction during the duration, except the failure state risked by Loki is very rarely, but possibly immediate, alongside at the end, while Valkyr's is solely at the end of the duration.

 

Another note about your idea of ammo mutation not being a band-aid mod. Note this player's opinion:

 

 

 

 

"Hysteria is broken and useless"

 

"It is less useful than simply not using it"

 

In the same way you suggest that if you don't need mutation, don't use it, if you do, use it, the same idea follows that if you need it, use it, if you don't need it, don't use it, because he is suggesting that it is useless to him. It's great that people use it to clear Nightmare mode or high damage events, and again, "if you need it, use it, if you don't, don't use it."

 

I believe there is a line between blatant insults and stating an observation based on past evidence. I am not attacking your character by calling out hypocrisy, I am simply stating a flaw in your argument. Meanwhile, accusing me through "Is the concept too hard for your head to wrap around or are you still trying to play dumb to draw out something other than what ive already aid?" I believe more closely fits as what you define as an insult, as he states that a concept is too "hard" for me to understand, accuses me of playing dumb, while not using proper grammar. If my observation came off as a personal attack, I'll apologize, as that was not intentional.

I dont think you entirely understand what that means

 

It isnt just competing for the most kills

 

Its keeping things equal for all players and frames that they main so everyone has an equal shot

 

One of the reasons nova was in such a hotspot all the time

 

With invisibility you can die far more easily now that enemies can detect you

 

With hysteria you can afk for a minute and a half