Light Cant Travel Through Walls But Energy Can

[Metalarcher]

snip

 

So you would argue that winning a slot machine gives the same intrinsic value as winning a fighting game match?  On average of course.  That is, about half would prefer to win the slot machine, out of pure luck or tenacity, and half would prefer to win the fighting game match because their skill was adequate to defeat their opponent?

 

We also don't know why they would add a mod like Thief's Wit or Provoked or Maglev.  Are these meant to give us the same advantage as Redirection, Streamline, and Flow?  Or are they supposed to be utility mods that slightly alter how the game is or can be played?  We just don't know.  Not for certain, anyway.

 

As for being able to play Solo, of course that's another idea entirely.  And I agree some effort should be made to make things harder for four players than they are for one, because that will allow a group of any size to be adequately challenged but still able to overcome the odds.  That doesn't mean "make every Warframe powerful enough to solo anything, so when they all get together they're an unstoppable force."  If you're saying "make Warframes powerful because I need to run solo!" I can just as easily say "make Warframes weaker because I want to face some threat instead of stomping everything in a group."

[Metalarcher]

how's the ability intended to be used, then? Jump in the middle of a group of enemies and hope you don't die by the time you finish casting?

 

Wouldn't that have been a problem before the nerf too?  It didn't seem to affect me much.  It's not like Shadows of the Dead or anything.

[audabon]

It means you can't cheese the ability by hiding around a corner, popping RB, and then running in and mowing down the room.  That's not how it's intended to be used.

 

 

riou, should all aoe in the game have to obey LOS?

 

the intent of how this ability is to be used has been clear since release.  its an aoe disable with conditions. its not a perfect ability, but its solid.  it doesnt need a nerf.  

 

anyone who plays Ex understands this.  

 

some people are posting that this change wouldnt be a big deal.  im guessing these people dont play Ex.  do you?

[vaugahn]

riou, should all aoe in the game have to obey LOS?

 

the intent of how this ability is to be used has been clear since release.  its an aoe disable with conditions. its not a perfect ability, but its solid.  it doesnt need a nerf.  

 

anyone who plays Ex understands this.  

 

some people are posting that this change wouldnt be a big deal.  im guessing these people dont play Ex.  do you?

 

I play Excalibur pretty frequently, and what you said is wrong. Hiding in a corner and making the whole map stand still is OP no matter which way you slice it. The method by which the nerf was handled is up for dispute, but if you really think that it was okay the way it was before you're hopelessly deluded.

[MidnightViolence]

Line of Sight is NOT a nerf.  People need to really stop with that notion.

 

Also, it's possible they WILL change the other frames, but since Excal has the ability that's most obvious with Line of Sight (A blinding flash of light) they're starting with that.

 

LOS may or may not be a nerf depending on how you look at it. Logically speaking having LOS increases the difficulty of gameplay while adding to realism however in current WF gameplay it is totally not feasible. 

 

Scaling in this game makes damages from weapons and defensive qualities a joke after a certain level. Unless DE comes out and state that lvl XX is the official endgame which WF is designed to cater to, it makes no sense to limit any ability's quality to suit an unlimited scaling gameplay. 

 

I believe there is some saying of WF's gameplay is around lvl 40 or so but i am pretty sure that was even before T4 was introduced. In the past, T3 def was limited to 20 or 15 waves iirc (Damage 1.0) and that was the reference of endgame. Anything after was considered a personal challenge or epeen depending which side you are on. 

 

Back to LOS, if every ability is subjected to it, most if not all useful skills will be made feasible only in a room. Just an example

RD- How useful will it be if only exposed mobs are disarm and the "hidden" ones are not within the ability range. Imagine the Rage on this if it was ever implemented.

 

What i find it funny is the reason that was given. " Enemies behind walls/obstructions will not be affected since they were smart enough to avoid the blind!" 

If enemies are smart enough to take cover when a Frame is pointing a sword to the sky and it will blind them, wouldn't it be more obvious once your weapon is turn into a stick you will not try to attack the enemy ? 

 

RB - Grineer 1 : "hey guys take cover ! that techno scum is pointing his sword upwards to blind us ! quick take cover !!!!"  1 sec later "

Grineer 1 - 100 " eat lead suxor !!!! " 

That's smart now try below 

 

RD - Grineer 1 : "whoa my hind just turn into a stick, should we continue to attack ? or run back to take another weapon ? Will I turn into a grineer vibrator like this stick ? " 

Grineer 2: " Screw that, we have OP armor so lets whack the living hell out of the techno scum " ( Smart ? )

continue to run and they see this white ball hanging in the air and some other mates spinning inside like a washing machine. 

Grineer 1 : " why are all our bros in there spinning ? should we retreat ? 

Grineer 2 : " Screw that, we have OP armor lets charge into it ! " ( Smart ?)

 

Not picking on RD, just quoting for the sake of example.

For me, I can accept the change in mechanic of RB or any ability as its DE right to do so but giving a reason such as above will only open a can of worms which will result in further rages. 

 

My humble 2 cents

[audabon]

I play Excalibur pretty frequently, and what you said is wrong. Hiding in a corner and making the whole map stand still is OP no matter which way you slice it. The method by which the nerf was handled is up for dispute, but if you really think that it was okay the way it was before you're hopelessly deluded.

 

 

nope. dunno who is hiding in corners.  i do think from playing Ex that blind is ok as is.  just look around.  so do lots of players with Ex in their rotation.  if you dont, thats fine.  youre entitled to your opinion.

 

the most logical way to bring blind in line would be to either nerf every other aoe in the game to obey los.  or make blind cost 75-100 energy like most top tier (worthwhile to use) abilities.

 

the last 24 hours have made it clear that a complete nerf of blind, only for Excalibur, excluding mirage's disco blind, ignoring how other frames aoe abilities work, is unacceptable.  i dont even main Ex and i know that.  i do however play him often enough on 50+ enemies to feel solid in my opinion.  if you play him alot like that then you can feel solid in your opinion too.  if you dont, maybe you shouldnt judge.

[vaugahn]

nope. dunno who is hiding in corners.  i do think from playing Ex that blind is ok as is.  just look around.  so do lots of players with Ex in their rotation.  if you dont, thats fine.  youre entitled to your opinion.

 

the most logical way to bring blind in line would be to either nerf every other aoe in the game to obey los.  or make blind cost 75-100 energy like most top tier (worthwhile to use) abilities.

 

the last 24 hours have made it clear that a complete nerf of blind, only for Excalibur, excluding mirage's disco blind, ignoring how other frames aoe abilities work, is unacceptable.  i dont even main Ex and i know that.  i do however play him often enough on 50+ enemies to feel solid in my opinion.  if you play him alot like that then you can feel solid in your opinion too.  if you dont, maybe you shouldnt judge.

 

I'd say that doing 10m of unblockable AoE and the rest LoS would be more in line with what we'd expect from a flashbang-type attack.

 

The problem with radial blind as it is is that it's a perfect sphere, no matter where enemies are in its absolutely massive radius they can't hide from it. There's no reasonable excuse for it to be able to blind enemies two tiles away.

[RiouHotaru]

Also, the cast-time on RB is just about instant.  It's literally "he-raises-his-weapon-and-everything-goes-blind."  If you're literally dying the split second you go to hit your button to cast RB than you're likely already at a stage of enemy scaling where your whole team is having the same issue.

 

And yeah, being able to blind someone on the opposite side of the room on the other side of a wall is ridiculous.

[audabon]

I'd say that doing 10m of unblockable AoE and the rest LoS would be more in line with what we'd expect from a flashbang-type attack.

 

The problem with radial blind as it is is that it's a perfect sphere, no matter where enemies are in its absolutely massive radius they can't hide from it. There's no reasonable excuse for it to be able to blind enemies two tiles away.

the maximized distance of 58.8m is not what most people are running anyway.  fleeting, narrow, overextended cascade brings it down under 50m easily.  other classes have aoe that go that far or farther (molecular prime anyone?).  most aoe are either spheres or some sort of 3 dimensional ability.

 

ever see nyx absorb camp the cryo? or hydroid afk undertow? theres plenty of abilites that are super strong for different reasons besides their range.

 

 

Also, the cast-time on RB is just about instant.  It's literally "he-raises-his-weapon-and-everything-goes-blind."  If you're literally dying the split second you go to hit your button to cast RB than you're likely already at a stage of enemy scaling where your whole team is having the same issue.

 

And yeah, being able to blind someone on the opposite side of the room on the other side of a wall is ridiculous.

plenty of abilites have 1 second base cast time.  any frame can equip natural talent.  so this is a problem with all frames potentially?  all cast times should be what 3sec??

[Alphafox]

Can we request that that ''rework'' get applied to other frames skills too? Just to see how ''fun'' it will be.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Alphafox

[Inez]

I play Excalibur pretty frequently, and what you said is wrong. Hiding in a corner and making the whole map stand still is OP no matter which way you slice it. The method by which the nerf was handled is up for dispute, but if you really think that it was okay the way it was before you're hopelessly deluded.

 

I'm hopelessly deluded for having fun in a videogame? A videogame I spend lots of money on?

 

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

Last week I bought more plat simply as a tip to the developers. I'm really wishing I hadn't.

[Slamyourjam]

It means you can't cheese the ability by hiding around a corner, popping RB, and then running in and mowing down the room.  That's not how it's intended to be used.

 

And that's not a nerf!?

[Slamyourjam]

So you would argue that winning a slot machine gives the same intrinsic value as winning a fighting game match?  On average of course.  That is, about half would prefer to win the slot machine, out of pure luck or tenacity, and half would prefer to win the fighting game match because their skill was adequate to defeat their opponent?

 

We also don't know why they would add a mod like Thief's Wit or Provoked or Maglev.  Are these meant to give us the same advantage as Redirection, Streamline, and Flow?  Or are they supposed to be utility mods that slightly alter how the game is or can be played?  We just don't know.  Not for certain, anyway.

 

As for being able to play Solo, of course that's another idea entirely.  And I agree some effort should be made to make things harder for four players than they are for one, because that will allow a group of any size to be adequately challenged but still able to overcome the odds.  That doesn't mean "make every Warframe powerful enough to solo anything, so when they all get together they're an unstoppable force."  If you're saying "make Warframes powerful because I need to run solo!" I can just as easily say "make Warframes weaker because I want to face some threat instead of stomping everything in a group."

 

Yes and no because its subjective and I won't argue subjectivity. 

 

They added mods like Theif's Wit, Provoked and Maglev to vary it up. I find Provokedand Theif's Wit to be very useful and I used to use Theif's Wit whenever I went grouping because sometimes you will miss mods across the map that you don't miss when you're doing solo. They aren't supposed to compete in any way against Redirection or the other mods.

 

I think the bigger problem here is enemy balance rather than Warframe balance. As long as enemies don't have any level= number of enemies system then players will continue to complain and moan that its too hard. Most of the missions like rescue, exterminate, sabotage etc are fairly doable but defense and mobile defense are sometimes too much for some players to handle even for those that have forma'd their gear and are running solo. We can both agree on, that enemies need to be harder for groups and less harder for solo players but at the same time maybe they could make it less rewarding for solo players in terms of loot and more rewarding for group players. Whatever the case will be, instead of them nerfing one warframe at a time they should nerf all equally and THEN implement a system like this, otherwise its going to cause a lot of trouble and DE NEEDS to get input from players before deciding to nerf things nilly willy. That's my take on it.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Slamyourjam

[Metalarcher]

snip

 

If you can't argue subjectivity, then this discussion is basically over.  Oh well.  We tried.

 

As for enemy balance being more important than Warframe balance, you said just my own thoughts in the same paragraph:  enemy and Warframe balance are intertwined (along with all other items that affect gameplay, weapons etc.).  And while yes they probably should have done them all at the same time, they know that players will throw a fit 100x as large as the ones thrown because of this.  Should they care?  Probably not.  DE doesn't need to get input from players before deciding on balance changes.  They're professional game makers.  Big boys and girls.  They can make balance decisions for themselves.  If they asked for community approval whenever they wanted to add or change something nothing would ever get done because plenty of people would have a problem and would be able to argue their problem ultimately by saying "but that isn't fun to me" which is perfectly valid, but creates infinite stagnation.  And stagnation is something I would really, really rather avoid.

 

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

[Slamyourjam]

If you can't argue subjectivity, then this discussion is basically over.  Oh well.  We tried.

 

As for enemy balance being more important than Warframe balance, you said just my own thoughts in the same paragraph:  enemy and Warframe balance are intertwined (along with all other items that affect gameplay, weapons etc.).  And while yes they probably should have done them all at the same time, they know that players will throw a fit 100x as large as the ones thrown because of this.  Should they care?  Probably not.  DE doesn't need to get input from players before deciding on balance changes.  They're professional game makers.  Big boys and girls.  They can make balance decisions for themselves.  If they asked for community approval whenever they wanted to add or change something nothing would ever get done because plenty of people would have a problem and would be able to argue their problem ultimately by saying "but that isn't fun to me" which is perfectly valid, but creates infinite stagnation.  And stagnation is something I would really, really rather avoid.

 

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

 

I can argue subjectively but why would I? This isn't about what YOU or I think. 

 

DE DOES need input from us players because we are the people funding their game, if we disagree with something that they do then we are less likely to fund the game. Why do you think forums exist in the first place? Its not just so players can show the glitches and bugs that they have found but also to give out their complaints about things they don't like or would like to see improved.

Let me tell you about Dungeonland, a company that went down under due to them making a stupid decision that they chose themselves. The developers of Dungeonland decided on their own that they should make their game Free to Play after it had already been a paid game for a long time, this caused all their paid players to get angry and drop out, its basically giving them a middle finger. The population peaked with lots of players coming to check it out but guess what? That peak in players collapsed after a few months and now the games online multiplayer is DEAD. This is just one example of a mistake caused by developers trying to make their own decisions, I could name a few more but hopefully you get the idea, multiplayer focused games are heavy on player feedback, if a player doesn't like something its usually in the best interests for the developers to follow the players ideas. The consumer is always right. 

Edited September 12, 2014 by Slamyourjam

[SpadedTail]

If you can't argue subjectivity, then this discussion is basically over.  Oh well.  We tried.

 

As for enemy balance being more important than Warframe balance, you said just my own thoughts in the same paragraph:  enemy and Warframe balance are intertwined (along with all other items that affect gameplay, weapons etc.).  And while yes they probably should have done them all at the same time, they know that players will throw a fit 100x as large as the ones thrown because of this.  Should they care?  Probably not.  DE doesn't need to get input from players before deciding on balance changes.  They're professional game makers.  Big boys and girls.  They can make balance decisions for themselves.  If they asked for community approval whenever they wanted to add or change something nothing would ever get done because plenty of people would have a problem and would be able to argue their problem ultimately by saying "but that isn't fun to me" which is perfectly valid, but creates infinite stagnation.  And stagnation is something I would really, really rather avoid.

 

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

 

Yeah, they do need the community's feedback. That's why they listen to us and change so much according to what is posted in the forums. No game devs are so good that they don't need feedback. 

 

I still wonder what the heck was going through their heads when they decided to nerf HIM out of all frames. They took a good look at the list of worst warframes in the game, picked their poster boy Excalibur and asked themselves: How can we make him even worse? What is his only redeeming factor? Oh, Radial Blind? All right. Let's nerf it into the ground. Hope you like it, Founders!

 

I hope they don't go live with that change, because that would sincerely wreck Excalibur. Damage abilities do not scale as well as crowd-control abilities and if they nerf his CC and buff his damage, he'll be a poor man's Ember that can't kill a thing in Void endgame. He needs the CC or he'll have no place in the game anymore except slash dashing things in Mercury or other lowbie maps. 

[Metalarcher]

snip

 

Of course they need the community's feedback, but not to the point where they have to run everything by us.  They understand quite a few more things about game development than the majority of players, considering they are the professional game developers...

 

Our feedback is to give them a large sample of opinions, each (ideally) explaining why we like or do not like something, and to give ideas on how it could be changed.  Many heads are better than one.  But there is a point at which they do not require more ideas, and they know what needs to be done.  For example, bugs are not things which require any sort of deliberation with the player, and can be fixed without their approval.  What if Radial Blind's ability to hit people behind walls was a bug all along?  Would that mean it's okay to fix it?  The only difference in such a scenario is whether the player had felt justified in doing something some way because the developers either did or did not say that it could be used that way.

 

As for why they decided on him first, I have no idea.  But something needed to change if they are indeed going to rebalance all the Warframes, and they can't push it all out at once because it would make everyone angry simultaneously since they cannot see the long-term effect, and are only concerned with the immediate "but how will I win now?!"  Why it needed to be Excalibur (and Trinity, actually) first?  Who knows?  But if in the end they're all balanced, this won't matter anyway.

 

snop

 

On your absolute last statement I will disagree entirely.  Does the reader know exactly what he wants the writer to write before he does it?  If he does, why is he not a writer?  It's not just about whether you are able to produce the work; it's about not knowing what you want.  We can see a general framework (if you'll excuse the pun) but not the whole thing.

 

If the consumer was always right in terms of games, many would say "I want to win!" which is understood to mean that they have accomplished something, but most do not place value onto the victory because of the hardships required, and instead think that the words "you win" immediately have some trait that makes them satisfying to the person they are speaking to.

 

By the same method of thinking, if DE was to say "everyone gets everything in the game right away!" tomorrow, or something of similar scale and controversy, then yes they would probably be making a large boo boo for themselves, even if it was fun to have everything right away because they fixed some of the problems regarding that.  No one would think it could be fun, so they wouldn't give it a chance.  If DE said "we're locking all primes behind a paywall" that would create an even larger boo boo, because it deals with money and accessibility.

 

So it is not impossible that while the majority of DE can make mistakes which they implement into the game, the majority of players can make mistakes which they request to be added into the game.  Neither one is completely immune, so we have these forums to attempt to reach a balance through discussion and deliberation.

 

But we do not have them for the sake of forcing DE to create the game we want instead of the game they want.

 

P.S. This is exactly about what you or I think because the enjoyment of games is subjective and we must use our own subjective reasoning alongside objective reasoning to try to find a solution which benefits us both without taking something from each other.  If we cannot find such a solution, we must find what the majority (or DE, if they have an opinion on it) wants, and why they want it, and whether that will contribute to making the game more engaging, since we do not have the opportunity to split the game in half--one with old Radial Blind and one with new Radial Blind

Edited September 12, 2014 by Metalarcher

[LukeAura]

I still wonder what the heck was going through their heads when they decided to nerf HIM out of all frames. They took a good look at the list of worst warframes in the game, picked their poster boy Excalibur and asked themselves: How can we make him even worse? What is his only redeeming factor? Oh, Radial Blind? All right. Let's nerf it into the ground. Hope you like it, Founders!

 

If you've been paying attention to Rebecca and Megan's post on the issue, this nerf was an accidental early release, and likely coming with a handful of other changes to him as well. Likely his other abilities are getting buffed as well in compensation. Let's not mudsling things that are not true please. 

 

 

Let me tell you about Dungeonland, a company that went down under due to them making a stupid decision that they chose themselves. The developers of Dungeonland decided on their own that they should make their game Free to Play after it had already been a paid game for a long time, this caused all their paid players to get angry and drop out, its basically giving them a middle finger. The population peaked with lots of players coming to check it out but guess what? That peak in players collapsed after a few months and now the games online multiplayer is DEAD. This is just one example of a mistake caused by developers trying to make their own decisions, I could name a few more but hopefully you get the idea, multiplayer focused games are heavy on player feedback, if a player doesn't like something its usually in the best interests for the developers to follow the players ideas. The consumer is always right. 

That is a large scale change of an entirely different nature. It involves money and real goods exchange for a product that is no longer of the same value and potentially making them pay more for it.  

The nerfing of one ability in the sake of balance in a still developing game is entirely necessary, and something that players can adapt to. It does not invalidate anything they can't fix for free. And no one is saying developers can't make mistakes, we are saying that they will usually have a better understanding of what is a good idea. The majority isn't always right, the intelligent and well informed usually are. Not many people in the majority are looking at the full scope of the change of LoS requirements to Radial Blind.

Even a brocken clock is right twice a day, so yes, the majority can sometimes be right.  But usually, they're blind to the full scope of the consequences of their decisions and wants.

Edited September 12, 2014 by LukeAura

[Slamyourjam]

 

If you've been paying attention to Rebecca and Megan's post on the issue, this nerf was an accidental early release, and likely coming with a handful of other changes to him as well. Likely his other abilities are getting buffed as well in compensation. Let's not mudsling things that are not true please. 

 

 

That is a large scale change of an entirely different nature. It involves money and real goods exchange for a product that is no longer of the same value and potentially making them pay more for it.  

The nerfing of one ability in the sake of balance in a still developing game is entirely necessary, and something that players can adapt to. It does not invalidate anything they can't fix for free. And no one is saying developers can't make mistakes, we are saying that they will usually have a better understanding of what is a good idea. The majority isn't always right, the intelligent and well informed usually are. Not many people in the majority are looking at the full scope of the change of LoS requirements to Radial Blind.

Even a brocken clock is right twice a day, so yes, the majority can sometimes be right.  But usually, they're blind to the full scope of the consequences of their decisions and wants.

What's not true? Whether its an accidental release or not the FACT is that they intended to nerf his radial blind to the point where its not really worth using and because they accidentally released it they now have got a huge backlash to deal with.

 

I would agree with you on the nerf if they didn't completely nerf one of Exaliburs only useful abilities. Now he's a really mediocre warframe that people won't want to play as, I'm surely going to skip him now that all of his abilities are as most people said in this forum rather weak... Just because they have the qualifications and the job position doesn't mean they are necessarily smarter than us or will make the right choice. *cough* CEO of Microsoft *cough* *cough* Obama President of the USA *cough* usually the standards for an online game that requires active support is that they are led by what the majority think. That is why Call of Duty for example still sells millions, because they kept a formula that worked for a lot of the players and only changed a few things around that they agreed with. I'm not saying developers can't be experimental, I'm saying that its a bad idea.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Slamyourjam

[LukeAura]

What's not true? Whether its an accidental release or not the FACT is that they intended to nerf his radial blind to the point where its not really worth using and because they accidentally released it they now have got a huge backlash to deal with.

They're not nerfing him, they are changing him. He is likely getting a full compliment of adjustments, containing buffs, and the radial blind nerf.

This was an accidental part that was a nerf that got released before intended. But they are not purely nerfing him. It was unpolished, that is why it was bad. LoS was bugged all to hell. 

 

 

I would agree with you on the nerf if they didn't completely nerf one of Exaliburs only useful abilities. Now he's a really mediocre warframe that people won't want to play as, I'm surely going to skip him now that all of his abilities are as most people said in this forum rather weak... Just because they have the qualifications and the job position doesn't mean they are necessarily smarter than us or will make the right choice. *cough* CEO of Microsoft *cough* *cough* Obama President of the USA *cough* usually the standards for an online game that requires active support is that they are led by what the majority think. That is why Call of Duty for example still sells millions, because they kept a formula that worked for a lot of the players and only changed a few things around that they agreed with. I'm not saying developers can't be experimental, I'm saying that its a bad idea.

*cough* I'm from Toronto *cough* Rob Ford *cough cough*. Except wait, despite being called a laughing stalk for his personal problems and demeanour, what the majority believes and yes, does know about him. He hasn't done a bad job, in fact, he has outperformed, in terms of running the city, better than our last mayor or even the one before him, sad but true really. And has actually prevented us from being another few hundred grand in debt over the next year that we would have gained had we stuck with our old mayor. The majority rarely looks at the whole scope of a problem. They only see what Rob Ford has accomplished as a person, and while yes, it is worthy of derision and even contempt, as a mayor he has been fairly adequate. 

And again, you're taking the stand point that is and was the final review of Radial Blind, and disregarding all the potential of other changes. What if he doesn't need Radial Blind to hit everything around him regardless of line of sight? You can't tell that, but you are talking as if he is now going to become useless. And that is why the majority is wrong, as that is their line of thinking.  They are only looking at one aspect, and not considering the whole. 

It was unpolished and still being tested. It was not ready for full release. LoS was bugged. You are judging off an incomplete change, that is only part of the whole of his change. You can not make the claim it is being nerfed to uselessness and ruining Excalibur. 

 

[Slamyourjam]

Of course they need the community's feedback, but not to the point where they have to run everything by us.  They understand quite a few more things about game development than the majority of players, considering they are the professional game developers...

 

Our feedback is to give them a large sample of opinions, each (ideally) explaining why we like or do not like something, and to give ideas on how it could be changed.  Many heads are better than one.  But there is a point at which they do not require more ideas, and they know what needs to be done.  For example, bugs are not things which require any sort of deliberation with the player, and can be fixed without their approval.  What if Radial Blind's ability to hit people behind walls was a bug all along?  Would that mean it's okay to fix it?  The only difference in such a scenario is whether the player had felt justified in doing something some way because the developers either did or did not say that it could be used that way.

 

As for why they decided on him first, I have no idea.  But something needed to change if they are indeed going to rebalance all the Warframes, and they can't push it all out at once because it would make everyone angry simultaneously since they cannot see the long-term effect, and are only concerned with the immediate "but how will I win now?!"  Why it needed to be Excalibur (and Trinity, actually) first?  Who knows?  But if in the end they're all balanced, this won't matter anyway.

 

 

On your absolute last statement I will disagree entirely.  Does the reader know exactly what he wants the writer to write before he does it?  If he does, why is he not a writer?  It's not just about whether you are able to produce the work; it's about not knowing what you want.  We can see a general framework (if you'll excuse the pun) but not the whole thing.

 

If the consumer was always right in terms of games, many would say "I want to win!" which is understood to mean that they have accomplished something, but most do not place value onto the victory because of the hardships required, and instead think that the words "you win" immediately have some trait that makes them satisfying to the person they are speaking to.

 

By the same method of thinking, if DE was to say "everyone gets everything in the game right away!" tomorrow, or something of similar scale and controversy, then yes they would probably be making a large boo boo for themselves, even if it was fun to have everything right away because they fixed some of the problems regarding that.  No one would think it could be fun, so they wouldn't give it a chance.  If DE said "we're locking all primes behind a paywall" that would create an even larger boo boo, because it deals with money and accessibility.

 

So it is not impossible that while the majority of DE can make mistakes which they implement into the game, the majority of players can make mistakes which they request to be added into the game.  Neither one is completely immune, so we have these forums to attempt to reach a balance through discussion and deliberation.

 

But we do not have them for the sake of forcing DE to create the game we want instead of the game they want.

 

P.S. This is exactly about what you or I think because the enjoyment of games is subjective and we must use our own subjective reasoning alongside objective reasoning to try to find a solution which benefits us both without taking something from each other.  If we cannot find such a solution, we must find what the majority (or DE, if they have an opinion on it) wants, and why they want it, and whether that will contribute to making the game more engaging, since we do not have the opportunity to split the game in half--one with old Radial Blind and one with new Radial Blind

 

The reader does know what he wants which is why he bought the product, unless he/she is one of the small number of people that blindly fund products they will try to get some information before making a decision. A reader and a writer is a completely different thing but that doesn't mean that the reader is clueless just because he/she doesn't have the necessary expertise like the writer does. You could apply the same logic to games, do I know exactly what I want developers to do for their games and what I expect out of them? Why don't I design video games then? I don't have the knowledge of games design, that doesn't mean I can't give my criticism about the product and be right. You're forgetting that its two completly different positions, its one thing to design a game and its another to be someone playing the game and developers will spend more time 3D modeling, rigging and testing bugs than they will be coming up with ideas. I should know as I'm studying for games design and aspiring to be a developer too.

 

If the consumer were to say they want to win is because winning makes us feel better than losing does, its a natural human trigger. If we lose even if we enjoyed playing it we will feel sad and if we win we feel happy, it ties in to our emotions. Many games already try to add in some sort of accomplishment to a game such as achievements, extras, or in Warframes case rare loot. 

 

Who says the majority of people would like to have everything right away? In most peoples eyes cheating is condoned, not because its good but because having easy access to things that were difficult to obtain ruins the experience even in single player games so that's a terrible example. I don't think a large percentage would agree to that, ever.

 

There's more players than there are developers. More people= more constructive feedback as long as they collect the data correctly then they would be making the right choice by appealing to the majority. That's just the case with most online games and it seems to work. DE is lacking in terms of discussion with their own fanbase and that's what lies as a flaw with the company, they act first and ask questions later and I personally don't that works also judging from the comments on this thread many people would agree with me.

 

They still have their ideas but there needs to be a compromise. If your players are unhappy with the content that your game has, tough luck. Its the reality that games designers have to go against what they want to do in their life and their own ideas. I sympathize with them, its not easy.

 

I think that DE desperately needs to have a connection with their fanbase if they want to succeed. On a companies mind it should always be top priority attending to the masses and if you look at the major triple A companies, that's how most of them work.

[Slamyourjam]

They're not nerfing him, they are changing him. He is likely getting a full compliment of adjustments, containing buffs, and the radial blind nerf.

This was an accidental part that was a nerf that got released before intended. But they are not purely nerfing him. It was unpolished, that is why it was bad. LoS was bugged all to hell. 

 

 

*cough* I'm from Toronto *cough* Rob Ford *cough cough*. Except wait, despite being called a laughing stalk for his personal problems and demeanour, what the majority believes and yes, does know about him. He hasn't done a bad job, in fact, he has outperformed, in terms of running the city, better than our last mayor or even the one before him, sad but true really. And has actually prevented us from being another few hundred grand in debt over the next year that we would have gained had we stuck with our old mayor. The majority rarely looks at the whole scope of a problem. They only see what Rob Ford has accomplished as a person, and while yes, it is worthy of derision and even contempt, as a mayor he has been fairly adequate. 

And again, you're taking the stand point that is and was the final review of Radial Blind, and disregarding all the potential of other changes. What if he doesn't need Radial Blind to hit everything around him regardless of line of sight? You can't tell that, but you are talking as if he is now going to become useless. And that is why the majority is wrong, as that is their line of thinking.  They are only looking at one aspect, and not considering the whole. 

It was unpolished and still being tested. It was not ready for full release. LoS was bugged. You are judging off an incomplete change, that is only part of the whole of his change. You can not make the claim it is being nerfed to uselessness and ruining Excalibur. 

 

 

THAT IS A NERF, Radial Blind is nerfed you even said it in your own sentence. 

>"They're not nerfing him, they are changing him."

>"He is likely getting a full compliment of adjustments, containing buffs, and the radial blind nerf."

A change that is negative is a nerf. A change that is positive is a buff... 

I haven't seen the buffs planned but I'm sure you have the insider info on that, he's getting buffed in some aspects and nerfed in other as we've seen with Radial Blind.

As I said it's irrelevant if they released it accidentally or not the point is that they intended to nerf him.

 

*cough* I don't see that as relevant. *cough* please stay on topic, I never asked you where you reside. Who's talking about Rob Ford!? Why even mention him, I was showing that people who have gone through years of education and qualifications with powerful jobs don't make good choices either and those two people are very powerful. We are humans and as such even with experience we naturally approach others for guidance. 

 

Also there's a difference between future and present. For NOW Radial Blind has made Excalibur a mediocre warframe. They will probably buff his other abilities at some point but we are talking about his current state. I now have no intention of crafting him and my friend has sold his due to his anger and frustration of its only good ability being nerfed. I'm not saying he's useless, I'm sure there are people who would still run with him and find a purpose but tell me, why would I make him? What does he do NOW that compares to other warframes? Nothing good that's what. The only interesting skill he has now is super jump which I could find some use for with that tremor mode that causes damage, apart from that his skills are meh. I'm judging off to an incomplete change, who cares? Its present now and that's what matters. The majority of people have already witnessed the nerf and there's no going back.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Slamyourjam

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

I'm hopelessly deluded for having fun in a videogame? A videogame I spend lots of money on?

 

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

Last week I bought more plat simply as a tip to the developers. I'm really wishing I hadn't.

You spending money on it has ZERO relevancy as to whether or not it is OP.

[Slamyourjam]

You spending money on it has ZERO relevancy as to whether or not it is OP.

 

Lol coming from someone that has a Trinity avatar.

[Monolake]

They're not nerfing him, they are changing him. He is likely getting a full compliment of adjustments, containing buffs, and the radial blind nerf.

This was an accidental part that was a nerf that got released before intended. But they are not purely nerfing him. It was unpolished, that is why it was bad. LoS was bugged all to hell. 

 

 

Source? there hasn\t been any word on any other abilties changes (despite a year ongoing reports that they are underpowered and unreliable)

 

And again, you're taking the stand point that is and was the final review of Radial Blind, and disregarding all the potential of other changes. What if he doesn't need Radial Blind to hit everything around him regardless of line of sight?

 

They officially said it will be affected by LOS and awarness, which automatically makes the skill inferior to every other  CC that ignores any obstacles and enemy state. No one will use Excalibur after such a nerf.