Expensivemasteryfodderframe, Forumriotframe, Arbitrarydeveloperdecisionsframe, Nerf It All! Down To The Mk-1 Ground!

[Althran]

how exactly would this solve anything?  You can still pay to win, and it'd be much easier to get into high tier damage

[Cpl_Facehugger]

What is the incentive to slot and potatoe a gun if you can transfer the best part of it to another weapon?  If it's not strictly aesthetic, then it fits Warframe's business model, if the transfer can be made convenient.  If it is strictly aesthetic, then it fits Warframe's business model, if it can only be obtained for plat.  Reward items can be the exception.

 

I think we can all agree that there are weapons that easily fit into a Weapon Tier Potatoe system.  If the system has merit then you have to question the merit of weapons that do not fit the system.  I'm sure we can all think of weapons that do not belong in one game or another, but, could with adjustments.

 

Let's remember that DE has done a number of overhauls to Warframe that did not expand it's convenience model.  Certainly, one that does would be worth their time, yes?

 

What's the incentive to slot and potato a gun if you've already found one who's aesthetics you like and can upgrade that gun to top tier status via tier potatos? The same issue applies. Once you've found a small stable of guns you like the looks of, there's no reason to get any others when they're no better than the guns you have now.

 

The fundamental issue that applies to any sidegrade system applies here: If all guns are even or can be made so, why bother acquiring more?

 

And that's leaving aside the difficulty inherent in a revamp of this scope in terms of balancing it all. Purely cosmetic features, on the other hand don't need to be balanced at all since they don't affect the game.

 

Edited December 19, 2014 by Cpl_Facehugger

[Azawarau]

The Kohm is fine

 

People are using it wrong

 

Its a very specialized weapon

 

Itd be like using the ogris on only a few weapons and calling it ammo inefficie-

 

Oh wait they did that too

 

So thats why this is happening

[Racercowboy]

snipzorz

 

 

What's the incentive to slot and potato a gun if you've already found one who's aesthetics you like and can upgrade that gun to top tier status via tier potatos? The same issue applies. Once you've found a small stable of guns you like the looks of, there's no reason to get any others when they're no better than the guns you have now.

 

The fundamental issue that applies to any sidegrade system applies here: If all guns are even or can be made so, why bother acquiring more?

 

And that's leaving aside the difficulty inherent in a revamp of this scope in terms of balancing it all. Purely cosmetic features, on the other hand don't need to be balanced at all since they don't affect the game.

 

I see what you mean with, "once you find weapons you like, why use anything else" with a side grade system. But do consider this:

 

Lets take Braton, Grakata, and Soma for example like you did. Giving all 3 guns 15k DPS would make them imbalanced for sure, since Grakata has a very high status chance compared to the other two. But what if Braton and Grakata had something else that Soma didn't have to make up for the lack of damage? For instance, when they all are at the same rank Soma has the most DPS, but a longer reload and it's not accurate at medium to long ranges. Grakata is very proficient in statuses and has a really fast reload to make up for the lack of damage when compared to the Soma. Braton may lack in damage, but is very accurate and has very little kick versus the other two and has more damage per bullet making it a lot more ammo efficient.

 

As you can see, while Grakata and Braton may not have the DPS of the Soma, but they have other redeeming qualities to make them attractive choices as well aside from damage. It's just in the current scheme of things the damage output of non-favored vs favored weapons is so extreme that anything the non-favored weapons may bring is completely overshadowed by the damage difference. If the difference was much smaller we might see more weapons appear in games.

[Azawarau]

I see what you mean with, "once you find weapons you like, why use anything else" with a side grade system. But do consider this:

 

Lets take Braton, Grakata, and Soma for example like you did. Giving all 3 guns 15k DPS would make them imbalanced for sure, since Grakata has a very high status chance compared to the other two. But what if Braton and Grakata had something else that Soma didn't have to make up for the lack of damage? For instance, when they all are at the same rank Soma has the most DPS, but a longer reload and it's not accurate at medium to long ranges. Grakata is very proficient in statuses and has a really fast reload to make up for the lack of damage when compared to the Soma. Braton may lack in damage, but is very accurate and has very little kick versus the other two and has more damage per bullet making it a lot more ammo efficient.

 

As you can see, while Grakata and Braton may not have the DPS of the Soma, but they have other redeeming qualities to make them attractive choices as well aside from damage. It's just in the current scheme of things the damage output of non-favored vs favored weapons is so extreme that anything the non-favored weapons may bring is completely overshadowed by the damage difference. If the difference was much smaller we might see more weapons appear in games.

Well thats under the assumption status isnt calculated in...

[Cpl_Facehugger]

I see what you mean with, "once you find weapons you like, why use anything else" with a side grade system. But do consider this:

 

Lets take Braton, Grakata, and Soma for example like you did. Giving all 3 guns 15k DPS would make them imbalanced for sure, since Grakata has a very high status chance compared to the other two. But what if Braton and Grakata had something else that Soma didn't have to make up for the lack of damage? For instance, when they all are at the same rank Soma has the most DPS, but a longer reload and it's not accurate at medium to long ranges. Grakata is very proficient in statuses and has a really fast reload to make up for the lack of damage when compared to the Soma. Braton may lack in damage, but is very accurate and has very little kick versus the other two and has more damage per bullet making it a lot more ammo efficient.

 

As you can see, while Grakata and Braton may not have the DPS of the Soma, but they have other redeeming qualities to make them attractive choices as well aside from damage. It's just in the current scheme of things the damage output of non-favored vs favored weapons is so extreme that anything the non-favored weapons may bring is completely overshadowed by the damage difference. If the difference was much smaller we might see more weapons appear in games.

 

The trouble there is that balancing all that basically requires massively more work because of the sheer number of weapons that need to be compared against one another to verify their balanced state.

 

Like: Say we want all weapons to be equal to one another in general use. DPS doesn't have to be equal, but they should all have advantages vis a vis one another so none are a true upgrade. That's what you're arguing for, right?

 

Now let's say we've only got three weapons. Say, Braton, Burston, and Gorgon. This is easy to balance. You've just gotta compare Braton-Burston, Braton-Gorgon, and Burston-Gorgon. Just the three comparisons, to make sure everything's balanced.

 

But if we add just three more weapons, say, Braton, Burston, Gorgon, Strun, Soma, and Boltor, the number of comparisons that we have to make increases massively. We have to compare Braton-Burston, Braton-Gorgon, Braton-Strun, Braton-Soma, Braton-Boltor, Burston-Gorgon, Burston-Strun, Burston-Soma, Burston-Boltor, Gorgon-Strun, Gorgon-Soma, Gorgon-Boltor, Strun-Soma, Strun-Boltor, and Soma-Boltor.

 

Fifteen comparisons! And we have (and want, I wager) a lot more than just six guns.

 

I think we can all agree based on the presence of garbage mods (which DE already said they are aware of the problems of) that DE simply doesn't have the time or will to undertake the frankly impossible task of balancing literally every weapon in a sidegrade setup.

 

This is why the tier system is so attractive. It lets DE cut the weapon balancing into managable chunks. Suddenly the two hundred or so guns we have don't have to be balanced against one another, they just have to be balanced against other weapons in their tier. Soma Prime only has to be compared to Burston Prime and Braton Prime and Boltor Prime. In a tier system it doesn't matter if the MR0 Braton is outpaced by the MR6 Soma since they're on separate tiers. 

 

There's also another issue with the sidegrade system. Player meta is driven by perception more than reality. Boltor Prime is king not because of its DPS - Burston Prime has similar DPS yet it's nowhere near as popular - but rather because the community looked at the raw DPS and said "this gun is king, it does the most damage," even though Vanilla Soma has reasons to use it over Boltor Prime (hitscan, headshot crit mult, ease of aquisition, etc). A sidegrade system is still going to end up having a player driven meta because that's what players do.

 

However, with the OP's suggestion, you lose the benefit of the tier system at all re workload and ease of balancing, because you're right back to balancing hundreds of guns against one another.

[Racercowboy]

more snipzorz

 

Balancing weapons in the same tier can be made less of ball of spaghetti by grouping weapons together. For example:

 

We have Lanka, Vectis, Braton, Soma, Burston, Grakata, Vulkar, Gorgon, Sicarus, Lex, and Furis. They all need to be made viable in the same tier, and it would seem like a lot of work. However, you can make groups of characteristics:

 

Single shot: Has higher damage per shot, but much lower rate of fire. Overall lower DPS but very high accuracy.

 

Full auto: Higher DPS, but lower damage per shot. Bad accuracy but king of sustained fights

 

Burst: Balance of accuracy and DPS. More DPS than single shot but lower accuracy, and vice versa for full auto.

 

From this small list, we can, for example, take the Vectis, Lanka, Vulkar, and Lex for the single shot category. They'll have higher damage per shot than the other mentioned rifles. Now that e have that out of the way, Lets balance them to each other. They are single shots, but Vectis, Lanka, and Vulkar are all sniper rifles, while Lex is a pistol. From this we can make a sniper rifle group and a pistol group.

 

Sniper rifles: Devistating headshot damage, very slow rate of fire. Has scopes to zoom in for pinpoint shots.

 

Single shot pistols: High damage, with a lot of recoil and a small magazine size.

 

From this, while similar in function, we have differentiated Lex from the Sniper rifles. Shall we take this even further with the Sniper rifles?

 

Corpus Laser rifles: Has overheating mechanic. Guns do not consume ammo, but generate heat when fired. heat slowly dissipates when gun stops firing after a few seconds. If gun overheats, it's safety mechanism stops it from firing for a hefty amount of time until the gun is cool again.

 

Grineer Ballistic Weaponry: Grineer's heavy bullets have a chance to cause target to stagger from the impact. Their guns hold a lot of ammo, but heavy rounds take a bit longer to reload.

 

Tenno Percision Rounds: Tenno's streamlined bullets are designed cause massive damage to enemy vital locations. In order to keep weapons lighter and since tenno have good aim, they hold less rounds.

 

As you can see, while Lanka, Vecis and Vulkar may all be sniper rifles, they don't have to be the same and not only in stats. The Lanka can remain the strongest single shot, but charging it too much will make it overheat and then you can't shoot it for awhile. Vulkar may have the lowest damage, but it can also serve to pin down enemies with it's heavy shots. Vectis remains as a balanced, strong sniper for general purpose, but being worse than the Lanka with damage and no CC like the Vulkar.

 

The same thing can be done with all the other guns. By making groups and categories a lot of the stuff can be simplified while leaving room for creativity and diversifying. 

[Cpl_Facehugger]

Sure. But that doesn't leave you with a sidegrade system, that's just a roundabout tier system.

Just to be clear, I'm totally 100% behind a tier system where every gun in a given tier is roughly competitive with all the other guns in its tier.

[ThePresident777]

What tier is Grakata in?  What does it compare to?  How does one compare it to other guns?  How does one know that a group of guns are competitive?

Edited December 19, 2014 by ThePresident777

[Racercowboy]

What tier is Grakata in?  What does it compare to?  How does one compare it to other guns?  How does one know that a group of guns are competitive?

I thought fixing this to increase choices was the main of this discussion. Of course we know that the current tier system, if you even want to call it that, is a complete mess.

 

 

Sure. But that doesn't leave you with a sidegrade system, that's just a roundabout tier system.

Just to be clear, I'm totally 100% behind a tier system where every gun in a given tier is roughly competitive with all the other guns in its tier.

Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer a proper tier system over what we have now, but my problem with it is similar to your problem with a sidegrade system: Yes, we'll get more weapons, but how much are we actually going to invest in them? If we know that there is a better weapon to work towards and no incentive to use lower tier weapons, why keep them? You're just going to replace them with a better version down the road anyway. Do keep in mind, people are far more likely to invest in something that is worthwhile than something that is not. All these Somas and Boltor Primes running about are proof of this.

[ThePresident777]

What's the incentive to buy another pair of pants if you've already found one who's aesthetics you like?  People have disposable income and seek to dispose of it in exchange for satisfaction, beyond their needs.  Currently, in Warframe, you can dispose of it horizontally by getting more weapon slots.  But, since there is no vertical option other than to replace inferior weapons with superior weapons, the horizontal option is being minimized rather than maximized.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer a proper tier system over what we have now, but my problem with it is similar to your problem with a sidegrade system: Yes, we'll get more weapons, but how much are we actually going to invest in them? If we know that there is a better weapon to work towards and no incentive to use lower tier weapons, why keep them? You're just going to replace them with a better version down the road anyway. Do keep in mind, people are far more likely to invest in something that is worthwhile than something that is not. All these Somas and Boltor Primes running about are proof of this.

 

I'd argue that there shouldn't be too much incentive to keep some guns, simply because slots need plat and free players already complain about how limited they are. Guns designed to be obsolete fit into this paradigm well via giving newbies something to cut their teeth on which can then be sold when something better comes along.

 

Granted, this system does kind of require a less haphazardly applied tier system than what we've got now.

 

Again, though, there will always be stat disparity and a player driven meta that says "this gun is best." There's not much that can be done about that.

 

What's the incentive to buy another pair of pants if you've already found one who's aesthetics you like?  People have disposable income and seek to dispose of it in exchange for satisfaction, beyond their needs.  Currently, in Warframe, you can dispose of it horizontally by getting more weapon slots.  But, since there is no vertical option other than to replace inferior weapons with superior weapons, the horizontal option is being minimized rather than maximized.

 

That logic applies regardless of stats though. If people have disposable income to burn they're going to burn it on anything they like the look of regardless of its stats. I mean, you can only use one weapon in a given class on a mission, so once you've got a gun who you like the handling of there is no real incentive to get other guns.

 

Also, if you've got disposable income, there's no real need to get rid of "obsolete" guns; I've still got most of my old guns, even though Soma's generally replaced them as my go to gun. Sometimes I take them out for a spin just for lulz. And then there's guns with special quirks; Synoid Gammacor's basically obsoleted all other beam weapons, but I still keep my nukor and glaxion because they have interesting effects.

[Racercowboy]

I'd argue that there shouldn't be too much incentive to keep some guns, simply because slots need plat and free players already complain about how limited they are. Guns designed to be obsolete fit into this paradigm well via giving newbies something to cut their teeth on which can then be sold when something better comes along.

 

Granted, this system does kind of require a less haphazardly applied tier system than what we've got now.

 

Again, though, there will always be stat disparity and a player driven meta that says "this gun is best." There's not much that can be done about that.

 

 

That logic applies regardless of stats though. If people have disposable income to burn they're going to burn it on anything they like the look of regardless of its stats. I mean, you can only use one weapon in a given class on a mission, so once you've got a gun who you like the handling of there is no real incentive to get other guns.

 

Also, if you've got disposable income, there's no real need to get rid of "obsolete" guns; I've still got most of my old guns, even though Soma's generally replaced them as my go to gun. Sometimes I take them out for a spin just for lulz. And then there's guns with special quirks; Synoid Gammacor's basically obsoleted all other beam weapons, but I still keep my nukor and glaxion because they have interesting effects.

Of course there is nothing wrong with starter gear. It introduces different weapons for newbies to play around with.

 

Yes, people will always go for what's best, but it would also be nice if what's best didn't blow away everything else by light-years. It would be nice if people actually had to try to make a "best" combination, only to have it beaten by someone else's new "best" combination. It makes things much more interesting for everyone.

 

The logic of people getting weapons just to have them though can be applied to either a tiering or sidegrade system, as their decision is based purely on personal taste rather than statistics. Even I have an Ignis that's fun to play around with cause flamethrowers. Once one starts going based on statistics things begin to fall apart. Going for only the best, people will bypass everything else that does not compete, which is what's happening now with the vast majority of people.

 

I think another thing that might help would introducing more mechanics to compete with damage when it comes to choosing a weapon. Currently, the only real things we have are damage and status chance. No, criticals do not count as one; all they do is multiply your damage, so in the end it is just damage. If we had more to compete with damage it would open up more possibilities. 

[NocturneOfSolace]

I think threads like this are the reason I enjoy the forums so much, it's so fascinating to read everything being said, some really intriguing ideas being stated here(Especially since people are largely keeping it civil)

I'm not sure where I stand on the matter, I see things for and against the Prez's suggestions

Edited December 24, 2014 by NocturneOfSolace

[Goodking]

He doesn't propose to change your Boltor P into Mk-1 Braton, he proposes to make Mk-1 Braton buffable to the point of Boltor P via bigger customisation by mods, which could tweak the situation with 99% of Warframe's arsenal being useless placeholders.

This.. ^

We all want this(or at least almost) on some level. It'd be cool, but I think that will have to wait. I highly doubt we'll be able to pull this off well anytime soon.

[ThePresident777]

I'd like to add that I consider Weapon Tier Potatoes a superior solution to using weapons as crafting components of other weapons because the crafting component weapons will still be Mastery Fodder.   Mastery Fodder is really bad because it is throw away content by any objective measure.  A game with throw away content is a throw away game.  Who spends money on that?  Who does not spend money on that?  On the other hand a Weapon Tier Potatoe system would be have wider appeal.  And being a means of investment, a longer term player base, ready to try the next game after being impressed with the first.

Edited January 9, 2015 by ThePresident777

[ThePresident777]

I would add that Weapon Tier Potatoes should involve releveling the weapons that recieve them, just like catalysts and forma do.  However, they should add to mastery upon each level.  This increases the feeling of choice, investment, and satisfaction for the player.  I would go so far as to suggest that forma and catalyst do the same.

[-SLX-J3tAc3]

Sounds great!

[BrazilianJoe]

Weapon tier potatoes are an interesting concept, but to be well executed there is no working around the fact that balance must be worked on. 

 

Otherwise we are just pushing the power limit further i.e. power-creeping, without solving the issue. 

 

I don't know if the OP's concept is that a normal weapon becomes a Prime weapon when it is fully power tier potatoed, or if they are considered two different weapons. 

 

If I try to tackle the problem, instead of making gradual changes to stats for weapon tiers, I'd make it like a Forma thing, where the player can add successive upgrades. Each upgrade would affect a single stat by a fixed amount, and each stat would be upgradable twice at most.

 

The kicker (for balance) is that each weapon would have a limited number of upgrades. Weapons which are more powerful by default get less of these than the weaker ones, to equalize. 

 

This way I won't have to drool too much on all weapon stats individually. Having a "Weapon Tier Forma" instead of a Potato giving always the same bonus regardless of weapon simplifies the thinking IMO, at least a little bit. You just have to think "how many upgrades do I allow this weapon to have" instead of obsessing on each and every stat.

 

Possible upgrades:

 

damage: +10%

stat chance: +10%

crit chance: +10%

crit damage: +10%

fire rate/attack speed: +10%

reload speed: +15%

clip size: +15%

ammo pool: +15%

projectile speed: +15%

punch through: +0.5

 

May seem small, but considering that they compound with the mods, can get significant. 

 

The MK-I Braton could get e.g 10 upgrade slots, while the Braton would get 6 upgrades. Vandal and prime would get 2 to 0 upgrades.

[ThePresident777]

The concept is very simple and effective:

 

1)  Every weapon has a purpose.

2)  Every purpose has a metric.

3)  Every metric has a maximum.

4)  Every weapon advances along the metric of it's purpose to it's maximum.

 

Since the metrics are objective, all the differences between weapons of a particular purpose are subjective.

 

People will want to make a big deal about complications but that is moot because:

1)  Mathmaticians

2)  Players will gravitate to whatever they feel they like and can understand, such as DPS.

3)  there are easy choices so no need to complicate.  (But, if you do want to complicate, hire a mathematician.)

 

The benefit is huge because a ton of weapons stop being obsolete, mastery fodder.  So, when people feel they have nothing to do, they will look to new weapons to invest in, knowing that it's not just a waste, not just mastery fodder.  They can be confident that their money is not going to be wasted by nerfs or power expansion.  They can build up their arsenal horizontally or vertically as they see fit.

 

Weapons easily measured by DPS such as assault rifles are an easy example.  You pick which ever dakka dakka you prefer.  Dump your time and potatoes into it knowing that it's not going to get nerfed or surpassed.  If you're bored, pick another weapon, maybe a bow, for stealth, maybe .. whatever you want.  It's not going to become obsolete because everything can be the best at what it's supposed to do.  It gives people the confidence that it's safe to build up their arsenals, to invest in the game.

 

Yes, it's simple.  Yes, complications are a choice.  And Yes, a mathematician can help with that.  But, it's no excuse to turn down this massive problem solver.

Edited January 29, 2015 by ThePresident777

[-SLX-J3tAc3]

 

 

 

(quote)

Darn good stuff!

[WolfieV]

Yeah... You do realize to even test this method R+D is going to have to set aside months and months of development time, right? This change would cost them a huge amount of money, and if the majority of the player base aren't interested in this that money and time is just gone. This system would add several layers to the games coding, it would be cross sectional development so people working in every sector would have to understand the tier system before implementation and what each tier means. Each weapon before being released would have to be rigorously tested. Your talking about a change that would require an entire new dev team. You can't count on a computer to simply tier up a weapon as what makes a tier 5 weapon may be abstract, something that can't be computed.
Also, DE using tiers isn't quite the same as allowing the players to see the tiers, If DE puts a weapon in the wrong tier in there own system it doesn't really make a difference, they just adjust it. This allows DE just to put new weapons in the store and not worry about it. If they said something was a tier 8 weapon when they released it and then it turns out to be on par with a tier 2 weapon your going to get a lot of people asking for refunds this will force a buff and then people still might not be satisfied. Without people knowing the tiers they can just stick it on the market place as is, If you then add upgradable tiers to the mix and miss tier a weapon people might be running around with a broken weapon. You just create more problems.  Keeping it close to there belt allows them to make mistakes without massive damages.
Also do you know for sure that the tier system is already hard coded into the game, or is it just abstract systems devs use to say that they have a new warframe coming out so they want a new high tier weapon to help promote it. As if it's not already hard coded into the game your talking about adding a massive new system that is based on the abstract.

[ThePresident777]

None of that sounds even remotely like an insurmountable problem.  It sounds like an insulting lack of confidence in DE to say that they can't handle a weapon tier system.

Edited March 4, 2015 by ThePresident777

[(PSN)Zeylon]

Well, I'd like to be able upgrade a Mk-1 Braton, Lato, or Skana to be relevant in late-game.  I don't think all starter weapons necessarily have direct analogs either, it was more-so the newer Mk-1s that have next to no differences with their "regular" versions.  The Mk-1 Braton is qualitatively different from the Braton in several ways, and I wouldn't say the Lato has a direct upgrade either.

 

I've always thought the balance and relative gradient of difference between the weapons needed to be smoothed somewhat.  That sort of thing has to be done in context of the difficulty of enemies and planets too of course.  However, it just struck me that considering how much power mods, reactors, and forma have - the relative power gap between something like the Boltor and its Prime version was way too large (over 200% better damage, faster, more accurate, etc.).

 

I think I prefer "sidegrade" sorts of systems, but I can understand that some power differential seems to be justified if only by the enormous grind that many weapons inflict upon players.  I'd be willing to settle for a decreasing the rate of incline for improvement so that more weapons were relevant if slightly less optimal.

 

I suppose using "tier potatoes" is one way to try to address the issues of guns/etc. that became irrelevant in light of power creep over time, and I would surely like to upgrade some of my weapons in that fashion.  I do share the concerns about upgrades that would only impact damage or some such though (ignoring status, crit, etc.).  As mentioned with the Boltor example, the number of improvements is a lot more than just the damage.  The failing of many of the starting weapons is more than just the damage as well; Lato/Aklato/Skana and others aren't just low-stat in damage, they often have some of the lowest possible crit/stat rates as well.  

 

Another possible issue here is the focus system.  It's supposed to give you a means to use all that experience accrued on a weapon/frame post level-30.  I've often thought that maybe it could be used to earn small incremental improvements to various weapons (reload, etc.) and possible extra slots.  There's no telling what DE has finally rested on with their focus plans though, but I think some vets have probably imagined they could use the Focus system to improve otherwise obsolete weapons (I know I have).  

 

Any possible weapon rebalance or improvement system like what has been proposed here will potentially have to contend with the changes (or utter lackluster disappointment as some imagine) introduced by the Focus system when it arrives.

[(XBOX)LordPuck]

Interesting

Edited May 18, 2015 by (XB1)LordPuck