Excal Is Perfectly Fine

[GuyOnCrack]

No, it's important to do. That's what I'm saying. "Need" radial blind. It's nice, but you can kill things without it too. I mean, I do. Dunno about you.

 

 

 

I know it's sarcasm, but I agree with it.

Yeah you can kill things without any damage mods too. You "can". Doesn't mean that it's effective or that it makes sense.

[(PSN)TrueAlastar]

He's more powerful because this is the state most offense-orientated frames should be in. You all are just now realizing the superiority of melee weapons now that he has a super buff version, when I've been "OP" to gun-users for years now, especially with the onset of melee 2.0.

[S7ORM]

Yeah you can kill things without any damage mods too. You "can". Doesn't mean that it's effective or that it makes sense.

Doesn't mean players will do it, you mean. It's still very effective to attack with EB using the combo counter for bonus damage instead of Radial Blind.. Just because you like to use RB, doesn't mean every other play style is wrong.

[GuyOnCrack]

Doesn't mean players will do it, you mean. It's still very effective to attack with EB using the combo counter for bonus damage instead of Radial Blind.. Just because you like to use RB, doesn't mean every other play style is wrong.

So to build the melee counter, you need to????? Get up close? Yeah, so the waves and the blades hit. That is an other option. WHICH IS THE POINT THAT THE WAVES CAN'T CARRY YOU TO LEVEL 80 AND UP! Both options are an argument against the nerf of the waves because the waves are not strong enough alone to do significant damage late game. People say nerf the waves because they murder enemies but you need to get up close or use Radial Blind to do damage late game. Or did you forget that the point of the argument?

[kindablueish]

Your invincibility is in 180 degress ahead of you -- why would you be standing somewhere that makes you vulnerable?

When you attack with exalted blade, bullets are still blocked in 180 degrees ahead of you.

When you're in a hallway, enemies come from one of two directions -- ahead or behind you. Level design means sometimes those hallways will have dead ends on one side (which is exactly where camping happens in every other case (except mesa): Vauban + GMag, +Nekros, w/ Trinity, etc.

Or, as I said, there can be a second EB excal facing the other direction. RB is good, yes, but it's not mandatory for massive damage. Personally, I prefer a single cast of Slash Dash with the augment for the 1.5x damage boost on top, which lets me kill things at 40 minutes T3 no problem, in the same EB cast I was in back at 5 minutes into the game.

And once again, we're not balancing the game around level 80 enemies.

Indeed, but there are some valid discussions going on in this thread.

EDIT: Ooooooh, New posts auto-merge with old posts if you post a new post and your post was the previous post. Cool!

You seem to completely ignore the fact that most of the things that actually pose a threat to most players are things that Excalibur cannot block, like bombard, naplams, and mutalist moas; also you said in an earlier post that Excal will auto block even while slashing, that is completely false, I just tried out Excalibur in a mission, while I was spamming the slashes, Excalibur never blocked, he only auto parry after I stopped attacking, to clarify: excal will not block if you are clicking the attack button, he will only block if you are not attacking, so pleas stop giving false information just to prove your cause. 

[S7ORM]

You seem to completely ignore the fact that most of the things that actually pose a threat to most players are things that Excalibur cannot block, like bombard, naplams, and mutalist moas; also you said in an earlier post that Excal will auto block even while slashing, that is completely false, I just tried out Excalibur in a mission, while I was spamming the slashes, Excalibur never blocked, he only auto parry after I stopped attacking, to clarify: excal will not block if you are clicking the attack button, he will only block if you are not attacking, so pleas stop giving false information just to prove your cause. 

Fair enough, about the Napalms and Moas, but I was considering the Void (t4 endless). I haven't actually played Excal on a starchart mission, only void missions.

But I don't see how having massive damage is going to protect him from either of those things? That's what slash dash (to close the gap) and radial blind (finisher damage too stronk) are for, no?

As for the second part, he will not do the blocking animation, but the bullets will do no damage to you (though they can still proc)

Edited July 14, 2015 by S7ORM

[ComCray]

I don't understand why so many people hate the new Excal, he is absolutely perfectly fine in his current state. 

Slash dash is fine, it does decent damage, no utility outside of its movement, so its not broken, no need to change it or tweak it. 

Radial blind has always worked the same way, perfectly fine, no need to change it in any way either. 

Radial Javelin has been changed/nerfed/tweaked already, now it's decent in terms of damage but not extremely useful against higher level enemies, so no need to change it or tweak it. 

Slash-dash is NOT fine. The idea behind the current version is that it also replaces super jump. Super jump was usefull when you were surrounded. The current slash dash is a REALLY bad idea to use when surrounded.

Radial blind has NOT always worked in the same way. The old radial blind allowed me to melee every enemy within range to death. The current incarnation only allows me to kill two or three before the blind effect runs out, due to the finisher animations

Radial javelin.. is whatever it is, useful when helping downed allies but not a room cleaner, does nothing radial blind can't do better. 

As for EB. due to what I described above you are currently forced to go EB when you're excalibur on higher tier levels. I'd very much like not to go all EB all of the time, but the other skills just get me killed when we're swarmed. 

[Rakosta_Kai]

 

I know it's sarcasm, but I agree with it.

 

This, of course, begs the question of why you play the game when you don't agree with its' current direction... I'm not asking, but it's an interesting question.

 

When you advocate a nerf to a power but think all/most powers are over tuned you are basically just asking for one power to be UP compared to the rest of them.

...Unless you plan to advocate the gradual Under-Powering of every system in the game.

 

Balance is objective... Not what you think it's supposed to be based on feels or ideals... That's subjective.

 

You say that EB is "waaay overpowered" but I would ask what you have compared it to and how you are arriving at that conclusion... It's a damage ability with range and designed to offer dynamic gameplay elements based on the melee weapon equipped.

 

Overpowered asserts it trivializes content... EB trivializes content at low/mid level but so does everything else.

Competitive content doesn't feel trivial.

So what constitutes the OP assessment ?

 

Are you saying OP because it does it's job better than other skills?

 

If so, Does it do it's job better than:

RD? No...

Bladestorm? arguable, but not really.

MP? No...

Overload? Yes... Wouldn't that be cause for tweaking Overload though?

Hysteria? Yes and No... Hysteria needs some QoL tweaking.

Miasma? ....No.

Absorb? Questionable. ... I'm inclined to say "Yes" ...but I've seen some stunts in recent that would raise questions.

Cataclysm? No

 

The difference is that EB offers the latitude of being in an enhanced state as opposed to merely a one button press and wash/rinse/repeat.

That makes it more fun, not more powerful.

 

There are certainly alot of frames and players that would benefit from an enhanced state gameplay option and I'd imagine that if EB were well received they would probably get the option.

 

EB came about because Hysteria was well received, imo.

 

Given EB's mixed reception, it wouldn't surprise me if DE backed off of that development direction for a while though now.

[vaugahn]

This, of course, begs the question of why you play the game when you don't agree with its' current direction... I'm not asking, but it's an interesting question.

 

Isn't a common refrain around these forums "I'm playing for what the game could be, not what it is"? This game is still in development after all, and these forums exist for players to give their feedback on said development. 

[S7ORM]

This, of course, begs the question of why you play the game when you don't agree with its' current direction... I'm not asking, but it's an interesting question.

 

When you advocate a nerf to a power but think all/most powers are over tuned you are basically just asking for one power to be UP compared to the rest of them.

...Unless you plan to advocate the gradual Under-Powering of every system in the game.

 

Balance is objective... Not what you think it's supposed to be based on feels or ideals... That's subjective.

 

You say that EB is "waaay overpowered" but I would ask what you have compared it to and how you are arriving at that conclusion... It's a damage ability with range and designed to offer dynamic gameplay elements based on the melee weapon equipped.

 

Overpowered asserts it trivializes content... EB trivializes content at low/mid level but so does everything else.

Competitive content doesn't feel trivial.

So what constitutes the OP assessment ?

Not "gradual underpowering" of ever system. Alignment of every system within itself first of all, then alignment of those systems to a common "balance point." I'm not deciding on the balance point and any numbers I give aren't to be taken as finality. It's the ideas around the numbers.

The problem arises when (well first of all, everyone complains one thing is more powerful than another or DE doesn't actually do anything) we aren't content to see things change.

I'm not declaring that I have the answers, just that I have suggestions. And yes, it's subjective, but that doesn't mean that it's not a valid opinion -- especially when it's not an uncommon opinion.

EB offers decent defense (blocks projectiles from the front), and the highest damage-output-per-energy consistently -- more consistently than any other power. Consistently, and for an absolutely minimal energy consumption.

 

What do you consider low level content? Where would you like to see the game balanced for? Personally (yes, it's subjective) I don't think the end of the starchart should still be considered low level. At minimum, it would be upper-medium difficulty. T4 should REALLY be a challenge. Neglecting Raids (where you don't kill things anyways), T4 is what we have as the highest level content. It shouldn't require 60m to become challenging. It should BE challenging, and increase from there.

 

 

Are you saying OP because it does it's job better than other skills?

 

If so, Does it do it's job better than:

RD? No...

Bladestorm? arguable, but not really.

MP? No...

Overload? Yes... Wouldn't that be cause for tweaking Overload though?

Hysteria? Yes and No... Hysteria needs some QoL tweaking.

Miasma? ....No.

Absorb? Questionable. ... I'm inclined to say "Yes" ...but I've seen some stunts in recent that would raise questions.

Cataclysm? No

 

The difference is that EB offers the latitude of being in an enhanced state as opposed to merely a one button press and wash/rinse/repeat.

That makes it more fun, not more powerful.

 

There are certainly alot of frames and players that would benefit from an enhanced state gameplay option and I'd imagine that if EB were well received they would probably get the option.

 

EB came about because Hysteria was well received, imo.

 

Given EB's mixed reception, it wouldn't surprise me if DE backed off of that development direction for a while though now.

I wouldn't compare it to any of those skills (except maybe Hysteria, which I agree needs more tweaks -- but I'm not a Valkyr player so I won't make suggestions there), since they have different functions. However, I do want Miasma and Bladestorm to change. MPrime and Cataclysm don't wipe enemies out by themselves -- they require more work. Radial Disarm too, but I'd still like to see some slight changes there, since it's fantastically overpowered (a topic for another thread, I think).

Absorb, dunno. I used to play Nyx, but I haven't in quite a while. Doesn't it drain energy as you take damage? What's the comparative damage-to-energy drain of Absorb to EB?

Overload could use tweaks, yes, but I'd rather see it tweaked to focus more on stunning enemies than on pure damage.

As I said, EB is hella fun to play because you get to run around and spam E to make glowy glowy death. It's definitely a step in the right direction for power development, because it's interactive (unlike Peacemaker, Bladestorm and Miasma), but adding interaction doesn't justify such immense power (though, I do like to play the Highlander Theme Song while I use it).

Perhaps it's the not the fault of the skill, but of the ability to mod for so much damage (from the melee weapon)?

Edited July 14, 2015 by S7ORM

[Rakosta_Kai]

Isn't a common refrain around these forums "I'm playing for what the game could be, not what it is"? This game is still in development after all, and these forums exist for players to give their feedback on said development. 

 

Not really... No.

 

The common refrains are:

"I want more power"

"I want player X's power to be less powerful"

 

Self centered

Entitled

Puerile

Deluded

 

Although the refrain you mention is ultimately even worse...

 

Assuming the game should be changed to fit "your (non-specific) vision" manages the trick of being arrogant, entitled, and deluded quite neatly.

The moment a player says "[insert name here] shouldn't be this way because I think it should be another way" asserts you know more than the developers themselves.

You (non-specific) don't...

You (non-specific) assume too much to make such assertions reliably.

 

It leads to a scenario where that non-specific player is then spouting direction out of their non-specific poophole.

 

This wouldn't disturb me so much if DE didn't have a habit of acting on it... Not so much because you (non-specific) are right, but because you(non-specific) are loud.

 

So I like when DE_Steve calls those threads "Doom threads" because it tells me they are putting threads like this into perspective.

When players see that DE has done so, these threads won't happen so much.

 

Personally, I am anxiously awaiting the day he can say, "Don't like it, don't play it". While he throws Deuces at ya (non-specific) and keeps getting on with the rest of his day.

 

Like it or lump it... I can respect it.

 

I truly feel that day gets a little closer with every Devstream.

[vaugahn]

Assuming the game should be changed to fit "your (non-specific) vision" manages the trick of being arrogant, entitled, and deluded quite neatly.

 

That's just the thing, though. Every feedback thread on this forum could be conceivably represented by those statements. Any feedback anyone gives about any aspect of the game that they think might need changing could be described as "assuming the game should be changed to fit their (non-specific) vision". The entire reason this forum exists is for players to tell developers how they feel about the game.

 

Following that logic, all the threads made by all the players on both sides of this debate are deluded, arrogant, and entitled, and this forum serves no purpose. Your posts, my posts, everyone's posts. 

 

And if we're going by the whole "devs know best" thing, well, they're the ones who asked for our feedback in the first place!

 

Right at the top of the Open Beta Agreement, the first thing all of us saw when we started playing, it says this:

 

You are in a privileged role to offer constructive feedback and input into improving Warframe.

 

If you'd like to get technical, it does later say we're not in control. But that's what it opens with. We're here to give our input on the game, in whatever way we think might improve it. Beyond the obvious problems with writing off all feedback as deluded, arrogant and entitled, if the devs really do know best then that statement is doubly wrong, because that's what they want from us.

 

When you've got a problem with someone's input, you have to address it at face value. It's highly possible (certain, even) that that input is deeply flawed. But you can't ever write it off, because at the end of the day it's all just input. 

[GuyOnCrack]

That's just the thing, though. Every feedback thread on this forum could be conceivably represented by those statements. Any feedback anyone gives about any aspect of the game that they think might need changing could be described as "assuming the game should be changed to fit their (non-specific) vision". The entire reason this forum exists is for players to tell developers how they feel about the game.

 

Following that logic, all the threads made by all the players on both sides of this debate are deluded, arrogant, and entitled, and this forum serves no purpose. Your posts, my posts, everyone's posts. 

 

And if we're going by the whole "devs know best" thing, well, they're the ones who asked for our feedback in the first place!

 

Right at the top of the Open Beta Agreement, the first thing all of us saw when we started playing, it says this:

 

 

 

 

If you'd like to get technical, it does later say we're not in control. But that's what it opens with. We're here to give our input on the game, in whatever way we think might improve it. Beyond the obvious problems with writing off all feedback as deluded, arrogant and entitled, if the devs really do know best then that statement is doubly wrong, because that's what they want from us.

 

When you've got a problem with someone's input, you have to address it at face value. It's highly possible (certain, even) that that input is deeply flawed. But you can't ever write it off, because at the end of the day it's all just input. 

He's arguing against people who haven't try out the thing that they are complaining about, or haven't even thought about the implications of said thing and decide that it was OP.

Usually people who make these nerf threads are people who fall under the, "HE'S KILLING MORE THAN ME, THAT'S OP!!!" mind set.

People who actually want to benefit the community are people who ask for a change, not a nerf.

 

Example.

Say I think that Excalibur should get close with his enemies to deal damage. Rather than just say, "Nerf his range, give it falloff damage, ect." I say, to promote closer combat, we should reduce his range but give him faster waves and waves that can grow bigger.

 

A good(or bad) example of a straight nerf gone horrible wrong like most do, is shotgun falloff. To promote closer combat, we should have given shotguns more damage up close and less far away to balance the loss at longer ranges, but instead we just gave it less damage farther away. So rather than promoting close combat, we promoted rifles are the main DPS weapons.

[Rakosta_Kai]

I'm not declaring that I have the answers, just that I have suggestions. And yes, it's subjective, but that doesn't mean that it's not a valid opinion -- especially when it's not an uncommon opinion.

 

 

All opinions are subjective.

A valid opinion is one that has the benefit of being informed, relevant, and provable.

 

 

Let me give you an example:

 

EB offers decent defense (blocks projectiles from the front), and the highest damage-output-per-energy consistently -- more consistently than any other power. Consistently, and for an absolutely minimal energy consumption.

 

Or...

 

 

 

...The problem arises when (well first of all, everyone complains one thing is more powerful than another or DE doesn't actually do anything) we aren't content to see things change.

 

 

It's an opinion... Offered without proofs.

Nothing wrong with that, tbh.

It's when a person continuously forces that same opinion on others in the interests of instigating change that I take issue with it, tbh.

 

Or uses more opinions to support the initial opinion... Because that's just specious.

 

That's just the thing, though. Every feedback thread on this forum could be conceivably represented by those statements. Any feedback anyone gives about any aspect of the game that they think might need changing could be described as "assuming the game should be changed to fit their (non-specific) vision". The entire reason this forum exists is for players to tell developers how they feel about the game.

 

Following that logic, all the threads made by all the players on both sides of this debate are deluded, arrogant, and entitled, and this forum serves no purpose. Your posts, my posts, everyone's posts. 

 

And if we're going by the whole "devs know best" thing, well, they're the ones who asked for our feedback in the first place!

 

Right at the top of the Open Beta Agreement, the first thing all of us saw when we started playing, it says this:

 

 

 

 

If you'd like to get technical, it does later say we're not in control. But that's what it opens with. We're here to give our input on the game, in whatever way we think might improve it. Beyond the obvious problems with writing off all feedback as deluded, arrogant and entitled, if the devs really do know best then that statement is doubly wrong, because that's what they want from us.

 

When you've got a problem with someone's input, you have to address it at face value. It's highly possible (certain, even) that that input is deeply flawed. But you can't ever write it off, because at the end of the day it's all just input. 

 

Hmm...

But those opinions are arrogant, entitled, and deluded by definition.

 

They are only informed by what that person thinks "XYZ" should work like.

 

ar·ro·gant

ˈerəɡənt/

adjective

adjective: arrogant

having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities

 

en·ti·tled

inˈtīdld,enˈtīdld/

adjective

adjective: entitled

believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.

 

de·lude

/dɪˈluːd/

verb (transitive) 1. to deceive the mind or judgment of

 

Let me give you an example of deluded so you get my meaning...

 

 

The moment a player says "[insert name here] shouldn't be this way because I think it should be another way" asserts you know more than the developers themselves.

You (non-specific) don't...

You (non-specific) assume too much to make such assertions reliably.

 

It leads to a scenario where that non-specific player is then spouting direction out of their non-specific poophole.

 

This wouldn't disturb me so much if DE didn't have a habit of acting on it... Not so much because you (non-specific) are right, but because you(non-specific) are loud.

 

 

Functionally, it's the difference between "merely expressing an opinion" and "forcing it wherever you think it will fit in the interest of instigating change."

 

 

...It's a huge difference.

 

I don't see a thing wrong with having and expressing an opinion, tbh. People should have opinions and should have the right to express them.

...But they should not get the right to force their opinions on me.

 

I do not care about their delusions in regard to making the game better....Because that, ultimately, is what they are.

 

Them having an opinion doesn't mean I should expect to be regaled by that opinion in every single thread on the subject.

 

What I would rather see is a scenario where people could express their opinion and keep it moving...

Instead what they do is make it a scenario where they repeatedly express the opinion in threads to make the hot topic analytic move the needle.

 

It's a disgusting tactic, but it has worked in the past.

 

Fortunately, it looks like DE is growing to the point where they see that BS for what it is.

 

Hopefully that answers your question.

[vaugahn]

Functionally, it's the difference between "merely expressing an opinion" and "forcing it wherever you think it will fit in the interest of instigating change."

 

...It's a huge difference.

 

I don't see a thing wrong with having and expressing an opinion, tbh. People should have opinions and should have the right to express them.

...But they should not get the right to force their opinions on me.

 

I do not care about their delusions in regard to making the game better....Because that, ultimately, is what they are.

 

Them having an opinion doesn't mean I should expect to be regaled by that opinion in every single thread on the subject.

 

What I would rather see is a scenario where people could express their opinion and keep it moving...

Instead what they do is make it a scenario where they repeatedly express the opinion in threads to make the hot topic analytic move the needle.

 

It's a disgusting tactic, but it has worked in the past.

 

Fortunately, it looks like DE is growing to the point where they see that BS for what it is.

 

Hopefully that answers your question.

 

Whether you realize it or not, the points you're expressing are entirely hypocritical in application.

 

No matter what happens, some people are not going to get their way. They're going to feel like something has been forced on them. Let's say EB got nerfed, the people who have valid, well reasoned arguments for it staying the same will feel like that's been forced on them. If it stays the same, the people with valid, well-reasoned arguments for it to get nerfed will now be unhappy, and feel like they've been passed over at the will of others. 

 

The difference is, you're not accusing the people arguing for EB staying the same of being arrogant, entitled, or deluded, when they are expressing their desires for the future of the game the exact same way people who think EB needs to be nerfed are. Everyone here is interesting in instigating change, that's kind of our goal as a community. Just a few days ago, I upvoted an excellent thread you made about Dojo improvements. Expressing opinions with the interest of instigating change is not something to be avoided.

 

And besides, there's a selective criticism there as well. It's not like spamming threads full of an opinion is something only one side of this debate does either. There are quite a few users who bring their opinions about nerfing anything being an absolute no-go into any and every thread where it even loosely applies, and yet the same arguments you use above are rarely (if ever) leveled at them. If we just went by post count and hot topics, the Boltor Prime would have been nerfed into obscurity ages ago, and I can think of plenty of other things that would be very different. Yes, spamming is bad. But so is generalization and cherry-picking.

 

But really, none of that matters. Discussion of motive is a dead end in any sort of academic (which I use to mean "of theoretical interest") discussion.

[Edgarhighman]

Nice title. Leave good alone. Everythings solid about him now. DE> LEAVE YOUR GOOD WORK DONE. IT IS FINISHED.

[Rakosta_Kai]

Whether you realize it or not, the points you're expressing are entirely hypocritical in application.

 

 

They fact you think they are means that you didn't read as carefully as you should have.

 

Go back...

Re-read my posts in this thread...

... See if the point hits you then.

 

 

 

-snip-

No harm intended but most your other points are addressed in my previous posts.

Go back and re-read them if it pleases you.

 

 

Yes, spamming is bad. But so is generalization and cherry-picking.

 

But really, none of that matters. Discussion of motive is a dead end in any sort of academic (which I use to mean "of theoretical interest") discussion.

 

Half of this is also noted in the posts above... But I'll address it (you have enough reading to ((re)do.)

 

Most of the arguments you mention fall into the same traps regarding motive.

Sometimes I question it and others I don't ... Depends if that person is campaigning or just commenting. Sometimes I comments and delete it because there is really no nice way to say what needs to get said.

Everybody has the right to express and opinion.. blah blah blah (scroll up and re-read it). They don't need to be abused for doing so.

 

If I agree with anothers' assertion... I +1 what I read and keep it moving typically.

No need to add my 2 cents when someone else's works for me typically.

Sometimes I will add in or quote and applaud a post but that's in instances where what got said was exactly my thinking.

 

Nerf herders get my attention though and always will... If you want to campaign for a nerf (or a buff) you should be expected to support your stance with numbers.

If all that person has is feelsy-weelsies I am going to pop holes in it as you are abundantly aware.

Your feelsy-weelsies shouldn't determine my game experience... Because DE has allowed this enough times in the past, I am now obliged to involve myself whereas I did not before.

 

In the process I can find myself on the same side as some posters who I don't get along well with or are trolls ( I hate that).

...And completely opposed to players who I get on rather well or tend to agree with (I hate that even more).

Regardless of my opinion of the person... I hold strong beliefs regarding changing the landscape of the game to suit personal views.

(go up and re-read why).

When you decide to lobby to change the game for others to suit your views you should probably expect me to punch holes in those views if they are weak. (go up and re-read)

And if I am wrong or discover myself to eventually be wrong I'll apologize on the forums to that person publicly... Even if it means necro'ing a thread.

 

Not just admit I am wrong... But actually apologize because I was wrong.

 

But I don't cherry pick and it's really not my fault if the crux of most of the nerf arguments are born of the aforementioned weak personality traits. 

 

How you feel about all that is irrelevant to me... But since I can't tell if you are genuinely asking or spoiling for a fight today, I'll answer your questions.

Hopefully you are all done with them though because it's starting to sound like you are just spoiling for a fight.

 

If that's the case, I'm going to politely ask you to put your cape back in the drawer and/or move along.

[vaugahn]

But I don't cherry pick and it's really not my fault if the crux of most of the nerf arguments are born of the aforementioned weak personality traits. 

 

The cherry picking is through a selective application of the "dislike of spamming" thing, and the idea that wanting the game changed is inherently wrong. Many people spam, we all, devs included, want the game to change, and we're supposed to be giving input into that process. Those points all still stand, even after re-reading of your previous posts. Though, as I mentioned, that is not exactly important. I think we're just having a little communication error here. I'm no longer talking about your reply to S7ORM, or my reply to that. I agree with you on the topic of Exalted Blade, it's fine as is, not counting potential QoL tweaks.

 

The "weak personality traits" thing is the real problem here, as ever. That line of reasoning is entirely fallacious.

 

Another hypothetical example: let's say player A wants something to get nerfed because their heart is full of malice and they want to hurt everyone who uses that thing, and player B wants the same thing to get nerfed because they feel that doing so would improve the overall quality of the game.

 

What is the difference between those two arguments? Let's just assume for a second that nerfing this thing these players are talking about is an objective good, do player A's negative motives change that? And if nerfing that thing is an objective bad, the same could be said for the other player's arguments. The answer is no, and someone opposing that point by calling into question his/her motives would not be bringing anything to the conversation.

 

The entire idea that ones "weak personality traits" are in any way related to the content of their argument is false, and pursuing that line of reasoning is just a subtle ad hominem. You have to address an argument on its content. Addressing an argument on its motive gets you nowhere, and it most certainly does not poke holes in anything. Most of the baseless nerf requests we see around here are easy enough to shoot down on their content (or lack of it) alone, like you did in the initial post I responded to. If you'd like, google the term "subject/motive shift", which talks about the poor reasoning involved in dismissing an argument due to the assumption that the person presenting that argument has an ulterior motive for presenting it. To put it simply, that line of reasoning does not work. 

 

Edit: I actually find these conversations quite interesting, so "spoiling for a fight" may be somewhat accurate.

Edited July 15, 2015 by vaugahn

[nmuaddib]

When one extensively worked feature gets it's release day, it came to a state where an entire group of people, a company, as a matter of fact (not all have the same weight on it, of course), concluded "Hey, I think this is in a really good place now, people will probably like it...". Pay attention to the fact that I said "extensively worked", because we all know it not always like that, sometimes it is just rushed out the gate, and the result is worse than poor (EX: Vectis Prime, there are enough threads for that).

 

Which brings us to a small but present difference, fundamental to Akais previous comments about being arrogant, entitled. Most of us, at least in here, don't want a change, and therefore we are perfectly satisfied (or pretty close) with the developers hard worked vision. Couple that with the fact that there are no exact numbers regarding the amount of people that "play excal in a wrong and annoying way". In truth, some examples given here, like standing behind a door spamming and killing everything on the other room without even knowing where it stands, are here just to work as an argument, but nobody plays like that, at least, not for long. Sure, it can be done like that, any flexible enough tool can have its use distorted to produce exploits, but that does not take the merit that it also can produce great results, and in our case, a lot of fun, which is the paramount objective of any game.

 

You propose some "simple" changes, and ignore the fact they can utterly ruin the entire experience, for example: Increasing the energy consumption > It severely cripples the capacity of using all other abilities frequently, while you have EB on. It is a "cheap" ability for a reason, so you can use everything he's got at the same time. If you use just EB, it is probably "energy overkill", but that is not half as fun to play with. One other aspect: Have you actually played out of an energy rich environment like the void, with a full squad (more enemies, more energy orbs)? I played invasions solo yesterday, and I just gave up using EB, I kept trying to employ my normal way of playing, and I could not keep my energy up for long, the grineer started to obliterate me with their hitscan weapons when I didn't, and eventually I powered through with a Braton, and a lot of cover to finish the missions, taking advantage of his number 2 and just that. HE IS NOT UNIVERSALLY "OP", that alone is reason not to change it, and add the fact that he enables a very particular play style, when people are simply not in the mood, they use something else, adding to that reason.

 

I would not even discuss anything related to the word "spamming", it does not apply here, because EB is made for repetition, just as swinging any melee weapon or firing any weapon requires exactly that, repetition, especially when there are so many enemies, and when they are stupidly hard to kill from a given point on. Just change the sound, we all agree that it is bad...

Edited July 15, 2015 by nmuaddib

[Midas]

Yes, he's hella fun. But he's also way more powerful than any other frame now. Waaaaaaaay more powerful.

 

Yes, he's hella fun. But he's also way more powerful than any other frame now. Waaaaaaaay more powerful.

 

Yes, he's hella fun. But he's also way more powerful than any other frame now. Waaaaaaaay more powerful.

not nova and all frames should be at his power level.

[S7ORM]

not nova and all frames should be at his power level.

Nova's not at this level. She debuffs enemies. She doesn't slaughter them with her skill (well, unless they're lower level and tightly packed together). She debuffs them, then someone goes out and kills them. Whether that person is Nova or not is irrelevant.

 

Other frames don't consistently have access to that much strength and defensive power (Excal can stay in a single cast of EB for over 30 minutes without issue).

Frankly, I'm fine with the damage output. I'm just looking to have it not be for so long. Either drain energy faster, make waves part of channeling (energy cost to produce a wave, not cost per enemy the wave hits), or add a duration on top of the skill, like Ember's WoF.

 

The damage, I think, is the fault of mods, not the ability. Particularly, an overhaul to how damage mods work would be better overall.

Damage mods should not add extra damage -- that means that the better weapon builds are the ones that pump full of DPS.

What they SHOULD do, is modify the percentage of a weapons damage to different types -- for example:

-Serration no longer exists.

Assume a weapon that does Weapon does 300 damage split evenly between puncture, impact and slash.

So, a base 100% damage split into the three base damage types: puncture, impact, slash. (Or two damage types, or one. It doesn't really matter. Depends on the weapon, but for this example its all 3).

Spoilers are good for grouping.

Any mod placed in first slot draws its % from that 100%, and the remaining % is divided back to the original damage types in the same fractions as they originally were. So Piercing Hit would take 10% puncture claimed forever. The remaining 90% is divided evenly between the original 3 types:

 

Then the next mod that is placed in that would change the damage, draws its % from the remaining 90%. So Piercing Caliber would take 30% of the 90% remainig -- that means 27% total damage. Now, 27+10% of the damage is Puncture (from the mods). The remaining 63% is divided evenly through the original 3 base types (that includes puncture, impact and slash. This puncture is from the original weapon, not from the mods).

 

Now, Hellfire takes its 30% from the remaining 63%, meaning 18.9% as fire damage. Now 37+18.9% is taken by the mods, and the remaining 44.1% is split between the 3 base damage types.

 

Now, High Voltage is added on, after Hellfire. It takes 30% from the remaining 44.1%, meaning 13.23% is electric damage -- BUT, electric and heat combine so a total of 13.23+18.9% is Radiation damage, 37% is puncture. The remaining 30.87% is split between the original 3. It also adds status %.

So, in total, 13.23+18.9=32.13% is radiation damage, 37+(30.87/3)=47.29% is puncture damage, 10.29% is impact damage, 10.29% is slash damage.

That way, the order of the mods matters, forcing players to actually think what types of damage they want the most effect from. If you place Piercing Caliber at the front (taking 30% of the 100%) then Hellfire (taking 30% of the 70%) then High Voltage (taking 30% of the 49%) THEN Piercing Hit (taking 10% of the remaining 34.3),

then you get less overall puncture from the mods, and more radiation.

And it's easier for [DE] to balance weapons -- based on the base damage and the initial starting damage types. However, it's also easy to change the major part of the damage of a weapon -- so a mainly puncture weapon can become mainly impact. This lets players use virtually any weapon they want for any level -- say they like bows, but only have the Paris? They can still use it against Corpus. It will always have a trace of its original damage split (the nature of taking percentages of remaining), but the vast majority of the damage is whatever you want it to be.

 

It also removes mandatory mods (pure damage increase) in favour of specializing damage types against the enemy you will be facing.

With this set, you can easily create a wider spread of weapons per tier for balancing purposes, and also to give structure in case you wanted to add more Mastery locking to weapons -- you can easily tell what weapons will do more damage based on a simple base damage*fire rate*clip size calculation. All weapons in that grouping of similar values will have different base % of damage types inherent to the weapons, so a fast firing, low damage-per-shot puncture weapon will still be the same tier as a slow firing, high damage, base electric type weapon.

Yes, they're likely to be used against different enemies, but the DPS would be to more or less even for that tier.

 

That way, we can see what sorts of weapons should be locked out for players on Mercury, etc. And we can lock them easily behind low level Mastery Rank barriers (0,1,2,3,4,5) to give a sense of progression into more powerful weaponry. At each tier level, however, there will be a wide variety of different weapon types -- varying quite a bit because of fire rates, damage per shot, clip size, projectile speed, base damage type spread, base elemental damages, etc. 

So it's not like there's going to be one weapon that is just way better than others (*CoughSomaPrimeSlashPreNerfSynoidGammacorCough*), because DE could balance the DPS to the tier easily (because there will actually BE a structure or guideline on balanced DPS).

inb4 "No mastery locking." You can literally pull through Mastery Rank 3 within your first day of playing. I would know, I did it.

 

Obviously, it would be an extensive overhaul to how damage mods work, and there would have to be a lot of tweaking of numbers, but I think it would be the most effective solution (the mastery locking thing can be ignored if we want to. Just a suggestion).

With this happening, we can tone down the enemy scaling as well. Significantly.

That's just for weapons. Powers will also need looking at after that, because if we weaken weapons and enemies as they are now, powers will be far more OP. For a simple balance before they get reworked, you could just tone down the damage numbers on some of those abilities (when the enemy scaling is reduced).

Now, Multishot. I like the idea of multishot -- having a  % chance to fire extra bullets at no cost. However, having a high chance (90%+ as we do now) essentially makes it a "Damage x2" mod. What we need to see, is what we can already see in Archwing.

Multishot mods need a significantly lower % to happen, like the 30% in archwing. That way, you can either mod for the low chance that you'll get a second bullet, or fill that spot with another consistently useful mod -- like reload speed.

I think after all of this, we'd be seeing a lot more variation in modding with weapons, and more usage from some currently under appreciated mods like reload speed and magazine sizes, and possibly Primed Chamber (or its little cousin Charged Chamber) and the status duration mods (well... maybe not those ones).

Thoughts?

Edited July 15, 2015 by S7ORM

[ashrah]

lot of frames need massiv buff not useless augments

[Midas]

Nova's not at this level. She debuffs enemies. She doesn't slaughter them with her skill (well, unless they're lower level and tightly packed together). She debuffs them, then someone goes out and kills them. Whether that person is Nova or not is irrelevant.

 

Other frames don't consistently have access to that much strength and defensive power (Excal can stay in a single cast of EB for over 30 minutes without issue).

Frankly, I'm fine with the damage output. I'm just looking to have it not be for so long. Either drain energy faster, make waves part of channeling (energy cost to produce a wave, not cost per enemy the wave hits), or add a duration on top of the skill, like Ember's WoF.

Lets simply buff the living hell out of everything no?

[S7ORM]

Lets simply buff the living hell out of everything no?

No, because that's the issue we had when they didn't have T4 stuff. Everything was too easy, [DE] added T4 content. Players complained it was too hard, Tenno got buffs, players complained T4 was too easy.

I'm not looking to add T5 just because T4 is too easy. How about instead, we turn the damage down so that T4 DOES become difficult?

Otherwise everything below T3 is just annoying to play -- too easy, and not requiring active interaction to complete.

[Emeraudes]

No, because that's the issue we had when they didn't have T4 stuff. Everything was too easy, [DE] added T4 content. Players complained it was too hard, Tenno got buffs, players complained T4 was too easy.

I'm not looking to add T5 just because T4 is too easy. How about instead, we turn the damage down so that T4 DOES become difficult?

Otherwise everything below T3 is just annoying to play -- too easy, and not requiring active interaction to complete.

So how long did you need to farm before t4 got easy?