Balance And The Community Discussion Thread (With Rant-Y Opening).

[Sasquatchias]

Now this might seem like a big whining topic (and it sort of is), but this is something I was thinking might make for a good discussion for everyone interested about the "balance" of Warframe.

 

So this is something I've noticed a long while ago, and something that has been bugging me a bit as well - a large part of the Warframe community, or at least those in the Forums, seem completely and utterly against any change that would leave them even the tiniest bit weaker whatsoever.

 

Like every single balance-based thread I've seen has had tons of people comment on the thread only to cry about how the [Topic of Thread] is completely fine, how [Topic Creator] knows nothing, how we should just not use [X Mod/Weapon/Thing] if we don't like how well it performs, etc...

 

And it seems like even if the Topic Creator of said thread clearly points out their reasonings or offers up other solutions for problems that might arise (such as how enemy scaling values can change based on weapon damage systems being changed in a certain way, or compensation buffs for a Warframe with a troublesome power that "ruins" games) a vast majority in the thread don't even attempt to have a civil discussion on the matter with their own thoughts, but rather leave one-sentence comments that contribute almost nothing (its better to at least voice your thought rather than staying silent, but it gets frustrating seeing the same "No way it should be changed is fine as is" comment ten times in a single thread with nothing else from said commentator like additional thoughts or reasonings).

 

So before I rant some more I figured I should set out my questions to (hopefully) start the discussion (sorry for the abrupt ending to that).

 

1. What is the biggest reason you think certain players are against negative player power changes?

 

2. Do you think each "side" of Pro/Anti Nerf Players could reach a reasonable conclusion with each other with some actual discussion?

 

These next two questions aren't completely related to the above topic, but I was thinking I'd throw them in try and get some alternate discussion going on the matter in case no one is interested in the first part.

 

3. For the Anti-Nerfs - Why are you personally against these (or specific) changes, what are your concerns and such over the matter, what are your thoughts on the reasonings of the Pro-Nerf Side?

 

4. For the Pro-Nerfs - Why are you personally for these (or specific) types of changes, why do you think these changes are warranted, what are your thoughts on the reasonings of why said change(s) are not needed or detrimental?

[Surtur]

Pro and Anti nerf is a bit black and white. Most of nerfing and buffing has people standing in the vast middle grey zone. I too stand there in that grey zone

 

 

I would support a weapon tiering system to make things more clear and to make buffs or nerfs more easily justifiable and so there are clear things to aim for achieving with potentially different tiers of the same weapon (Example being mk-1, regular, prime, and so on).

 

When I am pro-nerf, I am so because the weapon so vastly outclasses all other choices that player choice becomes more irrelevant, because power to difficulty to acquire ratio is not balanced. Something incredibly hard to acquire or hard to power up (for lack of a better term) should have higher power or potential than something easier to acquire. I support player choice and weapons having different niches or interesting but potentially powerful mechanics. If something takes a long time to master it should have a high pay off.

 

I do not say "NERF X BECAUSE IT IS STRONGER THAN MY WEAPONS" but because how strong it is isnt proportionate to how hard it is to acquire, it makes player choice irrelevant because it is so strong, it takes few mods or use to make it stronger than other weapons that should be an equal caliber, or because it is a mindless weapon that requires little thinking to kill the entire room almost effortlessly. 

 

(As a final note that I forgot to mention, I am all for player choice and having weapons fill certain niches while still being strong)

 

Sorry for the poor structure

 

Edit: Relating to question 2 and 1, I don't think a conclusion can be made. It isn't about the weapon and balancing, it is about the player. You will have a player base that wants to be able to kill everything and feel like a god, want a bit of a challenge but still fun and fairly easy, or wants a nightmare inducing challenge, and then everyone in between. The people against negative power changes often belong to the group who want to feel godlike. Sometimes being against a nerf is justified, but often people like having a seat of infinite power and don't want to lose that power. 

 

I can't remember the saying, but there is an old saying that is relevant.

It goes something like this

 

"Power is one of the worst drugs. Once you have a taste you want more and will do anything to  keep that power"

Edited July 29, 2015 by Surtur

[ThePresident777]

"Balance" is a Red Herring.  It's a fantasy.  No one can say what it is in concrete terms.  Balance is a veiled opinion.  The actual question, the important question, is: "What is fun?"  Because, Fun is the purpose of games.  But, Fun is by no means universal.  Therefore, "balance" is by no means universal.  Therefore "balance" is just another opinion, an offensive, destructive, opinion.  It's shorthand for "I don't like X."  That's all it is.

 

When content get's nerfed, or "balanced", someone's fun gets ruined and someone else is rewarded at the expense of another person.  It's the equivalent of taking toys out of one person's hands to give to another person.  And, this is precisely what has happened with Warframe "balance" for the past 2 years.  Content was taken away from the people who were enjoying it to put into the ever growing pile of whatever else is available.

 

 

 

1. What is the biggest reason you think certain players are against negative player power changes?

 

Because it ruins their fun, the entire reason why they play games.

 

 

 

2. Do you think each "side" of Pro/Anti Nerf Players could reach a reasonable conclusion with each other with some actual discussion?

 

Yes and no.  No because so many people are selfish, or worse.  Yes, because the mechanism exists to create the sandboxes necessary to keep different tastes from interfering with each other.  There are lots of, even trivial, examples in gaming.

 

 

 

3. For the Anti-Nerfs - Why are you personally against these (or specific) changes, what are your concerns and such over the matter, what are your thoughts on the reasonings of the Pro-Nerf Side?

 

Because it's not creative.  It's just mindless destruction and it's easy to see that if one were to apply the "balance" ideology to anything else in life.  No one cares about "balance".  They only care about purpose.  People build things to suit a purpose.

 

Think of tampons for example.  Anyone claimning that tampons need to be "balanced" because they're not good tinder or packaging material or too good for female physiological needs would be laughed at.  Yet, the equivalent is taken seriously in gaming.  "Balance" is a farce.

 

 

4. For the Pro-Nerfs - Why are you personally for these (or specific) types of changes, why do you think these changes are warranted, what are your thoughts on the reasonings of why said change(s) are not needed or detrimental?

 

For the same reasons stated above.  The situation is not one of nerf, buff, or "balance".  It's a matter of purpose.  The purpose is to have fun but fun is not universal, therefore "balance" is a farce.  And, Warframe's 2 year failed balance crusade proves it, as well as countless other games.  No one is happy, not the nerfers, not the buffers, not the "OP" players, not the "balance" players.

 

The purpose of Warframe was spelled out over 2 years ago (

).  "Balance" hasn't satisfied that purpose and never will because it's a failed concept. Edited July 29, 2015 by ThePresident777

[[DE]Grzegorz]

In its current state, Warframe balance is a mess.

It would be easier to wipe everything and start over with nothing than keep new items balanced and retroactively balance everything else, and obviously, putting meta stuff in line would end with community outrage, imagine if DE cut Boltor Prime damage down to 30 or something.

 

It's a game of bandaids, where DE gives us a tool, players get used to it, DE is afraid to take or nerf the tool so they have to come up with a bandaid solution to decrease its effectiveness without doing so.

 

I would love Warframe to be a balanced game, but in its current state, it would be easier to just tier everything and balance costs than performance. However, proper tiering system isn't going to happen anytime soon, and even then, we can't e.g. tie tiers to MRs, as there are like 3 categories of weapons (majority being mastery fodder, meta and quirky weapons, which are between meta and S#&$ tier).

Edited July 29, 2015 by Mofixil

[(PSN)thefndodge]

Pro and Anti nerf is a bit black and white. Most of nerfing and buffing has people standing in the vast middle grey zone. I too stand there in that grey zone

 

 

I would support a weapon tiering system to make things more clear and to make buffs or nerfs more easily justifiable and so there are clear things to aim for achieving with potentially different tiers of the same weapon (Example being mk-1, regular, prime, and so on).

 

When I am pro-nerf, I am so because the weapon so vastly outclasses all other choices that player choice becomes more irrelevant, because power to difficulty to acquire ratio is not balanced. Something incredibly hard to acquire or hard to power up (for lack of a better term) should have higher power or potential than something easier to acquire. I support player choice and weapons having different niches or interesting but potentially powerful mechanics. If something takes a long time to master it should have a high pay off.

 

I do not say "NERF X BECAUSE IT IS STRONGER THAN MY WEAPONS" but because how strong it is isnt proportionate to how hard it is to acquire, it makes player choice irrelevant because it is so strong, it takes few mods or use to make it stronger than other weapons that should be an equal caliber, or because it is a mindless weapon that requires little thinking to kill the entire room almost effortlessly. 

 

(As a final note that I forgot to mention, I am all for player choice and having weapons fill certain niches while still being strong)

 

Sorry for the poor structure

Well said +1. This is how I feel.

 

I'd like to add that there are a lot of productive discussions on balance, but unfortunately most people can't handle expending the mental energy required to discuss balance. Instead they vomit out crap arguments and do their best to create an us vs. them scenario to help them feel more secure. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by (PS4)thefndodge

[Absens]

I support nerfs because things obviously need to be balanced.

 

I love variety, seeing mesa in every high level missions obviously pisses me off.

 

Seeing synoid gammacor on every person used to piss me off too.

 

It would be pointless to release new stuff when something is way better than that already.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Absens

[DiabolicalHamSandwich]

1. Because there will always be some who like it and want it to stay and some who want change

 

2. Of course but you have the not so mature ones that will butt in and throw sticks in the wheel of it all which will then downspiral and get nowhere

 

I could careless cause I either have fun or I don't but i'll take a crack at it~

 

3 & 4 Well for both sides there's the ones that want change because this game isn't like another game and others don't want change because they like big numbers. Or those that want change because they see the downsides and imbalance of the game and those that don't because when you try to nerf you could possibly end up breaking things and making it worse. List could go on but in all honesty that's kinda the gist of it~

[PookieNumnums]

In a game with so much variety balance is a fictious idea imo.

We don't have classes so to speak but nonetheless each frame has a role or roles it was designed to fulfill.

Not every frame should be able to do every other frames job and not every frame should be able to play end game solo imo.

As for weapons. There will always be newbie and end level. Not all weapons should be end game viable. And it's not all Mr locked so that it's not excruciatingly tedious and drawn out before you can play with the big bois.

[(PSN)thefndodge]

snip

 

1. What is the biggest reason you think certain players are against negative player power changes?

 

2. Do you think each "side" of Pro/Anti Nerf Players could reach a reasonable conclusion with each other with some actual discussion?

 

These next two questions aren't completely related to the above topic, but I was thinking I'd throw them in try and get some alternate discussion going on the matter in case no one is interested in the first part.

 

3. For the Anti-Nerfs - Why are you personally against these (or specific) changes, what are your concerns and such over the matter, what are your thoughts on the reasonings of the Pro-Nerf Side?

 

4. For the Pro-Nerfs - Why are you personally for these (or specific) types of changes, why do you think these changes are warranted, what are your thoughts on the reasonings of why said change(s) are not needed or detrimental?

1. The biggest reason players are against negative power changes is it forces them to change how they play. People don't like being forced out of their comfort zone even when it benefits them and their environment.

 

2. No, people with only a Pro- or Anti-nerf viewpoint will never be able to reach reasonable conclusions because just having a Pro- or Anti-nerf viewpoint is an unreasonable position to have in the first place.

 

I won't respond to 3 and 4 because if your only viewpoint is either Pro- or Anti-nerf you are not interested in bettering the game for everyone. You are only interested in bettering the game for yourself.

Edited July 29, 2015 by (PS4)thefndodge

[7grims]

Think this community needs to learn new words.

 

If your forever stuck on nerfs or buffs, you will reach a point were you realize those aren't solutions for everything, until you reach the point they aren't solution to anything.

Think further and better, there are so much more ideas and features to create real solutions, rather then revolving around nerfing and buffing.

[-HAKUNA-YOUR-TATAS-]

Hmm...  It's tough the whole buff/nerf thing.

 

While I'm not on the side that wants everything to be ultra strong to trivialize the content, there's a side of me that gets rather upset when people try to preemptively nerf something before it's even released or within the first 5 hours of release.  I'm also particularly bothered by folks that ask for things to be nerfed because it "annoys" them.

 

Game balance is important, but I feel that this game is tough to balance because it's centered around getting stronger and stronger, be it in abilities, agility, weapon strength, etc.  I mean if we wanted perfect balance then we should be playing Gears of War where everyone gets the same weapon with no mods, has the same movement speed, moves, etc.  Even in games without modding there are challenges when it comes to balance.

 

It's a fine line the devs walk on and a touchy subject.

Edited July 29, 2015 by sushidubya

[Rakshal]

1. Because MMO players are what I call power trip players. Warframe's community consists of a lot of ex-MMO players that love to farm enemies in the most efficient way possible. Any change that makes it harder for them they immediately hate. That is how I see it anyways.

 

2. Anything is possible, but it is highly unlikely, especially in these forums.

 

3. Usually the weapon/frame is already balanced. About the gist of it.

 

4. The weapon/frame is grossly overpowered in certain situation and can completely take over the role of another older frame. I also have a problem with it if the weapon/frame is ruining my fun when someone else is using it when I play online. If a weapon/frame is actually making my experience in coop less fun, than Warframe failed as a coop game. Basically the reason why I only play solo now, because power spam win frames make the game less fun for the people around the person using it. Warframe is a coop game that fails at coop.

 

Also, for the record, "Don't, like it don't use it," or "Play solo," are not valid arguments people.

[Evanescent]

Personally I think we go overboard with them. I like using powerful weapons, but then I also recognise that some weapons may be just too powerful.

I think instead of focusing on nerfs, we should instead take a look at some of the neglected weapons and weapon classes. It would be a much better use of the time.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Evanescent

[ThePresident777]

2 years of nerfs yet people are still complaining that Warframe is not "balanced" and that their favorite content is being destroyed.  The cause for this situation is that the underlying problem is not being addressed.  The result is churned content, broken toys.  Nobody is happy.

 

[StonedMakak]

1. That's an easy one, fear of change.

 

2.That happens already, although rarely. In short, reasonable people will always be able to at least agree to disagree, because they understand it's just a game. The rest will continue to adhere to the finest of internet traditions, and flame-war away. 

 

4. Warframe's gameplay revolves largely around bypassing content (the Raid is the prime example of this) which is directly opposite to the fundamentals of game design - you don't make content so that players find ways NOT to play it, because they feel it's the best way to play the game. The lack of balance both in regards to enemies, and players themselves, is responsible for that. On top of that, I, as I player, like fair challenge which is hard to find here. As for the reasoning part, like I said in answer to the first question - people grow accustomed to things they like, any suggestion of change is met with hostility because the idea itself is not even entertained, the hostility is just rationalized. That's why I like when DE puts their foot down. Game dev is not a democracy, feedback is valuable, but ultimately they are, and should be, calling the shots. 

[ThePresident777]

Bypassing content is the object of Stealth game play.

[-HAKUNA-YOUR-TATAS-]

1. That's an easy one, fear of change.

 

2.That happens already, although rarely. In short, reasonable people will always be able to at least agree to disagree, because they understand it's just a game. The rest will continue to adhere to the finest of internet traditions, and flame-war away. 

 

4. Warframe's gameplay revolves largely around bypassing content (the Raid is the prime example of this) which is directly opposite to the fundamentals of game design - you don't make content so that players find ways NOT to play it, because they feel it's the best way to play the game. The lack of balance both in regards to enemies, and players themselves, is responsible for that. On top of that, I, as I player, like fair challenge which is hard to find here. As for the reasoning part, like I said in answer to the first question - people grow accustomed to things they like, any suggestion of change is met with hostility because the idea itself is not even entertained, the hostility is just rationalized. That's why I like when DE puts their foot down. Game dev is not a democracy, feedback is valuable, but ultimately they are, and should be, calling the shots. 

 

What was point #3?

[StonedMakak]

What was point #3?

 

Just answering the questions from the OP. The way I understood him, #3 was direct at Anti-Nerf people, and I rather the Pro-Nerf guy, hence I skipped it. Gross oversimplification, but I rolled with it. 

[StonedMakak]

Bypassing content is the object of Stealth game play.

 

No, bypassing enemies and obstacles is the objective of Stealth gameplay. Currently Stealth gameplay is bypassed by invisibility, though not a biggy because stealth itself is in pretty bad shape. 

[-HAKUNA-YOUR-TATAS-]

Just answering the questions from the OP. The way I understood him, #3 was direct at Anti-Nerf people, and I rather the Pro-Nerf guy, hence I skipped it. Gross oversimplification, but I rolled with it. 

 

Ahh gotcha man.  Thanks for replying.  =)

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

I get the sense that the anti-nerf crowd, for the most part, are people who don't trust DE to design systems around their changes effectively. They believe, for example, if DE changes energy or removes damage mods they won't fix scaling properly. This is a stance I don't usually agree with, as DE would have to fix such issue or the game would collapse on itself within days.

On the opposite side of the same coin, many think nerfs are ultimately only to reduce efficiency and thus make grind more difficult. My thoughts on that are a bit more complex. Honestly, I don't really trust DE to improve reward acquisition as they reduce player effectiveness. However, they couldn't let it stray too far from the norm or, again, the game would collapse pretty quickly. But more importantly, I don't believe gameplay should ever take a back seat to rewards. If the rewards are insanely powerful and exciting to get, and can be received efficiently, but they hurt gameplay, the grinding did the opposite of what it should've. But if the grinding (which, in this game, is just playing the game) is enjoyable because the gameplay is engaging, then the rewards would truly feel like rewards and not just a paycheck for doing a chore.

What I'm saying is, I'm guessing that most people who really hate nerfs in almost any circumstance, consider rewards to be more important when I'd argue that shouldn't ever be the case.

Edited July 29, 2015 by (PS4)WiiConquered

[vaugahn]

"Balance" is a Red Herring.  It's a fantasy.  No one can say what it is in concrete terms.  Balance is a veiled opinion.  The actual question, the important question, is: "What is fun?"  Because, Fun is the purpose of games.  But, Fun is by no means universal.  Therefore, "balance" is by no means universal.  Therefore "balance" is just another opinion, an offensive, destructive, opinion.  It's shorthand for "I don't like X."  That's all it is.

 

As usual, this is utterly false by virtue of not talking about anything of relevance. Balance is not an absolute, and making it about absolutes does nothing for any conversation about balance. Basically, you're setting up a mythical absolute balance to tear down when this mythical absolute balance is entirely meaningless to actual, practical attempts at balancing a game.

[theammostore]

1. People hate change in general. Unless its positive to their experience. If all mods and forma'd slots were changed to Madurai, everybody would rejoice. That would be a change everybody would enjoy. However, if all nods lost polarities everybody would be angry, as you could imagine.

2. Yes, yes they could. We just need people to stop calling names and ruining discussions.

3. Does apply to me very often

4. Because some things are just plain stupid to have at x power level. Synoid gammacor is a great example of this. For the damage it dealt and at its ammo economy, it was too powerful and made a lot of content trivial, while also giving a massive buff with its syndicate bonus. When things work like that, with a massive upside for its use and very little downside, something needs to change to balance out its bonuses and negatives.