Valkyr's Hysteria Is Not Overpowered.

[gallowsCalibrator]

Hysteria=exalted blade. Trades off range for invulnerability. Otherwise it's the same ability. 

 

EB is more useful until enemies 1 shot. Then it switches to Hysteria being more useful. There's nothing wrong with being specialized. 

 

People didn't complain about Hysteria before because it was horrible. You were a moving loki decoy. You did no damage. There was no toggle so you were forced into doing zero damage for x amount of time. Now it actually does what it's supposed to. Oh god how terrible. 

 

As for "nothing in the game can stop you" You mean nothing in survival can stop you. Enemies can still take objectives and attack cryo pods etc. 

 

If you're not playing solo there are better team comps that do not include valk in every single mission type. 

 

She's good at soloing. That's not enough to warrant a nerf when there are much more effective things in the game. 

I know all that. I do actually play the game, you know. It's not like I come up with my opinion just by reading others' posts on the matter.

 

Mission objectives aren't the point here. Anyone can fail an objective. You can lose a defense because your Frost wasn't paying attention and let the Globe fall. People can fail to listen in the security room and kill the entire raid. 

 

Some frames are better at defending, some are better at stealth, some are better at doing whatever. I don't take Valkyr to Spy missions because she's not a stealthy Warframe. I don't take Frost to Survival missions because I have other frames that kill enemies more efficiently. You bring the right tools for the job at hand. The problem here is that Valkyr is a tool that is too good at her job. There is nothing that can pose a reasonable threat to her, and she can kill anything with relative ease. When your primary goal is to kill things, you can just bring Valkyr and be assured of success. Most game modes still have killing things as a secondary objective, especially those missions involving defense of some sort, because the main way of relieving pressure on the objective is by killing the enemies applying that pressure. She may not be as good as other things at killing, but there isn't anything else in the game that can do so with such impunity.

 

Given that DE has removed invulnerability from almost every ability that used to have it, I doubt that this is their intended state for Hysteria. If it is, then that's cool. I'm having fun being an invulnerable blender god. It's just not something that should be construed as balanced.

Edited October 11, 2015 by gallowsCalibrator

[TheBrsrkr]

Hysteria=exalted blade. Trades off range for invulnerability. Otherwise it's the same ability.

EB is more useful until enemies 1 shot. Then it switches to Hysteria being more useful. There's nothing wrong with being specialized.

People didn't complain about Hysteria before because it was horrible. You were a moving loki decoy. You did no damage. There was no toggle so you were forced into doing zero damage for x amount of time. Now it actually does what it's supposed to. Oh god how terrible.

As for "nothing in the game can stop you" You mean nothing in survival can stop you. Enemies can still take objectives and attack cryo pods etc.

If you're not playing solo there are better team comps that do not include valk in every single mission type.

She's good at soloing. That's not enough to warrant a nerf when there are much more effective things in the game.

This is the fifth time you have said that. At least six different people have gone through every single point you have made at least three times. They were each found to be lacking in many areas. You make the same claims ans give the same justifications. They were shown to be false. Saying it again isn't going to make it right. You are wasting everyone's time, including your own.

[dodyouserious]

i see people are really trying REALLY hard to not get valkyr a nerf

the struggle is real!

 

edited failed link haha

Edited October 11, 2015 by xvxjiniwai

[Kolos1001]

They were shown to be false. 

Except they weren't. They went through every single point and replied with "Nuh uhhhh" or something equivalent. 

 

I know all that. I do actually play the game, you know. It's not like I come up with my opinion just by reading others' posts on the matter.

 

Mission objectives aren't the point here. Anyone can fail an objective. You can lose a defense because your Frost wasn't paying attention and let the Globe fall. People can fail to listen in the security room and kill the entire raid. 

 

Some frames are better at defending, some are better at stealth, some are better at doing whatever. I don't take Valkyr to Spy missions because she's not a stealthy Warframe. I don't take Frost to Survival missions because I have other frames that kill enemies more efficiently. You bring the right tools for the job at hand. The problem here is that Valkyr is a tool that is too good at her job. There is nothing that can pose a reasonable threat to her, and she can kill anything with relative ease. When your primary goal is to kill things, you can just bring Valkyr and be assured of success. Most game modes still have killing things as a secondary objective, especially those missions involving defense of some sort, because the main way of relieving pressure on the objective is by killing the enemies applying that pressure. She may not be as good as other things at killing, but there isn't anything else in the game that can do so with such impunity.

 

Given that DE has removed invulnerability from almost every ability that used to have it, I doubt that this is their intended state for Hysteria. If it is, then that's cool. I'm having fun being an invulnerable blender god. It's just not something that should be construed as balanced.

Rift walk 

Bladestorm

Absorb

Hysteria

Banish(Can actually make any frame invulnerable so yea...there's that)

 

That's like saying mag is too good at killing corpus. If she wasn't that good at her specialty there would be no point in using her in the first place. You'd just pick Sayrn/ember and mag would be 100% in the garbage.

 

If you take away valk's invulnerability there is absolutely no reason to use her over Excal or Chroma. 

 

She's good at survival...really good. There is no reason why being good at one game mode is unbalanced. It's actually extremely balanced because she's only good at one thing and is below average at pretty much everything else. 

 

 

i see people are really trying REALLY hard to not get valkyr a nerf

the struggle is real!

 

edited failed link haha

 

Wow another survival vid. What a shock. Oh wait....Let's see you solo a t4 def to wave 20. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Kolos1001

[(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame]

Hysteria=exalted blade. Trades off range for invulnerability. Otherwise it's the same ability. 

Even if I considered Exalted Blade not OP, I would still say that invulnerability beats range in most situations. Both powers are really unbalanced for early game. With Exalted Blade you can complete almost any mission on star chart as soon as you reach level 30 Excalibur and have any melee weapon with a bunch of damage mods (not even fully ranked) I assume you can do the same with Hysteria, but you are also invulnerable.

 

Another problem with powers that are so OP is Tactical Alerts, which are supposed to be challenging. With new Hysteria you'll be able to complete ANY Tactical Alert alone with barely any effort. The exception might be alerts where you need to defence a pod, but that's it.

 

Phoenix Intercept would be a joke with new Hysteria. You don't need any teamwork anymore, you just walk there alone and complete it with barely any effort. So the question is, what's the point in those challenge type missions then? Is it a challenge of "who has Valkyr unlocked"?

 

That's why we need a balance and "this is PvE game" argument doesn't really work, or the game would turn into "play frame X and you have no problem". It's already a problem to some extent, as some frames are more powerful than others, but this new Hysteria brings it to a whole new level (same as recently Peacemaker and Exalted Blade did)

[Kolos1001]

Even if I considered Exalted Blade not OP, I would still say that invulnerability beats range in most situations. Both powers are really unbalanced for early game. With Exalted Blade you can complete almost any mission on star chart as soon as you reach level 30 Excalibur and have any melee weapon with a bunch of damage mods (not even fully ranked) I assume you can do the same with Hysteria, but you are also invulnerable.

 

Another problem with powers that are so OP is Tactical Alerts, which are supposed to be challenging. With new Hysteria you'll be able to complete ANY Tactical Alert alone with barely any effort. The exception might be alerts where you need to defence a pod, but that's it.

 

Phoenix Intercept would be a joke with new Hysteria. You don't need any teamwork anymore, you just walk there alone and complete it with barely any effort. So the question is, what's the point in those challenge type missions then? Is it a challenge of "who has Valkyr unlocked"?

 

That's why we need a balance and "this is PvE game" argument doesn't really work, or the game would turn into "play frame X and you have no problem". It's already a problem to some extent, as some frames are more powerful than others, but this new Hysteria brings it to a whole new level (same as recently Peacemaker and Exalted Blade did)

It's not just range it's punch through making it much more effective at clearing out large groups of enemies without having to kill each one individually. Pretty much better than hysteria in all cases except when enemies can kill you in one hit. Otherwise you just use life strike. 

 

As for tactical alerts I've never really had problems doing the solo so idk. Play loki stand on box. If it's corpus use mag. If it's infested stand on box with any frame. If it's grineer...little more challenging but you can just volt shield every so often and kill everything from safety. 

 

Also. It's always been like that

Defense? Frost no problem

Capture? Volt/Loki super fast no problem

MD? Frost no problem

Survival? Valk no problem

Raids? Trinity no problem

Ext? Saryn/ember no problem

Bosses? Nova no problem

 

Different frames are good at different things. That's incredibly balanced. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Kolos1001

[gallowsCalibrator]

 

Except they weren't. They went through every single point and replied with "Nuh uhhhh" or something equivalent. 

 

Rift walk 

Bladestorm

Absorb

Hysteria

Banish(Can actually make any frame invulnerable so yea...there's that)

 

That's like saying mag is too good at killing corpus. If she wasn't that good at her specialty there would be no point in using her in the first place. You'd just pick Sayrn/ember and mag would be 100% in the garbage.

 

If you take away valk's invulnerability there is absolutely no reason to use her over Excal or Chroma. 

 

She's good at survival...really good. There is no reason why being good at one game mode is unbalanced. It's actually extremely balanced because she's only good at one thing and is below average at pretty much everything else. 

 

 

Wow another survival vid. What a shock. Oh wait....Let's see you solo a t4 def to wave 20. 

 

Rift walk - Can't shoot most enemies while it's active.

Bladestorm - Costs a lot of energy, doesn't last forever, and has a limited number of kills per use.

Absorb - Drains energy more quickly as damage is sustained. Also deals Magnetic damage that falls off quickly.

Banish - Same problem as Rift Walk.

Edited October 11, 2015 by gallowsCalibrator

[Rayden_Tenno]

well while she is a bit op, she is not the only one. leave her as she is or put energy/second drain while in hysteria. Other than that, she's good to go.

[Kolos1001]

Rift walk - Can't shoot most enemies while it's active.

Bladestorm - Costs a lot of energy, doesn't last forever, and has a limited number of kills per use.

Absorb - Drains energy more quickly as damage is sustained. Also deals Magnetic damage that falls off quickly.

Banish - Same problem as Rift Walk.

They all still grant invulnerability. They just have drawbacks. Valk's drawback is that she's stuck in melee and can't really do anything but kill enemies one at a time. This is extremely relevant for MD/D/Intercept/excavation.

 

If survival was the only game mode possible? Yes Valk would be blatantly OP. But thankfully there are other modes where she's not OP...at all. 

 

Also banish does not have the same problem as rift walk. You can banish an Ember/saryn and they will still do damage with abilities. Idk about excal. So yea...any frame can have invulnerability. Probably should nerf banish first if invulnerability is the issue. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Haldos
Cleaning.

[Haldos]

A couple of reminders:

Please keep your responses and counterpoints on topic.

 

Please keep all insults and antagonism to the minimum of nonexistence.

[gallowsCalibrator]

They all still grant invulnerability. They just have drawbacks. Valk's drawback is that she's stuck in melee and can't really do anything but kill enemies one at a time. This is extremely relevant for MD/D/Intercept/excavation.

 

If survival was the only game mode possible? Yes Valk would be blatantly OP. But thankfully there are other modes where she's not OP...at all. 

 

Also banish does not have the same problem as rift walk. You can banish an Ember/saryn and they will still do damage with abilities. Idk about excal. So yea...any frame can have invulnerability. Probably should nerf banish first if invulnerability is the issue. 

You can certainly kill tons of enemies at a time, especially if they're Infested. Enemies like to clump together, and there are lots of chokepoints on the tilesets we've got. Being melee only is not a huge drawback, especially when your swings deal so much damage. My friend and I use these to funnel enemies into the places we want on Defense missions so we can mow them down. Yes, there are places where your objective is exposed and you can't defend it as well as, say, a Frost, but being restricted to melee weapons is far easier to work around than being vulnerable to being killed if you poke your head into the storm of bullets flying your way.

 

Banish isn't as much of a problem because it requires two warframes to execute and it has a limited duration.. Neither Ember nor Saryn can choose to become invincible on their own.

Edited October 11, 2015 by gallowsCalibrator

[Kolos1001]

You can certainly kill tons of enemies at a time, especially if they're Infested. Enemies like to clump together, and there are lots of chokepoints on the tilesets we've got. Being melee only is not a huge drawback, especially when your swings deal so much damage. My friend and I use these to funnel enemies into the places we want on Defense missions so we can mow them down. Yes, there are places where your objective is exposed and you can't defend it as well as, say, a Frost, but being restricted to melee weapons is far easier to work around than being vulnerable to being killed if you poke your head into the storm of bullets flying your way.

 

Banish isn't as much of a problem because it requires two warframes to execute and it has a limited duration.. Neither Ember nor Saryn can choose to become invincible on their own.

Your friend and you? So more than one frame...but banish is ok because it takes more than one frame...oh wait a second...

[Ronyn]

 

Except they weren't. They went through every single point and replied with "Nuh uhhhh" or something equivalent. 

 

If that is what you remember....

You say:Hysteria=exalted blade. Trades off range for invulnerability. Otherwise it's the same ability. 

Not really. In order for Hysteria=Exalted Blade but not be the same ability. 

Hysteria needs to trade off the range and have the advantage in resilience. Invulnerability is just one version of resilience.

 

You say:EB is more useful until enemies 1 shot. Then it switches to Hysteria being more useful. There's nothing wrong with being specialized. 

But this would remain true with another from of high resilience. It is not an argument for invulnerability.

 

One cannot reasonably argue that "invulnerability is good" based on the value of the general concept of high resilience.

To make a case for invulnerability specifically, you have express why it is the specific mechanic that needs to be used.

Otherwise it is just one of many option. And you said it yourself that "nothing would change".

 

So if you want to counter peoples arguments about why the specific version of invulnerability at play is wrong, none of your above arguments actually do so.

You say: People didn't complain about Hysteria before because it was horrible. You were a moving loki decoy. You did no damage. There was no toggle so you were forced into doing zero damage for x amount of time. Now it actually does what it's supposed to. Oh god how terrible. 

Some people did complain about Hysteria before. (look it up if you doubt that. Proof is easily found on these boards)

Also, some people felt old hysteria was a solid power and that the loss of damage output and limited time is what made it balanced.  And so now that it has changed some folks who were fine with it before are not fine with it now. 

It's not strange that when an ability changes, some folks opinion about it would change.

 

You say: She's good at soloing. That's not enough to warrant a nerf when there are much more effective things in the game. 

The main reason many have argued that she should be changed, is because "she is good at soloing".

They are something else. A reference to breaking something they feel is fundamental to combat.

 

That stuff is way beyond the equivalent of "Nu uhhhhh". 

 

You say:They all still grant invulnerability. They just have drawbacks. Valk's drawback is that she's stuck in melee and can't really do anything but kill enemies one at a time. This is extremely relevant for MD/D/Intercept/excavation.

The specific drawbacks in place dictate whether one is actually dealing with the inherent chance to take damage from making mistakes.  And just because we are discussing Valkyr in this thread doesn't mean each one of us automatically feels every other frame is fine-as-is. Look man I get it, you feel that as long as objectives can be lost it is not OP. Fine. That is at least a gauge by which things can be judged. But others feel there is an interaction between life and death that must be maintained. That is at least a gauge by which things can be judged.

It's ok if we disagree with each other...we just need to show the appropriate acknowledgement. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ronyn

[Kolos1001]

If that is what you remember....

You say:Hysteria=exalted blade. Trades off range for invulnerability. Otherwise it's the same ability. 

Not really. In order for Hysteria=Exalted Blade but not be the same ability. 

Hysteria needs to trade off the range and have the advantage in resilience. Invulnerability is just one version of resilience.

I don't get what you're saying here. 

"Not really..hysteria needs to trade off range and have advantage in resilience"

"Invulnerability is a form or resilience"

Does that...by your own definition fit the trade off? She does trade off range for an advantage in resilience. Idk where the "not really" Is coming from

 

 

You say:EB is more useful until enemies 1 shot. Then it switches to Hysteria being more useful. There's nothing wrong with being specialized. 

But this would remain true with another from of high resilience. It is not an argument for invulnerability.

 

One cannot reasonably argue that "invulnerability is good" based on the value of the general concept of high resilience.

To make a case for invulnerability specifically, you have express why it is the specific mechanic that needs to be used.

Otherwise it is just one of many option. And you said it yourself that "nothing would change".

At most the difference would be a 39% increase in resiilence for a trade off in range and punch through. Imo that's a horrible trade off and I'd pick EB every single time because that 39% would only net you a few minutes until enemies could one shot you again. That's how scaling works atm. 

 

It needs to be used for the reasons stated above. Without actual invulnerability EB is better in all cases. That's the problem with having 2 abilities that are almost the same thing.

 

You say: People didn't complain about Hysteria before because it was horrible. You were a moving loki decoy. You did no damage. There was no toggle so you were forced into doing zero damage for x amount of time. Now it actually does what it's supposed to. Oh god how terrible. 

Some people did complain about Hysteria before. (look it up if you doubt that. Proof is easily found on these boards)

Also, some people felt old hysteria was a solid power and that the loss of damage output and limited time is what made it balanced.  And so now that it has changed some folks who were fine with it before are not fine with it now. 

It's not strange that when an ability changes, some folks opinion about it would change.

 

You say: She's good at soloing. That's not enough to warrant a nerf when there are much more effective things in the game. 

The main reason many have argued that she should be changed, is because "she is good at soloing".

They are something else. A reference to breaking something they feel is fundamental to combat.

Just because people complain about something doesn't mean it should be looked at seriously. If someone complained about the miter being to strong because it can ricochet and then it gets buffed...would you go and say..wellllll now...people have been complaining about the miter all along!

 

No. It's silly. Valk was rarely seen. Rarely used. And not even better on paper. Now she's on par with other frames(Balanced)

 

Being good at one game mode does not make something OP. It makes them a tactical choice for the given mission. Frost for def. Saryn for ext. Mag for corpus. Valk for survival.

 

As for "fundamental to combat" I don't really think your definitions apply to warframe. When standing on a box negates pretty much all threat from an entire faction "Fundamentals of combat" goes out the window.

 

Also blind is a thing making those go out the window as well. Too many things in the game break your idea for it to really be applied. It's just not applicable to warframe in its current state. 

 

That stuff is way beyond the equivalent of "Nu uhhhhh". 

 

You say:They all still grant invulnerability. They just have drawbacks. Valk's drawback is that she's stuck in melee and can't really do anything but kill enemies one at a time. This is extremely relevant for MD/D/Intercept/excavation.

The specific drawbacks in place dictate whether one is actually dealing with the inherent chance to take damage from making mistakes.  And just because we are discussing Valkyr in this thread doesn't mean each one of us automatically feels every other frame is fine-as-is. Look man I get it, you feel that as long as objectives can be lost it is not OP. Fine. That is at least a gauge by which things can be judged. But others feel there is an interaction between life and death that must be maintained. That is at least a gauge by which things can be judged.

It's ok if we disagree with each other...we just need to show the appropriate acknowledgement. 

 

First of all I disagree with balancing around player mistakes. Balancing should be around if the player does things perfectly. 

 

The interaction between life and death is negligible for everything out side t4 endless missions because you are most likely not going to die because of redirection. And as I've said games should be balanced around the top level of play meaning you're not going to have much if any risk at these levels. 

 

I can go to mercury with frost with max redirection and guardian and afk while the sentinel kills everything. Absolutely 0 risk. It's extreme but it gets my point across I hope. 

 

Basically there is no set endgame. There aren't even any guidelines for skill powerlevels. Should you not be allowed to use mods if you go to mercury because they make you invulnerable forever? It's the same logic you are using for hysteria. 

[gallowsCalibrator]

Your friend and you? So more than one frame...but banish is ok because it takes more than one frame...oh wait a second...

My friend and I are both running Valkyrs, both invulnerable for the entire run. Neither of us rely on the other and we just run about doing whatever we please. A Banish pair wouldn't be able to do that. They'd have to coordinate.

Edited October 11, 2015 by gallowsCalibrator

[Kolos1001]

My friend and I are both running Valkyrs, both invulnerable for the entire run. Neither of us rely on the other and we just run about doing whatever we please. A Banish pair wouldn't be able to do that. They'd have to coordinate.

Doesn't change the fact that there are multiple players. Try doing a T4 def solo with only hysteria. You'd be better off using a weapon. Hysteria would actually decrease your chances of completing the mission because she has to run to each seperate target and get into melee range. The drawback for Hysteria is big enough to make the invulnerability balanced. Just like with rift walk/banish/bladestorm/absorb. 

 

The game is not balanced around survival alone nor should it be. 

[gallowsCalibrator]

Doesn't change the fact that there are multiple players. Try doing a T4 def solo with only hysteria. You'd be better off using a weapon. Hysteria would actually decrease your chances of completing the mission because she has to run to each seperate target and get into melee range. The drawback for Hysteria is big enough to make the invulnerability balanced. Just like with rift walk/banish/bladestorm/absorb. 

 

The game is not balanced around survival alone nor should it be. 

Nor is this game balanced around Defense alone. You are not always going to have an objective to defend, and even while defending that objective, you have the secondary objective of killing everything trying to destroy or capture it.

[RealPandemonium]

bladestorm 

Blade Storm has a drawback?

[Kolos1001]

Nor is this game balanced around Defense alone. You are not always going to have an objective to defend, and even while defending that objective, you have the secondary objective of killing everything trying to destroy or capture it.

Exactly. The game is not balanced around one specific game mode. Valk is only OP if survival is the only thing you look at. Having a frost is much more essential than having a valk in defensive missions. Sure you CAN do it with valk....but there are better frames for it. Meaning it's balanced. Different frames are better at different things. There is no reason to nerf hysteria because it's really good in survival or else you'd have to nerf globe because it's really good in def or vortex because it's really good against infested or shield polarize for corpus. 

 

She's allowed to be the best frame for survival just like mag is the best frame for corpus and trin is the best frame for organized teams. It doesn't become gamebreaking until it's actually the best thing to use for the majority of the game. It's not. 

 

 

Blade Storm has a drawback?

Hahaha let's try to stick to hysteria. But yes it does. It's more dependent on energy. And you can die between casts. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Kolos1001

[StarNight17]

*cough*interception*cough*

[gallowsCalibrator]

Exactly. The game is not balanced around one specific game mode. Valk is only OP if survival is the only thing you look at. Having a frost is much more essential than having a valk in defensive missions. Sure you CAN do it with valk....but there are better frames for it. Meaning it's balanced. Different frames are better at different things. There is no reason to nerf hysteria because it's really good in survival or else you'd have to nerf globe because it's really good in def or vortex because it's really good against infested or shield polarize for corpus. 

 

She's allowed to be the best frame for survival just like mag is the best frame for corpus and trin is the best frame for organized teams. It doesn't become gamebreaking until it's actually the best thing to use for the majority of the game. It's not. 

Just because something is better at something and worse at something else doesn't mean it's balanced. You also have to look at how good it is at its intended purpose.

 

Snow Globe is great, but it's got some pretty big downsides. I've had multiple Defense runs fail because the Frost got distracted and let the Globe fall under fire. Vortex is buggy and doesn't always capture enemies properly. It doesn't prevent Volatile Runners from exploding on the core, and it doesn't remove Ancient Healers' damage reduction auras. Shields don't have scaling damage reduction so you could also just shoot the enemies with your gun or melee them to death.

 

Hysteria is completely invulnerable. It doesn't care about any kind of damage whatsoever and trivializes combat without enough downsides. Remember when Snow Globe was completely invulnerable and Bastille could capture as many enemies as you wanted? That's what Hysteria is like right now. It's a tool that's too good for the job.

Edited October 11, 2015 by gallowsCalibrator

[(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame]

First of all I disagree with balancing around player mistakes. Balancing should be around if the player does things perfectly.

So is it balanced if one frame dies after one mistake and the other one dies after 500 mistakes? They still perform the same while playing perfectly.

 

Is it okay if one frame has invulnerability for 1 hour, and the other one has invulnerability for 6 seconds? If the one who has 6 seconds invulnerability plays perfect, he can last for an hour, but the one who has 1 hour invulnerability can be invulnerable for an hour without any concerns. They both play perfect, but one has no room for mistakes, but the other one can do all the mistakes he want to.

[Ronyn]

 

I don't get what you're saying here. 

"Not really..hysteria needs to trade off range and have advantage in resilience"

"Invulnerability is a form or resilience"

Does that...by your own definition fit the trade off? She does trade off range for an advantage in resilience. Idk where the "not really" Is coming from

 

At most the difference would be a 39% increase in resiilence for a trade off in range and punch through. Imo that's a horrible trade off and I'd pick EB every single time because that 39% would only net you a few minutes until enemies could one shot you again. That's how scaling works atm. 

 

It needs to be used for the reasons stated above. Without actual invulnerability EB is better in all cases. That's the problem with having 2 abilities that are almost the same thing.

Let me put it like this-

You say to me "I need you to buy me a Lexus." I ask "Why should I buy you a Lexus?" and you say "because I need a car to take me to work"..

A Lexus is, by definition, a car that could take you to work. It's technically true. But really you told me why you need a car for work. Which could be achieved with a much lower cost option than a Lexus. Both will get you to work so in that regard nothing has changed. But that other factor, cost, is a quite different. Hence why you need a car and why you need a Lexus specifically is not quite the same question or answer.

So perhaps the better question is "Why should I pay the extra money for the Lexus when a cheaper car would do the trick without breaking my bank?"

 

In the same way, invulnerability and high damage reduction would both allow Valkyr to melee face tank WAY into late game without getting one shotted (As proven by many melee chroma players. And EB's blocking one side is not remotely an equivalent to that level of 360 degree resilience.). In the regard of being able to face tank high end enemies, Invulnerability and high DR are the same. But the impact it has on whether or not there is an inherent penalty for making mistakes is quite different.

Hence why you need high resilience and why you need a Invulnerability specifically is not quite the same question or answer.

So perhaps the better question is "Why should hysteria grant long term invulnerability when damage reduction would do the trick without breaking one of the fundamentals of combat interaction?" 

 

I know... your answer is below-

As for "fundamental to combat" I don't really think your definitions apply to warframe.....Too many things in the game break your idea for it to really be applied. It's just not applicable to warframe in its current state. 

Do you recall how some folks in your trinity thread argued that because there are blue pizza's energy economy is already broken regardless of trinity's EV? They do have something of a point. My response would be that we ALSO need to change Energy pizza's in a way that they don't break energy economy either. The answer is not to leave one problem alone because there is another but to solve both. So that should give you an idea of what my response is to your argument about any other thing that might break the fundamentals of combat in warframe.

 

Beyond that: I am not going to argue with you again on whether the combat interaction I speak of is important/relevant or not to warframe. Simply because it would be the same conversation as it was before. We disagree on it. I am not asking you to change your mind.. I am only asking that you acknowledge how it factors in to the rest of our conversations. 

 

What does all that mean? In short:

Valkyr does not NEED to give up the combat interaction I speak of to perform her role.

You just feel it is alright if she does, cause you find no point in trying to retain it at this time in this game.

While I happen to feel she should try to retain it, because the whole game should move toward the direction where it matters.

These are our opinions. They differ.

 

Just because people complain about something doesn't mean it should be looked at seriously. If someone complained about the miter being to strong because it can ricochet and then it gets buffed...would you go and say..wellllll now...people have been complaining about the miter all along!

No. It's silly. Valk was rarely seen. Rarely used. And not even better on paper. Now she's on par with other frames(Balanced)

Dude. You said they didn't complain, I pointed out they did. Whether they did complain or not is a matter of recorded fact.

Whether it was ever feedback worth consideration is a matter of opinion.Whether hysteria was good or bad in its old form is a matter of opinion. Whether or not it is fine or not now is a matter I pointed out is that when something changes, people often change their opinion about it. Its just true.

 

First of all I disagree with balancing around player mistakes. Balancing should be around if the player does things perfectly. 

Actually it's neither. Balance has to be done around the contrast between both mistakes and successes.

When a game is played perfectly, victory is assured. When a game is played with constant mistakes, loss is assured.

The core idea is to reward the player for those successes and punish them for their mistakes.

That is how victory or failure is in the hands of the player.

I mean.....That's about as fundamental to game design as it gets.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ronyn

[Take_no_action]

Reason why Valkyr is OP:

TY OfficerBeepsky.  Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Vlakyr could stay on t4 longer than any1 even before this buff in WarCry build. ur arguments about it are @(*()$ invalid

 

P.S. for those who say that game shouldnt be balanced around endless missions - show me a single mob that can oneshot Rhino through Iron Skin, op af isnt it?

Edited October 11, 2015 by Mygunisfastandstronk

[Kolos1001]

So is it balanced if one frame dies after one mistake and the other one dies after 500 mistakes? They still perform the same while playing perfectly.

 

Is it okay if one frame has invulnerability for 1 hour, and the other one has invulnerability for 6 seconds? If the one who has 6 seconds invulnerability plays perfect, he can last for an hour, but the one who has 1 hour invulnerability can be invulnerable for an hour without any concerns. They both play perfect, but one has no room for mistakes, but the other one can do all the mistakes he want to.

yes it is balanced because if you make a mistake that's your own fault. 

 

You can only sustain it if you are active. If 99% damage reduction 

 

 

 

Let me put it like this-

You say to me "I need you to buy me a Lexus." I ask "Why should I buy you a Lexus?" and you say "because I need a car to take me to work"..

A Lexus is, by definition, a car that could take you to work. It's technically true. But really you told me why you need a car for work. Which could be achieved with a much lower cost option than a Lexus. Both will get you to work so in that regard nothing has changed. But that other factor, cost, is a quite different. Hence why you need a car and why you need a Lexus specifically is not quite the same question or answer.

So perhaps the better question is "Why should I pay the extra money for the Lexus when a cheaper car would do the trick without breaking my bank?"

 

In the same way, invulnerability and high damage reduction would both allow Valkyr to melee face tank WAY into late game without getting one shotted (As proven by many melee chroma players. And EB's blocking one side is not remotely an equivalent to that level of 360 degree resilience.). In the regard of being able to face tank high end enemies, Invulnerability and high DR are the same. But the impact it has on whether or not there is an inherent penalty for making mistakes is quite different.

Hence why you need high resilience and why you need a Invulnerability specifically is not quite the same question or answer.

So perhaps the better question is "Why should hysteria grant long term invulnerability when damage reduction would do the trick without breaking one of the fundamentals of combat interaction?" 

 

I know... your answer is below-

Do you recall how some folks in your trinity thread argued that because there are blue pizza's energy economy is already broken regardless of trinity's EV? They do have something of a point. My response would be that we ALSO need to change Energy pizza's in a way that they don't break energy economy either. The answer is not to leave one problem alone because there is another but to solve both. So that should give you an idea of what my response is to your argument about any other thing that might break the fundamentals of combat in warframe.

 

Beyond that: I am not going to argue with you again on whether the combat interaction I speak of is important/relevant or not to warframe. Simply because it would be the same conversation as it was before. We disagree on it. I am not asking you to change your mind.. I am only asking that you acknowledge how it factors in to the rest of our conversations. 

 

What does all that mean? In short:

Valkyr does not NEED to give up the combat interaction I speak of to perform her role.

You just feel it is alright if she does, cause you find no point in trying to retain it at this time in this game.

While I happen to feel she should try to retain it, because the whole game should move toward the direction where it matters.

These are our opinions. They differ.

 

Dude. You said they didn't complain, I pointed out they did. Whether they did complain or not is a matter of recorded fact.

Whether it was ever feedback worth consideration is a matter of opinion.Whether hysteria was good or bad in its old form is a matter of opinion. Whether or not it is fine or not now is a matter I pointed out is that when something changes, people often change their opinion about it. Its just true.

 

Actually it's neither. Balance has to be done around the contrast between both mistakes and successes.

When a game is played perfectly, victory is assured. When a game is played with constant mistakes, loss is assured.

The core idea is to reward the player for those successes and punish them for their mistakes.

That is how victory or failure is in the hands of the player.

I mean.....That's about as fundamental to game design as it gets.

 

Because "Fundamentals of combat interaction" are something you made up and are trying to force down everyone's throats as what is "right". It's not applicable in warframe because most skills are built around breaking those "fundamentals"

 

Blind

Blessing

Disarm

Vortex

Bastille

snowglobe

absorb

bladestorm

banish

etc etc etc. It simply cannot be applied to warframe without making it into a completely new game. 

 

You go on and on about well it's a difference of opinion. That's just an opinion this is just an opinion. It's a feedback category. Pointing out something is an opinion is redundant as hell and adds nothing to the conversation. 

 

And I like how you completely ignored the mercury example. Using your logic there should be nothing in the game where it's impossible to lose at any time. Guess what. Go into any low level mission with max redirection and a fully modded sentinel. Impossible to lose. That would be unbalanced by your definition so I guess we shouldn't allow mods. 

 

You are literally trying to balance the entire game around whether or not there is risk in high level survival missions.