Valkyr's Hysteria Is Not Overpowered.

[Ronyn]

Note: I'm not writing new responses to previously discussed arguments because they would be the same responses. 

I am not disregarding them, i am not disrespecting you. I just think we could always go read the old discussions if we wanted to relive them.  For the most part I will only respond to new arguments, new lines of discussion.

 

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"

Once again. It is one thing to say that it doesn't apply to warframe , but saying they are "something I made up" is ignoring statistical evidence.  heck, even if I am wrong about the stuff I didn't "make it up".

 

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. 

Don't oversimplify my stance on things.

"My logic" would be: It should be a rare occurrence in the in game where it's impossible to loose (a fundamental of game design) provided that you are fighting at the appropriate level for your character/gear (the nature of games with high vertical progressions increasing power curve). If you take a high leveled character against a low level enemy there will naturally be a gap in power unless there is a down scaling system of some sort.

That is the kind of balance that kind of system functions on. 

 

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. 

ugh. This is hopeless.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Look,  I just don't see the point of having the same argument again. We have both said our piece.

I am fine with leaving it at that, as long as you don't get all dismissive about my viewpoint and refer to them as the equivalent of "nu uhhhh".

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ronyn

[Rhaenxys]

At least for me the problem is not how the invincibility affects the game, there is some forms of pseudo invincibility in this game already i.e blessing/invisibility, my problem is how it makes armor redundant, of course a lot of armor helps to survive when you dont have enough energy to use hysteria but actually you can use it most of the time.

 

No i dont want more armor while in hysteria, no i dont want damage reduction, a damage cap per hit would fix this issue, armor is not redundant anymore, valkyr still takes damage and you have to be aware of your enemies, warcry armor buff is relevant again and she keeps her high survivability, this is the only fix i see for hysteria.

[Kolos1001]

Note: I'm not writing new responses to previously discussed arguments because they would be the same responses. 

I am not disregarding them, i am not disrespecting you. I just think we could always go read the old discussions if we wanted to relive them.  For the most part I will only respond to new arguments, new lines of discussion.

 

Once again. It is one thing to say that it doesn't apply to warframe , but saying they are "something I made up" is ignoring statistical evidence.  heck, even if I am wrong about the stuff I didn't "make it up".

 

Don't oversimplify my stance on things.

"My logic" would be: It should be a rare occurrence in the in game where it's impossible to loose (a fundamental of game design) provided that you are fighting at the appropriate level for your character/gear (the nature of games with high vertical progressions increasing power curve). If you take a high leveled character against a low level enemy there will naturally be a gap in power unless there is a down scaling system of some sort.

That is the kind of balance that kind of system functions on. 

 

ugh. This is hopeless.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Look,  I just don't see the point of having the same argument again. We have both said our piece.

I am fine with leaving it at that, as long as you don't get all dismissive about my viewpoint and refer to them as the equivalent of "nu uhhhh".

You never posted statistics. You gave anecdotal evidence. 

 

The problem is there is no guidelines for what is an appropriate character:enemy level ratio. There are no guidelines stating if something is strong in one specific thing then it deserves a nerf even tho it is average/balanced for 90% of the rest of the game. 

 

And I was referring to the plethora of "Lol Valk is OP. It's a fact." And people thinking that's a viable "counter argument" to my statements. 

[Ronyn]

You never posted statistics. You gave anecdotal evidence. 

I told you where to find the statistical evidence of the combat interaction I described. 

Go to the game page of any game store, put in any combat based genre...and there it is.

Go to your steam account if you have one, put in any combat based genre...and there it is.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can look it up if you need to. It's a landslide of precedent.

I know it's easier to read statistics when there is a graph or chart but that is just a way data is collected.

The data itself is from what is being studied. In this case, the games that we can look up from many sources.

Again, that precedent doesn't mean it HAS to apply to warframe. It is only my opinion that it should...despite what some might say. heh

 

The problem is there is no guidelines for what is an appropriate character:enemy level ratio. 

You're absolutely right that without a clear guideline for what level is appropriate for what enemy level things are a mess.

 

Of course we are not without some general sense of what is an appropriate match up.

We know that a starting character should be balanced for the starting area. 

And we know darn well that when we take a level 30, potatoed, fully forma'd frame with all the best fully leveled mods into a level 10 zone.......it's not the appropriate match up.

It's later on where we don't know what level of enemy we should expect to fall off against...if ever at all.

This why any attempt to really define warframes "endgame (or if it actually has one) is so darn confusing.

That right there is a subject for many threads.

 

There are no guidelines stating if something is strong in one specific thing then it deserves a nerf even tho it is average/balanced for 90% of the rest of the game. 

No there isn't. But my motivations for wanting certain changes aren't about that so it's not a point of contention.

So it's clear: I want Valkyr to stay very strong in what she can do. Our only disagreement is in what mechanic should be used.

In fact I have often made suggestions that would make her a bit stronger in aspects she currently lacks in. Example: I think warcry should buff ally armor based on a percentage of Valkyr's armor not theirs. Since her armor is the highest in the game it would make it far less situational, and more useful to even those frames with ridiculously low armor ratings. It's a small change that doesn't alter her too much but.

 

And I was referring to the plethora of "Lol Valk is OP. It's a fact." And people thinking that's a viable "counter argument" to my statements. 

I certainly agree that people saying "She is OP. It's a fact." is a BS argument. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ronyn

[Kolos1001]

I told you where to find the statistical evidence of the combat interaction I described. 

Go to the game page of any game store, put in any combat based genre...and there it is.

Go to your steam account if you have one, put in any combat based genre...and there it is.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can look it up if you need to. It's a landslide of precedent.

I know it's easier to read statistics when there is a graph or chart but that is just a way data is collected.

The data itself is from what is being studied. In this case, the games that we can look up from many sources.

Again, that precedent doesn't mean it HAS to apply to warframe. It is only my opinion that it should...despite what some might say. heh

 

You're absolutely right that without a clear guideline for what level is appropriate for what enemy level things are a mess.

 

Of course we are not without some general sense of what is an appropriate match up.

We know that a starting character should be balanced for the starting area. 

And we know darn well that when we take a level 30, potatoed, fully forma'd frame with all the best fully leveled mods into a level 10 zone.......it's not the appropriate match up.

It's later on where we don't know what level of enemy we should expect to fall off against...if ever at all.

This why any attempt to really define warframes "endgame (or if it actually has one) is so darn confusing.

That right there is a subject for many threads.

 

No there isn't. But my motivations for wanting certain changes aren't about that so it's not a point of contention.

So it's clear: I want Valkyr to stay very strong in what she can do. Our only disagreement is in what mechanic should be used.

In fact I have often made suggestions that would make her a bit stronger in aspects she currently lacks in. Example: I think warcry should buff ally armor based on a percentage of Valkyr's armor not theirs. Since her armor is the highest in the game it would make it far less situational, and more useful to even those frames with ridiculously low armor ratings. It's a small change that doesn't alter her too much but.

 

I certainly agree that people saying "She is OP. It's a fact." is a BS argument. 

That's not giving stats that's telling someone to go do a study. There's a world of difference there. 

 

I believe your point of contention is that hysteria allows you to kill enemies without any risk of them killing you correct?

[Ronyn]

That's not giving stats that's telling someone to go do a study. There's a world of difference there. 

Ok. Lets call it a study. So it would take time and effort on your part to prove or disprove my claim.

Let me ask you this, have you ever played a game that defies the interaction I described?

You mentioned that Dynasty warriors has the mosou attack. Which may or may not count if it can last long enough to become the common mode of play. So maybe one,maybe not. Any other games?

 

I believe your point of contention is that hysteria allows you to kill enemies at a relatively high rate without any inherent risk of them killing you for extremely long periods of time correct?

That's about right. 

[Kolos1001]

Ok. Lets call it a study. So it would take time and effort on your part to prove or disprove my claim.

Let me ask you this, have you ever played a game that defies the interaction I described?

You mentioned that Dynasty warriors has the mosou attack. Which may or may not count if it can last long enough to become the common mode of play. So maybe one,maybe not. Any other games?

 

That's about right. 

I have not played anywhere close to every game. I know in Xenosaga if you do all the sidequests you can absorb every type of damage making you invulnerable. 

 

I have played Super mario brothers and used the star. 

 

You can get 100% chameleon in Elder Scrolls Oblivion which passively lets you remain undetected...forever. 

 

Those are only a few off the top of my head with the very small pool of games I've played. 

 

Oh right in Star Ocean 3 the main character's defense can be pushed so high even the extra boss after you beat the game deals 0 damage.

 

As for your criteria

 

Loki with covert lethality

Volt shield

Blessing

Blind+finishers

Silence+augment+finishers

Slowva

Vortex on a choke point

Bladestorm

Excal spam

 

All of these fit that criteria. Even banshee. 

[TheBrsrkr]

I have not played anywhere close to every game. I know in Xenosaga if you do all the sidequests you can absorb every type of damage making you invulnerable.

I have played Super mario brothers and used the star.

You can get 100% chameleon in Elder Scrolls Oblivion which passively lets you remain undetected...forever.

Those are only a few off the top of my head with the very small pool of games I've played.

Oh right in Star Ocean 3 the main character's defense can be pushed so high even the extra boss after you beat the game deals 0 damage.

As for your criteria

Loki with covert lethality

Volt shield

Blessing

Blind+finishers

Silence+augment+finishers

Slowva

Vortex on a choke point

Bladestorm

Excal spam

All of these fit that criteria. Even banshee.

This is now the sixth time you have used this argument.

[Kolos1001]

This is now the sixth time you have used this argument.

Still fits the criteria he has given. Hasn't changed from the first time. If he's gonna use that as his baseline for what's overpowered you'd have to change practically every frame. 

[TheBrsrkr]

Still fits the criteria he has given. Hasn't changed from the first time. If he's gonna use that as his baseline for what's overpowered you'd have to change practically every frame.

No, no they do not. As we have discussed before. Six times.

[Ziegrif]

You can get 100% chameleon in Elder Scrolls Oblivion which passively lets you remain undetected...forever. 

Oh right in Star Ocean 3 the main character's defense can be pushed so high even the extra boss after you beat the game deals 0 damage.

 

Bethesda hasn't really made a game where the balance wasn't screwed in some way 100% chameleon wasn't 100% dmg resist, however you could 100% reflect dmg which was immortality but I think dmg still bled through the shield. Thankfully this was fixed by mods.

 

In Star Ocean you can only raise the special stat of Fayt to max in Normal, on hard and Universe this strat no longer works, enemies just do too much dmg. You need to shift your party into the obscene dmg by crafting super weapons and leveling to 255. I think the best party was Cliff, Maria and Fayt? It's been so long since I played it. I always used Nel or Albel, Roger, Fayt mostly due to preference. Unfortunately you can't get all trophies with the Invincible berry trick.

 

Geez that's a nostalgia trip. I need to replay Star Ocean 3 now. And don't start with 4. STAR OCEAN 4 NEVER HAPPENED! YOU HEAR ME!! NEVER!!

 

But anyway. Back to our regularly scheduled balance discussion.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ziegrif

[Ronyn]

 

I have not played anywhere close to every game. 

I know .,...

So a bunch of out-scaling the content (remember the nature of vertical progression) and a limited time power up (rare, limited invulnerability). Fits exactly within what I have described. (Except maybe elder scrolls. that stuff is crazy. heh.)

 

ok...

....All of these fit that criteria. Even banshee. 

 

Still fits the criteria he has given. Hasn't changed from the first time. If he's gonna use that as his baseline for what's overpowered you'd have to change practically every frame. 

Not to say that I necessarily consider all of those powers balanced, (some are too much) but NONE of them fit that criteria.

Alright...

Loki with covert lethality-

Enemies do not actively target him but he can still can be hit by stray shots, aoe's, damaging clouds. Also lasts 35 seconds max, not entire missions without a recast.

Volt electric shield

Directional, can be outmaneuvered, or angled around. 

Blessing. Rather close to it, but can be burst through with extreme damage. Also lasts 30 seconds max, not entire missions without a recast.

Blind+finishers

Only affects those in range at time of cast. Can be outranged.

Silence-Augment+Finsihers

Can be out-ranged.

Slowva

Slowed enemies can still destroy her with their shots at higher levels.

Vortex On a choke point

Blocking a choke point is a wise tactical action. The power itself does not prevent him from taking damage from any other angle.

Bladestorm

Last a short time then must be recast.

Excal spam

he is capable of being hit and killed from multiple angles.

This was you explaining how powerful characters can reasonably kill or stop enemies from hurting them.

Even if some or all of those powers are indeed too good that is not the same thing as the criteria I described.

But a different set of reasons. Even if changes are needed (in some cases they are) most are not drastic to get the game to what I describe.

 

I don't want to keep having this same discussion. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ronyn

[Kolos1001]

Bethesda hasn't really made a game where the balance wasn't screwed in some way 100% chameleon wasn't 100% dmg resist, however you could 100% reflect dmg which was immortality but I think dmg still bled through the shield. Thankfully this was fixed by mods.

 

In Star Ocean you can only raise the special stat of Fayt to max in Normal, on hard and Universe this strat no longer works, enemies just do too much dmg. You need to shift your party into the obscene dmg by crafting super weapons and leveling to 255. I think the best party was Cliff, Maria and Fayt? It's been so long since I played it. I always used Nel or Albel, Roger, Fayt mostly due to preference. Unfortunately you can't get all trophies with the Invincible berry trick.

 

Geez that's a nostalgia trip. I need to replay Star Ocean 3 now. And don't start with 4. STAR OCEAN 4 NEVER HAPPENED! YOU HEAR ME!! NEVER!!

 

But anyway. Back to our regularly scheduled balance discussion.

Yes Cliff fayt maria is best team. Fayt could ignore all damage up to 4D the final difficulty. It's basically how you cheese all the trophies. I finally unlocked all 4 costumes. 

 

100% chameleon was basically like loki's invisible...except permanent and you didn't need any resources to sustain it. Just slap the things on your equipment and you could walk straight up to enemies and kill them with your bare fists and never get detected. True it technically wasn't damage resist but it was impossible for enemies to kill you. 

 

 

 

So a bunch of out-scaling the content (remember the nature of vertical progression) and a limited time power up (rare, limited invulnerability). Fits exactly within what I have described. (Except maybe elder scrolls. that stuff is crazy. heh.)

 

ok...

Not to say that I necessarily consider all of those powers balanced, (some are too much) but NONE of them fit that criteria.

Alright...

Loki with covert lethality-

Enemies do not actively target him but he can still can be hit by stray shots, aoe's, damaging clouds. Also lasts 35 seconds max, not entire missions without a recast.

Volt electric shield

Directional, can be outmaneuvered, or angled around. 

Blessing. Rather close to it, but can be burst through with extreme damage. Also lasts 30 seconds max, not entire missions without a recast.

Blind+finishers

Only affects those in range at time of cast. Can be outranged.

Silence-Augment+Finsihers

Can be out-ranged.

Slowva

Slowed enemies can still destroy her with their shots at higher levels.

Vortex On a choke point

Blocking a choke point is a wise tactical action. The power itself does not prevent him from taking damage from any other angle.

Bladestorm

Last a short time then must be recast.

Excal spam

he is capable of being hit and killed from multiple angles.

This was you explaining how powerful characters can reasonably kill or stop enemies from hurting them.

Even if some or all of those powers are indeed too good that is not the same thing as the criteria I described.

But a different set of reasons. Even if changes are needed (in some cases they are) most are not drastic to get the game to what I describe.

 

I don't want to keep having this same discussion. 

 

In everything except mario they were permanent. Out-scaling the content doesn't really apply to warframe because we don't know what the devs consider end game. 

 

If you are solo there will not be any stray bullets. You just hide behind cover for the last 3 seconds and recast from safety. 

 

shield: They can be moved around true...but enemies don't . They will shoot into the shield until the duration wears off. Mine is currently at 66 seconds which is pretty long. You also can make multiple shields completely removing any danger granted you step far enough away from bombard missiles.

 

You're acting like recasting is a huge huge drawback which it isn't. 

 

Most of these drawbacks are mitigated by not playing like a fool effectively giving you the same outcome. 

 

And it seems your criteria are specifically aimed at singling hysteria out lol. I mean I could list criteria that technically only apply to one skill and call that op and nothing else is op because technically they don't apply in 100% of the sense. It seems more like you framed your criteria off of what hysteria does instead of hysteria actually falling into a preset criteria. 

[Ronyn]

Most of these drawbacks are mitigated by not playing like a fool effectively giving you the same outcome. 

This sentence encapsulates why you do not get it. If playing like a fool can result in taking damage, the power is not without inherent room for error and punishment. Hysteria negates the inherent room for error and punishment, you cannot mess up and take damage while it is active.  Actual Invulnerability is different than pseudo invulnerability.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Nothing is being singled out. There are many different ways something can be overpowered and in need of adjustment. 

Not all of them are the same line of reasons or negatively the same principle of combat as those involving long term invulnerability.

 

Example: way back when Volt could fry a huge chuck of the map with his crazy uber bouncing Overload it was overpowered.

Back then energy wasn't so plentiful so he couldn't even do it all the time. He was totally incapable of being killed somewhere in the mission. It wasn't the best power in every situation because of the energy economy at the time.

But Overload was still overpowered cause it just did too dang much for a single button cast.

It's set of problems did not at all match up to the criteria of as hysteria's current problems.

Not the same criteria....it was OP for different reasons. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ronyn

[Kolos1001]

This sentence encapsulates why you do not get it. If playing like a fool can result in taking damage, the power is not without inherent room for error.

Hysteria negates inherent margin for error, you cannot mess up and take damage while it is active.  Actual Invulnerability is different than pseudo invulnerability. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off playing like a fool can get you killed while in hysteria. Nullifiers. Running out of energy. Forgetting to activate it in time. Forgetting to equip a melee wep. See how "Playing like a fool" should not have to do with balancing a game? 

 

Technically the power has room for error. Since you're all about technicalities. I guess it's balanced then technically. 

[Ronyn]

First off playing like a fool can get you killed while in hysteria. Nullifiers. Running out of energy. Forgetting to activate it in time. Forgetting to equip a melee wep. See how "Playing like a fool" should not have to do with balancing a game?

Technically the power has room for error. Since you're all about technicalities. I guess it's balanced then technically.

Lol. There ya go. You found a sentence where you could exploit a technicality. If only there was a post where I presented a more detailed explination of how error should factor in. Then you could know what I meant. Too bad....lol

I'm done here.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ronyn

[Kolos1001]

Lol. There ya go. You found a sentence where you could exploit a technicality.

I'm done here.

That's what you've been doing the whole time

 

Effectively the same technically different. But it's ok for you to use that logic but not me. Double standards are not my cup of tea. 

[(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame]

Lol. There ya go. You found a sentence where you could exploit a technicality. If only there was a post where I presented a more detailed explination of how error should factor in. Then you could know what I meant. Too bad....lol

I'm done here.

You should have stopped as soon as he said that games should be balanced around playing perfectly... Not a single game in the world is based around playing perfectly (although I'm sure you can find one out of a million maybe, if you really try to), otherwise, nobody would ever beat any game ever.

[Ronyn]

That's what you've been doing the whole time

Effectively the same technically different. But it's ok for you to use that logic but not me. Double standards are not my cup of tea.

No. Its what you have seen the wole time because you oversimplify my arguments while ignoring the differences between "actual" and "sort of"...calling it "effectively the same" even when it is absolutely something different.

You should have stopped as soon as he said that games should be balanced around playing perfectly... Not a single game in the world is based around playing perfectly (although I'm sure you can find one out of a million maybe, if you really try to), otherwise, nobody would ever beat any game ever.

You're right. I should have known better.

[Kolos1001]

You should have stopped as soon as he said that games should be balanced around playing perfectly... Not a single game in the world is based around playing perfectly (although I'm sure you can find one out of a million maybe, if you really try to), otherwise, nobody would ever beat any game ever.

Games are balanced around high levels of play not around what happens if people make silly mistakes. Otherwise you have people calling blessing balanced because you can die if you stand still and let the enemy shoot you for 10 minutes. 

 

No. Its what you have seen the wole time because you oversimplify my arguments while ignoring the differences between "actual" and "sort of"...calling it "effectively the same" even when it is absolutely something different.

You're right. I should have known better.

Solo invisibility is effectively the same as invulnerability. You will not take damage from enemies. 

 

One has 100% damage reduction

One abuses horrible AI

 

Both outcomes are that you will not take damage. Effectively the same. 

[VinnyBoy]

I'd like to point out that invisibility have a duration that can crap out at the most innopportune of moments, and doesnt allow unleashing millions of damage per second.

[TheBrsrkr]

I'd like to point out that invisibility have a duration that can crap out at the most innopportune of moments, and doesnt allow unleashing millions of damage per second.

This has been said before. Six times.

[Ronyn]

Games are balanced around high levels of play not around what happens if people make silly mistakes. Otherwise you have people calling blessing balanced because you can die if you stand still and let the enemy shoot you for 10 minutes.

Solo invisibility is effectively the same as invulnerability. You will not take damage from enemies.

One has 100% damage reduction

One abuses horrible AI

Both outcomes are that you will not take damage. Effectively the same.

Games are balanced for a mixture of mess ups and successes.

Neither perfection nor idiocy is expected. Balancing for either is unrealistic. Somewhere in between is most common, people lean more one way or another but rarely to either extreme.

-----

Solo Invisibility and invulnerability can be argued to be "effectively the same" under the conditions that you enter the area having never triggered the enemies combat state. In that case the stray shots and aoe won't even be out. All one has to avoid are traps if the area has them(which technically negates the argument but we will let it slide).

More of what negates the argument is that you aren't actually fighting. Its not combat.

To engage enemies in combat you must watch your distance or at least your actions to ensure you get only stealth kills and don't trigger the enemy groups combat state. Once that combat state is triggered you are at risk. You are unlikely to be hit, but will take damage if you do. Potentially fatal damage at high levels. You have to acvtively avoid situations that would cause you boily harm. This is where reasonable mistakes can punish you.

Hence if you actually intend to engage in some form of combat while invisible, you have an inherent potential for error which can result in the penalty of physical harm or death.

That is not effective invulnerability. that is sort of like invulnerability.

Different things.

Now is such invisibility overpowered? Very well might be. Worth a discussion for sure. But if so it will be on a somewhat different set of criteria.

Edit: let me add that whether or not invisibility is overpowered it won't be decided by the existance of one special enemy type that may or may not be in any given mission.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Ronyn

[VinnyBoy]

This has been said before. Six times.

Yet invisibility is still mentionned.

Also I'm not reading everything, nothing is progressing anyway.

[TheBrsrkr]

Yet invisibility is still mentionned.

Also I'm not reading everything, nothing is progressing anyway.

Everything you see here has been argued in circles over the past two days, with Kolos making the same claims over and over and everyone addressing those claims, and him ignoring them because he's right.