Wf Needs No Balance It Is Mostly Not Pvp

[LeMoog]

Here is the thing, WF was never balanced and truely without DE making the game hard for new players to enjoy it never can be.

 

Yes by all means scale the difficulty from the hub of the solar system to the fringes. I agree that playing mecury missions with a maxed loadout is not much challenge but then again after a couple of years playing I am only going to be there for resources or alerts. 

 

Personally I enjoy playing WF because shooting/zapping and blowing stuff is fun at least when no one is really getting hurt.

 

The game allows you to level up your stuff so those that invest in the game are rewarded by having more zapping, shooting and blowing stuff up ability, exactly what I want. 

 

Why is it so difficult for those that want "balance" of a sudden to understand that this is my game too and I like it the way it is, that is why I have given DE money. If WF was not the game it is then I would be playing something else and have invested time and money with a product that meets my desires

 

"Balance" = the death of the game

 Simply people have given DE money to continue to develop this game, this game as it is

 

Some people will argue that changing the game from something that people were willing to pay for i.e WF as it is into something else is a good idea . However all the people who invested cash into WF rather than some other game did so because they wanted to play WF as it was at the time they parted with the cash.

 

In the real world without money DE could not continue to make WF availible and changing WF radically away from what people were willing to spend money on is accepted by anyone in with an understandign of the real world as a bad idea.

 

So rather than risk kill the game by listening to a vocal minority who, I would say, do not understand that WF needs money to exist, why not instead, allow everyone who invested cash a vote on what, if anything, needs to be changed. I would add that there would need to be a minimum investment sufficent to avoid people or other game devs creating new accounts simply to troll the vote and kill WF for their own reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

[AM-Bunny]

I think that even co-op games have a degree of competitiveness to them. I've seen many people swell with pride when they see their damage % at the end of a mission.

 

Even if you're not some pompous showoff, nobody wants to be the guy that's not contributing. Everyone else has their Boltor Primes that mow down the enemies, while you're struggling to take down a couple goon with your Paracyst. That's not a fun feeling. Therefore, you'll feel pressured to upgrade to a Boltor Prime like everybody else in order to have fun. When you do this, there's effectively very few options for you to play because you feel forced into a small meta box of a few items.

 

The idea behind balance is simply that you would have more viable options to choose from at any given level. More options is more fun.

 

Also... the idea that people that invest cash are allowed to vote, and free to play players aren't allowed to voice opinions is... well I can think of a few strong words. But let's say I don't think it's a good idea.

[Senketsu_]

balance even in a mostly PvE game is still a requirement. continue to "balance" warframe will not change the game. it will however ground its and help strengthen its foundation. balancing the game will not cause its "death" properly challenging its players will not alienate or drive away its veteran players. i feel you thought process is warped here. 

[Eldnacpeek]

Why is it so difficult for those that want "balance" of a sudden to understand that this is my game too and I like it the way it is, that is why I have given DE money

No. It has never been your game; it is Digital Extremes's game and always will be.

---

"Balance" = the death of the game

Simply people have given DE money to continue to develop this game, this game as it is

Spending money on this game does not give you any more say than a non spender. It is completely up the player to spend money or not, you have no power in the development.

If you took the time to actually read the EULA, you'd find this:

"Digital Extremes may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Software at any time."

You're paying for the development of Warframe, not the stagnation of Warframe.

Edited February 2, 2016 by LazerSkink

[OptimumBow0]

Balance = Diversification, as AM said. 

 

There's a reason games that give players multiple ways to go about accomplishing goals do really well, and that's because there's the potential for more customization and plain ol' freedom.

 

And there are some weapons I would like to bring into serious void missions and avoid being judged for using. 

[egregiousRac]

The problem that the game faces right now is that it is too hard for new players and far too easy for veteran players.

 

Going back to Mercury, running unmodded Mk1 guns, it feels really good. It has a good level of challenge, mission length, etc. The problem is that it is a good level of challenge for someone who is skilled at the game already, who is artificially limiting themselves with beginning-of-game gear. For a new player who doesn't know the mechanics and such perfectly, it is incredibly challenging bordering on impossible to solo at times.

On the other hand, running mid to high end gear anywhere, even in Sorties and Raids is a stupid broken instakill/be instakilled spamfest. The player/enemy power relationship is the exact opposite of what it should be.

 

 

Another thing to note is that early on there aren't all the stupid mechanics (such as Nullifiers) designed purely to bypass player scaling because at that point the players don't need to be shut down. If the player balance were consistent, those elements wouldn't be necessary as elite enemies wouldn't be being reduced to fodder.

Edited February 2, 2016 by egregiousRac

[(PSN)aiptekfanboy]

I think that even co-op games have a degree of competitiveness to them. I've seen many people swell with pride when they see their damage % at the end of a mission.

 

Even if you're not some pompous showoff, nobody wants to be the guy that's not contributing. Everyone else has their Boltor Primes that mow down the enemies, while you're struggling to take down a couple goon with your Paracyst. That's not a fun feeling. Therefore, you'll feel pressured to upgrade to a Boltor Prime like everybody else in order to have fun. When you do this, there's effectively very few options for you to play because you feel forced into a small meta box of a few items.

 

The idea behind balance is simply that you would have more viable options to choose from at any given level. More options is more fun.

 

Also... the idea that people that invest cash are allowed to vote, and free to play players aren't allowed to voice opinions is... well I can think of a few strong words. But let's say I don't think it's a good idea.

Ummm my paracyst with six formas and maxxxed mods does kill stuff and its fun when versus three squad members who think a bolter prime with just a serration is going to get all the kills

[direcyphre]

Balance is a misnomer. Most of what I've seen people post about are more about making certain weapons more viable; due to their existing mechanics, damage, or something like ammo efficiency. 

 

Personally, it's all about striving higher and higher. Sidegrades will never be necessary because there will always be more pretty shinies to make and use. Beyond that, the rest is preference. I've rarely had a mission where everyone was using the same weapon of any type.

[GeoffFromAccounting]

I recommend reading a document an old user by the name of Volt_Cruelerz wrote, granted it is quite dated in terms of comparisons, but the point still stands:

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NrbeZdVEfHF5b3sE9DNMaPWcgSWncAk1eYe87QSIiOk/edit?pli=1

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ninjaboy00

[CY13ERPUNK]

can i say -1 OP? 

[LeMoog]

The point I was making was I thought self evident, I like everyone else who gave DE their money did so because they liked the game at the time.

 

This money was used to continue running and developing the game without which the game as is would not now be running.

 

So if there is going to be a radical change in the game away from what people paid for then as they were the ones who helped DE to make WF viable then they should get a choice about if any radical change is required.

 

I know this is a taboo subject for some, we are repeatedly berated to pretend that those that didnt help DE by putting their hands in their pockets should have an equal voice but the fact is that like founders with design council access money already buys you a voice, so why not extend the democracy to those that have invested as much as the original founders did. 

 

In the real world without investment there would not still be a WF and ignoring your paying customers has a known outcome, anyone who says different must live on some other world. They say free to play not free to change the game away from what pays for it to exist and by that token those that want WF to continue should not begrudge those that paid for that existence.

 

Lastly in every region I have visited more people complain of nerfing and unwanted changes than saying more balanced is required and yet I would suggest the forums have the opposite opinion, neither is a good datum to judge what the majority of players want and an ingame vote can be the only way to actually get any meaningful concensus

Edited February 2, 2016 by LeMoog

[Eldnacpeek]

The point I was making was I thought self evident, I like everyone else who gave DE their money did so because they liked the game at the time.

This money was used to continue running and developing the game without which the game as is would not now be running.

So if there is going to be a radical change in the game away from what people paid for then as they were the ones who helped DE to make WF viable then they should get a choice about if any radical change is required.

I know this is a taboo subject for some, we are repeatedly berated to pretend that those that didnt help DE by putting their hands in their pockets should have an equal voice but the fact is that like founders with design council access money already buys you a voice, so why not extend the democracy to those that have invested as much as the original founders did.

In the real world without investment there would not still be a WF and ignoring your paying customers has a known outcome, anyone who says different must live on some other world. They say free to play not free to change the game away from what pays for it to exist and by that token those that want WF to continue should not begrudge those that paid for that existence.

Lastly in every region I have visited more people complain of nerfing and unwanted changes than saying more balanced is required and yet I would suggest the forums have the opposite opinion, neither is a good datum to judge what the majority of players want and an ingame vote can be the only way to actually get any meaningful concensus

Except spending any money on Warframe is optional. No, it does not give you a louder voice than anyone else.

And once again, I refer you to this:

"Digital Extremes may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Software at any time." -EULA

https://www.warframe.com/eula

Edited February 2, 2016 by LazerSkink

[(PSN)Shiney_Piney]

I agree with OP

Edited February 2, 2016 by (PS4)Shiney_Piney

[traybong111]

> Sees stupidity in title that has been beat to the 6th circle of hell and back in the forums 

> What a classic and nostalgic clickbait that can't be anything but sarcasm

> Reads OP 

> Not sure if trolling or just idiotically selfish

 

Balance doesn't mean everything is exactly the same. It also doesn't mean nerfing everything you love. It means more options for people; more viable options to cater to a wider range of taste and playstyle, which means more players, which means more (potential) income for DE. 

 

And if you want to talk about voice and money input: I don't even see a Founder badge, which by your logic invalidates any puny scrap of opinion you have because arguably the Founders' money was the biggest help to DE. Please stop spouting that kind of garbage. 

[DelialFallen]

Diversity will come to the game, balanced or not, due to new items needing to be potatoed and formaed to excel.  Creating lesser weapons all the time can't be economically sound for the studio.

 

As long as mathematics exist, there will be gear that's ahead of the curve.  Players may be initially reticent to accept the new tools in their arsenal, but as soon as videos are out the weapons are integrated by the community.

 

The new event mods also help bringing mediocre weapons up to a point wherein they are useful notwithstanding the Endless stigma that fuels the meta.  To me, that's the only balance the game needs.  The rest, hitherto, has not succeeded in demonstrating its value as a means to improve upon the game during 2015.

 

Regardless, Founder opinion or whale opinion is no better or worse than any other reasonable and logical point of view.  The unreasonable and illogical, though, I am against.

[ranks21]

just find what you enjoy most out of the game and use it at your leisure. squabbling over pettiness when you can do what you want in the game is just silly.

 

 there will never be balance on one level and really the only balance you need/ get is in pvp itself and not the main game pve which is the bread and butter of the game.

 

 just leave it to the devs they'll adjust whats needed to be and change when they feel fit.

 

# 1 reason I don't pour $$ in this game is simply the clause that stated it will be subjected to change at anytime. what that means is, if I buy a weapon and like it because its up to my power standards and a day or a week later it is nerfed/balanced to a lower weaker standard then that will leave me  an unsatisfied customer that will forever make myself be cautious about any other purchases if I make anymore= bad for business.

[Davoodoo]

Xcom needs no balance, its pve only and its single player. Thats why snipers got nerf in enemy within. No something is off.

Wow needs no balance for its raids since these are pve, thats why pvp bonuses which offered great benefits in pve were disabled in raids. No again something is off.

Dragons dogma needs no balance, its pve only. Thats why dark arisen nerfed the S#&$ out of assasins. Again something isnt right.

 

Maybe the whole idea of pve not needing balance isnt right??

Edited February 2, 2016 by Davoodoo

[Nighttide77]

Balance only matters in terms of fun. If you're having fun, then balance isn't a deal. Running around with invulnerability and super weapons can be fun, as has been proven by cheat codes over history. However, that novelty can quickly dry out.

Challenge is also a part of fun, along with testing the limits of your strategy and skill. If you're not being challenged, you are probably not getting as much enjoyment. You're also more likely to burn out faster.

The beauty of Warframe is that you can choose to be challenged by choosing specific frames, weapons, and mods. At the same time, it's nice to still enjoy frames and still be challenged by their use.

[Davoodoo]

The beauty of Warframe is that you can choose to be challenged by choosing specific frames, weapons, and mods. At the same time, it's nice to still enjoy frames and still be challenged by their use.

The beauty of choosing to be challenged, is dropping everything you grinded for and choosing to play coop game, solo.

 

I havent yet seen anyone who came to forums praising how that is viable and fun solution, not a single person. Maybe that should give you some hint.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Davoodoo

[LeMoog]

The beauty of choosing to be challenged, is dropping everything you grinded for and choosing to play coop game, solo.

 

I havent yet seen anyone who came to forums praising how that is viable and fun solution, not a single person. Maybe that should give you some hint.

 

I play solo myself, when I get pizzed at lack of brains in public, it would be nice not to have to go with maxed frame but without sacrifice mod it is always going to be overkill.

 

I understand when people say DE promise nothing in return for investment but the fact is that without investment the game dies and that was why the design council was invented i.e. to allow those willing to support the game a voice in it's evolution. 

 

Ultimately DE will decide what they think will make the game profitable and that is very much as it should be. However if the game is radically changed because DE thought that a majority of players wanted something after listening to a minority who have no real investment in the game then there is potential for disaster.

 

Lets be clear here the forums and region are full of people who have opinions based upon misconceptions, often I see posts about changing WF into some other game but again I invested in WF because it was WF not that other game.

 

I see people posting about how clever they were not supporting the game because they read the EULA and concluded that investment buys them nothing of real value but again if everyone did this then WF would have died long ago.

 

DE really really need the money from investment to continue WF and the precident is already set for a greater voice for investers in the form of the design council. 

 

I am suggesting that the design council produce the concepts and the investing community vote upon the concepts, this is very much an echo of good democracy at work. Personally I do not want design council access or any of the exclusive provided to the founders because I was not there and giving it to me after making a promise fo exclusivity would mean that DE could not be trusted to keep their promises.

 

If the real majority of the investing players want something and I have had the change to vote on it and loose then again this is democracy, however what I would resent is the game being change to my detriment because someone who was unwilling to support the game with both time and money had a greater voice in how my money was used that I did.

 

I like everyone else who parted with money did so because they liked the game but if WF changes into something they didnt like and they had no chance to speak their mind about the change then as always the disenfranchised stop investment.

[Loswaith]

The balance is more between content and player, rather than between players themselves.

 

While you dont need full balance in PvE you do need some.  Currently the game has a huge difference in effectiveness from one item of gear to another in orders of hundreds of magnitude.

 

Essentially some gear is completely useless in situations where other gear makes that situation trivial.  This can extend to some gear that is essentially a single tier (not that warframe has any official tiering) of difference between them and between Warframes themselves.

 

It is not really any fun when your favourite warframe just cant contribute to a mission, despite being built with the most powerful mods, while other frames make that same content a joke with half the mod power being used of the other one.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Loswaith

[YasaiTsume]

If 1 thing becomes out of hand, even in the meta, it will get nerfed.

The recent thing that was nerfed was probably Mesa, who has a confirmed spot in every Defense setup, every Interception, and basically useful anywhere, because she can just hunker down, and Aimbot anything that enters her kill zone.


 

[DeMonkey]

Lets be clear here the forums and region are full of people who have opinions based upon misconceptions

 

Yes, *looks at thread*, yes they are.

 

Anything of worth has already been said by LazerSink and Bunny, but really, it's a misconception that you've paid DE to keep the game as it is. You've paid DE for the hard work they've put into the game and funded its continued developement.

 

 

I play solo myself, when I get pizzed at lack of brains in public

 

I feel the same after reading the forums, guess which thread I'm 'pizzed' at currently.

[(PSN)Sange13]

No. It has never been your game; it is Digital Extremes's game and always will be.

---

Spending money on this game does not give you any more say than a non spender. It is completely up the player to spend money or not, you have no power in the development.

If you took the time to actually read the EULA, you'd find this:

"Digital Extremes may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Software at any time."

You're paying for the development of Warframe, not the stagnation of Warframe.

 

I don't like the way he says this, but I agree what what he's saying.

[Nlim]

The point I was making was I thought self evident, I like everyone else who gave DE their money did so because they liked the game at the time.

 

This money was used to continue running and developing the game without which the game as is would not now be running.

 

So if there is going to be a radical change in the game away from what people paid for then as they were the ones who helped DE to make WF viable then they should get a choice about if any radical change is required.

 

What nonsense. I didn´t give money to DE so that the game would be frozen in time and stagnate nor did I give them money to buy a stake in how they game should look like. If either were the case I would have quit the game a long time ago - let alone bougth anything.