Tonkor: Let's fix easy mode

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 hour ago, samuelx43a said:

why the hell over a wall of text just to fix one darn weapon that has something that other weapons don't? i'm just asking, i have yet to go in pvp, but i usually play pve, so in my book a more powerful weapon is better, still once i get the suffucient mr i will get myself a penta, for the single fact that you can detonate the rounds, and perhaps the ogris.

 

so for me a couple of guys with a tonkor hasnt given it any problems, so if someone could politely explain me why is a launcher that does less self damage is already broken?

Here, I put your reply first so you can skip the textwall part later.

Because it does less self damage while also doing many times more damage to enemies, breaking the balance of risk to reward as drawn out by all the other supposedly high-tier, endgame weapons.

 

6 hours ago, Ax10mCRO said:

Paladins can do it too, does that mean they need to get nerfed?

Who said anything about trolls? I said (something that you choose to ignore) is that there is no UPPER LIMIT to a players power, something that you are trying to introduce to warframe so "everyone can get their fair share of gamplay". You can also argue that you can have 3 people afk in a warframe public game with nothing to stop them from doing so, that is beside the point, you are moving goalposts again.

Sure they could, that's what guilds are for.

If you were meant to control every other player then it would also not be a multiplayer game, you would get AI teammates that you can customize to your liking.

Actually it is upon you to prove it, you are the one demanding changes while i'm saying "let tonkor stay the way it is and look for a better, more complete solution ". I simply said that you have no objective reason to complain about something that you can avoid. You have yet to provide proof how something that is not in your game can be breaking that same game for you. You also have yet to provide proof how you are forced to have that tonkor in your game. I already proved there are ways to avoid tonkor (as if making a group or playing solo need proof in the first place), that means you can't prove you are forced to play with it and have your game broken by it.

Besides, the game itself is broken, try doing late game missions without stacking armor reduction? Is that fair gameplay? The entire game is made to challenge you to find ways to break it, to surpass the limitations imposed upon you by that absurd armor scaling. Simply nerfing tonkor won't change anything, the game needs changes on a bigger scale until then let the people have their fun, you can choose to walk away if it bothers you.

• Let me show you something else paladins could do that trivialised gameplay and was removed as a result: http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Reckoning_Bomb
• No, you're rearranging arguments to obscure the fact that I am disproving them. Claiming my argument against your stated factor X of problem A is wrong because it doesn't specifically address factor Y. I already cited upper limits that exist for levels and now gear with regard to WoW dungeon finder. The "intentional underperforming" issue is not reasonable although possible through the system as the rest of the group cannot be expected to handle the load of intentional underperformers. Whether one person or 50% of people could solo a Sortie is immaterial; if that leaves remaining a significant proportion of other people who cannot, it is not reasonably expected for them to do it.
• What if they can't find a raiding guild? What if they have a socially-inclined tie to a certain guild already that doesn't do raid content? As long as that possibility is nonzero, it matters. You're trying to refute by arguing semantics that don't even work. Even my own experience was exactly that; couldn't find general chat pugs to take me (no achievement, catch 22) and I was in a guild for social reasons so no raids for me. But LFR was introduced and restrictions eased in pick-up groups, and I was able to not only do the raids, but even do it at the normal level I wasn't prepared for.
  • Warcraft's LFR has a whole additional layer of explanation about reasonable expectations and risk/reward balance, too. Randomly-assembled groups cannot be expected to have the expected cohesion required for the normal content, SO the difficulty was altered to account for this, BUT due to this reduced risk, the rewards are of a lesser quality.
• You keep saying that phrase. I do not think it means what you think that it means. Balance changes are not control grabs. Telling people they have to not play in public because of their preferences is.
• No, it really isn't, you're just shifting the burden of proof. I have every objective reason to give feedback on a feedback forum, that's why it exists. I can avoid the game entirely, but that doesn't mean I can't express an opinion on its balance. You can avoid this thread, so you're now not allowed, by your own logic, to express your opinion that the thread is making invalid claims. Good day.
• Late game missions without stacking armour reduction?
  • Covert Lethality.
  • Corrosion procs
  • Slash procs
  • Abilities and ability augments that reduce or remove armour
  • Corpus (less Bursa and Oxium osprey) and Infested (less the impact of a Swarm Moa) missions.
• Late game missions are supposed to offer a challenge at end-game content, not still be completely trivialised. Why do you think the Sortie Modifiers for resistances and damage augmentation were merged? Why did the Energy Reduction get increased from 50% to 75% and also applied to sources of energy regen over time? To keep trying to reach that challenge point. They were easier, so if it was meant to be trivialised anyway, it's a needless patch cycle to make it more difficult.

[Irorone]

Effectively the most annoying trend of threads I've seen "is too powerful please nerf" because the only time that can be considered a valid argument is in pvp where an overly powerful weapon makes it unfair in a competition standpoint.  Also complaining that a crit based grenade launcher is powerful, at this point I wish the forum upgrade had an option to post every facepalm image on the internet just by clicking a button.

Seriously, we work towards getting better weapons then people complain about them being too powerful in comparison to the baseline weapons.  Which again is only a valid argument when it's other players who ACTUALLY SUFFER from it.  For those who are about to say "but my kills" there's an option to solo you can have all the kills that way >_>.

[IceColdHawk]

A pretty neutral guy speaking here. Just thought i gonna let things out i wanted to say. Don't expect me to defend tonkor, nor trying to get it nerfed.

First of all i feel the urge to say that saying tonkor needs to get nerfed because:"Timmy Tonkor gets all the kills. Why can't i do anything? Not fun!" is the worst argument i ever heard about a weapon. Seriously. You can maybe say that for mag's polarize since it's oneshotting corpus around the globe (already getting reworked). But tonkor? There are always enemies ready for you to get picked off. ALWAYS. This game is about grinding items and not about people getting the most kills. Hell, i'd even be happy to have a guy with a tonkor with me. At least these people contribute much to the mission. As long as i see the mission screen and know that i've also contributed to the mission or could enjoy my abilities, i'm happy.

Now with that out of the way, let me get to point nr.2: Tonkor is op. You can't deny it unless you got no clue what you're talking about. Effective ammo efficiency, extreme and also highest DPS along with AoE while having no risk of being self-damaged. Yeah the only downside it has is that the grenade flies slowly in an arc and MUST hit the enemy. In most cases it's not hard when shooting in a crowd or in cc'd enemies.

Third point: Now that we found out tonkor is op, so what? Remember people, there will always be a best gun (or guns) in the game. Next stop will be shotguns. But unlike PvP, you can decide which weapon to pick. Don't wanna go ez mode? Don't pick tonkor. But not having "fun" because other people like to use it and get more kills is just stupid. You shouldn't bother. It's not a deathmatch. Instead, imagine tonkor got self damage, then you would have to deal with reviving people constantly. That's my word to the "nerfers". Anyway, as i said before, i know that tonkor is op and since i'm staying honest, i'm not trying to defend the tonkor defenders.

Now to my final point: This thread reached it's time where it's just a snowball war with arguments about who is right and who is not. It's already going in a circle. Noone's gonna change his opinion, noone. That's in human's nature to stand by his opinion. It's just pointless wasting of time for both parties as of now.

@EDYinnit - Look, i understand your reasonings, but you will never impress Ax10mCRO to agree with you.

@Ax10mCRO - I also understand you why you don't see the need of nerfing the tonkor. Still you're never gonna impress EDYinnit or any other people who want to get it nerfed to join your side.

 

At this point only a poll could help. It's impossible to please EVERYONE. But it's possible to please the majority. Hopefully tonkor will be in the next Community's Hot Topics so everyone can vote for his decision while also clearly showing DE, what the majority really wants.

 

Thanks for reading (only if you truely did), have a nice day!

Edited March 27, 2016 by IceColdHawk

[LazyKnight]

Why is Tonkor better than Secura Penta? If anyone wants a clear example of something that just doesn't fit, it's that. 

It's one of those weapons that if you opened http://warframe-builder.com/ it doesn't seem like it should be  better, yet just use those event mods and it's clear why. I am not saying it was fine before hand, it still did massive damage on weak-point shots .

 

A build i would use on my Secura Penta: No need to complain it's not the best but it's serviceable build I would use.

http://goo.gl/lzqWo4

http://warframe-builder.com/Primary_Weapons/Builder/Secura_Penta/t_30_32220000_131-7-5-132-3-5-133-6-5-137-1-10-138-0-5-141-4-5-150-2-10-550-5-5_138-6-137-7-150-8-132-8-141-11-550-9-133-11-131-11/en/2-0-84/0

 

 

For Tonkor: This is what I would use if I'd use forma on it. I do not have one upgrade to this extent, as mines just a 30 slot so i can test its with critical hits and different mods. I really do not want to waste yet another catalyst on a weapon people have sighted in to get ruined. So, yes, I am not able to show uber screen shots of the damage.

http://goo.gl/62BOv5

http://warframe-builder.com/Primary_Weapons/Builder/Tonkor/t_30_00022233_132-5-5-137-4-10-138-7-5-140-2-5-141-6-5-159-3-5-626-1-5-630-0-5_630-7-626-9-140-9-159-5-137-7-132-8-141-6-138-6/en/2-0-70/0

 

In game, Tonkor should do way more damage if you make sure it detonates above an NPC with a head. Still, it way easier to air-burst a Penta's round and get the head-shot damage, but it doesn't have enough critical hits to be decent.

 Tonkor shouldn't be as good as it is compared to the mastery rank 12 Penta and it's due to its critical hits and those event mods. I hope all DE does it rearrange the stats to move Tonkor from a critical hit weapon to a white hit weapon. It doesn't need a massive nerf it just needs white damage as opposed to yellow and red.

Edited March 27, 2016 by LazyKnight

[TheLexiConArtist]

2 hours ago, Irorone said:

Effectively the most annoying trend of threads I've seen "is too powerful please nerf" because the only time that can be considered a valid argument is in pvp where an overly powerful weapon makes it unfair in a competition standpoint.  Also complaining that a crit based grenade launcher is powerful, at this point I wish the forum upgrade had an option to post every facepalm image on the internet just by clicking a button.

Seriously, we work towards getting better weapons then people complain about them being too powerful in comparison to the baseline weapons.  Which again is only a valid argument when it's other players who ACTUALLY SUFFER from it.  For those who are about to say "but my kills" there's an option to solo you can have all the kills that way >_>.

Other players can suffer for it, as I've explained many times over. It's not the place of you, me, or the dissenters I've been disputing for a while now, to tell a player what they are allowed to have as their game goal, nor what they use. If that goal isn't solely "clear the mission", then trivialisation of the mission can be a negative impact.

Telling people to manual group or solo is a failed argument because of the lack of reasonable expectation that any and every player who might have a problem in this way can safely solo the same level of content, nor is it always possible to manually create parties for certain content.

 

Is a crit launcher too powerful? Possibly, due to the combination of auto-headshotting and the Headcrit Multiplier. The fact that the Tonkor's critical stats are proportionally far better than the base damage is worse when compared to other options means it's an overall upgrade already; the Ogris barely wins out by about 30 average damage per shot, but its other stats drag it down to obsolescence.

Add the Headcrit Effect for about 60% of the game content (accounting for Corpus and nonhumanoids that break autoheadshot) and it becomes many times better.

But more than doubled output is not even the entire equation, the main drawback is also removed (scaling self damage). So it's over 200% of the power (much more in fact, without going into specifics), and 10% of the drawback, making a complete imbalance that destroys hopes of variety.

 

41 minutes ago, IceColdHawk said:

-snipped weighing in on power level and power level balance being an issue-

Now to my final point: This thread reached it's time where it's just a snowball war with arguments about who is right and who is not. It's already going in a circle. Noone's gonna change his opinion, noone. That's in human's nature to stand by his opinion. It's just pointless wasting of time for both parties as of now.

@EDYinnit - Look, i understand your reasonings, but you will never impress Ax10mCRO to agree with you.

@Ax10mCRO - I also understand you why you don't see the need of nerfing the tonkor. Still you're never gonna impress EDYinnit or any other people who want to get it nerfed to join your side.

With regard to the part I snipped out, just remember; you might be fine with what the Tonkor does as an OP weapon, and I personally might not care about being outdamaged, but the freedom to use or not use what you want goes both ways. People should not be forced to use the Tonkor in order to achieve reasonably comparable output (if that is their goal), nor should people be forced to not use the Tonkor to ensure that people using other things achieve reasonably comparable output.

 

The middle-ground is to fix the balance of power, increasing viability of all other options while not making the rebalanced option not-at-all viable itself.

If options A, B C and D exist, and D is ten times as impactful as A, B and C, then the options to make A, B and C twice as viable are to either increase the impact of all three of those (which is power creep, in gaming) or to reduce the amount by which impact of D exceeds that of A, B and C.

2+2+2+54 = 60, (1/30+1/30+1/30+27/30) which can become 4+4+4+54 = 66 (1/15+1/15+1/15+12/15) or 2+2+2+24 = 30 (still 1/15+1/15+1/15+12/15).

 

As for the part still quoted, well, I said exactly that multiple times to offer a gracious exit from the debate. It's not like I'm suggesting going back and deleting the posts, the arguments are still there for others to draw their own conclusions. But I will not sit idly by while fallacious claims that I am not "allowed" to express an opinion are asserted over and over again as if that proves it is true.

 

I've agreed to disagree, as they say, but he just literally won't agree that we can disagree. Yet I'm the insane, arrogant one. Such comedy.

Edited March 27, 2016 by EDYinnit

[Futurehero]

Just fix the headshot crit bug on it. There's no way that's an intended feature. 

After all, people said Trinity one shotting any enemy with a combination of her 1 +2 was a feature, they were wrong.

If ANY explosion is a guaranteed headshot, why aren't Ember's fireballs  critting?  

[IceColdHawk]

8 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

I've agreed to disagree, as they say, but he just literally won't agree that we can disagree. Yet I'm the insane, arrogant one. Such comedy.

None of you is arrogant. Both of you got some points. Still, what i wanted to say isn't you should get your posts deleted, no. Just trying to end your and CRO's debate that leads to nothing but wasted time. Many people don't bother with people using the tonkor, nor do they feel any kind of "forcement". I for example never feel forced. I don't need the most op things, still i'm doing a good job and enjoying it. But we also got the peeps who don't like how strong that weapon is. I personally can't support that, because i don't bother what other people are playing aslong as they don't hug the ground 24/7. But that's only my opinion ofc. Thing here is, you can't go and say: "No! It has to get nerfed! Too strong! Your arguments are invalid! Me and my friends get annoyed!". It's only your opinion, just like if you say: "Tonkor is fine! It's incredibly fun for me and my friends! Nerfing will only reduce our enjoyment!". It has the same value as the opinion before.

But like i previously have posted, a poll shows for a fact, what people would want to see. Both sides got their points, but in threads like these, both sides continue fighting each other. To be honest, i'm surprised the thread is still alive. Anyway, being egoistic won't help, the majority should decide for the highest amount of pleased people so there is no unfairness. Of course only if DE agrees with it, it's their game after all. They ultimately decide what to happen.

[LazyKnight]

5 minutes ago, IceColdHawk said:

But like i previously have posted, a poll shows for a fact, what people would want to see. 

I would like it if DE had in-game poll as opposed to a forum poll as that lets people that play the game vote in their opinion (I do not care if DE listen or not it's their game). It doesn't have to be complex it could be by their mail system, is Tonker overpowered, yes, no?  

Only saying this because before they nerfed Hek, I didn't care to even come to this forums or even keep track of anything DE was doing.

[TheLexiConArtist]

58 minutes ago, IceColdHawk said:

 

Don't worry, I wasn't trying to suggest that you were aiming for post deletion either. One of the most common mistaken leaps of logic when a contesting of views happens is to assume "not positive equals negative" (and when argued to be the case, is what we call false dichotomy), where other options between and beyond those two aspects exists.

(In an integer number sequence from -1 to 1, "not 1" could be either -1 or 0.)

 

I agree that they are opinions! I agreed that the other guy is allowed to have a contrary opinion. But opinions for a change are best expressed with some cause to back them up. In the end, few things in life are absolutes. Even the universal constants that uphold the entirety of scientific understanding on how the world exists are observed to drift.

Here, the decision is ultimately based on exactly two categories:

• What DE wants to offer to players.
• What players who want to experience intended offerings want to see.

As a proponent for change, my job is to provide an opinion, and reasons for this opinion, so that it can be looked at and DE can decide if they what they want to offer is in accordance with, or conflicts with, the reasons for my opinion.

I speak for myself when I state an opinion (am I a player with an expectation DE wishes to accommodate), I provide evidence to show how that opinion, that desire for change, can occur with a given player expectation (do players with this expectation have a reason to share the opinion).

As an opponent of change, the job is the same: provide the opinion against alterations (present the expectation) and provide evidence to show how the alterations can negatively affect players with that expectation (do others with the expectation have a core reason to share opinion against, i.e. not just "I don't like it personally").

 

The first part of those jobs is inarguable. You have your expectation and that's it. The second part is where disputes can arise, but trying to use that as justification against the existence of the first part is useless... and that's why we're 18 pages in with the same two or three people, because the opponents to the thread are trying to assume the role of DE and decide what should be a valid opinion.

~Logic fun~

Edited March 27, 2016 by EDYinnit

[IceColdHawk]

4 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

-snip-

So, at this point, can we agree that a community poll would make more sense now rather than recycling the same arguments over and over?

[TheLexiConArtist]

6 minutes ago, IceColdHawk said:

So, at this point, can we agree that a community poll would make more sense now rather than recycling the same arguments over and over?

Hang on, let me snip the edited bit into here:

 

Quote

Meanwhile, you're right in that a poll would have its own value, but it has its own drawbacks. It polls people for the first part of proposing/opposing change, but lacks the contextual why that is valuable when DE looks to decide upon the first category: what expectations they want to cater to.

Having said that, decision by popularity is a valid outcome, it's just fallacious to use that popularity as proof of anything being an invalid in the debate itself. DE can choose to cater to the numerical majority opinion, but that doesn't mean the minority didn't have a valid point, just that DE decided they didn't want to offer that.

Yes, it makes more sense than recycling the same arguments. But it doesn't invalidate all other possible new arguments either. I've sought to provide a new, refined counter-argument every time I've had to refute something. That's a different argument to seek the same end.

It adds a perspective, it doesn't provide the only one.

Edited March 27, 2016 by EDYinnit
autoformatting please stahp

[IceColdHawk]

44 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

Hang on, let me snip the edited bit into here:

 

Yes, it makes more sense than recycling the same arguments. But it doesn't invalidate all other possible new arguments either. I've sought to provide a new, refined counter-argument every time I've had to refute something. That's a different argument to seek the same end.

It adds a perspective, it doesn't provide the only one.

Most threads like these get locked because it soon starts to catch too much toxicity because of people strictly disagreeing with OP's and his fellows' opinions. You should be surprised that you're only dealing with 1 or 2 guys. Most probably don't even care to bother posting here anymore. But nothing has changed as of yet. You want it nerfed for balance and cuz OP, CRO wants it to stay cuz fun and no need for balance. Sure threads have to get made in order to receive attention, mainly for DE and Community's Hot Topics. But having a snowball war (even if civil), 18 pages long won't do much. You may got some valid points about balancing but, what if warframe players mostly wanna feel OP? What if, the main reason why people play warframe IS exactly to feel OP and be able to play infinitly long (surv, def, etc.)? You can't know how validating your arguments are if 70% of the playerbase is strictly against it and will decide to leave or rage about it.

Anyway, i've stated what i would like to see, more polls, more Community Hot Topics. Less same threads appearing that only get locked at the end (cough, valkyr threads, cough). And also for DE to give a sight of what we really want to have. Is it balance? Is it feeling OP? Or even an ultimate challenge? Threads alone won't do much. Especially multiple threads of the same thing.

Since i only wanted to give in my 2 cents, i'll be stopping here as of now. I'm definitely not writing any more letters to fill pages. EDYinnit, do what you cannot let. But i can almost assure you, that you won't gain much by continuing. Anyway, don't wanna stop you, it's your thing.

Edited March 27, 2016 by IceColdHawk
typos

[TheLexiConArtist]

16 minutes ago, IceColdHawk said:

Anyway, i've stated what i would like to see, more polls, more Community Hot Topics. Less same threads appearing that only get locked at the end (cough, valkyr threads, cough). And also for DE to give a sight of what we really want to have. Is it balance? Is it feeling OP? Or even an ultimate challenge? Threads alone won't do much. Especially multiple threads of the same thing.

Since i only wanted to give in my 2 cents, i'll be stopping here as of now. I'm definitely not writing any more letters to fill pages. EDYinnit, do what you cannot let. But i can almost assure you, that you won't gain much by continuing. Anyway, don't wanna stop you, it's your thing.

Respect for you, disagreeing with the reasons for the opinion without attacking the opinion itself is what those two or three main dissenters lack. I'm sure I'll have one or both of them to deal with soon, so here is our shining example of agreeing to disagree.

I hope you don't mind if I use a counterpoint to further elucidate how actual debate works:

Yes, it may be desirable to feel OP¹, but lines still must be drawn for freedom of choice to exist. If everyone wants to be OP, but some of them don't want to use a launcher, they shouldn't have to²; the risk/reward balance to allow an AOE weapon to keep that high damage output on all targets is to have a limitation that brings it in line with a non-AOE weapon which can be implied to have the 'limitation' of being single-target³.

There's

[1]: acceptance of an opinion existing (I can't say someone else doesn't want to feel OP)

[2]: providing a reason that the opinion could still be contradicted by the current status (in this case, if freedom of weapon choice is a thing players should be allowed)

[3]: the evidence of how the current status is in contradiction and changing it fixes that. (Still OP, but not the only option)

 

Thanks for actual debate, not fingers-in-ears shouting of arguments.

And look, nobody loses by stopping here because neither of us are seeking to make the executive decision on the outcome. Just adding new reasons and evidence to consider.

[Kotsender_Quasimir]

i'm curious how a poll would look like. that being said i believe if DE left game balance to grassroots democracy we'd still have viver, old school greedy mag, afk-mesa etc. etc. ...

anyway, in the end it's up to them.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Kotsender_Quasimir

[Tsoe]

On 13/03/2016 at 8:15 PM, Zonzo said:

Are you serious? The rocket jump ability that comes with the Tonkor is the reason it has low self damage? Why in the name of God would you change this? 

 

 

bullet jump

 

and dont have the need to do rocket jump anymore

[Magneu]

Coming back after a weekend of clearing my head by riding a death machine too fast for my own good (a great cure; highly recommended if you can pilot two wheeled engines);

I feel as though the reason the Tonkor is too powerful is because it supersedes its own weapon class's intended role (speaking only for primaries)

 

Assault rifles are the "do everything pretty well" class.

Semi-autos drop a bit of multi-target/ease of use for stronger single target damage, with the added bonus of ammo efficiency.

Burst weapons hold a middle ground between autos and semi-autos, combining the good and bad from both.

Shotguns excel against groups/single targets in close range, with the ability to demolish packed squads, but lack ranged damage.

Beam weapons *should* be similar to assault rifles, but have increased status/critical stats in exchange for more ammo consumption/limited range (ticks per second break this as of now though), and excel against groups with special bonuses (Amprex), or the sheer effectiveness of punch-through mods. 

Snipers excel at single target damage (perhaps the highest burst damage on a single target with headshots/combo counters in game), but pay for being non-versatile against groups/smaller targets.

Bows lose a bit of single target damage in exchange for ease of use, close range potential, and group punch-through.

Launchers should be the undisputed kings of destroying groups from afar...but should pay by having less single target DPS. Essentially, they should spread moderate damage over a large area to affect all enemies in the area (total DPS is equal to or greater than other weapons, but you have to deal with travel time, self-damage, limited ammo, etc).

I played an hour T4 recently with two friends, running a Nekros with a Secura Penta. My job was life support from Desecrate when needed (emergency spam), Terrify CC, additional firepower/meat-shields with SotD, and revives with Soul Survivor. My Secura Penta wiped the floor with the Lancers, Crewmen, most Moas, and even some Bombards (Radiation/Viral build; Bombards that didn't die due to raw damage were gunned down by allies while being Radiation procced/half-health from Viral). In exchange, my DPS against Gunners was practically worthless, I couldn't take down Nullifier shields, and proccing Ancients happened more than outright killing them.

I fulfilled a vital role in the squad by reducing enemy numbers substantially, but my friend with the Dread was in charge of Gunners/Ancients, while my other friend with a Boltor Prime (he actually brought it to be ironic, as he hates it) took down Nullifiers bubbles/mopped up remaining trash mobs/supplied additional firepower against heavies. It was a hyper-effective strategy, enabling us to hit an hour with little trouble, only ever going down due to neglecting to look behind us for spawns, or a Moa that snuck in our globe and slammed us out).

(It's why I consider snipers so important in high level runs, as they isolate key units like Ancients and Eximus heavies, then eliminate them before they can make a substantial impact on the battle-field (let me say, Vulkar Wraith stacking headshots...OHKO on level 120-140 Gunners is a beautiful thing).)

The reason for that story is to explain how effective (ammo economy, ease of use, AOE) launchers are at certain, important roles. Now, the problem with the Tonkor.

The Tonkor essentially combines the role of launchers with that of snipers; it takes extreme single-target DPS, and applies it in a massive AOE. A single person, (with even a Specter with an auto-rifle to take down Nullifer bubbles) could have replaced our three-man team (frame abilities not-withstanding) with just a Tonkor. Fight against Infested or Grineer, and it just becomes easier.

Fixing AOE headshots should help, reducing the critical multiplier on the weapon should help, even reducing the base damage should help (self-damage could help, but only with the people who run around with the Tonkor as a glorified shotgun). However it's done, the Tonkor needs to be toned down from the extreme outlier it is. 

 

[IceColdHawk]

1 hour ago, Kotsender_Quasimir said:

i'm curious how a poll would look like. that being said i believe if DE left game balance to grassroots democracy we'd still have viver, old school greedy mag, afk-mesa etc. etc. ...

anyway, in the end it's up to them.

Community Hot Topics. You should check it out. 

3 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

Thanks for actual debate, not fingers-in-ears shouting of arguments.

No problem. Can only give it back. As long as people are reasonable, i don't have to be loud.

Edited March 28, 2016 by IceColdHawk

[Irorone]

7 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

Other players can suffer for it, as I've explained many times over. It's not the place of you, me, or the dissenters I've been disputing for a while now, to tell a player what they are allowed to have as their game goal, nor what they use. If that goal isn't solely "clear the mission", then trivialisation of the mission can be a negative impact.

Telling people to manual group or solo is a failed argument because of the lack of reasonable expectation that any and every player who might have a problem in this way can safely solo the same level of content, nor is it always possible to manually create parties for certain content.

 

Is a crit launcher too powerful? Possibly, due to the combination of auto-headshotting and the Headcrit Multiplier. The fact that the Tonkor's critical stats are proportionally far better than the base damage is worse when compared to other options means it's an overall upgrade already; the Ogris barely wins out by about 30 average damage per shot, but its other stats drag it down to obsolescence.

Add the Headcrit Effect for about 60% of the game content (accounting for Corpus and nonhumanoids that break autoheadshot) and it becomes many times better.

But more than doubled output is not even the entire equation, the main drawback is also removed (scaling self damage). So it's over 200% of the power (much more in fact, without going into specifics), and 10% of the drawback, making a complete imbalance that destroys hopes of variety.

 

With regard to the part I snipped out, just remember; you might be fine with what the Tonkor does as an OP weapon, and I personally might not care about being outdamaged, but the freedom to use or not use what you want goes both ways. People should not be forced to use the Tonkor in order to achieve reasonably comparable output (if that is their goal), nor should people be forced to not use the Tonkor to ensure that people using other things achieve reasonably comparable output.

 

The middle-ground is to fix the balance of power, increasing viability of all other options while not making the rebalanced option not-at-all viable itself.

If options A, B C and D exist, and D is ten times as impactful as A, B and C, then the options to make A, B and C twice as viable are to either increase the impact of all three of those (which is power creep, in gaming) or to reduce the amount by which impact of D exceeds that of A, B and C.

2+2+2+54 = 60, (1/30+1/30+1/30+27/30) which can become 4+4+4+54 = 66 (1/15+1/15+1/15+12/15) or 2+2+2+24 = 30 (still 1/15+1/15+1/15+12/15).

 

As for the part still quoted, well, I said exactly that multiple times to offer a gracious exit from the debate. It's not like I'm suggesting going back and deleting the posts, the arguments are still there for others to draw their own conclusions. But I will not sit idly by while fallacious claims that I am not "allowed" to express an opinion are asserted over and over again as if that proves it is true.

 

I've agreed to disagree, as they say, but he just literally won't agree that we can disagree. Yet I'm the insane, arrogant one. Such comedy.

How does it punish other players? Oh yeah they don't get credit for doing the kill, they still get the xp, the mats, the prints, and anything else related to mission completion but they don't get the little number increase on mission completion screen saying how many they've killed.  Oh you're not arrogant?  There's over a hundred weapons in three different equip categories (primary, secondary, melee) but you talk like the tonkor is the ONLY option >_>, also offering the opposition a gracious exit to the debate?  That's almost TEXTBOOK arrogance when you consider that my opinion and those who share it are just valid as yours.  You may not be the only one with it in this thread granted, but you DEFINITELY have it.  Like I said if you're really THAT worried about how the mission is completed you can just solo the vast majority of the in game content (pvp and sorties withstanding) or just be selective and invite only certain player types via recruiting.  Also not sure just how old OP is but last I checked explosives don't benefit from headshot bonuses after that patch.  The kunai themselves can still headshot but my assumption is that concealed explosives does not.  I'm saying it's not valid to argue the strength on the tonkor because of three key points.

Whether it was you or a teammate that killed the enemy you still get all xp (albeit share spread on gear), all drops assuming you went to pick them up, and finally who complains about team members that can actually carry their own weight in pve game modes?

What is wrong with a powerful weapon in pve?  Only thing possibly wrong with an op pve weapon is literally a weapon that requires no aim (tonkor has projectile speed and drop not to mention trajectory variations from lowered accuracy mods), kills EVERYTHING in one hit (not just a comparatively small 10m radius, I'm talking like 50m plus shield polarize which nobody complains about that I've seen yet >_>), and can never run out of uses/opportunities (you can run out of ammo with a tonkor it's unlikely but it's still possible).

Because nerfing a powerful weapon just to bring it in line with lower tier weapons in a PVE game is a virtually pointless waste of time since it just shifts the focus to the next weapon that's considered op until somebody finally draws a line.  I'd prefer they work on new interesting content as opposed to minor tweaks to damage numbers, and just tweaking damage numbers to satisfy the people who are of the mindset of "too easy please nerf" literally add NOTHING to the game.  Instead of weakening a weapon give us stronger/more interesting foes and challenges.  There's any number of ways to fix the core problem but weakening existing gear is literally an option almost exactly in the opposite direction of an improvement.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Irorone
grammar

[TheLexiConArtist]

45 minutes ago, Irorone said:

How does it punish other players? Oh yeah they don't get credit for doing the kill, they still get the xp, the mats, the prints, and anything else related to mission completion but they don't get the little number increase on mission completion screen saying how many they've killed.  Oh you're not arrogant?  There's over a hundred weapons in three different equip categories (primary, secondary, melee) but you talk like the tonkor is the ONLY option >_>, also offering the opposition a gracious exit to the debate?  That's almost TEXTBOOK arrogance.  You may not be the only one with it in this thread granted, but you DEFINITELY have it.  Like I said if you're really THAT worried about how the mission is completed you can just solo the vast majority of the in game content (pvp and sorties withstanding) or just be selective and invite only certain player types via recruiting.  Also not sure just how old OP is but last I checked explosives don't benefit from headshot bonuses after that patch.  The kunai themselves can still headshot but my assumption is that concealed explosives does not.  I'm saying it's not valid to argue the strength on the tonkor because of three keypoints.

Whether it was you or a teammate that killed the enemy you still get all xp (albeit share spread on gear), all drops assuming you went to pick them up, and finally who complains about team members that can actually carry they're own weight in pve gamemodes?

What is wrong with a powerful weapon in pve?  Only thing possibly wrong with an op pve weapon is literally a weapon that requires no aim (tonkor has projectile speed and drop not to mention trajectory variations from lowered accuracy mods), kills EVERYTHING in one hit (not just a comparatively small 10m radius, i'm talking like 50m plus shield polarize which nobody complains about that I've seen yet >_>), and can never run out of uses/opportunities (you can run out of ammo with a tonkor it's unlikely but it's still possible).

Because nerfing a powerful weapon just to bring it in line with lower tier weapons in a PVE game is a virtually pointless waste of time since it's just shifts the focus to the next weapon that's considered op until somebody finally draws a line.  I'd prefer they work on new interesting content as opposed to minor tweaks to damage numbers, and just tweaking damage numbers to satisfy the people who are of the mindset of "too easy please nerf" literally add NOTHING to the game.  Instead of weakening a weapon give us stronger/more interesting foes and challenges.  There's any number of ways to fix the core problem but weakening existing gear is literally an option almost exactly in the opposite direction of an improvement.

It punishes players by removing their agency. The outcome of the mission is not necessarily the only goal a player can reasonably have. Gameplay is generally intended to be the draw of a game, is it not?

I talk like the Tonkor is the only option, when I say that a player seeking to contribute with damage is currently limited to a (very limited) few weapons? The fact that you can equip a melee and secondary as well as the Tonkor doesn't mean that the Tonkor and other clear outliers cannot still totally overshadow whatever you put into those slots to the point of irrelevancy.

I offered an exit without claim of victory. Considering the wrought repetition of the 'arguments' brought to bear against my counterpoints to those exact same identically presented arguments, no, that's not arrogant. If nothing new is added, then the continuation of arguing is pointless repetition which just reflects badly on the person repeating themselves.

_{Note that this is not at odds with the statements about the others moving goalposts - there is a difference between bringing new information to counteract a point, and challenging a counterpoint by altering the essence of the claim that it serves to counter.}

 

Headshot damage multiplier(s) is (are) still applied, the only difference since that patch is counting it as a headshot statistic with regards to the ending screen and Headhunter mission challenge. The following spoilered image depicts an unmodded Tonkor dealing approximately twice base damage on a headshot, and 10 times base damage (2 headshot * 2.5 crit mult * 2 headcrit extra multiplier). Some units don't autoheadshot due to hitbox arrangement (e.g. Chargers) and some units don't have the special 'headcrit' bonus (e.g. Corpus crewmen), but that does leave a significant proportion of the enemies taking massively enhanced damage.

 

 

 

 

The problem with overpowering multiplayer PVE content is, as I said above, the fact that games generally exist for gameplay. See my previous World of Warcraft comparison (with bonus proof that the designers see fit to later implement more mechanical restrictions to avert this in public matchmaking).

If I spent all day publicly matchmaking on Mercury with permanent World On Fire Ember, walking through missions without allowing new MR0-3 players with few and unmaxed mods to do anything but walk to extraction, are those players enjoying themselves? Probably not. They don't get  to experience gameplay. And yes, there is a recurring trend of "nerf Ember" threads because of permanent WoF, even though it has a greater drawback than a Tonkor fulfilling the same trivialisation by falling off in damage far before endgame content that the Tonkor continues to trivialise.

It's not reasonable to force players to solo in order to play the game. It's not reasonable to demand that they form private groups, because that is an option just as open to people who don't care about the gameplay and just want their loots. A sense of common courtesy to fellow players says that if you can easily trivialise and solo something, do exactly that, solo instead of inflicting it on random other people that may or may not want it.

 

Giving us stronger and more interesting foes? Interesting is debatable. Stronger is power creeping the game and further obsoletes the 98% of the game's available weapons that aren't comparable with the current biggest outliers like SySim and Tonkor.

We have Nullifiers that troll all Warframes' powers because things like Mirage Blind can lock everything down forever.

We have enhanced physical and elemental augments on Sorties that make the level 100 enemies artificially more difficult by both one-shotting us and taking much more output to kill themselves, with most weapons; these defensive and offensive augmentations were merged because those trivialisations made the content fail to meet the intended challenge... and created something completely unengaging as a result, but still susceptible to the same trivialisations they sought to counteract.

Those random Ballista oneshots during parkour are not engaging, but are still irrelevant with a Blind Mirage making everything fail to act, or a Perfect Blessing Trinity removing almost all of that damage.

The enemies that take an age to kill are not engaging, when you're using an otherwise good weapon but failed to bring the Tonkor that still kills groups of them in one or two shots.

 

A couple of overpowered options being available and left unfixed cause power and function creep that makes the "overpowered" into "good", but makes "good" into "near-useless".

 

Also, you may not have seen the complaints about Mag, but I definitely have. Even then, that's one place she excels at the cost of her performance against other factions. Oh, and there's the fact she's being reworked to rebalance some of that power by lessening the risk (gains a use against armoured in addition to shielded enemies) but reducing the reward accordingly (reworked Shield Polarise equivalent now expands in a wave rather than having an instant effect). Imagine that. Now remember that when compared ot other explosives, the Tonkor lessens the risk of self-damage to near-inexistence, but increases the reward by also doing vastly higher damage, and sometimes in a larger AOE.

Edited March 28, 2016 by EDYinnit

[Irorone]

26 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

It punishes players by removing their agency. The outcome of the mission is not necessarily the only goal a player can reasonably have. Gameplay is generally intended to be the draw of a game, is it not?

I talk like the Tonkor is the only option, when I say that a player seeking to contribute with damage is currently limited to a (very limited) few weapons? The fact that you can equip a melee and secondary as well as the Tonkor doesn't mean that the Tonkor and other clear outliers cannot still totally overshadow whatever you put into those slots to the point of irrelevancy.

I offered an exit without claim of victory. Considering the wrought repetition of the 'arguments' brought to bear against my counterpoints to those exact same identically presented arguments, no, that's not arrogant. If nothing new is added, then the continuation of arguing is pointless repetition which just reflects badly on the person repeating themselves.

_{Note that this is not at odds with the statements about the others moving goalposts - there is a difference between bringing new information to counteract a point, and challenging a counterpoint by altering the essence of the claim that it serves to counter.}

 

Headshot damage multiplier(s) is (are) still applied, the only difference since that patch is counting it as a headshot statistic with regards to the ending screen and Headhunter mission challenge. The following spoilered image depicts an unmodded Tonkor dealing approximately twice base damage on a headshot, and 10 times base damage (2 headshot * 2.5 crit mult * 2 headcrit extra multiplier). Some units don't autoheadshot due to hitbox arrangement (e.g. Chargers) and some units don't have the special 'headcrit' bonus (e.g. Corpus crewmen), but that does leave a significant proportion of the enemies taking massively enhanced damage.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

The problem with overpowering multiplayer PVE content is, as I said above, the fact that games generally exist for gameplay. See my previous World of Warcraft comparison (with bonus proof that the designers see fit to later implement more mechanical restrictions to avert this in public matchmaking).

If I spent all day publicly matchmaking on Mercury with permanent World On Fire Ember, walking through missions without allowing new MR0-3 players with few and unmaxed mods to do anything but walk to extraction, are those players enjoying themselves? Probably not. They don't get  to experience gameplay. And yes, there is a recurring trend of "nerf Ember" threads because of permanent WoF, even though it has a greater drawback than a Tonkor fulfilling the same trivialisation by falling off in damage far before endgame content that the Tonkor continues to trivialise.

It's not reasonable to force players to solo in order to play the game. It's not reasonable to demand that they form private groups, because that is an option just as open to people who don't care about the gameplay and just want their loots. A sense of common courtesy to fellow players says that if you can easily trivialise and solo something, do that.

 

Giving us stronger and more interesting foes? Interesting is debatable. Stronger is power creeping the game and further obsoletes the 98% of the game's available weapons that aren't comparable with the current biggest outliers like SySim and Tonkor.

We have Nullifiers that troll all Warframes' powers because things like Mirage Blind can lock everything down forever.

We have enhanced physical and elemental augments on Sorties that make the level 100 enemies artificially more difficult by both one-shotting us and taking much more output to kill themselves, with most weapons; these defensive and offensive augmentations were merged because those trivialisations made the content fail to meet the intended challenge... and created something completely unengaging as a result, but still susceptible to the same trivialisations they sought to counteract.

Those random Ballista oneshots during parkour are not engaging, but are still irrelevant with a Blind Mirage making everything fail to act, or a Perfect Blessing Trinity removing almost all of that damage.

The enemies that take an age to kill are not engaging, when you're using an otherwise good weapon but failed to bring the Tonkor that still kills groups of them in one or two shots.

 

A couple of overpowered options being available and left unfixed cause power and function creep that makes the "overpowered" into "good", but makes "good" into "near-useless".

 

Also, you may not have seen the complaints about Mag, but I definitely have. Even then, that's one place she excels at the cost of her performance against other factions. Oh, and there's the fact she's being reworked to rebalance some of that power by lessening the risk (gains a use against armoured in addition to shielded enemies) but reducing the reward accordingly (reworked Shield Polarise equivalent now expands in a wave rather than having an instant effect). Imagine that. Now remember that when compared ot other explosives, the Tonkor lessens the risk of self-damage to near-inexistence, but increases the reward by also doing vastly higher damage, and sometimes in a larger AOE.

To "add something to the argument" point by point.

1.  Agency? just do it yourself or recruit a specific party if somebody using a tonkor/frame/whatever you hate, there are other options for damage even in the primary option set.

2. By few you mean 10-20 IN EACH SLOT, a glaive prime is best melee for ivara because I can use it as a death mower, best is by no means ONLY.

3. Saying you'll let someone leave without claim of victory is virtually always seen as an act of arrogance, saying we can agree to disagree is not arrogant.

4. Saying that there's repetitive argument is fair but by that same token you have to understand how irritating these "nerf OP" threads get especially when it's on the same item  topic trying to seem more viable just by how much excrement is sticking to the activity wall.  Give us options don't tell the manufacturers to break our toys.

5. A projectile can still headshot but unless the patch didn't stick explosions do not case in point concealed explosive spira primes or in this case a tonkor shell direct hitting a skull.  In all fairness I'd expect a grenade a fraction of an inch from a central nervous cluster to be far more instantaneously lethal than one to the legs.

6. Power creep is only an issue when the power creeps too far past the challenge, which on that argument the tonkor is BY FAR one of the most minor parts overshadowed by cc powers and scaling damage powers like polarize.  It's a much bigger issue and trying to "fix" a small part of it just seems like a way to worm past the opposing argument.

7. People literally post in recruiting for taxis still so some of those players WANT to be escorted by higher tier/power players so even that isn't a clear cut problem

8. The tonkor's damage while impressive is by no means scaling, get far enough into a surv/defense and a sonicor's ragdolling property are virtually infinitely more valuable.  How it is a good weapon does not mean that it is intrisically TOO GOOD of a weapon.

9.  Sorties are "artificially" difficult?  I can't help but question how you figure a combination of more dangerous enemies paired with capabilities they did not originally have as "artificial difficulty".  With the right team comps even the sortie opposition aren't what i'd consider "spongy".  You can strip armor with corrosive, frost avalanche etc., you can cut max health in half with viral, you can half or eliminate shields with mag/magnetic damage.  They even change the functions of the game I viraled my own team's Inaros because I was with rad procs while using spore saryn.  The name of the game is ADAPT and if anything DE should give us more ways to adapt and more challenges to adapt to.

10.  Interesting and stronger enemies may be debatable but they're still a better option than telling us "this is no longer the meta because...community"  They did nerf the brakk because it was so powerful you know the ONLY thing that achieved?  Changing the statistics on how many people used it which is to say almost NOBODY because they nerfed it three different ways damage/falloff/accuracy they actually nerfed that thing so hard they had to spend some effort to rebuff it just to keep it out of your "obsolescence" complaint.  Add to the game don't just change it to satisfy the flavor of the week.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Irorone
spellcheck

[Tureynul]

'Let's nerf tonkor' - yeah, like Kohm was nerfed, or Torid, or Synoid Gammacor. Or some other weapons players just stopped using after 'rebalancing'. Leave the tonkor as it is.

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 hour ago, Irorone said:

To "add something to the argument" point by point.

 

 

1.  Agency? just do it yourself or recruit a specific party if somebody using a tonkor/frame/whatever you hate, there are other options for damage even in the primary option set.

2. By few you mean 10-20 IN EACH SLOT, a glaive prime is best melee for ivara because I can use it as a death mower, best is by no means ONLY.

3. Saying you'll let someone leave without claim of victory is virtually always seen as an act of arrogance, saying we can agree to disagree is not arrogant.

4. Saying that there's repetitive argument is fair but by that same token you have to understand how irritating these "nerf OP" threads get especially when it's on the same item  topic trying to seem more viable just by how much excrement is sticking to the activity wall.  Give us options don't tell the manufacturers to break our toys.

5. A projectile can still headshot but unless the patch didn't stick explosions do not case in point concealed explosive spira primes or in this case a tonkor shell direct hitting a skull.  In all fairness I'd expect a grenade a fraction of an inch from a central nervous cluster to be far more instantaneously lethal than one to the legs.

6. Power creep is only an issue when the power creeps too far past the challenge, which on that argument the tonkor is BY FAR one of the most minor parts overshadowed by cc powers and scaling damage powers like polarize.  It's a much bigger issue and trying to "fix" a small part of it just seems like a way to worm past the opposing argument.

7. People literally post in recruiting for taxis still so some of those players WANT to be escorted by higher tier/power players so even that isn't a clear cut problem

8. The tonkor's damage while impressive is by no means scaling, get far enough into a surv/defense and a sonicor's ragdolling property are virtually infinitely more valuable.  How it is a good weapon does not mean that it is intrisically TOO GOOD of a weapon.

9.  Sorties are "artificially" difficult?  I can't help but question how you figure a combination of more dangerous enemies paired with capabilities they did not originally have as "artificial difficulty".  With the right team comps even the sortie opposition aren't what i'd consider "spongy".  You can strip armor with corrosive, frost avalanche etc., you can cut max health in half with viral, you can half or eliminate shields with mag/magnetic damage.  They even change the functions of the game I viraled my own team's Inaros because I was with rad procs while using spore saryn.  The name of the game is ADAPT and if anything DE should give us more ways to adapt and more challenges to adapt to.

10.  Interesting and stronger enemies may be debatable but they're still a better option than telling us "this is no longer the meta because...community"  They did nerf the brakk because it was so powerful you know the ONLY thing that achieved?  Changing the statistics on how many people used it which is to say almost NOBODY because they nerfed it three different ways damage/falloff/accuracy they actually nerfed that thing so hard they had to spend some effort to rebuff it just to keep it out of your "obsolescence" complaint.  Add to the game don't just change it to satisfy the flavor of the week.

 

I'm glad you actually tried. Already your arguments are stronger.

1. I already mentioned this in the example with Ember on Mercury, it is not valid to expect new players to solo (maybe they can't do a Defense for 5 waves solo while unfamiliar with the game) nor is it valid to expect them to make manual groups (no interest in recruiting chat, perhaps they don't even know it exists). The burden is on the one with power to not abuse it where it can have a negative effect; to expect the opposite (limitations on the one without the power) is just bullying. But we can't rely on everyone being responsible, so we seek to reduce the capacity for negative impact the system allows them instead.
2. You cannot possibly name 10 weapons in each slot with comparably immense power (and very limited drawbacks) as the Tonkor enjoys. Since you mentioned Ivara, how's this: I have a build for my Ivara and Ogris that maximises the size and minimises the scaling time of Navigator's damage amplification to make the rockets strong enough and controllable enough (including Heavy Caliber) to one-shot-kill Sortie 3 armoured enemies at little risk to me. That doesn't mean that the Ogris is as good as the Tonkor on its own merits. I could get the same output with the Tonkor (especially thanks to Headcrits) with 100% power strength Navigator, a full 10 less on the multiplier, which would allow me to do so more often and more efficiently due to fire-rate differences, lack of Corrupted Mod drawbacks, etc. It'd also make Ivara's other abilities suffer less for achieving that power level with Navigated explosives.
3. I wanted to agree to disagree, that was the premise of the end of the debate: no repetition of arguments, nobody says the other isn't allowed their perspectives to exist, the reasons proposed and opposed that far remain in the thread for judgement by anyone interested. But, what's-his-face was bent on saying I wasn't allowed to say I thought the Tonkor needed changing at all... speaking of which, it does seem to have finally been heeded, mercifully enough.
4. It's an opinion. And at least from my arguments, it's not analogous to breaking toys - I want to make more of the available toys closer to being as fun as the 'best' toy, which can be done by enhancing all the others, or slightly reducing the properties that contribute to the 'best' toy being so fun. Occam's Razor - the simplest answer is often the correct one. Path of least resistance (and least overall balancing and testing issue) is to alter the one, not the many.
5. There are 5 damage values, and the only one that matches the base damage stat is the projectile impact 75. All 4 others are headshots and amplified the 325 base blast accordingly. I can't possibly have struck all 4 heads with the projectile. I can also provide a screenshot of the Penta doing the same from a grenade that was resting on the ground (not airburst).
6. Reverse the equation though, and you can't treat the whole without treating the parts. This thread is about the Tonkor as the biggest weapon power-balance outlier, not about Warframe power-balance against each other, wholly or individually, nor about weapon power-balance against warframes as categories. They are valid things to be discussed, but those situations existing doesn't mean this situation doesn't.
7. The question should not be "do some people want to be Taxied" (opinion, inarguable) but "can the option of Taxiing people result in a negative influence" (arguable), I would reason yes - but whether or not it's to a degree that warrants limiting the ability to Taxi mechanically is not my decision though (and I'm undecided if it is bad enough in my opinion, for what that's worth).
8. That it is a good weapon may not intrinsically mean it is too good, but how it is a good weapon more consistently than most other options, and against what proportion of expected content it enjoys this prestige, is a reason why it is too good. I hate the Sonicor too, but that's for another thread to debate the particle spam annoyance generation device. Also, expected content matters. For example, it is not expected content once enemy levels are over roughly 130 (sortie 3 + 'endless' mission type), as only manually going that long in an endless mission generates these, and endless missions are meant to eventually defeat players anyway; this means that if the Tonkor begins to significantly fall off at level 150, it is effectively devoid of falloff in terms of balanced-for content.
9. Sorties are artificially difficult when these augmentations have ways in which they cannot be reliably compensated for without resorting to specific tactics. Here's a few:
   1. Radiation procs do not show on ally UI, but you can damage, affect and kill that ally. Not reasonable because you lacked adequate information.
   2. Some augmented damage enemies kill in a single shot, particularly sniper-class enemies. Grineer Ballistae have pinpoint accuracy at high levels with no telegraphing and little delay. You are not provided with adequate information to compensate for this, it just happens and you're dead unless you CC all enemies forever or exist solely in a snowglobe (specific warframes not mechanically mandated to be present)
   3. Hijack missions in sorties uniquely generate a Nullification globe on the rover/power core that cannot be temporarily deactivated by player shots. This means that in addition to high levels and the augments, you have another restriction: "Use powers OR push the objective, not both", adding an extra arbitrary restriction that significantly increases difficulty.
   4. Excavation missions do not scale Extractor effective health at all, therefore without preventing all attacks from touching the device (through universal-CC or mandatory shield against shots) you do not have a reasonable chance to deal with enemies that enjoy incredibly high resilience and incredibly high damage before they get that one shot in and gib the machine.
10. The Brakk was nerfed not because it was the most powerful weapon evar, but because of its balance against primary shotguns which, as primaries, generally have a slightly higher spot on the power curve. Primary shotguns have since been buffed significantly, both directly (stat changes to weapons) and indirectly (Primed Point Blank and Primed Ravage), yet the Brakk has not seen its nerfs reverted whatsoever. Probably the most significant improvement it got access to since time of nerf is slotting Primed Heated Charge, I suppose. Regardless of this, it's still my favoured secondary and second most-used weapon of all. If I can take my baby being nerfed without it becoming unusable (I still use it, because I like it), why can't the Tonkor be nerfed and still used by people that want to use the Tonkor, not people that just want to win as hard as possible (who will just use whatever's meta regardless)?

14 minutes ago, Tureynul said:

'Let's nerf tonkor' - yeah, like Kohm was nerfed, or Torid, or Synoid Gammacor. Or some other weapons players just stopped using after 'rebalancing'. Leave the tonkor as it is.

See point 10. Other guns being (arguably) overnerfed when they were judged to need one doesn't mean that no nerf is needed here.

Edited March 28, 2016 by EDYinnit

[Tureynul]

Right... so there's one (1) team of developers to this game, not two; and that one (1) team has proven to be mostly incapable of sensible balance changes inb4 def bashing has in the past made several changes to weapons that quite often (n1) resulted in said weapons no longer being widely used (nerf) rather than just rebalancing them while maintaining their usefulness (n2).

Assuming you're aware that n1>n2, why do you disagree with me?

Edited March 28, 2016 by Tureynul

[TheLexiConArtist]

6 minutes ago, Tureynul said:

Right... so there's one (1) team of developers to this game, not two; and that one (1) team has proven to be mostly incapable of sensible balance changes inb4 def bashing has in the past made several changes to weapons that quite often (n1) resulted in said weapons no longer being widely used (nerf) rather than just rebalancing them while maintaining their usefulness (n2).

Assuming you're aware that n1>n2, why do you disagree with me?

Because (1) correlation is not causation, and (2) although I would prefer the action being appropriate in scale, if an action is deemed needed, then any action, including an overestimated one, is better than no action.

Edit for bonus (3): It is possible the weapons were only used for their clear imbalance, reduction in usage proportion does not implicitly mean the nerf was even excessive. Maybe they're used with an acceptable ratio now?

Edited March 28, 2016 by EDYinnit

[Tureynul]

Quote

correlation is not causation

If you think there are secondary factors that need to be included, please name them.