Tonkor Balancing (Nerf) discussion..

[TheLexiConArtist]

Just now, DeadlyPeanutt said:

why shouldn't all players have access to effective and fun weapons?   i don't agree with that statement. 

a player who is new to WF but has much experience in other shooters should be able to have weapons to enjoy late game content as soon as possible.  

your view is somewhat elitist and bad for the game, wadr

tonkor is not broken; it's a fun and effective weapons that many, MANY players enjoy

Because we don't live in your unrealistic rainbows-and-happiness fantasy land where everything can be saccharine and perfect for everyone without overlapping conflicts.

Why can't all players have access? They do. When they work towards it and earn it.

Why can't a player with experience extraneous to Warframe have the capacity to enjoy late game content ASAP? They do. Their extra-Warframe gaming means that "as soon as possible" is a shorter time than those who have to get to grips with more fundamental concepts first, but they still have to work from the ground up.

Why is my view not elitist? Because queue-jumping power creep removes the prestige and satisfaction of players when their efforts are wholly undermined, and it should not come as a shock that disengaged and dissatisfied players are bad for business.

If a new player is freely given the tools to match people that have put time and effort into getting where they are, the result is players that no longer feel valued and players who never develop a value appreciation. When there's no value to the position reached in a game it becomes transient. Player turnover rates increase. Large proportions of the playerbase neglect to stick around, perhaps showing back up occasionally with large content patches; what business does DE get if players languish from just after U18 to the still-not-released U19 with minimal or no play? What about when new-hotness games show up in the interim, coaxing those players permanently to greener pastures?

[Chipputer]

13 minutes ago, DeadlyPeanutt said:

tonkor is not broken; it's a fun and effective weapons that many, MANY players enjoy

Whether it's fun and being enjoyed doesn't have any bearing on whether it's imbalanced or not. Of course the strongest weapon is going to see the most use and have people enjoying it the most. It's a game about farming-- why wouldn't you take the quickest route to reward? It still needs to be toned down, though, due to just how much of the content in the game that it trivializes.

[Magneu]

9 minutes ago, Chipputer said:

Whether it's fun and being enjoyed doesn't have any bearing on whether it's imbalanced or not. Of course the strongest weapon is going to see the most use and have people enjoying it the most. It's a game about farming-- why wouldn't you take the quickest route to reward? It still needs to be toned down, though, due to just how much of the content in the game that it trivializes.

I've stopped humoring him with replies. His only arguments is "The Tonkor is fun; ergo, it doesn't need a nerf.". Can't argue with opinion, that much is true. I'd just wait to U19, while occasionally keeping the pro-Tonkor-nerf side of things alive. If U19 doesn't have a Tonkor balance...color me disappointed. I'd say it's extremely likely, though.

[EvilChaosKnight]

9 hours ago, Chipputer said:

Your opinion on other launchers is irrelevant. If anything you've pointed out the problem with the Tonkor by saying it. You aren't adding to your argument in any way. //So you agree that other launchers are bad but insist on bringing down Tonkor to their level anyway. Yep, totally pushing for balance and not personal preferences.

Sigh.

//Now we are cooking with gas. So you never had to run the same mission over 30 times to get what you wanted? Or you never got 25 cores for 1h+ long sortie? At least it's less obnoxious with Tonkor.

You realize it's possible to be objective and not fill your post with personal opinion, correct? Discussing stats and comparing them is objective. Saying you like how it feels is subjective and irrelevant. //There's no objective discussion for Tonkor. You are comparing it to other launchers even though they are on whole different levels. Tonkor is pretty good for current dailies while other launchers are pretty good for a quick seppuku. Unless we get launchers 2.0 or scaling 3.0 this whole thread is meaningless. But I don't see people as for these. 

 

Gammacor was outperforming literally everything else* in the game.
Greedy Pull was aiding people who literally stood still and farmed, defeating the purpose of the game. Overnerfed, maybe, but it was treating a symptom of a bigger problem.
Launcher Ammo is perfectly fine where it is now. Inconsequential nerf that hurts absolutely nothing.
Shotgun damage dropoff is called balance. Why take a rifle when I can snipe with my Sancti Tigris?
Nullifiers is your personal opinion and irrelevant.

Are you going to continue to pretend that game time means anything? It's tiresome and boring.

//Whatever makes you sleep better at night. But my point stands, you kept saying that DE will adjust other things in the wake of Tonkor nerf. I showed you that was never the case.

 

8 hours ago, shyguyk said:

I believe this coincides with the weapon issue at hand.

Yep, effort is where effort is due. I play for fun of all kind. Full-time engineering job is where my effort goes, arguing with stubborn people on the internet is a hobby and treated as such :P

[(PSN)Redemption_015]

7 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

Wow, such brilliance! The Tonkor, the weapon in a game I play, affects me when I play the game that it's in! How long did it take for you to figure that out? Too bad you're forgetting the most important part of reading comprehension ; finishing what you've started reading! I know you haven't, since this part:

Was right there after what I've said. You've simply ignored the rest of what I said to focus on the one part of the comment that applies to literally everyone in the game. 

 

Oh, so it turns out you CAN read, but you're just dishonest. And apparently you don't get yet that how I or anyone else feels doesn't matter, because what happens with game mechanics and balance happens whether you like it or not. But hey, whatever gives you an excuse to ignore all the points you have no argument against, right? 

Um how people feel about it does matter you fool. That is why this section is called Feedback. If enough people are against this, it won't happen, simple as that. "It happens whether you like or not" is one of the most idiotic things I've heard. 

 

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

I really don't understand all the hate for the tonkor, when its a terrible weapon if it hasn't been forma-ed. Ill ignore how overpowered the syndicate simulor and penta is at the get go (each with three polarities) But the Tonkor is a terrible gun when you first get it. Terrible accuracy 2 shots per clip and with a long reload time. I swear people who hate the tonkor have never used it or taken the time to make it into a good weapon. It can't compare to the synoid simulor or the secura penta, but everyone hates it anyway just cause some people put some loving care into a weapon they found fun. How come nobody complains about the opticor or the sancti tigris or the dread or paris prime? The Opticor does 1000 damage compared to a tonkor's 325 and its extremely accurate and very flexible mod wise so people can mod it however they way want. It has the same reload time but 5 shots per clip instead of 2 and has a large ammo pool. The sancti tigris out damages the opticor and has two shots like the tonkor, but will kill everything in a straight line. You can mod it high punch through so one shot kills 10+ enemies and has a faster reload.

You might think I'm crazy for bringing up the dread and the paris, as both bows aren't technically launchers or weapons that deal insane amounts of damage, but they crit based weapons. The only difference is a little less base damage, with high enough crit chance so you always get a crit or two. You can even throw on thunderbolt and use the bows as launchers. With how terrible the Tonkor accuracy is, Thunderbolt will proc about as much as a tonkor shot will go where you want. 

 

There's only 3 real ways to use the tonkor effectively, 

#1 Using a warframe that makes it easier to use: Examples include Mesa, Zephyr, Mirage and Mag. The zephyr combo which is just fun. If you think its overpowered cause that combo is fun... Then you should try it. Nothing too game breaking here, Using a warframe and a weapon that have synergy are part of the reason I like this game. If you think its overpowered you should try using Nova with a sancti tigris. (Antimatter Drop + Sancti Tigris = Half a million worth of boom. Double that if use molecular prime, Also Molecular prime is more user friendly then the tonkor as it goes where you want)

#2 Firing at point blank. For anyone who isn't aware... The gun has 12.5 accuracy, which is terrible. If some evil entity wants more damage and puts on heavy caliber. Its even worse. As the only launcher that doesn't have perfect accuracy (penta, simulor, ogris, opticor all have perfect accuracy as far as I'm aware) you either stand still and hope the grenade goes where you want to you get really close. If the gun had blast damage, it would kill you. Everything thinks this is game breaking when in reality, Its nothing all that game breaking when people never take damage from the simulor and all the other launchers are easy to use. ( if you use the argument that people kill themselves with the penta... I recommend using it when you air airborne, or when you are away from people, the gun has perfect accuracy and only detonates when you say so, You can't really complain when the only limitation is that the projectile arcs.)

#3 Aiming between your legs and firing, (It still misses sometimes... YUP) 

 

It's nowhere near as bad as a problem you guys make it out to be. The gun needs 7 forma and a potato if you want it to be any good  and most people don't feel like maxing a weapon 8 times. Ive seen it hit in the millions, But then I saw my normal Simulor (with its perfect accuracy and no self damage ) do the same thing. And neither of those can compare to my vectis prime which holds my personal record of 114 million damage dealt in a single shot. (if you want to see it, I have screenshots of that 114 million damage on my ps4, Send me a psn message ill be happy to send you it)

 

If you still insist that the tonkor breaks the game, I suggest you find yourself a good weapon and try putting some love into the weapon. You'll be surprised by how big of a difference a few forma make.

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 hour ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I really don't understand all the hate for the tonkor, when its a terrible weapon if it hasn't been forma-ed. Ill ignore how overpowered the syndicate simulor and penta is at the get go (each with three polarities) But the Tonkor is a terrible gun when you first get it. Terrible accuracy 2 shots per clip and with a long reload time. I swear people who hate the tonkor have never used it or taken the time to make it into a good weapon. It can't compare to the synoid simulor or the secura penta, but everyone hates it anyway just cause some people put some loving care into a weapon they found fun. How come nobody complains about the opticor or the sancti tigris or the dread or paris prime? The Opticor does 1000 damage compared to a tonkor's 325 and its extremely accurate and very flexible mod wise so people can mod it however they way want. It has the same reload time but 5 shots per clip instead of 2 and has a large ammo pool. The sancti tigris out damages the opticor and has two shots like the tonkor, but will kill everything in a straight line. You can mod it high punch through so one shot kills 10+ enemies and has a faster reload.

Just because you have to plug less jigsaw pieces into a Secura Penta doesn't make it better fundamentally. A Secura Penta deals 431.25 average per grenade, and one per second gives it a burst of the same in DPS. The Tonkor, on the other hand, deals 495.625 average per grenade and fires twice per second, giving it a DPS before reloads of 991.25.

After reloads this sustains at 335.416 (S. Penta) versus 330.416 (Tonkor) but this fails to account for crit modding being stronger and headcrits, after which the Tonkor pulls massively ahead.

An Opticor takes 2.5 seconds to charge and has a 1/sec fire rate which affects the beginning of the next charge, bringing the fire rate down to 1/3.5 (0.2857...) shots per second. It also doesn't automatically hit heads or hit everything in the immediate area of its target.

Opticor (uncharged/charged): Average per shot: 575/1150   Burst DPS: 575/328.57  Sustained DPS: 410.7/294.87

 

Modding for punchthrough (and possibly shotgun spread) to match the AOE capability of a naked Tonkor is a fools' errand, you're reducing your damage peak to do so. Plus, the Tonkor can just be fitted with Firestorm and then you're back to square one with the explosive having all the wins.

 

1 hour ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

You might think I'm crazy for bringing up the dread and the paris, as both bows aren't technically launchers or weapons that deal insane amounts of damage, but they crit based weapons. The only difference is a little less base damage, with high enough crit chance so you always get a crit or two. You can even throw on thunderbolt and use the bows as launchers. With how terrible the Tonkor accuracy is, Thunderbolt will proc about as much as a tonkor shot will go where you want.

Thunderbolt does 250 damage, not 250000. Arrows must be arced and aimed into a head hitbox to reach their peak damage, which is difficult and wholly unreliable on targets subsequent to the first; explosions always hit heads making it easier to achieve peak performance.

You try putting Heavy Cal on a bow and you have a near-worthless twig and string. You put it on a Tonkor, and it barely makes a difference in 90% of shots. The accuracy isn't even that bad and you have an aim guide unlike other projectile, traveltime weapons.

1 hour ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

There's only 3 4 real ways to use the tonkor effectively, 

#1 Using a warframe that makes it easier to use: Examples include Mesa, Zephyr, Mirage and Mag. The zephyr combo which is just fun. If you think its overpowered cause that combo is fun... Then you should try it. Nothing too game breaking here, Using a warframe and a weapon that have synergy are part of the reason I like this game. If you think its overpowered you should try using Nova with a sancti tigris. (Antimatter Drop + Sancti Tigris = Half a million worth of boom. Double that if use molecular prime, Also Molecular prime is more user friendly then the tonkor as it goes where you want)

#2 Firing at point blank. For anyone who isn't aware... The gun has 12.5 accuracy, which is terrible. If some evil entity wants more damage and puts on heavy caliber. Its even worse. As the only launcher that doesn't have perfect accuracy (penta, simulor, ogris, opticor all have perfect accuracy as far as I'm aware) you either stand still and hope the grenade goes where you want to you get really close. If the gun had blast damage, it would kill you. Everything thinks this is game breaking when in reality, Its nothing all that game breaking when people never take damage from the simulor and all the other launchers are easy to use. ( if you use the argument that people kill themselves with the penta... I recommend using it when you air airborne, or when you are away from people, the gun has perfect accuracy and only detonates when you say so, You can't really complain when the only limitation is that the projectile arcs.)

#3 Aiming between your legs and firing, (It still misses sometimes... YUP)

#4 shooting

#1: Warframe synergy fixes everything and changes nothing. I can use Ivara's Navigator to give Heavy Cal Ogris rockets a 15-times damage multiplier and ignore the lack of accuracy that results from slotting HC on that weapon making rockets useless. That doesn't mean it's as good a weapon as the Tonkor that doesn't require such setups to be usable.

#2 Take the Tonkor to the Simulacrum, aim your GUIDE at a pillar a decent distance away and just keep shooting. Most grenades hit within the body-mass silhouette of your average enemy. It takes Heavy Cal, and even with that is only occasional, to create any likely-missed shots.

#3 Projectiles behave strangely in Warframe when they generate too close to solid objects, as everyone who's used a bow

#4: Nothing stops you from just carpeting an area in grenades (3-4 per reload after Split Chamber) and it only takes one hit to kill all opposition. What does it matter?

Please look at these two posts, wherein we show algorithmically that compared to a previous OP weapon (Soma Prime), it's literally still more efficient to miss two Tonkor shots, reload and fire a third than it is to shoot enemies with a much more accurate weapon:

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

It's nowhere near as bad as a problem you guys make it out to be. The gun needs 7 forma and a potato if you want it to be any good  and most people don't feel like maxing a weapon 8 times. Ive seen it hit in the millions, But then I saw my normal Simulor (with its perfect accuracy and no self damage ) do the same thing. And neither of those can compare to my vectis prime which holds my personal record of 114 million damage dealt in a single shot. (if you want to see it, I have screenshots of that 114 million damage on my ps4, Send me a psn message ill be happy to send you it)

 

 

If you still insist that the tonkor breaks the game, I suggest you find yourself a good weapon and try putting some love into the weapon. You'll be surprised by how big of a difference a few forma make.

Most, if not all other weapons need Forma to bring them up to the capability the Tonkor has with no polarities. Every weapon needs a potato to peak, and many of them are comparitively useless even with. Because it's so powerful from the start (I recently used Loadout Randomiser and got my unpotatoed, unforma'd Tonkor to run through an upper-starchart alert with and had exactly no problems, with either hitting or damage output) there's less impact in re-levelling it, even assuming we ignore Draco, which is perfect for the kind of casual that gravitates to Tonkor-tier easy mode imbalances. Would you rather max a Tonkor 8 times, or a Braton 4 times, if you're doing it all on your own through actual use?

Nobody here pretends the Simulor (Synoid especially) isn't as much of a problem, trading upper-limit damage per shot for increased area of effect and spammability.

[Kettunen]

1 hour ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I really don't understand all the hate for the tonkor, when its a terrible weapon if it hasn't been forma-ed. Ill ignore how overpowered the syndicate simulor and penta is at the get go (each with three polarities) But the Tonkor is a terrible gun when you first get it. Terrible accuracy 2 shots per clip and with a long reload time. I swear people who hate the tonkor have never used it or taken the time to make it into a good weapon. It can't compare to the synoid simulor or the secura penta, but everyone hates it anyway just cause some people put some loving care into a weapon they found fun. How come nobody complains about the opticor or the sancti tigris or the dread or paris prime? The Opticor does 1000 damage compared to a tonkor's 325 and its extremely accurate and very flexible mod wise so people can mod it however they way want. It has the same reload time but 5 shots per clip instead of 2 and has a large ammo pool. The sancti tigris out damages the opticor and has two shots like the tonkor, but will kill everything in a straight line. You can mod it high punch through so one shot kills 10+ enemies and has a faster reload.

You might think I'm crazy for bringing up the dread and the paris, as both bows aren't technically launchers or weapons that deal insane amounts of damage, but they crit based weapons. The only difference is a little less base damage, with high enough crit chance so you always get a crit or two. You can even throw on thunderbolt and use the bows as launchers. With how terrible the Tonkor accuracy is, Thunderbolt will proc about as much as a tonkor shot will go where you want. 

...

...

...

If you still insist that the tonkor breaks the game, I suggest you find yourself a good weapon and try putting some love into the weapon. You'll be surprised by how big of a difference a few forma make.

So you open your post by stating that pre-formae'd tonkor is terrible and finish it by saying that formaing makes a great difference in performance? Not often do you see someone refuting himself in the same post.

And we're not talking about dread, paris, lato or whatever because they are single target weapons ie. they do NOT cause the same damage in 7m radius. Not even with thunderbolt equipped (which IMO is all time low argument trying to defend tonkor). We're not talking about opticor either because to get the 1000 damage you have to charge it for 2,5 s, unmodded, which by the way is about the same time it takes for tonkor to empty its clip AND reload. Not to mention opticor has significantly smaller AoE which doesn't even work half the time and you basically have to sacrifice 2 slots for fire rate mods. So not exactly flexible. Let's not try to establish false parity when there is none.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

#1 Using a warframe that makes it easier to use: Examples include Mesa, Zephyr, Mirage and Mag. The zephyr combo which is just fun. If you think its overpowered cause that combo is fun... Then you should try it. Nothing too game breaking here, Using a warframe and a weapon that have synergy are part of the reason I like this game. If you think its overpowered you should try using Nova with a sancti tigris. (Antimatter Drop + Sancti Tigris = Half a million worth of boom. Double that if use molecular prime, Also Molecular prime is more user friendly then the tonkor as it goes where you want)

 

If you think that it's only possible to mitigate tonkor's "downsides" with those frames, you still have a lot to improve. Also: antimatter drop is slow as hell and you're committing to a frame that is essentially tinfoil. Not saying that I wouldn't consider it OP though but we're discussing tonkor here.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

#2 Firing at point blank. For anyone who isn't aware... The gun has 12.5 accuracy, which is terrible. If some evil entity wants more damage and puts on heavy caliber. Its even worse. As the only launcher that doesn't have perfect accuracy (penta, simulor, ogris, opticor all have perfect accuracy as far as I'm aware) you either stand still and hope the grenade goes where you want to you get really close. If the gun had blast damage, it would kill you. Everything thinks this is game breaking when in reality, Its nothing all that game breaking when people never take damage from the simulor and all the other launchers are easy to use. ( if you use the argument that people kill themselves with the penta... I recommend using it when you air airborne, or when you are away from people, the gun has perfect accuracy and only detonates when you say so, You can't really complain when the only limitation is that the projectile arcs.)

 

Just as before, maybe you just need to improve? Also there's a firing aid. Not to mention you only need to hit something in order to cause a huge headshotsplosion.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

It's nowhere near as bad as a problem you guys make it out to be. The gun needs 7 forma and a potato if you want it to be any good  and most people don't feel like maxing a weapon 8 times. Ive seen it hit in the millions, But then I saw my normal Simulor (with its perfect accuracy and no self damage ) do the same thing. And neither of those can compare to my vectis prime which holds my personal record of 114 million damage dealt in a single shot. (if you want to see it, I have screenshots of that 114 million damage on my ps4, Send me a psn message ill be happy to send you it)

 

Clearly enough people have spent about half a day in Draco to get all insecure and emotionally attached to it. Considering that they seem to have unlimited vigor derailing the discussiong here and talking about their feelings. And no, 114 million vectis damage doesn't make tonkor less broken. It just further proves the current modding system is broken.

[DeadlyPeanutt]

14 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

Why can't all players have access? They do. When they work towards it and earn it.

....they still have to work from the ground up.

Why is my view not elitist? Because queue-jumping power creep removes the prestige and satisfaction of players when their efforts are wholly undermined, and it should not come as a shock that disengaged and dissatisfied players are bad for business.

If a new player is freely given the tools to match people that have put time and effort into getting where they are, the result is players that no longer feel valued and players who never develop a value appreciation. When there's no value to the position reached in a game it becomes transient. Player turnover rates increase. 

Wow, you really have my game all figured out for me.  You seem sure that you know what's best for me and all the other players out there.

How about you let me play my game and you can play yours?    

How does a game keep a long term player base? Not by putting up massive grind walls between players and content.  Games keep a long term player base by being FUN, not by putting up artificial hoops that players have to jump through to get content. 

The longest running games have low grind walls and always have full servers.  Why? Because they're FUN to play, even if the player is not getting any rewards, MR, XP or whatever.  They're FUN.

I play several games daily that I maxed out years ago.  Want to guess why?

BTW, i think that the constant adjustments that game Dev are doing on PvP is heading in the right direction for long term player bases. imho, fwiw. 

finally, if a weapon is FUN, such as tonkor... it should be left alone, and not nerfed, no matter how many folks whine about it being OP.  (keeping in mind that the people who whine about the weapon don't have to use it in a PvE mode.  if the OP weapon is being shot at your face in PvP, that's a different matter)

Edited May 17, 2016 by DeadlyPeanutt

[TheLexiConArtist]

27 minutes ago, DeadlyPeanutt said:

Wow, you really have my game all figured out for me.  You seem sure that you know what's best for me and all the other players out there.

You seem sure that you know what's best for me and all the other players out there too. Turns out neither of us can speak for all those other players, but I can make logical observations about an impersonal entity. The game.

27 minutes ago, DeadlyPeanutt said:

How about you let me play my game and you can play yours?

This will happen at about the same time you're forcibly restricted from bringing your toxic influence weapon into my game or any other who agrees with me.

27 minutes ago, DeadlyPeanutt said:

How does a game keep a long term player base? Not by putting up massive grind walls between players and content.  Games keep a long term player base by being FUN, not by putting up artificial hoops that players have to jump through to get content. 

The longest running games have low grind walls and always have full servers.  Why? Because they're FUN to play, even if the player is not getting any rewards, MR, XP or whatever.  They're FUN.

You have no idea what you're talking about if you think that a nebulous and purely subjective concept is something that is concretely designed for, not just a lofty ideal that is strived for as far as is feasible before conflicting subjectivity means that catering to one any more comes at too much cost of another.

Care to remember how long a game like WoW ran before offering "pay to jump the queue entirely" levelup tokens? Hella grind. Now imagine that it's not even a business incentive - those tokens are simply free in any quantity - and instead of taking you to the previous expansion level cap they brought you to the current expansion cap and fitted you out with high end gear. That's what we have here in the easily-accessible God-Weapon that is the Tonkor.

27 minutes ago, DeadlyPeanutt said:

I play several games daily that I maxed out years ago.  Want to guess why?

Judging from our discourse it seems to be that old adage of simple things pleasing simple minds. You don't wear out novelties as fast as most, so lacking anything new doesn't put you in that kind of position where you rely on personal investment (which is shattered by queue-jumping of such magnitude) to keep you playing.

27 minutes ago, DeadlyPeanutt said:

BTW, i think that the constant adjustments that game Dev are doing on PvP is heading in the right direction for long term player bases. imho, fwiw.

imhofwiwomgwtfbbq, if DE had never caved into the vocal minority wanting PvP to begin with we'd have a much better game with those extra resources to divert to new content and balance passes in the main game.

27 minutes ago, DeadlyPeanutt said:

finally, if a weapon is FUN, such as tonkor... it should be left alone, and not nerfed, no matter how many folks whine about it being OP.  (keeping in mind that the people who whine about the weapon don't have to use it in a PvE mode.  if the OP weapon is being shot at your face in PvP, that's a different matter)

Rhetoric that has been defeated a hundred times. Nice argumentum ad infinitum bro. Still wrong.

Fun weapon makes other weapons unable to be used engagingly = less fun in the game overall. Nobody cares if the Tonkor is ten times as fun as the baseline for enjoyment if its existence means that 200 weapons become half as fun. 10x < 200 * 0.5x

[Currilicious]

17 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

Or he could bother reading the thread. 

 

A strawman requires an argument in the first place to misrepresent. "He hates thingd other people use" is not an argument. 

 

Let's pretend for a moment that this makes any sense at all. Is this feedback? 

You still hate people for playing the game the wrong way, according to your standards, so it's better you play solo.

An objective argument requires a set premise agreed by all parties involved to be true and you have not established that. Your brand of absolute balance between weapons is not always beneficial as others have opined and hence the premise of your argument is not always true. Your premise did not address:

1. Players that prefer variety in weapon power
2. Difference in power as options to self regulate difficulty
3. Powerful weapons can be scaled down via mods but weakened weapons cannot be scaled up beyond a point
4. Players that likes powerful weapons

Need I continue?

In an effort to limit the boundaries of the argument, to your advantage, different dimensions of the problem is conveniently discarded. And hence, you only have a localized debate but not necessarily addressing the issue for all parties involved. In this context, you conveniently demand players give up ability to self regulate difficulty, weapon progression for players that prefer that, et cetera.

The premise of your whole argument is not mutually agreed, and inclusively true for all parties involved. And you feel I should agree that these arguments based on a flawed premise, no less, is supposed to be objective and logical? Also, you do not have the decency to addressed exceptions to your premise in any form of caveat either. There is nothing logical or objective brah. You're just spouting stuff from logic 101.

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Currilicious

[TheBrsrkr]

It's like trying to explain physics to toddlers. 

9 hours ago, (PS4)Redemption_015 said:

Um how people feel about it does matter you fool.

Here's an example of why this is wrong:

Person 1 does not like the Tonkor. Person 1 fires a Tonkor shot at a lvl 95 heavy gunner and it hits. 

Person 2 likes the Tonkor. Person 2 fires a Tonkor shot at a lvl 95 heavy gunner and it hits. They both have the same mods and no other buffs active. 

In either situation, the heavy gunner is dead. And so is everything around it in a radius of 5m. It is the same amount of dead, in the same way, at the same time. Liking it or not liking it has no effect on its performance or usage. This is the critical failing in every argument you have made so far. Performance is beholden to game balance and mechanics, not personal preference.  

9 hours ago, (PS4)Redemption_015 said:

. That is why this section is called Feedback. If enough people are against this, it won't happen, simple as that. 

Yes mob rule is a powerful thing. It doesn't change anything, because and angry mob shouting that the wrong thing should be done is still wrong, because personal preference has no effect on game balance or mechanics, because personal preference is not a stat. It is not a system. It is not a programmed variable. It has no effect, whatsoever, on the performance or lack thereof of any weapon, frame or system in Warframe. To believe otherwise is to be wrong because that's not just how logic works, that's how programming works. 

 

9 hours ago, (PS4)Redemption_015 said:

. "It happens whether you like or not" is one of the most idiotic things I've heard. 

Everything sounds idiotic when you don't understand it. Game systems don't change because you feel like they should. 

[WARLOCKE]

"

It's like trying to explain physics to toddlers. 

"

 

That crutch. That brigade.

[TheBrsrkr]

26 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

You still hate people for playing the game the wrong way, according to your standards, so it's better you play solo.

Saying the same argument over and over after it has been addressed just makes you look more and more like no one should be listening, because you have nothing to say. 

 

28 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

An objective argument requires a set premise agreed by all parties involved to be true and you have not established that. 

Because the other party denies the simple fact that personal preference has no effect on game balance or mechanics. If they would somehow demonstrate their case, we could discuss that for a while, but all you and anyone else so far has done is say what amounts to "nuh uhhhh" and tell me to play solo, which we've addressed several times. "Agreed by all parties" is irrelevant if they do not face facts. 

 

33 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

. Your brand of absolute balance between weapons is not always beneficial as others have opined and hence the premise of your argument is not always true. 

Kinda is, because a) they haven't refuted one argument I have made yet, and b) they have yet to demonstrate a single instance where balance is not beneficial without citing personal preference, which I mentioned before. 

 

36 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

 Your premise did not address:

1. Players that prefer variety in weapon power

Not only is this personal preference, which we all know does not affect game balance or mechanics, it's a misleading statement. It implies that balanced weapons do not have any variety in weapon power, which is demonstrably false be looking at any two balanced weapons. Look at the Quanta, and look at the Braton Prime. Look at the Scindo, and look at the Tipedo. The Dread and Paris Prime. Dakra and Tonbo. Do all of these weapons have the same stats, or even the same outputs? This fails as a proper statement in every regard. 

 

41 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

 

1. Difference in power as options to self regulate difficulty

You can enter any game with any weapon at any level. You can walk into Sorties with an unmodded MK-1 weapon, and you can walk into Earth with a fully modded out V. Hek. You'll get the same rewards either way. However, anyone with appropriate gear for the level has to compete with your inappropriate gear, and that ends as well as you'd expect. Also, this trivializes content that was not made to be beaten easily, and gets you to places the developers did not intend for you to perform in. This in turn pushes the developers to make content designed to either compete with you at those levels, leaving that one weapon the only viable option until more are added, or try to keep that option down with the rest of the viable options. One of these is more difficult than the other, and achieves the same result. Guess which. Hint: it's not the former. 

 

52 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

 

1. Powerful weapons can be scaled down via mods but weakened weapons cannot be scaled up beyond a point

 

All weapons use the same mods unless specified otherwise. The serration you put on your Braton can fit on your Tonkor, and vice versa. Same goes for every weapon. If you mean that certain mods can be left out to make them weaker, this does not change that the weapon still has the potential to do everything it does currently to break the game and harass other players. It also leaves you at a disadvantage with players who make the choice not to do that, and invalidates player input since the mods you spent time and credits upgrading are now wasted. The weapon isn't being scaled, the player is. 

1 hour ago, Currilicious said:

 

1. Players that likes powerful weapons

Completely and utterly arbitrary.  If Some like it, some don't, and everyone matters as much as everyone else, and neither party's opinions  affect game balance or mechanics in any way whatsoever, what's the bloody point of bringing it up? If it was I don't /like it BECAUSE of whatever reason, you might have some kind of point. But if it's another completely arbitrary reason, it doesn't change anything. 

 

1 hour ago, Currilicious said:

 

Need I continue?

 

You haven't started. 

 

1 hour ago, Currilicious said:

?In an effort to limit the boundaries of the argument, to your advantage, different dimensions of the problem is conveniently discarded. And hence, you only have a localized debate but not necessarily addressing the issue for all parties involved. In this context, you conveniently demand players give up ability to self regulate difficulty, weapon progression for players that prefer that, et cetera.

They're discarded because they're based on arbitrary or false premises, not because I feel like it. What you call localized, I call on topic. You keep insisting that we talk about your feelings for some reason, instead of all the things the Tonkor does that are broken, listed before. You fail to address any of these issues and instead focus on how we should feel about the weapon, which is irrelevant to the issues. You say I tell people to give up weapon progression when weapon progression would end at MR5 if the Tonkor is left in its current state,because it is objectively the most powerful dealer of direct damage in the largest AoE with the smallest balancing factors of any other weapon. Ot imposes on far to many niches and has the potential to affect far too many players. Self regulating difficulty only works if there is a standard for difficulty in the first place, and the Tonkor can go farther than any other weapon which isn't regulation. Et cetera. 

 

1 hour ago, Currilicious said:

The premise of your whole argument is not mutually agreed, and inclusively true for all parties involved. 

You cannot make the truth subjective. Game balance and game mechanics are not affected by personal preference in any way, shape or form. If it does, you have failed to demonstrate how, whereas I have demonstrated multiple times why it is true. If you would discuss this, then you would have a point. But no. 

 

1 hour ago, Currilicious said:

. And you feel I should agree that these arguments based on a flawed premise, no less, is supposed to be objective and logical? 

You have yet to point out any flaws in the premise. 

 

1 hour ago, Currilicious said:

? Also, you do not have the decency to addressed exceptions to your premise in any form of caveat either. 

Exceptions have very good reasons behind them. Reasons you are yet to provide, beyond subjective personal preference. 

 

1 hour ago, Currilicious said:

. There is nothing logical or objective brah. You're just spouting stuff from logic 101.

 

Yet you still fail to comprehend it at all levels. 

[Currilicious]

9 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

Saying the same argument over and over after it has been addressed just makes you look more and more like no one should be listening, because you have nothing to say. 

 

Because the other party denies the simple fact that personal preference has no effect on game balance or mechanics. If they would somehow demonstrate their case, we could discuss that for a while, but all you and anyone else so far has done is say what amounts to "nuh uhhhh" and tell me to play solo, which we've addressed several times. "Agreed by all parties" is irrelevant if they do not face facts. 

 

Kinda is, because a) they haven't refuted one argument I have made yet, and b) they have yet to demonstrate a single instance where balance is not beneficial without citing personal preference, which I mentioned before. 

 

Not only is this personal preference, which we all know does not affect game balance or mechanics, it's a misleading statement. It implies that balanced weapons do not have any variety in weapon power, which is demonstrably false be looking at any two balanced weapons. Look at the Quanta, and look at the Braton Prime. Look at the Scindo, and look at the Tipedo. The Dread and Paris Prime. Dakra and Tonbo. Do all of these weapons have the same stats, or even the same outputs? This fails as a proper statement in every regard. 

 

You can enter any game with any weapon at any level. You can walk into Sorties with an unmodded MK-1 weapon, and you can walk into Earth with a fully modded out V. Hek. You'll get the same rewards either way. However, anyone with appropriate gear for the level has to compete with your inappropriate gear, and that ends as well as you'd expect. Also, this trivializes content that was not made to be beaten easily, and gets you to places the developers did not intend for you to perform in. This in turn pushes the developers to make content designed to either compete with you at those levels, leaving that one weapon the only viable option until more are added, or try to keep that option down with the rest of the viable options. One of these is more difficult than the other, and achieves the same result. Guess which. Hint: it's not the former. 

 

 

All weapons use the same mods unless specified otherwise. The serration you put on your Braton can fit on your Tonkor, and vice versa. Same goes for every weapon. If you mean that certain mods can be left out to make them weaker, this does not change that the weapon still has the potential to do everything it does currently to break the game and harass other players. It also leaves you at a disadvantage with players who make the choice not to do that, and invalidates player input since the mods you spent time and credits upgrading are now wasted. The weapon isn't being scaled, the player is. 

Completely and utterly arbitrary.  If Some like it, some don't, and everyone matters as much as everyone else, and neither party's opinions  affect game balance or mechanics in any way whatsoever, what's the bloody point of bringing it up? If it was I don't /like it BECAUSE of whatever reason, you might have some kind of point. But if it's another completely arbitrary reason, it doesn't change anything. 

 

You haven't started. 

 

They're discarded because they're based on arbitrary or false premises, not because I feel like it. What you call localized, I call on topic. You keep insisting that we talk about your feelings for some reason, instead of all the things the Tonkor does that are broken, listed before. You fail to address any of these issues and instead focus on how we should feel about the weapon, which is irrelevant to the issues. You say I tell people to give up weapon progression when weapon progression would end at MR5 if the Tonkor is left in its current state,because it is objectively the most powerful dealer of direct damage in the largest AoE with the smallest balancing factors of any other weapon. Ot imposes on far to many niches and has the potential to affect far too many players. Self regulating difficulty only works if there is a standard for difficulty in the first place, and the Tonkor can go farther than any other weapon which isn't regulation. Et cetera. 

 

You cannot make the truth subjective. Game balance and game mechanics are not affected by personal preference in any way, shape or form. If it does, you have failed to demonstrate how, whereas I have demonstrated multiple times why it is true. If you would discuss this, then you would have a point. But no. 

 

You have yet to point out any flaws in the premise. 

 

Exceptions have very good reasons behind them. Reasons you are yet to provide, beyond subjective personal preference. 

 

Yet you still fail to comprehend it at all levels. 

If you want to argue with logic, at the very least have a sound premise. You don't even have that.

First of all, dismissing preference is as flawed as you can get since you are attempting to solve something abstract, hence preferences matter. Next flaw is, not everyone share your preference on balance. Both of which are dimensions that should and must be addressed but conveniently ignored by no one other than yourself.

Also, you actually want someone to refute your premise? If that is so, then you have none. A premise of argument should be irrefutably true for all parties involved. IE: The primary objective of the game is to have fun. And, the notion of fun is non-quantifiable and abstract. Really I ain't yanking your chain (though I have before).

So now you have no premise for argument. You don't want to address preferences on an abstract problem and hence lacked the basic level of objectivity. And, I'm the bad guy for pointing all that out. Really dude, what you have is a long winded way to say you like something, and you can provide (too much) justification on liking it. The world don't have to share your views on things and no one is judging you on what you like.

Lol, go ahead and break this post down so it lacks context on your reply and make you feel all vindicated.

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Currilicious

[TheBrsrkr]

24 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

If you want to argue with logic, at the very least have a sound premise. You don't even have that.

You have yet to demonstrate how. 

 

24 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

First of all, dismissing preference is as flawed as you can get since you are attempting to solve something abstract, 

Game balance is not abstract. Game mechanics are not abstract. Both are rooted in numerical and systemically comparisons with all other weapons. The way it affects other teammates is not abstract. There are a certain number of enemies allocated to player impact. All players can interact with them as long as they are active. How a weapon uses its power and mechanics affects what the rest of the group can do. This is not arbitrarily selected from nothing.

 

30 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

M. Next flaw is, not everyone share your preference on balance. Both of which are dimensions that should and must be addressed but conveniently ignored by no one other than yourself.

 Game balance and mechanics are not affected by personal preference in any way, shape or form. If you mean the method, I gave you several chances to speak of your solutions, which were "play solo" which did not solve any of the issues, or "create a system that excludes launcher players from other players" which did not solve any of the problems listed. I went through both of these in detail several times, and you did nothing but repeat them. If you come up with something else, we can discuss that. Otherwise  it's irrelevant that you don't agree with my method since you have no viable alternative. 

 

37 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

.Also, you actually want someone to refute your premise? If that is so, then you have none. A premise of argument should be irrefutably true for all parties involved. 

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't there. 

39 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

 A premise of argument should be irrefutably true for all parties involved. IE: The primary objective of the game is to have fun. And, the notion of fun is non-quantifiable and abstract. Really I ain't yanking your chain (though I have befor

Your premise is wrong, or at least misleading. The primary objective of playing a game is to have fun. The primary objective of a game is to make money. How does the game make money? By providing content for players to consume, and the players in turn providing revenue for the developer's work and resource usage. If the players are happy with the content provided, they spend money to get that content. If they don't, they don't spend. The game seeks to maximize the amount of content available to players to spend their money on,while minimizing the amount of time, money and resources used to create and maintain that content. This however, is all fairly obvious to anyone except you, it appears. 

50 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

So now you have no premise for argument. 

I do. You don't. 

 

51 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

. You don't want to address preferences on an abstract problem and hence lacked the basic level of objectivity. 

You never demonstrated a single way that personal preference affects game balance or mechanics. Also, you can't have objectivity on an abstract concept because it's abstract. Arbitrary. 

 

53 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

. And, I'm the bad guy for pointing all that out. Really dude, what you have is a long winded way to say you like something, and you can provide (too much) justification on liking it. The world don't have to share your views on things and no one is judging you on what you like.

What we have here is someone who started out with a false premise, judged everyone else on that false premise, provides no actual backing for his claims and still somehow thinks he's right. It's a simple thing to do. If personal preference affects game balance and mechanics, demonstrate. Give an example. Do something other than repeat the same old refuted arguments all the time. 

 

56 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

.Lol, go ahead and break this post down so it lacks context on your reply and make you feel all vindicated.

This is called poisoning the well, ad you don't know what context means if that's what you think is happening. I'm beginning to see a trend here. 

[Currilicious]

12 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

You have yet to demonstrate how. 

 

Game balance is not abstract. Game mechanics are not abstract. Both are rooted in numerical and systemically comparisons with all other weapons. The way it affects other teammates is not abstract. There are a certain number of enemies allocated to player impact. All players can interact with them as long as they are active. How a weapon uses its power and mechanics affects what the rest of the group can do. This is not arbitrarily selected from nothing.

 

 Game balance and mechanics are not affected by personal preference in any way, shape or form. If you mean the method, I gave you several chances to speak of your solutions, which were "play solo" which did not solve any of the issues, or "create a system that excludes launcher players from other players" which did not solve any of the problems listed. I went through both of these in detail several times, and you did nothing but repeat them. If you come up with something else, we can discuss that. Otherwise  it's irrelevant that you don't agree with my method since you have no viable alternative. 

 

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't there. 

Your premise is wrong, or at least misleading. The primary objective of playing a game is to have fun. The primary objective of a game is to make money. How does the game make money? By providing content for players to consume, and the players in turn providing revenue for the developer's work and resource usage. If the players are happy with the content provided, they spend money to get that content. If they don't, they don't spend. The game seeks to maximize the amount of content available to players to spend their money on,while minimizing the amount of time, money and resources used to create and maintain that content. This however, is all fairly obvious to anyone except you, it appears. 

I do. You don't. 

 

You never demonstrated a single way that personal preference affects game balance or mechanics. Also, you can't have objectivity on an abstract concept because it's abstract. Arbitrary. 

 

What we have here is someone who started out with a false premise, judged everyone else on that false premise, provides no actual backing for his claims and still somehow thinks he's right. It's a simple thing to do. If personal preference affects game balance and mechanics, demonstrate. Give an example. Do something other than repeat the same old refuted arguments all the time. 

 

This is called poisoning the well, ad you don't know what context means if that's what you think is happening. I'm beginning to see a trend here. 

Just like I expected, you took the post I made in piecemeal, sentence by sentence, and hence failed to see things in context, or neglected to. Well I can't say I'm surprised. I have no interest going into a semantics debate because that's what you're doing. You seem to forget, game balance or mechanics both serve one objective, in making the game fun. This is the only premise that is always true, and fun is a very abstract concept. Yeah mind-blowing I know.

The above alone already demonstrated, your localized argument of "balance" alone serves only to illustrate your preferences towards your definition of fun and does not, in any stretch of imagination, represent the dimension of arguments from all parties involved.

A premise by definition must be irrefutably true for all parties in establishing valid dimensions for an objective argument. Since you don't have that, then you have a preference that you want to defend. Which is fair, everyone has preferences. But that doesn't mean I have to agree, much less so when you want something at my expense and not saying "please" lol.

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Currilicious

[TheBrsrkr]

1 hour ago, Currilicious said:

Just like I expected, you took the post I made in piecemeal, sentence by sentence, and hence failed to see things in context, or neglected to. Well I can't say I'm surprised. 

If you could somehow demonstrate where the context was removed from any of my snippings, you would have a point. But you didn't. Just saying that I did doesn't make you right. But it seems that's all you can do, poison the well. 

 

1 hour ago, Currilicious said:

. Well I can't say I'm surprised. I have no interest going into a semantics debate because that's what you're doing. You seem to forget, game balance or mechanics both serve one objective, in making the game fun.

And what is the point of making the game fun? Not so that players would like the game, and spend their money on it? Which would make the overall point of the game TO MAKE MONEY? Even if it was, your premise is still flawed in that if balance exists to make the game fun, and the Tonkor breaks this balance, the Tonkor would still need to be changed because, by your own admission, game balance and mechanics are the systems that make the game fun. Your premise is still wrong. And by your own words:

 

1 hour ago, Currilicious said:

A premise by definition must be irrefutably true for all parties in establishing valid dimensions for an objective argument. 

Since you don't have a valid premise, as your premise was shown to be wrong, you simply have a preference you want to defend. And as I've said before:

14 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

 Game balance and mechanics are not affected by personal preference in any way, shape or form. 

If you think it does, demonstrate how. If you cannot, it does not. You have failed to even attempt to demonstrate any of your premises, so your argument is nothing but baseless speculation and arbitrary personal choice. Get some or get out. 

[Currilicious]

6 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

If you could somehow demonstrate where the context was removed from any of my snippings, you would have a point. But you didn't. Just saying that I did doesn't make you right. But it seems that's all you can do, poison the well. 

 

And what is the point of making the game fun? Not so that players would like the game, and spend their money on it? Which would make the overall point of the game TO MAKE MONEY? Even if it was, your premise is still flawed in that if balance exists to make the game fun, and the Tonkor breaks this balance, the Tonkor would still need to be changed because, by your own admission, game balance and mechanics are the systems that make the game fun. Your premise is still wrong. And by your own words:

 

Since you don't have a valid premise, as your premise was shown to be wrong, you simply have a preference you want to defend. And as I've said before:

If you think it does, demonstrate how. If you cannot, it does not. You have failed to even attempt to demonstrate any of your premises, so your argument is nothing but baseless speculation and arbitrary personal choice. Get some or get out. 

I've always have a premise to my arguments. Here let me remind you (it's in the texts you quoted too):

22 hours ago, Currilicious said:

Also, you actually want someone to refute your premise? If that is so, then you have none. A premise of argument should be irrefutably true for all parties involved. IE: The primary objective of the game is to have fun. And, the notion of fun is non-quantifiable and abstract. Really I ain't yanking your chain (though I have before).
 

As we are not shareholders of DE, but rather the consumer of the product, I would not be addressing the monetization aspect.

And another thing, the very concept of fun is abstract. When there comes a day, you can stick a fun-o-meter and measure it then I'll be wrong. But until then this is how it is. Which is why, your assumption that everyone would enjoy the game if all weapons are balanced to the content will be inherently flawed. This is simply because everyone isn't you. There will be people that want powerful stuff to kill mobs cuz hell yea, fun. Freaky ain't it, but it's real. So for them, and I quote verbatim "Tonkor breaks this balance, the Tonkor would still need to be changed" is false for them.

By that alone, it means that you are attempting to trample on their fun factor and hence violates the very first premise put forth, having fun is the objective in a game.

[Chipputer]

4 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

By that alone, it means that you are attempting to trample on their fun factor and hence violates the very first premise put forth, having fun is the objective in a game.

Yet you completely ignore that people using a weapon that trivializes content and actively removes the ability for certain playstyles and weapons to remain viable, in a team based multiplayer game, is trampling on the fun factor for those you're arguing against.

See, that goes both ways, meaning it's a moot point.

[Currilicious]

4 minutes ago, Chipputer said:

Yet you completely ignore that people using a weapon that trivializes content and actively removes the ability for certain playstyles and weapons to remain viable, in a team based multiplayer game, is trampling on the fun factor for those you're arguing against.

See, that goes both ways, meaning it's a moot point.

Actually I have already addressed this part of the argument by acknowledging it as the clash of gaming cultures. In my response, I have proposed to have better grouping mechanism that allow players of similar mindset to form groups. I am being realistic, there will always be clashes in gaming preferences. But this does not necessarily mean extreme measures like a nerf needs to take place. I call it extreme because it does come with downsides for a group of players, that are also playing the game legitimately. For me, I would prefer a solution that does not trample on anyone.

[shyguyk]

2 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

Actually I have already addressed this part of the argument by acknowledging it as the clash of gaming cultures. In my response, I have proposed to have better grouping mechanism that allow players of similar mindset to form groups. I am being realistic, there will always be clashes in gaming preferences. But this does not necessarily mean extreme measures like a nerf needs to take place. I call it extreme because it does come with downsides for a group of players, that are also playing the game legitimately. For me, I would prefer a solution that does not trample on anyone.

So we're supposed to divide up the player base in order to please everyone?

Then won't new frame/weapon releases either cater to one or the other? If that goes on for long enough, don't you think there's the possibility that new weapons will either please one crowd, while pissing off the other, or if designed to meet both's demands, end up in (or i should say, as) limbo, with neither wanting to use it because its too strong for the challenge seekers and too weak for the casuals?

[TheBrsrkr]

3 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

I've always have a premise to my arguments. Here let me remind you (it's in the texts you quoted too):

And I've just went over why the premise is wrong. Here, let me remind you:

 

7 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

And what is the point of making the game fun? Not so that players would like the game, and spend their money on it? 

 

21 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

. 

Your premise is wrong, or at least misleading. The primary objective of playing a game is to have fun. The primary objective of a game is to make money. How does the game make money? By providing content for players to consume, and the players in turn providing revenue for the developer's work and resource usage. If the players are happy with the content provided, they spend money to get that content. If they don't, they don't spend. The game seeks to maximize the amount of content available to players to spend their money on,while minimizing the amount of time, money and resources used to create and maintain that content. This however, is all fairly obvious to anyone except you, it appears. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

As we are not shareholders of DE, but rather the consumer of the product, I would not be addressing the monetization aspect.

The consumers of the product give the shares value in the first place. You cannot ignore the entire premise for the existence of the game. 

 

9 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

.And another thing, the very concept of fun is abstract. When there comes a day, you can stick a fun-o-meter and measure it then I'll be wrong. But until then this is how it is. Which is why, your assumption that everyone would enjoy the game if all weapons are balanced to the content will be inherently flawed. 

This is where you fail at both reasoning and basic language skills. Objectivity is not abstract. How can the objective premise of the game be subjective? This in itself is a contradiction, as well as being wrong, because the entire point of the game is to make money. You have yet to provide any demonstrations for any of these claims beyond your say so. 

 

17 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

. Which is why, your assumption that everyone would enjoy the game if all weapons are balanced to the content will be inherently flawed. This is simply because everyone isn't you. There will be people that want powerful stuff to kill mobs cuz hell yea, fun. Freaky ain't it, but it's real.

Game balance does not mean that there will be no powerful weapons,as we've been over before. It is simply the most cost effective and easiest way to ensure all players have an equal opportunity to enjoy the game. Equal opportunity does not always mean equal outcome, but that aspect would rely on the players and not the game itself playing favorites. And again, you have yet to demonstrate how it is flawed, because personal preference has no effect on game balance or mechanics. You would have to say how it does for this to even matter. But you don't. So it doesn't. 

 

22 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

. So for them, and I quote verbatim "Tonkor breaks this balance, the Tonkor would still need to be changed" is false for them.

How is something right for one group and wrong for another if the premise is objective truth? The premise cannot be objective truth if it relies on subjective personal preference. Do you simply not know what objective truth means? Do you not understand how game balance works? Do you know what it is? 

25 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

.By that alone, it means that you are attempting to trample on their fun factor and hence violates the very first premise put forth, having fun is the objective in a game.

That's because your premise is wrong. 

[Currilicious]

2 minutes ago, shyguyk said:

So we're supposed to divide up the player base in order to please everyone?

Then won't new frame/weapon releases either cater to one or the other? If that goes on for long enough, don't you think there's the possibility that new weapons will either please one crowd, while pissing off the other, or if designed to meet both's demands, end up in (or i should say, as) limbo, with neither wanting to use it because its too strong for the challenge seekers and too weak for the casuals?

Well at this point I don't know to be honest.

I don't have the data on how such a system should work. But I think it would be a start and a start that didn't kick anyone in the shin. Also, all items not modded properly is just mediocre. Modding can make a toothpick hit like a sledgehammer. So there is that variable too.

I don't think items can be designed to cater to everyone's tastes. Like players that absolutely adore Banshee and there are those that thinks she's rubbish.

[shyguyk]

Just now, Currilicious said:

Well at this point I don't know to be honest.

I don't have the data on how such a system should work. But I think it would be a start and a start that didn't kick anyone in the shin. Also, all items not modded properly is just mediocre. Modding can make a toothpick hit like a sledgehammer. So there is that variable too.

I don't think items can be designed to cater to everyone's tastes. Like players that absolutely adore Banshee and there are those that thinks she's rubbish.

Then if items cant cater to everyone's tastes, are we wrong in lobbying for a nerf to some of these room clearers?? Nobody wants to make it useless, because its a fun weapon to use*. But we want to see it not be SO strong that it's the first thing to come to mind for cheesing a mission**.

* Personal opinion based on usage.

** In situations where alternatives like WoF Ember, Amprex, and Ignis are not as effective.