Tonkor Balancing (Nerf) discussion..

[Currilicious]

5 minutes ago, TheBrsrkr said:

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

 

 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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? 

That's because your premise is wrong. 

Well I'll just say, semantics arguing certainly is a hobby of yours. And taking things out of context.

No one is denying players need to have fun to spend money. But notice that have fun comes first before spending? That's one.

And, fun cannot be measured, hence abstract. So, in the end you have preferences. And, not recognizing this means no objectivity.

Wanting to have fun in the game is not personal preference. Hence, a sound premise. I would like to think I don't play a game to torture myself. Do you?

 

[Currilicious]

5 minutes ago, shyguyk said:

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.

Actually it is.

First ask yourself. If that dude using the weapon plays alone, does it bother you?

Second, if this bloke plays that with friends of his that does the same, does it bother you?

[shyguyk]

17 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

Actually it is.

First ask yourself. If that dude using the weapon plays alone, does it bother you?

Second, if this bloke plays that with friends of his that does the same, does it bother you?

First, I'd like you to say why.

Second. My opinion and their opinion are like matter and anti matter. Both cancel out in the end, so our opinions don't matter.

Third. If they're playing alone, they won't have the issue that we're talking about: not being able to shoot at something because its all gone, because they're the only one shooting. If they're playing with friends, they probably won't care as much because it's they're  their friends, unless they're into some friendly competition.

Playing alone/forming your own squad solves your problem, but it invents new ones involving matchmaker, and the matchmakers in every game I've seen don't do a good job of anything except putting players in a game, regardless of preferences (besides location). I'd rather not have more matchmaker issues, but that brings us back to step one: others in the squad lacking purpose in the mission.

Edited May 19, 2016 by shyguyk
Cringe worthy use of their/they're

[TheBrsrkr]

6 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

Well I'll just say, semantics arguing certainly is a hobby of yours. And taking things out of context.

You keep saying that I take things out of context and arguing semantics, when you literally ignored the primary objective of the game because it didn't suit you. And you are still yet to point out one instance of where and how. The multi quote function is right there. 

 

8 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

No one is denying players need to have fun to spend money. But notice that have fun comes first before spending? That's one.

The first thing that happens is not fun, it's development. Development of the content takes time, money and resources. After those are done, the player can use the content to have fun and spend their money in turn. This validates the time, money and resources spent on creating the content in the first place. So that's none. 

12 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

And, fun cannot be measured, hence abstract. So, in the end you have preferences. And, not recognizing this means no objectivity.

Fun can be measured, but cannot be quantified. There are no units of fun, but there is more fun and less fun. It is based on a variety of factors that are there regardless of person, and they have to do with design and mechanics. These are not abstract. These are based on facts and programming. Preference in and of itself is irrelevant because preference varies wildly from person to person in a completely arbitrary and unpredictable manner. Game systems cannot account for unquantifiable statistics. 

 

17 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

.Wanting to have fun in the game is not personal preference. Hence, a sound premise. I would like to think I don't play a game to torture myself. Do you?

Everyone wanting to have fun is not personal preference, but wanting to apply fun to game systems is personal preference,because everyone has a different variation of what fun is,outside of certain constants such as participation. Not participating in the game is not fun for anyone. That's why they're playing the game. That isn't subjective, and isn't up to the player to provide for themselves, but for the game to provide with the content available. Blowing up level 450 enemies, however, is what your idea of fun is. These are not the same concepts. 

[(PSN)AngelShur]

First of all, I just wanted to add that everyone is entitled to their own opinions guys, so please don't fight over opinions but still proceed with an Objective discussion... 

Now, back to the idea, I think that the stats should stay the same simply because of the fact I already mentioned before -The scaling is also broke and There's a need for this weapon to continue dealing the damage it does- but we should not forget the fact that It is like having a grenade thrown at your feet on the battle field, it kills everyone and everything in the area but you only jump 15 meters up the sky and land back on your feet without any damage.. even for Warframe, this is not realistic. <--- While we're at it, this also goes for the Simulor (It should have the vortex pull you in also and giving some % of damage), but before I get death threats :D I will not start on the Simulor, yet >.>

Fun, must have some challenge, not easy, easy is or will get boring pretty soon. ;)

[Polhsenn]

tonkor is so popular not only because of it's insane damage, but because it does not require greater skill to use it. it is not even situational: you can take that launcher anywhere, and you're guarrantied it is gonna excel.
let's take Opticor for instance. it's damage is obscene, but it requires you to aim. and it's charge time makes you think twice before using it (unless you love that cannon... cause let's face it, what's not to love about it).

so, let's make people think twice before using it. i think a 3 sec reload time and a 1 granade magazine size, along with a little slower proyectile speed will make an excellent nerf to this launcher. and, since you can mod against reload speed and proyectile speed without killing the damage of the weapon, it becomes situational but usable at the time. 

[(PSN)AngelShur]

40 minutes ago, Polhsenn said:

 

so, let's make people think twice before using it. i think a 3 sec reload time and a 1 granade magazine size, along with a little slower proyectile speed will make an excellent nerf to this launcher. and, since you can mod against reload speed and proyectile speed without killing the damage of the weapon, it becomes situational but usable at the time. 

But, focusing the modding on reload instead is already a nerf. You'll loose the output damage by switching this mod with a damage one.

[(XBOX)Twinna25]

So, then everybody switches to Soma, Hek or Tigris?

[Currilicious]

21 hours ago, shyguyk said:

First, I'd like you to say why.

Second. My opinion and their opinion are like matter and anti matter. Both cancel out in the end, so our opinions don't matter.

Third. If they're playing alone, they won't have the issue that we're talking about: not being able to shoot at something because its all gone, because they're the only one shooting. If they're playing with friends, they probably won't care as much because it's they're  their friends, unless they're into some friendly competition.

Playing alone/forming your own squad solves your problem, but it invents new ones involving matchmaker, and the matchmakers in every game I've seen don't do a good job of anything except putting players in a game, regardless of preferences (besides location). I'd rather not have more matchmaker issues, but that brings us back to step one: others in the squad lacking purpose in the mission.

I would see it as the first step though. And, it comes with the least collateral damage I feel.

I've always felt nerfing something should be an option only considered when all-else failed. It's because of the damage it does, to current players that have invested time and effort into an item and the confidence in building something else in the future for fear of a nerf. It's always easy to nerf things, in fact it's the easiest and quickest but also laziest balancing method out there. I really don't want to see this game go down that route.

 

[Currilicious]

22 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

You keep saying that I take things out of context and arguing semantics, when you literally ignored the primary objective of the game because it didn't suit you. And you are still yet to point out one instance of where and how. The multi quote function is right there. 

 

The first thing that happens is not fun, it's development. Development of the content takes time, money and resources. After those are done, the player can use the content to have fun and spend their money in turn. This validates the time, money and resources spent on creating the content in the first place. So that's none. 

Fun can be measured, but cannot be quantified. There are no units of fun, but there is more fun and less fun. It is based on a variety of factors that are there regardless of person, and they have to do with design and mechanics. These are not abstract. These are based on facts and programming. Preference in and of itself is irrelevant because preference varies wildly from person to person in a completely arbitrary and unpredictable manner. Game systems cannot account for unquantifiable statistics. 

 

Everyone wanting to have fun is not personal preference, but wanting to apply fun to game systems is personal preference,because everyone has a different variation of what fun is,outside of certain constants such as participation. Not participating in the game is not fun for anyone. That's why they're playing the game. That isn't subjective, and isn't up to the player to provide for themselves, but for the game to provide with the content available. Blowing up level 450 enemies, however, is what your idea of fun is. These are not the same concepts. 

Now if this was a new game, sure tweak with numbers but it ain't. People have time and money invested in items, man. You're also saying preferences should be dismissed. So now games are built for people to have fun in, and there will always be different preferences of fun. And by your own words, preferences are arbitrary and "game systems cannot account for unquantifiable statistics", I suppose games should be made as is and players either take it or leave it. Now if that's so, what are you doing, lol? Man I've seen two-faced "honest" folks around, but this is just too rich in "honesty" now ain't it.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Currilicious

[Chipputer]

14 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

People have time and money invested in items, man.

Game is pitched as a game that is constantly changing due to its development cycles.

The Devs have directly stated, on recent devstreams, that this is so. Money investment in your items means exactly squat.

[TheLexiConArtist]

38 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

I would see it as the first step though. And, it comes with the least collateral damage I feel.

I've always felt nerfing something should be an option only considered when all-else failed. It's because of the damage it does, to current players that have invested time and effort into an item and the confidence in building something else in the future for fear of a nerf. It's always easy to nerf things, in fact it's the easiest and quickest but also laziest balancing method out there. I really don't want to see this game go down that route.

16 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

Now if this was a new game, sure tweak with numbers but it ain't. People have time and money invested in items, man. You're also saying preferences should be dismissed. So now games are built for people to have fun in, and there will always be different preferences of fun. And by your own words, preferences are arbitrary and "game systems cannot account for unquantifiable statistics", I suppose games should be made as is and players either take it or leave it. Now if that's so, what are you doing, lol? Man I've seen two-faced "honest" folks around, but this is just too rich in "honesty" now ain't it.

People have time and effort/resources/money/etc invested in items, in your own words.

How do you think that reflects upon them when a new item shows up that outshines those lovingly honed and practised items to the point of complete irrelevance?

It's not a direct nerf, but it fills the exact same role as damaging the performance, because performance is measured against competitors as much, possible more than it is measured against the difficulty of task at which it performs.

So you can take your sunk-cost entitlement and shove it right where that which you feel entitled to bids other people to shove their own in turn.

 

Nerfing things is no less easy and lazy than buffing things, and it's not a last resort to any developer with a shred of sense when it's clearly warranted. An item that performs a consistent 5% better than its direct competitors it's meant to be on equal footing with may not need to be nerfed, it may need rebalancing to highlight both strength and drawbacks to make it better situationally, not objectively. An item that performs 500% better than those same direct competitors needs nerfing, no questions asked.

In fact, nerfing is harder than buffing is. To buff means that you acknowledge that things might be a little outdated with the progression of development, and players will be happy to see those free gains. To nerf means that you have to admit mistakes, saying "That wasn't meant to work that way" or "We didn't really think this through properly" and take something away, meaning players will cry havoc that their fancy toys and exploitative shenanigans are getting taken away from them, like a naughty child who realises that walls totally work as a substitute for paper; the wallpaper keep the inks/crayon just as vividly visible, so surely that means they're there for drawing on! No, your parents are going to stop you, because that's not what you're supposed to be doing with them and it's making a troublesome issue that they'll need to fix or work around.

 

And finally, you almost stumble upon something approaching good sense. "Games should be made as is and players take it or leave it." Fun might be subjective and unquantifiable, but the good of the many outweighs the wants of the few. That's why we are here on the feedback forum, arguing that balance changes are needed to serve the interests of many, whatever cost that comes from the few who can't take it as the game health improvement it will be, and instead leave it and the game entirely because they can't accept that something they enjoyed posed too much risk to the enjoyment of too many others.

[Magneu]

10 hours ago, (XB1)Twinna25 said:

So, then everybody switches to Soma, Hek or Tigris?

As if those are even in the same universe of damage as the Tonkor. Synoid Simulor is the only weapon that can come close in AOE, and a Vaykor Hek/Sancti Tigris can get maybe three quarters of the DPS in a small cone. Even snipers can barely pull ahead in DPS, and that's if they land consistent headshots, while scoped, to build a counter.

As is now, the distance between 2nd and 3rd is a hell of a lot smaller than the distance between 2nd and 1st. 

[TheBrsrkr]

8 hours ago, Currilicious said:

Now if this was a new game, sure tweak with numbers but it ain't. People have time and money invested in items, man. 

There is that EULA you signed, the fact that DE stands to lose even more money if it's left alone, and the fact that EVERYONE has time and money invested in ALL their items, but only 1 or 2 of those options are viable or even usable. You,  specifically, do not matter, because your time and money is just as important as everyone else's time and money, but you're the only one who gets to benefit from yours since it's broken. 

 

8 hours ago, Currilicious said:

. You're also saying preferences should be dismissed.

When we're talking about game balance and mechanics, yes. 

 

8 hours ago, Currilicious said:

. So now games are built for people to have fun in, and there will always be different preferences of fun.And by your own words, preferences are arbitrary and "game systems cannot account for unquantifiable statistics",

Are you really just going to cut out the bits and pieces that you don't like? The game is still about making money. That's how games stay afloat. That's why games are made. To think otherwise is to be wrong. It is as simple as that.

The definition of fun activities  is completely arbitrary, but fun itself has several things that define it as such. A second example, one of really didn't think I'd need to tell to anyone, is that the articipation in activities is mandatory to having fun. Even if you're participating in lying down and doing nothing. It is defined as an activity the person is doing. What the activity is specifically is completely arbitrary, and therefore meaningless, but the level of participation is not. Participation is a quantifiable statistic. You can see it on your end of mission screen. 

 

9 hours ago, Currilicious said:

I suppose games should be made as is and players either take it or leave it. Now if that's so, what are you doing, lol? 

This is by far the stupidest strawman I've seen from you. I've told you more than 20 times already how personal preference and game balance and mechanics interact, which is not at all. How in the nine rings of bloody hell does that mean nothing should be changed, ever? 

 

9 hours ago, Currilicious said:

Man I've seen two-faced "honest" folks around, but this is just too rich in "honesty" now ain't it.

If you go back to posting memes, you'll at least get a couple likes off of it. This is worse bait posting than 4chan.

[(PSN)AngelShur]

updated OP.

[Chipputer]

On 5/13/2016 at 1:51 PM, (PS4)AngelShur said:

no Nerfing (Hate to use the word Nerf)

Stop it. Nerfing is an inherent part of balance. Just because some entitled brats on the internet can't handle someone using the term doesn't mean that you should avoid it.

Beyond that, your OP literally says you don't think we should nerf it, followed quickly by a suggestion to add some self damage. This is a direct nerf.
That's, even then, followed by a lowering of critical and status. That's also a direct nerf, and that one is even more apparent.

Use the words to mean what they mean and let people cry about them.

I'm only responding to your OP in this manner since you just said you updated it.

[shubelppA]

Why not reduced damage to all enemies in the blast zone when your character is also in the blast radius(let's say the 50 damage we also get from grenade jumping), will at least partially stop people from charging into melee range and letting it rip. Either charge into them and do reduced damage or do it the way a grenade launcher was supposed to be used. Only problem I see is you are screwed against nullifiers.

[(PSN)XxDarkyanxX]

7 hours ago, Chipputer said:

Stop it. Nerfing is an inherent part of balance. Just because some entitled brats on the internet can't handle someone using the term doesn't mean that you should avoid it.

Beyond that, your OP literally says you don't think we should nerf it, followed quickly by a suggestion to add some self damage. This is a direct nerf.
That's, even then, followed by a lowering of critical and status. That's also a direct nerf, and that one is even more apparent.

Use the words to mean what they mean and let people cry about them.

I'm only responding to your OP in this manner since you just said you updated it.

What would be the description of the word "Nerf" though o.o everytime I see it, the only thing that comes to mind is those Plastic Nerf guns. Following that state of mind, I'd believe that "Nerfing" would mean "To render completly and uterly Duckling useless" as if you were to give a soldier, one of those plastic weapon that does litteraly nothing to fight a war.

So yeah, if you could enlighten me as from where this "Nerf" word even came from I'd greatly appreciate ^-^.

Edited May 21, 2016 by (PS4)XxDarkyanxX

[Chipputer]

1 minute ago, (PS4)XxDarkyanxX said:

What would be the description of the word "Nerf" though o.o everytime I see it, the only thing that comes to mind is those Plastic Nerf guns. Following that state of mind, I'd believe that "Nerfing" would mean "To render completly and uterly Duckling useless" as if you were to give a soldier, one of those plastic weapon that does litteraly nothing to fight a war.

So yeah, if you could enlighten me as from where this "Nerf" word even came from I'd greatly appreciate ^-^.

That's where the term came from. The nerf brand of toy guns.

The problem is that you're assuming that nerfing something automatically means to make it useless. That's not the case. The negative connotation surrounding the term has come from the same mindset that you're using. It's not your fault or anyone else's, either. It's come from years of people misusing the term and pretending it means worse than it does.

[Currilicious]

23 hours ago, Chipputer said:

Game is pitched as a game that is constantly changing due to its development cycles.

The Devs have directly stated, on recent devstreams, that this is so. Money investment in your items means exactly squat.

Hence, nerfing IMO should only be done when all else fails.

[WARLOCKE]

3 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

Hence, nerfing IMO should only be done when all else fails.

All else has failed.

[(PSN)XxDarkyanxX]

6 minutes ago, Chipputer said:

That's where the term came from. The nerf brand of toy guns.

The problem is that you're assuming that nerfing something automatically means to make it useless. That's not the case. The negative connotation surrounding the term has come from the same mindset that you're using. It's not your fault or anyone else's, either. It's come from years of people misusing the term and pretending it means worse than it does.

So we could assume that some people sees the word nerf the same way I do and that would... worry them? I guess that OP has a history with the word Nerf and people being really cringy when they see it which might explain why he put that "No Nerfing (Hate to use the word Nerf) " statement here and using "Balance" instead. that would make both side more open to discussing and it would reduce the amount of comment complaining about overall nerf...?

I'm just saying with what you've said above, if we do agree that those "Changes" are nerf, everyone is gonna go ape-crazy and we'll lose the original feedback meaning of the thread ;__;, but I do get what you're saying, and as much as I agree, we can't say stuff like that otherwise the entire thread would go bad and get locked into the void ;o.... Maybe~

[Chipputer]

2 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

Hence, nerfing IMO should only be done when all else fails.

Or when the weapon is demonstrably outperforming all other weapon choices of any category in all but the easiest content.

[Currilicious]

23 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

People have time and effort/resources/money/etc invested in items, in your own words.

How do you think that reflects upon them when a new item shows up that outshines those lovingly honed and practised items to the point of complete irrelevance?

It's not a direct nerf, but it fills the exact same role as damaging the performance, because performance is measured against competitors as much, possible more than it is measured against the difficulty of task at which it performs.

So you can take your sunk-cost entitlement and shove it right where that which you feel entitled to bids other people to shove their own in turn.

 

Nerfing things is no less easy and lazy than buffing things, and it's not a last resort to any developer with a shred of sense when it's clearly warranted. An item that performs a consistent 5% better than its direct competitors it's meant to be on equal footing with may not need to be nerfed, it may need rebalancing to highlight both strength and drawbacks to make it better situationally, not objectively. An item that performs 500% better than those same direct competitors needs nerfing, no questions asked.

In fact, nerfing is harder than buffing is. To buff means that you acknowledge that things might be a little outdated with the progression of development, and players will be happy to see those free gains. To nerf means that you have to admit mistakes, saying "That wasn't meant to work that way" or "We didn't really think this through properly" and take something away, meaning players will cry havoc that their fancy toys and exploitative shenanigans are getting taken away from them, like a naughty child who realises that walls totally work as a substitute for paper; the wallpaper keep the inks/crayon just as vividly visible, so surely that means they're there for drawing on! No, your parents are going to stop you, because that's not what you're supposed to be doing with them and it's making a troublesome issue that they'll need to fix or work around.

 

And finally, you almost stumble upon something approaching good sense. "Games should be made as is and players take it or leave it." Fun might be subjective and unquantifiable, but the good of the many outweighs the wants of the few. That's why we are here on the feedback forum, arguing that balance changes are needed to serve the interests of many, whatever cost that comes from the few who can't take it as the game health improvement it will be, and instead leave it and the game entirely because they can't accept that something they enjoyed posed too much risk to the enjoyment of too many others.

New content is new content. Nerfing is nerfing. You can equate these two if you want. But I certainly don't see it that way. Feels like a used car salesman doing a hustle pitch lol. You said you are being exploited. But I think no one is pointing a gun at you to play a certain way or play this game for that matter. So I really do not understand where these grief, from reading your post, is coming from.

[Chipputer]

Just now, (PS4)XxDarkyanxX said:

as much as I agree, we can't say stuff like that otherwise the entire thread would go bad

No, you don't avoid using a term just because some kids might get upset. It's not your fault that someone else is ignorant of a term's meaning.