Tonkor Balancing (Nerf) discussion..

[LazyKnight]

13 minutes ago, (PS4)XxDarkyanxX said:

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

If you do a google search it comes up with it originating from a change made in Ultima Online and the response to the change by the player base.

Nerf is always always  a negative to achieve balance (it takes a 10 second google to prove that it has no positive connotation anywhere period, it is to de-buff or lessen something), and the opposite of it is buff . The neutral word for a change is a rework.

Edited May 21, 2016 by LazyKnight

[Chipputer]

Just now, LazyKnight said:

If you do a google search it comes up with it originating from a change made in Ultima Online and the response to the change it by the player base.

Nerf is always always  a negative to achieve balance(it takes a 10 second google to prove that it has no positive connotation in anywhere period it to de-buff or lessen), and the opposite of it is buff  . The neutral word for a change is a rework.

Lemme learn ya a thing or two:

Words can change their meaning slightly. Nerf is now a term used for any sort of change that makes a [thing] not as powerful or useful as before. A 10 second google search would also prove that.

It is a proper term to refer to a nerf to a weapon that doesn't make the weapon completely useless.

[Currilicious]

14 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

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. 

 

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

 

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. 

 

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? 

 

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.

So I see I ruffled some feathers lol. When I follow your arguments, you don't like it. When I point out that there are other points of views, you don't like that. And hence, I'm trying to tell you all along, the participation part is the difference in preference here. Because fun is abstract, how people anticipate or participate content, to derive their fun factor is not always a statistic. Never was. I don't get it what you are arguing on now lol.

[Currilicious]

12 minutes ago, WARLOCKE said:

All else has failed.

Well there is still the option of buffing neglected weapons. I would have no issue with that.

[Currilicious]

12 minutes ago, Chipputer said:

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

Then if balance between weapons is what you want, buffing the weaker counterparts would help.

[WARLOCKE]

Just now, Currilicious said:

Well there is still the option of buffing neglected weapons. I would have no issue with that.

So you want the dev team to spend hundreds of hours to buff all other weapons just so you can have your tonkor? lol. Did I read this right?

[Currilicious]

Just now, WARLOCKE said:

So you want the dev team to spend hundreds of hours to buff all other weapons just so you can have your tonkor? lol. Did I read this right?

Actually I don't care if they do or don't. I don't have an issue with Tonkor. If anything it would be you guys who are asking the devs for something.

[WARLOCKE]

2 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

Actually I don't care if they do or don't. I don't have an issue with Tonkor. If anything it would be you guys who are asking the devs for something.

So because you have no issue with the tonkor it should not be looked at?

[TheLexiConArtist]

10 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

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.

Both are changes that can cause the same outcome to harm the investment of sunk cost. You can feign wilful ignorance all you want, reality continues on regardless.

10 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

So I really do not understand where these grief, from reading your post, is coming from.

1 minute ago, Currilicious said:

I don't get it what you are arguing on now lol.

At least you admit now that you have no idea what you're even talking about, and hopefully these arguments from personal incredulity can be put to rest.

Also, good god man. Multiquote exists for a reason.

[(PSN)XxDarkyanxX]

11 minutes ago, LazyKnight said:

If you do a google search it comes up with it originating from a change made in Ultima Online and the response to the change by the player base.

Nerf is always always  a negative to achieve balance (it takes a 10 second google to prove that it has no positive connotation anywhere period, it is to de-buff or lessen something), and the opposite of it is buff . The neutral word for a change is a rework.

As much as google would teach me, the opinion of the people on the forum who use it soo frequently would be closer to their truth. If someone uses a word with an incorrect meaning( Like me ) I would be in a better place to know what he/she meant by saying it.
As mentionned before, I saw nerf as "Rendering a weapon uterly useless, the example of using a plastic toy gun into a war came into my mind"
Someone else and yourself explained to me that the way you saw it, nerf was a negative change to achieve balance, it can be slight or big, as long as it's negative, it should and will be called a nerf.

I believe that I am closer to understand what you told me now that you've explained what was your point of view on that word ^-^.

[LazyKnight]

2 hours ago, Chipputer said:

Lemme learn ya a thing or two:

Words can change their meaning slightly. Nerf is now a term used for any sort of change that makes a [thing] not as powerful or useful as before. A 10 second google search would also prove that.

It is a proper term to refer to a nerf to a weapon that doesn't make the weapon completely useless.

For real, you're making me laugh, and i added you to my ignore list.

You are talking about nerfing to achieve an end of balancing with the premise that balance is a desired positive outcome for the game. It doesn't matter how you want to back peddle reducing something is making the item or feature less desirably via nerfing. The word Nerf is negative to the item in question this should not even be subject to debate.

Edited May 21, 2016 by LazyKnight

[Nightange1]

I say MR lock it and reduce the clip size to 1. If you are going to have a powerhouse weapon it should be used for priority targets or reward seeing good opportunities for several kills. If you have a clip size of 2 for something so strong it does way too much without leading incentives for tactical play. 

[Currilicious]

1 minute ago, EDYinnit said:

Both are changes that can cause the same outcome to harm the investment of sunk cost. You can feign wilful ignorance all you want, reality continues on regardless.

At least you admit now that you have no idea what you're even talking about, and hopefully these arguments from personal incredulity can be put to rest.

Also, good god man. Multiquote exists for a reason.

Well the weapon still behaves the same way so no I'm not the type that gets upset with Chevy because the new model is better. Actually I don't understand the adamant stance you guys are displaying. It's like seeing some rabidly fundamentalist sect saying everyone will go to hell unless... This is what I don't get.

 

[WARLOCKE]

1 minute ago, Nightange1 said:

I say MR lock it and reduce the clip size to 1. If you are going to have a powerhouse weapon it should be used for priority targets or reward seeing good opportunities for several kills. If you have a clip size of 2 for something so strong it does way too much without leading incentives for tactical play. 

It may work if the reload speed was tripled.

[Currilicious]

5 minutes ago, WARLOCKE said:

So because you have no issue with the tonkor it should not be looked at?

Yeah well, from my perspective, I see no reason to change it.

However, I'm see where you are coming from just do not agree on where you are headed lol. I would prefer letting different folks have their different strokes, that's all I'm saying.

[TheLexiConArtist]

3 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

Well the weapon still behaves the same way so no I'm not the type that gets upset with Chevy because the new model is better. Actually I don't understand the adamant stance you guys are displaying. It's like seeing some rabidly fundamentalist sect saying everyone will go to hell unless... This is what I don't get.

There are so many incomparables in that analogy I don't know where to start.

Let's go with something immediately understandable:

New physical entities are incongruous with digital entities. The former are better technologically, the parts and constructions that comprise the overall entity were not available to provide the same performance in the previous models. The latter are simply entering different, overall better values into various boxes that could have been entered into the exact same boxes of the predecessors.

[TheBrsrkr]

20 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

So I see I ruffled some feathers lol. When I follow your arguments, you don't like it. 

Haven't followed a single one yet. 

20 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

When I point out that there are other points of views, you don't like that.

I don't like it because I have pointed out several times that game balance and mechanics are not affected by personal preference in any way, shape or form. To which you said that the point that of the game is to have fun which makes it inherently subjective, to which I said that your premise is wrong since the game is about making money and something objective cannot be inherently subjective because that's how the English language and logic  works. Can we move on already? 

20 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

. And hence, I'm trying to tell you all along, the participation part is the difference in preference here. 

Participation is not a preference, because there's nobody who has fun not participating. People who have fun not participating aren't playing the game. They are doing something.  Damage. Kills. Looting. Chat. Parkour. Stealth. Melee. Abilities. Which one of these you use specifically  is a preference, but using them at all is not, because you have to use at least some of them. And since everyone matters equally, a metric for participation was created on the basis of what the developers intend for you to do. 

 

22 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

. Because fun is abstract, how people anticipate or participate in content, to derive their fun factor is not always a statistic. Never was.

Let me highlight the important part for you, since you seem to easily miss the point. The content provides the fun, so whether or not fun is subjective is irrelevant, because content has the effect of bringing fun, not the other way around. You don't make a sheep with wool. 

28 minutes ago, Currilicious said:

I don't get it what you are arguing on now lol.

Shocker. 

[YasaiTsume]

Make every Launcher type weapon not benefit from Body Multiplier (headshots), make them deal bonus damage for every body part hit (Up to 100% bonus damage) 

That way Tonkor can't just pull off a "headshot" and claim to be the best weapon. 

 

[Tenno29543]

On 5/13/2016 at 0:02 PM, -Amaterasu- said:

1 The Tonkor needs to be MR locked at at least 9 or 10

2. The Tonkor needs to do Self-Damage, It's too easy right now

awww i dont get it, it's too easy.. so? i like it easy, what seems to be the problem? I agree with the MR lock but the dread can do way more damage with the right mods. You casn noy rely on the tonkor to save your life in high levels because its damage drops off very fast and it will take you a clip and more to kill things like lvl 100 heavy gunners.

[shyguyk]

I'm just saying, when you say it takes a clip and a clip is only two shots, it doesn't sound like that big of a change.

[LazyKnight]

11 hours ago, Chipputer said:

It is a proper term to refer to a nerf to a weapon that doesn't make the weapon completely useless.

I am posting again because this is something that is utterly untrue. "Nerf" means making something worse, and that's it. The state of the item in question after the adjustment has no requirement to be useful to be called a nerf or not. Some developers do and have nerfed thing into oblivion for the sake of making them useless as this force people to stop using it or buy the next flavor of the month item. 

The word nerf is used by both players and developers and it means, to make something worse. Some people and developers take it to the extremes but there is no requirement at all that a nerf item remains usable.

Wiki defines it here https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nerf  Not that people trust wiki's but it universally understood to mean the same thing everywhere. 

Spoiler

Verb[edit]
nerf ‎(third-person singular simple present nerfs, present participle nerfing, simple past and past participle nerfed)

(slang, video games) To weaken, deteriorate or debuff (a character, a weapon, a spell, etc. or make it worsen) between multiple installments of a series of games or versions of the same game.
The lightning spell was originally pretty powerful, but in the sequel they nerfed it so it became completely useless.
Synonyms[edit]
debuff, worsen, deteriorate
Antonyms[edit]
buff, revamp, renovate, renew, improve

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nerf

Spoiler

verb (used with object)

2.

(lowercase) Slang. (in a video game) to reconfigure (an existing character or weapon), making it less powerful:

The game development team nerfed several guns in the recent update.

 

Tv Tropes definition of the word Nerf. 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nerf

Spoiler

A change to a game that weakens a particular item, ability or tactic. It's usually done to fix something perceived as a Game Breaker, and is almost always a subject of controversy in gaming communities. Occasionally, it's not a change in one game, but rather a change in an equivalent item, ability, or tactic between one game and its sequel. It does not mean it's debuff.

 

In the past, Nerfs for console games were all but impossible due to lacking the ability to patch them. Modern consoles, however, provide this ability, so they now join computer games in this. Many games, especially MMORPGs and other online multiplayer games, are constantly adjusted to maintain balance. Sometimes, that requires taking something powerful down a peg or two. Of course, users of that item will not be amused, and will inevitably flock to the forums to complain, resulting in a Flame War about whether or not the nerf was justified. On the other hand, rants from poor players that something should be nerfed are just as common. Either way, the subject is a touchy one.

 

A Buff or Revamp is a change for the better. These are as controversial as Nerfs; a Buff or Revamp to one unit's Hit Points is effectively a Nerf to the damage of anything attacking it. A Flame War can even develop on whether a given change is a Buff, Revamp or a Nerf, much less an improvement in the game as a whole.

 

These days, the term has been expanded so that "Nerf" is any downward adjustment, not just an unduly crippling one; similarly, the "Nerf Bat" is no longer what the player is issued to take on The Empire with, but what the developer whacks him with.

 

Games with Fake Balance often cause flame wars due to nerfs and buffs (and including revamps) implemented.

 

Has no relationship to "Narf". Distinct from Nerf Arm, which is a weapon that the player can intentionally weaken himself by using. We also have a page on the Nerf Brand of toys from which the name is derived.

 

Gimp, in other hand, is also a sign of Nerf which would worsen the game.

 

If people want to make Tonkor worse that's a nerf, if you want a rework call for a rework. 

@Chipputer 

You made a straw man of my post that was not addressed to you and replyed about something I never said concerning a nerf making something useless (that's a straw man that was never said by me). This is the 2nd time today you comment on my post about thing I never said or ignored what I said just so you can post pointless banter about nothing just to bolster your own post count.

Edited May 21, 2016 by LazyKnight

[-Amaterasu-]

13 minutes ago, BigBlackCook said:

awww i dont get it, it's too easy.. so? i like it easy, what seems to be the problem? I agree with the MR lock but the dread can do way more damage with the right mods. You casn noy rely on the tonkor to save your life in high levels because its damage drops off very fast and it will take you a clip and more to kill things like lvl 100 heavy gunners.

Yeah... all 2 of those shots... so much drop off... If you like it easy then go play single player games with cheats that kind of power isn't fun, Warframe isn't meant to be (That) easy ideally it provides some sort of challenge to keep the interest of its audience aroused. If I can run around 1 shotting everything in sorties with a MR5 weapon when my MR12 weapons can hardly hurt then there is a serious problem.

Last I checked the Dread didn't have AOE capabilities, by the time the Tonkor stops mattering you've probably already left the mission.

[Arcira]

I don't get it. I have at least 3 weapons with more dps than tonkor. There are warframes like excalibur and valkyr doing 100k+ damage on lv 100 eximus. I see Infinite energy regeneration, cc chain, immortality... and people discussing 20 pages about tonkor... just wtf. 

[WARLOCKE]

1 hour ago, BigBlackCook said:

awww i dont get it, it's too easy.. so? i like it easy, what seems to be the problem? I agree with the MR lock but the dread can do way more damage with the right mods. You casn noy rely on the tonkor to save your life in high levels because its damage drops off very fast and it will take you a clip and more to kill things like lvl 100 heavy gunners.

This has been answered multiple times in this thread, No one is going to repeat it to you at this point. Not trying to be rude.

[WARLOCKE]

1 hour ago, Arcira said:

I don't get it. I have at least 3 weapons with more dps than tonkor. There are warframes like excalibur and valkyr doing 100k+ damage on lv 100 eximus. I see Infinite energy regeneration, cc chain, immortality... and people discussing 20 pages about tonkor... just wtf. 

Then you have a Tonkor who has been modded incorrectly.