It's starting to become painfully clear to me how subjective balance really is.

[mac10smg--Toa_of_Green]

So, I wandered into yet another 'omg this was nerfed revert plz' thread about Mag the other day, and I keep seeing the same thing I see with every other thread like this.

"Oh, it's fine, it was needed"

"I totally agree! It was good the way it was!"

"They only needed to do one thing!"

"Some of it was okay, but not this one thing!"

etc. etc.

I just recall how I've seen threads just like this. Saryn, Valkyr, Chroma, Mesa, Limbo, Mirage, Tonkor, Stradavar, Vectis/Vectis Prime...and I would love to say that it doesn't bother me how much subjectivity is in these threads, both on the part of the OP and the commentators, but realistically I can't say that.

Recently, I've been asking myself this a lot: how subjective is balance? Sure, you or me can say a change statistically improves the weapon/warframe or that a change makes mechanical sense in terms of the game, but in reality that just isn't the case for others. For instance, many people say that Ember needs utility to make it, while I say she just needs more damage and status chance to work with. People say that Limbo needs to be more team-friendly, while I think he just needs some consistency with how the rift works. In other news, people say Saryn needs more survivability, damage, or utility (all separate from each other), people either say Oberon needs more healing or more utility, people say Trinity should be reverted while others say she is balanced as is, along with some EV and WoL complaints/retorts...sure, no-one is wrong, but is anyone really right either?

I've seen people that say bosses are too easy and need buffs while others say the boss is impossible to do and need nerfs, that sorties are unfair and should be changed where others say it's a walk in the park and needs more, how people say level 100+ enemies are perfect benchmarks for how good stuff is and shouldn't be questioned while others think that's too high of a bar and a cap is the only way to balance things, some say the game as a whole is too hard and is full of unbalanced and cheap mechanics while others say the many equivalents of 'git gud' and say it is balanced...

At one point in my time playing this game, I believed that balance was achievable, that it was possible to make it happen with proper tweaking. However, it's starting to dawn on me that balance as a concept is more of an opinion in and of itself.

This isn't a complaint thread about opinions I disagree with, nor is it me saying to stop posting your ideas in these forums. I just wanted to give my thoughts on this matter without venting it all on some poor sap, and maybe just to get at least some people to think a little bit about this.

Comment whatever you want, this is just my thoughts after all.

[(XBOX)Woofsie]

Wow, what a wonderfully well thought out thing to say!

 

Now to get the popcorn and wait for people to scream "In my opinion balance is perfectly objective, stop being wrong!"

[ImmortalGryphon]

I couldn't agree more. Now to sit back, relax, and wait for the ranting to follow from one-track minded players

 

[DuskLegendary]

Yes, in the end what one considers to be "good" and "balanced" is truly subjective. One can argue that balance means cheesing end game content to contend with enemies that are arguable every bit as cheesy as us. One could also argue that cheese tactics are absolutely not necessary whatsoever, and at the end of the day, it all comes down to who exactly you happen to be speaking too, and what their idea of "balance" truly is.

So let me just say that to me, balance means not being overpowered, but not being so laughably weak that higher tier missions become a total headache or just downright impossible to complete. I like to be powerful, I like to be prepared when I go into missions. I like to challenge myself by doing the hardest content DE can throw at us, and to me, if a specific frame can't roll with the punches in said content, then it's not balanced. Is this biased? Is what I just said very subjective? Certainly. I'm speaking for myself.

However, I don't think that nerf, after nerf, after nerf will make the game any more balanced. DE is looking into what I think the core problem of this game is: enemy scaling. Once that's fixed, I think it would be wise to rework the frames to fit the enemies difficulty and decide exactly what we're aloud to get away with, and what we're not. DE doesn't want the game to be press 4 to win, and they're making that more and more clear with each update. This is okay, this is fantastic, as long as they continue to balance the enemies.

Edited June 7, 2016 by DuskLegendary

[Cray]

4 minutes ago, (XB1)Woofsie said:

Now to get the popcorn and wait for people to scream "In my opinion balance is perfectly objective, stop being wrong!"

IN MY OPINION...

 

Ah, who am I kidding? Pass the popcorn.

 

Balance is ridiculously subjective, which makes things that much harder to balance. I will say, though, stuff is definitely broken. Sure, sorties are a walk in the park... when you have all maxed, 20+ forma primed prisma gear.

The "top-geared" players have it easy. Everyone else, not so much.

[(XBOX)Woofsie]

1 minute ago, DeltaPhantom said:

Ah, who am I kidding? Pass the popcorn.

Certainly my good fellow.

[ranks21]

every time I see the word balance used in any post I lol so hard as in reality it will never be in this game.  its either nerfed to uselessness or buffed for x specific there will be no balance .

gets popcorn and pepsi and some goobers

Edited June 7, 2016 by ranks21

[-CM-Emptiness]

There are really only two words in this circumstance: Majority Rule.

[TwelfthAngel]

Every one wants balance to go in the way they want it to go.
It was never about making the game better for others just oneself.

That's why they're so many conflicts.

[Sixty5]

Balance can be objective. 

Rock paper scissors is an objectively balanced game. 

 

The problem is that people are not objective. If I'm new player and see someone nuking stuff with Ember, I'm going to think she is really strong, when in reality she is on the weak side. 

[Noteybook]

I've been telling people this since the Saryn nerf. No one cares unless it is a frame they play, that they know, that they've sunk many forma and hours into.

It's like people telling me to get over how much crappier X brand of chips is now, the chips that I love and have loved for a long time. Is this person a fan of X chips? No, they like Y. They have no objective qualifications to say X is fine and I'm a tinfoiler, yet they continue anyway. Until their chips are messed with, then suddenly they are angry.

 

Balance will not exist in Warframe until Enemies have a level cap. This is the truest statement you will ever read on these forums.

[blackheartstar_pc]

Your opening post is favorite post on the subject out of all the posts in all the threads thus far.

[Zhoyzu]

Balance is subjective to those of us without the data the developers have available. Some things players can clearly see are broken imbalanced but its harder to see in pve games.

Balance is both subjective and not. Perspective means everything.

[Sudri]

Just my opinion in here. The way I see it is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way enemies and weapons go up in power that makes achieving balance but at the same time preserving the concept of being an Overpowered army killing space ninja almost impossible. Story wise we're supposed to always feel a bit OP but being an online game, balance is still necessary. The reason why a lot of people get upset with nerfs to popular things like Trinity and Tonkor is that they make the ridiculous enemy scaling much more easily conquered, but at the same time it's seen as overpowered because nothing else compares.

Personally I hate seeing nerfs to popular weapons and frames because with almost 85% of the other weapons being completely useless if your playing anything other than Non-Endless Star Chart missions, your often left with very few viable options. I think the main problem is something baseline that needs to be fixed.

[HellEnforcer]

HAHAHAHA.

What are you talking about?

I am hungry. Who has the popcorn?

Seriously, yes; balance is in the eyes of each person. You can only gauge things once you have used them and on what you have; and even then, you are bound to be biased on what you like.

[(PSN)I_AM_FIRED_UP]

All these people yelling nerf, nerf , nerf. Most of them don't even those the warframe or weapons

Edited June 7, 2016 by (PS4)I_AM_FIRED_UP

[bloodystainednikes]

26 minutes ago, (PS4)I_AM_FIRED_UP said:

All these people yelling nerf, nerf , nerf. They don't even those the warframe or weapons

on a semi different topic; THIS

often i hear the people who cry nerf on an item dont even use them in the first place, and still propogate their opinion throughout the forums

[Vargras]

28 minutes ago, (PS4)I_AM_FIRED_UP said:

All these people yelling nerf, nerf , nerf. They don't even those the warframe or weapons

 

Just now, drewfishking said:

on a semi different topic; THIS

often i hear the people who cry nerf on an item dont even use them in the first place, and still propogate their opinion throughout the forums

Might want to try and back that up some how, if that's going to be the basis behind your thoughts on "why nerfs are bad".

[bloodystainednikes]

1 minute ago, Vargras said:

 

Might want to try and back that up some how, if that's going to be the basis behind your thoughts on "why nerfs are bad".

it wasnt a thought on "why thoughts are bad" it was infact an observation instead.

[shyguyk]

3 minutes ago, drewfishking said:

on a semi different topic; THIS

often i hear the people who cry nerf on an item dont even use them in the first place, and still propogate their opinion throughout the forums

You dont have to play a frame/weapon to feel its effects when another uses it.

i.e: Mirage, tonkor, simulor threads.

[(PSN)I_AM_FIRED_UP]

On 06/06/2016 at 7:39 PM, Vargras said:

 

Might want to try and back that up some how, if that's going to be the basis behind your thoughts on "why nerfs are bad".

That thing becomes less fun? This is how the cycle goes in this game. Object A got nerfed and now there is a Object B that is better than Object A. Then object B gets nerfed and there is object C that is better. The cycle goes until no object is good. Now the option is to buff something for that thing and the cycle goes again. This is my "observation"

Edited June 8, 2016 by (PS4)I_AM_FIRED_UP

[Cray]

43 minutes ago, Sudri said:

Just my opinion in here. The way I see it is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way enemies and weapons go up in power that makes achieving balance but at the same time preserving the concept of being an Overpowered army killing space ninja almost impossible. Story wise we're supposed to always feel a bit OP but being an online game, balance is still necessary. The reason why a lot of people get upset with nerfs to popular things like Trinity and Tonkor is that they make the ridiculous enemy scaling much more easily conquered, but at the same time it's seen as overpowered because nothing else compares.

Personally I hate seeing nerfs to popular weapons and frames because with almost 85% of the other weapons being completely useless if your playing anything other than Non-Endless Star Chart missions, your often left with very few viable options. I think the main problem is something baseline that needs to be fixed.

Yes. True balance requires revisiting the foundations. Reign in enemy scaling, remove enemy cheese, then bring gear down to match. I believe Quiet Shy has a video that made the point quite well.

Edit:

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by DeltaPhantom

[Firetempest]

11 minutes ago, DeltaPhantom said:

Yes. True balance requires revisiting the foundations. Reign in enemy scaling, remove enemy cheese, then bring gear down to match. I believe Quiet Shy has a video that made the point quite well.

Pift, her points are as ranty as anyone else here. "why cant you do this thing first that would be so easy and make more sense and fix everything!?" kinda rants. Perfect world solutions that don't actually pertain to the real world. DE still does not want players getting tons of C rotations per key. They want you dead by about wave X. Players have decided you must complete so many waves or minutes per endless mission type. Otherwise, its broke. Another subset just want the challenge of the last half hour of waves or survival without waiting a hour for it to get hard. But many of them want the same amount of rewards for doing a hour and a half mission. Someone somewhere is going to complain about any change.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Firetempest

[Kaotyke]

There's a reason none of us are game developers...

I was making a thread last week on how to make Focus like the Devil Trigger, same activation mechanics and all that, having the fassives active only when we enter such state and the having the actives a special power we can use while in Focus mode... after doing 4 of the schools, I stopped and looked at what I had written... my response: Too much, too imbalanced, too... overpowered. I'm not cut out for those kind of things, but I can still make suggestions.

[Cray]

Just now, Firetempest said:

Pift, her points can be as ranty as anyone else here

Doesn't mean she's wrong.

 

Aaany way, the point remains: Rebalance the whole game to escape the cheese.