DE please consider this

[KubrowTamer]

If you dont want to blow yourself up with a grenade, then maybe you SHOULDN'T FIRE IT AT SOMETHING CLOSE TO YOU. Grenade launchers are long range, they always have been and always will be in every game. Its how they are supposed to work. High dmg aoe range with self dmg risk at close. Learn how to use a grenade launcher first before complaining about it in the forums. Topics like this should be renamed Forum-Folder just like how the heat dagger in Warframe is Mastery-folder.

Edited March 30, 2017 by KubrowTamer

[blackheartstar_pc]

On 3/23/2017 at 5:53 AM, heisthex said:

Why we have Self damage when Grinner Bombard's Ogris doesn't kill their own in one hits when they got radiation proc'ed / Chaos?

I wonder does Nightwatch Reaver's Tonkor can self-damage if they step on it?

It won't be fair if we can get our self killed by our own weapon, while Grinner walk with just a scratch, right?

You are missing the point of nerfing it. It it caused self damage to the enemies who use it when it goes off to close then those enemies would effectively be stealing the kills of the folks who whined and cried for this nerf. That would just incite another round of ridiculouse outrage and whining for the self damage on enemies to be removed, so it can be "balanced". It's not balanced unless they get all the kills.

[rudman88]

You can jump over the rocket, side roll to avoid it or shoot the rocket from bombard

is  the napalam thats paifull xd

[Trissila]

Self-damage is a reasonable tradeoff for wide-area damage potential. Otherwise, there would be zero reason to ever use a weapon that wasn't explosive AoE. Why would you ever choose to damage fewer targets if there was no risk involved above and beyond single- or small-multiple-target weapons?

 

Yes, the game has some scaling issues on the high end. But bear in mind that the vast, overwhelming majority of the game is not that. Starchart missions cap out at 40~50. Raids are 80. Sorties cap out at 100. Things above 100 are very-long-duration endless runs, which are a special case above and beyond the rest of the game. Honestly, it's fine that the meta narrows down at that point.

[StinkyPygmy]

Since the "nerf" I've killed myself twice and that was because I forgot Grenades now explode after 6m when hitting an enemy. Other then that no issues. I've said it 100 times in many different ways, but its really not that hard to avoid self damage. I really, really cannot grasp why its even an issue... at all. Never really killed myself with every other launcher before the tonkor even existed and thats not likely to change.

[StinkyPygmy]

1 hour ago, blackheartstar_pc said:

You are missing the point of nerfing it. It it caused self damage to the enemies who use it when it goes off to close then those enemies would effectively be stealing the kills of the folks who whined and cried for this nerf. That would just incite another round of ridiculouse outrage and whining for the self damage on enemies to be removed, so it can be "balanced". It's not balanced unless they get all the kills.

You know its funny, I see this argument thrown around a lot but not ONCE have I ever seen anyone be for a nerf because of "STEALIN ALL MUH KILLS11111111".

Boy howdy do people love to put words in the oppositions mouth though. Why debate over what is actually said when you can just make up a redokulous opposing argument for those on the other side of the fence.

Edited March 30, 2017 by StinkyPygmy

[blackheartstar_pc]

5 hours ago, StinkyPygmy said:

You know its funny, I see this argument thrown around a lot but not ONCE have I ever seen anyone be for a nerf because of "STEALIN ALL MUH KILLS11111111".

Boy howdy do people love to put words in the oppositions mouth though. Why debate over what is actually said when you can just make up a redokulous opposing argument for those on the other side of the fence.

Have you not read many of the complaint threads? If you go back through all of the nerf Tonkor threads the main theme of calling for the nerf is a player using the Tonkor killing too many of the enemies leaving them with nobody to kill. The entire thing is based on people being upset because somebody is killing more than them. Same with the Simulor. They exaggerate it by quite a bit as it is not as common a thing as they make it out to be, but the idea that sombody is "stealin all muh kills111111" is the foundation on which their complaints are based.

Edited March 30, 2017 by blackheartstar_pc

[StinkyPygmy]

11 hours ago, blackheartstar_pc said:

Have you not read many of the complaint threads? If you go back through all of the nerf Tonkor threads the main theme of calling for the nerf is a player using the Tonkor killing too many of the enemies leaving them with nobody to kill. The entire thing is based on people being upset because somebody is killing more than them. Same with the Simulor. They exaggerate it by quite a bit as it is not as common a thing as they make it out to be, but the idea that sombody is "stealin all muh kills111111" is the foundation on which their complaints are based.

I've read a lot and the closest thing to what you are saying that I've seen is more along the lines of " Every time someone shows up with weapon x I have more or less nothing to do the entire mission". Not 'WAAAAHHHHHH MORE KILLZ THEN ME!!!!". Even then, I see that mostly said about the similor. A majority of the points are a tad more grounded in reality then that, whether you agree with them or not.

[blackheartstar_pc]

9 hours ago, StinkyPygmy said:

" Every time someone shows up with weapon x I have more or less nothing to do the entire mission".

Do you not see how that is complaining about another player getting more kills than them? It is the exact same argument just phrased differently.

[StinkyPygmy]

Just now, blackheartstar_pc said:

Do you not see how that is complaining about another player getting more kills than them? It is the exact same argument just phrased differently.

Its actually pretty different. Another player getting drastically more kills then someone can still apply in any situation. I've both managed to top the kills by a huge amount and be under by a huge amount in missions, yet I didn't feel like I had nothing to actually do or kill in said mission. I actually contributed. I wasn't sitting there eating a sandwich why the level was consistently nuked. Thats the difference.

Now, i'm not saying this is always the case in the similor/tonkor debate, I'm just pointing out that a majority of the time "MUH KULLZ!!!" isn't most peoples issue with said weapons.

[blackheartstar_pc]

2 hours ago, StinkyPygmy said:

Its actually pretty different. Another player getting drastically more kills then someone can still apply in any situation. I've both managed to top the kills by a huge amount and be under by a huge amount in missions, yet I didn't feel like I had nothing to actually do or kill in said mission. I actually contributed. I wasn't sitting there eating a sandwich why the level was consistently nuked. Thats the difference.

This comment here is similar to a lot I've seen regarding this and is a greatly exaggerated way to express that another player killed a significantly greater number of enemies than themselves. It is always framed in a negative light and is describing an act of doing something other than playing the game with the time they have due to another player killing all of the enemies. At its base it is just a dressed up way of complaining about another killing more than them.

I'm thinking we will not see eye to eye on this.

[StinkyPygmy]

7 minutes ago, blackheartstar_pc said:

This comment here is similar to a lot I've seen regarding this and is a greatly exaggerated way to express that another player killed a significantly greater number of enemies than themselves. It is always framed in a negative light and is describing an act of doing something other than playing the game with the time they have due to another player killing all of the enemies. At its base it is just a dressed up way of complaining about another killing more than them.

I'm thinking we will not see eye to eye on this.

No, you are choosing to see the argument that way because its convenient. You can't just choose to tell someone what they are saying and interpret their point however you please regardless of them informing you otherwise. Especially if a clear comparison is made between situation A and situation B. If simply choosing what someone is trying to say for them is even an option then nothing would have any meaning. 

Its one thing to misinterpret someones POV, its another thing entirely to willfully warp it despite them elaborating and explaining more clearly what they are saying. 

Edited March 31, 2017 by StinkyPygmy

[blackheartstar_pc]

2 hours ago, StinkyPygmy said:

You can't just choose to tell someone what they are saying and interpret their point however you please regardless of them informing you otherwise. If simply choosing what someone is trying to say for them is even an option then nothing would have any meaning. 

Its one thing to misinterpret someones POV, its another thing entirely to willfully warp it despite them elaborating and explaining more clearly what they are saying. 

If anything I'd say your going out of your way to avoid the core of their statements.

Answer this, why do they have time to eat that supposed sandwich? What is happening in the game that they chose to come here and and make that statement? Why is it related to these specific weapons?

If you come to an answer that isn't about the rate of enemies being killed and the proportion of which goes to one player vs another I'd be interested in hearing.

Do you think if they were killing around about as many enemies as the player(s) using these weapons they are on here commenting about they would feel the need to come here to voice their frustration?

I sure feel like they wouldn't.

 

2 hours ago, StinkyPygmy said:

No, you are choosing to see the argument that way because its convenient.

I do not see how any of this is convenient for myself. Please explain?

Edited March 31, 2017 by blackheartstar_pc

[(XBOX)CannyJack]

54 minutes ago, blackheartstar_pc said:

is describing an act of doing something other than playing the game with the time they have due to another player killing all of the enemies

So, what should the player be doing instead of just having a seat and waiting, when such situations crop up? 

I'll give you an example. I played a Defense mission on Io not too long ago, just farming some relics and leveling up some gear, you know, looking to shoot some dudes in the face. As you do. In the public group I landed in, there were 3 players. One was a Mirage using the Synoid Simulor, who spent the entire time running in a circle around the mission area, spamming the simulor into every spawn point in a constant stream. They did not stop in between waves, they just kept running an shooting. Enemies were killed before the fully exited the spawn points. I tried to shoot some, maybe do some of the actual gameplay (you know, shooting things, using powers, etc.) but there really wasn't anything to shoot.

So I popped a bubble, sat down on the objective, and meditated. The other non-Mirage sat down on top of one of the crates, and we watched our little Miragulor run in circles and hold down the trigger for 2 more waves. I just aborted the mission, because I was very much doing something other than playing the game -- I was just watching someone else play the game, and if I wanted to do that, I'd visit Twitch.

This isn't a referendum on Mirage, the Simulor, or whatever. They're components of the problem - big ones - but this is about your comment. It is about kills, because that's what gameplay in Warframe is about: killing bad guys. I don't care if I get the most kills -- even at MR15 I'm always surprised when I do -- but I'd like to maybe get a few, if only so I don't feel like I'm just a piece of the terrain. But if what happened to me wasn't "doing something other than playing the game," then I don't know what is. 

Edited March 31, 2017 by (XB1)CannyJack

[StinkyPygmy]

21 minutes ago, blackheartstar_pc said:

If anything I'd say your going out of your way to avoid the core of their statements.

Answer this, why do they have time to eat that supposed sandwich? What is happening in the game that they chose to come here and and make that statement? Why is it related to these specific weapons?

If you come to an answer that isn't about the rate of enemies being killed and the proportion of which goes to one player vs another I'd be interested in hearing.

Do you think if they were killing around about as many enemies as the player(s) using these weapons they are on here commenting about they would feel the need to come here to voice their frustration?

I sure feel like they wouldn't.

 

I do not see how any of this is convenient for myself. Please explain?

Don't take the sandwich quip literally. I mean... come on, it was pretty obviously a joke.

I'll reiterate without jokes or sarcasm to make my point clear: Player with weapon X getting a comically large amount of kills in a short time frame over others, leaving them with quite literally nothing to actually fight (yes, on higher level "endgame" content) is not the same as "Waahhhhh player X got more kills then me waahhhhh!!!". In the first case the map was being nuked so heavily player X did not need a squad at all and the rest of the squad was rendered entirely redundant. In the second case, the whole squad was able to contribute in some way, yet someone is butt hurt they couldn't be on the top of the score board. Two pretty distinct scenarios with different implications.

When I said "You're choosing to see the argument that way because its convenient" I was pointing out the conscious decision you made to disregard an opposing point and decide its meaning for yourself in a way that supports your own POV, as opposed to interpreting the argument as the author intended, even after clarification. In essence, putting words in the mouths of others and deciding for them, what point they are trying to make, rather then taking it at face value.

All that being said, our debate is really semantics because in this case the tonkor (and I'm fairly sure the similor) still nuke entire rooms. In the tonkors case you can just now nuke yourself. Rendering the whole "MUH KULLZ!!!!" argument invalid in this case, because the killing power (for the tonkor at least) is still the same and very, very blowy uppy.

Boom.

[blackheartstar_pc]

2 hours ago, StinkyPygmy said:

Don't take the sandwich quip literally. I mean... come on, it was pretty obviously a joke.

I hoped your were joking but I've seen the argument (more so Netflix or movie on tv/second screen over sandwich) being used literally.

2 hours ago, StinkyPygmy said:

I'll reiterate without jokes or sarcasm to make my point clear: Player with weapon X getting a comically large amount of kills in a short time frame over others, leaving them with quite literally nothing to actually fight (yes, on higher level "endgame" content) is not the same as "Waahhhhh player X got more kills then me waahhhhh!!!". In the first case the map was being nuked so heavily player X did not need a squad at all and the rest of the squad was rendered entirely redundant. In the second case, the whole squad was able to contribute in some way, yet someone is butt hurt they couldn't be on the top of the score board. Two pretty distinct scenarios with different implications.

Anything I say here is just going to lead us back around in circles.

3 hours ago, StinkyPygmy said:

When I said "You're choosing to see the argument that way because its convenient" I was pointing out the conscious decision you made to disregard an opposing point and decide its meaning for yourself in a way that supports your own POV, as opposed to interpreting the argument as the author intended, even after clarification. In essence, putting words in the mouths of others and deciding for them, what point they are trying to make, rather then taking it at face value.

I thought I understood their point of view. Is it not to express that their game experience is being degraded by another player that is killing more than them giving them a feeling of boredom from not having anything to do and or uselessness?

3 hours ago, StinkyPygmy said:

All that being said, our debate is really semantics because in this case the tonkor (and I'm fairly sure the similor) still nuke entire rooms. In the tonkors case you can just now nuke yourself. Rendering the whole "MUH KULLZ!!!!" argument invalid in this case, because the killing power (for the tonkor at least) is still the same and very, very blowy uppy.

Agreed. Had fun discussing it with you.