Lets us vote for changes!

[Doforcash]

old story as hell, but yeh this is another thead about some nerd (me, a handsome nerd) nagging and winning about 60% of the weapon in-game, no jocking, are USELESS.

not useless like "ughh this dump, $&*&*#(%& piece of metal so call weapon can't even kill a lv1 Grineer propelly", no no no, most newbie won't complain about that since at the beginning, all weapon are fun as hell to use because we can choose which weapon that suit us the most and they are all effective at killing enemy. BUT, when we're hitting lv 25-30, the cross line between effective and ineffective starting to appeal, and in Sorties mission, we're starring to have to choose weather we wanna have fun, or get the job done.

DE, im ok with the grinding and RNGsus keep trolling me because it's actually fun in Warframe, hell i even ok with the Riven mod because i made like 500p out of those mod while improving my main gun nicely. BUT for the love of the Tenno, please. Let us, the player, the community and the *Tenno council (Idunno whati have to call them) can voting for which weapon need to nerf/buff each weeks. Only 2-3 weapon per month, not much. That way you can have a relevant suggestion from the people who actually use that weapon, while still have time to come up with new content of the game.

that is all, thank you for reading. I hope that Warframe will become great again

[AdunSaveMe]

That means people just vote for the things they like or don't like. There is absolutely no connection to proper feedback or what balancing might be necessary. Letting the community decide balance, especially by vote, is a bad idea.

The community gives feedback, DE decides what needs to be done. Any other method is just asking for disaster.

[Bibliothekar]

21 minutes ago, Doforcash said:

Let us, the player, the community and the *Tenno council (Idunno whati have to call them) can voting for which weapon need to nerf/buff each weeks.

Design Council? Also, that's an awful lot of work. Once per month, maybe. But even then DE might be better off just looking at their stats to see which weapon is massively over- or underused and to then investigate why that is.

[Volinus7]

Riven is not your saviour?

[Renathy]

10 minutes ago, Bibliothekar said:

Design Council? Also, that's an awful lot of work. Once per month, maybe. But even then DE might be better off just looking at their stats to see which weapon is massively over- or underused and to then investigate why that is.

Design Council is probably used to a minimum by the developers. At least it was some time ago. Not sure how it stands but I don't remember them holding votes on the general balance of the Warframe arsenal.

However, they do have access to said stats and barely make any changes. They added the Rivens thus far, which is nothing more than a band-aid. They could still have Rivens and balance some weapons, like they did with the Sicarus.

[-N7-Leonhart]

14 minutes ago, Volinus7 said:

Riven is not your saviour?

They also need a decent starting line for that to work.

[Tyrian3k]

40 minutes ago, Bibliothekar said:

Design Council? Also, that's an awful lot of work. Once per month, maybe. But even then DE might be better off just looking at their stats to see which weapon is massively over- or underused and to then investigate why that is.

Reworking weapons may be a lot of work. Tweaking some numbers on weak weapons is rather easy. Balance in PvE does not need the degree of accuracy that it needs in PvP, but it should at least exist in some shape or form.

Once per month is not enough by a long shot. They need to balance them faster than they release them if they ever want to get anywhere.

[Fallen_Echo]

I had this idea since i read that the riven disposition system is based on the weapon usage by the playerbase.

Why dont they use that data choose an underused weapon and start to slowly buff it.

Lets say they choose the Mitter.

First they increase the firerate. They sit back and watch if the mitter got any bigger playerbase now, if not they modify the next stat.

They add a minimal amount of crit chance to it, sit back and wait again to see if players started to use it, if not next stat buff.

After they notice that it has reached the avarage amount of users like most weapons they stop the buffing and go to the next weapon.

Each wait period would take 2 months so it wouldnt be a fast improvement but atleast we would see some love for these interesting but crappy weapons.

[Doforcash]

32 minutes ago, Tyrian3k said:

Reworking weapons may be a lot of work. Tweaking some numbers on weak weapons is rather easy. Balance in PvE does not need the degree of accuracy that it needs in PvP, but it should at least exist in some shape or form.

Once per month is not enough by a long shot. They need to balance them faster than they release them if they ever want to get anywhere.

it's not a bad idea, but the problem is we're just too used to getting constant update that less update DE gave us, chance are alot of us gonna feel kinda sick of Warframe (it's like someone eat too much and having a hard time eating less even though he know it was good for him)

 

22 minutes ago, Fallen_Echo said:

I had this idea since i read that the riven disposition system is based on the weapon usage by the playerbase.

Why dont they use that data choose an underused weapon and start to slowly buff it.

Lets say they choose the Mitter.

First they increase the firerate. They sit back and watch if the mitter got any bigger playerbase now, if not they modify the next stat.

They add a minimal amount of crit chance to it, sit back and wait again to see if players started to use it, if not next stat buff.

After they notice that it has reached the avarage amount of users like most weapons they stop the buffing and go to the next weapon.

Each wait period would take 2 months so it wouldnt be a fast improvement but atleast we would see some love for these interesting but crappy weapons.

now this i can agree on, have a like

[Sziklamester]

Some older weapons just need stat boost which is pretty much a little change compare a full rework and a new mechanic added. For example the older swords could have be better in stats in damage and in status and crit but of course just small to medium additions and no drawbacks because those weapons currently have greater drawbacks than the op weapons.

a skana can be a swifter and better blade with some speed a minor status plus and a little higher crit on damage wise maybe adding more damage to the 2 lesser type the impact and puncture for say 5 - 5 and then that blade a bit better.

Glaive could given the same with slash and a bit more speed and there maybe needs some mechanic changes or higher crit/status to make it viable but that mean the prime counterpart needs also those tweaks and less damagewise buffs.

A lato or aklato can be viable weapn if these could given some minor extra damage and for say +10% status and crit only.

Seer is a good raw damage dealer weapon with decent status but does no have crits and that weapon needs atleast 10% crit chance with 1.5 or 2.0x crit damage.

Mire is a good one handed sword because can deal toxin damage and relatively fast but the main stats aren't so high and maybe the slash needs +6-8 damage then that weapon can be much better.

Pangolin sword also need some changes and tweaks but pretty much all weapon needs a little more buffs and tweaks while others in higher tiers some nerfs and buff in same time.

A plasma sword (Yeah I know my fav example) need more attack speed to be at least useful but a higher crit and or status could make that weapon useful but with the current stats that weapon is mastery fodder because you cannot make enough damage on it and only deals elemental damage. 

These are just examples but some of these old weapon really just need 1-2 stat changes to be useful, no one say they should be top tier weapons because the reason you play to get higher tier arsenal but each weapon should be at least useful or decent on high level missions around lvl 50-100.

These changes not takes much more time because these are simple stat changes and not full mechanic reworks and how these weapons work. 

[Bibliothekar]

2 hours ago, Sziklamester said:

Some older weapons just need stat boost which is pretty much a little change compare a full rework and a new mechanic added.

Looking at the weapons you've listed, what we need way more than a buff to weak weapons is a tiered system. So you'd have beginner weapons, intermediate weapons and veteran weapons (just as example). Beginner weapons have no MR lock or MR2, intermediate weapons begin around MR6 and veteran weapons at MR12. Each tier is roughly balanced for its weapons, but stronger than the tier below.

Because I'm pretty sure those weapons are more than good enough for starter content, they just fall short later on. And there is no reason for them to be more powerful, since they have better versions already. Seer is a side-grade to Lex, better version Lex Prime. Skana has Prisma Skana and Broken War. And so on.

Sure, it's a bit more work at first, but I think in the long term the game would benefit if weapons were sorted that way.

[Lawmonark]

I think we already do this... without knowing.

The weapons that get "used" the least... seem to have the strong disposition.

 

DE already has the stats on what gets used... and what doesn't. Rivens were meant to be the buff to make weak weapons strong... BUT they are horribly Implement. Example, i had a Lato riven with 400% damage increase... but still this did nothing to help the lato. Withs its 1% crit and status chance.

 

[(XBOX)ThermalStone]

I'd rather have new content than have them forever adjusting stuff I leveled and sold a long time ago.

[Rakosta_Kai]

Simply put, I'd rather see DE create transparent tiers and a crafting system that allowed each weapon to reach the highest tiers without relying on the RNG of Rivens.

Since mods are what drives the game, players should be able to choose what they want without concerns about an item's reduced effect/efficiency compared to other items.

Tiers make outliers easy to spot and a crafting system gives under-performers an avenue to address it.

It would also solve the specter of power creep because items that perform above their tier allotment would do so objectively.

...The problem is that this will never happen.

1. Rivens are a revenue generator (Riven-oo... get it?).

2. This game runs on incomparables — All effects aren't equal even though they kinda should be. and the fact that they aren't renders tiers somewhat meaningless until they are.

...Which is where crafting comes in.

Being able to improve weapons with crafting is better than Rivens and relegates them to an OPTION... Which is what they should be.

Primes go back to being cosmetic with tiers and crafting.

The Tiburon can suddenly be made to be endgame by adding crafted sights, receiver, trigger, or barrel that increase it's crit or status. Likewise, every Tiburon you see can differ from another making casual observation (and judgement) pointless.

Players can suddenly choose to take what they want where they want when they want because they modified it to be competitive.

Cookie cutter won't go away but players have more tools to find their own path (personally I want a Magnus that I can mod for high status ice damage and does impact so it either shatters on subsequent hits or knocks the affected enemy into others to get group knockdowns— with finisher damage on any shots while they are down and a chance to make headshots disorient and have them shoot their neighbors....cuz that'd be funny). 

And the ability to kneecap and curbstomp...Because that'd be funny too.

 

 

[-_-MAD-_-THICCTATOR-_-]

I know they are horrible but when are we getting that Akboltor that ember are holding?

[Sziklamester]

3 hours ago, Bibliothekar said:

Looking at the weapons you've listed, what we need way more than a buff to weak weapons is a tiered system. So you'd have beginner weapons, intermediate weapons and veteran weapons (just as example). Beginner weapons have no MR lock or MR2, intermediate weapons begin around MR6 and veteran weapons at MR12. Each tier is roughly balanced for its weapons, but stronger than the tier below.

Because I'm pretty sure those weapons are more than good enough for starter content, they just fall short later on. And there is no reason for them to be more powerful, since they have better versions already. Seer is a side-grade to Lex, better version Lex Prime. Skana has Prisma Skana and Broken War. And so on.

Sure, it's a bit more work at first, but I think in the long term the game would benefit if weapons were sorted that way.

That would be not likely because many peoples wish to use older weapons. If they want to introduce a system like this then need a tons of mk1 or a variants weapons because for example a dual heat sword and ether can be used in sortie but of course less effective than meta.

 

Edit : the original idea behind the mod system and on weapons the use by like or how to say use as many times you wish. If you like a weapon with a good mod combination you can make it viable but of course in endless missions that won't work because that is not scaled game mode but on normal levels every weapon could be viable at least on a decent level.

For tiering and introducing the new players there are the mk1 series but I am agree with on that they need more of them and more variety to learn the game basics and their improvements. I don't think the individual weapons should be side grades, for lex and lex prime etc different versions that could be okay but the lex and seer are different and equally need to be used. Kraken is the grineer version viper is the tenno furis version but faster than furis etc.

Karak is not a side grade of braton or a bo not a side grade of orthos or orthos prime.

I think each weapon needs some minor tweaks to mediocre tweaks to be more useful and it won't take a lot of time.

The tier system could only work if they once finish the mastery ranks and each weapon given mastery ranks likewise.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Sziklamester

[Bibliothekar]

44 minutes ago, Sziklamester said:

That would be not likely because many peoples wish to use older weapons.

I'm not saying you can't play with older weapons any more. Just that you shouldn't take a beginner tier weapon like Mire into Sortie 3 and expect to get the same results as the other guy with Galatine Prime, which would be veteran tier.

And you could still take Mire and wreck enemies in a Lith defense on Earth.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Bibliothekar

[CherryPauper]

>  about 60% of the weapon in-game, no jocking, are USELESS.

I would actually argue that 90% of weapons are useless. 90% of mods in this game are useless. Too much uselessness! 

Edited February 18, 2017 by CherryPauper

[Ailissa]

No, dear god no.

 

Never leave it up to the player base to decide what needs nerfing or buffing. I'd rather DE did that themselves with realistic data and not "that annoys me, nerf it".

[SenorClipClop]

10 hours ago, Doforcash said:

60% of the weapon in-game, no jocking, are USELESS.

*sigh*

There's a big difference been "useless" and "not needed". The Mobilize mod (+20% to Bullet Jump, Aim Glide and Wall Latch) is never needed because a mission's success basically never relies on a Tenno's ability to jump around, but the mod still has a use. If I have a free slot on my Warframe and I know I can accomplish the upcoming mission without adding a more popular mod, I'll chuck on Mobilize for the sheer fun of soaring around the map. Many mods are in the game not to make a Tenno fiercely powerful, but to customize the game experience to suit each player.

I think, rather than "useless", the term you're looking for is "non-competitive".

10 hours ago, Doforcash said:

Let us, the player, the community and the *Tenno council (Idunno whati have to call them) can voting for which weapon need to nerf/buff each weeks.

The player community cannot be trusted to make informed and rational decisions about the balance of this game. Too many of us make these decisions based on personal factors (how we individually feel about certain weapons), and such a change would result in an ongoing weapon popularity contest/hit list. It wouldn't work.

Edited February 18, 2017 by SenorClipClop

[Fallen_Echo]

27 minutes ago, SenorClipClop said:

The player community cannot be trusted to make informed and rational decisions about the balance of this game. Too many of us make these decisions based on personal factors (how we individually feel about certain weapons), and such a change would result in an ongoing weapon popularity contest/hit list. It wouldn't work.

Thats why i said that they should use their existing system to find underused gear. Seriously with a little common sense one can realize that the reason people dont use those gun/blades that they are "useless".

On a sidenote this would bring additional money to the devs since people would actually consider buying weapons. Just think about the Sibear (long grind for new players) the Mitter (rng drop) and the Panthera (needs the Mitter to craft).

Hell i would be the first one who would buy lots of stuff of the market if they would made them viable to use.

[Insizer]

13 hours ago, AdunSaveMe said:

That means people just vote for the things they like or don't like. There is absolutely no connection to proper feedback or what balancing might be necessary. Letting the community decide balance, especially by vote, is a bad idea.

The community gives feedback, DE decides what needs to be done. Any other method is just asking for disaster.

I vote nerf the Lato.

[(PSN)AtomicEyekon]

There  absolutely needs to be voting polls in side Nurframe and not out side your game in WARFRAME Forums, exactly like Darvo's Totally legit deals a few months ago when WE the Players replied what we wanted and it was  perfect.This is all regarding Nerfs To ALL Gear,WARFRAME's&WEAPON's. If consoles want something different than PC it is possible. It has been proven that when Nidus First Came out it was 10  stacks for his last ability yet when it 1st came to console it was 15. so yes Let's Vote in your game so we're all on the same page and all platforms can get what they want.

[thekurama13]

i would love that

[Bobtm]

Sorry, but that wouldn't work out.  The cut & dry of it is this;  Gamers aren't all going to be game developers.  This isn't to say that their feedback and ideas are wrong 100% of the time, but it does mean that they (the players) should not have total say on game decisions.

Nerfs and buffs are both a very integral part of proper game development.  Without either one of these things, any game is destined to be an utter and total failure.  A flash in the pan at best, an utterly laughable tragedy at worst.  Balancing is what allows a game to grow and remain relevant over an extended time period.  Games without balance are garbage unless they're purely designed for short term play, period.  Not all nerfs are good of course, nor are all buffs.  But on the inverse not all nerfs or buffs are bad either.

Nidus was super overpowered when he first came out, he was balanced a bit (he's still ridiculously strong) and you console players got to see the balanced version.  Our Nidus on PC too takes 15 now, and there's no reason for that change to be reverted.

Players having voting control on balance decisions is one of the fastest ways to ensure a game's death.  Having their feedback on the table to be taken into account is good, great even.  Player feedback is an outstanding thing when folks are able to make it in a constructive and sensible manner.