Nerfs are not the right answer to the problems in the game

[Eric1827]

I was watching a video on YouTube about the current state of the game and the community in general.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm_7jGGBYF0

            This Video went over some very important points about why Nerfs could be bad for the game and eventually lead to an unhealthy game state.  I'm not going to lie the weapons the got Nerfed recently Telos Boltace, Synoid Simulor, and the Tonkor were the most powerful in the game.   They were also 3 of the most used weapons in the game, causing people to beg for Nerfs. After some time of asking for these nerfs they eventually came.  I think The way we perceive the problem is the issue here.  People are complaining about others using weapons that they enjoy using.  I think the best way to solve the issue would be to enforce the mastery rank of weapons. 

 

How is the Mastery rank being used now and how could it be used better?

           Right now I don't entirely know how mastery rank is being used for weapons. I think it could be used better by first making a tier list and apply all weapons to this tier list. The tier list should be based off of how good the weapon is at any and all points in the game.   Once a weapon is put on the tier list it would then be given a Mastery requirement base on its tier.  This would require a massive overhaul of the current mastery system, but I think the rewards would be worth it. 

             This would accomplish a number of things. It would clearly show what are the best and the worst weapons from an outside standpoint, something lacking in the current system. It would also make the best weapons in the game the harder or hardest in the game to acquire. It would add both a sense of accomplishment to people who to get these weapons while also making them more limited in their overall use. Lastly, it would mean that if a weapon was perceived as too strong it could be reassessed and moved farther up the tier list. It could also just stay on the current tier and change its mastery requirement by one or two levels.

Why Nerfs can be Unhealthy for a game.  PvE in particular

 

              Nerfs sometimes are unavoidable, especially in a PvP game where people are trying to beat other people.  In PvP the strongest thing will eventually be found and abused as the game evolves over time.  In PvE this isn't necessarily a bad thing as when you shot a corrupted bombard in the face their isn't another person on the other side of the screen cursing your name for abusing an overpower weapon complain about how it is or isn't fair.  The truth of the matter here in Warframe is that too many nerfs could cause more people to leave the game than to join it.  Whenever you nerf a weapon you affect how people will enjoy your game. Yes, I know "everyone" was using these weapons "they were overpowered and needed to be nerfed". So if everyone is using these weapons over and over again that must mean they enjoyed using these weapons. When you take away the things people enjoy from the game eventually they find a new game to play. I'm not saying I'm going to stop playing the game because of this.  I am saying that if you nerf all of the things that one person in particular enjoys playing in this game.  They will leave having no reason left to stay.

 

How we should be listening from the community.

 

              The last thing I wanted to bring up was the way the community is being heard. This may seem like a small detail, but it is a very important one. I think we need a poll system that actually tells us how much of the community wants these changes in the game.   Just because the people wanting nerfs have or had the largest voice does not mean that they are the largest percent of the community.  Polls would allow with more certainty how many people want what type of change.  At the end of the day I just want to enjoy the game with the people I enjoy playing.  GLHF

[TesseractNZ]

Tonkor not worth using anymore, all the fun has gone out of it.

 

[Misgenesis]

Neither is mindless buffing of tens of weapons to reach one weapons power.

The reason these weapons were being used so much is because of their ease of use and ridiculous damage output. Which undermines DE's intended challenge. They werent taken away, people who enjoy the weapons for what they do and how they do still enjoy them. And the weapons in question are still powerful.

Being a PvE game doesnt mean jack either. DE make a living off of putting gear behind content, theres less of a incentive to buy anything when you can just erase any challenge and get the gear.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Misgenesis

[Magneu]

I generally agree with your mentality; if someone else is using a highly-effective strategy, I could care less.

When I do start caring, however, is when their strategy infringes on my gameplay, be that through annoying FX, disruption to gameplay flow, or even simply killing everything in a large area so fast that I am unable to actually play the game without resorting to similar tactics.

The hot topics, Tonkor/SySim/Telos Boltace, fell in a combination of all three categories (Tonkor FX excluded, although that explosion sound got old pretty fast), which is why they had to be nerfed.

To go deeper, over-used gear usually gets nerfed because it (a) lets players ignore anything new that isn't at/above that power level, thereby invalidating a lot of new content, (b) forcing DE to create content that isn't a complete pushover to the over-used gear (wanna know why we have invincibility phases? Insane player DPS is the answer), and (c) it leads to a stale and boring meta where Player X uses the same loadout for every mission, all the time, forever; these types of players aren't going to stick around very long, as the game is (generally) much more boring for them than for someone experimenting with new weapons/builds/strategies.

The argument of "PvE doesn't need balance" is flawed for the reasons that with shared gameplay comes shared enjoyment. While people get enjoyment from games in different ways, letting players essentially force their will on other players via room-clearing, audio/visual cluttering, low-skill/high-reward is a horrible idea that leads to a small group of bored, short-term meta players, and a large group of frustrated, hopefully long-term players, the lifeblood of the game.

[Zinthir]

I can never understand this argument.

If trivializing content is fine because it's PvE, one shotting everything isn't a problem, why not just add an option to insert your desired amount of affinity/resources at the click of a button? Just speeds things up, just like overpowered weapons/frames (limbo) do, and like you said, nobody loses anything from this. Why doesn't DE just give everyone 100,000,000 credits? They must just be greedy.

 

People are generally in missions for a reason, farming something. When people run out of things to farm, that's when they leave. Trivializing content just brings people to this dead end much faster, and makes the journey there, which DE is constantly working to make more interesting, just a cookie clicker game with fancy graphics.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Zinthir

[Omnipower]

6 minutes ago, Misgenesis said:

Neither is mindless buffing of tens of weapons to reach one weapons power.

The reason these weapons were being used so much is because of their ease of use and ridiculous damage output. Which undermines DE's intended challenge. They werent taken away, people who enjoy the weapons for what they do and how they do still enjoy them.

But everyone weapon is easy to use? Point and shoot even sometimes not pointing and shooting the dmg output is a different story but like the OP said MR shouldve increased the only weapon that probably would avoid this fix is synoid simulor but imo the change to it is still good not bad but what they did to tonkor and telos boltace will be felt for quite a while.

[Zinthir]

4 minutes ago, Omnipower said:

But everyone weapon is easy to use? Point and shoot even sometimes not pointing and shooting the dmg output is a different story but like the OP said MR shouldve increased the only weapon that probably would avoid this fix is synoid simulor but imo the change to it is still good not bad but what they did to tonkor and telos boltace will be felt for quite a while.

And why were those two weapons used? Was spinning the entire game just people's favorite way to play? No. It was because they got the job done fast. And much of the community agreed that it was too fast. Personally I don't think the Tonkor deserved as large of a nerf, but I also personally think the Braton should be buffed. DE still has to do a lot of work on balancing, but cutting off the big troublemakers is a good start.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Zinthir

[DrBorris]

Obligatory link to why nerfs are necessary...

 

[(PSN)IIXNine]

I feel like players want Warframe to be more of a game that requires skill other than, buy a Warframe/weapon to win. In the mindset of some of these players is that after limbo's rework, noobs who buy him/do the quest and level him, instantly become OP. Before the rework there were hardly any limbo players, now there's lots of them. People want to feel unique and special because they're using gear that other people aren't using, this is the main issue. 

[Omnipower]

Just now, Zinthir said:

And why did you happen to use those two weapons? Because they got the job done fast. And much of the community agreed that it was too fast. Personally I don't think the Tonkor deserved as large of a nerf, but I also personally think the Braton should be buffed. DE still has to do a lot of work on balancing, but cutting off the big troublemakers is a good start.

Yeah i wont deny i used all of those weapons but not for what you thinking tonkor is when every other weapon i use didnt quite get the job done(now shelved cause i hate self dmg like no tomorrow), i still use synoid simulor cause the explosions are still hilariously fun and amazingly powerful now and for telos boltace i was using it as a room clearer during mark hunting(shelved cause now its trash). Yes they did the job well but besides tonkor which i stated as my fall back weapon when all other fails i enjoyed using the other 2 for their mechanics now i will only ever use 1 of 3 these. I wouldnt mind if they had changed their mechanics somewhat similar to simulor to account for their dmg output and even increasing their respective MR requirements but what they did pretty much turn 2 of them into MR fodder for a lot of ppl abusers or not.

[Zinthir]

1 minute ago, Omnipower said:

Yeah i wont deny i used all of those weapons but not for what you thinking tonkor is when every other weapon i use didnt quite get the job done(now shelved cause i hate self dmg like no tomorrow), i still use synoid simulor cause the explosions are still hilariously fun and amazingly powerful now and for telos boltace i was using it as a room clearer during mark hunting(shelved cause now its trash). Yes they did the job well but besides tonkor which i stated as my fall back weapon when all other fails i enjoyed using the other 2 for their mechanics now i will only ever use 1 of 3 these. I wouldnt mind if they had changed their mechanics somewhat similar to simulor to account for their dmg output and even increasing their respective MR requirements but what they did pretty much turn 2 of them into MR fodder for a lot of ppl abusers or not.

Yes, DE may have overnerfed Telos and Tonkor. At the same time they're still much better than well over half of the other weapons in game, but that's more of a testament to how much MR fodder is in game right now. All I'm trying to say is that nerfs are often required. Even though a couple weapons are now MR fodder, there are more weapons that can actually compete now that they aren't leagues below something like synoid simulor.

[Vantooth]

 

10 minutes ago, DrBorris said:

Obligatory link to why nerfs are necessary...

 

Beat me to it xD, you posted this while I was looking for the thread.

It does a great job at explaining why nerfs are important and is quite short so I definitely recommend everyone to give this a read.

I'm also looking for an animated video that explains nerfs and balance in online game, but can't seem to find it at all. D:

[-N7-Leonhart]

Without any nerfs every, you will only see anarchy in game. Many times nerfs are the only answer. Nerfs would not be necessary if every piece of gear would be in-line with everything else from the start, but that is often not the case.

[Xaero]

So a situation where different players use different frames and weapons which have pros and cons is unhealthy? Was it better when 90% of random players used exactly same gear?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Ksaero

[polarity]

[(PSN)jedion]

1 hour ago, Magneu said:

I generally agree with your mentality; if someone else is using a highly-effective strategy, I could care less.

When I do start caring, however, is when their strategy infringes on my gameplay, be that through annoying FX, disruption to gameplay flow, or even simply killing everything in a large area so fast that I am unable to actually play the game without resorting to similar tactics.

The hot topics, Tonkor/SySim/Telos Boltace, fell in a combination of all three categories (Tonkor FX excluded, although that explosion sound got old pretty fast), which is why they had to be nerfed.

To go deeper, over-used gear usually gets nerfed because it (a) lets players ignore anything new that isn't at/above that power level, thereby invalidating a lot of new content, (b) forcing DE to create content that isn't a complete pushover to the over-used gear (wanna know why we have invincibility phases? Insane player DPS is the answer), and (c) it leads to a stale and boring meta where Player X uses the same loadout for every mission, all the time, forever; these types of players aren't going to stick around very long, as the game is (generally) much more boring for them than for someone experimenting with new weapons/builds/strategies.

The argument of "PvE doesn't need balance" is flawed for the reasons that with shared gameplay comes shared enjoyment. While people get enjoyment from games in different ways, letting players essentially force their will on other players via room-clearing, audio/visual cluttering, low-skill/high-reward is a horrible idea that leads to a small group of bored, short-term meta players, and a large group of frustrated, hopefully long-term players, the lifeblood of the game.

your arguement is that other players are taking a bit out of your fun... and that your suffering from their behavior

but when you nerf, then your doing the same thing, your taking a bit out of their fun but this time its them who are suffering. so neither one is correct, some how DE gotta find a middle ground, but insisting on nerf without realizing the outcome is just plain selfish for some people (not saying you)

 

[WARLOCKE]

The age old battle. Crutch players vs Nerf Herders. Fun vs Not fun for us. 

The only real facts we have is that this is a co-op horde shooter that is meant to require some bit of effort to play (not the faceroll so many love). Every nerf introduced has been to observe this fact. You may have fun AoE spam clearing maps but the developers do not think it fits into the intended gameplay. 

But you are correct in a way. The recent nerfs wont fix warframes problems. That will only happen when CC takes a BIG hit across the board. The game is still trivial to anyone with a mr over 15.

But what you should be asking for is that DE balance the weapons and frames better before they release. That way you wont have to eat a nerf.

[PakkiTheDog]

52 minutes ago, polarity said:

Nailed it!

[Magneu]

3 hours ago, (PS4)jedion said:

your arguement is that other players are taking a bit out of your fun... and that your suffering from their behavior

but when you nerf, then your doing the same thing, your taking a bit out of their fun but this time its them who are suffering. so neither one is correct, some how DE gotta find a middle ground, but insisting on nerf without realizing the outcome is just plain selfish for some people (not saying you)

 

I'm arguing for player agency; letting a player easily interfere with someone else's game should be avoided. There will always be a degree of interference, but egregious levels of that shouldn't happen; that just leads to frustrating players. 

DE has to take a stance on which side is more important, which depends on where they want to take the game. In these scenarios, there's gonna be winners and loser.

[Volinus7]

Balance concerns both players and enemies, not just only players.

[EmptyDevil]

9 minutes ago, Volinus7 said:

Balance concerns both players and enemies, not just only players.

True, yet players that are anti-nerf/balance will complain if devs make challenging enemies to contend with the players ridiculous damage/CC. I noticed those players will give the same cookie-cutter reply of 'stop making artificial difficulty', but will almost never give a realistic example of what true difficulty is or should be.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, but some players that use the reply you just did about balancing both the players + enemies, usually only say this as a way of trying to justify their cheese/crutches.

[Volinus7]

2 hours ago, EmptyDevil said:

True, yet players that are anti-nerf/balance will complain if devs make challenging enemies to contend with the players ridiculous damage/CC. I noticed those players will give the same cookie-cutter reply of 'stop making artificial difficulty', but will almost never give a realistic example of what true difficulty is or should be.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, but some players that use the reply you just did about balancing both the players + enemies, usually only say this as a way of trying to justify their cheese/crutches.

Talking about just players is one dimensional. Seesawing both players and enemies is two dimensional. Shift the whole combat doctrine/style is three dimensional. 

Many people like Cookieclicker/bubble wrap Warframe, it's their rights but it justified nothing. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Volinus7

[TennoPain]