The current weapon balance; Buffs are great, but what about nerfs?

[Fallen_Echo]

9 hours ago, SenorClipClop said:

Don't you mean that now you just can't clear rooms with them instantly? Or that you have to actually pay attention when clearing said rooms like you have to with other weapons?

The telos boltace mechanics work against the weapon.

Would you like to use a sword what at every main attack draws enemies to you and with the next attack it hurls them away just so you cant kill them?

It could have been fixed by removing access to maiming strike or changing the damage to puncture or both.

Also the synsim is still the main roomcleaner weapon for mirages,it become borderline useless.for everybody else but for mirage they lost approx 40% damage while gained more status chance than ever.

[Newnight]

This thread feels like it was made to try and start something or troll.

[Fallen_Echo]

13 minutes ago, Newnight said:

This thread feels like it was made to try and start something or troll.

Like a flamewar or something?

[Newnight]

1 minute ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Like a flamewar or something?

Rap tap tap

[(XBOX)Onyx Schnee]

18 hours ago, Da_Atte said:

As of the latest update (Chains of Harrow) I was pretty excited to see some of the weapons getting buffs/slight reworks. I am grateful Mara Detron got some love for a long time as it is one of my favorite secondaries to use.

But then again, when new buffs come out, I always think what about the possible and needed nerfs for some... unnamed weapons in the game. We all know what they are so I'm not really going to go into too much detail.

The game heavily relies on burst and high damage weapons. There's really no point in using weapons that deal lower damage because the "end game" enemies will resist a lot of the damage you will deal unless you got Slash or your weapon is built with the best possible elements for killing that certain type of enemy.

While Mods make a huge difference in how you're going to build and use your weapon there's one problem in some of the weapons: the base damage. It goes both ways. Some of the weapons are extremely weak and some of them are extremely powerful. And right now there still are weapons that will be in the top-tier, defined by the community, even if you have a powerful Riven Mod in the other weapon and no Riven in the more powerful one. And in the end, even a Faint Riven Mod can make a huge difference when it comes to balance.

So. Yeah. I'm not really sure what I was trying to say. We all know this issue is a huge problem in the game and we all know there are a handful of Primaries, Secondaries and Melee weapons that will outmatch almost any other weapon in the game.

Still waiting for actual difficulty rework to the game and not just increasingly tougher enemies. Artificial difficulty isn't difficult. Just limiting.

what unnamed weapons? out of curiosity

[tnccs215]

20 hours ago, Eggplants said:

Old weapons just need to be brought up to par, If the game requires power creep to complete content than its a problem with enemy design/scaling. which is the case for warframe.  Also just my opinion PvE shouldn't need nerfs. 

 

When you mean "complete content", you mean "get enough junk to make us reach MR 30, or "have power enough guns to reach 'end game'"? 

Edited June 30, 2017 by tnccs215

[Fallen_Echo]

2 minutes ago, tnccs215 said:

When you mean "complete content", you mean "get enough junk to make us reach MR 30, or "have power enough guns to reach 'end game'"? 

I think he means weak weapons (not mk1) what are unable to even function at sortie 1

[iwoply]

3 hours ago, tnccs215 said:

When you mean "complete content", you mean "get enough junk to make us reach MR 30, or "have power enough guns to reach 'end game'"? 

 

3 hours ago, Fallen_Echo said:

I think he means weak weapons (not mk1) what are unable to even function at sortie 1

more or less this, In my mind as long as a weapon can kill star chart enemies and can function alright in the first to second sortie than its good and doesn't need a buff/nerf. 

where as weapons that cant even kill the late level star chart enemies without excessive amounts of forma do. 

[tnccs215]

5 hours ago, Eggplants said:

 

more or less this, In my mind as long as a weapon can kill star chart enemies and can function alright in the first to second sortie than its good and doesn't need a buff/nerf. 

where as weapons that cant even kill the late level star chart enemies without excessive amounts of forma do. 

Well, I understand your point... But I think you are missing crucial details. 

The only reason sorties where introduced in the first place was because players had so much power in their hands that the only way to actually challenge them (without having to first spend 40 minutes in an endless mission) was to introduce a game mode with the ludicrous levels in which the TTK of the most used weapons was acceptable. 

That is, it was power creep that birthed sorties, not power creep that came as a response to them. 

More than that, we must also take into account how sorties are meant to be challenging to the most well equipped tenno. I honestly think that means that only the best, most excessively forma'd weapon should be able to work on those conditions. Currently, however, I can take my galatine Prime with the wrong build to Sortie 3 and not even notice its the wrong one. 

I agree that, for the sake of player taste and fairness, all weapons - or, better, weapons that are not designed to be "progression-gear" - should have a similar level of efficiency in their niches. I love the "slow, methodical and hard punching" concept the Daikyu supposedly had behind it, and it annoyed me substantially that someone who prefers the fast firing concept behind Rakta Cernos was more efficient at killing simply because their weapon was objectively more powerful, and I'm very happy that the Daikyu got buffed to be on par with it. Or at least, more on par.

However, to say a priori that only buffs should exist is to surrender to the subconscious thirst for "moar power, bigger numbers!" we all have without thinking of the true meaning, implications and consequences of that.

Damage, and by consequence (under/over)power (of direct damage methods in particular. CC is another matter entirely) is relative to the enemy's resistance, and when you raise the killing power of all weapons, you just alter is what's the average "normal" level - That is, the only thing that changes really when you always balance weapons by the most powerful is the increased magnitude of the numbers of your screen. The effort you previously put into killing a level 30 enemy, now you put into killing a level 60. You artificially raise your feeling of power. 

And this could be perfectly OK. Warframe obviously catter to the most power hungry being inside of us, even if we still like to actually deserve the win state.

But it has negative consequences:  not all values were raised.

First, while the damage you ditch, the damage enemies ditch, and the damage enemies take raises, the damage you can take doesn't - because your health doesn't scale. And Warframes are design to withstand only so much punishment. If there is a gradual raise of the damage intake, sooner or later Frames will be so realtively fragile only those with abusive or exploitative mechanics can survive - and all others end up being considered worthless - and worse, everyone who enjoys them will have their access to higher content limited... And that is frankly unfair for these people, to be punished simply for not preferring the meta. And this last detail, the punishment, is very important. 

Many people argue that you aren't forced to play or use a more powerful item. That this is a pve game,etc. However, this argument simply doesn't hold, because it reduces taste to a simple measure of preferencial level of power - forgetting that one can love something for things unrelated  to its killing efficiency  - and completely ignores fairness of reward. The truth is that "overpowered" is not a playstyle. It is not a method of playing, it is getting more than others for playing a certain way. And seeing someone getting has good or even better rewards that me simply because they prefer things I don't, isn't a personal caveat, nor pettyness, nor anything. It's simply, downright unfair. 

And, speaking of rewards, that takes me to the second point: it screws up their value. What previously was worth a lot because it took a lot of effort into getting to, now it's worth barely anything, because you are so damaging you have to put little to no effort into completing the mission. And this means that devs must constantly introduce new rewards and systems, and worse - when you have access to methods that make enemy level irrelevant, like permaCC - hide the new rewards behind walls that limit your access to them beyond your skill. Read: rng, and time walls. And if not getting a reward because you didn't play well enough is acceptable, not getting a reward because you weren't lucky enough is just frustrating. 

In short, the difference between buffing and nerfing, as balancing tools, is that buffing shifts the balance line up, demanding always that all other systems be reworked in order to accommodate that shift: be that reworking frames, adding time walls, changing drop rates, etc. Nerfing, on the other hand, when well applied and done, simply maintains it. And many times, that is preferable. This is not to say sub-par weapons shouldn't be buffed. But one must first ask if they are being buffed up to the level they should be in the first place, or to the level weapons that should be nerfed are at. 

Balancing cannot be a one way street. It demands a combination of buffs and nerfs to be perfectly executed. Nerfs don't have to be bad. Quite the opposite. 

I do have to point out that Power Creep can be acceptable when done with a player progression and general scaling in mind. Several games only introduce powercreeped gear, but do so making it only available to "high level" players, and generally introduce it in tandem with powercreeped enemies, missions and zones - also only realistically accessible to higher level players. Warframe, however, unless it starts taking its Mastery Rank system seriously, will be relegated into being a victim of powercreep, instead of using it as a tool to grow the game. 

 

[(PSN)DBR87]

Let's all remember something about games like Warframe where you are in a PVE setting, your progressively grow in power, and enemies can scale infinitely:

1st off, not every weapon is going to be equal to each other. And that is okay. It would be really bad for any loot collecting game to have weapons equal in power relatively. Weapons get progressively stronger. Just because you LIKE a particular MR 0 weapon or MR 2 weapon, does NOT mean it should be as effective as an MR13 weapon. A MR 7 weapon shouldn't be as effective as an MR 13 weapon. Even if you are of the personal opinion that Mastery Rank means nothing but high MR players must have grinded thousands of rounds on Old Draco, that still does not mean a weapon that requires more resources should be equal in power and effectiveness as a weapon that requires less time and resources.

2nd, logically speaking, if one weapon (like Twin Basolk) requires another weapons to make (Atomos, Dual Zoren) then obviously Basolk should be a better weapon.

3rd, let's look at some weapons mentioned by the OP. Tigris Prime. It does a ton of single target damage and it applies status very well. Considered one of the most powerful weapons in the game and rightfully so seeing as it requires MR 13. So Tremendous single target damage and the ability to apply statuses 100% of the time. What are the downsides? It does terrible aoe damage, unless you have punch through, then it only does poor aoe damage. You have to reload after every shot. It has damage fall off. It has a tight spread which is good for accuracy but terrible for crowds. It's not crit reliable...or even really viable...unless you have a Kavat. Unless you have a riven, you are forced into using 4 elemental mods to achieve 100% status adding more RNG to your status rolls. So you get two really great positives, with 5 mild to terrible negatives. All non-beam shotguns have damage falloff so that's a class wide negative. Most shotguns can't get 100% status with 4 status chance mods and only a few can get it with 3. Tigris Prime isn't one of them. It's not a brain dead weapon, you actually have to aim with it and you'll lose DPS if you don't manually reload.

So let's look at Tonkor when it was king. It had a 2.5 crit multiplier and access to basic Rifle Crit mods, which are the second best in the game next to basic Pistol crit mods. It did AoE damage in a large area. It did near no damage to you. You didn't have to aim the thing, so long as your projectile exploded in the general vicinity. It was highly ammo efficient. It's blast could easily headshot, ontop of red critting. It's disadvantages where....you reload after two shots. The projectiles didn't travel as far as other launchers.  The Grenade arc  took some getting used to. You can't manually detonate them. Tonkor was an MR 5 launcher that had a 35% crit chance at base and a 2.5 crit multiplier.  It could read crit head shot whole groups of enemies and do what Tigris Prime would take 20 seconds to do...in one blast.

Tonkor was outclassing weapons far above it's MR, easily, in time to kill single targets, time to kill groups, DPS and burst damage.

Tigris Prime is currently outclassing weapons under it's Mastery Requirement in Single Target Burst damage.

The only thing competing with Tonkor's damage output was Synoid Simular.

4th...Yeah, shotguns are strong right now. Literally one third of melee weapons are sortie viable on their own because of the mods we have access to, and three fourths of them can do sorties if you have access to Stealth Multipliers. Galetine Prime is powerful, yeah. But it ain't Dark Dagger powerful. Why? Blind + Covert Lethality. Because of the mods we have players have so many options when it comes to taking a melee weapon into high level content now. Yeah, Galentine Prime  and Lesion are going to kill things quicker, but you put Shattering Impact on a Sarpa and see how fast you completely strip armor and kill a target soon after. Atterax doesn't just one shot whole rooms out of the gate, it takes time to build up with Blood Rush.

Are people upset they can't take a Spectra into a sortie and put out as much DPS as a guy using AkLex Prime? I get why Tonkor needed to be nerfed but why does Vaykor Hek need a nerf because it's better than Stradavar? V Hek is MR12. Stradavar is 8. Even still, Stradavar has far more utility than Vaykor Hek. It can shoot accurately and kill far outside of Vaykor Hek's range, it can take down shields and bubbles better, it is better equipped to handle crowds. 

I am not against nerfs, when things need to be nerfed. But no one weapon right now needs to be nerfed far as I can see. I would appreciate if someone could point to one situation where a nerf is warranted. I could see the argument that melee weapons as a whole need a nerf because they have infinitely scaling damage BUT I can see the counter argument that they require the risk of closing the gap on enemies. Some Warframes and/or Focus schools can negate that risk. That's why I can see the argument for a melee weapon nerf (and to this day will never understand why we got melee rivens) but shotguns don't need a nerf. I remember when shotguns were useless and no one used them. Rifles are still as strong as before shotguns were buffed. Now that shotguns are buffed you have more options to tackle content.

Players should be more worried about their weapon being strong enough to complete the content instead of worrying about what weapons are outclassing everything else in completing the content. There is nothing right now that is the like the Old Tonkor: Great Crit, one shots rooms, little self damage. can head shot whole groups, ammo efficient.

If there is an MR 5 weapon outpacing high tier weapons by huge amounts than sure, nerf that. Otherwise, we should want buffs for weapons so they can compete in their class.

 

OR you know, buffs to weapon classes so they can compete with others weapon classes. Ever think that maybe the problem isn't Shotguns, Pistols, and Melee Weapons are too strong but rather Rifles and Secondary Shotguns are too weak and the class needs a buff?

[True_Naeblis]

Well, they listened to you and nerfed Opticor right back into the ground. They weren't too busy with that to skip nerfing Harrow in the meantime, so glad it didn't take too much time out of their day.

[Fallen_Echo]

Well here you go some really balanced nerfs:

-opticor is back to being useless

-harrow gets less and less useful

-the knell has became a mastery fodder

[tnccs215]

7 hours ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Well here you go some really balanced nerfs:

-opticor is back to being useless

-harrow gets less and less useful

-the knell has became a mastery fodder

1) I gotta try Opticor to ensure it truly is "back to useless" now, so won't comment on that. 

2)... Not really. His two used to be able to give over 10 minute duration. That's ridiculously long. A 60 seconds cap is more than enough and understandable. His Ultimate wasn't nerfed, it was fixed. Hell, compared to what he was supposed to have, he technically got buffed, with every 80*damage gotten being converted, instead of 100.

3) what even happen to that? 

[tnccs215]

13 hours ago, (PS4)DBR87 said:

-snip-

I understand your sentiment, but you have some holes on that argument. 

Specifically, you are acting as if gear progression through MR in this game was, well... A relevant system. It isn't. 

First, there isn't a gradual increase of power through MR requirement. DE seems to be trying a bit harder to do so, but currently, there isn't. Low MR weapons still far outclass higher MR ones, and one must also take accessibility into account: even ignoring primes, low MR weapons aren't clearly cheaper and more accessible to produce than High ones. 

Second, even imagining that current weapons were indeed well distributed through the ranks... That still would matter almost nothing. The highest MR requirement for a weapon, as it is, is 13. We have a total of 24 Ranks. And let me tell you, mastery rank 13 is pretty easy to get to. Do you think gear "progression" matters when you can reach the very best things at half the road? 

Third: is Warframe really the game where there is a linear progression on weapons? Better yet: do we really want it to be? The thing with Warframe is that, specially with non melee weapons, the devs try to make every one of them unique. Simultaneously, however, you are implying the existence of a progression system in which weapons are sequencially obtained and discarted as they become obsolete through your growth process. Well, the problem is that Warframe weapons are anything but replaceable. They are weapons designed to please niches of people, who will hold on to them. The progression systems mentioned only work with discardable weapons in which the next is a pure upgrade to the former. 

I'm not saying there isn't a place for gear progression, there is. But for that to happen, than we must ensure no player finds a reason to prefer the feel, sound and looks of a "progression fodder" gun over a "final" one. That is why I believe it makes much more sense for the Mod system to be reworked or replaced into a system that actually serves as a "progression-through-upgrades" one. Our weapons are too unique for us to want to discard them, and their power is much more dependent on their mods than anything. Better off just make them equally efficient (bar those designed specifically to be progression gear) and use the current thing that's closest to an upgrade system as the actual progression. 

[Fallen_Echo]

52 minutes ago, tnccs215 said:

 

3) what even happen to that? 

They removed the stack effect from it and capped the duration at 10 sec if i remember right.

[(PSN)DBR87]

2 minutes ago, tnccs215 said:

I understand your sentiment, but you have some holes on that argument. 

Specifically, you are acting as if gear progression through MR in this game was, well... A relevant system. It isn't. 

First, there isn't a gradual increase of power through MR requirement. DE seems to be trying a bit harder to do so, but currently, there isn't. Low MR weapons still far outclass higher MR ones, and one must also take accessibility into account: even ignoring primes, low MR weapons aren't clearly cheaper and more accessible to produce than High ones. 

Second, even imagining that current weapons were indeed well distributed through the ranks... That still would matter almost nothing. The highest MR requirement for a weapon, as it is, is 13. We have a total of 24 Ranks. And let me tell you, mastery rank 13 is pretty easy to get to. Do you think gear "progression" matters when you can reach the very best things at half the road? 

Third: is Warframe really the game where there is a linear progression on weapons? Better yet: do we really want it to be? The thing with Warframe is that, specially with non melee weapons, the devs try to make every one of them unique. Simultaneously, however, you are implying the existence of a progression system in which weapons are sequencially obtained and discarted as they become obsolete through your growth process. Well, the problem is that Warframe weapons are anything but replaceable. They are weapons designed to please niches of people, who will hold on to them. The progression systems mentioned only work with discardable weapons in which the next is a pure upgrade to the former. 

I'm not saying there isn't a place for gear progression, there is. But for that to happen, than we must ensure no player finds a reason to prefer the feel, sound and looks of a "progression fodder" gun over a "final" one. That is why I believe it makes much more sense for the Mod system to be reworked or replaced into a system that actually serves as a "progression-through-upgrades" one. Our weapons are too unique for us to want to discard them, and their power is much more dependent on their mods than anything. Better off just make them equally efficient (bar those designed specifically to be progression gear) and use the current thing that's closest to an upgrade system as the actual progression. 

I will agree that the weapon progression/Mastery Rank system isn't perfect. And yeah, with recent weapon buffs and increases in Mastery Rank they are seemingly fixing the issue.

Where I am going to have to disagree is when you suggest a good progression system requires you to discard of older weapons when you get better ones. It does not

I know the system isn't perfect. Soma Prime is MR6 and it is considered a better assault rifle than Telos Boltor, which is MR 12. At the same time Vaykor Hek is MR 12 and is considered a better Shotgun than Boar Prime (MR 2) or Phage (MR6).  Generally speaking higher MR weapons tend to be better than lower MR weapons. Not so much in the shotgun category...just because the majority of them are really good, both situationally (Tigris Prime) and generally (Sobek, Kohm, The Heks). The Rifle category shows a more clear line of progression where higher MR rifles like Tenora, Soma, and Zenith arguably outclass Burston, Hind, and Braton. I am willing to acknowledge outliers like Telos Boltor being considered by the community inferior to Tenora or Soma Prime. But to say there is not a gradual increase in power from lower MR Weapons to higher MR weapons is false. Braton is MR 0, Soma is MR 6. Clearly Soma is better than Braton. Boar is MR 2. Hek is MR 4. Clearly Hek is better than Boar. At best you can say the progression of power from low MR weapons to higher ones is muddle with the occasional outlier to the normal trend (Buzlok being MR 9 but Braton Prime being MR 0)

I am MR 23 and been playing this game for three years. I know chances are you wouldn't know that, nor do I know your experience in the game. That being said, my point was not about the difficulty of achieving higher MR and unlocking the ability to use high MR weapons. My point is logically speaking, if a weapon requires more resources to us....the resource in question being TIME and EXPERIENCE/MASTERY POINTS it should be better than weapons that require less time/mastery points. Whether someone spent all that time at Akkad or Hydron or spent their time in Spy Vaults isn't relevant to my point. Seeing as you can only do one Mastery Test a day the minimum time to be allowed to use Euphona Prime is a lot more than being able to use the Seer.

I have played many online MMORPGs and a few Online Co-Op Shooters. Just because you have weapon progression does not mean everything else below it HAS to be discarded or become obsolete. Specialized builds may require certain weapons or gear that may generally underperform when compared to stronger gear, but when placed in a certain build they are quite effective. Just like many consider Vaykor Hek to be one of the best guns in the game, if you are using Saryn, Mutilist Cernos might fit better in her situation. 

I don't know what games you play other than Warframe but I would hope you can understand that sometimes certain builds might require an accessory that's level 60 and has a unique effect but at the same time on it's own it is outclassed by an accessory that is level 90.

My point is a good progression system does not require you to want to discard old gear for new gear. A good progression system simply shows clear increases in power. The player can choose to get rid of old weapons if they want. If a player wants more power, then they up grade. If the player wants to specialize in something then they keep their old gear.

For Warframe specifically weapon progression, like you said, isn't as important as mod progression. That being said I am confused when you say "Our weapons are too unique for us to want to discard them, and their power is much more dependent on their mods than anything. Better off just make them equally efficient (bar those designed specifically to be progression gear) and use the current thing that's closest to an upgrade system as the actual progression. " So some weapons should follow a progression system but other should not? So where's the cut off? After MR4 everything should be as effective as weapons MR10? So MK-1 weapons can be progression fodder but everything else should be on par with Pandero/Khom/Venka Prime?

Paracyst is a good burst fire weapon specializing in applying status but there is a reason Hema is a better version of it. Hema cost more resources to build and is a higher mastery rank. Not to say Paracyst isn't Sortie capable, it is, and it's a good rifle. However you loose the teether and gain more damage and head shots heal.

TL;DR

I'm not suggestion there is or should be a Linear Progression in power when weapon rise in MR. I am just saying Tigris Prime doesn't need a nerf: It's power is justified by it MR rank and the time it takes to obtain it. Tenora is MR10. it's one of the best ARs in the game. Why should Boltor be as effective as Tenora? If you got the mods to make Boltor usable in Sorties, cool, bust understand Tenora takes more time to obtain. There is no reason for an MR 3 weapon to be able to put out as much single target damage as Tigris Prime. You can still have unique weapons and a progression system that shows power increases. We have many examples where certain groups of weapons have a niche use.  Even if Vaykor and Tenora are at the top of their respective categories in general use, a player can still use Kohm on Nekros or Ignis on Saryn. Tigris Prime doesn't need a nerf, nor any other weapon currently. It gives the player lots of single target damage and requires more effort to obtain and use then lower MR weapons. But it's not the end all. Different builds require weapons that may not do as much single target damage. And no weapon is doing what Tonkor or Simulor used to do. All I am saying at MR 13 Tigris Prime should be the hardest hitting single target weapon but that doesn't mean players should want to discard lower MR weapons because of it.

[Da_Atte]

On 30.6.2017 at 9:00 AM, Fallen_Echo said:

Like a flamewar or something?

That's exactly what I didn't want. But I guess it was my fault because, hey, this is the internet. 

[Sasquatchias]

12 hours ago, Fallen_Echo said:

They removed the stack effect from it and capped the duration at 10 sec if i remember right.

Actually they capped the duration at 3s, with further headshots just refreshing the duration and still increasing the critical multiplier.

[Fallen_Echo]

3 hours ago, Sasquatch180 said:

Actually they capped the duration at 3s, with further headshots just refreshing the duration and still increasing the critical multiplier.

Thats even worse than i thought.

[13QZXXTTX]

On 6/29/2017 at 6:56 AM, Da_Atte said:

As of the latest update (Chains of Harrow) I was pretty excited to see some of the weapons getting buffs/slight reworks. I am grateful Mara Detron got some love for a long time as it is one of my favorite secondaries to use.

But then again, when new buffs come out, I always think what about the possible and needed nerfs for some... unnamed weapons in the game. We all know what they are so I'm not really going to go into too much detail.

The game heavily relies on burst and high damage weapons. There's really no point in using weapons that deal lower damage because the "end game" enemies will resist a lot of the damage you will deal unless you got Slash or your weapon is built with the best possible elements for killing that certain type of enemy.

While Mods make a huge difference in how you're going to build and use your weapon there's one problem in some of the weapons: the base damage. It goes both ways. Some of the weapons are extremely weak and some of them are extremely powerful. And right now there still are weapons that will be in the top-tier, defined by the community, even if you have a powerful Riven Mod in the other weapon and no Riven in the more powerful one. And in the end, even a Faint Riven Mod can make a huge difference when it comes to balance.

So. Yeah. I'm not really sure what I was trying to say. We all know this issue is a huge problem in the game and we all know there are a handful of Primaries, Secondaries and Melee weapons that will outmatch almost any other weapon in the game.

Still waiting for actual difficulty rework to the game and not just increasingly tougher enemies. Artificial difficulty isn't difficult. Just limiting.

@Da_Atte

Since 2015 (year I resumed playing WarFrame, yes I had gone on a hiatus and witness way worse Tragedies of other Online Games of course).

I can say for sure, since 2015 if DE is BUFFING weapons out of the blue, and (not nerfing them every month or so. That mean one thing:

THE REAL END GAME has yet to COME. DE: Soon^TM.

PS Nerfs do happen, it just you don't notice them until they hit you with the Updates/Hotfix, there are Necessary Nerfs, but that being worth it for the last Conclave Post I read weeks ago.

[VonDodo]

On ‎01‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 6:57 PM, (PS4)DBR87 said:

I'm not suggestion there is or should be a Linear Progression in power when weapon rise in MR. I am just saying Tigris Prime doesn't need a nerf: It's power is justified by it MR rank and the time it takes to obtain it. Tenora is MR10. it's one of the best ARs in the game. Why should Boltor be as effective as Tenora? If you got the mods to make Boltor usable in Sorties, cool, bust understand Tenora takes more time to obtain. There is no reason for an MR 3 weapon to be able to put out as much single target damage as Tigris Prime. 

Because this is an action shooter...

Your same way of thinking made Synoid simulor and telos boltace fair "because they were high MR" and instead balancing should consider mostly how difficult and versatile the weapon is and just then its MR.

 

For example Tenora is a really accurate hitscan rifle you can use at long distance whereas a boltor has low accuracy and slow bullets. This alone is a good reason to make boltor stronger than tenora.

You can't expect low MR players to use weapons that already requires more skill and then give them less damage and let high MR players have a press button to win without even aiming.

 

 

If anything they should link MR requirements to how difficult a weapon is to use so they would have a good reason to buff high mr weapons.

As things are now newbies are expected to be more skilled than veterans (remember that MR doesn t require ANY skill just sit in bere/hydron semi AFK) but they are less effective and you ask to make it worse.....

 

If there is a weapon that deserves a slight nerf is possibly Tigris prime... but there are other factors that makes it a bad idea... Yesterday 3rd sortie is one of them (i really wonder if one day we will see vay-hek assassination melee only).

[Colyeses]

Flatlining progression is not a good idea. People should be rewarded, on higher levels, with more tools to create stronger synergies. And some of those synergies will result in weapons becoming OP with certain mods. I remember feeling very uncomfortable with Secret World's flatlined progression, where the only thing you could do is do things differently, rather than doing them better. It slowed things down tremendously and made it feel like you were stagnating something awful.

Additionally, on the subject of nerfing the FotM weaponry: There will always be a Draco. Nerfing one will put the next one up on the block. And nerfing one weapon class is not magically going to make another class viable. You can cut down any melee weapon as much as you like, it won't suddenly make the Lacera or Destreza perform better.

Buffs will increase the viability of unusual picks. Nerfs will slim down the variety of viable picks.

[Fallen_Echo]

23 minutes ago, Colyeses said:

Buffs will increase the viability of unusual picks. Nerfs will slim down the variety of viable picks.

Well said!

[(PSN)fullblast35]

There isn't any problem.  if a player is obsessed with certain weapons or  they can't grind enough to get others, you get this kind of debate.  Because nobody can expect a mr0 with a tigris prime or palatine to start off the star chart missions.  Yeah mastery is still meaningful no matter what the majority thinks.  We have all studied something to get a masters degree and learned something we didn't need, mastery kinda works like that when it comes to crafting weapons. The mentality of always having the strongest weapon in the game is like a substitute for not being able to cheat the game and bypass its challenges.  

 

buff/nerfs are not systematic. meaning just because there were a few buffs doesn't mean nerfs tag along, it's not based on someones preferences, its based on balancing the game referring to player based  usage/abuse, ability clunkiness/synergy  and/or enemy scaling and more often revisiting a few old weapons outdated.  If you can come on forums and post about what you want to be nerfed its probably because you've seen it in action, very often.  that's because alof players like nukes and others like to work for the kill, love a little resistance and challenge.  And what sense would it make to have every weapon type to deal damage relatively the same way?  Where does that even exist?  A hammer can crush and deal a lot of damage, a heavy blade also deals damage but can you say the heavy blade needs a nerf?  impact and slash are just 2 different damage types.  A rifles pellet is nothing like a shotgun shell.  at the end everything kills, its more about what the community like to kill faster or better with.  Ever wondered why th gelatine never got a nerf?  because it's slow and reduces your KPS, but nothing shreds like it in the game.  Convenience abuse and misbalance lead to nerfs.

Edited August 13, 2017 by (PS4)fullblast35

[Fallen_Echo]

8 hours ago, (PS4)fullblast35 said:

There isn't any problem.  if a player is obsessed with certain weapons or  they can't grind enough to get others, you get this kind of debate.  Because nobody can expect a mr0 with a tigris prime or palatine to start off the star chart missions.  Yeah mastery is still meaningful no matter what the majority thinks.  We have all studied something to get a masters degree and learned something we didn't need, mastery kinda works like that when it comes to crafting weapons. The mentality of always having the strongest weapon in the game is like a substitute for not being able to cheat the game and bypass its challenges.  

 

buff/nerfs are not systematic. meaning just because there were a few buffs doesn't mean nerfs tag along, it's not based on someones preferences, its based on balancing the game referring to player based  usage/abuse, ability clunkiness/synergy  and/or enemy scaling and more often revisiting a few old weapons outdated.  If you can come on forums and post about what you want to be nerfed its probably because you've seen it in action, very often.  that's because alof players like nukes and others like to work for the kill, love a little resistance and challenge.  And what sense would it make to have every weapon type to deal damage relatively the same way?  Where does that even exist?  A hammer can crush and deal a lot of damage, a heavy blade also deals damage but can you say the heavy blade needs a nerf?  impact and slash are just 2 different damage types.  A rifles pellet is nothing like a shotgun shell.  at the end everything kills, its more about what the community like to kill faster or better with.  Ever wondered why th gelatine never got a nerf?  because it's slow and reduces your KPS, but nothing shreds like it in the game.  Convenience abuse and misbalance lead to nerfs.

You do know that prime access items dont have mastery requiements right?

You can get frost prime, tigris prime, galatine prime on an m1 player and wreck the starchart easily.