Warframes and Abilities to be Nerfed

[uncalledfour]

Why do you think in a game like Warframe where being OP is acceptable and the general vibe of the game is to make you feel like a god? Why waste time nerfing anyone? When you can buff other weaker frames. My question is why do you want to play a game where you were stronger the week before and now the next week  you're garbage (i.e. Chroma, Banshee, Vauban).

[NoRainNoRainbow]

Just gonna quote this here seeing as apparently you didn't notice the lower part at all.

12 hours ago, NoRainNoRainbow said:

If you think about it, we have farmed resources, mods and focus, and repeatedly forma'd weapons and warframes to get to this level, and now you're complaining that we're too strong? We're too strong because of all the effort we put in already, I feel like we have earned being OP, and now we need a higher level of challenge to match us, which is what I'm hoping for.

And who is going to be cheesing the content? This being a game, people are in it to have fun, sure you can go invisible as Ash and Fatal Teleport + Covert Lethality every enemy, but five minutes in you're gonna be bored as #*!%. Why not try just playing the game, using abilities to have fun and not min-max every second of it. That's not on the developers, that's on you - if you choose to play the game in a way that makes it not fun.

[Checht]

1 hour ago, NoRainNoRainbow said:

Just gonna quote this here seeing as apparently you didn't notice the lower part at all.

14 hours ago, NoRainNoRainbow said:

If you think about it, we have farmed resources, mods and focus, and repeatedly forma'd weapons and warframes to get to this level, and now you're complaining that we're too strong? We're too strong because of all the effort we put in already, I feel like we have earned being OP, and now we need a higher level of challenge to match us, which is what I'm hoping for.

I don't like to let my post go too long, so I only focus on points that are more worthwhile to discuss. If you still want an answer, here I go. We just fundamentally disagree. I don't want to "earn" the ability to cheese through late-game missions just because I spent enough time grinding the game. I want to earn the ability to get through endgame by learning to aim accurately while moving quickly, learning to have acute situational awareness, learning which abilities to use corresponding to a variety of encounters, learning how to move with dexterity. Saying that having grinded enough should give you the right to cheese through late-game missions is pretty much the same as saying it's okay not to have endgame in Warframe.

1 hour ago, NoRainNoRainbow said:

And who is going to be cheesing the content? This being a game, people are in it to have fun, sure you can go invisible as Ash and Fatal Teleport + Covert Lethality every enemy, but five minutes in you're gonna be bored as #*!%. Why not try just playing the game, using abilities to have fun and not min-max every second of it. That's not on the developers, that's on you - if you choose to play the game in a way that makes it not fun.

It seems that it just goes back to "nerf yourself" again. As I said, optimizing your character (min/maxing) is part of the fun of a game that allows character customization. If not, why do DE even bother with releasing Sanctuary Onslaught? Why have Sortie, Kuva flood, endless missions? Let's only have starchart missions, those who want fun gameplay and challenge can just unequip mods, equip a Dragon Key, and play Level 3 Capture on Earth.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Checht

[(PSN)the-creeperman]

I must say that AyinDygra had an interesting alternative to nerfing abilities: create enemies that are highly resistant to, or completely ignore our CC capabilities, like super-special Eximus units. 

Someone had also mentioned maybe having special endgame missions that start at lv80-100 (outside of sorties), and possibly have those special units spawn at higher rates the further you go.

Those seem like fair alternatives.

[JalakBali]

On 4/19/2018 at 12:08 PM, Checht said:

How are they the same things? Both are proposals to change a frame based on a player's personal preference.

One proposed change is a change that does not change the existing play style of a frame and instead opened up another possibility. The other proposal is removing a couple of possibilities to the playstyles. Can you tell which one is which?

Quote

The difference you highlighted is only the perceived number of people that might agree with Vauban's change, or my proposed change. How are my opinion, points and arguments any less valid just because there are less people posting about this in the forum, especially when I have demonstrated with video evidence? Must I seek for other people who have posted what I have in mind and then follow and agree with them? Can't I have an original opinion and suggestion based on my gameplay experience in Warframe? If I can only post stuff that other people have posted, and not my original opinion, this is how you create an echo-chamber in a forum. 

Show once instance where I said that you should not post your suggestions. One. Just one.

You wouldn't be able to find it. Why? Because I disagree with you and think you're wrong. This is not the same with if I were to tell you to shut up. The fact that you keep bringing this up as if I'm telling you to shut up and to only follow what other people are suggesting (ironically while at the same time wondering if this were an echo chamber) is your attempt to make me back off thus creating your own echo chamber.

The fact that you couldn't differentiate between a proposal to improve a power so it would be used more and a proposal to nerf a power so it would be less used and how both impacts the playstyle options, limits what we could discuss.

Quote

People resort to option 1 and 2 when they have something they are unsatisfied with a certain frame, and they often post feedback to DE about it.

I noticed you didn't answer me question of what is stopping you from doing option 1-3. If I don't spam a power every time I get the chance, and I actually do this, aren't I already been using option 3?

[NoRainNoRainbow]

I'm not saying nerf yourself, I'm just saying at least try to have fun :P 

[MiMiren]

9 hours ago, (PS4)the-creeperman said:

I must say that AyinDygra had an interesting alternative to nerfing abilities: create enemies that are highly resistant to, or completely ignore our CC capabilities, like super-special Eximus units. 

Someone had also mentioned maybe having special endgame missions that start at lv80-100 (outside of sorties), and possibly have those special units spawn at higher rates the further you go.

Those seem like fair alternatives.

If you make difficult enemies immune to cc you end up making cc frames unviable. It will simply shift from cc/stealth frames being op to being useless. Then everyone will whine about their favortie warframe crap and that DE needs to buff them.

DE right now has 2 ways to make new enemies: 

1. the ones that bypass cc/stealth/invul
2. ones that can be affected by cc/stealth/invul

If its option 1 then cc frames become crap, especially if we go the way eidolons and bosses go. If DE adds stalker dispell ability on top of that, more of those frames become crap.

If its option 2 then the new enemies are gonna make non cc frames crap and only perma cc/stealth/invul(cheese) frames will be viable. Not even frames with a little cc will be good.

I personally believe that cc/stealth are good way to add variance to the gameplay but it got out of hands. No new enemy can fit into the current "balance" of the game without making some frames look worthless. Just look at eidolons and you will know the future "boss/enemy immune to cc" meta.

Look at endurance runs and you get "the all enemies are affected by cc" meta. Which in my opinions is just bad way to play. Warframe would never last, no amount of founder packs would save warframe if the way people play endurance runs would be the gameplay from the beginning of the game.

One way or the other DE will have people realizing and pushing for cc/stealth/invul frames to get reworked. Considering that cc/stealth/invul can actually be a good variation to most games by giving a little bit more tactical depth, DE should rework those frames and enemies(whole game) as soon as possible and then give enemies unlimited or limited vulnerability to cc.

Edited April 20, 2018 by MadGrekon

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

My suggestion to add units that are tougher to take out or resist CC are mainly to add a little more interaction in the scenario that someone is simply spamming CC. If the enemy lives through multiple CC periods, you have to interact with it long enough to CC it again. (this means having situational awareness of which enemies are just popping dead, while others stay statuesque and then return to being lethal.)

If MOST enemies are CC'able, but some units stay alive through that CC, CC fulfills its mission of controlling the crowd, leaving the most dangerous units there to tactically deal with.

If there are too many Non-CC'able units, CC loses its identity and usefulness.

The scenario I presented at the end of my last post, described essentially what we have with Bosses, the Stalker, and hit squads. Dangerous encounters with units you know you're not going to deal with simply with CC. The rest of the game would have its Eximus units that might break free from CC earlier, or simply have more HP (or the toxic ancients and mutated osprey things that leave swaths of poison clouds... the toxic auras and clouds persist during the CC and can still kill you, despite the enemies being CC'd)

It's not a one-size-fits-all solution, like just filling high end content with non-CC'able units (I mean, the problem with that is easily deduced)... there just have to be persistent dangers to focus on and deal with, that CC can't control... not as lethal as a one-shot kill if you don't perfectly evade it... while you remove the crowds easily.

 

[(PSN)the-creeperman]

1 hour ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:

My suggestion to add units that are tougher to take out or resist CC are mainly to add a little more interaction in the scenario that someone is simply spamming CC. If the enemy lives through multiple CC periods, you have to interact with it long enough to CC it again. (this means having situational awareness of which enemies are just popping dead, while others stay statuesque and then return to being lethal.)

If MOST enemies are CC'able, but some units stay alive through that CC, CC fulfills its mission of controlling the crowd, leaving the most dangerous units there to tactically deal with.

If there are too many Non-CC'able units, CC loses its identity and usefulness.

The scenario I presented at the end of my last post, described essentially what we have with Bosses, the Stalker, and hit squads. Dangerous encounters with units you know you're not going to deal with simply with CC. The rest of the game would have its Eximus units that might break free from CC earlier, or simply have more HP (or the toxic ancients and mutated osprey things that leave swaths of poison clouds... the toxic auras and clouds persist during the CC and can still kill you, despite the enemies being CC'd)

It's not a one-size-fits-all solution, like just filling high end content with non-CC'able units (I mean, the problem with that is easily deduced)... there just have to be persistent dangers to focus on and deal with, that CC can't control... not as lethal as a one-shot kill if you don't perfectly evade it... while you remove the crowds easily.

 

Yes, this. Thank you (I sometimes lack the necessary eloquence to properly detail my thoughts)...

[Checht]

10 hours ago, JalakBali said:

Show once instance where I said that you should not post your suggestions. One. Just one.

Sure, you did not explicitly say I should not post my suggestions, but you sure did imply that my feedback is invalid. See below.

On 4/18/2018 at 4:09 AM, JalakBali said:

Therein lies the core problem. You're advocating changes based on your personal preference. You do not take into account what the actual player base wants, what they enjoy and whether this is even good for the game.

On 4/18/2018 at 10:21 PM, JalakBali said:

If they wanted to buff his second skill, sure, that's valid if the majority of the Vauban players want the same thing.

What you're implying is that a feedback is only valid if the forum has many people posting about it, no? Which prompts me to wonder if you understand the concept of a feedback forum.

10 hours ago, JalakBali said:

You wouldn't be able to find it. Why? Because I disagree with you and think you're wrong. This is not the same with if I were to tell you to shut up. The fact that you keep bringing this up as if I'm telling you to shut up and to only follow what other people are suggesting (ironically while at the same time wondering if this were an echo chamber) is your attempt to make me back off thus creating your own echo chamber.

An echo chamber does not mean for a person to have a firm opinion backed up by evidence. An echo chamber is when you have a group of people who already agree with each other posting opinions that they already agree on, amplifying their agreement on the matter. What I have here where, as you can see, is quite controversial, is quite antithetical to an echo chamber.

Edit: Never mind, it seems that you do understand what an echo chamber is upon second reading. What makes you think I'm trying to make you back off then?

10 hours ago, JalakBali said:

I noticed you didn't answer me question of what is stopping you from doing option 1-3. If I don't spam a power every time I get the chance, and I actually do this, aren't I already been using option 3?

Because you do not hard count to 30 seconds before you cast the ability again, do you? You still use the ability whenever you're at risk of dying, regardless of how much hypothetical cooldown it should still have.

10 hours ago, JalakBali said:

One proposed change is a change that does not change the existing play style of a frame and instead opened up another possibility. The other proposal is removing a couple of possibilities to the playstyles. Can you tell which one is which?

My proposed change only affects playstyles that spam the abilities to win. If you want to please everyone, by using the same argument, I guess DE shouldn't have nerfed Naramon 1.0's permanent invisibility? Or let me ask you again, as this will get to the bottom of the matter more directly. Are you okay with the hypothetical situation where DE releases an infinite health mod?

 

3 hours ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:

My suggestion to add units that are tougher to take out or resist CC are mainly to add a little more interaction in the scenario that someone is simply spamming CC. If the enemy lives through multiple CC periods, you have to interact with it long enough to CC it again. (this means having situational awareness of which enemies are just popping dead, while others stay statuesque and then return to being lethal.)

-snip-

It's not a one-size-fits-all solution, like just filling high end content with non-CC'able units (I mean, the problem with that is easily deduced)... there just have to be persistent dangers to focus on and deal with, that CC can't control... not as lethal as a one-shot kill if you don't perfectly evade it... while you remove the crowds easily.

 

Then this turns to the problem of tuning spawn rate for these CC-immune/resistant enemies. If it is too low, mass CC skills are still op. If it's too high, all CC skills become useless. Not saying that it is not a viable solution, but I think DE can achieve better difficulty tuning by tuning what abilities do than tuning spawn rate of CC-immune/resistant enemies. Players are already complaining about energy leeches, Combas, nullifiers etc. I don't see this being well-received by the community too.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Checht

[cptSmollett]

Just leaving it here regarding DE 'S intentions and stuff

• Removed Excalibur’s 3 second cooldown on Radial Blind.

[Checht]

1 hour ago, cptSmollett said:

Just leaving it here regarding DE 'S intentions and stuff

• Removed Excalibur’s 3 second cooldown on Radial Blind.

Maybe because they are already recognizing and addressing ability spamming in their "hardcore" mode?

• An overuse of Warframe abilities can skew Simaris’ data. You may find he has different tolerance levels against ultimates than first abilities. You may never even encounter this rule, but if you do, know that it is only temporary.

Let's see how it goes. Can't wait to try out Onslaught tonight.

[cptSmollett]

1 hour ago, Checht said:

Maybe because they are already recognizing and addressing ability spamming in their "hardcore" mode?

• An overuse of Warframe abilities can skew Simaris’ data. You may find he has different tolerance levels against ultimates than first abilities. You may never even encounter this rule, but if you do, know that it is only temporary.

Let's see how it goes. Can't wait to try out Onslaught tonight.

Yes, but keep in mind that ability/multipliers nerfs for onslaught affect only one game mode, but radial blind change affects entire game for excal. And I seriously doubt that DE would nerf abilities just because of people who play the game in boring way and complain because of that

Edited April 20, 2018 by cptSmollett

[Checht]

57 minutes ago, cptSmollett said:

Yes, but keep in mind that ability/multipliers nerfs for onslaught affect only one game mode, but radial blind change affects entire game for excal. And I seriously doubt that DE would nerf abilities just because of people who play the game in boring way and complain because of that

Well, I'm happy as long as these issues are addressed for the endgame modes that DE means to introduce (assuming Onslaught is successful as endgame, fingers crossed), as those are the modes that I'll play for fun most of the time and not play to grind anyway. Those who want to cheese through grind missions can still do that. Win-win situation I guess.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Checht

[cptSmollett]

Most people I've met in the game were "cheesing" through the game w/o using skills you've listed much, and most of the time at all. In my opinion simply because there are lots of other ways to play that are a lot more fun than stunlocking the enemies even if it's more efficient and also, what you are suggesting will also likely affect the people who are using said abilities as "oh S#&$" buttons, sometimes in bursts of 2-3 activations depending on skill and not constantly throughout the mission as you are implying that majority does

[Checht]

3 minutes ago, cptSmollett said:

Most people I've met in the game were "cheesing" through the game w/o using skills you've listed much, and most of the time at all. In my opinion simply because there are lots of other ways to play that are a lot more fun than stunlocking the enemies even if it's more efficient and also, what you are suggesting will also likely affect the people who are using said abilities as "oh S#&$" buttons, sometimes in bursts of 2-3 activations depending on skill and not constantly throughout the mission as you are implying that majority does

Well, a panic button should function like a panic button then. It shouldn't be spammable, it's an ability that you conserve to use only in panic situation, because its use is limited. I did not imply the majority is playing this way. I'm just saying having this option removes any possible challenge or endgame to Warframe. If the majority isn't playing this way, these nerfs would be easier for the community to accept then, is it not?

[cptSmollett]

Having an option and using it the way you describe is a very big difference for majority of people I've met and also, if you want nerf to large aoe abilities that are spammable, then, Imo, diminishing returns on stun duration on subsequent cc effects from abilities on enemies should do a lot better job at reducing supposed issues that you've mentioned without breaking the flow of the combat like by introducing unnecessary cooldowns  

PS

And I've mentioned that in some situations ability is used like couple of times just for some bonuses like volt's 4 or just to give you some breathing room when surrounded by lots of enemies and some incoming still

 

PPS 

I've mentioned that in the end of my previous post specifically to avoid this repeated point, because what you are suggesting, like lots of people before me have said, is to remove the possibility for other people simply because that possibility is a must to you

"If the majority isn't playing this way, these nerfs would be easier for the community to accept then, is it not?"

Edited April 20, 2018 by cptSmollett

[Checht]

3 hours ago, cptSmollett said:

Having an option and using it the way you describe is a very big difference for majority of people I've met and also, if you want nerf to large aoe abilities that are spammable, then, Imo, diminishing returns on stun duration on subsequent cc effects from abilities on enemies should do a lot better job at reducing supposed issues that you've mentioned without breaking the flow of the combat like by introducing unnecessary cooldowns  

That would be an interesting point to contribute to this discussion. Please elaborate more on how this diminishing returns works and it'll be interesting to look at different ways to tackle this problem, just as other players who have suggested adding CC-resistant enemies etc.

3 hours ago, cptSmollett said:

I've mentioned that in the end of my previous post specifically to avoid this repeated point, because what you are suggesting, like lots of people before me have said, is to remove the possibility for other people simply because that possibility is a must to you

I have justified my reasons why I do not enjoy the current state of the matter regarding op abilities. Other players who are happy with the status quo have also justified how they like being able to spam them, how they like the power-fantasy, which I regard as perfectly valid. They don't need other players who claim not to be taking advantage of or spamming these abilities to white knight for them.

Again, I am unable to enjoy playing as Ash or Excalibur in the current state due to the op abilities, thus my feedback to DE. I have no problem with other players who disagree with me and enjoy being op, and I don't regard them as "selfish" for not wanting to conform to my suggestions. I recognize that it's probably very hard to please everyone for DE, but a feedback forum is for any player to voice their personal opinion from their experience in the game. I have voiced my opinion, it is up to DE to make their decisions. I'm pretty sure there were some who were upset with Naramon 1.0's nerf, but it is impossible to please everyone.

Edit: Sorry, are you talking about players who only use these op skills whenever they need to and not spamming these abilities instead? In that case, it's still the same. Where is the challenge when you can pull out a "get out of jail free" card whenever you feel you need it, and as how many times as you need it? I don't enjoy having that option, and manually counting to 30 seconds is a silly idea. Should I expect more "you're selfish" comments?

Edited April 21, 2018 by Checht

[JalakBali]

14 hours ago, Checht said:

Sure, you did not explicitly say I should not post my suggestions, but you sure did imply that my feedback is invalid. See below.

What you're implying is that a feedback is only valid if the forum has many people posting about it, no? Which prompts me to wonder if you understand the concept of a feedback forum.

No, my saying it's not valid is not the same as saying you should never voice your opinion. I'm saying it's a not valid suggestion for improvement because you're not improving it for the game, just for yourself.

Quote

Edit: Never mind, it seems that you do understand what an echo chamber is upon second reading. What makes you think I'm trying to make you back off then?

Because you kept trying to defend your opinion by saying you have the right to have that opinion. You do have the right to have an opinion the same as I have my opinion to say your opinion is bad. read your replies again. You spent about as much effort trying to mention how this is just your feedback and this is a feedback forum than to reply to my questions about how much your proposal would affect others.

Quote

My proposed change only affects playstyles that spam the abilities to win. If you want to please everyone, by using the same argument, I guess DE shouldn't have nerfed Naramon 1.0's permanent invisibility? Or let me ask you again, as this will get to the bottom of the matter more directly. Are you okay with the hypothetical situation where DE releases an infinite health mod?

I didn't say DE shouldn't nerf Naramon perma-invis but I wasn't advocating its removal either. It's a powerful ability but you have to play a specific way to use it. It wasn't widespread because people don't enjoy the play style that much. As for the hypothetical infinite health mod, I am not against it until it affects me personally. If some players are using it so they cannot die, sure, go ahead. How does my enjoyment be affected by the level of difficulty another player is experiencing? This is core of our disagreement. You're advocating change based on your personal distaste of certain play styles, even when it doesn't affect you. You're concerned over other people's experiences even when it doesn't affect you. This is different from, say, people complaining about Ember stealing all the kills.

Quote

Then this turns to the problem of tuning spawn rate for these CC-immune/resistant enemies. If it is too low, mass CC skills are still op. If it's too high, all CC skills become useless. Not saying that it is not a viable solution, but I think DE can achieve better difficulty tuning by tuning what abilities do than tuning spawn rate of CC-immune/resistant enemies. Players are already complaining about energy leeches, Combas, nullifiers etc. I don't see this being well-received by the community too.

You do know that Radial Blind had been nerfed compared to what it was before? It didn't need Line of Sight before so you could lock down entire maps. That was game breaking and their data showed that with how much the power was used in sessions.

 

Here, let me make it easier for you to understand my disagreement with your position: if a power makes things easy but not fun such that barely anyone is using it, how would nerfing it improve anything? If you were trying to alter the power to be not as "easy" but more "fun" and "engaging" then I'm more likely to agree with you. If the powers were barely used, regardless whether you think it's OP or not, all you're doing is trying to make it less used. It's not helpful in any way other than your own personal ego that you have vanquished an OP dragon that was not bothering any one.

 

This is entirely different to people asking for improvement of Vauban's power, where they're trying to make a less used power to be used more.

 

 

[Checht]

17 minutes ago, JalakBali said:

As for the hypothetical infinite health mod, I am not against it until it affects me personally. If some players are using it so they cannot die, sure, go ahead.

Welp, there we go, finally. We just fundamentally disagree on what a good game design is then.

17 minutes ago, JalakBali said:

I'm saying it's a not valid suggestion for improvement because you're not improving it for the game, just for yourself.

By the way, isn't that your personal opinion too? On what grounds do you have to judge what kind of feedback would "improve" the game other than your personal opinion?

Edited April 21, 2018 by Checht

[JalakBali]

9 minutes ago, Checht said:

By the way, isn't that your personal opinion too? On what grounds do you have to judge what kind of feedback would "improve" the game other than your personal opinion?

Please tell me how making an ability not often used be used even less frequently is an "improvement".

 

Other than "it would be better game design for me".

 

Btw, yes, it is my personal opinion. The difference here is I don't claim to know what constitutes "good game design". I only know what the impact of your proposal would be by sheer logic.

[Checht]

15 minutes ago, JalakBali said:

Please tell me how making an ability not often used be used even less frequently is an "improvement".

Easy, I don't judge how balanced or how well-designed an ability is by its usage frequency. I judge it by how it affects gameplay. Besides, you do not have hard statistics on the usage frequency of these skills. Excal players doing endurance runs arguably would be spamming Radial Blind much more than what you normally see.

15 minutes ago, JalakBali said:

Other than "it would be better game design for me".

I'm glad that you are aware that when I talk about good design, I always talk about it from my perspective, and not imposing on others.

15 minutes ago, JalakBali said:

Btw, yes, it is my personal opinion. The difference here is I don't claim to know what constitutes "good game design". I only know what the impact of your proposal would be by sheer logic.

Great, I'm glad that we can recognize differing opinions then. What I don't do is judge differing opinions to be invalid compared to mine, as evidenced by my response to "don't nerf, I enjoy being op" comments in this thread.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Checht

[JalakBali]

Just now, Checht said:

Easy, I don't judge how balanced or how well-designed an ability is by its usage frequency. I judge it by how it affects gameplay. Besides, you do not have hard statistics on the usage frequency of these skills. Excal players doing endurance runs arguably would be spamming Radial Blind much more than what you normally see.

Actually, hard statistics are sometimes shared by the devs. Radial Blind is not up there. As for you judging "gameplay" here is that gameplay as judged by you and your preference. You have a right to an opinion, in case you mistook this again as if I were saying you can't have an opinion, but I don't believe you have a solid understanding of what makes a gameplay good in this game, just by the simple fact that this thread was made simply for the reason of banning game styles you don't like instead of improving anything. So your game design choices are based on personal feelings and not solid data.  

Also, you are proposing a nerf to an imagined scenario that is not evident so far.

Quote

What I don't do is judge differing opinions to be invalid compared to mine, as evidenced by my response to "don't nerf, I enjoy being op" comments in this thread.

What you do instead is telling people their playstyle is wrong and you want it to be changed by law (hardcode). I do say that that kind of opinion is invalid as they are not constructive.

[Checht]

31 minutes ago, JalakBali said:

Actually, hard statistics are sometimes shared by the devs. Radial Blind is not up there. As for you judging "gameplay" here is that gameplay as judged by you and your preference.

Although not really relevant, I'm still curious, can you give me a link to any recent hard stats regarding ability usage shared by devs?

Yes, I am judging by my preference, and it is judged by whether the best way to win can be reduced to a few lines of simple AI pseudo codes. With this criterion, I have proven it with my gameplay footage that it does reduce gameplay to simple lines of AI pseudo codes.

31 minutes ago, JalakBali said:

You have a right to an opinion, in case you mistook this again as if I were saying you can't have an opinion, but I don't believe you have a solid understanding of what makes a gameplay good in this game, just by the simple fact that this thread was made simply for the reason of banning game styles you don't like instead of improving anything. So your game design choices are based on personal feelings and not solid data. 

Oh, really? So your opinion of what makes a good gameplay is the correct one then? Also, the main objective isn't to ban playstyles, it's to nerf overpowered abilities so that I can enjoy them. Certain playstyles that wouldn't viable anymore after this nerf is the side-effect. When you do not need to self-nerf to not be overpowered, it is good game design and thus an improvement to the game from my perspective, and I would enjoy the game more.

31 minutes ago, JalakBali said:

Also, you are proposing a nerf to an imagined scenario that is not evident so far.

I believe my gameplay footage showing how to exploit these abilities which enables playing like AI with simple pseudo codes is evidence enough. Plus, it is easy to find players scaling up to level 700+ playing the same way as shown in my Ash gameplay footage.

31 minutes ago, JalakBali said:

What you do instead is telling people their playstyle is wrong and you want it to be changed by law (hardcode).

Did I say it is wrong? I just say these abilities can reduce the optimal way to win to simple AI pseudo codes, and I said "I don't like it", and not "nobody should like it". I regarded opinions of players who responded with "I like playing with op abilities, they are fun to me, don't nerf" as perfectly valid too, didn't I?

31 minutes ago, JalakBali said:

I do say that that kind of opinion is invalid as they are not constructive.

Not constructive based on your personal opinion. Now do you see who is the one asserting their opinion on others?

Edited April 21, 2018 by Checht

[fluffysnowcap]

I think its time to stop, if you spent half the time you did her in game going for a challenge you would find that were not that though, ever tried getting a prodman poster on your own? I have and bloody hells its hard.