DE: Please don't be discouraged by the "backlash". (Melee 3.0)

[-_Highlander_-]

we should try this new adjustment first then rant its an logic sence to do 

In this way we finnaly gonna be forced to play an diffrent way than we all have done over the years

 

--- Remmember the helicopter melee --

Remmember how we got changed to bullet jump

Remmember how we got changed over the years how we play 

Well face the fact that this is gonna change again

And maby its time after so many years that we need changes

Changes let us people re adjust to the game style you posses and gives it an total new drive 

--- Embrace the changes thats the only thing we can do -- and try to play it again in an fresh way

 

This can be good or bad for some of us

 

 

[Kalarual]

I'm just glad slide abusers are finally getting screwed over. I hate being grouped with them.

[chainchompguy3]

1 minute ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Well from that bare bones info they provided i was able to make this 6 point problem list:

All of these are serious problems what the community agrees with and whats going on here currently is much more civilised than for example what was here with damage 2.5.

As i said upper bad ideas should be scrapped or continously worked on till they become good BUT we shouold not let DE implement a bad system because it might become good after a while.

We dont need warframe to become a testing place of middle ground fallacy where DE implements an idea the playerbase says its terrible so for a compromise we get something useless as a median for both sides.

points 1, 4, 5, and 6 are largely assumptions.

Yes, They could become problems. DE might need help realizing that.

But that is not even close to guaranteed, because we do not know the full extent of the changes they are making.

 

point 2 and 3 are matters of preference, desiring one implementation over another. They are not objective faults, just not what you prefer.

If the community at large prefers the Old way, which seems to be the case, then I'll concede that it should probably be changed, then.

I still think they aught to TRY it first, before assuming they don't like it.

 

 

 

You keep bringing up middle-ground fallacy, so I think you might be misinterpreting me.

I don't want a compromise. If the system is, once in players' hands, utter S#&$e, then treat it as such, and revert it back to before.

If the system is able to be Shown to players well enough before hand, so that they have all the data, that might be a somewhat acceptable point in the process to deny it.

But to deny it outright, without even knowing everything, removes the possibility for game-bettering surprises, like Parkour 2.0.

[Fallen_Echo]

13 minutes ago, chainchompguy3 said:

points 1, 4, 5, and 6 are largely assumptions.

Yes, They could become problems. DE might need help realizing that.

But that is not even close to guaranteed, because we do not know the full extent of the changes they are making.

 

point 2 and 3 are matters of preference, desiring one implementation over another. They are not objective faults, just not what you prefer.

If the community at large prefers the Old way, which seems to be the case, then I'll concede that it should probably be changed, then.

I still think they aught to TRY it first, before assuming they don't like it.

 

 

 

You keep bringing up middle-ground fallacy, so I think you might be misinterpreting me.

I don't want a compromise. If the system is, once in players' hands, utter S#&$e, then treat it as such, and revert it back to before.

If the system is able to be Shown to players well enough before hand, so that they have all the data, that might be a somewhat acceptable point in the process to deny it.

But to deny it outright, without even knowing everything, removes the possibility for game-bettering surprises, like Parkour 2.0.

Point 1 with the hitboxes and geometry is a problem since 2016 i doubt that they are unaware of it but the fact that they havent fixed it already and now they want to apply this melee change is an alerting issue.

Point 4 it says in the dev workshop that blocking will use up either energy or another resource. In both ways blocking becomes less useful (not that it was soo good currently).

Point 5 is a fact, the removal of the channelling button and using it up as another combo button wont make it better.

Point 6 anything less than x2.5 is a nerf this is a fact.

 

More comes later. I have to go to work.

 

[chainchompguy3]

18 minutes ago, (PS4)Echo_X said:

All there is to say is that the changes they're describing have only two outcomes.

1: While the hand full of echochambering fanboys will sing their praises, most people will find the changes annoying and infuriating but deal with the changes. 

2: While the hand full of echochambering fanboys will sing their praises, most people will be enraged by the end product that many players will quit, causing the game to lose money.

Look. The company I work for has seen a 40% drop in business weighted against our figures from this time last year. Trust me, I would know, I'm the one who keeps the numbers. Why the change? Because we came under new management and the new management, after being told repeatedly not to make changes that we kept telling them were face palmingly stupid, they did it anyway. The end result is significant lost revenue that we will never get back even if we do manage to rebound, the revenue lost is lost forever, all because of bad decision making. This reeks of bad decision making, and it is my advice that they do not listen to the echochamber because those are the people who will literally lead DE to going bankrupt. Listen when people scream "do not do that" and you'll keep making money. Ignore the people who scream "do not do that", and the best case scenario is that you've upset a lot of players, worst case scenario is that there are other games out there. 

If the Dev-Workshop ends up being an exact list of all the changes, and no further subtleties are involved in the changes, and all the community assumptions end up being correct, then maybe.

Because that assumes that

A: DE is making no other changes, and somehow doesn't add any details to it's implementation, despite the fact that it has to be coded in a specific way, with exact values.

B: DE refuses to sway from their ideas at all, despite the fact that they were already on the fence on some ideas.

C : the community is psychic, and able to tell the future from just seeing vague descriptions.

D : Changes are, as a result of the aforementioned lack of details, guaranteed to be infuriating.

 

A far more likely set of scenarios:

• DE adds changes as they felt they should be, community finds they actually aren't half-bad, and just need the inevitable adjustments.
• DE adds changes as they felt they should be, community proven right, it's utter crap. Some already-had-enough players leave, while DE quickly undoes all that the community dislikes (because I doubt people will have issue with Roll-while-melee-ing, and other QoL changes).
• DE adds changes with community feedback on the biggest issues. Community likes that they didn't have their stuff changed, but missed out on something good.
• DE adds changes with community feedback on the biggest issues. Community likes that they didn't have their stuff changed, and dodged a bullet.

In all cases ^ : simultaneous Echochambers of fanboys and haters resume their current work, DE sifts through the trash for decent feedback.

 

 

Furthermore, while I do not know your company, I can assume it takes it's money-gaining seriously, and thus gathers extensive data before putting any money-affecting idea into practice. Thus, the people saying "No" are likely to be informed on the situation, and able to make far more sound calls on the issue at hand.

Compared to us, relying on a vague dev-workshop post for details, and the analogy falls apart hard.

 

You have a half-a-point with Listen to those who say "Don't do that", though.

Because yes, DE should be listening to as much feedback as they can, including the nay-sayers.

But "listen" as in "hear and consider", not "Listen" as in "obey".

Because change is the future.

If you're a company, and you don't change with the times, you end up going the way of google's ex-competitors.

[(PSN)Black-Cat-Jinx]

Let me see if I get this right. You think that a developer is just going to say "oops we tarded it up, lets just go back to what we were using before! Sorry guys!"................................ *takes a deep breath and rubs temples* That's not how developers do things. Once they have committed to a course of action, they continue on that course of action, even if that course of action is a sausage grinder. It doesn't matter if this patch utterly ruins the game and bankrupts them, once they've put it out there, they aren't just "rolling it back". All future changes will be a derivative of existing physics, not a reversal of direction. 

What they are doing isn't a good idea. It isn't secretly brilliant. They need to be screamed down right here and now, not given time to really solidly commit to destroying their product, this is a bad idea, and it deserves the rejection it's receiving. The biggest objections are weapon clipping and range. Both of which are likely to be hideously mishandled. They need to go back to the drawing board, not push forward on an ill conceived notion that they can fix something later if they screw up. They can't just "fix it" if it screws everything up. They can't just roll it back. It will be weeks before they can resolve the problem and by then it may be too late. Making a fundamental change to physics is deadly serious and needs to be approached with the caution one approaches a deadly viper, because if you screw up, you might not get a second chance. Other companies have learned this time and time again. Don't change something if the thing you're replacing it with isn't significantly better than what you had before it. This is not an improvement. This is an emotional decision based on their dislike for a small group of exploiters. They are making a bad decision because their feelings are hurt.

[jmthebigman]

3 hours ago, GinKenshin said:

sigh, meta complaints again >.> 

Anti Meta complaint
Blood Rush and Weeping Wounds nerf incoming going to destroy more than just the meta weapons...

Same goes for Maiming nerf....

[chainchompguy3]

5 minutes ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Point 1 with the hitboxes and geometry is a problem since 2016 i doubt that they are unaware of it but the fact that they havent fixed it already and now they want to apply this melee change is an alerting issue.

Point 4 it says in the dev workshop that blocking will use up either energy or another resource. In both ways blocking becomes less useful (not that it was soo good currently).

Point 5 is a fact, the removal of the channelling button and using it up as another combo button wont make it better.

Point 6 anything less than x2.5 is a nerf this is a fact.

 

More comes later. I have to go to work.

 

1. They're probably going to playtest it. they'll give it their damned-est to make it a non issue. And if DE is as aware of it as you say they are, then you probably don't even need to bring it up. Assumption that they don't make it playable.

4. Blocking now uses 1 combo counter point to provide 5 second invulnerability. I just proposed a possible change they're making that's more useful, and fits the vague description they gave. I wonder what OTHER possible outcomes there are? Assumption.

5. Assuming they aren't overhauling it to use the additional button for something very beneficial, such as a full-on DMC-style combo system (Whatever that is). But I'll concede, it is more of a subjective point as to what is "Better", and thus goes in the other category.

6. But they didn't say whether or not they were doing x2.5, though. You're assuming they aren't when you say they're going to nerf everything.

 

[(PSN)Black-Cat-Jinx]

Look. If you want to see what happens when a company thinks too much of it's self and makes decisions based on it's own feelings of how they want people to do things rather then how players actually want to play the game, look at Bungle Activision. Destiny 2 is less than 6 months old and they've actually turned off their player tracking API to conceal just how badly their player numbers are. They made bad ego driven decision after bad ego driven decision, time after time, being told "don't do this or you're going to lose players which equates to money"...

Destiny 2 is virtually a dead game now. Even with their desperately trying to cling to life with their new dlc. They screwed up too many times and refused to accept that the decisions they made were not just "bad outcomes" but "stupid from the word go".

Don't encourage DE to Bungle their future. 

[chainchompguy3]

4 minutes ago, (PS4)Echo_X said:

Let me see if I get this right. You think that a developer is just going to say "oops we tarded it up, lets just go back to what we were using before! Sorry guys!"................................ *takes a deep breath and rubs temples* That's not how developers do things. Once they have committed to a course of action, they continue on that course of action, even if that course of action is a sausage grinder. It doesn't matter if this patch utterly ruins the game and bankrupts them, once they've put it out there, they aren't just "rolling it back". All future changes will be a derivative of existing physics, not a reversal of direction. 

What they are doing isn't a good idea. It isn't secretly brilliant. They need to be screamed down right here and now, not given time to really solidly commit to destroying their product, this is a bad idea, and it deserves the rejection it's receiving. The biggest objections are weapon clipping and range. Both of which are likely to be hideously mishandled. They need to go back to the drawing board, not push forward on an ill conceived notion that they can fix something later if they screw up. They can't just "fix it" if it screws everything up. They can't just roll it back. It will be weeks before they can resolve the problem and by then it may be too late. Making a fundamental change to physics is deadly serious and needs to be approached with the caution one approaches a deadly viper, because if you screw up, you might not get a second chance. Other companies have learned this time and time again. Don't change something if the thing you're replacing it with isn't significantly better than what you had before it. This is not an improvement. This is an emotional decision based on their dislike for a small group of exploiters. They are making a bad decision because their feelings are hurt.

 

Just now, (PS4)Echo_X said:

Look. If you want to see what happens when a company thinks too much of it's self and makes decisions based on it's own feelings of how they want people to do things rather then how players actually want to play the game, look at Bungle Activision. Destiny 2 is less than 6 months old and they've actually turned off their player tracking API to conceal just how badly their player numbers are. They made bad ego driven decision after bad ego driven decision, time after time, being told "don't do this or you're going to lose players which equates to money"...

Destiny 2 is virtually a dead game now. Even with their desperately trying to cling to life with their new dlc. They screwed up too many times and refused to accept that the decisions they made were not just "bad outcomes" but "stupid from the word go".

Don't encourage DE to Bungle their future. 

 

DE is fairly good at admitting they are wrong.

They were pretty darn commited to Damage 2.5, even designing a frame around it, only to back down and say "you're right, it's crap".

I have faith they'll do it again here, if necessary.

 

So, as much as you will no doubt see me as a blind fool for saying it, I think you're full of crap on that.

 

Also, I don't see how it'll take week to solve "the issue". I'm no Game Developer, but don't you usually keep a version history backup, when doing an update, incase something gamebreaking slips through? I've seen it happen with multiple indie games, I assumed DE could pull it off.

 

Remember how skeptical I was about DE not admitting they're wrong, just a few seconds ago? Now double that, because I don't buy this as an "Emotional Decission" on their part at all.

If anything, it was the community itself who was asking for punishing Meme-strikers. "We" had the emotional over-reaction.

Maybe you could play this off as DE taking the community too seriously on the matter, but it certainly isn't because their feelings go hurt by the meany meme-strike man.

 

Because DE isn't Bungie. They aren't perfect, far from it. They wouldn't need damage 3.0 if they were. But they aren't a giant mega-corporation equivalent of a massive money-eating baby throwing tantrums about mean players.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I can't see your arguments as even the slightest bit tenable. At least the rework-haters have the points of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "But the Dev-workshops said something bad/stupid!", however many issues I have with those, they have their places.

But with you, you're making assumption upon assumption.

 

You've taken the time to attempt to show me the error in my ways, trying to unblind me to the truth you see. And I respect you for that.

But that's the furthest it goes, because aside from that, I can't see you as anything more than a tin-foil-hat loony.

 

Have a good day.

[rune_me]

1 hour ago, (PS4)Echo_X said:

Look. If you want to see what happens when a company thinks too much of it's self and makes decisions based on it's own feelings of how they want people to do things rather then how players actually want to play the game, look at Bungle Activision. Destiny 2 is less than 6 months old and they've actually turned off their player tracking API to conceal just how badly their player numbers are. They made bad ego driven decision after bad ego driven decision, time after time, being told "don't do this or you're going to lose players which equates to money"...

Destiny 2 is virtually a dead game now. Even with their desperately trying to cling to life with their new dlc. They screwed up too many times and refused to accept that the decisions they made were not just "bad outcomes" but "stupid from the word go".

Don't encourage DE to Bungle their future. 

You can't make decisions base on how your players wants to play the game, if your players don't agree on how they want to play the game. That's nonsensical.

Half the playerbase was happy that Ember got nerfed, the other half hated it. Half the playerbase wants maiming strike nerfed, the other half is threatening to quit if it gets nerfed. Lots of people loved that the lato vandal was made available to the everyone, lots of the people who already had it got upset.

There is no unified playerbase in warframe. On almost any topic it is split in two. If one group says "nerf maiming strike" and another groups says "don't nerf maiming strike" then it is actually impossible to "listen" to them and make a decision based on their input, because their input cancels eachother out. It really is as simple as that. The Warframe playerbase is not a hivemind that wants the same thing. Hence, no decision can be made from the developers side that will make everyone happy. So of course DE have to just make a decision - either nerf maiming strike or don't - based not on what the community wants (because the community can't agree on what it wants) but on what they want themselves.

[Kalarual]

1 hour ago, rune_me said:

You can't make decisions base on how your players wants to play the game, if your players don't agree on how they want to play the game. That's nonsensical.

Half the playerbase was happy that Ember got nerfed, the other half hated it. Half the playerbase wants maiming strike nerfed, the other half is threatening to quit if it gets nerfed. Lots of people loved that the lato vandal was made available to the everyone, lots of the people who already had it got upset.

There is no unified playerbase in warframe. On almost any topic it is split in two. If one group says "nerf maiming strike" and another groups says "don't nerf maiming strike" then it is actually impossible to "listen" to them and make a decision based on their input, because their input cancels eachother out. It really is as simple as that. The Warframe playerbase is not a hivemind that wants the same thing. Hence, no decision can be made from the developers side that will make everyone happy. So of course DE have to just make a decision - either nerf maiming strike or don't - based not on what the community wants (because the community can't agree on what it wants) but on what they want themselves.

If people are really gonna quit over this nerf then they weren't worth keeping around anyway. What a stupid reason.

[rune_me]

6 minutes ago, Kalarual said:

If people are really gonna quit over this nerf then they weren't worth keeping around anyway. What a stupid reason.

I don't think anyone's going to quit. People like saying they will quit when something makes them mad, because they think that someone at DE then goes "Oh no that guy was so important to us, we can't loose him, we have to revert the changes now!" It's like people on facebook proudly proclaiming that they will boycot so-and-so because they did something you don't approve of, but a week later they are back to using their products as if nothing happened.

It's just people thinking they are more important than they really are and that their empty threats carries any real weight. Hipster mentality.

Edited May 13, 2018 by rune_me

[Mental_Omega]

If they break my pure slash blood rush cleaving whirlwind galatine prime I'll riot.

[Fallen_Echo]

5 hours ago, chainchompguy3 said:

point 2 and 3 are matters of preference, desiring one implementation over another. They are not objective faults, just not what you prefer.

If the community at large prefers the Old way, which seems to be the case, then I'll concede that it should probably be changed, then.

I still think they aught to TRY it first, before assuming they don't like it.

 

 

 

You keep bringing up middle-ground fallacy, so I think you might be misinterpreting me.

I don't want a compromise. If the system is, once in players' hands, utter S#&$e, then treat it as such, and revert it back to before.

If the system is able to be Shown to players well enough before hand, so that they have all the data, that might be a somewhat acceptable point in the process to deny it.

But to deny it outright, without even knowing everything, removes the possibility for game-bettering surprises, like Parkour 2.0.

Im back so lets continue.

Point 2 is in fact an overall nerf because while it was hard to do it in fact created a steady scaling to melee weapons. It doesnt matter if the implemented heavy attack gives us lethal damage in a 10m circle if its a one time effect. Dealing 200 damage on every attack on every second is much better that dealing 80 damage on every attack than suddenly dealing 200.

Point 3 is in fact a preference thing, i do agree. It doesnt affect me but it will make some people sad.

 

 

Now for the important part im gonna explain what i mean with the middle ground fallacy. Im not sure if you have noticed it but DE has the tendency to get stubborn when they get harsh critiques over freshly released content. I have seen it many times where players gone over the forums asking for changes to terrible designs (limbo, harrow selfishness) but it hit a brickwall as they released it and it IS PERFECT.

Knowing that it tooks them a year if not years to fix content (look at the raids they never really fixed them and they are now shelved) i dont want to get into a sceniario where i can no longer use my melee weapons properly and instead of fixing the issue they release a bandiad mod for them as a compromise (see at holster rate mods).

Parkour 2.0 is a great too bad they never fitted the maps for it what causes problems even today.

 

4 hours ago, chainchompguy3 said:

1. They're probably going to playtest it. they'll give it their damned-est to make it a non issue. And if DE is as aware of it as you say they are, then you probably don't even need to bring it up. Assumption that they don't make it playable.

4. Blocking now uses 1 combo counter point to provide 5 second invulnerability. I just proposed a possible change they're making that's more useful, and fits the vague description they gave. I wonder what OTHER possible outcomes there are? Assumption.

5. Assuming they aren't overhauling it to use the additional button for something very beneficial, such as a full-on DMC-style combo system (Whatever that is). But I'll concede, it is more of a subjective point as to what is "Better", and thus goes in the other category.

6. But they didn't say whether or not they were doing x2.5, though. You're assuming they aren't when you say they're going to nerf everything.

 

1. Surely an issue what is prevalent since 2016 is going to be fixed right now, regardless of the many feedback and report we made they gonna fix it now. In all honesty i believe more in getting a 100% plat discount than that they gonna fix it now as it would requeire whole map overhauls just for the geometry.

4. Okay read these lines carefully.

On 2018-05-11 at 9:09 PM, [DE]Rebecca said:

Channeling is blocking, blocking is channeling! Normal blocking now performs like channeled blocking currently does. Experiments such as constant energy drain or a separate resource, blocked hits adding to Combo Counter are ongoing.

We know that it will do the same as channel blocks, so the invulnerability part is in. We also know that it fuels the combo counter so it wont gonna use it as a resource logically.

It mentions one of the worst possible cases the constant energy drain, wasting energy already keeps people away from channelling so if thats the plan it will fail.

We can hope for an alternative resource but with this vague sayings we can only hope.

5. Thats the system used in the Devil May Cry series, its an effective combo system thought if you have any problems with your arms it can be painful. Anyway this one depends on what they come up with, if the only plan is to add in another button then it wouldnt help at all to make the combos more meaningful.

6.Im cautius here, i know that DE uses sledgehammers for nerfs and scapels for buffs. I wont be suprised if they think that going for x2.5 is too much. Its an assuption right but something DE needs to know.

[Irisena]

8 hours ago, HyokaChan said:

3. Combo meter no longer affecting light melee: This weakens melee significantly because of #2.

Atterax had to be nerfed, it had it coming ever since meme was introduced. But really? making any other weapon suffer for this isn't the answer DE. with this, quick attack will be difficult to use, especially something like dual keres, or any short-ranged fast hitting crit weapon will be crippled. Sure, i can just swap to melee and not worry about the combo counter anymore, but the combo on drawn dual sword is a bit wonky, it isn't fluid enough to let us swing the sword while walking normally, we have to stop often because animation. The problem isn't just about dual swords, but also polearms, etc.

7 hours ago, HyokaChan said:

3- they'll buff melee to compensate, and the dmg will come from the heavy attacks 

And this. I wonder why the heck people even thought heavy attack is a nice idea. It's not even viable if we were to charge it for 1 minute, only spending it all on a single heavy gunner. It's not even worth all those build up. Charged attack that need a lot of build up should reward player for their effort, for example, equinox. Equinox's 4 is easy to use and very rewarding because it's AoE, means you need not to worry about where and when you cast it, it will annihilate anything around you. Then what about melee charge? As far as we see, it's mostly useless, clunky, and hard to use, it's far from the word "rewarding". And to what extend will they buff melee? is it's enough to replace blood rush, etc.?

Edited May 13, 2018 by Irisena

[(XBOX)Tucker D Dawg]

Onslaught will be AOE ability spam only.  The game mode already pretty much renders guns useless for anything other than syndicate procs, and without crazy punch through and s2w whips, melee will be quite useless as well on ESO past zone 4.  Slow single target charged attacks .. haha..

[DrBorris]

Remember when people threw tempur tantrums when aerial melee was nerfed with Parkour 2.0?

And before that when coptering was nerfed (and even given a direct, comparable alternative that worked on all control schemes). 

Oh, and some people were VERY upset when abilities were converted from mods to intrinsic traits of the frame and the subsequent reduction of mod slots from 10 to 8.

This one is smaller, but when people cried about the Amprex "nerf" with the beam weapon rework. 

(and some other times I can't remember right now) 

 

Oh, and those that don't understand why so many are getting excited about the melee rework, a lot of it has to do with it looking like you are swinging a sword rather than flinging a feather around. Also practical combos that don't require annoying inputs like stepping backward. Mechanically, the rework looks great. The big question is the numbers to back it up. 

 

35 minutes ago, (XB1)Tucker D Dawg said:

Slow single target charged attacks

Did I miss something in the example of the melee rework when the heavy SWORD attack had a range that put polearms to shame? Just because it is one "strike" does not mean it is single target. One slide attack of an Atterax just so happens to be one "strike", if I remember correctly that is not a single target attack. 

[chainchompguy3]

1 hour ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Im back so lets continue.

Point 2 is in fact an overall nerf because while it was hard to do it in fact created a steady scaling to melee weapons. It doesnt matter if the implemented heavy attack gives us lethal damage in a 10m circle if its a one time effect. Dealing 200 damage on every attack on every second is much better that dealing 80 damage on every attack than suddenly dealing 200.

Point 3 is in fact a preference thing, i do agree. It doesnt affect me but it will make some people sad.

Tigris Prime, Opticor, and Lanka, are Meta for a reason. The slide attack meta, was for a reason.

7/9 classes in TF2 use burst-damage weapons a their primary, for a reason.

Because burst damage is satisfying.

 

We do not know yet if the values are a nerf. All we know is that it's changing, and is likely to lose steady scaling in favor of burst damage attacks.

Burst damage heavy attacks are likely to be far more satisfying to use.

Preferring steady scaling over Burst damage strikes is a matter of preference, just as choosing the Soma over the Opticor is.

 

1 hour ago, Fallen_Echo said:

1. Surely an issue what is prevalent since 2016 is going to be fixed right now, regardless of the many feedback and report we made they gonna fix it now. In all honesty i believe more in getting a 100% plat discount than that they gonna fix it now as it would requeire whole map overhauls just for the geometry.

4. Okay read these lines carefully.

We know that it will do the same as channel blocks, so the invulnerability part is in. We also know that it fuels the combo counter so it wont gonna use it as a resource logically.

It mentions one of the worst possible cases the constant energy drain, wasting energy already keeps people away from channelling so if thats the plan it will fail.

We can hope for an alternative resource but with this vague sayings we can only hope.

5. Thats the system used in the Devil May Cry series, its an effective combo system thought if you have any problems with your arms it can be painful. Anyway this one depends on what they come up with, if the only plan is to add in another button then it wouldnt help at all to make the combos more meaningful.

6.Im cautius here, i know that DE uses sledgehammers for nerfs and scapels for buffs. I wont be suprised if they think that going for x2.5 is too much. Its an assuption right but something DE needs to know.

1. If it's not fixable, and it negatively impacts melee gameplay in a significant way, I don't think they'll add it to the final build, and either put that particular nerf on the backburner, or find an alternate solution. Forgive me for being so naïve as to think that DE might be able to realize when something isn't working on a basic level.

4. That last bit there "But with vague saying we can only hope". That's precisely my point. It has the potential to be both better, and worse, than what we have. You're assuming the worst, and I'm saying let's wait and see.

5. We'll see what they come up with, then.

6. And as long as you are phrasing your critique of it as just that, and assumption made with the intent of making sure DE knows, then you're basically just doing the same thing I am.

I'm assuming DE will get discouraged, and give-in on some of the contentious issues, even though they would have worked great. I'm letting DE know that I'd rather they avoid that.

You're assuming DE will not compensate enough for the DPS they are taking away with the changes, and you are thus letting DE know you'd rather they avoid that.

 

 

1 hour ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Now for the important part im gonna explain what i mean with the middle ground fallacy. Im not sure if you have noticed it but DE has the tendency to get stubborn when they get harsh critiques over freshly released content. I have seen it many times where players gone over the forums asking for changes to terrible designs (limbo, harrow selfishness) but it hit a brickwall as they released it and it IS PERFECT.

Knowing that it tooks them a year if not years to fix content (look at the raids they never really fixed them and they are now shelved) i dont want to get into a sceniario where i can no longer use my melee weapons properly and instead of fixing the issue they release a bandiad mod for them as a compromise (see at holster rate mods).

Parkour 2.0 is a great too bad they never fitted the maps for it what causes problems even today.

a minor nitpick before I continue,

You say you don't want Bandaid melee mods to be necessary for melee combat,

Yet you're in favor of keeping the Blood-rush/Body count scaling, which is solely achieved through Band-Aid mods that make the current combo-counters system usable.

 

 

 

But Yes, DE has been not-so-great at changing things in the past.

I'd argue that it's moreso along the lines of "We'll wait until the day-one haters fade off, then we'll use the actual feedback ----OH wait, shiny thing!", but that's more besides the point.

But DE has been better about in the past year, having done a rather large rebalance of many weapons and warframes.

They've also been much more communicative, with Dev-workshops becoming far more prevalent.

 

I take this as reason to put faith in DE's willingness to admit fault.

You do not.

I suppose it's really just an impasse, then.

[(XBOX)Architect Prime]

I also would like to see ideas be tried before being discarded.

[chainchompguy3]

1 hour ago, Irisena said:

with this, quick attack will be difficult to use, especially something like dual keres, or any short-ranged fast hitting crit weapon will be crippled. Sure, i can just swap to melee and not worry about the combo counter anymore, but the combo on drawn dual sword is a bit wonky, it isn't fluid enough to let us swing the sword while walking normally, we have to stop often because animation.

[Sarcasm] Oh man, you're right! If only DE were taking a look at the stances, and changing them to be far more fluid and usable. When will they ever try something like that?! [/Sarcasm]

And I'm sorry, did I miss something? I don't remember them ever mentioning quick-attacks. So unless I missed something, you have no clue whether quick attacks will be "More difficult to use".

1 hour ago, Irisena said:

And this. I wonder why the heck people even thought heavy attack is a nice idea. It's not even viable if we were to charge it for 1 minute, only spending it all on a single heavy gunner. It's not even worth all those build up. Charged attack that need a lot of build up should reward player for their effort, for example, equinox. Equinox's 4 is easy to use and very rewarding because it's AoE, means you need not to worry about where and when you cast it, it will annihilate anything around you. Then what about melee charge? As far as we see, it's mostly useless, clunky, and hard to use, it's far from the word "rewarding". And to what extend will they buff melee? if it's enough to replace blood rush, etc.?

Do you know it'll require "charg[ing] it for 1 minute"?

Do you know it'll only reach far enough to hit one enemy?

Do you know that "Melee charge [attacks]" are staying exactly as they are now?

No, you don't.

You're assuming.

You're telling DE they aren't making good decisions, because you assumed they might do some things wrong.

 

Point out that you hope melee buff is worth "Losing blood rush".

Point out that you hope Heavy attacks will be more fluid and usable, for something that the rework is relying on.

That's fine.

But saying that because you pointed it out, it obviously means DE didn't think of it, and they aren't making good decisions, 

That isn't fine.

Edited May 13, 2018 by chainchompguy3

[Fallen_Echo]

8 minutes ago, chainchompguy3 said:

Tigris Prime, Opticor, and Lanka, are Meta for a reason. The slide attack meta, was for a reason.

7/9 classes in TF2 use burst-damage weapons a their primary, for a reason.

Because burst damage is satisfying.

 

We do not know yet if the values are a nerf. All we know is that it's changing, and is likely to lose steady scaling in favor of burst damage attacks.

Burst damage heavy attacks are likely to be far more satisfying to use.

Preferring steady scaling over Burst damage strikes is a matter of preference, just as choosing the Soma over the Opticor is.

Im going to point out the Opticor was never in the meta, not now and not in the past. Its high damage leaves the players with only that and nothing else.

On the other side the lanka delivers high damage with high crits and status chance, the tigris prime has the highest damage and it slash combined with high status chance these are the reason they are meta.

 

Simply dealing high damage is just not enough. I wanted to quote this but i lost that link it seems.

"The opticor could deal pure and true lethal damage killing anything instantly it hit and yet it will never become meta because of the various problems it has."

 

16 minutes ago, chainchompguy3 said:

1. If it's not fixable, and it negatively impacts melee gameplay in a significant way, I don't think they'll add it to the final build, and either put that particular nerf on the backburner, or find an alternate solution. Forgive me for being so naïve as to think that DE might be able to realize when something isn't working on a basic level.

4. That last bit there "But with vague saying we can only hope". That's precisely my point. It has the potential to be both better, and worse, than what we have. You're assuming the worst, and I'm saying let's wait and see.

5. We'll see what they come up with, then.

6. And as long as you are phrasing your critique of it as just that, and assumption made with the intent of making sure DE knows, then you're basically just doing the same thing I am.

I'm assuming DE will get discouraged, and give-in on some of the contentious issues, even though they would have worked great. I'm letting DE know that I'd rather they avoid that.

You're assuming DE will not compensate enough for the DPS they are taking away with the changes, and you are thus letting DE know you'd rather they avoid that.

1. Sorry if i sound sarcastic or condescing, i didnt want it to look like that. Anyway i dont think its not fixable, im more like i dont believe they ever gonna touch it.

4. Agreed but till we get more data im going to press the negative sides just so DE sees what we dont want.

5. Agreed.

6. We are on the same side with different points of view, i point at the plans showing the engine on the dock and claim the gasoline just under it is a fire hazard, you say that you trust the builders that they are not that stupid to do such madness.

Im more pessimistic as i have seen great games go down because of bad decisions, one of them infamous on both here and the reddit sites the death of Firefall. A game what died because of bad ideas on top of each other.

 

22 minutes ago, chainchompguy3 said:

a minor nitpick before I continue,

You say you don't want Bandaid melee mods to be necessary for melee combat,

Yet you're in favor of keeping the Blood-rush/Body count scaling, which is solely achieved through Band-Aid mods that make the current combo-counters system usable.

Oh nonono. You misunderstood me, im not against fixing the band-aid like that 2 and the many others.

Im just afraid that if the wall clipping system fails DE will go stubborn and when enough players rant on the forums they throw in a bandaid mod like "Piercing Blade +2m punchtrought for melee" or something like that.

 

For the rest part im not quoting, as i said upper im more negative personality when it comes to changes what could backfire.

[chainchompguy3]

2 minutes ago, Fallen_Echo said:

6. We are on the same side with different points of view, i point at the plans showing the engine on the dock and claim the gasoline just under it is a fire hazard, you say that you trust the builders that they are not that stupid to do such madness.

Im more pessimistic as i have seen great games go down because of bad decisions, one of them infamous on both here and the reddit sites the death of Firefall. A game what died because of bad ideas on top of each other.

I'd phrase that analogy as more along the lines of

"you point to the plans to use napalm as fuel, and say that's probably going to present quite a few issues, in addition to a fire hazard. I, in turn, say that I trust that the engineer considered that when designing the engine"

Simply because in your analogy, the gasoline on the floor cannot pose a potential upside, whereas my entire point here is that the changes DE has proposed have potential to be good, let's wait and see.

But overall, yeah. I'm glad we agreed that we just see things from alternate viewpoints.

[Fallen_Echo]

48 minutes ago, chainchompguy3 said:

I'd phrase that analogy as more along the lines of

"you point to the plans to use napalm as fuel, and say that's probably going to present quite a few issues, in addition to a fire hazard. I, in turn, say that I trust that the engineer considered that when designing the engine"

Simply because in your analogy, the gasoline on the floor cannot pose a potential upside, whereas my entire point here is that the changes DE has proposed have potential to be good, let's wait and see.

But overall, yeah. I'm glad we agreed that we just see things from alternate viewpoints.

Well it was a nice experience i gotta say. Most arguments here i have end up with horrible logical fallacies, mods closing the thread and such, good to have some change.

[DreamsmithJane]

People are taking each change out of context, not understanding that they're a full systemic overhaul of melee. Like, "heavy attacks aren't convenient, don't force us to use them". Hello? They're changing the stances to incorporate both light and heavy attacks, and heavy attacks will no longer require the empty swing to start. Until you have a complete picture of how exactly that's going to work, you can't make a judgement about whether or not it's convenient or flows well. The best you can do is try to identify potential pitfalls based on the information available and your own experiences. Even in that case, you can't take a single change and plug it into the existing system, and then make predictions based on that. That's not how this works. All the changes have to be put in place at the same time for the new system to function.

That, and a bunch of people somehow think they're expert game designers who should be calling the shots, but they're really, really not. Their feedback is incredibly misguided, because they aren't able to understand how things work or why they are made to work that way. And that's just talking about what's already in the game, let alone speculation on what's to come. Designers at DE have to look at that feedback and determine why people are having the experiences they're having, not just listen to what they're told and blindly obey. And they are vastly better at that job than the people yelling at them. I can say this with confidence, because anyone who knows what they're talking about is not running around like the sky is falling every time they make a change. And in the vast majority of cases, those changes prove to be for the better.

Now, I'm not saying everyone should blindly trust them, any more than they should blindly trust us. But if any player without inside knowledge is claiming to know exactly how this will play out based on the information that's been shared publicly, that is pure hubris. Knee-jerk reactions stipulating that Melee 3.0 should be scrapped are not anything resembling constructive or useful feedback, and if that is all someone has to say, then they really should stop making noise until we have more to go on. There is constructive discussion to be had on the topic, but that isn't it.

 

TL;DR: Yes, we need to see the entire system working the way it's supposed to (or at least described in fully functioning form, without all the gaps we currently have) before it can be properly evaluated. Anything else is speculation, and while speculation is valid, shouting about it is wildly inappropriate. For now, that complete picture isn't available because they're still iterating on the design and experimenting with its elements. This is a time to raise concerns and questions, not jump to conclusions.