Wanna talk about Trinity + Castanas?

[lolmetimbers]

DE removed it because it was an unintended super cheese and I think they were fully justified and right to do so. You need to change your perspective from being so narrow minded and stop thinking they removed it because they don't care about players or that they did it out of spite. In case you didn't notice this been their MO recently, to remove overpowered cheese or things that they do not find consistent with what they intended. After nukong was removed immediately after onslaught was released, how you didn't see this coming is simply mindbogglingly ignorant. You can only blame yourself for the incredibly poor choice of investing and thinking it would stay. The nerf is the super obvious logical conclusion and is entirely consistent with what DE have said on forums + dev streams and the recent actions they have taken to remove such 'playstyles' - exodia contagion, nukong, simulor, telos boltace, WoF, resonating quake, teabagging walls with atterax and the soon upcoming melee rework etc the list goes on.

The message they are sending is so damn clear - we do not support cheese nor lazy OP playstyles, especially ones that were never intended for certain frames/mechanics, and if you chose to indulge in such 'playstyles' then - 'Tough luck, we are taking your candy from you because we never wanted such unhealthy things in your hands in the first place; regardless of how much pocket money and so called 'creativity' you spent in getting that lollipop. Whine all you want but we are not going to give it back.'

DreamsmithJane really said everything that needed to be said. Last post from me though because I think no one can change your self-entitled way of thinking. Have fun beating the dead horse I guess.

Edited June 12, 2018 by lolmetimbers

[fluffysnowcap]

It was a bad fix leaving the core issue around. Trin builds will be nerfed again and again till they fix the core issues, and once the core issue is fixed all of the merged builds will no longer be broken.

The core issue is  overflow damage. Being to kill 4 enimeys in one go is OK, as link links up to 4 mob's. Being able to kill more than 4 from a single source of damage is a issue.

A issue that will come up again and result in another creative build being outright killed instead of being put in level with builds of simmuler investment.

[Klokwerkaos]

2 hours ago, fluffysnowcap said:

It was a bad fix leaving the core issue around. Trin builds will be nerfed again and again till they fix the core issues, and once the core issue is fixed all of the merged builds will no longer be broken.

The core issue is  overflow damage. Being to kill 4 enimeys in one go is OK, as link links up to 4 mob's. Being able to kill more than 4 from a single source of damage is a issue.

A issue that will come up again and result in another creative build being outright killed instead of being put in level with builds of simmuler investment.

FACTS

[Klokwerkaos]

4 hours ago, lolmetimbers said:

DE removed it because it was an unintended super cheese and I think they were fully justified and right to do so. You need to change your perspective from being so narrow minded and stop thinking they removed it because they don't care about players or that they did it out of spite. In case you didn't notice this been their MO recently, to remove overpowered cheese or things that they do not find consistent with what they intended. After nukong was removed immediately after onslaught was released, how you didn't see this coming is simply mindbogglingly ignorant. You can only blame yourself for the incredibly poor choice of investing and thinking it would stay. The nerf is the super obvious logical conclusion and is entirely consistent with what DE have said on forums + dev streams and the recent actions they have taken to remove such 'playstyles' - exodia contagion, nukong, simulor, telos boltace, WoF, resonating quake, teabagging walls with atterax and the soon upcoming melee rework etc the list goes on.

The message they are sending is so damn clear - we do not support cheese nor lazy OP playstyles, especially ones that were never intended for certain frames/mechanics, and if you chose to indulge in such 'playstyles' then - 'Tough luck, we are taking your candy from you because we never wanted such unhealthy things in your hands in the first place; regardless of how much pocket money and so called 'creativity' you spent in getting that lollipop. Whine all you want but we are not going to give it back.'

DreamsmithJane really said everything that needed to be said. Last post from me though because I think no one can change your self-entitled way of thinking. Have fun beating the dead horse I guess.

You're wrong about this.

The vast majority of recent nerfs were nerfs, not destructions.  Calling a total gutting and removal to be a nerf isn't entirely accurate.

As salty as I am about Ember, that was a nerf, not a destruction.  As annoyed as I was by many other nerfs, they were reductions, application of padding making the effect reduced.  This is a nerf.  Totally destroying a build, that's a whole separate thing, it's far more destructive and problematic for all reasons I've detailed in this thread repeatedly.

Reducing the effectiveness would have been acceptable, I expected as much and encouraged it even.

Simply managing overflow damage would have done the trick, along with a dozen other potential solutions.

That's not what happened.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Klokwerkaos

[(PSN)big_eviljak]

11 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

You're wrong about this.

The vast majority of recent nerfs were nerfs, not destructions.  Calling a total gutting and removal to be a nerf isn't entirely accurate.

As salty as I am about Ember, that was a nerf, not a destruction.  As annoyed as I was by many other nerfs, they were reductions, application of padding making the effect reduced.  This is a nerf.  Totally destroying a build, that's a whole separate thing, it's far more destructive and problematic for all reasons I've detailed in this thread repeatedly.

Reducing the effectiveness would have been acceptable, I expected as much and encouraged it even.

Simply managing overflow damage would have done the trick, along with a dozen other potential solutions.

That's not what happened.

This wasnt a build as u keep referring to it... It was an exploit. Im looking fwd to console gaining this fix. 

[Klokwerkaos]

13 minutes ago, (PS4)big_eviljak said:

This wasnt a build as u keep referring to it... It was an exploit. Im looking fwd to console gaining this fix. 

disagree entirely.  I don't rightly think you know what you're talking about.  Anything that takes that much investment is indeed a build.  And it's not an exploit if it's a system that has been in the game for years, that's using the system that is clearly established.  You're argument is fallacious.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Klokwerkaos

[(PSN)CoolD2108]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb Klokwerkaos:

disagree entirely.  I don't rightly think you know what you're talking about.  Anything that takes that much investment is indeed a build.  And it's not an exploit if it's a system that has been in the game for years, that's using the system that is clearly established.  

*ck are you even talking about? The link nuking enemys literally worked due to a slight delay from simultaneous explosions. It worked due to link processing faster then this slight delay. That's definitly not for discussion. Congrats for spending time and ressources on a obvious exploit tho. What a suprise it got fixed.

[Haeen]

On 2018-06-11 at 11:50 PM, Klokwerkaos said:

So Octavia being able to do everything isn't invalid...

Octavia was designed with the intent on being a jack of all trades.  Trinity was not, so why you attempt to make the comparison is beyond me.

On 2018-06-11 at 11:50 PM, Klokwerkaos said:

and what you're saying is don't experiment, because de should take away anything you do that is effective.  Bad argument.

That is a strawman, primarily because that isn't what I stated at all.  The build in question was very questionable because it exploired the behavior of linked damage along with the castanas radiation explosive damage.  The very moment you stood there, jumping up and down, popping castanas a little voice in your head should have gone "This won't last."

It would be like investing in a Glaive riven back when you could make it spin around you like a nasty little death machine, then getting mad when its fixed so it doesn't.

[Klokwerkaos]

1 minute ago, Aegni said:

Octavia was designed with the intent on being a jack of all trades.  Trinity was not, so why you attempt to make the comparison is beyond me.

This frame is not a jack in terms of battlefield control. your argument is invalid.

1 minute ago, Aegni said:

That is a strawman, primarily because that isn't what I stated at all.  The build in question was very questionable because it exploired the behavior of linked damage along with the castanas radiation explosive damage.  The very moment you stood there, jumping up and down, popping castanas a little voice in your head should have gone "This won't last."

It would be like investing in a Glaive riven back when you could make it spin around you like a nasty little death machine, then getting mad when its fixed so it doesn't.

Major difference:  glaive rivens still exist, your argument is invalid.

[Haeen]

1 hour ago, Klokwerkaos said:

This frame is not a jack in terms of battlefield control. your argument is invalid.

The declaration of an argument being invalid does not invalidate it. 

1 hour ago, Klokwerkaos said:

Major difference:  glaive rivens still exist, your argument is invalid.

Castana rivens still exist as well, you're being intentionally obtuse because of a lost investment. 

The exploit does not, I understand you are unhappy but your behavior is childish.

[Klokwerkaos]

2 hours ago, Aegni said:

The declaration of an argument being invalid does not invalidate it. 

Castana rivens still exist as well, you're being intentionally obtuse because of a lost investment. 

The exploit does not, I understand you are unhappy but your behavior is childish.

Disagree with your points.  Stating why an thing is not factual and then declaring it invalid, if logically sound, invalidates the scenario.

Additionally, the exploit does still exist in the form of the root issue (overflow damage) and the playstyle does not, however with the example you gave the technique is still valid, thereby again making your argument invalid.

Additionally resorting to ad hominem and declaring my motivations for me when they are stated and restated repeatedly in the thread is simply ignorant and likely disingenuous to further your own narrative, it bores me and makes me think your opinion is not worth engaging since that is all you seem to be able to bring to bear.

Your arguments are debunked and have been previously, you are left with only ad hominem, and I'm not impressed by this.

[DreamsmithJane]

On 2018-06-12 at 12:58 AM, Klokwerkaos said:

I agree with much of what you've said here except that the obvious answer is to destroy it rather than balance it.

That to me speaks entirely against the entire notion of DE supposedly having a long standing reputation for caring about player investment.

They get knee jerk reactions for players who cry about forma... this build was several thousand times more expensive than a forma.  Gutting it was a poor choice in contrast to rebalancing it particularly because of the message it very clearly sends:

Don't care about how much you invested, we don't like what you did, therefore, screw you, screw your investment, screw your creativity within the systems we gave you.

That is a thing to fight against.

You're making the fallacious argument of confusing my point about the message rather than making it about the specific exploit in question.

That's the problem, and frankly you aren't listening, or are consciously ignoring that bit.

No, I understood. I disagree. If somebody does something obviously bad, the rest of us are not obligated to care how hard they worked to do it. It's still bad. They don't deserve "credit for trying". Something to fight against? No, I commend DE for this. It was a good and appropriate message to send. The specific exploit in question also matters. The distinction matters, between this and other "creative" builds that they have weakened rather than removing. Because yes, they do have a history of caring about the investment of all players, not just individually, but in the context of the environment they have created. There are reasons for these things, that you seem to be consciously ignoring.

On 2018-06-12 at 1:01 AM, Klokwerkaos said:

Yeah and nova wasn't meant to be a tank, and rhino wasn't meant to be a stealth, but we can still use the systems to do that.

Why have a modding system at all if the point is to push creativity aside and force players into boxes?  It undermines the whole concept of the system existing to begin with.

What you're proposing is a bad argument.

That's what's called "false equivalence", which is definitively a bad argument and a formally recognized logical fallacy. One that underpins your entire position. Stop projecting, and reflect instead. If you're going to go around accusing people of invalid arguments and logical fallacies, you need to have sound logic yourself, and you lack that.

[lolmetimbers]

Give it up guys. Seriously. It's a 100% hopeless case. I hope anyone in this thread who has responded or is tempted to say anything stays well clear. There is no reasoning with irrational. Mods just close please.

Goodbye and good riddance Trinity Castana exploit 2018

Edited June 13, 2018 by lolmetimbers

[fluffysnowcap]

Link Over flow still exists, more nerfs will come. This fix didn't the underline issue also the 100% damage reduction is still a thing.

The fix was bad, it missed 2 massive issues and was heavy handed.

[Klokwerkaos]

1 hour ago, DreamsmithJane said:

snip

I disagree with your assessment, calling something a logical fallacy doesn't make it so, nor does defending DE because you like their decision.

You are entitled to your opinion, and i'm entitled to think that it's a bad opinion and call it out as such.

[(PSN)ForNoPurpose]

This one guy is still crying?

Sad. 

As one of mu clanmates loves to say constantly. Part of this game is using your brain and learning to adapt to change.

[Haeen]

13 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

Disagree with your points.  Stating why an thing is not factual and then declaring it invalid, if logically sound, invalidates the scenario.

You made no statement as to why it was not factual, your entire discussion point was entirely subjective in its declaration of validity.  All you did was disagree, sorry, but stating your stance does not an argument, make.

13 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

Additionally, the exploit does still exist in the form of the root issue (overflow damage) and the playstyle does not, however with the example you gave the technique is still valid, thereby again making your argument invalid.

The exploit still exists in the form of overflow damage, but the method which enabled its efficacy was removed entirely, hence why the technque is invalid.  The behavior of castanas was changed so their explosionw as sequential rather than simultaneous, whch was why the exploit on Link existed for as long as it did.  In its previous iteration it was not an issue, but after the change was made, the combination of factors made it problematic for the balance of the game.

A frame which possesses two heals, an energy restore, and a damage reduction link clearly is not meant to be competing with thelikes of Saryn and Mesa.  You have yet to argue as to why it is acceptable for a support frame to be more effective at clearing a map than Mesa, who requires LoS and much more active interaction with the enemies than Link trinity.

13 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

Additionally resorting to ad hominem

Wasn't an ad hominem. I stated your behavior is childish, not that you are childish and that your argument is invalid as a result. 

13 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

and declaring my motivations for me when they are stated and restated repeatedly in the thread is simply ignorant and likely disingenuous to further your own narrative, it bores me and makes me think your opinion is not worth engaging since that is all you seem to be able to bring to bear.

Your motivations for your argument and the rest of your argument is bleeding with subjectiveness. "I placed a large investment, this makes me upset, theexploir was not a problem."  Normally I would not care for your motivations, but it has repeatedly been pointed out that the exploit was bad for game balance especially because it wason a frame which was not designed to be a damage frame.  You have yet to refute this and only choose to declare everyone is conducting an ad hominem on you, or you declare their argument isinvalid.

If you are not in this discussion with the open mindedness of changing your mind, state your opinion, and then be quiet afterwards.  It is onyl disruptive to the board when you tell someone they are not worth engaging because they don't agree with you. 

 

[Klokwerkaos]

11 minutes ago, Aegni said:

You made no statement as to why it was not factual, your entire discussion point was entirely subjective in its declaration of validity.  All you did was disagree, sorry, but stating your stance does not an argument, make.

I did state the problem.  Octavia is a meta frame across the board, not a jack.  It can do everything.  It's not a jack as it was professed to be, it's a solid meta out of the gate that can do anything.  

11 minutes ago, Aegni said:

A frame which possesses two heals, an energy restore, and a damage reduction link clearly is not meant to be competing with thelikes of Saryn and Mesa.  You have yet to argue as to why it is acceptable for a support frame to be more effective at clearing a map than Mesa, who requires LoS and much more active interaction with the enemies than Link trinity.

It does not functionally possess these things with that build.  If anything I will add, playing saryn to farm ESO, while not as quick to nuke, is far lazier of a play style, point blank I can be half asleep where as with the trin set up I had to be active and paying attention to several things.  People just see jumping, but it was far more complicated than that (energy and ammo management and hiding because of the squishy, plus don't F up your timing or you're done).  That said, Saryn, freshly reworked, as well as equinox and volt similarly leave players standing there looking around for a single enemy in sight to kill.  Claiming Trinity has those things they were functionally not there is moot.  I've been over this dozens of times in this thread, you just haven't read the arguments, and that's more of a failing to research the argument on your part.  I've reiterated this a dozen times, and already refuted all the arguments.  The end result is this every time:  "Well too bad, DE killed it anyway, and since I didn't like it I got what I wanted so screw your well thought out arguments!" or functionally the same.  It's a solid "No U" and that's really all the counter argument boils down to every single time.

11 minutes ago, Aegni said:

I stated your behavior is childish, not that you are childish and that your argument is invalid as a result. 

Then I think your assessment is uninformed and ignorant.

11 minutes ago, Aegni said:

The exploit still exists in the form of overflow damage

And therefore more nerfs will still be needed down the road.

11 minutes ago, Aegni said:

You have yet to refute this

No, I have, repeatedly, you are assigning motivations rather than researching my arguments, that's a failing on your part and makes your process an argument from ignorance.

11 minutes ago, Aegni said:

If you are not in this discussion with the open mindedness of changing your mind, state your opinion, and then be quiet afterwards. 

Thanks for the offer and entirely unsolicited advice, but no thanks.  I'll decide when evidence supports I should change my mind, and I'll decide when I'm done responding.  You can censor yourself, but not me.  Buh bye!

Edited June 14, 2018 by Klokwerkaos

[(PSN)ForNoPurpose]

Sometimes... you need a song..

 

Not just any song, but that one song.

it makes life so much more bearable, Enjoy.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by (PS4)ForNoPurpose
Seriously, read this topic with this music.

[Haeen]

7 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

I did state the problem.  Octavia is a meta frame across the board, not a jack.  It can do everything.  It's not a jack as it was professed to be, it's a solid meta out of the gate that can do anything.  

Jack of all trades = someone capable of performing all duties while not necessarily being a master of any of them.

This is a description that befits Octavia because she can do everything but isn't necessarily the best at all of them.

It is a strawman when you re-define it for the sake of makig it easier to refute.

7 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

It does not functionally possess these things with that build.  If anything I will add, playing saryn to farm ESO, while not as quick to nuke, is far lazier of a play style, point blank I can be half asleep where as with the trin set up I had to be active and paying attention to several things.  People just see jumping, but it was far more complicated than that (energy and ammo management and hiding because of the squishy, plus don't F up your timing or you're done).  That said, Saryn, freshly reworked, as well as equinox and volt similarly leave players standing there looking around for a single enemy in sight to kill.  Claiming Trinity has those things they were functionally not there is moot.  I've been over this dozens of times in this thread, you just haven't read the arguments, and that's more of a failing to research the argument on your part.  I've reiterated this a dozen times, and already refuted all the arguments.  The end result is this every time:  "Well too bad, DE killed it anyway, and since I didn't like it I got what I wanted so screw your well thought out arguments!" or functionally the same.  It's a solid "No U" and that's really all the counter argument boils down to every single time.

Enemies weren't a danger so long as you placed yourself out of LOS. Ammo was not an issue with carrier prime.

Energy management is not an issue at all with zenurik. You are making it sound asif the build was super intensive, it was really not. Furthermore, you are again ignoring the fact that you had a support frame outperforming some of the damage frames such as Mesa and rivaling frames such as Saryn.  You are entitled to the opinoon of how you perceive Saryn as lasier, that is fine, but the identity of the frame matters as well.  Trinity is not a frame designed for map nuking

 

7 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

And therefore more nerfs will still be needed down the road.

When they arise they probably will be.For now, focus on this issue at hand.

7 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

No, I have, repeatedly, you are assigning motivations rather than researching my arguments, that's a failing on your part and makes your process an argument from ignorance

These were statements that you made previously in your previous posts. Nothing has been re-assigned, and I have read your posts. Again, you dodge away from thepoint of the matter.  How is it acceptable for a support frame to outperform or rival a damage based frame such as Mesa?

 

7 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

Thanks for the offer and entirely unsolicited advice, but no thanks.  I'll decide when evidence supports I should change my mind,

Read it allowed what you just said. "I'll decide if the evidence should change my mind." 

You aren't evaluating it in an objective way, you are emotionally invested in the argument and should takea step back.

7 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

and I'll decide when I'm done responding.  You can censor yourself, but not me.  Buh bye!

Suggesting someone provide their opinion and go silent afterwards because they have no intent of having a discussion and just regurgitating their ignorant opinion is not censorship. It is a blessing.

[Klokwerkaos]

1 hour ago, Aegni said:

but the identity of the frame matters as well.

garbage point, any frame can and should be able to be modded however we like, this is why you can make nova a tank.  Additionally, why have such an extensive mod system if you can't?  It's pointless at that point.  I don't want to be shoved into boxes, that's my right to my opinion.

1 hour ago, Aegni said:

It is a strawman when you re-define it for the sake of makig it easier to refute.

It's not a strawman in the sense the frame is outside the definition of the stated design.  Many frames do this.  If any frame is allowed to stray outside design then that argument is BS.

1 hour ago, Aegni said:

How is it acceptable for a support frame to outperform or rival a damage based frame such as Mesa?

You're conflating my problem with removal of the ability with nerfing the ability.  You and others keep doing this as a stupid false binary. The ability was wholesale removed and you keep calling it a nerf rather than a gutting.  Nerfing was actually something I actively advocated for.  I believe the frame should have been nerfed, not gutted.  Nerfing it to a more reasonable place was the preferred outcome, this way the play style would still be valid as an option, but not the single greatest meta.

You say you read my posts but ignore this even though I've said it over and over and over again, which shows either a lack of reading comprehension, disingenuous argument, or flat out lying to deceptively push your narrative, which is it?

1 hour ago, Aegni said:

You aren't evaluating it in an objective way, you are emotionally invested in the argument and should takea step back.

Nope.  You're wrong again, please stop telling me what my internal monologue is, you're wrong and you're wrong repeatedly.

I can decide for myself what constitutes reasonable evidence.   You can kindly stop telling me who and what I am, as that really should be beneath a respectable person.

1 hour ago, Aegni said:

Suggesting someone provide their opinion and go silent afterwards because they have no intent of having a discussion and just regurgitating their ignorant opinion is not censorship. It is a blessing.

And again, you've failed to keep pace and just keep regurgitating your talking points without addressing mine.  Go take your own advice.

[Trekiros]

edit: please delete this message, it was sent twice.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Trekiros
the message below was a duplicate.

[Trekiros]

Le 08/06/2018 à 07:59, Sasuda a dit :

It does at least come across as a bit of leaving the OP's whole post seeming ignored without acknowledging why the forum was made. If, in the future, the OP and entire point that was brought up is at least acknowledged in some way that might come across a better. I really don't it was intended to be a kick in the pants to the OP but I can see why someone would feel like they were kicked in the pants when their point and list of thoughts and explanations is given 2-3 sentences that did exactly the opposite of all of the points explanations and suggestions.

I mean I'm just one guy, it would have been surprising if they had actually implemented one of my suggestions.

But yeah the entire point was to show that it wasn't a choice between 1) keep it, 2) don't keep it, but between potentially hundreds of different ways to nerf it. And I think for the most part it's been successful: the thread blew up beyond my wildest dreams, and though there was a quite lot of opposition, most of it was "DE wouldn't nerf it, they'd remove it", not "it shouldn't be nerfed, it should be removed".

They definitely saw, considered our arguments, and decided against it. End of story, as unsatisfying as it may be.

But don't worry, I'm not mad, because I can tell myself "eh at least I tried, it was worth a shot".