A Glaring Problem In The "no Nerfs, Only Buffs" Ideology Curently Circulating.

[Solaurus]

TL;DR: I know some people are going to say too long didnt read, so I'll spare you the trouble of looking for a gif on google telling me that you didn't.

Go ahead, choose one.

 

 

 

Now for this topic i will catch flak, be called dumb or assholish, and other variety of names but I see a problem going on. Everyone lately has been saying that since this is a PVE game, nerfs are essentially un-needed and everything should just be buffed to an equal level. 

No while that might sound beautiful to the ears, it may not essentially work out in practice. Here is a scenario I will give:

The Acrid is currently the best weapon in the game and Nova is the best frame in game. Now say that every gun and frame (barring the starter weapons) is buffed equally to the Acrid's level. The game's difficulty would be trivialized as every other weapon will be able to essentially melt every enemy in game in a matter of seconds. This would lead to the game becoming to easy. How will DE cope with this? By adding harder content. But how will that content become harder? Buffing enemy health, shields, and armor most likely. But this isn't a buff in difficulty. It just makes the enemies larger bullet sponges, and since all weapons are now equal in terms of effectiveness, there would be no need in acquiring new weapons since the ones you currently own will work just as well. This would lead to boredom. How will DE cope with the spreading boredom? Adding better weapons. But the complaints of "all the other weapons are now too weak to do harder content" will flow in. How will DE cope with this? By buffing all the weapons to the level of the new weapons in effectiveness, but this just creates the same problem in an endless loop until the game becomes too easy again. Any long time players have already experienced this long before the times of Kunai and Acrids when even the Sicarus and Kraken were good choices.

 

 

 

Solution? Maybe letting go of the philosophy of "Don't nerf Y to be as bad as X, buff X to be as good as Y". There is a reason nerfs happen in games. Instead of buffing everything to Acrid level, maybe nerf the Acrid by a reasonable bit to bring it to the levels of a sidearm in the same tier (Mastery Rank 7). Sometimes it's just necessary. I would love to own everything with  fully modded Twin Vipers just as well as I could with an Acrid. But know what would happen if every sidearm was equal? I would get bored. Now other people may not get as bored easily as I do, and I don't mean that in a way to encompass everyone else. 

I just think that nerfs are needed sometimes in gaming and buffing everything just isn't the answer. Does this mean we shouldn't get harder content? No. Not at all. This just means that future hard content shouldn't be downgraded and made for every weapon in order to be "fair and balanced". Does this mean the damage system doesn't need a fix? No that doesn't mean that at all. There is always room for improvement and high tier bullet weapons shouldn't always be lesser then an armor ignore gun of the same tier, but lets keep a Sicarus as a Sicarus, a low tier weapon, but instead look at the current dominating weapons and see how they can be adjusted to make current hard content less trivial.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Solaurus

[BoompigXD]

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY +1's

[jwya]

In other words, you believe that buffing weapons up to equal power is detrimental since it leads to a vicious cycle regarding weapon inequalities and enemy difficulty? I believe that while your argument is valid, but...

"better" weapons could cost as much to buff as "weaker" weapons I.e. 20 platinum per potato/forma is painful, regardless of spending it on machete or orthos (insert other highly unequal weapons here). Therefore people expect weapon equality since price of upgrading is same for all

[avenger5]

Why would you get bored if all weapons were closer/equal in effectiveness?

[jwya]

Why would you get bored if all weapons were closer/equal in effectiveness?

Since there would be no incentive for improvement or competition, thus a monotone sets in

[Solaurus]

Why would you get bored if all weapons were closer/equal in effectiveness?

Because there would be no reason to get new guns because they would effectively be no difference between my current ones and the new one, therefore i could just say " **** it, I don't need the GrineerNutPunchingCatastropheFistBruiseBlaster when my LegendaryOliveBranchOfRelativelySlightPain does the same stuff."

Edited August 25, 2013 by Solaurus

[Amistyrja]

It's a bandwagon. I'm hitching a ride on it as well in the hopes that some stuff I use will get the buff they need.

[Solaurus]

Well, It was a good thread till you went all gif crazy...

I only did it because I would get annoyed at the amount that would show up eventually. So I annoyed everyone else with them so they would be too annoyed to look for one themselves.

[wkfire]

Yes, games like DotA and DotA2 also emphasizes on 'balances'. Nerfs and buffs always happen. Although those are PvP games, it's also about choosing the 'best hero' to play, just like how we like to choose the 'best weapon and frame'. 

 

Also, OP isn't very long at all. I didn't spend more than 3 minutes reading it. No need for tldr xD

[Saenol]

I've tried to make this point numerous times as well.

 

Few seem interested in fixing what's broken, as much as fixing everything else that's not. In the end, everything will be broken, and it will have three extra zeros on the end.

 

The future of Warframe:

 

[jwya]

I only did it because I would get annoyed at the amount that would show up eventually. So I annoyed everyone else with them so they would be too annoyed to look for one themselves.

Don'tthink that'd work...

[_Rue_]

Step one: equalize

step two: norm the content to fit the new weapon states

 

i think we're still doing step one.

 

hold your horses?

[ExhumedWolf]

I think I'll pick this one.

 

But honestly, with the new damage overhaul we may be seeing the way we use our weapons and powers change and thus we can see what we can nerf.

[Saenol]

Trying to make everything equal is a waste of time and completely counter productive. You cannot have separate but equal if you want anything more than a bunch of reskins.

 

Balance is overrated, but things need to make sense and everything needs it's niche.

 

It's fine, even good, that some weapons are generally better than others. However, "primaries" being inferior to "secondaries", and having a handful of weapons completely outclass all other in nearly all niches has got to go.

 

Inflation is not the way to go about this.

 

 

But honestly, with the new damage overhaul we may be seeing the way we use our weapons and powers change and thus we can see what we can nerf.

 

I hope so.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Saenol

[jwya]

Another counter-argument:

DE actually mentioned previously that their aim towards weapons is to create weapons that are overall equal, But fit different styles. Yet there are already weapon inequalities, which has caused some hooha and de would try to reallign their weapons policy back to the original plan. Thus, while your point is already rather explained, it might still strike others that you could be an "elitist" who had not/never suffered a nerf to your ffavourite weapon. No offense meant honestly, but some still could take it the wroNg way

[Solaurus]

There are a ton of topics about "what is the best secondary" and "what is the best primary".

Weapons should be in tiers based on the Mastery Level required to use them. Dera and Ignis should be different, specializing in different types of damage but equal. But in noway should they outdamage a rank 6 or 7 weapon like the Flux and Supra.

[jwya]

Trying to make everything equal is a waste of time and completely counter productive. You cannot have separate but equal if you want anything more than a bunch of reskins.

 

Balance is overrated, but things need to make sense and everything needs it's niche.

 

It's fine, even good, that some weapons are generally better than others. However, "primaries" being inferior to "secondaries", and having a handful of weapons completely outclass all other in nearly all niches has got to go.

 

Inflation is not the way to go about this.

 

 

 

I hope so.

So you mean "logical limited balancing" in place of a complete communism of weapons?

Hypothetical example: kunai is weaker tham acrid but still strong so doesn't need buff, while grakata is weaker than even sicarus and needs buff?

[Saenol]

There are a ton of topics about "what is the best secondary" and "what is the best primary".

Weapons should be in tiers based on the Mastery Level required to use them. Dera and Ignis should be different, specializing in different types of damage but equal. But in noway should they outdamage a rank 6 or 7 weapon like the Flux and Supra.

 

 

I don't like the idea of firm tiers beyond "primary", "secondary", and "melee".

 

Just because something is harder to get doesn't mean it needs to be all-round better, or even all-round more damaging. It just needs to do something that justifies it's existence and cost.

 

So you mean "logical limited balancing" in place of a complete communism of weapons?

Hypothetical example: kunai is weaker tham acrid but still strong so doesn't need buff, while grakata is weaker than even sicarus and needs buff?

 

Sort of, though I think flavor and a weapons place in lore and in-game logic are equally important to the other balance considerations.

 

Some weapons should be better or worse than other because of what they are and what makes sense, but every weapon needs a reason to exist.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Saenol

[BadAimbot]

Never nerfing is just as dumb as never buffing. You do what you have to do to get the weapon balanced. It doesn't matter how they get there. You can buff 100 weapons or nerf one, it's your decision. But it's a lot faster to just nerf one. Disagree with everything else you said.

[Solaurus]

Another counter-argument:

DE actually mentioned previously that their aim towards weapons is to create weapons that are overall equal, But fit different styles. Yet there are already weapon inequalities, which has caused some hooha and de would try to reallign their weapons policy back to the original plan. Thus, while your point is already rather explained, it might still strike others that you could be an "elitist" who had not/never suffered a nerf to your ffavourite weapon. No offense meant honestly, but some still could take it the wroNg way

That's the thing. People always get up in arms when it's their favorite weapon. Know why it was most likely your favorite weapon? Because it wrecked face faster then Sheldon can cut his hair. In other games alot of my favorite characters, weapons, and items got nerfed. I dealt with it and realized that it was most likely needed to keep the game in a state of normality. You obviously need to take one of the gifs provided because it seems like you didn't read my post fully. This equality is what leads to boredom. How many "niches" can you fill before everyone stops giving a damn? Putting out more weapons isn't going to fix anything. And let those people take it the wrong way. If they don't have the mental capacity to understand something that took me upward of about an hour to think and flesh out into two paragraphs only (with a help of Sam Adams and a couple of his twins) then I probably have no reason to listen to their dribble. Most people already understood my point and have raised their opinions, which I do read and understand as their opinion and outlook.

[Solaurus]

So you mean "logical limited balancing" in place of a complete communism of weapons?

Hypothetical example: kunai is weaker tham acrid but still strong so doesn't need buff, while grakata is weaker than even sicarus and needs buff?

Yes. Kunai is a rank 4? or 1? weapons (don't remember since I ditched them a long time ago and don't wanna spend the time to look on wiki.) while the Acrid is rank 7. It has a right to be better. I wouldn't compare a primary to a sidearm really so I have nothing to say about your Sicarus/Grakata statement as I wouldn't generally compare two different categories of weapons.

[Solaurus]

Never nerfing is just as dumb as never buffing. You do what you have to do to get the weapon balanced. It doesn't matter how they get there. You can buff 100 weapons or nerf one, it's your decision. But it's a lot faster to just nerf one. Disagree with everything else you said.

Like what?

[avenger5]

Since there would be no incentive for improvement or competition, thus a monotone sets in

Improvement of what? And what competition? If everyone has the latest and greatest (Acrid, etc), what competition can there be?

Because there would be no reason to get new guns because they would effectively be no difference between my current ones and the new one, therefore i could just say " **** it, I don't need the GrineerNutPunchingCatastropheFistBruiseBlaster when my LegendaryOliveBranchOfRelativelySlightPain does the same stuff."

There would be differences. The only thing that would be the same is that their effectiveness wouldn't fall of exponentially. Suppose you have an Acrid. What incentive is there to get the Vasto, for example?

Im not saying everything should be buffed. Out of curiosity, If you are arguing in favor of nerfs, what needs to be nerfed?

[Aure7]

No problem with clan weapons and prime weapons being MORE powerful than the rest, but yeah, tired of seeing throwing weapons on 99% of warframes.

[Chaosyn]

Weapons are meant to be different.

You don't use a Claymore the same way you use a Longsword.

Just like a Claymore is more damaging than a Longsword.

You should NEVER be able to pick up a machete and have it do the same damage as a sword...