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

[Solaurus]

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...

This is what I'm saying. All weapons shouldn't be equal because a boredom will set in and a lack of incentive to get that new shiny sword will set in since you can do that sword's job with a rusty Grineer knock off.

[Solaurus]

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

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?

IMO, Acrid needs a nerf. It shouldn't be the end all start all weapon it is now. Acrid should be a perfect compliment for your primary, like all secondaries should be. Best weapons in game need to be the ones requiring rank 7, so while Acrid will still be one of the best secondaries, weapons that SHOULD be rank 7 (Despair, T.Gremlins) should be able to be just as viable but more viable then a lower ranked sidearm like say the Twin Vipers.

[RavenOfTheFlock]

Or, you could just not use Acrid until it's time you feel like taking things out swiftly. All of my weapons take down enemies with ease, my Acrid is just a funny bonus.

Every game has that one weapon that can outweigh the others in some way. It's part of finding your own play style and adapting. Not, " OMFGZ DIS GUN IS TEH AWESUMS I MUST USE DIS FER EVRYTHING DAT I PLAYZ!!!!!111!!!!!ONE!!!!!!ELEVEN!!!!!!!!" Nerfs usually end up getting more hate than love for how they affect an item.

Personally I like the re-balance to buff weapons and increase enemy health/shields/armor. A better idea would be to assign certain "tiers" to weapon load outs (e.g. so on Mercury Acrid does 33% of it's normal DPS, but on Sedna it does 66% of its normal DPS and on Ceres it does 100% of its DPS).

Also, if you think Nova is the best frame in the game, you are in for a bad time. She becomes a hindrance on some missions from my experience lol. The frame that is 'best' is subjective to the player and play-style. Personally I find Rhino and Saryn to be the 'best' in the game. But my friend finds Nyx to be the 'best' in the game. Another friend of mine adores Loki to no end.

Frustration in development is just a common thing. It happens. A good friend of mine knows this well, him and I worked so hard to update a weapon system for a game, but because it was "different" from the current system, people whined and complained all of the time, to the point where my friend nearly gave up entirely. So he began to create a new one in hopes that people would like it better. Guess what happened? They started to hate on that one and started with "your previous one was better". The point I'm trying to make is that regardless what happens change is a hard thing to accept in many forms. Ever move the garbage can across the room? I bet you kept on going to its old spot. lol We are creatures of habit, but creative-feedback is a great thing in all forms. It helps turn things from great to amazing.

To be honest, just trust DE to do what they've done best and keep on improving the experience for everyone rather than just one person. If they think it will benefit more than it will irritate I'm certain they will consider it seriously.

Just my $0.02/£0.01/€0.01/1.97¥

Edited August 25, 2013 by RavenOfTheFlock

[Solaurus]

Or, you could just not use Acrid until it's time you feel like taking things out swiftly. All of my weapons take down enemies with ease, my Acrid is just a funny bonus.

Every game has that one weapon that can outweigh the others in some way. It's part of finding your own play style and adapting. Not, " OMFGZ DIS GUN IS TEH AWESUMS I MUST USE DIS FER EVRYTHING DAT I PLAYZ!!!!!111!!!!!ONE!!!!!!ELEVEN!!!!!!!!" Nerfs usually end up getting more hate than love for how they affect an item.

Personally I like the re-balance to buff weapons and increase enemy health/shields/armor. A better idea would be to assign certain "tiers" to weapon load outs (e.g. so on Mercury Acrid does 33% of it's normal DPS, but on Sedna it does 66% of its normal DPS and on Ceres it does 100% of its DPS). Also, if you think Nova is the best frame in the game, you are in for a bad time. She becomes a hindrance on some missions from my experience lol. The frame that is 'best' is subjective to the player and play-style. Personally I find Rhino and Saryn to be the 'best' in the game. But my friend finds Nyx to be the 'best' in the game. Another friend of mine adores Loki to no end. To be honest, just trust DE to do what they've done best and keep on improving the experience for everyone rather than just one person. If they think it will benefit more than it will &!$$ off I'm certain they will consider it seriously.

I can tell by your post that you are missing your complimentary DIDNT READ LOL gif as nothing you said addresses any of the problems I brought up. Seems like you saw the words tier, frame, and Acrid than wrote some stuff you thought would fit.

[jwya]

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.

Whoa chill, my stand is with the "limited balancing" (rank 4 to rank 4, 7 to 7, etc). My grakata/sicarus example was to see If you would agree that (for example) a rank 7 needs buffing if it is way weaker than typical rbank 4

[S3riaL]

This would lead to boredom. 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.

 

What is just beaufiful with that is the "time", because everytime they update stuff people come back to check. Get happy and because they release something else new people come so more money. They found an endless loop, well that just mean more money for them ...

Why changing something that give you money ?

[Love2Camp]

If you measure differences in weapons only by their effectiveness, no wonder you get bored D:

[BoompigXD]

What is just beaufiful with that is the "time", because everytime they update stuff people come back to check. Get happy and because they release something else new people come so more money. They found an endless loop, well that just mean more money for them ...

Why changing something that give you money ?

Because you'll get more money, the happier people are,

[Palegale]

 Why nerf the Arcid or any other clan weapons? They already require a large resource pool, time and forma to build.

[BETAOPTICS]

There is a fine line of buffing and nerfing needed to be done in games. There is no such thing as perfect balance but neither simply buffing or nerfing is the solution to the problem. Too much nerfing can kill off the item. For example ( a bad one at that but still) the ones who have played League of Legends know that occasionally the developer team Riot tends to go on, on a nerfing streak for the characters, what it results in is a overnerfed character that barely get's used to it being clearly sub bar comparing to other characters, thus killing any reason to choose it currently.

A solution? I don't know, probably no one knows it. It is a really hard subject to handle and though the gaming industry is getting better and better in creating balance for so many items, I don't think there will ever truly be balance.

[Solaurus]

 Why nerf the Arcid or any other clan weapons? They already require a large resource pool, time and forma to build.

If they were nerfed, they wouldn't all of a sudden become horrible. And I said Acrid. All the other clan weapons seem fine except for Ogris and Torid using rifle ammo. Just because something takes long to build doesn't give it an excuse to utterly break the game. One weapon you need in Warframe at the moment is Acrid and all your dreams will come true. That's just horrible.

[Solaurus]

If you measure differences in weapons only by their effectiveness, no wonder you get bored D:

What else would you measure? The fun factor? Yeah well I like bows when I want to have fun, but I think I would get a bit annoyed if the next 6 bows had different stats but were just as effective as each other as I would have no reason to get them other then "Durrrr i bye tings i dont ned cuz i likez wsting muney nd or t1me! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUIUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUr"

Edited August 25, 2013 by Solaurus

[Neoshroomish]

I think the point of "buff, don't nerf" is more to avoid killing potentially interesting aspects of gameplay, rather than something that can be applied in every situation. That's my take on it, anyway.

[Solaurus]

I think the point of "buff, don't nerf" is more to avoid killing potentially interesting aspects of gameplay, rather than something that can be applied in every situation. That's my take on it, anyway.

That is why you test a nerf instead of just instantly nerfing something. That interesting aspect of gameplay can also be killed if it becomes too easy to the point of boredom.

[Pandemoniuhm]

While I agree that nerfing is just as important as buffing, your examples in the original post and even some further down on the front page lack any decent discussion. You clearly came into this thread with the idea that Nova and acrid are overpowered and need to be nerfed. Your entire post reflects that you're just trying to convince people to accept nerfs, not explain why they are needed.

 

Nova is -not- the best warframe in the game. Nova has the best AOE roomclear in the game. If you want something done about an issue, don't make wide sweeping claims about it. That being said, it's perfectly allright that Nova is the best at what she does. Nerfing Nova for clearing rooms is like nerfing Frost because snowglobe makes things immune to bullets or nerfing Vauban because he trivializes the difficulty of infested defense with bastille. Or even nerfing Nyx for having objectively the best AOE disable in the game.(seriously guys, get a nyx on your team. Chaos makes basically everything a non-challenge.).

 

Nerfing the acrid right now also makes no sense if you understand -why- the acrid is so good. The acrid is the best primary in the game because of armour scaling and the stacking DoT it applies. It's only actually better vs high health targets infact, because it takes a bunch of DoT stacks to start out damaging the raw damage of the throwing weapons. Acrid and the throwing weapons being godtier atm is a symptom of armour scaling being exponential, which DE said they were working on.

 

As to adding challenge, nerfing things to hurt less doesn't add challenge. It's not more challenging to shoot something 8 times instead of 4. Challenge should never ever be added to a game through numbers if you can avoid it. Numbers just add frustration most of the time. An example from Warframe is Raptor. I was super excited at the prospect of a flying boss when he came out. Then I farmed him and I honestly never want to see him again. Why? His missiles oneshot just about everyone and he has no significant telegraph to say "Hey, I'm gonna nuke you now". It makes the fight dull because there's not really any interesting choices to make during the fight. He's difficult because he nukes you, not because he's complex. That's not engaging for players, and that's why increasing or decreasing numbers is a bad way to generate challenge in a game.

 

EDIT; I forgot to explain when you should nerf things and such. Nerfing should only happen when it removes strategic diversity. In a PVE game a lack of strategic diversity is often a symptom of a system, and not a specific piece of equipment. For Nova, she does not remove strategic diversity. She isn't required to do anything in the game(although she makes defense missions easier). Basically every warframe except Ash and maybe excalibur do just fine in defense missions. In every other sort of mission, every warframe besides Nova has some sort of utility. As for weapon imbalance, I explained what's going on with the weapons earlier in the post.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Pandemoniuhm

[PiggyCakes]

There were 10 dual mods released at U9, now we have 3 more. Eventually we might get more as rewards, leading up to the situation where dual mods become the new norm. DE would have to release triple mods just to have a worth it reward once dual mods become normal. Chain goes on and on.

 

Nerfs are good. Buffs are good. Nerf/Buff and Tiered weapons are different.

[GetAtMeMods]

[Blatantfool]

 I feel like nerfs and buffs aren't whats important now. What is important is reaching a level with ALL the content where everything has a good feel to it. Then to balance out and polish that level of game feel.

 

 The simple fact that any Warframe with 4 good skills is considered OP is proof that the Warframe pool has simply not reached a solid level of game feel. It should FEEL as fun to massacre with Trinity or Mag as it does with Nova or Rhino. They don't have to play the same, they don't even have to be exactly as powerful as each other, they simply need to feel good to play. Everything needs to give the appropriate levels of feedback.

 

 The same can be said of the enemy variety. While it has been improving greatly as of late it still isn't anywhere near a point where the enemies are anything more then different colored meatwalls to shred through. There needs to be more uniqueness to enemy types. Each and every different enemy has to be able to DO something that presents a situation where prioritizing targets becomes important.

 

 

  Molecular Prime is the strongest 'status effect' in the game. Why is there no enemy for each faction capable of cleansing it? I'm not talking immunity. I mean an enemy unit capable of removing the status. Venom too. 

[rangeless]

the devs have failed to nerf the throwing secondaries nor the acrid and those are usually the top 4 weapons that people use over their primaries...

 

as i see it, the only reason not to use a secondary as a primary is cuz u like your primary more or u need the extra ammo.. otherwise, these 4 are great weapons that can overpower the typical primary.

[Blatantfool]

the devs have failed to nerf the throwing secondaries nor the acrid and those are usually the top 4 weapons that people use over their primaries...

 

as i see it, the only reason not to use a secondary as a primary is cuz u like your primary more or u need the extra ammo.. otherwise, these 4 are great weapons that can overpower the typical primary.

 

 They didn't nerf those weapons because they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.  Scott expressed that it didn't make sense to nerf a weapon that was working perfectly at its job when asked about Kunai many livestreams ago.

 

 Weapons are made to kill things. Lots of things. Those weapons are damn good at that. Mission accomplished.

[Solaurus]

While I agree that nerfing is just as important as buffing, your examples in the original post and even some further down on the front page lack any decent discussion. You clearly came into this thread with the idea that Nova and acrid are overpowered and need to be nerfed. Your entire post reflects that you're just trying to convince people to accept nerfs, not explain why they are needed.

 

Nova is -not- the best warframe in the game. Nova has the best AOE roomclear in the game. If you want something done about an issue, don't make wide sweeping claims about it. That being said, it's perfectly allright that Nova is the best at what she does. Nerfing Nova for clearing rooms is like nerfing Frost because snowglobe makes things immune to bullets or nerfing Vauban because he trivializes the difficulty of infested defense with bastille. Or even nerfing Nyx for having objectively the best AOE disable in the game.(seriously guys, get a nyx on your team. Chaos makes basically everything a non-challenge.).

 

Nerfing the acrid right now also makes no sense if you understand -why- the acrid is so good. The acrid is the best primary in the game because of armour scaling and the stacking DoT it applies. It's only actually better vs high health targets infact, because it takes a bunch of DoT stacks to start out damaging the raw damage of the throwing weapons. Acrid and the throwing weapons being godtier atm is a symptom of armour scaling being exponential, which DE said they were working on.

 

As to adding challenge, nerfing things to hurt less doesn't add challenge. It's not more challenging to shoot something 8 times instead of 4. Challenge should never ever be added to a game through numbers if you can avoid it. Numbers just add frustration most of the time. An example from Warframe is Raptor. I was super excited at the prospect of a flying boss when he came out. Then I farmed him and I honestly never want to see him again. Why? His missiles oneshot just about everyone and he has no significant telegraph to say "Hey, I'm gonna nuke you now". It makes the fight dull because there's not really any interesting choices to make during the fight. He's difficult because he nukes you, not because he's complex. That's not engaging for players, and that's why increasing or decreasing numbers is a bad way to generate challenge in a game.

 

EDIT; I forgot to explain when you should nerf things and such. Nerfing should only happen when it removes strategic diversity. In a PVE game a lack of strategic diversity is often a symptom of a system, and not a specific piece of equipment. For Nova, she does not remove strategic diversity. She isn't required to do anything in the game(although she makes defense missions easier). Basically every warframe except Ash and maybe excalibur do just fine in defense missions. In every other sort of mission, every warframe besides Nova has some sort of utility. As for weapon imbalance, I explained what's going on with the weapons earlier in the post.

I have both the Acrid and Nova and I couldn't care less what happens to them as they just bored me out of using them. I only used them as examples because Acrid is the best weapon hands down and Nova is "too stronk" to alot of people so I just used her as an example.

[Brasten]

This same argument occurred with the Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer and for the same reasons. The fact that weapons were not designed well, the overall enemy meta was a mess, artfical divisions were created based on 'rarity' which the Devs didn't even bother to follow.

The call for no more Nerfs comes when the majority of lower or intro weapons are not usable in late game play, or worse when 'rare' weapons do not fit the existing meta. In a game that encourages weapon collection and 'upgrading' for money it directly contorducits the "use the better tier guns". This is not a dungeon crawler as much as DE started it as such. The Overcharge and Forma systems threw the normal mode of "drop your current weapon for the next beast thing" a dissonant note in this game. Combine that with exponential enemy stat scaling and your cant do what Borderlands 1&2 or Alien Syndrome did, in that Diablo style.

Warframe is having that same messed up enemy meta and weapons that aren't following any real or clear tiered system. The current array of weapons has side grades (often dysfunctional in their intended role) and pure upgrades. This is a bad mix as it isn't always clear which should be which. What are Gremlins? Side grade or upgrade to Dual Vipers? Or are they side-down grades?

With that said, @OP, people will keep calling for Buffs over Nerfs until higher level enemy stats are sorted out and DE figures out how they are going to handle side-grades vs upgrades.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Brasten

[Neoshroomish]

There were 10 dual mods released at U9, now we have 3 more. Eventually we might get more as rewards, leading up to the situation where dual mods become the new norm. DE would have to release triple mods just to have a worth it reward once dual mods become normal. Chain goes on and on.

 

Nerfs are good. Buffs are good. Nerf/Buff and Tiered weapons are different.

Dual stat mods aren't necessarily better than single stat mods, it depends on how much budget their stats have. For example, Serration is better than the rifle dual stat mods.

[Solaurus]

This same argument occurred with the Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer and for the same reasons. The fact that weapons were not designed well, the overall enemy meta was a mess, artfical divisions were created based on 'rarity' which the Devs didn't even bother to follow.

The call for no more Nerfs comes when the majority of lower or intro weapons are not usable in late game play, or worse when 'rare' weapons do not fit the existing meta. In a game that encourages weapon collection and 'upgrading' for money it directly contorducits the "use the better tier guns". This is not a dungeon crawler as much as DE started it as such. The Overcharge and Forma systems threw the normal mode of "drop your current weapon for the next beast thing" a dissonant note in this game. Combine that with exponential enemy stat scaling and your cant do what Borderlands 1&2 or Alien Syndrome did, in that Diablo style.

Warframe is having that same messed up enemy meta and weapons that aren't following any real or clear tiered system. The current array of weapons has side grades (often dysfunctional in their intended role) and pure upgrades. This is a bad mix as it isn't always clear which should be which. What are Gremlins? Side grade or upgrade to Dual Vipers? Or are they side-down grades?

With that said, @OP, people will keep calling for Buffs over Nerfs until higher level enemy stats are sorted out and DE figures out how they are going to handle side-grades vs upgrades.

Your point is solid and I already believed this before I wrote this. This post was just letting the public know what would happen if there was nothing but buffs as I see more and more people going against nerfing when nerfing is necessary at times.

[Dasmir]