BETAOPTICS

I actually like this idea quite a bit. Otherwise I don't see how your post resolves some of the core issues with damage elements in the game. Maybe that was not your goal either or I am just blind (probably). But at least for me Blast isn't just bad because Viral is better and you can't usually have both. It's bad even if I could have both, because the effect of Blast is bad. This topic distantly reminds of back in the day why Corrosive was the meta, because it had the best elemental effect back then and it was the only reliable armor strip. So obviously some changes to the system have been a long time coming. Back in 2013 we did not have this problem with rainbows because the system worked way differently back then and with Damage 2.0 everything changed, the game got clear metas that have been more or less the same since then: Some elments are used in every occassion and some never. That can't change unless the game is willing to evolve it's system and yes, that also includes the material system. Look I get what you are saying and I am not claiming I wholeheartedly disagree with you either there. At the same time though the current system is not healthy for long term design either and I don't really see a way out that wouldn't just be to turning every element similar to Viral+Heat+Slash, at which point why have elements anyway? Yes there needs to be elements that are more effective against certain enemy types than others but I think the differences shouldn't be as drastic to the point where currently certain things are mandatory leaving little or no room for variety. Just my 5 cents. Feel free to disagree or prove me a fool even if you feel so inclined.

It's not just that but also since all element types are weigthed, sometimes adding multiple elements is actually detrimental because both of them compete from the same status chance % with the higher damaging element taking proportionately higher priority. So for example with 50% status chance with a weapon that does 660 magnetic and 330 toxin abd 10 puncture, the status distribution would go as follows: Magnetic = ((660 / (660 + 330 + 10)) * 0.5) * 100 = 33% of shots, ie. roughly ever 3rd status proc or every 6th shot procs magnetic. Toxin = ((330 / 1000) * 0.5) * 100 = 16.5% of shots, ie. roughly every 6th status proc or every 12th shot procs toxin. Puncture = ((10 / 1000) * 0.5) * 100 = 0.5% of shots, ie. roughly every 200th status proc or every 400th shot procs puncture. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that as there is always necessarily some mathematical overlap but instead if the player simply opts for toxin and puncture, then they end up actually increasing the chance of proc from occurring on status effect. Toxin = ((330 / (330 + 10)) * 0.5) * 100 = ~48.53% of shots, ie. roughly every 2nd status proc or every 4th shot. Puncture = ((10 / 340) * 0.5) * 100 = 1.47% of shots, ie. roughly every every 67th status proc or every 134th shot.

One thing I like also on Helmith subsume you can change and view your loadouts on the spot so that removes the need to manually cancel, go change the loadout and go back to subsume abilities. That being said though I'd love it even more if there was a way to set automated damage types for factions in some way. The two issues I could see is how you do it from the code side because players have different loadouts at different slots so it would have be able to sniff your loadouts and search based on damage types (very hard to do and would affect performance), or you'd have to manually mark/link your loadouts (easier to do). Another potential issues is when a player would like to use a different loadout for whatever reason. So maybe then the solution would be a hybrid? Automated choices trough marking system, while allowing on-spot loadout changes should the player still want to tweak something. --- Feedback to devs: I love what you are trying to do here and I think taking a look at certain elements like blast is a good thing. I've been waiting for updates to blast for so long and it's nice to know mandatory armor strip won't be necessary anymore. I do understand some players concern on making the game easier, but personally I think your approach as the right one. One thing I wish Pablo would consider on is changes to the Magnetic. One major problem with it is that unlike any other damagetype, Magnetic only affects few factions because only few factions have shields in any capacity. Even though corrosive does not do well on Corpus otherwise, you can still always strip armor with it on units that have it and it still always does something to the faction. Back when the melee arcanes came, I was a bit disappointed to find out that Magnetic got an arcane that would pull enemies in on % of proc. I was kind of hoping that would simply become an innate property of Magnetic damage type and the arcane would do something else. It would fit thematically, it would make the damage type useful against all factions and it would be a status effect players would want to consider on some setups. Hopefully you will consider my feedback.

Happy weekend. Hopefully this will help with some of the technical issues over the years during Tennocon.

Yeah it still does not respect my time with the current implementation. I have. Maybe it was simply bad timing and there weren't just many players around at that time but I tried for a time and then I had to go do other things. This is a lesser issue though, that's more of my own making.

Assumed those teammates actually end up sticking out and have gear necessary for the challenge. At this time you can have relatively new-ish players & players who disconnect or quit. Today went in with randoms and 2 of 4 left. Next time I'll go in solo because randoms are simply not dependable enough. I know I can solo it though, but I think that the fact that this dynamic exists in the first place does say something about the current implementations problems.

Hello there! I like deep archimedia and it's elite version conceptually. However I think the implementation has certain design flaws. One major design flaws in the current implementation is when a player or multiple player disconnects/quits, it kind of screws over everyone in the team. The game mode does issue a warning of this when you initialize the challenge but some players simply don't care. They might be at a point in their warframe progression where shards are either not needed yet and they just want to test the mode out. That would be fine if the costs wouldn't be so high for the rest of the team. It's not fun to lose the elite deep archimedia challenge simply because the game scales the missions for 4 players and then half the team quits. Don't get me wrong here: When it is a disconnect from the player, I will not blame them because it wasn't their choice. And of course nobody but the person themselves knows exactly whether or not it was a disconnect or they quit. But seeing how frequently that happens within random games, it is probable that at least some of them were players quitting because they realized they simply became unprepared for the challenge requirements. It's not that getting some MR 13 player into the hardest content in the game (excluding endless runs) is the issue, because it's a gear check first and foremost and I don't tie this to MR directly. Rather it's that some players don't simply respect how high of an investment it is for everyone involved and they just want to try the mode out. Or so I think. Now you could simply say that it's a skill issue and good for you if are good enough to carry an endgame game mode scaled up to 4 players. You are probably right there, and yet I would argue that most players are not like that. I am not suggesting making the game mode easier, I don't mind losing when it's fair and due to my the teams own mistakes. What I am saying is that in my personal opinion the game mode needs some safe guards against situations where the cause is out of players control. The game modes implementation is too high of a cost and risk to currently go and play with random players to play with and I can not see myself playing the game mode in the forseeable future. It fails to respect my time enough for the risks tied to it to be worth it. What would the solution look like? Well that's the hard part and I probably don't have good solutions either. Bummer I know. One possibility would be to either give the staying players a vote where they could either decide to continue on the mode or leave (similar to defense). Another solution could be to allow new players to join in on ongoing modes with recursively getting all the rewards they would get as if they played the full round (probably not possible and certainly not perfect solution either). Third option that comes to my mind is to simply check the team size and make it not cost weekly tokens if the team size is reduced to x% from it's original size and the team fails. After all the game already tracks fail counts and tracking player counts should not be hard data to extract. I can't believe those words are coming from my keyboard right now as I tend to be very forgiving and supportive of the community but as of currently in the current implementation of elite deep archimedia I am probably not going to play the game mode because random players are simply not depdendable enough. I genuinely hate to say that, and wish that developers would consider safe guards of some kind. Agree or disagree? Please leave feedback to me as well. I am not pretending to be an arbiter of truth.

Thanks.

I think simple toggle and reworking values will suffice.

Praise updates!

Cool! Merry Christmas Digital Extremee employees! Merry Christmas fellow Tenno!

Awesome! QoL!

Looking good. Please add the information about the last abilities augment and also add a note for those who missed it that Tentacle Swarm does Corrosive damage now instead of Magnetic like it used to.

Like I've said to several others: My posts are not personal evaluations on how things should be but rather evaluations on how things are currently. I don't like the trade laws either hence why my initial post went with I understand that wish but they are still laws that companies are obliged to follow irrespective of my personal viewpoints. Impersonal vs. personal viewpoints.

Lowering prices = altering the trade deal and that is illegal my friend. For example if you go take a look at the prime access bundles, there is a reason why DE only made new bundles available when a new prime access came and not when a pack deal was already going.