Voltage

I honestly wouldn't like to see Banshee or Trinity changed. Just because a Warframe isn't this trendy "does every role by themselves" setup doesn't mean they're bad. Banshee is the strongest solo-leveling platform for weapons and Amps, and she clears enemies quite well with Resonance and Gloom. Trinity is still an excellent support with good single target DPS using Energy Vampire. I'm really tired of Warframes that are designed to just do everything, and they basically feel the same in practice even though each one has a different flavor or theme. The way I look at reworks for a Warframe is whether they are in a state like Inaros used to be. That award would go to Atlas and Valkyr. These Warframes have had their identifying abilities robbed by Helminth, and their other skills just don't feel promising to use over subsuming their own ability on another Warframe.

It's in Devstream #177. They did say gaurenteed legendary Arcane. However, the altered release version with a gaurenteed legendary Arcane or Tauforged Archon Shard is honestly much better if you think long-term. Sure, you may not complete your sets of Crescendo or Duplicate as fast, but you'll be making much nicer progress on your roster of Warframes for Shards. It was advertised as that in Devstream #177. I don't think it's a big deal though, because the change isn't for worse (atleast to me).

This has been an issue for a number of years. Currently chat does not localize text from different chat servers/languages. This is most frequently noticed with Asian languages. It would be nice that while I would probably not understand their language, I could atleast see the characters.

You have yet to provide this "reasoning" DE has for why it functions this way. I'm in the same boat as you by the way. My feedback is to preserve public matchmaking with a slight tweak towards other players. Not stabbing wouldn't change for those players whatsoever.

Okay, would you mind outlining this stated reasoning in writing that extends far beyond what I'm bringing up? I'm only aware of the reasoning for why you get shared progress (which was originally a bug that they removed, but then reinstated in Update 27.2 in 2020): "Requiem Murmurs from failing a Kuva Lich Parazon stab will now again be shared with the entire squad! If we take a trip down memory lane, we’ll arrive at The Old Blood: Hotfix Hotfix 26.0.5 (2019-11-06), where we fixed all players receiving Kuva Lich Requiem Murmur progress whenever someone in the squad failed to kill their Kuva Lich. Our intentions to have the Kuva Lich tied exclusively to the respective player were genuine, but the feedback has shone light on what is a worthwhile feature for the Kuva Lich system given its pace towards success. We have bigger plans for Liches for connecting them to other Systems, but this change is the only one ready for Mainline!" My feedback is rooted in identifying the issue that persists beyond this initial change. If you're going to encourage squad participation, it should never be annoying or a bad time for someone because of how you chose to interact with the system. I could suggest a more punishing solution to players who refuse to stab, but I feel like this is the most polite way to address my concerns.

Names can be grabbed via support as long as they've been offline for a sufficient time and made no purchases on the account. That's how I got this IGN.

Greetings. My feedback over the years has been the same. If a player refuses to stab their Nemesis (which is totally fine), everyone else in the squad should benefit Murmur progress besides the person refusing. If you're going public, you're expecting to benefit from other players spawning and attempting their Nemesis Requiem combination. Other players expect the same from you. If you wish to reap the rewards from others but not give them the same, then others should be given rewarded progress while you refuse to attempt a combination. The game directly encourages sharing Nemesis attempts, and refusing to stab robs other players of progress they would have otherwise earned from a cooperative teammate. A player has every right to choose how to engage with Nemeses, but a selfish choice shouldn't negatively affect other players' progression. That is all. Previous topics on the issue: I'll keep writing this thread every time it's relevant again. It's getting really old that this has not been addressed to have a reasonable solution.

It took forever just to get where we are now, which is fairly good, but still not enough to warrant sinking up to 30 Shards into a single frame just for customization flexibility.

I'm of the opinion that offensive specters were a mistake, and we should only have specters for defensive abilities such as Ancient Healers, Shield Ospreys, etc. It's pretty stupid you can throw down an item that spawns an auto-turret of Kuva Zarr or whatever flavor of cheese you're feeling.

The issue I have with this concept is how limited in acquisition Shards are. I could see it being reasonable if we gained a lot more Shards per week, but right now, I see slotting that many Shards into one Warframe just for flexibility as a massive pain. That's why I'm unsure how you'd go about this. I wouldn't like it to feel like the old restriction on modding sentinel weapons.

Arctic Eximus bubbles, Profit-Taker Pylons, Exploiter Orb weakpoints, and Fomorian Sabotage are all considered objects as well. OP is just pointing out what happens when you hit these objects with weapons that leverage critical hits with lower base damage. It's a pretty bad time.

As much as I would love Tenet Opticor, I really want a Lich Sniper Rifle :(

Eh, I feel it'd be a little weird to try and justify Forum posting as "content creation" in an application. My hypothetical "brand" for that isn't exactly good for Warframe either lol.

The ideal to me is universal unlocks per frame. I'm not sure how to address the config issue personally.

I really enjoy missions with secondary objectives that play into the main one. I agree that the Archimedea timer reduction mechanic is fun, and secondary objectives could be combined with existing modes to make them slightly more interesting (with some reward attached for completion of it).

The underlying strategy that you're both using is focusing on velocity/quantity of trades rather than maximizing a margin. I commend people who consistently use up their trades. I'm honestly too lazy and rather be patient with bigger ticket trades. That's mostly because I'm always just selling what I have and never farming or buying more.

Then you should expect to hit a wall if you refuse to progress. That's how it should be. I never understood why MR 0 alt accounts continue to crop up on the Forums every now and again to ask why they can't finish an entire MMO without ever progressing account rank.

If DE felt the Bile cost was too high in a vacuum of ignoring how players felt about the cost, why did it take an entire year to see the cost reduced by 20%? Wait, so charging a player to use Shards is a form of punishment to you? So you do agree with most comments here that the cost is unnecessary in the way it's used? When DE removed the ability to stack two Rank 3 Arcane sets in 2020, they increased the power of existing Arcanes to 1.5x strength (on average) at Rank 5 compared to Rank 3. This pushed players towards farming additional Arcanes to reach Rank 5 for a set, but the long term effect from this change has benefitted the game tremendously for all returning, current, or future players. This is where the Archon Shard feedback comes from. I'm not saying you'll completely avoid all negative feedback from a change like this, but you're doing players a favor for using the system later on. I'd urge you to take a second and look at the bigger picture with this feedback. Let me elaborate on what I meant further, just in case you misunderstood. Let's say I have a Frost Prime with 0 Archon Shards slotted. In the current system, slotting the first 5 shards is free. Every time I wish to swap out a shard after that, I pay 30% Helminth Bile. In my proposed feedback, I would spend 30% Bile 5 times to unlock all 5 slots, but afterwards swapping is free. What this translates to is that the current system is "cheaper" if you make less than 5 Shard changes. The proposed is "cheaper" if you make more than 5 shard changes. Moreover, the current system charges the player to lose something, whereas the latter system charges player to unlock and experience something. Emotionally, one player is paying to remove something, and one player is paying to gain something. This has a significant impact about how a player approaches the system, and how they feel about when they are engaging with it. Here are what the result are with both systems: One system charges the player every time they want to make adjustments, encouraging stale choices that stand the test of time. Resources sunk are seen as an avoidance. One system charges the player to unlock a new system, encouraging diverse choices that can be changed in the future. Resources sunk are seen as a progressional investment. Would you rather have option 1 or option 2? Any player who respects their own time would choose option 2. These are not opinions, they are the innate differences between what we have now, and what we could have. Coincidentally, those two choices describe Arcanes from 8 years ago (and we have option 2 for those too now by the way). If you want my personal opinion, I'll never have a resource problem in Warframe for the rest of the time I'm playing. The last time I needed a resource that was not just introduced was several years ago. I'm putting that opinion aside to show agreement and promote the ideas that make Archon Shards feel just that much better to use, even if within an economic sense, it makes little impact for me to use them. I'd still like to know why you believe the current system we have is superior. Maybe there's a perspective I'm not thinking of as I have an extreme bias towards trying to respect my time while I'm playing and suggesting ideas on the Forums over the years. I'm going to continue cropping out the parts of your replies that I can't see written in good faith and aimed at me instead of the topic of Archon Shards. I apologize if skipping over those points isn't `properly` responding to you.

I'm a hoarder.

It's cool to be stuck at the visual Credits cap. xD

Where do you think DE got the inclination to reduce the Bile cost? Is this an intentionally obtuse question? You just grandfather in slots players already have occupied with Shards, and explain that the change is better long term for player experimentation. I certainly agree that the longer they wait, the more annoying it may be for some, but that's not really our problem as players when we pointed this out day one. This also isn't a change you make in a vacuum. Ideally you'd accompany this change with other quality of life additions, such as a means of allowing players to break down fused Shards into their base counterparts. Whether that is just the base colors or Tauforged into 3 normal shards is up for more conversation, but that's another topic regarding this system. I'm sorry you cannot understand why I used the words "nuance", "emotional" and "investment" in regards to this topic. They're quite relevant words when discussing a topic where players are spending time or resources on a system. Warframe is a looter shooter. Most of the value in playing is your progression as a player and all your investment you put into gear and your account to tackle content. It's obvious that you see things so black and white and don't care about this aspect of the discussion, as I've seen in many different topics where you've commented. It's good to step back and understand why someone is writing negative feedback in the first place before jumping to comment whether the idea is something you personally agree with or not. I'm skipping over the rest of your comment as it's just feeding a meta complaint. I much rather continue exploring ways to improve how Archon Shards feel to sink resources into instead of farming your comments for completely missing the point.

A fellow 1 billion credits enjoyer.

Maybe if the TennoCon ticket website doesn't have issues for the third year in a row, I'll have a chance to spend $1000 CAD for one. 🤣

Which is ironic, because DE has only earned this success because they are "in the trenches" when it comes to feedback, bug reporting and making changes over time. I could always stroke my own ego and list the things resulting from yours truly >:) I would very much recommend DE keeps Archon Shards and Helminth in general as a resource sink. I just don't feel the application of that sink should be on removing Shards, especially when they can't be tied to configs and are instead universal loadout bonuses. I'm not even against experimentation having a cost, but that cost should be palatable and within the scope of always earning something out of the cost.

Deflection? I (as well as many others in here) provided loads of evidence to support why DE's choice of where to place the resource cost is off-putting. Players would be much less likely to ask for Shards to move for free if that wasn't a core pillar of Warframe's arsenal customization. You're not charged to remove a Focus Lens, you're charged to add a new one. You're not charged to remove an Arcane, you're charged to unlock the slot to add them. You're not charged to remove an Incarnon Genesis Adapter, you're charged to install them. There's a good reason 99% of the game charges you to gain something rather than taxing you to remove it. If you believe this discussion has a 0% chance at achievement, where do you think the 20% Bile reduction came from? That change was a direct result from feedback, as alluded to in this interview with Rebecca prior to Whispers in the Walls (link): Better yet, if this conversation offers so little value in your eyes, why continue contributing? Because there's a massive [emotional] difference between spending a resource to gain something, and spending a resource to lose something. This is the difference between paying for shipping on merchandise you're receiving, and paying for shipping to return that same merchandise. You can't tell me both situations are interchangeable. The latter feels significantly worse. Obfuscating your original comment with semantics doesn't suddenly lend it more credibility. I completely understand your position. You're looking at this from the technicality of the cost of resources. I'm looking at it from the value of emotional investment. Paying to remove Shards feels like crap, especially for those of us who were here 8 years ago when this was the case with Arcanes and that cost was reduced and removed due to feedback. Arcanes are in a way better spot now than they were in 2015 and 2016. There is no question about it. Archon Shards could absolutely stand to gain that same benefit Arcanes were given so many years ago. I'm really curious to hear your side on why you think it's better for the game that you're charged to lose something instead of an alternative.