PC Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation



About Teridax68

  • Rank
    Silver Seeker

Recent Profile Visitors

2,200 profile views
  1. Teridax68

    Something for the Devs :)

    I agree that there is currently a problem of incentives that is lessening the enjoyment of certain modes, though ultimately I also think the solution to that will involve some degree of forcing somewhere: key aspects unique to the implementation of a mode, such as the spawning algorithm for enemies in Survival, cause an optimal playstyle to arise that maximizes the rewards that can be obtained, minimizes the effort needed to succeed, or both. Ideally, this optimal playstyle is also the most fun playstyle around, but as it stands it frequently isn't, which is why players in Survival are pushed to huddle in a narrow room and spam abilities, when most people consider it more fun to either roam about the tileset and go on a killing spree, or treat a life support tower like a defense objective and kill every incoming enemy around it. In this respect, the optimal solution may be to simply change the spawning algorithm, so that instead of spawning enemies right outside of whichever room the player's in, the game should distribute spawns so that some enemies spawn near, and some spawn one extra room farther, or at least alter enemy density so that the flow of enemies eventually thins out if one stays too much in the same area. This would force players to move around, and so would render current camping strategies suboptimal (which will make some players complain), but could still have a net beneficial effect to the game if it succeeds in getting players to constantly move, as the resulting optimal strategies would likely be far more interesting. This doesn't just have to apply to Survival, but if there are any particularities to a mode that push players to play in a less fun way, the game should likely readjust its mechanics so that it doesn't do that, rather than tack on some contrary incentive to encourage players to play differently. Going further, I also think this is going to apply to some kits, especially older kits like Hydroid, Ember, etc. who can get pretty high rewards in certain cases for playing passively: the problem with a lot of older design is that there's a confusion between abilities that look cool, and abilities that are fun: summoning a kraken with Tentacle Swarm definitely looks cool, but when you're pressing 4 all the time to summon this deployable that kills enemies for you (sometimes), and drops double loot, that's not really fun. Overall there are far too many deployable nuke abilities that basically take gameplay away from the player, doing a lot of killing without the player needing to truly participate. These abilities need to be reevaluated, and changed so that the player does in fact have to do something to reap the benefits, besides press a button. This too would be "forcing" players to play differently, and would doubtless generate complaints from people who don't want things to change, but it would also prevent passive playstyles from arising in the first place, and so would make for more interesting gameplay overall.
  2. Teridax68

    Valkyr claws working like Garuda

    I very much agree with the suggestion, and more generally I think the argument could be made for a great deal many more frames, if not all of them, to have an innate weapon they could access. Assuming Hysteria is the source of Valkyr's immunity and life steal, her claws would be perfectly acceptable melee weapons, as has already been mentioned, and the same could be said for, say, Khora's whip (which was meant to be an entire exalted weapon on its own), Nezha's chakram, Ivara's Artemis Bow, Wukong's Iron Staff, Excalibur's Exalted Blade, Mesa's Regulators, Titania's Razorwing weapons, even Harrow's Thurible. Allowing these frames to access these weapons as a baseline, and depowered if they already exist as exalted abilities, would add tremendously to their flavor, and if taken further could also allow certain frames to access "weapons" only they could use, e.g. Volt firing spears of pure lightning or Ember lobbing quick fireballs. Going further, I also feel Garuda is a good reason to reevaluate exalted weapons altogether: previously, the idea was that a frame had the potential for such an iconic weapon that it needed to fit somewhere in their kit, but now such a weapon can easily be added to a frame via a conditional passive. In some cases, it may still be worth having an ability that supercharges the weapon in question (e.g. Hysteria, Exalted Blade, Peacemaker), but in many others, if an innate weapon could adequately encapsulate the function of a 4 or even a 1 ability, those effects could be shifted onto the innate weapon, and those ability slots could be put to use for more interesting mechanics. Considering how Baruuk is also going to have an exalted weapon, this could perhaps be an opportunity to give him an innate martial arts weapon (i.e. the Paci Fist), and perhaps have his 4 supercharge it instead, assuming that's what the final effect will look like.
  3. Teridax68

    [Ability Feedback] Mesa and Ballistic Battery

    I like the proposed ability rework a lot, and the instant reload could allow for some cool stuff to be done with certain guns. If I were to propose an alteration, it would be to make the effect more of a hybrid between the current and proposed version, i.e. to have Mesa passively store a portion of the gun damage she deals (without having to activate the ability), and expend a portion of that damage to enhance her next shot upon activating her 1, with the buff being able to stack. That way, you could still have the gameplay of charging up power from gunplay, while also having a more interesting series of choice tied to managing one's bonus damage, choosing whether to use the ability more for the damage or for the instant reload (or both), and so on.
  4. Teridax68

    I love Baruuk, there's just one thing...

    DE themselves said Baruuk was inspired from African cultures and that they deliberately designed his visuals and sounds to feature African themes. It's right there in the devstream. The OP isn't making things up from out of nowhere, and they are very evidently not the only person to have come to that same conclusion. It is therefore better to discuss this subject now among people who like DE and want the best for them, rather than ignore it and have it turn into a potential PR powder keg farther down the line.
  5. So which one is it, then? Should DE balance frames so that they can thrive against level 200 enemies, or should they not? Obviously, the game doesn't become literally impossible to play the moment enemies reach level 101 or the like, but if you're having trouble dealing with enemies after that, why should anyone care? By contrast, if your frame is killing level 1-100 enemies way too fast, or can literally go AFK in a crowd and lose virtually no health (looking at you, Inaros), then there is a problem, because that frame is clearly imbalanced, by the definition DE have set themselves for balancing frames. Saryn does not need to be balanced around mass-murdering level 200 enemies within a couple of seconds, and if she were (I don't think she is), that in itself would be an easy reason to nerf her. Going past the first rotation in an endless mission is intended to become increasingly difficult, and asking for a frame to be balanced around thriving well into those ranges simply amounts to asking for endurance runs to be made easier.
  6. Teridax68

    Lock Conclave Feedback to Typhoons

    Putting aside the gross elitism of such a suggestion, I fail to see how restricting Conclave discussion to some arbitrary Conclave rank, when literally no such censorship is done on any other part of the forum, would benefit discussion or the game mode. Conclave talk is already far too much of an echo chamber as is, and most of the well thought-through threads here come from people who don't have a particularly high Conclave rank. Meanwhile, much of what I've seen from veterans here has largely been pushback against any criticism of the mode that acknowledges Conclave's unpopularity, and a disturbing amount of proposals to somehow force more people to play Conclave, with these same vets dogpiling onto users the moment one of their Conclave clanmates decides to pick a fight with them. Even the less interesting "noob" threads calling for the removal of Conclave or the like are still valid opinions, and even if one dislikes that opinion as a player who enjoys Conclave, that does not give one license to silence that opinion. As long as Conclave remains part of Warframe, any Warframe player's opinion on the matter is just as valid as that of a Conclave vet: while the latter will certainly have a deeper understanding of the mode than the former, if the discussion is simply on one's appreciation of Conclave, that does not matter: a player's immediate dislike of Conclave is just as valid as a vet's attachment to it, and both types of opinion have obviously made an impact, which is why Conclave hardly sees any play. In fact, it may even be more important to listen to the newbies than the vets, because what Conclave absolutely needs if it wants to survive is a significantly better new player experience. It's not really consistent to tell players to suck it up, get good, and maybe start enjoying the mode after a month of heavy play, but then somehow act surprised when these same players don't want to touch it, ever, when they could just play regular Warframe and have a much better time. The fact that Warframe PvE, despite its janky learning curve and still fairly poor new player experience, has managed to garner a significantly larger playerbase, to me indicates that the problems of Conclave cannot be simply boiled down to players not wanting to commit (because Warframe is itself a game that requires a heavy commitment). However, because this seems to be the consensus among the dozen or so members of Warframe's dedicated Conclave community, who also seem to want to silence discussion from all other players, that to me is all the more reason to not restrict conversation on the matter. Alternatively, DE can in fact go through with this, restrict all Conclave discussion to a tiny playpit of people who all have the same, extremely minoritary opinion, and let Conclave become even smaller and more isolated than ever before, because at that point there would be no usable feedback that would help bring more players into the fold.
  7. Teridax68

    WF's Player Retention Epidemic

    That graph illustrates what's become a pretty well-known problem in the community: Warframe is terrific at generating new content that players enjoy and get hyped for... then consume and abandon shortly after. For the sheer amount of content within Warframe, and the added grinding padding it out even further, there's not actually that much replayability, because players are essentially only incentivized to play the game for the sake of personal progression, and when that progression inevitably stops (because one can only meaningfully progress by a finite amount), there's no reason to play. Fortuna took DE months to develop, but for most players, there's already nothing to do there, because after farming the standing and resources for moas, kitguns, Operator cosmetics, etc., playing in the Vallis generates no meaningful change to the player. Unless the second update adds some radical new replayability system, its content will fall under the same issues, and after that that entire portion of the game might as well be forgotten, just like the Plains of Eidolon, just like Arbitrations, and just like Sanctuary Onslaught, among many others. Because of this, what I think DE absolutely needs to do is look for is a way to make their existing content infinitely replayable. There should always be an incentive to play at least some part of the game, and that incentive shouldn't be based on some finite progression curve. Establishing some stakes in the in-game world, and tying them to missions, could be a start towards incentivizing players at all ranges to keep playing, and ultimately I'd like to see the world of Warframe be made interactive enough that the player always gets to have some sort of impact, and some reason to participate.
  8. Teridax68

    Baruuk needs self-healing somewhere in his abilities

    I'm on the fence about this. On one hand, Baruuk is very clearly a tank frame, tank frames generally have some sort of self-sustain, even if it's not always self-healing (e.g. Atlas's armor, Valkyr's life steal, Rhino's Iron Skin, etc.), and the one tank frame without any self-sustain whatsoever, i.e. Chroma, is dysfunctional because of it. On the other, he also doesn't expressly need to take health damage to function, unlike Chroma, and looks like he has a kit that's meant to have him pay a little more attention in order to mitigate damage, and thus punish him if he doesn't position himself right with his 1. Time will tell, but considering the amount of redundancy in his kit from what's been seen (he gets damage reduction from multiple sources, his sleep and disarm achieve the same purpose), one of his effects could potentially be converted into self-healing, namely his damage reduction based on Edge (it could be health regen instead).
  9. Teridax68

    I love Baruuk, there's just one thing...

    I have to agree with this. I don't think there's really any malice behind the choice, especially since the names are very likely placeholder, but there were a few parts to that demo that made me a bit uncomfortable, namely: "Savagery" being used to describe a character inspired by an African culture, as mentioned above. That same character's associated syandana being expressly designed to look like a monkey tail. So just to be clear, I think Baruuk's theme is phenomenal and he absolutely deserves to be in the game, but considering the cultural baggage and optics that come with such a theme, DE needs to be a lot more careful than they currently have been, otherwise it might blow up in their face. On that same note, that syandana looks amazing and should definitely be in the game (the physics on it are especially impressive), it's just that that specific cosmetic's visuals and theme are exactly the kind of thing you don't want to juxtapose with the equally specific theme on that character.
  10. This I think is an important point with regards to the disagreements players have been having here. Players aren't complaining about Saryn because they want to only complain about Saryn, and don't see a problem with anyone else, they're complaining about Saryn because she's one of the most egregious examples of a design philosophy that causes many different frames, Saryn included, to cheapen gameplay for their entire team. Whataboutism is all too easy a fallacy to fall into in any sort of game that features different characters players are meant to become attached to, and the more productive mindset here should be to take a comprehensive look at all problem frames, as mentioned above, rather than stonewall discussion of one's pet frame just because others are also being allowed to get away with similar design flaws. This I think could solve a large number of problem abilities, though I feel there can also be room for different balancing methods: an ability that can reach enemies through walls but can't kill them on its own, for example, is an ability that could allow a frame to influence a map and set up kills, without necessarily taking them away from their teammates each time. Even an ability that can single-handedly kill enemies through walls could be acceptable, if that ability could only do so infrequently (preferably without implementing a cooldown, though). In general, I think there are three key traits that make a nuke ability problematic: if the ability can a) kill enemies on its own, b) ignore line of sight, and c) be used on-demand with little to no downtime, the end result is an ability that can and will be used to simply eliminate enemies from the map without much interaction from any player, including the one casting the ability. Eliminating even one of these traits would make for a much healthier nuke, and so the trick would be finding which component to take out of each problem nuke to have it become healthier and still work well for the frame in question (Saryn may not want her Spore propagation to rely on line of sight, for example, but may not need to kill enemies with Spores single-handedly either).
  11. Teridax68

    The first steps to fixing Warframe's issues

    On one hand, I can easily agree with many of the OP's suggestions regarding the removal of mods, because Warframe is indeed a game full of mods that are almost always mandatory on any build, which in turn makes the game's customization systems that much shallower. Damage and multishot mods are near-essential, and take up almost all of a gun's customization pool without polarities or potatoes (which means most guns will end up having the exact same two or three mods), and even beyond just that, crit and status builds each tend to look very similar from weapon to weapon, despite the plethora of more interesting mods that tie into that system, like Argon Scope. Even in the case of warframes, much of their customization ends up being pretty cookie-cutter, because most frames typically perform better when min-maxed and supplemented with survivability mods (unless they have stealth), which in turn follows some pretty consistent rules from frame to frame (i.e. there is a consistent set of mods to equip when building for power strength, duration, or the like). Because of this, only a fraction of Warframe's total mod pool sees play, because some mods are so good as to be considered essential, whereas others aren't considered worth picking under almost any circumstances (especially outdated mods like Rifle Aptitude). With this in mind, though, I can also understand why so many would oppose peeling all of these mandatory upgrades, outside of simple fear of a nerf, because so many of Warframe's current mods are simply doomed to be either mandatory or useless. Even the OP anticipated that peeling back the first player of mandatory mods would give rise to a second layer, which may in turn lead to a third, and so on. While going through this process could certainly help balance the game better, the problem will always remain that much of the game's customization isn't about generating new gameplay options, as it is about simply piling on more power. Piling as much health and armor onto Inaros doesn't change his playstyle, for example, it just makes him tougher, and to some extent, min-maxing a frame for strength, duration, or range not only fails to meaningfully expand their gameplay, but in fact reduces it, as the end result is usually a kit where only a portion of the abilities see regular use, whereas the rest are so atrophied as to barely be worth activating in most cases. Because of this, while I do think the changes suggested by the OP will have to happen one way or another for the game to improve, I also think there needs to be a reevaluation of the core design behind Warframe's customization. We need more mods to behave like Argon Scope or even some of the Fortuna set mods, providing unique bonuses that either genuinely change how we play, or capitalize upon existing, yet unique ways of playing. Tailoring weapons and frames to suit our preferences is fine, and I feel should still stay in some form, but slapping on pure stat increases should never be more attractive than truly modifying one's playstyle. Giving a weapon pure power through mods should be, at most, as attractive as modding the same weapon to capitalize upon more interesting gameplay, and even then should only be attractive if what one wants is simpler, more basic gameplay. In turn, giving these mods to newer players right from the start could both smooth out the learning curve and equalize player power, so that new players don't feel like their power fantasy is being hampered by a lack of raw stats, but also so that veteran players can express their mastery through esoteric and much more personalized builds.
  12. Let's actually go a little further with that example: adding a silencer to a gun may affect the way its propellant gas escapes, which in turn affects its accuracy as the barrel is jerked around. A laser sight may aid the user's aim, but will also produce a recognizable light and dot that will give them away. Both also add weight to the gun, further affecting the user's accuracy, and the increase in size may make the weapon more cumbersome to carry around, especially if one has to carry the silencer in a separate case (which also means one has to spend time putting the silencer on or taking it off). Even when putting aside the costs associated with buying and maintaining these add-ons, in real life they present sufficient drawbacks that it is not in fact always desirable to go for the most tricked-out gun, and one such weapon is not automatically "better" than the vanilla version. Warframe is thankfully not real life, but the same rationale can be argued for its own weapons, if realism is your concern here. I can very much agree with this. If a weapon has a high fire rate, it makes sense to balance that out with low damage per shot, and vice versa. There's also room to explore here I think: a weapon could possibly have a high fire rate and high damage per shot, but very high recoil, whereas another weapon may have a lower rate of fire and lower damage per shot, but also innate punch-through on each hit. This is also just fiddling with basic stats, when unique mechanics could help differentiate and balance out different weapons. I feel the example of the Beretta pertains more to modding than to an actual, separate yet improved weapon. Even in the case of different weapons in the same series, e.g. the Glock pistol, later models may not necessarily be perceived as pure improvements to their predecessors (the latest generation of pistols cannot be as easily configured or customized as previous models, for example). I think if two separate weapons exist, and aren't simply variants of the same weapon by name (e.g. Wraith, Vandal, Prime, etc.), they should work differently from each other, and could be okay with being on the same overall power level, provided their advantages and drawbacks are distinct. Indeed, and this I think could help move away from the idea that some weapons need to be pure improvements of others. In fact, I think a much more interesting progression in this respect could be progression in weapon learning curve: instead of arranging weapons by power level, one could make the easiest, least complicated weapons accessible to players right from the start, whereas more esoteric or difficult weapons could unlock later on. In an ideal world, these weapons should be overall as powerful as each other, but the later weapons should reward players who commit to them with great benefits coming from their more difficult mechanics. This would create a learning curve where players would be able to go back to older weapons and still have a great time, but also be pushed to try out newer, increasingly funkier weapons out of curiosity, and see if they want to commit to them afterwards. I don't necessarily think separation by range is what works best for Warframe, because the vast majority of its combat occurs in close quarters to medium ranges, due to most of its levels being made up of small corridors. Snipers with heavy zoom will always feature some drawbacks relative to weapons with less intense zoom on their sights, as aiming with them is always a little unwieldy, and because of this, I think snipers (not to mention bows) could be perfectly okay even in an environment with low amounts of high-health enemies, where they'd be favored. Yup! At high enemy alertness levels in Orb Vallis, enemies will actually start giving each other Nullifier bubbles as well, until virtually every enemy you deal with becomes immune to abilities. It's one of the problems with the level's balancing, and also a problem with how the game handles abilities as a whole, though that's likely a whole other discussion in its own right.
  13. I do think your ideas could get more support, as the response to them has been positive when it's occurred. As mentioned above, I also do think your idea is brilliant as a short-term solution to help give all weapons more viability, since it offers a blanket system that could easily be applied to all weapons, including new weapons, and could give them at least some degree of effectiveness at all levels. In the long term, to reiterate, I think the only solution to make all weapons viable is going to be to balance all weapons individually, which has already been done before, but this time along such standards that they genuinely can compete with each other. There are also probably some systemic changes that may need to happen to enemies as well. In bulletpoint form, what I think would help bring all weapons to a consistent level of viability: Balance similar weapons around similar damage levels, so that there aren't stark differences in power: This I think is pretty self-evident, in that if there are two weapons that do mostly the same things, except one is much stronger than the other, obviously that weapon's going to get picked and not the other. We therefore need to balance weapons to be able to deal consistent and competitive amounts of damage relative to each other. Differentiate weapons from each other so that each weapon is unique in some respect: This I think would likely be the most difficult task, because it would involve either finding what makes a weapon unique, and flesh it out more, or inventing a new mechanic altogether, which would entail quite a bit of work on older weapons. This, however, I think would be the only way to justify the existence of all these weapons, because otherwise they just remain clones of each other as is the case now, which also means there ends up being only one weapon worth using. In many cases, this could likely be solved by integrating unique weapon augments directly into the weapon itself. Differentiate enemy distributions so that we're not always fighting a horde: This I think is a change that needs to happen for reasons beyond just weapon balancing, because currently fighting any enemy faction tends to play out like horde mode-type combat. This makes enemy factions too similar to each other, lessening diversity of play, and also causes some specific enemies to mesh really poorly with the current systems: Corpus enemies in particular tend to be more complex, with many units in Orb Vallis demanding the player's attention, for example, but this doesn't work in an environment where the player has to pay attention to many different enemies at a time. With pure respect to weapons, this means that room blenders tend to dominate, whereas weapons intended for single targets tend to suffer. Differentiating these factions so that some offer a small number of tough enemies (e.g. the Corpus), others offer horde mode (e.g. the Infested), and others would offer a blend of weaker and tougher enemies (e.g. the Grineer), would help make different weapons naturally more viable against different factions (snipers could naturally become great anti-Corpus weapons if the faction had fewer units with much greater health). As a reminder to UltraKardas: you still haven't given any proper feedback on this thread or its ideas, and as noted by the above, the original poster has noticed this. Could you perhaps at least try to drop even one sentence? You clearly have the time to write your lengthy screeds, so giving even one small comment on ysmer's ideas shouldn't take that much more of your time. So fast travel is what makes a game a MMO now? You keep reaching far too hard with these kinds of arguments, which not only has completely lost you all credibility, but has also made you lose sight of the point: right now, you seem to be trying to seriously convince me that Cetus and Fortuna, two hubs, are the equivalent of the entire massively multiplayer world of Second Life. Are you aware nobody is ever going to buy this? So does it or does it not have power creep, then? In one of your previous posts you accused me of wanting to make Warframe a Destiny clone, purely because I wanted to balance weapons relative to each other. It doesn't really seem like you can make your mind up on the subject, or like you even understand what you're trying to argue. Moreover, you also just gave an excellent reason why Warframe doesn't function like a classic MMO: expansion packs. MMOs like Destiny and World of Warcraft have power creep because they have clearly separated, usually paid expansions that raise the level cap, which also happens to define the player's overall power level. Warframe has no such thing: for starters, MR doesn't strictly define power level, because one does not need to reach maximum MR to maximize one's power: a MR 26 player can and likely will be just as powerful as a MR 20 player, because both have equal access to all the weapons, mods, etc. in the game. Second, Warframe does not have expansion packs, only updates that do not, in fact, attempt to raise the power cap. Warframe's updating process does not deliberately try to power creep the game for the sake of high-level players, and in fact most of its largest recent updates have been geared primarily towards newer players, with Cetus and Fortuna intentionally being made accessible early on to new players. Thus, not only is Warframe not a MMO, its updating process isn't even remotely similar to that of MMOs, and neither needs nor deliberately enforces power creep. QED. The better question is: why is that number relevant? You can easily check for yourself what the technical connection limits are on dojos, the point remains that dojos, as with any hub in Warframe, aren't the large, content-filled open worlds of MMOs, no matter how much you'd like to pretend they are. It doesn't matter if a million people can get together in the same dojo, what matters is whether those million people get to play together in an actual mission (and the very fact that we only have small-scale "missions" where all of the core gameplay is contained is itself proof that Warframe isn't an MMO). It is silly to insist that hubs are somehow the entire core gameplay loop of Warframe, and even sillier to repeat yourself in front of an audience that has remained wholly unconvinced throughout. This is all adorable, but as noted in the immediate previous post, I pointed out that Warframe isn't an MMO by the very definitions you used. These definitions, by the way, corroborated mine, which relies on the very simple criterion that a massively multiplayer online game should allow a massive amount of players to engage in its core gameplay in simultaneous multiplayer, which usually implies an online medium. The problem isn't that my definition of an MMO is narrow-minded, it's that you're trying to distort the meaning of an MMO to suit your own ends, stretching it to such a degree that it loses all meaning. Moreover, Destiny "brutalizes" your own definition of an MMO, not mine, as it corresponds to my own definition: as you were so kind to mention, Destiny deliberately balances its weapons at the highest tier so that weapons at the same level don't power creep each other, which directly contradicts your core claim that a MMO needs constant power creep to function. Similarly, you have also been generous enough to shatter your own flimsy narrative without anyone else's help, as you explicitly denied the MMO status of games like TF2 and CS:GO, immediately after producing a bizarre reinterpretation of the definition of an MMO that just so happens to perfectly include those two games. It is obvious you don't know what a MMO is, but more to the point, you don't care, you just want to give yourself the illusion of having made a point, even if that point comes at the cost of destroying everything you've said immediately before. It's not a particularly smart tactic, nor is it an honest one, and it has caused you to lose track of the original agenda you were trying to push: just as a little reminder, why are you trying so hard to finagle the definition of a MMO in a thread on weapon balancing? I did, see the above. Actual massively multiplayer gameplay, self-contained expansions, different leveling schemes and implications to leveling, different goals to updates, the list goes on. Even the "classes" are different, as there are no such thing as character classes in Warframe, only individual characters, which is closer in design to a MOBA than a MMO. Chat servers are the staple on virtually anything online, period. As per the above, it is incredibly silly to pretend that the mere existence of a chat function is enough to call a game a MMO, particularly when, once again, such a feature exists in games like TF2 and CS:GO, which you don't consider to be MMOs, and even singleplayer games if they're hosted on an online distribution platform. ... not what? It looks like you were trying to say something here, though from the looks of it, nothing you've said that hasn't been refuted before. I think you may benefit from perhaps reading beyond just the first few words in a sentence, as the complete version was in face "simultaneously in the same session". For sure, many players can be logged into the same game at the same time, that does not mean they are all playing together simultaneously, because each of them are in different sessions. There aren't hundreds to thousands of players all killing enemies or engaging in whichever other core gameplay function in the same massive level together in Warframe, even though that is one of the most immediately recognizable features of any MMO. Because... ? Ah yes, how could anyone forget Warframe's famous paid expansions. 🤣 But seriously, just... no. The claim you are making here is so utterly wrong, so utterly disconnected from reality it's insane, and nobody's willing to humor you out of pity either. Warframe isn't a game that runs on subscriptions, nor does it run on paid expansions, and the only "add ons" it has are microtransactions, which are present in almost every single modern game, including some singleplayer ones. Are you sure it's Warframe you've been playing, and not some other game whose name you've continually misread? Cooperate how? Did these players all meet together and fight alongside each other simultaneously towards a common goal? I don't think so. Sure, the game logged the individual contributions of these players, but it did not put them all together in the same environment when having them push towards that goal. By your same loopy logic, an 80s arcade game is a MMO, because it logs the high scores of different players across different sessions. I'm sorry, are they playing with each other, or in different groups? Are they playing together or separately? By definition, you can't have both, and to some extent it's almost impressive that you'd expect everyone else to not see the immediate contradiction here. Guess what? So can Team Fortress 2, yet as you yourself said, TF2 is no MMO. What then is the critical differentiating factor here? Again, you seem to be under the impression that any online game, or any multiplayer game, is a MMO, while failing to understand that a game can only be MMO if it is massively multiplayer online. It's right there in the name, in case you missed it. Except you didn't, you merely pretended that I said you could somehow enter the game while offline (which I never said), just so that you could have a straw man to pretend to win against. Once again, you are repeating the same argument that was refuted before, while also continuing to pretend like I didn't specifically mention the case where you could log into the game while online (and preferably on PC), go into a mission, go offline mid-mission, and be able to play it just fine all the way to the end, whereupon you'd need to go back online to save your progress. This is easily provable and verifiable, so the fact that you keep trying to deny it is... well, just sad, not to mention rather telling as to your honesty in this argument. Yo right back at you, fam. 😎 (But seriously, though, proofreading is a thing you should try. One unfinished paragraph from time to time might be fine, but two in the same post is kinda embarrassing). But also, speaking of "factless" (sic) arguments, not only are my arguments, in fact, factual (you can easily see for yourself whether one can continue playing a mission while offline, for example, or whether TF2 has a chat or trading function), it is your own arguments that are baseless. Why is Warframe a MMO? Why do MMOs need power creep? Why does Warframe need power creep? These are questions you have routinely failed to answer, despite the bloated volume of your posts. As evidenced by literally your very same quote here, for all the effort you put into writing quantity into your posts, you have performed exactly zero quality control, leading to posts that are not only terribly thought out, but frequently incoherent to the point of being incomprehensible. Whereas I entered this thread in good will and posted feedback on the OP, which I continue to do, you have done nothing but pile on hostility, vitriol and toxicity into your posts here from the get-go, and to this day have still not made a single post relevant to this thread. Not only are your calls for power creep in direct conflict with Warframe's core structure and needs, your very attitude on here is the polar opposite of what one would ever want or expect from a member of the Warframe community. ... just as you get a note mid-mission in Warframe that you are currently disconnected from the servers if you go offline then. It's these little nuggets of ignorance that make it look like you don't even play Warframe. Sure, and I never denied that, I merely said that you can continue a mission solo if you ever get disconnected. You seem to be getting very angry over something nobody seems to be disagreeing upon. Except Destiny and Tera have actual massively multiplayer gameplay, as they are not restricted to that kind of content. For sure, there are specific subcomponents to those games that have size limits (which are typically referred to as "dungeons" in most MMOs), but those are not the be-all and end-all to the core gameplay there, unlike Warframe, including if its raids got re-released. Again, the fact that team size in Warframe is limited to 4 in its missions is a fact, and no matter how hard you may try to argue on semantics, that statement does in fact constitute evidence. Your claim that I do not post evidence is therefore an easily disproven lie. Oh, don't get me wrong, your posts are absolutely hilarious, it's just that the one time you actually deliberately try to be funny, well... it just didn't land. The meme you posted is the kind that gets made in such complete isolation that the moment it gets revealed to more than just the person who made it, it's so garbled as to be cringeworthy. I sincerely doubt anyone outside of this thread, even within the Warframe community, would be able to understand the point of the meme, in no small part because the meme itself is utterly incoherent. Indeed! Warframe is full of wonderful and funny memes, none of which were contributed by you. This situation so far hasn't changed, and likely never will. Wait, are you confessing that you don't actually play Warframe? I'm sorry, which argument did I destroy? By all means, please point to the quote where I made the argument that one can progress or log in while offline. LOL 😂 That's perfect then, because despite your incredibly weird notions, Diablo isn't a MMO. I don't quite get why you'd think that it would be in the first place, but if Diablo is indeed the closest thing to Warframe, then that's perfect, because that also implies Warframe isn't a MMO either. Where? Please point directly to the part in this thread where you directly gave an answer to ysmer and commented on their ideas. Why? Why are you trying to force players to abandon weapons and frames they like? Why is power creep the only way of incentivizing all players to try new stuff? Why is it bad if some players stick to the same stuff? This is why it's so difficult to understand your opinion, because despite this being the core argument you're running on, none of it is substantiated in any way, nor does any of it even make sense. LOL. How can you even pretend to claim this when your very first post on this thread did nothing but directly pick a fight with me? This is nothing but more projection, and is so poorly disguised that even the motivation behind it is obvious. Moreover, I called you out on this long after you had started arguing with me: you weren't avoiding a fight with me, you just attempted to ignore getting called out on your toxic behavior, and so in the absolute most cowardly way possible. The fact that you'd try to defend yourself on this matter here, while still having failed to make any contribution to the OP or this thread, is pathetic. Which multiple arguments? Which reasoning? Again, you are projecting so perfectly here that your accusations would make perfect sense, had you the honesty to switch us around in the text. From the very beginning, your posts have been condescending, and your argumentation so utterly weaksauce that you've had no choice but to abandon the vast majority of your points after they immediately fell apart. The only arguments you have left are arguments you made several posts ago, which you keep repeating despite them having been refuted each and every time. You do not have arguments any more, only a desperate need to save face in an argument you lost since the moment you made your first post. Oh, and for the record, "not massive enough" is a pertinent point to make when discussing whether or not a game is massively multiplayer, a key aspect of the genre you don't quite seem to understand, or rather, want to pretend doesn't exist. It is a fact that no more than 4 players can engage together in Warframe's current core gameplay loop, and if you consider facts to be "dogma", then I sure as hell am dogmatic, and proud of it too. Where to start? I pointed out that the multiplayer in Warframe isn't massive, so that's already evidence enough, but as mentioned above already, Warframe's core content release and update model does not hinge upon typical MMO-style expansions or power creep, even if there are legacy features in place that make power creep a pervasive risk. The game doesn't try to put too many players in the same session, and in fact it likely doesn't want to, because having more than 8 players in the same mission would be likely too chaotic for the game to work. Put more simply: Warframe doesn't want to be a MMO, because its gameplay is simply not build for massive-scale multiplayer, so much as relatively small-sized teams. I could go on, but that's already more valid arguments than you've ever put forth. On that matter, by the way: what about your own arguments? Do you have anything new to say? Any responses to the above? Because so far, the only person to repeat themselves, even after their points have been refuted, has been you: not only have I made many arguments that have remained uncontested (including the above), your arguments by contrast have all been refuted several posts ago. Do you therefore have anything to offer than, as you put it, "the repeated trash can of logic you have repeated over and over"? That's cute... except you didn't. Exactly none of your arguments were valid, and in many cases they were based on outright lies. Your definition of a MMO initially changed from post to post, until you eventually gave up, abandoned any consistent definition altogether, and instead insisted upon repeating the same few tired arguments, even after they'd long been proven wrong, and even though you ended up contradicted the bulk of your arguments immediately before. In more honest words: "I can't justify the massively multiplayer aspect of Warframe, because there isn't one, so I'll just pretend that it's all subjective instead". You do realize you've critically undermined your own argument as well, right? If the question of whether a game is massively multiplayer is indeed subjective, as you're saying, then your opinion of Warframe as a MMO is as good as mine, and you have no reason to pretend your own definition of massively multiplayer (what even is your definition?) is fact. It's like you know already that you cannot claim in seriousness that Warframe is a MMO, yet don't want to say it explicitly, because that to you would also be an admission of defeat. I'd have to agree, except you seem to have the rather interesting habit of substituting me for yourself in these comments. Whereas I have answered your arguments directly, while making counter-arguments of your own, you have done nothing except repeat yourself for the last few posts, resorting to increasingly desperate exaggerations as you dig yourself a deeper hole. In your imaginary world, Diablo 3 is a MMO, TF2 doesn't have trading, and Warframe apparently has paid expansions that raise the level cap. As long as you keep repeating yourself, I will keep repeating back the same counter-arguments, and if that bores you, that's just too bad. If you want conversation to advance, you'll just have to come up with an original thought.
  14. But it clearly doesn't work, as noted by your perceived difficulty in maintaining and spreading your plague. Framing the issue as one of "noobs not being able to kill anything", apart from being a not-so-subtle attempt to disparage the people you're arguing with, doesn't make any sense either, because ultimately the problem isn't one of skill, so much as it being physically impossible to get kills in the presence of a competent Saryn unless one also uses a frame capable of killing enemies through walls. Put another way, I don't think it's worth avoiding a nerf or rework for the sake of noobs who don't know how to abuse her current kit. ... why? I strongly disagree with this, and at MR26 I still find killing incredibly fun and satisfying. By contrast, I don't find killing masses of enemies I don't even know of with the press of a single button to be satisfying at all, much less walking through an empty map when it's a teammate doing so. What you are trying to tell me is that Warframe's core gameplay loop of combat and parkour is somehow not fun or desirable to you, an opinion that you're entitled to, but certainly don't get to pretend is the general consensus. For sure, clearing the map with a frame like Saryn is optimal over killing each individual enemy, but that is precisely the issue: it is currently optimal to engage in modes of play that are less engaging than others, which means that players are naturally pushed to engage in playstyles that are more likely to bore them and burn them out of the game. There's a reason many veteran players complain that the game gets boring with overgeared frames and builds, and that's because at that point mass murder becomes such a trivial thing to accomplish that playing missions ceases to be fun. I mean, that could certainly help avoid any high-MR player barrelling through a mission while a MR1 player's still running around without knowing of the bullet jump move, but not only does this not address the problem (there'd still be frames that make missions less interesting to play for everyone), it risks fragmenting the playerbase, which is the absolute last thing one would want in a multiplayer game. High-level players should be able to play alongside low-level players, not simply so that low-level players can physically see a goal they can strive towards, but also so that these two types of players can connect, with the more experienced player mentoring the newcomer. There is simply no good reason to prevent portions of your playerbase from seeing each other, apart from protecting certain people from a system that features way too much power creep, and when that's the real reason, that's what should be addressed directly. Sure, but whether or not I have millions of kills as Saryn is irrelevant, since it is common knowledge that Saryn is able to spawn, maintain and spread a plague, and can do so self-sufficiently. I have seen Saryns do this on many occasions, so even if the act of doing so may be more difficult than I'd imagine, it is nonetheless possible, and the result is inevitably a less interactive mission.
  15. I mean, Volt and Equinox both have a problem of being able to kill enemies through walls with always-on abilities, so I would in fact like to see both get changed to remedy that, but in Equinox's case at the very least I think she needs a rework that improves her quality of life, as her kit isn't perfectly functional right now (she's often railroaded into just one form, mainly due to the way her 4 charge gets lost on form switch). Hopefully, though, if you plead their case, hopefully you won't accuse others of not knowing how the play the frame, while simultaneously relying on outdated videos for your own play. 😛