PC Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation



About Teridax68

Recent Profile Visitors

3,188 profile views
  1. Teridax68

    Built in weapons

    But I answered the question rather clearly: innate weapons aren't a need, but that does not diminish their value as a suggestion, and there is so little prospective new content that qualifies as a real need in Warframe that applying such a criterion for validity makes strictly no sense, and at worse devalues the near-entirety of feedback being made on this space (hence why it's a dangerous mentality to go about on a feedback forum). As evidenced by the body of your post here, you did not come to this thread innocently just to ask questions, you came here with your mind already made up, and an agenda to push, so you don't get to play coy here either. Then it is good you are not a developer, then, because your idea of what does, or rather doesn't qualify as constructive feedback is now the way developers operate when taking in player feedback. As said several times now already on this thread, DE has taken plenty of time to implement "requests and wishes", which is one of the reasons why they are known for being among the best at communicating with their playerbase. Moreover, the suggestions made here have indeed been constructive: constructive feedback aims to present opportunities for improvement, which the proposal for innate weapons covers, and many arguments have been made in their favor, which you seem to have conspicuously ignored. If this thread were to, say, bash the developers, or simply claim that the game had no problems and does not ever need to change no matter what, neither of those things would be constructive feedback. There it is. Once again, you are visibly not here to promote discussion, you're here to silence it: just because you personally do not see a point to this feature, this apparently means this feature has no point at all, and all the people who indeed see value in innate weapons (which includes DE themselves, as shown with Garuda and now Hildryn) somehow don't count, at least not in the face of your personal opinions. Except it did: So you are, quite simply, flat-out lying, and being wilfully ignorant of arguments presented on this very thread. Moreover, your definition for what qualifies as a "need" in Warframe is laughably stilted, not to mention unsupported: by your own definition, a massive overhaul to a frame that's already doing fine would somehow be more necessary to the game than a piece of content that satisfies an unfulfilled niche in high player demand, because according to you proposals are necessary to Warframe if and only if they aim to change existing content. This arbitrary definition holds no water, and is visibly self-serving. Zero times zero is still zero. Less facetiously, though, Vauban has so few players that the prospective loss of their money is almost bound to be far less than the prospective gains to be had from putting resources that'd be used to rework him into developing cool, new, monetizable content, or simply catering even more to popular frames. Thus, there is a perfectly valid monetary argument to be made for ignoring Vauban forever, and instead devoting resources towards stuff that sells. In fact, this same argument could be used to justify innate weapons, if these make frames more likely to sell (and I'd argue that Garuda's claws, or at least their thematic, is one of her selling points). This is the danger that comes with arguing out of pure necessity: if you want to act like DE should only put resources into stuff that can be directly monetized for optimal returns, that's fine, but be prepared to see content you love get forgotten simply because there's better use for the developers' time elsewhere. More generally, the issue of exclusively addressing top-priority tasks to the starvation of everything else is one of the most basic problems in any kind of resource allocation, which is why intelligent pipelining involves taking time to address less important tasks alongside the higher-priority ones. And this is hypocritical... why? As clearly stated in the very paragraph you quoted, my point was exactly what you've been saying: no-one's opinion is inherently more valuable than anyone else's, which means that nobody gets to pretend like they count as a one-man consensus. The fact that this user has two others agreeing with them on this specific thread, one among dozens of threads making the same proposal and receiving support from many more people, also means they also have no right to pretend that there is a consensus against this sort of idea. I am not dismissing this person's opinion out of hand, I am in fact including it as one alongside my own, and have repeatedly taken pains to explain how it is perfectly valid to dislike the suggestion being made here. What I take issue with, has been with the attempts to bully the OP and people who agree with them into silence by telling them they shouldn't even give feedback on a feedback forum. Where did I say that DE had no idea what they were doing? You are deliberately misconstruing my point here: the very simple argument I'm making is that this new hacking minigame is entirely unnecessary to the game, because we already have a hacking minigame for the Corpus, and there is no precedent for a bespoke hacking minigame for just one tileset. In fact, the entirety of the Corpus Gas City tileset rework is unnecessary in face of how the current tileset is one of the better-made ones for parkour already. To be clear, my point isn't that DE shouldn't be working on this content, as I absolutely love what I've seen of all this new content and look very much forward to playing it (including the new hacking minigame): rather, my point is that DE is demonstrably able and willing to put tons of work into stuff the game doesn't strictly need, simply because it would be fun for us players, so we shouldn't pretend like they only focus on what's strictly necessary. This also seems to be a point you are very deliberately trying to dodge, as for all your laundry list of the content being introduced with this tileset rework, you have utterly failed to explain why even a single one of these features would be necessary, let alone what the game needs the most right now. And the same could thus be said of innate weapons, which have a purpose by dint of being weapons, and would contribute to the flavor, theme and gameplay of warframes. Moreover, you have completely misunderstood me: I'm not talking about Cetus or Fortuna, I'm talking about our standard Tenno relays finding themselves populated with Ostrons and Solaris. This addition did not need to happen, because Cetus and Fortuna already do that worldbuilding, but it was nonetheless a welcome addition that players enjoyed, regardless of the work it took. For all the excuses you're conjuring up here, everywhere you look in Warframe there is an example that can be cited of the devs adding stuff for the sake of a cooler and more fun game, and not out of immediate necessity. You are grasping at straws here, and very obviously trying to dodge the point by writing a whole lot of stuff that says nothing in the end: say what you want, the fact remains that DE put time and resources into developing seasonal content that a) isn't strictly necessary to the game, b) doesn't contribute to monetization when it can be purchased for 1 credit, and c) doesn't even contribute to worldbuilding, unless you're willing to argue for the worldbuilding value of silly rabbit ears and pumpkin helmets. Moreover, you are using "worldbuilding" so liberally here as an excuse to justify any piece of superfluous content that it could be used to justify anything: case in point, innate weapons could absolutely contribute to worldbuilding by expanding upon warframes, developing upon their thematic, and offering a feel of the in-game universe that pure abilities alone may not be able to cover. Because I wanted you to say exactly what you said here, and thus prove my point. Make no mistake: I am absolutely, 100% in favor of content that is strictly not necessary to the game, that is in fact one of my central arguments, which is why I have just demonstrated to you that there is indeed value in adding features to a game that cannot be said to be strictly necessary. I absolutely love all of the features I brought up, which is precisely why I cited them as examples of content that is unnecessary, by your own standards, yet still valuable (in my opinion, at least, though many players seem to agree with me). Put another way: you are wrong to argue that the game should only include content that is deemed necessary, and argue against the inclusion of frame-specific weapons because of it, as the rationale you are using is absurd and leads to exactly the kind of ridiculous situation you have been so kind as to mention. No, we don't. We do not need the Somachord at all. We could easily just listen to the game's soundtrack on some site instead. The Somachord was not a necessary addition to Warframe, yet in my opinion, and presumably yours too, it was still a valuable addition. The same goes for many other non-monetized features that came with our Personal Quarters, like the Ludoplex, Frame Fighter (which arguably ended up not contributing that much to the game), articulas, and so on. Once again, I am applying your own logic here to show exactly what kind of a game you'd end up having if one followed it to the end. Warframe may not need that much content in the immediate, but all of this "unnecessary" content has contributed significantly to the game's enduring value in the bigger picture. The same can be argued for innate weapons on frames, due to the unique contributions they can bring to a frame's theme, gameplay, and general fantasy. And considering how this is a direct application of your own rationale, this inference comes from you, not me. It is impressive to see you destroy your own argument so thoroughly here: once more, I am 100% in favor of all of these "unnecessary" features, as I think almost all of them have been tremendously valuable to the game and my enjoyment of it, and would therefore call them useful. These are not, however, features that would pass under the standards you are setting for the purpose of this particular thread, because according to you on this thread, a feature is worth having only insofar as it is needed. I'm sorry, what should we be assuming from DE here? Why? Of course we shouldn't satisfy every single community requests on the mere basis that some would find them "fun and neat", because some of the suggestions made are detrimental to the game: a player might find it "fun and neat" to turn Warframe into a mobile tower defense game, but that is obviously not something most of the playerbase would want, because that's not the game we primarily want to play when we play Warframe. Similarly, a player might find it "fun and neat" to add a self-insert warframe to the game with eyes, a mouth and coherent speech, made up entirely of anime references, yet that is likely not something DE would want to add, because that would completely break with the aesthetic that they have set so far for their warframes (this is also why DE have refrained from adding more skins with the same aesthetic as Nova Visage, despite its immense success, as it breaks with the visual and thematic direction they've set for the rest of the game). There are valid reasons to not include every player suggestion ever made. However, no such justification has so far been given to oppose including more frame-specific weapons in the game; instead, you have simply tried to dismiss the proposal under the implication that, as a feature that wasn't immediately necessary to the game, it was not worth adding, which has led to the above logical conclusion of such a wrong-headed approach. So you bring up developer intention... just to say that you have no idea what the developers' intentions are? Why even bring them up, then? Moreover, your argument here makes exactly no sense, as Garuda's innate weapon was visibly a new feature the developers had tried out, with immense success, not the product of years of retroactive neglect. Moreover, while it is impossible to guess the developers' intentions, from the looks of it they're perfectly happy with giving frames bespoke weapons, as evidenced by Baruuk and now Hildryn: put another way, literally every single new frame since Garuda whose kit we've seen has been given an exclusive weapon, and yet here you are, stuck over a year in the past, still trying to act like frame-specific weapons are somehow rare, unprecedented, or unsuccessful. But they did, and you clearly see value in their additions. Thus, you are clearly exercising a double standard when it comes to judging the suggestion of innate weapons on frames, as opposed to literally any other piece of new content in Warframe. ... why? It is your own argument here that is vacuous, as the premise is false (I never assumed DE created content "for no reason", and I challenge you to quote me on that), and the mode of reasoning nonexistent (why is this statement unfalsifiable? I cited numerous examples, so there is a method of proof here). My point isn't that we should include content in Warframe on the mere basis of "why not?", my point is that it is perfectly valid to suggest new content in the game provided it is congruent to it (and it is, given how we already have Garuda's Talons), and that if your only counter-argument to that is "why is this necessary?", then you have no counter-argument to make. Which is precisely what you have done, and the reason why this discussion continues to be bogged down when people like you keep questioning whether we are even allowed to give feedback on a feedback forum. Where have I done this, pray tell? I have not dismissed any of your arguments out of hand, by the way, as I have made a consistent effort to back up my statements with examples and proper reasoning, and done the same when criticizing your own. There is a meaningful difference between having an opinion and simply saying something wrong, and the difference is that the latter can be argued, whereas the former cannot. You do not get to pretend like no-one else's opinion but your own is valid here, all while complaining that you can't make unsubstantiated or wrong claims without getting called out for it. This is, once again, a flat-out lie, as evidenced here: Repeating the same lie over and over again will not make it sound any truer, particularly when you are talking to someone who has been a part of this same discussion. Ergo, all of the above examples of how silly this reasoning is. Once more, there is a visible double standard at play here, where anything you personally do not consider necessary is not even worth considering, even though you are quite happy with plenty of other features in the game you also do not consider essential. Your statement here is a complete non-argument. That is not what entitlement means, and this argument as a whole makes exactly no sense. By that same token, the game is not being limited for having sub-par frames or weapons, you're just limiting yourself by wanting to play them in situations where they don't work well, such as any mission above Level 30. By this same reasoning, asking for any rework to a frame you like, particularly a frame that isn't doing poorly at all, is entitlement, and you should simply not post at all. Again, this is why your reasoning is dangerous, in addition to being entirely wrong: the fundamental intention here behind your arguments isn't to stimulate discussion or work with other players in an exchange of opinions, so much as outright silence this discussion and any opinion that disagrees with yours, under the basis that only your ideas are valid and everyone else's are only "entitlement". It is a mentality that is itself demonstrative of gross entitlement, and that is completely at odds with the very purpose of this discussion space. Because, once again, out of the entire set of possible weapons that could be included in Warframe, not all of them are weapons that make sense on all frames. It would not make very much sense for every frame to be able to use Garuda's claws, for example, because those are an extension of her own body and power, and the same could be said for pure elemental power being shot out of a frame like Volt or Ember. Thus, allowing for frames to have bespoke weapons would indeed open up a world of new avenues, because it could open up the possibility of weapons that wouldn't otherwise get included in the general roster. What I personally do not understand is why you believe conspicuously refusing to include these weapons in the game would somehow contribute positively to player choice or new gameplay. "Hey guys, this idea's crap because I said so. Look at my idea instead!" But yeah, no. Both examples you have given of "interactions" with specific weapon types are pure stat boosts, not genuinely new gameplay, and if you think about the thing you've proposed for even a little bit, it starts to break down very quickly, because there are huge differences in stats and gameplay among weapons of the same class, such that tacking on any additional effect onto them would have to be balanced along an incredibly wide spread, to say nothing of future additions. To take a random example: if Loki, for example, automatically dealt lethal damage to unalerted enemies with melee weapons, that'd sound great and would work essentially like Covert Lethality on most weapons... and then you'd get to the Redeemer Prime, whose ranged blast would then literally one-shot any unit at any time due to how its Blast proc has enemies briefly count as unalerted. There'd be whips to consider, whose range coupled with stealth would also one-shot crowds of enemies at a time. You could make the passive more specific to avoid these edge cases, but each further restriction would constrain choice, until the end result would basically just be another Covert Lethality. This is but one example, but I can guarantee you any frame-to-weapon effect with any gameplay is going to run into abuse cases like the above. This isn't to say that your suggestion is bad, per se, as it could produce some potentially interesting effects, it's just that balancing such a feature would be inherently messy, and could potentially even limit the design of further weapons, if said weapon would generate an abusive interaction with an existing frame passive. By contrast, because innate weapons are tied to individual frames, they'd only need to be balanced around that one frame, which would allow them to have much crazier gameplay that no general weapon could provide. And if she runs out of ammo, what happens? What does it even achieve to have to separate secondaries in two separate slots? So basically just a permanent movement speed boost, then, because you could just take an unsilenced weapon (which most weapons are, especially with standard builds) and run faster. I'm being unduly harsh here, but the point I'm trying to make is that you should not so lightly dismiss one feature you dislike in favor of one you like on the pure basis of opinion, because someone else can just as easily do what you've done here, and shoot your ideas down simply because they personally don't see the value in them. This is why we need to make an effort to acknowledge each other's opinions and not try to establish one's own preferences as fact. I personally do not see the value in your own suggestion, and I do think there are legitimate criticisms to make, but just like innate weapons, there is a precedent for what you're suggesting in the game, and it does not take much to think of how your suggestion could lead to some cool gameplay. That's fair, though one does not exclude the other. As mentioned above, I also do think innate weapons present distinct advantages over favored weapons, as they can be made to have much more tailored gameplay. Seeing how you've cited examples for your own proposal, it would only be fair for me to do the same (with placeholder ideas thrown out fairly lightly): Example 1, Harrow's Thurible: a slow, crit-based flail-like melee weapon with below-average damage but above-average range. Restores a small amount of Energy with each successful hit, and channeling 3 grants the Thurible a special attack on the next hit that deals bonus damage, increased on headshot. If you want to go even further, you could also have slam attacks chain enemies in Harrow's immediate vicinity on impact, and open them up for headshots. Example 2, Mesa's Regulators: fast-firing, crit-based dual pistols. Each headshot fired with these pistols grants Peacemaker a number of special shots when activated, allowing Mesa to shoot all enemies within line of sight in all directions and at full power for each of those shots. These don't have to be the pinnacle of stellar gameplay, but the basic gist of it is that these could be weapons with gameplay specific to the frames wielding them, in the above case by directly interacting with certain abilities. In both cases, these are weapons that likely wouldn't fit on every frame, but that could still be worth having around, particularly since the model's already there. An energy gauntlet =/= raw elemental power shooting directly out of one's hands. We already have an energy gauntlet, the Staticor, and while it allows for awesome Super Saiyan gameplay, it in no way emulates the gameplay one could expect to have from casting out flaming meteors, or throwing bolts of lightning like Zeus. This is, once again, why there is a space for more specific weapons. Because nobody other than Volt would make sense throwing out pure lightning from their fingertips. Even you know this, which is why you automatically went through some mental gymnastics to offer some ersatz weapon that in no way resembles the original suggestion. So, effectively, something that is in no way, shape or form what was originally suggested, because you yourself are aware that the original suggestion would not work as a weapon for all frames. Why go through all of this hassle when there's a perfectly good idea to start with? But I'm not suggesting something as vague as a "mage weapon" here, I'm suggesting something far, far more specific, i.e. pure fireballs or lightning each with their own mode of usage. Again, for all your talk about how innate weapons would somehow restrict avenues of gameplay, you are doing exactly what you've been cautioning against right now, by limiting your range of possibilities and bending perfectly good ideas out of shape just to make them conform to your own, more limited system. Your very opposition here is itself supporting evidence in favor of frame-specific weapons. Why is "why" an issue here? First of all, you are simply lying, as plenty of arguments have already made in favor of frame-exclusive weapons that go beyond pure opinion on aesthetic, but on top of that, as has already been discussed, you are asking for an exceptional amount of justification for a suggestion that few to no other proposals follow, not even ideas that have made it into the game, as mentioned above. Why? At the end of the day, you have produced exactly zero arguments against the inclusion of more frame-weapons other than a feigned lack of supporting argumentation, and the fact that Garuda's weapons have produced few to no drawbacks itself suggests the concept is unlikely to have that many issues. Let me just bring up what you wrote again, because you really don't seem to get it: You are explicitly trying to claim that these weapons would be detrimental to the owner frames. Once more, there is literally no point to lying when you can be and have been directly quoted on the matter, and trying to deny when you've been caught red-handed just makes you look even worse. Your entire line of argumentation here has been disingenuous, and has relied exclusively on unfounded opinion, wilful ignorance of arguments made here, and outright fabrication. Indeed, and even that little was enough for players to love this new feature and ask for many more frames to receive the same treatment. You are only supporting my point here: even the bare minimum is considered a major plus by many players, even if you personally do not see the value in it, so one can only imagine how much more value these innate weapons could bring if they had more interaction with specific frames and their kits. What else are you even trying to argue here? Twisting your words where? Again, I'm having trouble understanding how you're expecting to con anyone here when I have literally answered your direct quotes, point for point. I am not twisting your words, I am responding directly to things you have actually said. Every time you repeat the lie that the only argument made in favor of innate weapons here is "why not?" I can simply pull whichever paragraph made an argument and prove that you are lying, as has already been done. Garuda's passive is bonus damage based on her missing health. Trying to frame her innate weapon as "Garuda's passive" as if this were some intrinsic feature that only she should ever be allowed to have is a desperate reach, particularly when Baruuk and now Hildryn both have exclusive weapons of their own. And, just like Gupgork, you are automatically limiting yourself here by twisting a perfectly valid suggestion out of shape, and forcing it to turn into something it's not just to fit a restrictive idea of what counts as acceptable in Warframe. For all your talk about how you think there's nothing going for innate weapons, you yourself implicitly acknowledge that those weapons are capable of offering something normal weapons can't, in this case the ability to hurl fire or lightning directly from one's hands, rather than some device. By bending over backwards to distort and dismiss the ideas I proposed simply because of restrictions you have set for yourself, you have proven that innate weapons have a place in the game.
  2. One does not simply "enable" Archwing in regular missions. Archwing is technically separate from standard missions, as its implementation relies on shrinking the player's model to make maps look bigger, in addition to a whole other lot of technical wizardry, to the point where it is effectively almost a separate game of its own. Integrating it into the Plains was not a simple matter of flipping a switch, and it is obvious that atmospheric Archwing does not work like regular Archwing when the devs cannot easily allow players to use atmospheric Arch-Guns while in Archwing mode. It may certainly look like a simple switch at a very cursory glance, but that is only testament to the work the devs have put into it. This I completely agree with. Archwing was an experiment that I think was badly integrated from the game into the start, which is also likely why it's been so painful to tie it to the rest of the game. I completely agree that Archwing needs a redo, which I think will have to include an overhaul of its underlying tech, something that may happen with Railjack, as you mentioned. Indeed, and I feel Archwing as a travel tool has been counter-productive to some extent. Their immense speed and function as fast travel has mostly caused the wide maps of the Plains and Vallis to feel very small and uninteresting, as we whoosh above all of the hand-crafted scenery without interacting with it, and their inability to function in combat means we get denied one of the major reasons why Archwing was added to the game in the first place. I'd rather have an Archwing mode that'd be good at combat, but not amazing for fast travel, than the reverse, particularly if it means opening up a niche for K-Drives as the fastest mode of travel in the game.
  3. Teridax68

    Vallis enemies are terrible

    It is rather clear that you are confused, yes, and it's no surprise given that the internal logic you're running by makes no sense: you seem to be confusing difficulty with unpleasantness when the two are wholly separate. As already stated, Vallis enemies are easy to take on with properly geared frames, because ultimately we are so overpowered that we can essentially make ourselves immortal, kill everything in sight at the press of a button, and get to win no matter how many times we get knocked down or staggered. Even when a frame does get downed, they can be revived, an even when they die, there are more than enough revives for them to finish the mission. However, none of that gameplay is pleasant when control keeps getting removed from the player so frequently. Put another way, a game that pauses and starts back up again at random intervals may be trivially easy to finish, but would likely not be fun to go through. As such, knockdowns on enemies have failed to introduce any real difficulty to the game, and have instead made combat less fun, as noted by DE themselves. But as said already, we continue to be invincible, it's just that this invincibility is peppered with moments of total loss of control at random. Moreover, this isn't a thread to address difficulty in general, because that's a separate and much broader topic; this thread aims to address the design of Vallis enemies in particular. There are plenty of other threads suggesting to make the game more difficult that absolutely do not hinge upon more knockdowns: personally, for example, I've consistently advocated to nerf our power by making our Energy usage less trivial, flattening our scaling so that our weapons don't deal hundreds of times more damage than each other, and updating unhealthy abilities so that they involve legitimate interaction on the player's part, instead of just requiring a button press to auto-win fights. If you truly cared about difficulty in Warframe, you would realize that knockdowns are not the way to go, and do not address the core problem, which is our runaway scaling and ability usage. So just because your personal idea for difficulty in Warframe isn't feasible, we all have to settle for a model that doesn't work and is, by DE's own admission, unhealthy? Why? I can completely agree with you that Warframe is its own game, and so runs by its own rules in many respects. Not every game is balanced around freeform parkour at all times, but Warframe needs to factor that in, for example. However, this I think does show a path towards establishing difficulty in the game: when you look at the reasons why players trivialize gameplay today, it's because so many abilities and effects eliminate all interaction from combat. It's impossible to truly create any sort of difficulty when players can stun or kill enemies through walls, or press a button to make themselves immune to enemies via invisibility, on-demand massive protection, status immunity, and so on, all without making any effort to aim or manage one's abilities. This is a direct consequence of two things: a) poor ability design that banked too much on providing a spectacle, rather than interesting gameplay tools, and b) a broken Energy economy that causes most of our abilities to be spammed on-demand with little regards for resource conservation or pacing. It is these two aspects that we need to tackle if the game is to be able to provide a challenge, and failing that, no amount of enemy knockdown and stagger spam is going to make the game any less trivially easy. What exactly are you suggesting here? Are you saying players should intentionally hamstring themselves if they want to try to experience difficulty in the game? Why does that make sense? As said already, you're not offering advice, you're smugly trying to portray yourself as more skilled and enlightened than the rest of us because you apparently know The TruthTM about Warframe's difficulty. As it stands, I can bet you everyone here is well aware of frames with status immunity, which is why Inaros and Oberon are commonly seen in Profit-Taker fights. At the end of the day, not only is your "advice" unhelpful (Vallis enemies are still poorly designed, and one shouldn't have to limit oneself to a small handful of frames just to avoid dealing with unpleasant design), it also completely defeats your own point, as by your own admission it is trivially easy to cheese Vallis enemies by bringing in frames that can completely ignore knockdown. If you yourself admit that your Nyx example made no sense, then, why pick her? You had many more frames to choose from that would be perfect examples of how to counter Vallis enemies, like Oberon, Chroma, Inaros, or even Nekros, yet for some reason you decided to pick a frame anyone with any experience in the Vallis knows is an especially poor choice. Have you even played Fortuna content? All this bragging is very nice, but what do you have to back this up? Considering your track record on this thread, all of this feels like a desperate attempt to come across as more skilled than others, regardless of any supporting evidence, rather than a genuine argument, particularly since your anecdotal example ultimately means nothing here in the face of the balancing of the Vallis, a problem that, once again, DE themselves have acknowledged. I do have fun, that's why I play Warframe. However, as a human being capable of nuanced opinion, I can also easily see that the game isn't perfect, and that some portions of its content are not fun, even though the game pushes its players to go through it. It is rather silly to accuse people giving valid criticism of being joyless, and your constant attempts to put down people who dare criticize the game comes across as fanboyish and insecure. It is okay to criticize the game, and in fact it is a necessary thing to do if the game is to continue improving. Case in point: DE openly stated on a recent dev stream that they listened to our feedback, and decided they were going to tackle difficulty differently in Warframe. Bashing people for daring to offer criticism not only suggests you aren't having as much fun as you'd like to pretend, it's simply not good for productive discussion or the game itself. Warframe did not grow because DE listened only to the sycophantic yes-men telling them that everything is perfect and nothing needs to change; the game has grown and improved by leaps and bounds precisely because DE has done a pretty good job of listening to players pointing out the game's flaws, and opportunities for the game to develop. Discussions like the ones opened by the OP here are vital to this game and its continued growth; meanwhile posts like yours, which take the false position of upholding the status quo with the pure intent of talking down to other players, only bog down the process. Right at the start of your last post: Your central argument so far has been to claim that CC spam from enemies is meant to be the game's, and therefore the devs' intended way of injecting difficulty into the game. None of your arguments even begin to make sense unless one relies on the presumption that DE's official stance is for Warframe to offer difficulty through knockdowns and staggers to the player. If this assumption were false (and it is), then knockdown spam wouldn't be the devs' intended mode of difficulty, and so wouldn't be the One True WayTM of introducing difficulty as you've tried to claim here. I suggest you take your own advice, as you talk big game, yet demonstrate a severe degree of ignorance as to how gameplay in the Vallis actually works. I, for one, have played through it extensively on a bunch of different frames, and have settled on a few optimal ones that do their job well: like I said, Chroma is the best frame for Profit-Taker combat, yet that does not prevent gameplay from being annoying when I cannot go more than a few seconds without getting CCed one way or another. Oberon certainly has the advantage of status immunity, armor reduction and radiation damage, and so is a viable pick, but is still suboptimal relative to Chroma due to his lack of weapon damage steroids. At the end of the day, I haven't been putting words in your mouth, as I've quoted you and responded to you point for point. Moreover, that very accusation is itself a clear case of projection: it is you who have been accusing others here of finding Vallis content impossible to beat, and of wanting an easy, unchallenging game, and so despite a patent lack of evidence. Just so that this doesn't get forgotten, you have been asked to provide evidence, any evidence, in support of these disparaging claims, and so far your response has been to dodge the question entirely and repeat yourself, in some desperate attempt to pretend like nobody called you out on your crap. Your entire rhetoric here has been founded upon lies and a wilful misrepresentation of the people you disagree with and their position. As such, you do not get to play the victim here when all you have done in this thread is talk down condescendingly to players making valid criticism, in this misguided and hilariously self-defeating ploy to make yourself look better by comparison.
  4. Teridax68

    Built in weapons

    You are not a dozen people, and not even half that amount has opposed the change proposed here. Moreover, for whichever dozen people stay here to oppose the thread each time it gets posted, there are dozens more posts coming from many different players making the exact same request. None of this, by the way, does anything to discount the fact that you are still arguing from opinion, as you are not providing any concrete basis from your arguments other than your own feelings, feelings that are inevitably shared by a select few others. You do not even have a consensus, you simply have a tiny number of people who happen to agree with you, unless you somehow believe twelve is a significant portion of Warframe's playerbase. In which case it should be easy to point to wherever the devs said it would be too much work to add more innate weapons. Which you haven't done. As said above, the devs do work hard, but they visibly spend plenty of time working on non-essential features, as noted by the new hacking minigame, so your argument by assertion here has already been answered multiple times in this thread. Warframes literally can be brought for Platinum though. They are a part of Warframe's sales model, and a major one at that. I don't think I'm the one getting confused here. Moreover, the claim that innate weapons would add no value to frames is not only itself pure, unsubstantiated opinion, but is itself a lie, as noted by the success of Garuda's innate weapons and the many requests it has generated for follow-ups. So then why oppose innate weapons? This is, after all, feedback on frames that could make them work better. Your argument here is completely hypocritical. I'm sorry, what's stopping an innate weapon from making a frame work better? You are lying here once again by making outlandish claims that can be easily disproven, again as noted by current examples. Also, if you don't want to use a melee weapon, simply do not use Garuda's talons, or the equivalent. No one is forcing you to press the melee button, and you don't even have a loss in aesthetics, as Garuda has her claws on regardless. You are grasping at straws here and desperately relying on a non-argument to pretend like innate weapons have drawbacks. Suggesting fixes to flaws is not the total extent of frame feedback, and you know this. This is why your own Zephyr threads not only aim to fix her perceived flaws, but make her feel better to play by whichever standard you have set. Once more, the suggestion for innate weapons falls very much under the same umbrella, and trying to create this artificial distinction between two perfectly valid pieces of feedback undermines your credibility not only on this thread, but for your own proposals regarding Zephyr, as all the criticisms you are laying out here could easily be applied to your own feedback. I'm sorry, where exactly has any player expressed entitlement towards innate weapons? Where has any player claimed here that they were entitled to this feature any more than any other form of feedback? Once again, you are lying here, and relying on tired dog whistles to frame those whose feedback you disagree with as "entitled", all while claiming that you yourself are entitled to DE's attention and effort towards a frame that is nowhere near at the top of the rework priority list. Moreover, there is discussion to be had, and this discussion could in fact have a chance to be even more interesting if you were to refrain from questioning the very concept of feedback when it comes from someone other than yourself. There's plenty of room to discuss how this could be implemented, how to address whichever concerns some players may have regarding their implementation, which weapons different frames could have, which gameplay these weapons could provide, and so on. Once again, it is perfectly valid to not like the idea, but your aggressive, vocally minoritary opposition to this suggestion is the reason why discussion has not moved beyond justifying the basic fact that players are free to give feedback, and you do not get to police them based on your own personal agenda. You are not entitled to gatekeep the Warframe forums, nor are you entitled to DE's special attention over any other player. Except many arguments have already been provided on this thread, and you are visibly far too emotionally compromised in this argument to even pretend to play devil's advocate. It is not demonstrative of a scientific mind to lie and deliberately engage in fallacious rhetoric to argue one's point, or to ignore evidence clearly presented in front of oneself when it does not suit one's personal opinions. If you truly did not care, you would not have spent this much time repeating the same tired arguments over and over again, and drafting a storm in a teacup all to silence the mere possibility of suggesting this sort of change, let alone its implementation. I don't think you understand what "objective" means. I raised the very simple point that innate weapons can satisfy thematic and gameplay niches for weapons that wouldn't be appropriate to every frame, and cited the example of thunderbolts for Volt. You may not find the idea of throwing bolts of lightning personally interesting, but the fact remains that this is a clear example of a weapon that would be appropriate as an innate weapon, but not as a general weapon. Thus, there is objectively a currently unexplored niche for weapons that innate weapons can fulfil, but general weapons cannot. Beyond this, many more arguments have been given as to why there is value to having these innate weapons, as noted by the popularity of the suggestion itself, so your repeated, desperate pretense here that only a single argument was uttered in their favor is itself an easily disproven lie. Again, if you're such "a scientific mind", why do you feel the need to lie so often and so brazenly in this argument? I don't think you understand what entitlement means. To be clear, entitlement is when one feels one is owed something: in this particular case, while there are certainly players who have suggested innate weapons on frames, and who'd very much like to see them happen, exactly no-one here has expressed the notion that DE somehow owes it to them to make these weapons. Once more, this is a double standard you are drawing here between your own feedback and everyone else's that is not only dishonest, but dangerous, as it is founded upon a fundamental disrespect for others and their opinions. As mentioned above, this is the absolute last thing one needs on a feedback forum, and your behavior here has been visibly detrimental to any productive discussion. When has anyone said that this was a need? More generally, what is a need in Warframe? To you or me, Vauban certainly needs a rework if he is to become viable, for example, but in the grand scheme of things, if Vauban were to never receive any changes in the future, and Warframe puttered on while leaving him to rot, the game as a whole would still do just fine. Thus, there is no need at the game level for any one frame to receive changes, at least not in the game's current state. Framing the validity of any sort of feedback in terms of wants vs. need is therefore pointless, but also disingenuous, as few other threads here are held to this same standard, not to mention dangerous, as this sort of mentality can be and is easily weaponized to dismiss any feedback one personally doesn't like, as evidenced by some users in this very thread. And yet DE is spending time on a new hacking minigame no-one needs, and has expended considerable amounts of effort throughout the whole of the game's development on features that were in no way necessary. We did not need relays populated with denizens of Cetus or Fortuna, nor did we need the Grineer on the radio, or any of the seasonal decorations that can be bought for one credit, all of which took modeling work, and in some cases sound design. The Earth tileset did not need plantlife covering the ground, our ships did not need a somachord capable of playing the game's soundtrack on command for free, and Garuda did not need her talons as a bespoke melee weapon. Yet here we are. Put simply, the notion that DE is laser-focused on only delivering essential content that we need the most is a myth, and always has been. For sure, DE works hard, some projects are more urgent than others, and some suggestions would take more work to implement than others, but at the end of the day, the devs have been expending considerable effort on a regular basis to deliver us content that is cool, for the sake of cool content rather than immediate monetization. It is, in fact, one of the major reasons why Warframe is so well-loved by the community, because DE will take the time to deliver cool ideas because hey, why not? Why not have pet cats and a pump-action shotgun? Why not have a dedicated photography tool and a whole slew of intricate Dojo decorations? Even if the only argument in favor of frame-specific weapons was "why not?", that would still be a valid argument. The real question to ask here is: why are a vocal minority of people applying this exceptionally stringent standard to this one particular type of suggestion, and not to every other one being made in this space? This isn't to say that "why not?" is the only argument in favor, by the way. If you scroll up on this thread, or even just this post, there are plenty more reasons to support the inclusion of more innate weapons in the game. Within the set of all possible things that can be implemented as a fun and interesting weapon, only a partial subset of those are covered by our current, general weapons. If you want to include, say, missiles of pure flame, bolts of pure lightning, or simply weapons protruding from a specific frame's body, that's not really going to work for everyone, only one specific warframe. To refuse to include more innate weapons in Warframe is to refuse to ever include these sorts of weapons, and that begs the question: why? Why should we not have these weapons in Warframe? Why should the game limit itself by not even considering their inclusion?
  5. I feel there's a double standard at play here: from what you've been saying, simply having a couple of airborne enemies, e.g. more Dargyns, Dregs or the flying Corpus enemies we have in Archwing missions would apparently is too much work to consider, but according to you DE's previous work in recoding the whole of Archwing Mode just to make it fit in this entirely new framework is not a lot of work. How does that make sense? I personally feel it's much simpler: DE was clearly afraid that players would have too easy a time if they fought in Archwing mode for any extended amount, so they gave anti-Archwing weaponry to too many units as overcompensation. I don't really think there needs to be an entire other hidden system for this to be true.
  6. Teridax68

    K-Drives could be perfect with only a few adjustments

    The problem with all this is that K-Drives are already plenty interesting; there's just no reason to use them. We're a few months in and this entirely new, amazing vehicle is used so little outside of personal grinding that it may as well not exist. Even the situation you talk about pales in comparison to a weapon like the Lenz, or a great deal many warframe abilities, and is further undermined by the fact that, unlike Archwing, K-Drives do not let the player use weapons or abilities at all. I also feel it's not a particularly great direction to set for the K-Drive to make its only practical use that of a weapon, when the vehicle itself could be perfect for high-speed travel and performing tricks. I also do think that, independently of K-Drives, there are valid reasons to nerf Archwing: as it exists, Archwings are way too fast, and make gigantic maps like the Plains of Eidolon or Orb Vallis feel tiny, simply because one can travel from one end of the map to the other in seconds. It is also this speed that forces enemies in those large levels to have anti-air weaponry that automatically knocks the player out of Archwing, because we'd otherwise be able to use our speed and height to remove even more interaction from combat. Archwing's already great as a mode of traversal simply because of how it enables three-dimensional movement; it therefore does not need to also be the fastest vehicle in the game to be desirable. Thus, nerfing the speed of Archwing, and drastically buffing the boosted speed of K-Drives, could give both a solid place as vehicles in Warframe, and potentially make both even more fun in the process.
  7. Teridax68

    The Scaling Renaissance

    This is true, but many of the core mechanics, namely damage types, enemy health, and enemy scaling, have remained largely the same since Damage 2.0. It is therefore possible to look back upon how the advent of new damage mods, and the increases they've brought, have forced raises in enemy levels just to keep up. Even without a record, we already have full knowledge of exactly how each enemy scales, and the base health, armor and shield values for them, as well as the multiplier we get from our own mods, so it's perfectly possible to construct a mathematical model and test hypotheses.
  8. Teridax68

    Volt: Armor

    I don't think Volt needs armor, though I do feel he could stand to benefit from immunity frames while casting Discharge, as it's his main source of survivability besides his deployable shield, and locks him in place over a fairly long animation, thereby acting as a self-stun. As others have mentioned, Volt is a frame whose defenses come primarily from CC and shields, rather than health or armor, so in this respect giving him more armor may not even benefit him that much relative to many other frames.
  9. Teridax68

    Volt Speed constant recasts need to be elminated

    I agree with the others here: Speed likely needs to be opt-in, rather than opt-out, and so while DE did attempt unsuccessfully to do this via a speed pickup, there are many more options to try: having multiple of those speed shrines drop periodically so that players don't have to backtrack could be one solution, for example. More generally, any sort of ally-affecting mechanic that can negatively affect the player's gameplay I think needs to be opt-in, as every time an ability affects other players without their consent, it inevitably generates complaints (Limbo is another major example of this).
  10. Teridax68

    Built in weapons

    This I think sums up most of this discussion. Putting aside how I feel there are legitimate reasons to include innate weapons beyond just "why not", at the end of the day the feature as discussed so far presents no real drawbacks, aside from preventing some people from cheesing Affinity distributions quite as hard on certain frames. It is perfectly valid to not personally see value in innate weapons, or to believe that other features in the game need more urgent work (I 100% agree that there are other things to prioritize first in the current state of the game), but it is utterly weird to take that personal opinion and try to bash everyone else over the head with it in a full-blown argument. If you truly believe that your personal preferences are the only ones that matter and worth catering to, and that everyone else's needs to be silenced if they disagree with yours, then you have utterly failed to understand the very notion of feedback, public forums, and plurality of opinions, and are better off spending your time elsewhere. I'm sorry, the claws Garuda has on her arms at all times, which she uses as part of her ability set, are only "vaguely Garuda flavored"? The amount of spin being put on this argument is dizzying. At the end of the day, her claws are their own melee weapon, and do happen to have by far the highest attack range among all claw weapons, so the weapon is in fact unique, despite not requiring much effort to make. It's a nice bit of additional flavor and gameplay that players wanted, players got, and players appreciated, which is precisely why there have been so many requests for more innate weapons. This argument is utterly devoid of meaning: what is the actual reason why something fun shouldn't be added to a video game? Sure, the Arca Titron is beautifully designed, but what does that have to do with Garuda's Talons? Why shouldn't they have been added to the game again? "Questionably useful" how? Of course the weapon's useful, it's a decent melee weapon and it allows players to fulfil the fantasy they got from seeing her of being able to slice people with her claws. The fact that you personally do not see the value in this, or in any other innate weapon, has no bearing on the fact that many players do in fact like the feature and want more of it. Put another way, just because you personally do not see a reason to get excited about all of these potential innate weapons does not mean no reason exists, or that everyone shares your opinion, and it is this fundamental refusal to acknowledge other people's point of view that is at the core of your argumentation. ... why? Also, this is a flat-out lie, as the weapon looks and feels flavorful to Garuda, despite the minimal work that went into them. Again, you are projecting your own personal preferences regarding Garuda's talons onto everyone else here. You are not wrong to feel whichever way you feel about Garuda or her innate weapons, but that does not entitle you to pretend like everyone else feels the same way you do. ... to you. Again, this is purely your own opinion, which you are trying to assert as fact. Moreover, the argument is itself logically fallacious: just because flavorful weapons exist that aren't highly specific to a particular warframe does not mean the game cannot have fun, flavorful, frame-exclusive weapons, as noted above already with the example of, say, pure lightning bolts for Volt. It does not take that much imagination to think of weapons that could provide fun and novel gameplay, but that would only really make sense on a particular frame, so there is absolutely a niche worth exploring here. So you do not, in fact, have any evidence that even remotely suggests that DE is introducing this new hacking minigame with the intention of having it replace the current Corpus hacking minigame, and make the one we have now exclusive to the Corrupted. Got it. Why would it be cool, though? Ash's passive isn't some new item to play with, it's a pure numbers buff to Slash, and unlike innate weapons, there is a distinct reason not to generalize it to all frames, because Slash as it currently exists is already far too strong, and buffing it would make the game even more unbalanced. Adding new innate weapons, by contrast, would not unbalance the entire game, and the fact that they'd be restricted to individual frames means they'd actually be easier to balance than all other weapons, as even the most OP innate weapon wouldn't become meta on all other frames.
  11. Teridax68

    Built in weapons

    But that's an incredibly niche function that can easily be satisfied with any other frame. You don't stop from leveling, you just level a little slower. How is that a valid excuse to hold off on an entire gameplay feature? ... that's not how options work, though? Loki can play perfectly fine without Irradiating Disarm, for example, but if he equips it and the right mods, he can fulfil an entirely different function, and benefit from entirely new gameplay. Just because Garuda can play without her talons doesn't mean the feature is worthless, as her innate weapon remains flavorful and enjoyable to use. And this is relevant to the point... how? Sure, Garuda's innate weapon would benefit better from crit over status, and her kit doesn't support her intended melee playstyle, but then again, so what? Why is this an argument against giving more frames innate weapons of their own? And this has been said where, exactly? The only thing I saw showcased was just this one new minigame, with different gameplay from the one we have now, and with specific reference to Alad V. Yes, and? Or, conversely, that they may very much agree with. You are in no position to say, because you are not one of the people doing the work. You do not get to speak on those people's behalf. What you can, though, is offer your own feedback and present your own opinion, without having to hide behind the presumption of someone else's. Sure, right after you step into the London, Ontario offices and personally rework Zephyr yourself. Because that's apparently how feedback works. But honestly, though, this is one of the most stultifying arguments I've seen on the forums thus far. Apparently, it is not worth suggesting novel, interesting and fun gameplay for a video game in ongoing development, nor is one allowed to provide feedback on the feedback forums unless that feedback passes your personal taste test. You are in absolutely no position to try to bully other people into not giving feedback when you have personally made thread upon thread asking for DE to rework Zephyr, a frame that is by no means among the worst right now. At the end of the day, this once again boils down to you hiding behind DE to pass your own opinions as theirs: this isn't really about DE needing to better spend their time elsewhere, this is about you wanting DE to spend time working only on the issues you care about, and nothing else. As already stated above, DE are demonstrably not masters of optimizing their production pipeline, and after 2018 this fact has become general knowledge, so trotting out that excuse to dismiss any feedback you personally don't agree with is not going to lend you any credibility. You are not the majority of players. Again, you keep inflating your own opinion here to dangerous degrees with exactly zero substance behind it: I get it, you don't want this change to happen, that doesn't mean that there aren't many more people who do want it, as noted by the many threads and different proposals that keep popping up from different players asking for the same thing. There is absolutely gain to the people doing the work, as warframes are a product, and they'd be increasing the value of their product. Because so many innate weapons already have models on frames, and as evidenced by Garuda's pretty simple innate weapons, it does not take as much added work to include said weapons as producing a brand new one, meaning DE gets to reuse their assets in ways players would accept and enjoy. Perfect! Clearly, then, that means Zephyr does not, and never will need a rework, and you can stop posting more threads about her. 😉 But seriously though, this argument is inane, not to mention incredibly hypocritical given your history on these forums. DE, like any other video game, has a production pipeline where they tackle issues in sequence, rather than everything at once, so it's rather obvious that they'd focus on reworking a few problem frames at a time, rather than update the whole roster immediately. Moreover, even in the case where DE believes a frame is fine, they also change their minds over time, as noted by the changes to Titania in spite of her fairly recent design. Additionally, a frame need not be in the dumpster for it to be deserving of feedback: whether DE chooses or not to work on that feedback sooner, later or never is up to them, but the feedback itself is worth having at any given time, so it is perfectly valid to give criticism and suggestions to frames that are doing decently, or even well. Just to pick an example you know well, Zephyr is in a pretty okay state right now, as she received a rework recently, has a place in the game, and is far more functional than before, yet you clearly see fit to ask for more, when frames like Vauban clearly need more urgent work than she does. In the case of this particular thread, though, giving older frames innate weapons isn't a rework, it's a pure optional addition to their gameplay. In this respect, it's much closer to offering an augment to these frames (which happens regularly, despite many of these augments requiring new animations, tech, additional work, etc.), than to reworking them in any capacity. They did with the Cobra and Crane. The interaction with Baruuk was so niche and difficult to appreciate that it took over a week after release for people to even notice that it existed. No thanks, if we're going to be doing weapons with particular interaction with frames, you might as well make those weapons innate to said frames. Moreover, what you are proposing in fact reduces the scope of potential options: if Volt is allowed to have literal bolts of pure lightning as an innate weapon, that would make perfect sense on him, but absolutely wouldn't on any other frame. In your proposed system, because every weapon would be expected to work with every frame, such a potentially awesome innate weapon wouldn't even be allowed to exist. ... to you. Sure, but why should that be the case? Does Garuda's innate weapon need to be a feature exclusive only to a certain frame? Perhaps you may not be enthusiastic at the idea of having more innate weapons, but that does not justify your enthusiastic opposition to them, particularly as valid arguments have been provided (which you have dismissed out of hand) for their continued inclusion and generalization. You think Slash needs a buff?
  12. Archwing in open worlds is rigged differently from Archwing in the rest of the game's content, and specifically includes our normal weapons, which typical Archwing does not. It is therefore clearly something DE has put work into, even if the feature is still to this day incomplete. Unless someone at DE specifically mentioned they didn't want players to engage in combat while in Archwing, the above is also pure conjecture. Ultimately, we're not disagreeing, I just don't think there's any evidence DE specifically intended for us to not engage in Archwing combat when there is clear balance and rigging work that went into it.
  13. Teridax68

    Built in weapons

    Because the Corpus already have a hacking minigame. Why do they need two? Moreover, the same argument can be made for warframes: if Garuda got her talons as an innate weapon, why can't every other frame with a cool weapon as well? Sure, but DE does not have a team dedicated to making new hacking minigames, they allocate resources from common pools towards different aspects of the game. The company's production pipeline for Warframe is clearly not optimized, and DE themselves said as much with regards to 2018. There isn't any gain... to you, and that's ultimately what your argument boils down to. For others, myself included, there visibly is, as I mentioned above. Also, if a weapon has to be balanced like a regular weapon... why would it be worse than regular weapons, again? Like I said, it's an opportunity to have these weapons have unique mechanics in relation to their owner frame that regular weapons simply cannot have, at least not without having the mechanic be useless for every frame but one (e.g. the Cobra and Crane), so there definitely is a novel and potentially quite fun space to explore here. Because they'd open up flavor and potentially new gameplay? Sure, Mesa can just press 4 to kill anything she wants, which is also why she doesn't use her 1 at all, but by that same token, Garuda can completely ignore her talons, and just cast and shoot enemies to death. Despite this, Garuda has her talons as innate weapons, because those are a cool and fun thing to have. ... why would it interfere with leveling? Again, all of this is ultimately nothing but your own opinion, an opinion itself supported only by vague value judgments, rather than any concrete explanation. Why doesn't it have a purpose? Why does it not "sound even remotely fun"? I personally think those could be quite fun, particularly since Garuda's talons were well-received.
  14. Teridax68

    Leveling companions has very little player interaction.

    Companions in general lack interactivity imo, which is why I think leveling them similarly feels boring, and why the system needs a redo. Ideally, they should exist to open up new gameplay opportunities in the middle of combat, but in practice they mostly boil down to some additional stats and Vacuum/Fetch. Leveling companions has little player interaction because there isn't actually that much to companions that players can play off of. If there were legitimate gameplay players could initiate or respond to with companions, that gameplay could be made a source of companion Affinity, which would make the companion leveling process interactive.
  15. Teridax68

    Built in weapons

    And yet DE sees fit to spent their precious time and resources on utterly unnecessary features that are still fun to have, like an entirely new hacking system just for the new Corpus Gas City tileset. For sure, DE can only work on so many features at once, but let's not pretend that they're optimizing their work pipeline to the finest degree, or steering clear of flavorful additions to the game. Innate weapons have the potential to introduce unique gameplay and play off of frames in ways no other weapon can, which is why I personally feel the way forward should be to develop on them, not restrict them to one gimmick on a single frame.