Jump to content

(XBOX)ShonFr0st

Xbox Member
  • Content Count

    386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

777

About (XBOX)ShonFr0st

  • Rank
    Silver Disciple

Recent Profile Visitors

469 profile views
  1. Yeah, your list is mostly a disingenuous repetition of "hard cc and death". It's honestly fairly easy to imagine a setting where enemies can do something, and it all starts with a system where the player has some weakness. By that, I don't mean the dark souls strawman people like to throw around here, I mean that there's a baseline set of comparable outputs a player should fall into, regarding damage, cc and survivability, against which enemies can be tuned. For damage and survivability, that just means moving some numbers to be closer together, and scaling down multipliers. For CC, first and
  2. Challenge boils down to engagement, and engagement boils down to having to react to stimuli in specific timeframes, or suffer a degree of consequence. A game where everything one shots you with hitscan weaponry isn't challenging for example, just unfairly difficult. Warframe's biggest issue is that it allows to outsource every mechanic to a passive procedure through gear, and not only does it give you such an option, it actively encourages it with enemy design and mission structure. Offense can be simplified from using aim and matching weaknesses to overkill area damage, with all enemies
  3. Living proof of this is Motus Setup. Much easier to proc, comparable bonuses, and yet... no one uses it anyway.
  4. On the "it isn't equal part": that's a fair criticism, my bad for not reading the numbers properly. That said, the concept of the proposal still stands, and numbers can be tweaked accordingly. I'd honestly be very much in favor of balancing the numbers so that enemies end up buffed when the dust has settled, both from a practicality standpoint (getting a perfectly equal ratio of dps/ehp nerf is admittedly hard, especially considering the amount of different units we have), and a gameplay standpoint (enemies are too weak, particularly heavies). But, this definitely helps in solving the is
  5. What didn’t you get about nerfing enemy EHP and nerfing player damage output equally? The aim of the proposed change isn’t to make the game harder or easier, but just to make sure that some weapons don’t have 4x the dps of others, even inside the same MR bracket.
  6. Personally, I believe Railjack represents the future of the game, it is a brilliant way to unify and expand Warframe's combat, elevating it to new heights. That is, if DE doesn't keep stripping away its uniqueness by making it just "bigger archwing". The coop aspect of Railjack is one of its greatest strength, and it is incredibly hypocritical how DE always pushes for variety of content, even when it's unneeded (I'll touch on Necramechs later...), and yet the moment that content strays from the beaten path of "solo spamfest", they suddenly deem it "not Warframe" and change it to fit that visio
  7. This, absolutely. Weakpoint enemies like the Nox and the Saxum (no immunity, but high DR) are a great way to increase engagement, but for some reason DE always pairs them with the jankiest animation sets possible. There's no point in an enemy with a weak point behind its back, if they can turn as fast as you can get behind them, or if their weak point bounces around so much that you empty entire magazines seeing only the "0"s of immunity or outright missing your shots. I'm looking at you, aerolyst. That unit has a great design on paper, a tough healer that is thus a priority target, but the ex
  8. Well, can't be harder if you can spam avionics to your heart's content. Either they put out the Railjack variant of nullifiers/ability immune enemies, which would be an absolutely awful design choice, or they revert back to a system with more controllable variables such as flux. But, since they haven't even acknowledged the balance feedback around energy on the Devstream, I believe they'll keep going in the usual direction, ergo completely braindead content with grind walls to pad out reward acquisition.
  9. I used to stay on forge a good while back when Railjack on consoles had the sort of population that allowed squad-play, I find support roles fun if they give you a variety of things to manage, and launch Railjack had that- frequent need of repairs, constant demand for dome charges/flux, repelling boarders. Now you can bypass most of that through avionics (Artillery cheap shot was a mistake, it should work only on missed strikes), repairs were made scarce and largely inconsequential with the first railjack revisited, and while I haven't experienced it firsthand, resource pools were made individ
  10. God, no. If some options are better, why would you purposefully gimp yourself? There's no "choice" if a strategy is the de facto best solution. The Exploiter comparison is also not appropriate, since we had customization that mattered for the energy system on the Railjack already. Exploiter effectively nullifies your gear choices because you don't fight with guns, but with canisters, and you can't customize canisters. Here we are talking about moving Railjack's energy economy on the freaking Railjack, not outsourcing it to the frame. Your warframe choice in Railjack has another purpose: dealin
  11. Yeah, and bypassing the forge is exactly one of the issues, it makes one of engineering's main tasks pointless and throws balance out of the window. I've already explained why being able to circumvent the change doesn't justify its existence. Lastly, complexity does not mean difficulty, but considering the rest of your prose it seems quite evident that grasping similar nuances is a bit out of reach.
  12. Honestly, the more reason to keep the two aspects separated in terms of builds. You already have build concerns with the objective at hand outside of piloting the railjack, the additional encumbrance of energy powering battle avionics just removes variety, because you gain absolutely nothing from not running a high energy build. And, if Railjack is expanded upon to include more activities, it will make even less sense to randomly tie warframe energy to the ship. The rationale behind the choice was to make Railjack feel "connected" to the base game, but it's just unnecessary, artificial complex
  13. Yes you can work around it, but why should you in the first place? Stat sticking is conceptually and mechanically stupid, and it makes even less sense in the context of railjack. It just forces unnecessary metas and makes the whole system much more fragile in terms of balance and future additions, since it has a bajillion more variables. There is no reasonable explanation from moving away from flux and no real benefit, except "haha seeker volley go brr lolz" and "let's make engineer even more useless".
  14. Sure that works as well, the important part is going back to flux, or at any rate not rely on warframe energy
×
×
  • Create New...