PublikDomain

I mean yeah, Supporter packs have always been exclusive, time-gated, cash-only offerings. And DE just put three of them on the market permanently back in March. Until then they had never returned, ever. They were exclusive and available for a limited time and you had to get them before they were gone. There are also for example the Avia Prime armor set and other Twitch Prime/Prime Gaming cosmetics which were Some were even "exclusive": Twitch Prime/Amazon Prime being paid-for (third party) services. And now anyone can buy them from Varzia at any time. So they're not exclusive anymore. I would imagine the most recent Verv set of cosmetics will go the same way despite being just as exclusive to Prime Gaming members: Etc. Supporter packs weren't worded to ever return either. They were marketed as "exclusive". Can they really be exclusive if they would later become permanent market additions (for plat no less)? If they were exclusive to cash-only buyers who bought during the original promotion then that exclusivity has certainly changed. And why do the ads say to get them "before they’re gone" if they're just gonna come back later? You'd think if they were going to return in the future, then yes like you say they would've worded it that way. But they didn't, not for Supporter packs which returned anyways nor for Heirlooms. They marked them the same as all of the other exclusives that have inevitably returned anyways.

It's probably the drop from the Fragmented One since the last stage was an Assassinate. I got a Fortification as well, which is on its drop table.

I mean, it should. Let's be honest for a second: the only reason DE gets a pass on Founders having a permanently unobtainable 12,000 extra Mastery and 2 unique gameplay items for the rest of all time is because of the mythos DE has constructed around the Founders program. They "saved the company" and so on and the story has been repeated long enough that the community gives this one thing a pass. But in every single other case ever, all gameplay items return. Primed Chamber, Braton/Lato Vandal, Prime Access, Nightwave Augments, event rewards, Twitch weapons, etc. They always come back. And in many cases, even as recently as a few months ago, previously unobtainable cosmetics eventually return as well. This, despite DE originally advertising this content with the same kinds of "exclusive" "for a limited time" "get them before they’re gone" as Heirlooms. The Deimos Supporter packs being just one example, which used the same kind of language and is now permanently available on the ingame market. The only particular difference with Heirlooms is that DE had an additional FAQ where they spelled that exclusivity out. Devil's Advocate has to contend with the fact that "exclusives" often aren't actually all that exclusive.

It's a bit chicken and egg-y. Either way though the choice to trivialize things can be disrupted by A) reducing the amount players' choices can trivialize things (like by addressing inherent problems with the game design or adding new debuffs and modifiers) or B) by changing how the choice itself is made (like by incentivizing choosing a specific random item). While I don't agree that the former would be catastrophic, it's definitely harder to do than the latter. But does that actually retain an equivalent challenge? Since players can and do regularly play the game at levelcap with no issues when they have an unrestricted loadout, what does "much much higher level enemies" actually mean? Lvl1,000? Lvl9,999? And is my preferred unrestricted loadout going to be capable of doing the same content as your preferred unrestricted loadout? Can modifiers really be ramped up to 11 or can they just be countered and trivialized like they already can be now? I just don't believe that there's any room left to go up when players are free to do whatever they want, not when that freedom is the freedom to ramp everything down to 0 and make everything easy. When we're all randomized you have just as much chance to be randomized to the same level of power I am. It does at least work, side-effects aside.

Probably not. Here's a snippet from the EU's advertising law: This is the general premise people are suggesting when they talk about "false advertising". Just... Just ignore the part that says these kinds of practices are probably deceptive and are unfair in all circumstances. Ignore that part. It's the idea that "if DE brought the packs back, they would have been lying in their original ad". That part makes sense, right? But the important limitation I've put in bold: when that is not in fact the case. They need to falsely state something for it to be false advertising. Currently, it is in fact the case that the Heirloom packs are time limited. DE said they would be time limited, and right now they are. There's nothing false about DE's statement that the availability is limited. The only way the claim would not be the case is if DE actually planned all along to bring them back at a later date. DE made a truthful statement that is in fact the case. The nuance is that the ad only needs to match the current offering. It has to be actively false. Australian advertising law is more clear about this: If a business is is going to make a claim about future matters (like, say, something never being made available again) they must have reasonable grounds for making the claim at the time of making the claim. Does DE have reasonable grounds to claim that these packs aren't going to come back? Yes, if that's what they planned for them at the time they made those claims. Here's some more: Can DE keep the promise to not bring these packs back? Yes. Is that the current and correct information about their availability? Also yes. So they're fine here too. But what about that last part? Businesses should keep consumers updated if things change. That's because the law understands that ads can change. Prices change. Availability changes. The McRib comes back. It fades away again. This is normal. It happens all the time, and all businesses need to do is keep consumers informed of the current situation so that they aren't actively lying about the current offering. So if the ad said that the packs were limited and would never come back, and DE fully intends to never bring them back, then the statement is true. No false advertising here. If DE later abandons their original documented plan and decides to bring them back, then if their ad was not updated and they continued to misrepresent these packs as time limited while they are no longer time limited then this statement would be false. This would be false advertising. But if DE updates their ads to say that the packs aren't limited anymore to match the new offering, then this statement would be true again. No more false advertising. You can see this idea in action with, for example, how the Prime Access FAQ was updated to show the new exclusivity: See? Offer changed, ad was updated, everything is kosher. DE was never sued for adding previously exclusive items to a new program. But businesses can't just make whatever change they want (though you've agreed in the EULA that they can). If something changes, you might be entitled to some remedy! Would you say that Warframe is a service? It is a Game as a Service, after all. Australian law about changes to services: Ok, so consumers may be entitled to remedy if a service changes. Makes sense. Go on! Oh... Now personally, I'd say that changing one line of text about the availability and not changing any of the plat, skins, color palette, titles, etc. would largely be the service people paid for. But maybe it's still actually a major change? How's that defined? Someone could maybe argue that gloating over the exclusivity of the packs is a normal purpose, I guess? Or maybe that the change of exclusivity is very super serious and they wouldn't have bought the packs if they knew they wouldn't actually get to perpetually hold this unobtanium over others. Though since I don't know how this would be judged (probably by a judge), let's just say that it's a major problem. Now what? So all this for a partial refund? And if the change in exclusivity is actually a minor problem, well, "the business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this." Anything else? Ah, right, inform consumers again, because of course things can change and that's fine. But businesses should still offer a refund if consumers don't like the change. Which, I'm sure we should all be aware, doesn't mean "I get my money back and I get to keep my skins". You'll get your money back, but just like with any refund they're going to take the skins away from you until you buy them again. Fun read? TL;DR: If someone living in a country with strong consumer protection laws (read: probably not the US) got really pissy about a change to the exclusivity, they might be entitled to a (probably partial) refund. That's it. And that's really only if DE feels like it, since they could instead point to the EULA where it says they can do whatever they want and that they don't need to get your consent and you won't sue them and if you do still try to take them to court you agreed to settle in arbitration anyways and then all you might "win" is $90 while your lawyer laughs their way to the bank to cash your $1,500 retainer.

They didn't spell it out quite as explicitly as Heirlooms, but they were all "exclusive". If you checked the Prime Access FAQ, they were "exclusively available through Prime Access" or whatever the wording was. And then, like magic, DE updated the FAQ and now it says that it's available through both Prime Access and the Vault. It was no longer exclusively available only through Prime Access. They just brought it back. Nothing bad happened, DE was never sued, nothing.

You can frame the former as "we promise we'll respect exclusivity", sure, but you can also frame it as "we promise we'll forever exclude everyone who comes after". A promise to exclude people for not being here or - worse - for being too poor during a specific 4 months out of 130+ is bad. Kicking someone in the nards is likewise bad. Both promises are bad - which was my only point. And yet Braton and Lato Vandal came back, items once exclusive to CB players. Early Prime Access cosmetics were once exclusive, too! And yet those came back with the Vault. Not even two months ago some of the cash-only supporter packs came back - to the market for plat no less! Early deluxe skins were once time-limited, and then they were made permanent market cosmetics with the addition of Rhino Palatine. Twitch Prime/Prime Gaming cosmetics were exclusive and some can now be bought at Varzia. It's happened over and over and over again for so many once-exclusive things already - why can't it happen for these?

I'm workin' on it, man. I cancelled my artbook order and haven't spent a dime since. Won't be buying a Tennocon ticket this year either, for the first year ever. But I'm only one guy. If someone promises to kick you in the nards, will you like or dislike it when it turns out they were lying? Not all promises are positive.

Nevermind, I'll just quote OP instead:

Soon™ Narmer would have been cool too. I saw this lady during TNW and boy was I disappointed she wasn't a nemesis. Never shows up again :(

Sort of. When the "freedom of choice" in this case is really the "freedom to choose to trivialize the game", players being able to make that choice is itself the problem. You can't have a challenging mode when players are free to choose to not make it a challenge. One of DE's only practical solutions is to incentivize not making that choice.

How would converting work? I guess there's nothing that says we can't have a nemesis that we always have to defeat. Maybe it's a deal/no deal kind of thing? Accept the deal and it works for you, reject the deal and you kill it for its weapon?

By being able to always pick the strongest, most invincible frames paired with the most strongest, most deadly weapons? How would that not make the mode easier to do? Of course it will make it easier. You get to freely take all of your busted, overpowered gear every week. You know what people do with that freedom already? They play the game at levelcap. Where do you go from there? Levelcap++? RNG isn't great, but it does reduce the amount that the above happens.

Which people would have immediately trivialized and turned into paste. Modifiers can be managed and mitigated and made a non-issue. They're not as dangerous as people seem to think they are. Nevermind what would happen if these modifiers were actually buffs! To keep this on topic for OP, this is what Warframe has that DRG does not: rampant powercreep and imbalance. The gear RNG, forced gear, adaptation, attenuation, immunity, nullification, overguarding, etc. are all DE's attempts at bringing the player down to a baseline where a challenge can be created. DRG doesn't need to do that because the player is already at that baseline. DRG works because it is already balanced. They can afford to make the gameplay "more rewarding" because the gameplay is already rewarding. They can put in little boons like Critical Weakness and not screw up the balance of the game or erode the challenges they want to present. Warframe cannot. That's really all there is to it. Warframe could do the exact same things as DRG if players were consistently powerful and predictable. Until that happens we'll never get a challenge that isn't in some way artificial. Edit: To illustrate this visually: DRG is already below the challenge threshold. Ghost Ship can add little buffs and it's still a challenge. Warframe is already far above the challenge threshold. DE has to debuff the player a significant amount for the challenge to start. Adding buffs to DA/EDA (or removing RNG) is only going to push the player further to the right, away from the challenge.

A bunch? You're painting with a rather broad brush there. Last I checked Voltage was one person, and their opinions were theirs alone.

In what game does it work like that? lol Did you get the same amount of Shards for skipping Kahl missions? No. Do you now get the same amount of Shards for not buying them from Bird-3? No. Do you get the same number of Arcanes for only doing the first stage of a tricap? No. Do you get the same kinds of Relics for only going to Rotation A? No. Do you get the same amount of Credits for only doing low risk Index? No. Do you get the same amount of Incarnon Adapters for only doing 5 tiers of the Circuit? No. Do you get the same amount of rare Prime parts for only doing Intact Relics? No. Do you get a Prodman poster for only staying for 30 minutes? No. It's like there's a pattern.... 🤔

Warframe and DRG are more similar than you'd think. DRG is just decently balanced, so they can have natural challenges without having to use Like, you get it. The alternative in Warframe is for DE to actively balance the game, and just look what happened when they dared to do that with Dante! Poor, poor Dante has a 1,000,000,000 damage cap on Pageflight now, he's ruined. So don't play it. 🤷‍♀️ Just like in DRG where you don't have to play Deep Dives if you don't like them, you don't have to play DA/EDA if you don't like them in Warframe. You can do your weekly Netracells just like you can do your Weekly Core Hunt for the same kinds of rewards. In both games you get fewer rewards total, but you're doing fewer things. If you want more, do more.

Option 1: make a small number of selfish people platinum big-mad that the peasants and newbies are allowed to touch their Heirloom™ Special Big Boy Badges. Option 2: make the entire rest of the community angry for the rest of all time. 🤔 Man, there's just no good answer!

There's a pretty important difference, though: DRG is fairly well balanced. It can be made as challenging as it needs to be without jumping through any extra hoops. There can be small penalties like this week's Mactera Plague, Lethal Enemies, and Shield Disruption. Sometimes there are even two penalties! But sometimes there are no penalties, because they're not a requirement for challenge. DRG can just be challenging. Warframe, on the other hand, is very poorly balanced. It can't be made challenging when players can be invincible and deal bigger damage numbers than the engine can calculate while fighting the highest level enemies spawned at such a high rate that some platforms can't keep up. That's why you only get the full reward if you don't use your most overpowered gear every week. That's why there are no beneficial modifiers. You're already cracked out, and making you even more cracked out isn't going to make the challenge mode more challenging. It'll make it less. For example: Critical Weakness works in DRG because enemies are sturdy and can take a beating, so breaking armor to deal more damage is a skill that can be rewarded. And even with this perk you're still not one-shotting the heavies and they still require your attention and they'll still #*!% you up if you're not careful. Critical Weakness would not work for Warframe's enemies because you've already stripped the enemies of all of their defenses, piled a dozen negative status effects, hit them for int-max damage, and vaporized the entire room the nanosecond they spawned in. And you weren't even aiming!

There's some precedent for old Twitch Prime cosmetics returning via Varzia IIRC, and we just recently got some old supporter pack content added to the market. So maybe. I think chances are better that these cosmetics will return than won't.

I think we should just be able to force skins onto Incarnon Genesis weapons... The Gorgon for example was never """""""""fixed""""""""" and still retains its skin in Incarnon form, as it should. It works just fine, it's totally doable. And there's no reason the Incarnon effect can't be overlaid onto other skins besides muh clipping, but I think we can make those sorts of fashion decisions on our own. As for Narmer effects, I'd love to see this as weapon Ephemera or just as a set of Narmer weapon variants.

It doesn't prevent it, but it does reduce it. If you're only overpowered 50% of the time that's still less than being overpowered 100% of the time. It is faulty, and that's because it's a bandaid. Actually balancing the game is hard work and doesn't immediately make money like selling the new overpowered shiny and you have to deal with all the Gamer Rage™. Bandaids like balancing via RNG (Rivens, old Tau drop rates, Duviri, this) or the various damage mitigation mechanics (Attenuation, adaptation, immunity, overguard, etc.) let DE throw a sheet over the whole thing in one go, and while it doesn't address the underlying rot it's still more effective than doing nothing.

Both. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Oh, there's a new take. Very interesting! I wonder how balancing would need to be done for this? Like for example the Akbronco Prime which you mentioned. It has a low base Crit Chance, but that's in theory balanced by its high overall damage. Unmodded average hit for the Akbronco Prime is about 5x higher than the Akbolto Prime. And when you compare actual builds the Akbronco Prime is strong compared to the Akbolto Prime. https://overframe.gg/build/47125/akbolto-prime/akbolto-prime-general-use/ vs https://overframe.gg/build/47125/akbolto-prime/akbolto-prime-general-use/ for example, which are the highest rated builds for them on Overframe. Even with 6% CC, the Akbronco still deals more overall damage and also has a much higher status proc rate. What about weapons like the Nukor, which has a 3% Crit Chance and a 4x Crit Multiplier (7%/5x for Kuva)? If you can give it a base CC of 30% that's kind of huge.

How does this one work? IIRC Sentient Wrath didn't have an LoS since it's a wave that hits a fixed number of enemies. Ingame it seems to behave the same as it did before. Granted I use it subsumed onto another frame so maybe this is only relevant for Caliban's larger kit.