Choosing to use a certain thing because it provides a certain benefit is not game breaking, it is called strategy.
Context: In the clip below Scott says that limiting the choice of archwings to Itzal if a player wants to be fast is game breaking and should therefore be removed.
EDIT: embedding the clips doesn't work.
How is making a choice to get a certain benefit (speed in this case) a game breaking thing?
If I want to deal massive aoe damage, my choice of Warframes is limited.
If I want to put 200k corrosive damage into a grineer face, my choice of weapons is limited.
I don't understand how limitation of choice (even strict limitation) is game breaking.
Can anyone explain the logic behind this?
I can see that strict and repetitive meta would be game breaking but that is solved by providing alternatives and not by nerfing useful equipment.
On a sidenote:
I would hate so see Itzal being nerfed for the supposed goal of making K-Drives more useful.
K-Drives were one of the worst things of 2018. Much wow at Tennocon but they make no sense whatsoever:
Why do they provide mastery? This is a space ninja game with exploding arrows, not a skateboard simulator.
Why are the stats not varying? What's even the point? Ah, yes... mastery. Otherwise nobody would care.
Why do Ventkids have 5 ranks? We have enough syndicates already...
I have to wonder why DE invests in gimmicky useless stuff like K-Drives and floofs when there is so much open work to do (bug free host migration, enemy scaling, difficulty, Warframe reworks, etc.).
I actually do not wonder since it's pretty obvious that floofs attract more players than a well rounded difficulty rework would.
Although I wanted to voice my opinion of K-Drives I hope it doesn't distract from the point I am making on Itzal (being that strategic choices do not break the game, in my opinion).
I intentionally did not put this into feedback since I am not providing solutions, alternatives or anything of substance...