Nekomian

You should just be able to paste the URL to the content and it'll embed it, at least for certain things (like twitter links or imgur images, etc). The forums itself doesn't have any upload permissions granted since it would need to have constant moderation and associated costs with file hosting, so just sharing external links works fine.

@KaiKeakua I'd check to see if you're using a blast build on your melee, or what mods you have equipped since it could be caused by one of those given it seems independent of frame.

Based on the video, it looks like the blast procs / damage are doing self-damage to you (as client); it was fixed in 36.0.3, but if it's still happening now it might've been somehow reverted, or with a combination of specific mods or setup.

This is on the known issues list, but requires a cert update to be fixed:

@leachPrime If you have not started the game up again since this happened, your logs should be able to indicate what specifically killed you. You can generate them from the launcher settings or find them in "%localappdata%/Warframe" - the EE one will have that info, I'd just search for "killed" or "downed" and find what specifically it was, so the devs have a better idea of what enemy to focus on rather than looking at all potential spawns in the mission.

It's made me a bit frustrated ever since they changed up the defense objective healing and DR, in update 27.4 (5/1/2020); I get not wanting people to cheese objective defenses just fine, but making players need a chart on the wiki to determine if the ability works the same or is arbitrarily capped is a bit confusing. Like, some of the justifications were weird too, like blood alter not working for "flavor reasons" (why would flavor / lore influence game design balance and mechanics like this?), when magical void power dashes apparently heal just fine. Hilariously, I think Inaros of all frames before his rework could heal objectives the fastest specifically because he had no cap imposed on his kit, while others usually have soft caps of 50 or 100 HP per second (even when the objective has 100,000s of HP). I'd love if they made healing % based on these, or just had less strict %-based caps instead (i.e. it can only heal a max of 5% every second), and impose them on the objective as a whole rather than fixed caps per ability (so all total heals from all abilities applied would not exceed that threshold). Otherwise players have to memorize a chart of things that do and don't work on the objective and how they're altered, even though the game doesn't detail this anywhere. It seems arbitrarily confusing, as opposed to just %-based total caps on the objective (one rule that applies to all abilities, rather than 20 different rules each per ability).

Revenant & Rhino - I think we are missing a "U" frame besides Umbra, since he's technically similar to excal / a variation of the frame. The wiki also doesn't list him as a separate frame for U either.

To preface this, this isn't meant to be a "for" or "against" statement - just wanted to point out that it's not as simple as that, they would need to alter the mesh of the model (to make the form flatter) and change / swap the texture work. I can't imagine it would take too long (they could just dynamically alter / morph the mesh on toggle and swap the texture, though they'd have to rework some animation sets and possibly adjust attachment snapping to accommodate it), but a 3D modeler would be able to give more insight into specifics.

They cannot endorse or approve specific software unless they know exactly what it does and approve every subsequent update / version; they'd need dedicated staff on hand to run and validate thousands of hours of tests every time any piece of third party software is available or updated, and that really isn't economical at scale. Ergo, use stuff at your own risk, and use common sense. If a certain macro combination is being used to cheese or exploit the game in an unintended way, that's very obviously not allowed; if it's just to reduce repetitive movements or for mobility / accessibility reasons, it's probably fine. If a third party program is reading your inventory and giving you stats, it's probably not allowed, given it gives an advantage vs console and mobile players who cannot do the same automation. If it's just an overlay to show you WFM prices it's probably fine (depending on how it's implemented), as that's no different from having a web browser page open and searching. It's not particularly difficult to ascertain which actions are and aren't allowed, but it's the actions themselves and not the programs, as software is being developed all the time and constantly changes / updates. I don't expect any other response on this because there isn't really one they can give without people pointing and going "but you said XYZ was fine!!!" by misinterpreting (either intentionally or unintentionally) context regarding statements, unless they're explicitly and strictly made about one software version at one point in time only. I would just use common sense and your best judgement, that's all this statement of "use at your own risk" feels like it's meant to be interpreted as anyways.

This sounds like an issue with the vulkan translation implementation, which would not be something the devs of a specific game could fix. It's happening on multiple games, but here's just one as an example: It seems like a bug that would need to be fixed either within' DXVK (or VKD3D if you're running the DX12 version), Proton, or Steam that's making the system think the previously generated vulkan shader caches are all invalid. That said, if the issue is just storage space like the OP had, you can just delete the shader cache every few weeks (months?) until it is resolved, which is relatively minor. Worth noting that if you're using an experimental / constantly changing build of something like Proton, it may naturally download new vulkan shaders from the collective pool of cached ones for your hardware and new version; some people noted that with this game specifically Steam downloads an excessive amount of them (which again would be a Steam issue, not something DE manages) and they disabled the option in Steam and rely on something called GPL (a vulkan extension that DXVK can use from what I can tell):

Did this issue start at a certain time or number of casts? It seemed fine at 6 min mission duration in the video, but at 4 hours in (254 mins) it's definitely blocking many UI elements.

A connection test to the launcher would only reflect connectivity to DE's servers, not other peers; the game already pings multiple times during matchmaking to other peers, to try and find the most consistent and closest RTT available. It's not indicative of connection to other peers too, only the individuals currently hosting. Like I said, the issue would be solvable with a toggle in perfect scenarios, but realistically it's not like that. Not all users who have consistent, stable net are eligible hosts (either due to NAT typing or weird network routing rules) and toggles just complicate the matchmaking process unnecessarily, allowing users to specify conditions regardless of their network or knowledge of their infrastructure. As an example, you could have 10 users all with CG-NAT restrictions or weird routing rules that only allow users X, Y, and Z to connect to them (who are set to host only), that are all toggled to host only; meanwhile, 10 other people without any restrictions are set to client only because they had a drop-out once or turn it on to see what it does, even though they're perfectly viable to host. Player choice for network infrastructure level problems does not fully solve this issue, and creates new ones that didn't exist before. The existing system we have is not perfect, but it at least finds the best available session. There's always going to be that one host that has like 1000ms latency and horrible spikes (regardless of what they'd have toggled) because network infrastructure is dynamic and sporadic; having a system that recognizes an issue during a session and migrates when appropriate (either to another eligible client or a server relay if not all players can join the new host) is more robust than the guesswork applied with player choice. Combined with making migrations less intrusive and annoying, there would be barely any gameplay impact at all either while the game happily transfers host status.

This topic comes up every few weeks, but it always has the same shortcomings; how specifically are you defining a "lower-end" or "bad" connection? Intermittent connectivity can be sporadic and random, between clients or hosts. It can also vary wildly depending on who the host and client are, where they're located geographically, and many additional factors. Even with a toggle for this, your described situation can still occur - saying "oh, I'm a reliable host!" means nothing when intermittent connectivity issues can occur regardless of how good or stable the player thinks their connection is. The same applies for those who choose client only, as they could be perfectly viable hosts for many people to connect to (or may spend an excessive amount of time waiting in 90% of the star chart that are practically abandoned missions, when it should just start their mission and make them host). A toggle only serves to segregate matchmaking into further divided pools, rather than the system automatically joining the best available one or creating a session if none exists; it works in a "perfect scenario" where everyone knows exactly how their internet will behave, but that's not a realistic one whatsoever. A hybrid approach would work better - that is, if the latency from host to peers (multiple, not just one) is excessive, it either switches host during the mission (if possible, certain UDP tunneling restrictions might cause issues here) or moves the mission to a server relay temporarily (these are hosted by whatever company DE uses, and are already used in strict NAT situations to my knowledge), either until it can resolve the issue or the mission is completed, whichever works best honestly. The whole migration process itself needs to be streamlined too IMO, it just pauses gameplay for like 10s+ and removes buffs, and sometimes mission progress, and just feels bad overall. It's easier said than done I'm sure, but it feeling more seamless would help with this a lot.

+1 to this - it was fine when the gating time was always the same duration or so, but having a visual indicator of how long it lasts now that it's variable would be super helpful. Maybe a bar at the bottom of the shield / health UI that shows progress / current gating compared to max amount?

I'd advise to just report it in game or via support ticket when you see it, and moderation staff will review it; that's the only official channel for reporting these things, and likely the best way to handle it. People may disagree on what is or isn't toxic behavior, but context is important and moderation can make a finalized judgement on it with all appropriate logging and information (and take action if necessary).