Rakosta_Kai

That's correct. An augment only slot means that the augments would need to be re-coded to also fit into an augment only slot which has deeper balance concerns than simply adding a slot as it also means that a slot is potentially freed up among the main 8 slots. That essentially becomes the "2 cake" solution to the question of how to "have your cake and eat it too". The game is balanced on 9 slots (1 aura and 8 mod slots) and has been since 2014 when ability mods were discontinued along with the removal of 2 warframe slots. For those keeping track, Warframe was originally balanced for 1 augment, 6 mods, and 4 ability mods. When the ability mods were removed they ostensibly gave players a hefty buff by allowing us to keep 2 mod slots (for those that weren't min-maxing by avoiding slotting weak abilities) So for those intent on getting an augment slot? DE already gave you 2 of them—In 2014.

The game is solo-able from MR0. Grouping, as an option, remains viable but because people are people then PUGs are going to be PUGs. A new player hunting Eidolans for the first few times can expect the nicest thing to happen to them is someone explain what the heck is going on and why. I have seen (what I expect where) new players get bashed and berated in those hunts too though sadly. Unfortunately, people kinda suck as a group—especially when goals don't/can't align.

Allow me to expand a bit more slowly, in this case, as it appears you have somewhat missed the point of your own comment. This is (the important part of) what you said. Before Update: Barrage required an Augment to strip armor. After Update: Barrage does not require an augment to strip armor because the Augment got baked into the ability. As to the rest of your initial sentence, similar arguments for any number of other "band-aid" Augments can be made but the fact remains that we now know that if DE sees a need, they aren't above making the change. This suggests that they either do not see a need or have not, as yet, addressed it. The feedback forum is probably the best place to make that argument for visibility's sake. You do not, imo, remember correctly. Corroding Barrage dealt Corrosive Damage. The description literally read " Each projectile has a 100% chance of inflicting a corrosive status effect." Put simply Corrosive status is Corrosive damage. 100% status chance = status damage. Viral Tempest simply deals it's damage with both status effects (corrosive and viral) applied. The status being applied to mobs is simply an aspect of the status in question With respect, It isn't so much a technicality as it is either semantics or needlessly pedantic depending on applied tone. Thank you for sharing though. Either way, I think DE being willing to make clearly needed adjustments( in actuality and without the need for timey-wimey temporal mechanics) is a good thing and I do hope they don't just stop at Barrage.

I do hope that "Yet" wasn't intended to be a complaint—Because making both an ability and an augment relevant doesn't actually sound like something to complain about. You should have to choose between base and more powerful/powerful in different ways at the expense of a mod slot because that was the intent of Augments to begin with.

Yet, they just did exactly that with Hydroid's Barrage...

Capacitance is awesome and is an augment I'd highly suggest slotting on Volt but it should cost a mod slot since you are basically slotting for it's Overshield and shield recharge delay reduction (which would be 2 mod slots on any other frame...). Sorry to jump to the soul of your argument first. On the matter of Electric Shield: Fortunately, you have the options of casting more than one shield or picking the shield up and carrying it with you for it's duration making it one of the more appealing defensive options available given it's flexibility. Works great moving, in hallways, doorways, or room corners. I could assert that I am almost never surrounded by enemies because I never let myself get surrounded by mobs because( I just don't make a habit of placing myself in those types of areas in a room) But, I think it's more important to remind that every tool simply isn't a fit for every task. You shouldn't expect Electric Shield to be a better fit for that situation than the 6 second CC from Discharge—It's not Snow Globe. Also, and this might just be me, I don't cast Discharge without a shield up as I've had some bad experiences with the cast time on Discharge.

For my part, I am moreso amused at the split between the Vets and Relatively newer Tenno in this post and the opinions being put forward. Newer player seem under the impression that the augments are mandatory and "band-aids" Vets seem to harbor an opposite opinion. Not bashing either crowd per se. I do find the opinions put forth interesting though. As I recall, Steve's commentary on Augments were that they'd be awesome game changing abilities that came at the cost of an existing mod slot to make those modding decisions matter. In other words, using an augment was supposed have the side-effect of limiting the build in some manner and encouraging choices in your modding. It's also , incidentally, why we have multiple build configs.

I'm sure DE or it's associates would be a great landing spot for some of those that lost their jobs and I wish them the best in whatever their future endeavors. That said, Bungie is a group that wants Sugar Daddy funding but not the Sugar Daddy expectations— They got Sony to acquire them based on the premise that the next expansion would make buckets of money and it didn't (yet). Microsoft wanted them to do what would make money and they left. Activision did the same thing and they left them too. They thought they could make it as a small studio and found they couldn't and let Sony acquire them. Missed revenue projections frequently mean making up the difference by tightening the proverbial belt to run leaner. I don't know if Sony required the cuts or if Bungie did but the result is the same sadly as someone is going to be at Bungie to produce something that's going to turn an acceptable profit.

I'll have to disagree here but preface my commentary with the following: I am/was not a Hydroid main Didn't play one on TV. Genuinely lacked the twitchy skill cap to be able to play one well. Folks willing to sit long periods in Undertow were doing it wrong and are the source of a lot of misconceptions about the skill. It was an option for use but it wasn't the best use of time or resources. Not unlike the Ashhole Builds a lot of folks gravitated to with Blade Storm. The best Hydroid mains I saw used Tentacles as choke points, surge for movement and rounding up mobs and a mix of Undertow, finishers, and melee for dispatching mobs while using Undertow to hide/heal from damage. Scott also used a similar playstyle in his original play introduction of the frame iirc. I, personally, could never get good with the playstyle as I simply wasn't twitchy enough and found the effort:result ratio to be a bit much given how everything was dependent on the expectation that Undertow was going to be used so liberally. My attempts with the frame and playstyle left me with the impression that it was the most energy dependent frame in the game and I don't care for being limited by energy issues. I get why you feel as you do though and would completely agree that an undertow spamming tactic would feel like watching paint dry. I also get why Pablo did what he did regarding Hydroid regardless of stated opinions as Undertow was going to be hard to balance around. A current Hydroid with Undertow as an optional power would be an insane level of powercreep with the current passive imo. I do wish it could have worked out amicably for all parties though.

For my part, I never saw a way DE would meaningfully buff Hydroid and leave Undertow intact as it, imo, was quite likely the strongest Warframe skill in the game. A soft taunt, scaling damage, and an i-frame on demand of user determined length (short of the few abilities that could turn it off) creates a scenario where DE would have had to balance the frame around that one ability which is why it felt practically mandatory to use to me. Put simply, I think that if you didn't like Undertow you weren't going to like Hydroid. Given DE's penchant for not removing iconic skills though I honestly figured they'd have tried buffs that locked out the use of undertow as an option instead. That can't have been an easy decision for DE and I know many Hydroid mains and fans aren't happy with the loss of the skill. I like the new Hydroid a great deal but hate that other folks main got snarled up like that to appease the majority. That's happened to me a few times over the years in various games and it thoroughly sucks.

It's counter intuitive to say this but I found I had more fun with gear that had been lightly modified than gear that had been fully min/maxed. Put simply, I wanted some challenge but not so much it caused me to fail missions. Is that weird? Probably. Keeping the game in that manner and maintaining the perspective that Warframe is a "sometimes" game keeps burn-out from settling in for me. That's just what's worked for me. I wish you luck.

This isn't really an argument. You do not possess analytics showing how people use Frost and what skills they use most. So any assertions you make in regard to player use and reasoning is speculation on your part. Actually, I said I disagree with what you've said and explained why in my post. If my reasoning has escaped you, I would suggest re-reading what I wrote to begin with. Then why did you feel the need to state the obvious? I think that's because you've elected to look at it though the lens of " a worse version of Avalanche but cheaper" which neither Freeze or Ice Wave emulate past the fact that they inflict cold status on stuff— which just so happens to be the theme of Frost to begin with. Trade value certainly does reflect that as demand outstrips supply. Arguing that options exist isn't an argument as no one said options didn't. It simply isn't as small of an issue as you make of it. That argument cuts in both directions—Avalanche is a very poor and expensive tool if all you need to do is lockdown a corner, door, hallway or cast on a small group. But those are the niche uses that you keep actively overlooking... Actually, I haven't said anything of the sort. The fact that you translated what I have said in that manner is interesting though. To me, it appears to be another instance of disregarding facts for another more convenient fiction. You are, of course, entitled to your convenient fictions. That said, I am not required to align with them. The question, amongst this gaggle of logical fallacies you've called an argument so far, isn't how it would affect me. The question regarded whether a re-work of Frost is actually needed. For my part, I don't think so and have stated why. Many in this thread have echoed the same sentiment. The last bit of play analytics we saw from DE, likewise, doesn't support the opinion. There are others, like yourself, in this thread that share your opinions regarding Freeze and Ice Wave needing to be as impactful as Avalanche. You are welcome to this opinion but that does not mean I, or anyone else, should have to align with it. With respect, Asking me to do so or simply not raise objection on the matter is something I find nonsensical.

You shouldn't "highly doubt" what you lack a relevant frame of reference for. The fact that people disagree with your opinion on the matter, in this thread alone, should be enough to let you know that your opinion isn't the only opinion to be had on the matter. Hilariously, I don't agree with anything you've said here with exception of the statement of the obvious— Frost Freezes stuff and his abilities do it to varying degrees (pun not intended). My question: Was that news? I feel like that must have been some recent revelation as a few of you have brought that up and it boggles my mind that you feel it's news worthy. Did someone bring it up on Youtube or something? Likewise the assertions that Freeze and Ice Wave should somehow be as effective as Avalanche are also rather silly imo. If they did as much they'd cost as much, so expecting them to do as much makes no sense. As to the subject of energy? Energy still matters. How do we know? We know this because stuff that gives energy is still expensive to trade for as demand remains high for those items. Your comments about the "modern energy economy" won't change that fact. On Frost's passive? Me stating most o the frame's passives are lackluster is simply a statement of fact. I don't need to defend a statement of fact. You asserting it needing to be changed is a matter of opinion. For my part, his current passive has saved me from getting sucker punched more than a few times and that's the best I can say for it. When they announced his re-work forever ago I asked for a shatter mechanic.. they gave it to Gauss instead. Then I stopped caring as I don't play frames for their passives. That said, Passives, when implemented, were supposed to be more thematic than meaningful but I can see why yourself and others would be angsty about passives since Hydroid got one so impactful—FOMO is FOMO and you should go to the feedback forum and ask for that I guess. Yet, a Dev pass on Frost's passive still isn't cause for a rework. Neither is it their job to entice you to press a button other than 4.

Well, that's because it is... Both Freeze and Ice Wave are weaker attacks than Avalanche by design. Were they as strong as Avalanche they'd have similar energy costs.

Balance and Choice aren't the same so let's not conflate them. Replacing an ability you, the player, find no use for is precisely why the Helminth system was added. You can assert the abilities are lackluster, to you, but other players in this thread are citing an active preference regarding each skill. And, let's be honest, there are very few frames that don't have at least one objectively lackluster ability in their kit (quite frequently their 1 or 2) . Likewise, there are folks who've spent years leaning on Ice Wave as Frost's most used offensive tool until the adjustments to Avalanche were done and still make good use of it today. Put simply, It's a matter of preference. If, instead, the argument is that "Frost should be as strong as X" or "All X-Frames abilities are good so Frost should be the same way" then the argument is flawed at the outset as Frames don't have parity amongst each other. Absent that, posting a defense you will find satisfactory of either wastes everyone's time. No one can convince you to like an ability if you don't like it. The only real argument to be made would be the dependency to use Freeze to remove Globes as that encourages its' presence in Frost's kit even if the player doesn't like the skill. Arguing for a rework makes no sense in light of that fact either though.

Agree completely. I'm not sure why people would be calling for a Frost rework as Frost is a monstrous frame as-is right now and the bulk of other arguments regarding a re-work request are objectively bad. Don't like Freeze? Helminth. Don't like the passive? Most passives (especially the early ones) are lackluster anyway. Ask for a pass on passives instead. Hate Ice Wave? Helminth. The only truly relevant arguments don't amount to a re-work Snow Globe removal being tied to Freeze being annoying for some players. Frost's energy level being somewhat low for a caster-based frame even if it is a ranged CC caster tank.

There's no extra bits or pieces to take needed. Dissention simply isn't Derision. There's simply no cause to be derisive at all—It's an election you made on your part. Doesn't matter if you clicked on an option DE gave you or you typed it out long-form. Displayed derision remains derision regardless. Which is why you, and those just like you, shouldn't have that option. Why should DE empower folks to be both derisive and lazy ? Likewise, why should anyone give a crap about your opinion when you lack the capacity to frame it politely? For example, your own comments in this thread alone have been used as an example for why a dislike or emoticons are/were/will remain a bad idea. You, like it or not, are your own best example for why they should never re-enable those features.

Since we can agree that "lazy" isn't actually an option as its' the thing DE removed and what you just so happen to be requesting with the return of those forum features, we are left with "derisive" which you've already agreed to. How can you both admit to being derisive and assert you don't agree with the descriptor? I'll kindly remind you, again, that I didn't quote one. I quoted three. You even screenshot all three of them... Since I am being redundant here, I guess it bears reminding you of your commentary on reading posts as well... I realize how inconvenient it can be to have these aspects in your approach pointed out to you and would also note that all I've done is hand you the same treatment you gave others in this thread with precisely the same tools you used. If they bother you then perhaps re-think using them on others in the future. 😀 Have a good day!

I am sure that you do understand— To that point, I have no feeling on your behavior other than objective observation. You don't require an additional venue to be both lazy and derisive as that isn't productive. That's rather the takeaway from this thread entirely and why DE removed those features. Allow me to pull a page out of your book in this thread and note that if you were reading carefully, you'd know I didn't reference one statement—I referenced three... I merely point out the flaws in what you've asked for as evidenced by the manner in which you have behaved just in this thread. My assessment of your behavior isn't actually up for debate, those receipts are littered through this thread unless you've gone on a post deletion spree, so I don't see what there is to argue on that matter. Sorry Tenno, the Rubber/Glue argument falls flat in this case. "I like being a bad guy so if you make it easier for me to do that you'll see me be a bad guy less.". I can't remember the name of the show but I remember it being a Stephen King mini-series where the bad guy constantly says, "Give me what I want and I will go away" That is, literally, how your comment strikes me...

This is precisely why we don't need dislike or emoticon options back and why your definition of censoring is inherently flawed in this instance. You had the option of posting this experience much earlier on as a means of lending credence to your stance but instead opted to simply call what someone else posited as "rubbish" Nothing about such a tactic is valuable—It's argumentative merely for the sake of argument itself. Much like implying someone didn't read when they clearly had, or didn't understand your use of a word when they, again, clearly had. Ostensibly, based on your behavior in just this thread, I'm of the opinion that you want the dislike and emoticons back merely for the sake of having the option to be both derisive and lazy simultaneously. My advice? Pick one.

With respect, nothing is easier than electing to not respond if you don't align with a view. Threads like that tend to fall to obscurity quickly in the forums. If you don't align with the sentiment and can't be bothered to clearly assert why then simply don't post and keep it moving.

For my part, I'm glad the dislike/laugh options got removed because to simply dis-like/lol a post was a cheap form of derision and players that wanted to farm for likes could just post one-liners that were simply mean or derisive without actually positing anything objective. If a player disagreed with a poster's idea or stance they should constructively post specifically why and/or keep it moving to a different post and that didn't happen to the same degree of quality that it did before or since those features.

I think that's just some rationalization to your bias, Tenno... I RARELY ever see an Excal Prime walking around and can readily attest that the /whispers associated with doing so range from being creepy to just plain insulting. As to the rest, there's no magic involved— Founders were the same folks making complaints about the pricing on the Prime Accessories packs... The same ones arguing for the Prime Resurgence (in each iteration)... The same ones posting threads demanding transparency in drop rates for Prime items in the void... What you are seeing from Founders currently is 10 years worth of perspective given that we've seen this done before and it didn't end well the last time either. Some will buy it regardless and others will not. All the whale-logic, Founder whining, and Dr. Phil-osophizing on the definition of Fear and Rationality amounts to less than nothing in the larger scheme of things. Choose to buy it or Choose not to. I highly doubt that it will be the only frames offered in this manner and it's likely going to wind up being a black eye for DE eventually until such time as the playerbase forgets it about it.

Sadly, Nothing about this is new. This is how exactly how Primes and Prime access were done back 10 years ago. Players hating it and calling them out repeatedly is why it changed. Actually, that's not even true. They didn't stop it because we complained but because pundits with large followings on Twitter and Youtube complained. I hated the FOMO marketing then and detest it just as much now.