Jump to content


PC Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Steel_Rook

  • Rank
    Gold Seeker

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "Ayatan Stars are rare!" has become something of a joke in my small group of friends. I introduced a new player to the game recently and did my best to convince him that Ayatan Stars are a rare, valuable resources. Since he started playing, we've gotten multiple Cyan Stars per mission and an Ayatan Star roughly every other mission. By this point, everyone is giving me S#&$ about it, sarcastically commenting about "Oh, look, a Star. Did you know those are rare?" every time one drops. Making Ayatan Stars a reward for high-level Nightwave would, similarly, be a joke as far as I'm concerned.
  2. Yeah, I don't see the benefit to removing the actual blueprints. Selling bait for Standing isn't actually problematic in itself, especially if all you want is the fish parts rather than selling fish for Standing. Selling reusable bait blueprints in addition to this, however, would have been the preferable option. As it stands, those of us who already had the bait blueprints have a substantial advantage over new players, in that we can either buy OR craft our bait depending on what we choose to do. Newer players simply lack the crafting option, and I'm not sure what that accomplishes.
  3. To me, the "with friends" challenges always come across like a zookeeper locking two Giant Pandas in a cage desperately hoping they'll mate. The end result is people placing randos on their friends list temporarily, doing a mission with them, then immediately taking them off. Trying to "encourage" people to make friends only ends up encouraging people to game the system. And even for a lot of us who do have friends and do play together, those challenges are still a pain in the ass. Most of my friends who play Warframe are 10 time zones away from me, meaning we get maybe a couple of hours time together tops before one of us has to walk the dog, go to bed, go to work, leave for dinner, etc. Spending a full hour of uninterrupted time not able to so much as take a phonecall in a game mode that - let's face it - isn't terribly fun to begin with is a non-starter. I can afford an hour of uninterrupted time. My friends can afford an hour of uninterrupted time. We can't always do that all at the same time. Locking challenges to friends only does far more harm than good, as far as I'm concerned.
  4. Payday 2 is actually the perfect example of a game getting this wrong. Players were told in no uncertain terms that the game IS NOT balanced for the highest difficulty setting of One Down / Death Sentence and was instead intended to be balance around Deathwish, instead. When One Down was released, the developers themselves joked about how none of them were able to survive more than a few minutes on the difficulty setting they'd just pushed Live. Everything we knew about it was telling us that this is a "You think the game's too easy? Well #*!% you!" difficulty that wasn't intended to be taken seriously, balanced or actually enjoyable. It was there for masochists who wanted to find ways to exploit the game's balance and have their efforts worth it. Yet because One Down paid so disproportionately highly and because Overkill attached not just a number of achievements but a Trophy in your Safehouse to it, people played that difficulty. I heard from a number of people who absolutely resented One Down but did it to get the achievements out of the way for the sake of completion, then never wanted to touch it again. Consequently, there were constant complaints about how it's cheap, how enemies are too tanky and deal too much damage, how only a few select builds and item sets are viable, etc. All familiar arguments we've heard repeatedly on these very forums, all of it - in my opinion - missing the point. One Down was SUPPOSED to be a bad, broken gear check, there as an option to a distinct minority of players for whom no amount of challenge is enough. Yet because of how over-rewarded it was, people who were never intended to play it ended up trying to make that their status quo and consequently had a miserable time. The same applies to Warframe, in my opinion. Power creep aside, I find that enemies level 40-60 are where the game's mechanics work to their fullest. Some enemies are tough, others are squishy, armour matters but only to an extent, some hit hard while others don't, etc. There's nothing fundamentally wrong about enemies level 100, 150, 200 and up existing and I'm actually perfectly fine giving players an easier way to fight them than sitting in Survival for two hours, but I'd also probably cap rewards at either level 80 or level 100 both for the individual enemies and for the mission as a whole. And even then, I'd make that content rare. In this regard, Warframe actually does fairly well. The only time you HAVE to fight enemies that high is the final mission of a Sortie and the occasional Kuva Flood. That's a fairly small percentage of "standard" content. What you're describing here is effectively using cosmetics as a status symbol. Ideologically, I'm opposed to this as the "value" of cosmetic items is highly subjective and presenting some as a source of bragging rights often causes people to use them even if they aesthetically clash with the rest of their costume. If given the choice, I'd much rather use "account decoration" instead - name colour, glyph, prefix, font perhaps, etc. Practically speaking, however, I've come to accept that unique cosmetics earned from deliberately exclusionary activities and meant to serve as status symbols is probably the most practical approach. I'd personally go the way of branding those cosmetic items as part of a set or reflective of a particular in-game character or faction. Say, some kind of high-level Grenier mission only available to the elite few might reward a special Vay Hek Syandana, that sort of thing. "Branded" cosmetics, in essence, where value is added to them not by attempting to make them subjectively more appealing, but by adding value through attaching a "brand" to them. That's ultimately going to be somewhat subjective as well, but you still have a "generic vs. branded" cosmetics for a bit more structure to the progression system. Anything's better than the way the system sits now, where high-level players doing exclusive content earn utterly game-breaking power creep. The Adaptation mod, for example, is utterly insane, not to put too fine a point on it. For any reasonably tanky Warframe, it can boost EHP by a factor of 10 just for having it. A lot of the more powerful Arcanes are similarly game-breaking. Just because they're gated behind high-level content doesn't make their impact on the game any less damaging. I keep bringing up Inaros, but JUST Inaros isn't actually all that remarkable. He's tough, but absolutely killable even in regular content. It's insanity like Adaptation, Guardian and Grace which turn him - and a whole lot of other Warframes - into broken overpowered bricks. So long story short, yes - I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to accept cosmetic items serving as status symbols restricted to particularly difficult missions, as long as these are faction- or character-branded items and as long as non-branded alternatives earnable through regular content exist for them.
  5. Warframe has one of the WORST new player experiences on the market barring Steam Asset Flips. This insular attitude of blaming new players for fundamental issues of design spells death for a video game of this size. Despite what the forums echo chamber might suggest, neither you nor I are actually in the majority, and certainly not close enough to it in order to fund the game by ourselves. Without a steady supply of new players, video games die. Regarding new players with as much disdain as you do is not healthy in the slightest. New players are still going to join, be hit with an incomprehensibly dense narrative and a sudden wall of difficulty, then leave. No amount of shaking your finger at them will change that. And we - you, I, DE - need those players. This isn't YOUR game any more than it is mine. If the game isn't motivating people to improve, or indeed informing them of how to do so or even giving them the tools to do so, then that's a failure of game design, not a failure of the players. Chiding people for not researching a game that's doing nothing to hold their interest is unproductive. Attempting to sideline said people in balance discussions is a non-starter. Like I said before - the problem with Warframe isn't difficulty, but the difference between new players and veterans. That's not an issue which can be solved purely within the context of veterans. That's a significant problem, yes, and one I still have no solution to after ~1500 hours. Eventually you develop sort of a gut feeling about what each of your "specs" can fight comfortably in terms of level... And then you go to Orb Vallis where enemies scale completely differently. To a new player, this lack of feedback is terminal. There's no clear indication of what's supposed to be how hard and how powerful the player is supposed to be in comparison. The only real way to figure it out is to keep jumping into missions, getting killed and trying a different guess next time around. I get that Warframe doesn't have a single uniform "level" measurement of a player's power that can be neatly compared against enemy level for proper scaling... But it can still do a lot more. The Division, for instance, offered a few basic averaged-out stats to give you an idea of at least how builds stack up against each other. You had an in-UI measure of Toughness (i.e. EHP) and Damage (i.e. average DPS) per weapon, with the more specific stats (damage, crit chance, crit damage, health, resistance, health on kill, etc.) cordoned off in a separate menu for players who want a more detailed breakdown. Sure, those stats weren't exactly representative (the game seemed to weigh magazine and reload disproportionately heavily for DPS purposes) but they still gave you a decent measure of how strong YOU are, at least. Warframe just dumps some (but not all, where's my max ammo count?) stats on you in the inventory and lets you figure it out. And while that might work for some people from a "git gud" perspective, it offers no real direction. Say a player is dying a lot. Why is that? Does the player need more health? More armour? More shields? What does armour even DO? Would going from 5 to 15 armour be worth it? I like mathematical modelling so I'll track the functions on the Wiki then crunch my own numbers, sure, but I'm in a distinct minority of people who do that. Most people work by trial and error and what's in the UI. Consequently, a lot of them end up in a situation of failing, fealing weak and miserable, and not knowing why or how to fix it. As I said before - by this point I've introduced no fewer than three separate people to Warframe. I'm starting to see a pattern both in the things I'm having to explain, the missions I'm having to help with and the problems I'm having to troubleshoot for them. In nearly every case, this is because they ran into a piece of content intended for a high-level player - a fact which is in no way signposted for them. And because I'm complacent in my own overpowered gear, I often don't even realise that my friends are struggling until I get told straight up that "This is not a game I can play by myself. I don't see a point in playing it any more." There are only so many times I can try and save players from that before I have to turn my criticism to the game itself. As I said previously - it's very easy to chide new players for being entitled or lazy or whatever the en vogue buzz word is. However, what cannot be overstated is that Warframe is NOT an easy game, it has next to no signposting or tutorialising and it offers next to no feedback for players to learn from. The result is a plurality of people being turned off from the game before they've even had a chance to appreciate it and that is NOT their fault. It's the game's fault for sidelining the new player experience in favour of chasing the white whale of "end game challenge," leaving us with the likes of Orb Vallis offering missions as low as level 5 but hard enough to all but turn off your average new player because that's clearly high-level content somewhat scaled down in terms of stat modifiers. That's why I'm of the opinion that the game needs a pass of health and damage normalisation at the very least, before we start talking about increasing end game challenge. While it doesn't fix the underlying issue, player-customizable difficulty in BOTH directions (i.e. making the game harder OR making it easier) is still a step in the right direction. Difficulty settings tend to serve as a nice buffer for broad-strokes balance issues as they give players a lever to pull, with which to adjust their own experience. It's not a solution, but it softens the impact. Whether a new player is struggling and needs to simply fight weaker enemies or a veteran is bored and wants a higher challenge, difficulty settings tend to accommodate a broad range of players. When it comes to rewards, my opinion is that the median difficulty settings should be over-rewarded and both extremes under-rewarded. Very easy difficulty settings ought to exist but be under-rewarded in order to motivate people to play closer to the intended experience. Very hard difficulty settings ought to similarly be under-rewarded in order to ensure mostly people who expressly want a challenge end up playing them. Over-rewarding high difficulty is a mistake because it pushes people into playing it even if it's not enjoyable for them. Generally speaking, you want players engaging in the difficulty they like, rather than the hardest difficulty they can physically handle. By and large, players stick long and pay more for games they're comfortable with. Of course, difficulty customisation isn't a replacement for fixing the game's fundamental balance issues. It does, however, help somewhat.
  6. That's the fundamental issue with extremely back-loaded power separation. Not only does player power balloon with increasing returns towards the high end, but the steps become larger and larger. I'm not a very damage-minded player so I don't have precise numbers on "map nuking," but let's look at EHP. Inros gets brought up as THE tank of Warframe, but consider JUST the difference between Inaros builds. A "basic" build with Vitality, Vigor and Steel Fibre gives Inaros 550*(1 + 3 + 4.4 + 1.2) = 5280 health with 200*(1 + 1.1) + 200 = 620 armour. That's what any random player with Inaros should have access to. It gives you an effective health of 5280 + 5280*(620/300) = 16 192. Now let's get fancy. Let's throw an Arcane Guardian on top. That's an effective health of 5280 + 5280*(1220/300) = 26 752. Still not enough? Let's get even fancier and throw on an Adaptation. That's a multiplicative damage resistance of 90% max calculated at the end of the damage formula, so we end up with EHP of 26 752/(1 - 0.9) = 267 520. Uhh... Wait, what? So we went from ~16K to ~27K to ~270K? And I can go crazier still by applying Primed Vigor because I have over 200 days of veterancy, or Umbral Vitality and Umbral Fibre thanks to Umbral Forma, or Acrane Grace because the game keeps giving me 75% off on Platinum, making the numbers crazier still. I haven't even run the number on all of that nonsense because at this point my Inaros is basically unkillable. Even before that, though, his EHP had grown by a factor of nearly 50 times and that's from a basis which is already several times more than most other Warframes. I jumped into a random level 50 Nightmare mission on MOT with Inaros prior to Arcane Grace, and I was actually taking substantial amounts of damage. Sure, for me it wasn't a big deal since I could heal that back and survive just as easily if I was paying attention. But that was 270K+ EHP that a Heavy Gunner could blow through in a matter of a few seconds. What the actual #*!% is anyone who ISN'T Inaros going to do under those circumstances? Who else has the EHP to tank that amount of damage for long enough to even do anything about it? Yet that's the level of damage that's necessary to hurt ME... And all I did to fix it was pay money for Arcane Grace. Problem solved, nothing can kill me now. So to get back to my original point: What's the next step down from Inaros? Maybe Rhino or Nezha with their Iron Skin equivalents? Maybe, but they have nowhere near the hundreds of thousands of EHP to match. Maybe Atlas and Nidus? They have pretty high EHP which actually benefits from Adaptation, but even they don't come close. Hyldrin, maybe, cheesing her shield gate mechanic? Yeah, for a few seconds. And even if we accept that all of those are a distant second choice, what comes after THEM? Maybe the few tanky-ish Frames left over like Chroma, Valkyr and I forget what else. But the point is that with each step up the EHP scale, the steps grow larger to the point of impracticality. Anything designed to actually hurt a well-built Inaros is going to nuke practically everything else out of existence because the next step down is a chasm. Consequently, everything becomes a gear check. Find the one gun, one build, one Warframe, one cheesy tactic that's hundreds of times more effective than literally all of the others and trivialise the game... Or you could not do that and suck eggs instead. Because there's no good way to balance difficulty when so few options are so monumentally more powerful than the vast number of everything else. And I'm obviously not saying Inaros is the only Warframe worth playing. I'm merely bringing up a simple optimisation problem. If your goal is to tank damage long enough to kill the enemy comfortably, you have one right choice, a handful of pretty good choices, and then damn near everything else is some flavour "gets one-shot over level 100." I'm fine with some Frames being various flavours of tanky and others being various flavours of squishy, but the difference shouldn't be even REMOTELY this extreme.
  7. Yup, and it's almost entirely down to multiplicative buffs. Take damage, for instance. While individual damage buffs are high at over 100% per buff (and >800% for crits), their sum total is never really that high. Even if you massively over-slot for damage, you're rarely going to be looking at more than about *20 damage. That's a lot, but it's manageable via boosted enemy health. However, because base damage is multiplicative with elemental damage is multiplicative with critical hit damage, you can end up in situations of *4*4*9 = *144 damage. The numbers are somewhat free-hand, but not that far out of the ordinary. When player damage multipliers reach that level of absurdity, the combat system itself starts to break down. I'll give you a basic example. Mitigation as a function of damage resistance has increasing returns, massively so as you approach 100%. Recognising this, someone at DE coded damage resistance as function of armour with diminishing returns, massively so as resistance approaches 100%. Consequently, mitigation as a function of ARMOUR is linear. +300 armour gives you the same amount of damage mitigation whether you're starting from 0 armour or from 1500 armour. And yet despite all of this work, someone else came around later and set enemy armour ITSELF to scale non-linearly with enemy level, completely undermining the whole sodding point! And yet this was necessary because player damage was SO out of scale that a linear increase in armour would have put enemies into the HUNDREDS of levels in order to match player damage. As a brand new player just coming into the game, you might have access to Serration. You might even have had enough Credits and Endo to upgrade it to Rank 3! Ooh! That's a whole 60% bonus damage, or a 1.6 damage multiplier. You grow up, you upgrade that to maybe Rank 8 which is 135%, so you're looking at a 2.35 damage multiplier. Then you progress even further and decide to use some elemental damage. You've heard good things about Corrosive Damage and Infected Clip and Stormbringer are cheap to upgrade because they only go up to Rank 5. So you're adding another 180% damage, but you don't get a 2.35 + 1.8 = 4.15 multiplier. Instead, you get a (1 + 1.35)*(1 + 1.8) = 6.58 multiplier. Then you find yourself a weapon with a reliable critical hit multiplier. Say the Soma, which can be modded for 75% crit chance and 6.6 critical damage multiplier. Both of these are fairly cheap to get, because Point Strike and Vital Sense are common mods that only go up to level 5. So the weapon's semi-reliable critical hits now give you a (1 + 1.35)*(1 + 1.8)*(1 + 6.6) ~ 50 damage multiplier. Actually, a 50*2*2 = 200 damage multiplier if you score headshots due to the *2 headshot damage multiplier and the *2 "critical headshot" multiplier, which the Soma is accurate enough to score up-close. So what the hell was that progression? We went from *1 damage to *2.35, to *6.58 to *50-*200? Well that's a but of a jump. In that span of time, we've gone through fighting enemies levels 0-20, maybe 0-30 if we're generous. Well, OBVIOUSLY enemy health can't scale linearly at that point. It has to ramp up massively or else low-to-mid level players will utterly ROFLstomp all of the content. So instead damage resistance ramps up massively to account for that, and sort of maintains that pace in the later levels. The massive jump in player performance once players have access to decent mods is SO absurdly abrupt and extreme that game mechanics themselves start breaking down trying to catch up, and it only gets worse the higher you go. I'm of the opinion that significant, sweeping normalisation of damage and probably also EHP across the board is needed before claims at "balance" can really be made.
  8. The problem is that new players AREN'T feeling powerful. I've introduced a number of players to the game at this point, and every time it's the same story. Once we get to Jupiter/Saturn, the difficulty spike basically kills their enjoyment of the game. They can't survive, they can't deal damage and consequently get the feeling that they can't play by themselves. I'm usually the first one to chide veterans for being unable to see the game from a new player's perspective, but even I fall victim to that. A friend of mine complained the other day that none of his weapons could really hurt the Saturn Five Fugitives. I hadn't even noticed because for me they're a minor speed bump against a background of squishy enemies. But I remember a time when Elite Lancers were making the game unplayable for even myself. So when you guys start talking about how everyone's too powerful so nerf all the Warframes into the ground and buff all the enemies into godhood... Well, you're going to simply prevent new people from joining the game ever again. The issue with Warframe isn't how "powerful" players are, but rather how severe the difference between high-level and low-level players is. Making sweeping changes across the board is going to have massive consequences which extend beyond yourselves.
  9. Can someone explain to me why everyone seems to believe that prices will crash if DE were to implement a sensible trading system? Yes, a larger volume of trading has the potential to bring more supply from people who wouldn't have sold their items previously, but it also brings more demand from people who wouldn't have bothered before. A larger throughput is also harder to manipulate as each player's individual input is diminished in proportion to the whole, thus making prices both more stable and more reliably set by a supply/demand dynamic. The practices people fear - botting, price dumping, flipping, cartels - become less impactful the more active the market is. There's also a basic aspect of economics that seems to be overlooked here - as prices drop, availability increases and shopping becomes more convenient, people overall spend more. They might be spending less per item, but they spend more overall. A convenient market full of cheap goods is a pleasant place to browse for things you want, even if you don't necessarily need. An insular market that goes through a bunch of hoops, waiting, external sites and unreliably high prices, by contrast, is a place one goes to only as a last resort for items either too difficult or tedious to earn in-game. More trade generally leads to more money exchanging hands in the long run.
  10. Without wishing to be rude, this and your free-hand graphs tell me that you're guessing at a lot of the math. That's generally not a good idea when you're proposing changes. The reason Inaros and to a lesser extent Nidus are tough to this extent isn't their health, but rather how armour stacks with health and with Adaptation. My Inaros is sitting on ~6000 HP over 80% damage resistance over 90% damage resistance, which gives him upwards of 250 000 effective health last I checked, and that was before I slapped on an Arcane Grace. Hyldrin, by contrast, only has Adaptation to rely on, so her 4000 Shield is closer to 40 000 Effective Health. The reason Inaros, Nidus, Valkyr, Atlas and the like are able to be as tanky as they are is because of the way armour stacks with health to create absurd amounts of effective health, and because shields as a game mechanic suck ass. Warframe's general design is similar to Payday 2, Halo and all the other games with a regenerating shield over non-regenerating health. Warframes are intended to tank the majority of damage to shields, with health serving as a buffer for mistakes. Because shields don't scale and thus offer negligible protection, however, only the health-based and armour-based Warframes are able to get to these absurd effective health values. If you want to fix the disparity between Warframe survivability, start by fixing shields. Hyldrin is a dead-end attempt to do so by introducing shield gating. My personal proposal would be to remove shield recovery delay entirely and speed up shield recovery significantly. For one, that would give reason to slot for "Shield Recharge." For another, enough recovery might be able to if not outpace then at least take the edge off a lot of incoming damage. Make shields a powerful and reliable means of defence, make NOT having shields an actual downside. Go from there. The same goes on the subject of player damage. The numbers aren't the issue, but rather how they stack. Base damage is multiplicative with elemental damage, which is multiplicative with critical hit damage, leading to *100-*200 combined damage multipliers easily. The Rubico Prime deals 187 damage. MY Rubico Prime routinely hits for 60K-100K damage, and I don't even have a particularly good build for it - standard damage/multishot/crit/radiation build. That's absolutely absurd compared to a friend of mine whom I'm trying to introduce to the game, who can barely scrape the paint on the same enemies I'm one-shotting... Who are spawning in HIS storyline missions. When a weapon's damage can vary by TWO HUNDRED TIMES, the game is impossible to balance. Like I've said before - make all damage mods additive, including critical damage. That instantly cuts down player damage by A LOT (by upwards of 75%, the more optimise the build the more extreme this becomes) while also introducing natural diminishing returns on slotting for damage. Normalise player damage at least a LITTLE bit, then maybe enemies wouldn't need to have 95% damage resistance over 40K health and ridiculous amounts of damage.
  11. What you describe is a "glass cannon." Reducing an entire game's difficulty and balance system to minor variations on not just the same build but the same playstyle is not reasonable. If players have the choice of investing "build points" into defences, then those defences have to matter for it to be an actual meaningful choice. That in turn means that builds must exist who can "tank" one-shots through their defensive abilities, else there's no reason for them to exist in the first place. Your proposal is only meaningful as one isolated approach to the game, one isolated playstyle, rather than the full breadth of viable such. Long story short, Instagib is not an appropriate balance point for literally all character classes and builds in an RPG, regardless of how "lite" it might be.
  12. Any system which relies on enemies one-shotting you is a non-starter in a game with a deliberate and heavy emphasis on defensive abilities. Whenever suggestions for end game come up, they invariably boil down to some variation of "rocket tag" or "instagib," and neither is inherently good for a game-wide system. There's a reason the latter is a MODE of some Unreal games, not the be-all end-all definitive experience. I'm fine with "glass cannon" builds/frames/tactics for people who enjoy that, but that being the sole and only vision for end game is shortsighted, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I have precedent to cite. Diablo 3's Inferno difficulty used to be precisely that. The end result was that everyone ignored personal defence options which didn't work, stocked up on all the nukes and DPS they could find and turned the game into an exercise of killing the enemy before the enemy could actually DO anything. That had the effect of stripping not just complexity but entirely gameplay systems out of the game. Consequently Torment - the Inferno replacement - boosted enemy health far more significantly than enemy damage. The result was that DPS still mattered for efficiency, but the longer TTK also meant and emphasis on survival, as well. Long story short, one-hit-kills are not "end game." They're a mutator at best.
  13. To stop quickly, disable Boost (release or toggle off Sprint), then hold back on your controls. If you're still overshooting, dodge backwards (dodge or dodge/roll key) once or twice. That'll put you to a stop in all Archwing environments without requiring you to overshoot or swivel your camera around. On topic: I'm personally perfectly fine with Boost only moving forward, but I do agree that non-boost movement speed can be made a bit faster and more convenient. Crucially, I feel that Archwings need to experience overall less momentum, particularly when not boosting. Play it off like automated retro-thrust or what have you, just let my Archwing start moving and stop moving faster. I'm fine with having significant drift in Boost mode, and would in fact like for my Archwing to continue drifting in a line if I let go of the throttle, such that I can turn around to shoot backwards or track targets on the ground. Wouldn't be opposed to having a bit of a jet-fighter-like turning radius when boosting, either, for the added sense of speed. Right now, Archwing mechanics are incredibly janky, with physics obviously cheating and breaking all sorts of rules. Hopefully, Railjack will address some of these things.
  14. Agreed completely. Make Syndicate sigils purely cosmetic, let us toggle our allegiance in the Syndicate console instead. Maybe also while speaking with Syndicate reps in person. Let cosmetics be cosmetic, don't force me to wear (and then try to hide) a giant fugly glowing sigil on my back. If people want to wear the sigils anyway, then more power to them - they're still there as cosmetic options. Those of us who don't want to wear sigils, however, can look cool AND still engage in the game's systems.
  15. I genuinely don't get this game's obsession with locking out joiners shortly into a mission. All that's done is made it harder to join or invite my friends if they happen to log in while we're doing something. Yeah, I get that it's there to prevent people gaming the system, but would that ever really be that prevalent?
  • Create New...