TheLexiConArtist
-
Posts
3,174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheLexiConArtist
-
-
4 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:
Did you forget the fact that eidolons are only active for less than half the day night cycle?
Granted you need to go atleast 20 minutes into the arbi to get the better rewards. And losing early means waiting.
You also need to do eidolons in a sequence to get desired arcanes.
Would I mind if the Arcanes came to SS? No.
Do i find the comparison of eidolon hunts to arbitration runs equal? Not exactly.
You're forgetting that some idiot decided to add unique rewards in the non-repeating rotations of Arbitrations. Including one of the Arcanes.
So you're allowed to get exactly 1 pull of that slot machine per hour for rotations A and B, with drop rates of 2%-5% depending on the item. That might be slightly more 'reasonable' for the mods you're not as worried about getting in duplicate, but when it comes to farming Arcane Bodyguard, which is only on A and B, it's very much not.
Besides, the average Scarlet Spear victory wave of 15000 is worth just under 3 tridolon captures in equivalent value, right? Since the score improvement it's fairly equal for effort, but before it was still notably more appealing in general to run tridolons same as always.
-
1
-
-
It's drastically unfair to PC players that Tennogen which is in the common currency market for consoles does not get converted to such on PC under a similar agreement.
Letting PC players pay the premiums for initial artist support and 'early access' is fine. Keeping it at obscene premium for PC once consoles can pay effectively less is like forcing a subset of the customer base to donate to the creator's Patreon just because they're on a different platform, after paying the same price for the content itself, in order to use it.
And that doesn't even address the problem of it being in the trade market for consoles but absolutely exempt from trading access on PC.
Meanwhile, anybody who doesn't have abundant cash to throw at pixels is stuck with basic skins and occasionally and eventually a Deluxe. DE more or less outsources 99% of making new cosmetics to Tennogen creators, so they don't have to do much of their own, and maintaining the selective non-trading barrier to that is just not reasonable.
-
I'm still waiting for them to realise the whole Relic system is unsustainable and awful, with triplicate levels of grind and removal of no-downside sharing making for a wider delta of RNG influence, and just bring back my Void keys.
Or at least stop dumping unvault relics in the only reliable farming system we have (Bounties, where you know exactly which relic you will get) so we can cut out the most painful RNG wall. Because I never want to see Xini again after being stuck in there for an average seven solid hours between drops of a specific relic back in the Valkyr Prime release.
-
5 minutes ago, NekroArts said:
My guess is that the Eidolon Arcanes are more heavy on farming than Arbitrations. Arbitration Arcanes can be farmed at nearly any given time and with the right mission(s) plays can farm the Arcanes much quicker than Eidolons. All Arbitration Arcanes dropped in the mission, but one, can be obtained in the "C" rotation and having infinite "C" makes it much easier to get.
Arbitration should have never had unique A and B rotation drops. NEVER. Whichever intern to the company had the idea to do so needs to be severely re-educated.
If only either of the two were true between "Repeats only C rotations" and "Limited runs of the mission until global timer expires" then it would be acceptable. Both, together, the way it is? No. Especially not for something you need to find 21 copies to complete.
-
1
-
-
In light of the Stasis neutering versus Sentients, it's definitely relevant to give solo their full speed. Stasis was one of the vanishingly few things that could let a solo player operate at all, and now it's just.. not reliable for Sentients, so Space missions are absolutely nonviable if you're sitting around for 400% of the time a squad - who can bring far more varied tools to the effort as well - needs to defend.
Neither mission was terribly solo friendly to begin with, regardless of DE's claims, but I'd say now they're both about as unfriendly as each other.
Oplink defense is still reasonable in Ground, but you have to handle the sentient wave clear and Condrix softcap to single-source DPS slowing you down significantly.
Now, in space, you can fly your Railjack and deal with boarding parties alone, but no longer can you reliably defend the actual oplink. -
31 minutes ago, ADirtyMonk said:
It sounds like you're complaining that my changes dont allow a solo player to easily run the entirety of a mission scaled around a 4 player squad because the only way this was possible was to AFK with a broken ability for 45 minutes.
Sorry you're salty you wont be able to 100% solo what is essentially an 8 man soft-raid but I for one would actually like to play the event instead of shooting at frozen fish in a shrinking barrel all day.
DE stated the ground missions are solo friendly. They're literally not even that, but some of your suggestions want to make them even more crippling, along with 100% killing the 'not directly balanced for but plausible to solo' Space missions. Solo is a valid playstyle, and unless it forces you to bring a squad like Raids did, then it should be reasonably possible to accomplish, even if cheesier strategies still available to squads are a necessity to do so.
For the record, I was intending to be more critical of DE's current design flaws that make these necessities what they are - which you said yourself, referencing Murex 4-5 and Limbo being tantamount obligatory - than of what you brought to suggest.
But it's better to have something possible through cheese despite bad design than just barricade entry. It's already hard enough getting a Flotilla off the starting blocks - and whoever goes for that first Murex kill, if they didn't bring a premade, is probably stuck in solo for the rest of the mission even if their squad is open, because joining is locked.
And Demolysts are pretty horrible enemies. Possibly worse than basic Nullifiers themselves.
-
3
-
-
It's a problem with the relic system as a whole. This player response is just the natural result of making it so that's a vastly more efficient means of cracking specific relics than.. actually grinding out the several layers of relic RNG.
With the current exception of Scarlet Spear inundating players with relics of Lith through Neo grade, the only reasonable source of specific, individual relics that respects time investment is knowing what you'll get in Bounty rewards. However, DE keep shoving Unvault relics in those drop tables so nobody can farm for the things they're far more likely to want - anything more recent.
Allow me to share an anecdote:
When Valkyr Prime was dropped, I farmed Xini, solo, for 56 gameplay hours in order to get enough of the relevant Axi relic - all of which I radshared - to finally see the rare part drop so I could build her. 56 hours of repetitive solo interception for one part.
It took 7 hours on average between drops of the relic I was looking for. And I was unlucky enough to need 8. That is awful.
Now think how many public squads could be dipped into and out of in seven hours.
-
2
-
-
Using my experience in solo as a baseline, the following time ranges were in play:
Ground (Pre-Condrix health nerf): 80-85 minutes
Ground (Post-health nerf): ~65 minutes
Space: ~25-40 minutes (heavily depending on how much the boarding parties want to waste my life)
If you bring a squad, the Condrix's single-source DPS softcapping doesn't hold you back as much, and you can have some beefy buffing lads without leaving your link vulnerable. It is far less solo-friendly than space is, despite DE's claim to the contrary.
As a result, the 2-3x time taken as a solo players is narrowed significantly. Also due to oplink speed scaling positively on player count (i.e. punishing incomplete squads just because).
Given the score differences, it takes a solo player optimistically 200% the time to run a full ground mission which accrues 122.4% score. This is why space is better for time investment in the solo case. However, due to DEsign issues, only 6 (or 7 at a stretch) squads are actually capable of reaching 5000 points in space runs before the wave is forcibly ended.
-
9 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:
Your problem is you dont read the tip correctly and I will leave it at that. You keep miss quoting the tip over and over with your "Defense Objective" when that isnt at all what the tip says. Get the grammar right and you might understand it.
You can't defeat a rebuttal to your argument by spouting the same nonsense that has already been shown to be completely beside the point. Whether or not your blind deification of casing is making a salient difference in what it governs, it doesn't change the outcome because every definition has been defied by the change, even your hyper-specific one.
But you know, since we're full of logical fallacies today, I suppose a straw-man should be expected at some point. I'm not arguing the varying catchment of (D/d)efense (O/o)bjective because I don't need to.
-
9
-
-
1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:
1. That doesnt really matter, because it doesnt change what the tip says. I'm not really seeing your point here to be honest.
2. Not the same. There is only 1 Defense mode in WF, it refers to that mode. If it did say defense without a capital letter it could imply anything we defend. Also, what the frick is with all vague food analogies on the net? Come up with something more accurate if you need to have an analogy when it really isnt needed since the meaning being discussed is rooted in english grammar.
3. We are talking warframes here, not archwing or operator. Also, the wording is "Defense objective" not "Defense Objective", resulting in two widely different meanings in the context it is presented. The first one refers to something very specific, the second refers to a wider collection of things.
4. Again, we are talking about frame abilities. We dont really know if the others are intended or not. So we can only go on what is available within the same "class" of items.
5. It still says Defense objective as in the specific mode. Again, simple english grammar to differentiate meaning and intent.
6. It isnt proof for one single thing when it can be interpreted both ways and the other way is also backed up by a capitalisation of a specific name, refering to a specfic part/use. It is there in black and white. It is you and others who sway from the proper use of grammar since it doesnt benefit your opinion. My own opinion is that it simply isnt 100% accurate eitherway, so it is really on DE what they actually intended or not. If you go by the actual wording only Defense mode objectives should be open to Venari healing, both static and mobile, while everything else should not.
- Clarifying precedence guides how the tips can be interpreted with regards to existing behaviour. If it was an at-launch you could argue that non-Defense objectives were possibly below intent. Tips happening afterwards signifies that the behaviour was observed in its existing way, and the conclusion drawn from that - its target viability was not considered a bug but a feature, and a tip written about part of the benefits that result.
- You're attempting to obfuscate the point. The point is not what the tip does state, it is clarifying the nature of what it does not. It does not make any declaration for or against any targets not "Defense Objectives". It doesn't state they should be acceptable, but their omission does not state that they are absolutely not acceptable.
- They are still healing factors, you are moving the goalposts. Archwings operate exactly as Warframes, having their own dedicated ability sets attached to the same mechanical usage as Warframes do. So Amesha is the strongest proof of concept for its ability to heal static objects. Since this is shared with Vazarin Dash, we can assume safely that regardless of the textual semantics, there are no programmatical semantics which treat an Excavator and a Defense objective differently - ergo, if we could summon an Amesha in Defense, it would heal the Defense objective.
- As above.
- If you want to cite English grammar you should probably start with reading comprehension. A non-exhaustive listing structure, as the tip clearly is (the only logical definition, otherwise Venari wouldn't heal Khora much less anything else) is often explained with the phrase "including, but not limited to". So Venari can heal entities including, but not limited to, Defense objectives.
- I'll indulge myself a little tu-quoque here: Grammar rules include apostrophes on contractions, which you're lacking severely right there. But, rather than quibble over capitalisation and the debatable catchment thereof (DE are not paragons of absolutely flawless English either, and capitalisation is often used for Dramatic Emphasis as well, it could be merely leading the player's eye to the Important Words) I have instead defeated the argument by proving that no matter how narrow that catchment is, it has been violated by this change.
In conclusion:
Cryopods are a (D/d)efense (O/o)bjective by any distinction. Cryopods can no longer be healed by Venari now that Venari cannot heal static, inanimate entities. QED, it was not a 'fix' as it removed behaviour that was intended.
Furthermore, since we can see other abilities treat a Cryopod no differently to any other objective that is to be defended (including but not limited to MobDef consoles, Excavation drills, Kuva Survival siphoning towers), we can extend that determined intent to said other objectives - they inherit from the same code class for governing health and effects, but just use a different geometry model and have different events bolted on to work with the mission design - since there has been no statement made that they should differ (unlike OpLinks).
-
4
-
8 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:
Introduced after the fact of what?
The capitalisation of D very much defines the meaning of the word in question. So going by the proper english wording, then no, the other things were definently not ment to be effected., so that behavior was very much unintended since those modes arent Defense.
Yes and no, since tips arent 100% accurate when it comes to full descriptions and we already know how static objectives interact with other healing, which is to say not at all. The tips arent part of the actual skill tooltip, they are tips for the kit as a whole. It isnt stated on the skill itself. Sortie operatives are still effected, just as arbi operatives.
And agreed there is no statement, but you can see it in game that no healing works on the static objectives, atleast not healing provided by frames, which the power in question originates from. Not that statements are common regarding anything since most thing we find out on our own, what does or doesnt work.
Removing all static objectives was acceptable, since it wasnt part of the tip to begin with, except for the possiblity of static Defense pods. So in reality they nerfed one thing, star chart Defense missions, but only in a reality where the tips are 100% accurate in their very short descriptions.
Either the tip you and others so happily cite is 100% correct in all situations, or it is flawed and inaccurate and something that cannot be used as proof or facts. It cant be both.
- After the fact of the ability itself. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Tips were not a thing before Khora and Venari were in the game. Therefore, behaviour first, tips second.
- False dichotomy again. If I state that you can eat bread, this does not mean you cannot eat a potato as it is not bread. It confirms a non-exhaustive selection of things that are true.
- Counterpoint: Just off the top of my head I can think of two healing factors usable on static targets. Amesha's 2 and Vazarin's Protective Dash. The former we can't clarify on 'Defense Objectives' by the narrowest definition of such, since they're not open-world missions, but Vaz Dash has been a safe backup for anyone not wanting to be pigeonholed into a defense frame.
- See 3. 'At least not healing by frames' is just moving the goalposts.
- Again inaccurate as the tip is a non-exhaustive confirmation of what definitively was intended.
- We can play semantics all day, but the proof is evident that some static objectives were inarguably intended, therefore it is a valid argument to extend that to any other static objective to which no direct statement has been made (any non-OpLink; the patch note stating it as a 'fix' does not count as this is proven as fallible by virtue of contradicting in part what the tip does confirm)
-
2
-
4 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:
And again, tips are not 100% accurate descriptions of a skill and how it interacts, they are just tips.
And if you want it to be 100% accurate then it was never intended to work on anything besides static Defense objective aswell as sortie/arbi Defense objectives. Excavators are Excavation objectives, Kuva survival siphons are Kuva Survival objectives and so on.
The whole 100% accuracy in a tip doesnt just go one way. So make up your minds about what you really claim they nerfed that was intended.
The tip was introduced after the fact, and it corroborated the existing behaviour.
It is not exclusive (no matter which way you judge the capitalisation semantics); so it working on things that are not within its mentioned catchment does not mean they are unintended.
However, it does confirm that Defense Objectives should be affected, which at the very least defines that Cryopods, Artifacts and Power Cores, all inanimate static objectives, should be included as well as Operatives found in Sorties etc. This is no longer the case.
Ergo, the 'fix' was not a fix, it was an objective behavioural change, i.e. a nerf to some existing behaviours with evidential intent.
There is no statement anyone has been able to cite that states any given object (besides OpLinks for the purpose of the event) should not be a valid target for any abilities or healing sources that do happen to affect them currently.
Removing OpLinks from viable targets was acceptable. Removing anything else was not.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:
Yes it does, just not on static versions of it. So it is still true to the tip and how all other warframe heals work in the game.
So, 'it does except it doesn't'. Moving the goalposts. You should probably brush up on logical fallacies.
-
1
-
-
Just now, SneakyErvin said:
It is a tip. Lots of things are stated in the tips, none of them are 100% descriptive of every minor thing. The tip still holds true and is as true as most other tips in the game.
If you want the tip to be 100% true the ability would only work on "Defense objectives", not on rescuees, defectors or anything else, because they arent defense targets. It abviously also was faulty according to the tip since it worked on extractors, kuva survival siphons and other things that arent "Defense objectives".
So your own proof proved you wrong since it is a matter of interpretation in both cases due to an as usual vague skil tip.
False dichotomy. Stating that it works on a defense target doesn't state it won't work on anything else.
Besides, you ostensibly have to 'defend' everything else it works on - rescue targets are to be defended, as are defectors, while escorting to extraction - the only exceptions are Clem and Syndicate buddies, who are irrelevant.
-
4
-
-
Just now, nslay said:
And if we actually need this heal at all for star chart cryopods... we can further nitpick: auto-heal does not activate until after several seconds of not taking damage. I assume Venari can heal it on demand at any time and keep it going regardless of stray bullets.
This was actually the case on oplinks. Rejuvenation and Venari Heal would be deferred a few seconds after it took damage. My guess is that under the hood it's programmed as 'additive health regen', so anything that prevents natural regen (such as taking damage) works against these as well, even if the 'natural regen' is zero.
-
30 minutes ago, ShaperOfForm said:
Why are people so upset about not being able to heal cryopods. They self heal. There is no reason to cast heal on a cryopod.
Moving defense targets don't self heal. Those are the things you would want to heal. And guess what? You can!
Natural healing of an inanimate defendable object (if at all, not all do self-repair): Maybe 10 hps.
Venari Heal: 50 hps at 100% power strength.
Anyone who's ever been in a tight situation in defense and legitimately needed to allow the objective to self-heal can attest that it takes an eternity for it to get anywhere. Venari heal just accelerated the process to a slightly more usable level.
And who exactly said that all static defendable objects were 'never intended to be healed by the player'? I'm going to give a big [citation needed] on that one. We only have a statement that OpLinks are not meant to be targetable by abilities - disregarding the fact that they still are subject to most that aren't healing - and this only makes arguable sense because of the credit-sink 'support' mechanic (which we'd all happily do without, honestly).
-
2
-
-
I'm all for removing arbitrary punishments against solo play but having this auto-filling design can have some problems.
Sometimes you need to have absolute control over what's going on, beyond anything an AI can be directed to comprehend. It might be possible solo, but not while having AI milling around making a fuss. The low spawn limit can even make some of this easier; thinking of CC-strategies for defensive missions, Interceptions etc, where you gather and control the total spawns instead of needing to be a strict defender frame or a murderframe.
Sometimes you want to be the only possible target (often so that you can be no target) - I can't tell you how many times I've gotten screwed over by the uncontrollable spawn of a converted Lich, inviting chaos and crossfire that's gotten my squishy stealth 'frame killed; I wish I could tell my Kavat to stick with me when I'm sitting in my Ivara Cloak Arrow bubble instead of jumping out and drawing fire in the general area I'm trying to stay safe.
-
DE: "We've made this mission 'solo friendly'"
Also DE: "Just kidding, we're punishing solo players with a 75% speed reduction / 400% defend time extension, which they implicitly can't be versatile to compensate so a defense frame and/or cheese is mandatory"
Also Also DE: "HA HA NO actually we've also made the giant eyeball soft-cap DPS from any single source, so the only way to scale damage fully is to have multiple sources firing on it at once, your attempts at stacking power all onto your solo self are going to be neutered."
OP: "Force multiplayer, outright bypass everything that lets a solo player actually complete the missions already artificially stacked against them"
-
2
-
-
Artemis Bow is no more of an 'AOE weapon' naturally than the Cernos Prime, it just has a higher multishot base. Without Split Flights, 100% Strength Artemis Bow deals 268% damage output of the Cernos Prime. After Split Flights only usable on Cernos but not Artemis, Artemis Bow deals 120% the damage output of Cernos Prime using Split Flights.
It's clear to me that DE is using the augment as a scapegoat for why Artemis can't use the mod.
So now, not only does Artemis Bow have a literal nerf you pay for in that awful augment, it's actively hindering players who don't opt into it.
Concentrated Arrow is terrible, it destroys your output if you don't land the headshots, and the implicit accuracy reduction of Split Flights would almost completely prevent those headshots from landing at anything but point blank range anyway.
Assuming that you can even keep the stacks going with an explosive bow. If it was doing its job, you'd have nothing else nearby to shoot at using the active Split Flights buff before it expires!
Remove/rework the S#&$ty augment and give us Split Flights for natural Artemis.
-
4
-
-
The best comparison to make is to find next-nearest counterpart standard weapon and judge potency between them.
For example:
Ivara's Artemis (non-augment) versus Cernos Prime: 268% potency at base power strength (further reduced to a pathetic 120% thanks to Split Flights only being usable on the latter!)
Mesa's Regulators versus AkSomati Prime: a whopping 625% potency at base power strength, which increases the more Mesa's focus scaling kicks in.
It's clear Artemis is suck-fail unless you drop heavy power strength into the mix, compared to Mesa, and yet it's also got the worst augment possible (a literal nerf if you can't hit headshots, and even if you do make the explosions it only scales relevantly thanks to Hunter Munitions) which DE has now decided to use as a scapegoat to kick Ivara further into the gutter by disallowing Split Flights ever on the Artemis Bow - it's really no more of an AOE bow than the Cernos Prime, without the augment, it just has a better base multishot.
-
On 2020-03-30 at 11:01 PM, DatDarkOne said:
The major difference is that Artemis damage is NOT divided between the arrows. For the Cernos Prime it is.
Meaning Cernos Prime overall damage is divided between the arrows (there's some slight addition with more multishot). Artemis Bow damage starts with the Arrow itself. Each arrow adds it's damage to the overall total.
Multishot on Artemis is really adding (240.0 damage per arrow at base 100 PS) for each arrow added.
Now when you see that you can already get 19-21 arrows on Artemis without the Split Flight mod, you can kinda see why DE doesn't allow it on Artemis. it would instantly make all other Exalted Weapons look like toys.
This is not to say I wouldn't like to have it working on Artemis (I would slap that mod on in a heartbeat), only that I understand why DE didn't do it.
I think you're grossly misinterpreting what is a mere description of the difference in presentation as it were.
240 * (7 * 1.9) is the exact same thing as (240 * 7) * 1.9.
The former is as if listing 'per arrow' damage, the latter as if listing overall damage then split between the projectiles. Either way you're adding the same multiplier of multishot.
Damage per projectile doesn't change even if the Artemis Bow is listing one arrow's value. Only the total, after multishot, now our Arsenal is less dumb than whenever that wiki text was included. (Slightly less dumb, considering the Cernos having two per-projectile entries. I guess this is DE's answer to listing charged/uncharged damage outputs on a multi-mode bow?)
Both are affected equally in practice, it's just that Artemis starts off at a higher base of multishot. The Cernos has 184 damage per arrow, Artemis Bow has 240 (power strength notwithstanding). Cernos fires 3 for a net base of 552; Artemis fires 7, for a net base of 1480. So it's about 268% as potent.
Now, with Split Flights, the total damage output based on Split (*) + Vigilante Armaments gives 552 * 5.6 = 3091.2 net damage for the Cernos at full stack, 1480 * 2.5 = 3700 net damage for Artemis Bow.
Disregarding stack maintenance and draw time, that means our shiny Exalted Weapon is now merely 120% as potent at base power strength compared to its nearest equivalent non-Exalted alternative.
Now let's look at another Exalted weapon to see how it compares to a near-equivalent.
Let's look at Mesa's Regulators versus the
AkStilettoAkSomati Primes.25% versus 24% base crit chance, both 3.0 base crit damage.
14.8 fire rate versus 13.33
125 damage per shot versus 20.
Even before you consider Mesa's aimbotting and scaling stats as she focuses, the Regulators blow the competition out of the water at 625% potency. Plus marginally better base crit chance and reasonably superior fire rate.
Tell me again how Artemis would make other exalted look like toys? It's better than a traditional bow, perhaps, but that's your limit - and traditional bows are generally low-tier no matter to what you're comparing them.
-
2
-
-
@Thundervision I still don't dare to blow an entire wave's progress on testing it, but having been sat around waiting for above an hour for codes to happen myself without it auto-failing, I wonder if what you experienced was instead something like the bug I've run into frequently, which I thought should only apply to soloing (but Warframe being Warframe, you never know), wherein the mission instantly halts or fails the moment I dare switch to Operator?
It pretends I lost my OpLink, whether it's been undamaged or even unused in one case; if I trigger the fail on my way into a second Murex I can even place my OpLink down despite the game pretending I have none left.
Seems consistent with that "Event goal failed" (OpLink 'destroyed') message.
-
Effectively, this soft DPS capping mechanic is another reason that ground missions are solo unfriendly. The only way to gain absolute damage output is to have different damage sources hit the Condrix.
Which means, either Mirage's clones, or other players. Solo players can try to bring the buff-ing-est things they have and they get actively punished for it (but wait! They can't do that because they HAVE to bring something to babysit their oplink.. which itself has to be babysat for 4 times longer, too..)
-
5
-
-
Update: Last wave this happened in a mission immediately when switching to Operator for the first time before even deploying OpLink in the first Murex (causing a full Mission Failed instantly, instead of being directed back to the flotilla, as no Murex completions means no navigation console).
So it's not just squeezing the extra seconds out with an early recall. I can no longer confirm repro steps.
I thought it might be a leaky-state issue alike the now fixed bug of missing enemy space fighters on subsequent Murex raid runs, but I also caused the bug on 4/5 Murex downed in my first run of that same wave (prior to the instant-fail occurrence happening in my third attempted run). It's just doing it whenever it feels like it. I'm afraid to use my Operator ever.
Play OUR way.
in General
Posted
My playstyle is solo. I soloed through ground several times, as Frost. Occasionally an Elite Shield Lancer would cheat through my globe and instagib my link. I switched to Limbo. It's annoying, either way, because I can't be a DPS powerhouse at the same time (and on top of that, the Condrix is designed to remove single-source DPS stacking).
I switched to Space.
It took, and continues to take, half the time to complete. Its reward was, and is, only about 20% lower than Ground. It was vastly easier to solo, Railjack tankiness permitting, because you're not being asked to pull double duty - just the obligatory defense. Space is far more solo-friendly, no matter what changes have been made, than Ground.
Now Limbo cuts off his own protections from Sentients that were lingering under platforms and such, which just results in a bunch of 'lol gotcha' surprises by the final Murex, sentients who won't be affected by Stasis - it's not even diminishing returns as far as I could tell, trying to 'recapture' one that was moving in my rift did nothing at all - will turn up and twat you with one of their stick-arms, and you die. Or your link will.
I've moved onto the next best thing. It's working, it's not braindead - I have to be active because the sentients cheat rampantly against so many protective abilities - and it's not perfect, so if it takes too long due to insufficient Fish Teams, I'm going to risk my Oplink getting taken down by sheer cheating-enemy attrition.
It's still more solo-friendly than Ground. I'm still going to keep running it, solo if necessary.
DE needs to rethink what 'solo friendly' actually means, though, because even in the more friendly space mission where you're not also being tasked with the double-duty and limitations of damage output, 'defend four times longer just because you're solo and there's nothing else you can do to solve that except adding people' is not solo-friendly.