Aesthier

That's easy: This was, by the way, in response to me saying that because Warframe is a multiplayer game, its frames need to be designed not to harm their teammates' experience, so it stands to reason that you were trying to excuse her multiplayer problems by arguing that she wasn't designed for group play. Backtracking here does nothing to hide the fact that you've both implicitly acknowledged and tried to excuse her ability to deny her allies a core part of Warframe's gameplay. First off your conclusion that I was arguing that she wasn't designed for group play is entirely incorrect. Also I never asked you to conclude anything I simply asked you to provide a reference where I "stated" she wasn't designed for group play. Which you have failed to do and quite honestly can't because I never made such a statement. As far as what I was referencing in the second quote was the following statement: I think that the disconnect is that you believe that Warframe was made only for people who group when it was actually made from the very beginning to support play for both types of players those who like to group and those who like to solo. I was referring to the first sentence in your above post because it is the premise on which the second sentence is built. If warframe was a multiplayer only game then your assertion that any frame that is harmful to multiplayer gameplay needs to change as opposed to the entire playerbase changing might hold some water. For Warframe to be a multiplayer only game it would mean that players would be forced to group to complete any content. Players are not forced to group at all and content can be done in a group or solo as the player sees fit. Even if a frame was harmful to the multiplayer side of the house it wouldn't mean that she was harmful to the solo-player side of the house thus your use of "entire playerbase" is misleading at best and blatantly incorrect at worst. Now for your second assertion. I would gladly accept the bold section above as correct if the assertion held true in an absolute or majority sense. If a frames gameplay is harmful to multiplayer gameplay in a multiplayer game (which Warframe obviously contains portions of) , that frame needs to change. Ok so lets look at that. Your posts and the posts of others in multiple rework Saryn type threads provide evidence that Saryn's kit provides a definite hindrance to a portion of the populace where group play is concerned by over limiting the amount of enemies available for other group members to kill within what they feel is a reasonable distance. There are also other players' posts in these multiple rework Saryn threads that provide evidence that Saryn's kit provides a definite benefit to a portion of the populace where group play is concerned by increasing the killing efficiency and overall kill numbers, among other benefits. So we can see that Saryn's kit is not harmful to "all" multiplayer gameplay however it does negatively effect the multiplayer gameplay for some portion of the playerbase. Whether (thank you for the corrective spelling suggestion btw.) that requires a change to Saryn's kit or not depends upon several factors two of which are; how many players are currently affected in a negative manner vs the number of players who are currently affected in a positive manner, and what other alternative measures currently exist or can be created with minimal negative impact to the playerbase as a whole. I would like to add a side note here as I have been noticing an error that many in this thread have made that serves as an outright misrepresentation concerning the populace at large. That would be the use of "everyone" or "everyone else" in the prosecution or defense of a perspective without the use of descriptive limitations such as "everyone who uses the party tool" vs "everyone" (without any further descriptive limitations). The fact is none of us speaks for everyone in Warframe. We speak on our own behalf and there will most assuredly be some portion of the population that shares a similar or even the same perspective inside these threads and even beyond the forums. However, however large or small that population may be at the end of the day we cannot claim to "know" whether that population is in the minority or majority outside the confines of these forums. Thus for the sake of clarity if you must use these terms please use descriptive limiters to identify which groups you are talking about if you want to keep any measure or believe-ability. Now back to the discussion: So the first point is that Saryn's kit should be changed to eliminate the "possibility" of harm to multiplayer gameplay. So what portions of the playerbase would implementing this change affect (in a positive or negative manner is not the argument yet we are just looking at those who would be affected). Anyone who plays Saryn or groups with Saryn after the change would be affected. (In my opinion this number would be massive compared to the number not affected). The only players I can think of that would not be affected would be those who either don't acquire Saryn or never play her and are solo only players on top of that. (Maybe they quit before then or maybe she just doesn't appeal to them at all.) How many would be affected by increased party tool controls? Anyone who uses the party tool to randomly fill out groups or randomly find groups to play in would be affected. Anyone who plays solo only or only invites friends or only uses targeted invites would not be affected. Once you have an honest assessment of those numbers then you can begin to break down what portions of those numbers are affected in a negative or positive way. You would need those numbers for a decision based on the majority because both those situations and populations currently exist. Regardless which change is chosen some population is going to be inconvenienced. Claims of "massively inconvenienced" sound like hype to me as no one wants to be inconvenienced no matter the degree. And both sides will claim the amount they suffer is the worst. I would agree that out of all the options, besides changing Saryn's kit, using the recruiting chat to find group members sounds like the most frustrating. Hence why I suggested the use of friends or providing feedback on a better party tool control measures. The issue I see is that you are unwilling to even discuss these and instead dismiss them outright, demanding at the same time that Saryn kit changes would benefit "everyone" (which they clearly wouldn't). Yes changes to Saryn's kit would clearly benefit those who don't enjoy playing her or with her in groups due to her current kit state but what portion of the populace do these players truly represent? Again only DE knows. While we are on the topic of populations: Perhaps I am, but my opinion is supported by the fact that there is a majority of people here who are in fact criticizing Saryn, despite the attempts by a minority as vocal as they are tiny to clog up this thread with white knighting. Moreover, as a quick search should indicate, this is by no means the only thread criticizing Saryn, and the result are the same with entirely different samples of people, and so across every Warframe-themed discussion space. If DE thinks differently, I'd be interested as to where they'd be getting their information from, and even more so as to how you'd know DE's opinion any better than me. When I stated that I am only seeing a vocal few that have problems with Saryn I was referring to the fact that the amount that are vocally requesting for changes to Saryn, in the forums, are only a few out of the entire populace of Warframe players. It makes sense that only a potion of the players who are displeased with something in a game will actually take the time to post about it in the forums. Thus the number of people who are displeased with a specific mechanic or item in the game will most likely be larger than the population posting about it. It also makes sense that fewer players, who are not displeased about a specific mechanic and enjoy it, will come to the forums to post in defenses of that mechanic because they are to busy enjoying the game. Those that do come to post in defense of those mechanics do so to ensure that their side is represented and that changes are not haphazardly made based on input that is one sided only. So yes while I have not counted I would agree that it is likely that, in the confines of Saryn rework threads, those desiring change outnumber those desiring no change. My point however is that just because those desiring change outnumber those desiring no change (within the confines of rework threads) does not mean that the opposite is not true when expanded beyond the confines of the forums to the entire player population as a whole. As far as DE's opinion is concerned you would be correct that neither of us knows anymore than the other and I never suggested such. I do see where it would be beneficial to know the actual statistics but I don't think either of us will actually be exposed to those. At the end of the Day DE will most likely change or not change Saryn based upon the statistical majority, only they are privy to, or based upon their future vision of Saryn or perhaps both. Until then I would expect you to hold to your guns as I will mine.

I am not on break from Warframe. I am enjoying every minute of it.

Sweet now all those players that keep posting about how Warframe should be more like Destiny can go post on the Destiny forums on how Destiny should be more like Warframe and give the Warframe forums a rest.

I never said she wasn't designed for group play. Please show me the reference for that. She actually works quite well in groups. Again Saryn can work quite well in groups however the reason I brought in the differences in soloplay and group play is because you are "demanding" that a change be made that will effect all those who use her for good or bad when other less intrusive alternatives exist. See below: So far I am seeing only a vocal few that have problems with Saryn. How many people in this thread think she is fine compared to how many are complaining that she isn't? Are threads representative of the entire populace? Where does that line lay? I believe only DE knows but I also think you are falling prey to the idea that your opinions are the opinions of the majority. But that is an entirely different argument altogether. Take a good look at what you just stated because I want you to recognize the falsehood in it. Everyone but me gets inconvenienced? I would logicaly guess that those players who said in this very thread that they think she is fine would not be inconvenienced. Nor would those that enjoy her playstyle as it currently is. On top of that to make the change DE would be inconvenienced as it would take more time from the other items they are working on. Any change will inconvenience someone or even some population it is just the way it is. However when offered alternative solutions that might minimize the populations inconvenienced by any change you simply dismiss them. I agree with you on the point that forcing players into recruiting chat is a sub-optimal solution however as I mentioned earlier you could suggest for better grouping tools to be implemented to get away from using recruiting chat. However you apparently feel that suggestion is crap as it was one of the three you took offense to below: Really? You don't see the irony in this at all? I actually enjoy how Saryn plays and I see and enjoy the benefits of being in groups alongside her so yes I would be inconvenienced by having her nerfed or even changed yet again especially when there are other items in the game that need more work and effect a larger populace. On your part you want her changed because you find her too powerful and want her changed so you can avoid putting forth the effort of adapting and playing to her strengths in a group. Ok. This point I think I finally understand what you are trying to say. You are not saying that one style of play holds anymore weight than the other. All you are saying is that frames should be balanced around both multiplayer and solo and that you feel Saryn is not balanced in multiplayer. Is this correct? And what specifically is that fundamental bit of core gameplay? I would also infer that there are already definitive benefits to having her in a group in her current rendition ones that you are either unaware of or don't care about. Excuses? Accusations? You have been doing a fine job using those all by yourself, you don't need my help in deflection you are king in that arena. Abusive or non abusive is subjective. However you are correct that such a change would be based on "consistent and sizeable feedback". There is consistent feedback on both sides of this matter stretching back for quite some time. You and others consistently supply the arguments for such a change and I and others consistently provide feedback against such a change. Weather such feedback is sizeable or not only DE knows. Only they can tell with any real degree of accuracy how many players would be effected good or bad. Everyone else? Not at all. The only ones I am asking to work with the currently available workarounds (which I agree are currently inefficient although completely effective) are those that are asking for changes to be made that effect the populace at large rather than using the simple logic that many others have figured out. If you don't want to be exposed to certain playstyles then form premade groups. Don't PUG unless you are willing to accept the playstyles you may be exposed to in PUGs. So then I am to believe that the argument you are making is a perspective held by "only" you and those here who have spoken a similar perspective on the matter? Are you saying that the views you hold are not held by anyone else outside the forums? Weather they will actually see our posts is irrelevant. I am providing a counter perspective in contrast to the one you are presenting. I am sure there are those who do not visit the forums that hold that same perspective or even a similar one just as there would be some populace that holds the same perspective you do outside the realm of the forums. You and I don't make the decisions for what changes and doesn't in this game only DE does. However it is our duty as consumers to provide our perspectives on changes to a product and how those changes may effect us. So you and I both are doing what we need to be doing. I am not arguing that my perspective is held by a majority out of the entire populace of the game. What I am arguing is: Not everyone believes Saryn is as broken as you make her out to be. Many players (not saying most just many) have adapted and understand how to use her in groups to her full potential benefiting the entirety of the group. 1. That alternative solutions to changing Saryn currently exist which you refuse use. 2. That alternative solutions could be found by increasing the control capacity of the group finder. Of which you refuse to engage in. 3. Any developmental changes based around personal playstyles should be made in a manner that effects the least amount of players in a negative way as possible. (Or more importantly, minimize negative effects outside the target audience that desires such a change.)

Prove that those who think like you are the larger collective. I bet that it isn't as DE would have likely changed it long ago if that were the case. Again you are asking that all those who enjoy Saryn as an AOE nuke frame have that enjoyment gutted "even if they do not join groups" so that you don't have to ever see one in PUG because you are to lazy to preform your groups.

So instead of asking for better grouping tools you ask that a style of play that other players enjoy be gutted in a manner that would effect their play with that frame "regardless" if they ever group with other people or not. That "is" the definition of selfish in my book.

And asking those who enjoy playing Saryn to take a hit to their playstyle because you and a few other's can't be inconvenienced to use the tools you already have at your disposal is simply lazy and selfish on your own part.

Me. Retired/Fixed income. However having or not having a job isn't the point; the point is this is a free to play game and assigning a subscription or regular fee to is not something most players would really want.

I don't use Rivens, I don't buy Rivens, I don't even re-roll Rivens. Rivens do nothing to improve my enjoyment of the game.

No. Just no. Learn to preform groups like everyone else does that doesn't want their relaxation time turned into a walking simulator by (insert almost any frame here). If you queue up for a pug then what you get is a pug because that is what you asked for.

Want Destiny 2 Raids? Go play Destiny 2.

I played it when it had far less players than this and am not worried one bit. Perhaps it will cut some of the chaff out and DE can refocus on the game they wanted to put out instead of trying to appease everyone or those wanting it to be like any game other than Warframe (destiny etc...).

Did I read in there they played every version of Lokimon available?

Rhetorical Questions now serving as clickbait. First come First Serve! Hell yes I would leave because there would be no chance Warframe would still be the Warframe I loved.

It is also very broken when to maintain that efficiency one has to resort to using macros or run the risk of injury. (Early arthritis from playing Warframe melee.)