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.