Silligoose

I'm not sure how far you are into the game and or where your damage lies, but you will reach a point where whatever works on Grineer in SP works on Corpus. That being said, from what I gather you aren't quite there yet. You do have options: Magnetic does to shields, what Viral does to health: First proc doubles the damage vs shields and each subsequent proc increases that damage by 25% (additive) to a max of 325% at 10 stacks. It also prevents shield regen by 6s and has an innate bonus damage of 75%. It is great vs shields. Toxin damage bypasses shields, so you can use one weapon to proc Viral stacks and either another weapon, or a Warframe ability, to inflict toxin damage directly to the health of those enemies with the bonus of Viral ensuring extra damage and Toxin damage doing bonus damage to enemies with Flesh (like the Crewmen). Viral isn't needed depending on your damage output, but the bonus damage will be nice. Cold does extra damage to normal shields (+50%), but not proto shields (neutral). Cold procs will also slow down enemies, helping you be safer (if you find yourself struggling to survive). Electric damage does no bonus damage to shields, but it does inflict Tesla Chain - a damage over time proc in a 3m AoE, helping spread damage across multiple enemies and can increase your average damage output by quite a lot against a few enemies that have clumped together a bit. It also stuns enemies, giving you more survivability. It does bonus damage against Robotic Health (like MOA's and Ospreys) I would suggest modding one of your weapons for Magnetic damage, decent status and firing rate (nothing crazy - the first proc gives the biggest bonus of 100% more damage to shields) and trying it out: You'll deplete shields much faster than with something like Slash, but if you don't like magnetic for some reason, there are other options you can use as well.

For me it is about looking to keep as many different tools viable for as long as possible - eventually with long runs the meta is going to come out on top, but the longer other non-meta's can stay viable and competitive, the better, as players wouldn't get pigeon-holed as quickly. It is the same reason I'd prefer Bleed still be able to bypass armor and instead have the armor scaling and/or associated DR numbers adjusted. I'm surprised you'd want to see the change to Toxin. It may sound like the go-to choice vs shield, but it may not be, since robotic health resists the damage, shielded, armored enemies have damage reduction to their health and (anecdotally) only the toxin damage of a weapon bypasses shields, not all the damage.

A "normal mode" if you will, in which the skill discrepancy between various players do not affect the overall efficiency to a large extent. This can be achieved by enemies being overly squishy and certain safeguards like say, "no self damage" or a "shield gate" or a "Prime Sure Footed" can be found in the mode. As for a "hard mode" or even "harder mode", well, there the efficiency and even success rates of missions can start hinging more or skillful play, where such coddling mechanics need not be applied.

Some abilities from various Warframes could do with tweaking so as to not overshadow other frames or content, but I woudn't hold my breath to be honest.

For clarity, the implication within that section was a specific mechanic being eliminated, not the proc or element itself. I also want to confirm I personally do not wish to see the mechanic for toxin bypassing shields to be eliminated, same as I do not wish for the mechanic allowing Bleed to bypass armor to be eliminated, for reasons within my previous replies (tools being taken away), which is why I made the comparison in two different approaches and some of their consequences. Edit: I've edited the previous response for clarity.

In terms of having an end-game that presents a challenge while providing variety, cheesing armor and the associated mechanics are but a piece of the puzzle. By your metrics, complete armor stripping is also cheese. Let us play this out and make enemies more durable by your metrics: Scenario 1 Bleed no longer bypasses armor. It can be argued complete armor stripping of enemies with the push of a button is also cheese, so that also has to go (apologies to the frames that specialized in that!). Now we are left with a situation where offensive options are more in balance vs armor, but armored enemies at high level are out of balance due to the massive difference in Effective Health Pool (EHP) between armored units and non-armored units. So all other enemies need to have their EHP boosted. Once done, EHP is more balanced across factions, except for armored enemies who also have shields, that needs individual tweaks to those units. OK, DE does that too. One problem remains: Enemies that regenerate the shields of their allies: This can be cheesed with Toxin, since Toxin bypasses shields and that isn't something "that happens in most other games". Time for that to go. Like you, I also used the word "most" so any number of games that has those mechanics can be dismissed, apparently. Net result? More durable enemies overall, with offensive options to players being more in balance. We've achieved our goal of having more durable enemies at end-game that doesn't get blown up instantly and more varied offensive options in dealing with those enemies. The cost? Elimination of various mechanics implemented to specialize in dealing with certain enemies types. Compared to other solutions, we've lost variety, resulting in the game losing tactical depth. Is there another option? Yes. Let us forget about your metrics for this one and make enemies more durable, without needing to eliminate certain tools such as armor bypassing: Scenario 2 Address the actual problem: Reduce armor scaling and/or associated damage reduction (edit: keep current armor bypassing, full armor stripping and toxin mechanics as is). Increase EHP enemies to not get blown up instantly. Net result? We have also achieved the goal of having more durable enemies at end-game overall, with offensive options to players being more in balance. The cost? No mechanics were lost and specialized strategies and tactics have not lost their viability. Variety is greater compared to the above approach, resulting in the game having greater tactical depth as compared to the above scenario. One solution decreased the variety of current mechanics, decreasing tactical depth whilst also alienating certain frames and abilities. The other solution did not. For what it is worth, having more durable enemies is also only a piece of the puzzle in Warframe having an end-game that offers more of a challenge, while providing more balanced variety. Dragon Age has Penetrating Damage that can bypass armor. In Path of Exile magic damage bypasses armor. In Dota Pure Damage bypasses armor. Various games have various armor- and associated damage reduction mechanics, which have mechanics that can bypass that. Your argument is "most games don't have it, so Warframe shouldn't". Most games don't have bullet jumping. Does that mean we shouldn't have bullet jumping either? Most games don't have aim-glide. Does that mean we shouldn't have aim-glide either? Most games don't have wall-latching. Does that mean we shouldn't have wall-latching either? Most games don't have damage based on different types of physical and elemental damage. Does that mean Warframe shouldn't either? By your logic, many of the mechanics that make Warframe more unique, that makes Warframe, Warframe, shouldn't exist and Waframe should be a generic copy-cat game wheere you run and shoot. Basing mechanic validity on whether or not "most games" have such a mechanic is foolish - if developers used that as a metric, we wouldn't have any innovation in games. You also deflected the question, most likely because you realized you don't have an answer that wouldn't be laughable. Proper balance at end-game ensures various viable tactics and loadouts can be used, without the most effective tactic available completely outperforming other options to a massive degree, ie players don't get pigeon-holed into the meta by force. Your suggestion, however, would. You miss the forest for the trees. Slash being as strong as it is vs armor (though not the strongest vs armor, as shown previously) is a symptom of armor scaling and associated damage reduction being out of balance, which is the problem. You want to treat only one of several symptoms, instead of treating the problem.

I killed some Crewmen, MOA's, and a Shield Osprey. Could've been one of the enemy types, or the faction itself may have played a role in recording what seems to be overkill damage, but I have noticed this kind of (apparently inaccurate) high damage dealt/low kills stat more when using high damage, low fire rate weapons. specifically Vectis, Rubico Prime and of course the Chakkhurr. It could also be the case with weapons like the Zarr or Bramma, but of course they tend to get a lot more kills on average per mission anyway, plus I don't really pay attention to the damage dealt in missions, since in my experience they don't appear to be accurate, so I may have missed other outliers. The Banshee situation may have been all damage being attributed to her, overkill damage as a result of her ability being attributed to her, or just the weapon she used. Bit off topic, but I would actually like a separate stat to see how much supportive abilities helps the team increase their damage via damage reduction, damage boosting etc, or even healing. Give some support frames and players a bit of love too :)

As a point of interest, why is one player's experience (anecdotal evidence) questioned and discarded, whilst other players' experiences (anecdotal evidence) are not? From a third party perspective, you seem to be applying a double standard in your argument. For what it is worth, you weren't polite - you immediately insinuated OP's experience was invalid, not credible, whilst giving credibility to other players' experience. On topic: The damage dealt calculations appear convoluted in my experience. I've had games when using Sniper Rifles or the Chakkhurr as my main source of damage, where I was attributed a far larger potion of the damage dealt than seemed possible given my performance and types of targets killed (50%+ damage dealt, 1/5 - 1/6 total kills). It seemed as though overdamage played a role in those instances, but of course other bugs or personal bias may have been factors as well. I've also had games in ESO where a player would clean up the first round, do around 80% of damage dealt, leave and over the course of 3 more rounds, the remaining 3 members of the team quadrupled the kill count (I contributed the largest amount of kills with Hildryn), but our cumulative damage did not even account for 30% of damage dealt over the course of the entire match, according to the stat screen, which, while hilarious, did not make statistical sense. I did a quick Rescue Mission with randoms on Normal Star Chart (Monoilith, Corpus Faction) before posting. Got a few kills with Chakkhurr and then let the team play catch-up: Forgive the poor cropping and strange stretching of the picture - I was in a rush.

With the Combo part of the quest I used rails alongside the roads, jumping and grinding (never landing, always grinding) from one to another chaining tricks in between to build the combo. You can also simply find a long rail or pipe (there is one next to the Fortuna building) and grind back and forth, doing some jumps and tricks - this I found on the last mission if I recall correctly. It is easier than jumping from one rail to another. Good luck!

I've had this happen multiple times on Earth Excavation as well. Non-fissure, client.

I used to amuse myself by farming and playing frames players call useless. Frames people claimed can't stand up to the content available. Hydroid, Loki, Nyx, Grendel, Atlas, Hildryn, Oberon, Inaros etc, Some frames are better than others at certain tasks or in certain scenarios. Some frames are more niche. Some frames are better than other frames overall. Some abilities fall off earlier than other abilities, or fall off due to mechanics/content implemented by DE (some of which plays a massive role in the late-game imbalances), but I came to realize quite quickly there are no useless frames, only useless players when playing those frames. You also have the "if it ain't Top 3 nuke/AoE stunlock it's useless" crowd, who shouldn't be taken literally.

I believe such mechanics are reasonable not only in Warframe, but in co-op PvE games in general I personally enjoy these mechanics being in such games. I actually prefer enemies having attacks initiated by player actions, as opposed to all enemy attacks being pseudo-random. Obviously some others may not share this sentiment. That is the impression I'm getting from you, based you not being a fan of "trial and error mechanics" and your dismissal of enemy attacks being initiated by player actions, without players being told by the game this is what is happening and why. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Others may indeed. Different players value differ mechanics in games. What one player sees as boring, or a chore, others may not. You and I are examples of that. I feel our discussion has reached a conclusion.

Cute deflection. Teams tend to do better when the individuals within act as a cohesive unit. The better each individual within the performs, the better the team tends to perform overall. The more mistakes individuals within the team makes, the more punishment the team as a whole tends to incur, the worse their overall performance tends to be. That is the nature of teamplay. This is seen in realms regarding sports, video games and even businesses. To each their own regarding preferences in game mechanic approaches. You may prefer being coddled and being told how to do everything, others prefer being more independent, experimenting and figuring out how to do things themselves. I prefer balance allowing for those mechanics to come into play, yes.

It remains the worst possible action you could've taken. Its initiation is determined by player actions. Whether or not you are aware of what those actions are, has no bearing on whether it is random or not. The fact that you now know which actions causes the reaction and still insist it is random, makes you a fool. All it shows is power creep has been allowed to advance too such a degree that many of the mechanics incorporated within boss design don't come into play, as there isn't time for it to come into play.

The main reason his bullet did so little damage is because armor scaling and the associated damage reduction is too high. That is what needs to be addressed, I gave you a chance to expand on your idea. I'm giving it again: Let us assume Bleed doesn't bypass armor. What other options are there to compete with armor stripping? Go ahead and tell us, but actually back up your statement with numbers and facts. Thanks to armor bypassing, your friend's Vectis Prime capable of taking out a lvl 160 Heavy Gunner on Steel Path 50m+ meters away from the team. Let us take away armor bypassing. Can he still do that? How is he going to do that? Tell us. All I see is that you just took away one of your friend's tools. You want to see a difficulty setting and balance whereby teamplay and synergistic compositions are more viable and encouraged. I understand that. You know I would welcome such a balance in an optional difficulty setting, but your suggestion is not the right way to go about it, because it will make armor stripping the most effective tactic available by far and in proper end-game balance, one wants to make sure the most effective tactic does not completely outperform the rest of the options, so that players aren't pigeon holed into a specific loadout and tactics too early into the content.