Jump to content


PC Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


1 Follower

About FashionFrame

  • Rank
    Gold Hunter

Recent Profile Visitors

1,896 profile views
  1. When Adaptive Exposure is enabled under the display settings, any light coming from certain weapons with a bright explosion causes the player's view to become VERY dark. Without Adaptive exposure is pretty dark as it is, but not nearly as awful as the darkening effect from adaptive exposure from a weapon's shot. I don't know if it's just the staticors or there's more weapons that experience this, but I never turn on Adaptive Exposure for the purpose that I can see and play the game with my favourite weapons! Before someone goes on a tangent that I should just turn the energy to black. Well, I love my bright colours, it's obvious, and I'd rather have the Adaptive setting turned off than change my colours. It's a personal thing, but I still want to make it clear that this visual setting shouldn't be activated from a weapon's firing, and should be only activating when I'm walking from different light settings on a map. This problem has been happening for over a year and I'm surprised it hasn't been addressed. It used to not do this, but something changed that. Thanks for reading!
  2. Title kinda says it all. When you use the "Fiery Phoenix" ability on your railjack, it uses the default orange colours, and not the colours that I selected for the ship. When I'm in mission, it looks like this: But when I go back to my dojo, the flames will change back to the colours that they're supposed to be, which is this: Would absolutely LOVE to have the phoenix be the colours that we chose for our ship, it's so badass! Thanks for reading!
  3. I sit here seeing some hate towards Rainbow fashion. I love my rainbows and no one can stop true end game fashion!
  4. It's like...you're not even reading anything I'm saying and just continue to display a one-minded thought. Stop reading what he's saying the way you wish he'd be saying it. It's obnoxious. Gonna point it out AGAIN, he didn't even once say that ALL Mk1s are better than MK3s. Anyone (besides you obviously) can put 1 and 1 together and see OP means that MK1s have a RNG chance to be better than Mk3. My gosh. While everyone else here can see what OP means clearly, you on the other hand continue to mindless say "Oh no this is how he says it, I won't accept any other way because that goes against my argument" even though, logically speaking, OP wouldn't ever say that ALL MK1s are better than MK3s. That's redundant. At this point, just gonna accept that your ignorance is bliss and just end it here, you really don't understand this ordeal in the slightest. But, please, do go on. Just gonna watch you, (Herrwann69 explains it best), "fighting alone against a straw man while claiming you are smarter than everybody else." Because boooiii you really are on your own on this one.
  5. Uh, again, that's how you're seeing it. You think that's what it is despite common sense saying otherwise, and that the statement he was clearly implying was that you have a CHANCE at getting MK1s that are actually better than MK3s. I made a whole thing about it. Did you even read my post or just quote the ending, pretending you read?
  6. Again you only pick what you want to hear, he didn't once say "ALL MK1 WEAPONS ARE BETTER THAN MK3." It was the statement that you have a CHANCE at an Mk1 being better than MK3. "That is a direct assertion that MK1 parts have better stats. That is a fallacious and irrational absolute statement that is easily destroyed by simply demanding proof." I gave your proof, right in the image! Did you seriously not see it? I love how you demand proof and never take the time to research it yourself, and instead, stir up arguments on the forums. Clap clap clap clap clap!! Also read this again: "Otherwise what's the point when mk1 has better stats than mk3." Stop reading it like he's saying "ALL" do, because no one in their right mind would argue that "ALL" Mk1s are better than MK3s. He's saying that there CAN be MK1s that are better than MK3s. Again, you can actually get really bad rolls for MK3s, look back at my fantastic graph I drew out JUST FOR YOU, proof that they can actually be worse than MK1s and MANY players agree that this shouldn't be a thing! --And you quote: "Oh but some houses have a random chance to roll better primary stats than others in extremely specific circumstances! But remember the other stats that don't exist on MK1 parts don't count!" --AGAIN, you are only reading what you want to hear to further cause an argument. I stated, and I quote "What's subjective is the secondary stats, but you can still get awful ones. It all depends on people's play styles and builds. Don't forget that." The other stats that don't exist on MK1s....alright. Lets roleplay! I got a "Zetki MK3 reactor with an additional 10 avionics capacity and FIFTY ADDITIONAL FLUX CAPACITY?! HOLY COW BOOK THE CRUISE! WE'RE RICH, BOIS! You think was worth farming the veil for a reactor that has a single digit percentage chance of dropping and getting that insane low of stats provided in the example? You really going to argue that? When an Mk1 is insanely easier to farm and can still have a chance of getting better stats. Quote you again: "Oh but secondary stats and component modifiers don't count!" You know what subjective is, right? People can still get awful rolls depending on what their playstyle is. Say you get the "Shields replenish 50x faster while cloaked." Well, I don't have the cloak mod, that's pointless. And what if I don't want to take up avionics with the cloaking mod? Let me further explain this to you. (("Convert 100% consumed flux energy to shields " " Redirect 50 Energy to Shields with every kill" " +10% Tenno shields on Railjack")) Well, shields are literally useless in high tier missions, same with almost all flux abilities, so forget that. Also useless modifiers. 50% chance to extinguish fire after 5 seconds. So, fires cause, what, like 1-3 damage a second per tick? That's...not worth it. Feels like a wasted space when you could go for a better modifier. You want GOOD modifiers? The ones for when shields are down (BECAUSE THEY'RE ALWAYS DOWN) "30% of Shield Damage is diverted to increase Turret Damage by up to 300 for the next shot fired" "+25% Railjack damage while shield depleted" "+20% Top Speed while shields are depleted" " +50% boost speed while shield depleted" You have to see what I'm getting at by now, right? You can have BAD ROLLS. So there, I clarified on that, because you seriously don't get it. And I'm willing to bet you're going to over think on something that I've typed, and try to bend someone's words to help your case. It doesn't help you, it just makes you seem ignorant. But I do love to further explain things, because I know what OP was meaning, I actually get it. And I've actually shown legitimate proof that MK1s can be better than MK3s. Can you guess why MK1s can be better than MK3s? Here, let stalker answer that question: It's RNG dude, it happens. And it's why this topic was originally started, saying that it's really REALLY stupid that MK3s can actually have a chance at REALLY low stats to the point that MK1s are better. Hell, MK2s are even more so better at getting great stats compared to MK3s thanks to RNG. That's ridiculous!! Random stat generators can be really bad if their lowest numbers are even worse than the starting content. Do you get it now? Hope so. But I always have fun getting into these long winded posts, it gives great entertainment because I actually care, and actually take the time to research carefully, carefully read the posts and actually provide a valid argument based on the knowledge I've acquired and provided!
  7. That was never the argument that it has to be the same house, people were sayings that a MK1 can roll higher than a MK3, no mention of houses. Stop only picking out stuff you want to hear. as you argued at the very start: " Do you have any actual proof of this or did you just look at an MK1 part with one stat maxed out compared to an MK3 part with relatively equal stat distribution and assume that the former is objectively better than the latter?" "objectively better" is a laugh, because who would object that the lower stat numbers are better than higher stats? What's subjective is the secondary stats, but you can still get awful ones. It all depends on people's play styles and builds. Don't forget that. Yes there is many circumstances that MK1s can't be better than MK3s, but there is proof that it CAN. That is all the proof needed. So guess I'll show you a visual representation that MK1s can roll higher than MK3s through pictures from the wikipedia since clearly you didn't look, and how forgot your own started argument. That's all I needed to post. You can reply, you can try to drag out pointless nonsense, but I just proven your original argument. You can try straying away from your original argument, as you seem to have the habit of doing, but that isn't what I came for. I went after your original post, and got my way! My work here is done! *Mic drop* Have a nice day!
  • Create New...