Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

The core gameplay flaw: healing, health, shields and general "staying alive" gameplay


Artekkor
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

I could, but the problem is that you're acting like they don't exist at all

If you want to pretend that they didn't exist, then you have a case. If they didn't exist, then you could legitimately claim that you do not have a way to keep your health up. But they do exist, so whatever scenario you want to come up with, the response "you have other options" applies.

Drop the strawman. Did I say "no other options exist?" No.

Let me put it this way: a new player creates an account and gets hooked. They really love the idea of a gunslinger warframe, so they buy Mesa with plat.

Are you suggesting that they should be left up the creek without a paddle because "progression?" That's pretty lame, especially when Warframe sells the ability to skip said progression.

"But newbs only fight low levels."

Stop conflating "low level" with easy. Newbs also don't necessarily have access to essential mods like Vitality and Intensify which help make low levels trivial for players like you or me. This makes health attrition - which is omnipresent and inescapable - a serious problem.

That's bad design, and it should be changed.

Quote

Since we have a situation where people seem to think that Life Strike is "mandatory" and the "few" other options are no more useful, I took a moment to link the wiki so that nobody can possibly claim ignorance any more. 

Nobody was claiming ignorance, though. I have no doubt you added that link for a reason, but it's freaking irrelevant to the actual discussion.

Quote

Insisting "but what if we don't want to use any of those options" is tantamount to saying "what if I don't actually want to play the game". In that case there's only one solution that will ever satisfy you. And it's not "fixing" the game. 

No, it really isn't, because there's more to it than that.

Continuing with Mesa as the example:

  • Life Strike, Healing Return, Hirudo, etc. are sub-optimal because they cancel her passive.
  • Similarly, pet survivability is heavily linked to a melee focus via Pack Leader.
  • Medi-ray, Arcanes, etc. are fairly difficult to acquire.
  • Restores and Air Support are ill-suited to the current faster pace of the game.
  • Vazarin is heavily gated by progression and time investment, especially when you consider that newer players may not pick it as their "free unlock" school.

Thus, while options DO exist there are a number of complications with all of them.

So yes, good job, A+, you listed the existing options. Now can you explain why adding a baseline mechanic for counteracting health attrition (not necessarily as effective as the existing options) would be BAD for the game?

If not, you're just disagreeing for the sake of being contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Drop the strawman. Did I say "no other options exist?" No.

Check the original post at some point in time when you find the chance: "Be it Life Strike, a health restore or playing a warframe capable of either healing or stoping damage from happening alltogether - if you don't have at least 1 of those then going down is but a question of time.

You can find similar examples throughout the thread. 

Since you were admittedly trying to paraphrase (read repeat needlessly) what those arguments propose, the response you get is the same. 

40 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Let me put it this way: a new player creates an account and gets hooked. They really love the idea of a gunslinger warframe, so they buy Mesa with plat.

Are you suggesting that they should be left up the creek without a paddle because "progression?" That's pretty lame, especially when Warframe sells the ability to skip said progression.

"But newbs only fight low levels."

Stop conflating "low level" with easy. Newbs also don't necessarily have access to essential mods like Vitality and Intensify which help make low levels trivial for players like you or me. This makes health attrition - which is omnipresent and inescapable - a serious problem.

That's bad design, and it should be changed.

Here's an idea. Pretend that you are brand new. Take your starter frame, strip the mods and put in starter mods. Play Lith. Check the levels of your enemies. Check how well you survive. I expect that you will be pleasantly surprised to learn that you can survive multiple "waves" and are able to collect "mods" to equip to your "warframe" and make yourself more "powerful", during your missions.

Remember Tenno, we all managed it somehow didn't we? And somehow we managed to do it without the benefit of the 'essential mods' that you think are the only thing between new players and "certain doom!!!!". 

After you're done with that little experiment, you can then consider a newb who buys a warframe like Mesa, but is still there at Lith. The situation is unchanged. You are still facing single digit level enemies when you start. 

"Take inexperienced players and put them in a starter zone, let them grind their way to better gear before moving on. As they progress, allow them to meet stronger enemies." That is very good design. 

The bad part is when people progress without learning the lessons that we're taught by the game and so either believe that there's only one way to do things, or somehow repeatedly forget about the mechanics of the game when they are about to post on the Forum. 

46 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Nobody was claiming ignorance, though. I have no doubt you added that link for a reason, but it's freaking irrelevant to the actual discussion.

Ah? You saw the claim of "if you don't have one of these three things the game becomes unplayable"? 

BTW, welcome to the thread, it's about the need for healing in warframe. The link is to the wiki showing ways to heal players in warframe. There are quite a few, aren't there? It becomes very difficult to believe that a player can somehow find a way to not be able to use one of them. At some point we have to consider such attempts to break the game mechanic, to be a problem with the specific users, and not the game. 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

No, it really isn't, because there's more to it than that.

Continuing with Mesa as the example:

  • Life Strike, Healing Return, Hirudo, etc. are sub-optimal because they cancel her passive.
  • Similarly, pet survivability is heavily linked to a melee focus via Pack Leader.
  • Medi-ray, Arcanes, etc. are fairly difficult to acquire.
  • Restores and Air Support are ill-suited to the current faster pace of the game.
  • Vazarin is heavily gated by progression and time investment, especially when you consider that newer players may not pick it as their "free unlock" school.

Thus, while options DO exist there are a number of complications with all of them.

Again with the argument that newer players "may not have access to"? Or "I don't want to use that thing that provides the healing I claim to need"? Everything in this game involves opportunity cost. If you want that, then pick one of the options available to you. 

If you don't want to do that, then the cost you accept is that you will have problems self-healing, so play with a teammate who can help. If you don't want to do anything to help yourself and don't want anyone else to help you, then you just need to find a way to not take any health damage. 

Simple concept, really. And definitely not  something that should be a problem for anyone who is able to accept that their choices affect their gameplay experience. 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

So yes, good job, A+, you listed the existing options. Now can you explain why adding a baseline mechanic for counteracting health attrition (not necessarily as effective as the existing options) would be BAD for the game?

Easy.

1) It's not needed. It takes away resources from fixing actual problems, or improving the game while they're working on what is, for all intents a non-issue. 

2) The suggestion would negate the point of having many of those things listed in the link. You now have multiple resources that are actually useless and need to be removed, or severely over powered and need to be nerfed. 

3) The concept of a balanced game would be totally out of the window. Why? Because a lot of people currently manage without the likes of Life Strike, this thread has several examples. Those players, and even the OP would become for all purposes unkillable in lower levels of play (which many of us already are) and so you just eliminated any aspect of challenge, unless you buff enemy damage to the point where weaker players will once again have absolutely no hope of survival. And then we're right back where we started

4) Did I mention that it's not needed? Oh? I did? Good. Because it's not. 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

If not, you're just disagreeing for the sake of being contrary.

Nice try. Now that you have your answers, I'm sure you will try another tack. Good luck with that, Tenno. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

1) It's not needed. It takes away resources from fixing actual problems, or improving the game while they're working on what is, for all intents a non-issue. 

2) The suggestion would negate the point of having many of those things listed in the link. You now have multiple resources that are actually useless and need to be removed, or severely over powered and need to be nerfed. 

3) The concept of a balanced game would be totally out of the window. Why? Because a lot of people currently manage without the likes of Life Strike, this thread has several examples. Those players, and even the OP would become for all purposes unkillable in lower levels of play (which many of us already are) and so you just eliminated any aspect of challenge, unless you buff enemy damage to the point where weaker players will once again have absolutely no hope of survival. And then we're right back where we started

4) Did I mention that it's not needed? Oh? I did? Good. Because it's not.

im not waiting for @DiabolusUrsus to respond to this just to show you that more than two people supporting this topic.

1) i've seen this format many times and it is just an extremely weak/bad argument that contributes nothing to any concept or discussion (and quite annoying on that note). just because you prefer that the devs fix something else implies that you disagree with every concept this community comes up with unless it refers that that thing you desperately want fixed. whatever that thing is, im sure we can use the same format and maybe you'll know how it feels.

2) this is a game. anything can be rebalanced to have purpose. take life strike for example which may be going away soon, but some form of it may still exist in melee 3.0. this is your only legitimate argument so far.

3) you are implying and scared that the concepts are going to be overpowered just because they are in words and not in the game yet. this argument is more or less on a personal level; obviously you like a challenging experience, but that's just you prefer. a system like this can be balanced if done right and i trust that the devs can do it right while still having a challenging experience.

4) getting a little salty there, "Tenno."

 

Edited by MysticDragonMage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Check the original post at some point in time when you find the chance: "Be it Life Strike, a health restore or playing a warframe capable of either healing or stoping damage from happening alltogether - if you don't have at least 1 of those then going down is but a question of time.

You can find similar examples throughout the thread.

Then make that argument when responding to the OP or these various examples, not me.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Since you were admittedly trying to paraphrase (read repeat needlessly) what those arguments propose, the response you get is the same.

I paraphrased to help clarify the core issue. I happen to agree with OP's conclusion, but my argument in favor of it is not the same.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Here's an idea. Pretend that you are brand new. Take your starter frame, strip the mods and put in starter mods. Play Lith. Check the levels of your enemies. Check how well you survive. I expect that you will be pleasantly surprised to learn that you can survive multiple "waves" and are able to collect "mods" to equip to your "warframe" and make yourself more "powerful", during your missions.

Now are we talking difficulty, or attrition? Last I checked it was attrition. So let me ask you this: play against Grineer or Infested, with no healing options. Will you or will you not eventually run out of heath?

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Remember Tenno, we all managed it somehow didn't we? And somehow we managed to do it without the benefit of the 'essential mods' that you think are the only thing between new players and "certain doom!!!!".

Did I say the game was impossible? No. Just that the design was bad.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

After you're done with that little experiment, you can then consider a newb who buys a warframe like Mesa, but is still there at Lith. The situation is unchanged. You are still facing single digit level enemies when you start.

Irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that attrition is an omnipresent problem and should have some sort of universal safety net built into the game.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

"Take inexperienced players and put them in a starter zone, let them grind their way to better gear before moving on. As they progress, allow them to meet stronger enemies." That is very good design.

Not for anyone who is limited to solo play.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

The bad part is when people progress without learning the lessons that we're taught by the game and so either believe that there's only one way to do things, or somehow repeatedly forget about the mechanics of the game when they are about to post on the Forum. 

This is assuming that a) the game teaches lessons clearly enough to hold players accountable, and b) those lessons somehow serve as a counterexample to the points I'm making.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Ah? You saw the claim of "if you don't have one of these three things the game becomes unplayable"?

Did I make that claim? If not, stick to discussing that claim with the person who made it, please.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

BTW, welcome to the thread, it's about the need for healing in warframe. The link is to the wiki showing ways to heal players in warframe. There are quite a few, aren't there? It becomes very difficult to believe that a player can somehow find a way to not be able to use one of them. At some point we have to consider such attempts to break the game mechanic, to be a problem with the specific users, and not the game.

Is it possible to not have any of those options or no?

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Again with the argument that newer players "may not have access to"? Or "I don't want to use that thing that provides the healing I claim to need"? Everything in this game involves opportunity cost. If you want that, then pick one of the options available to you. 

If you don't want to do that, then the cost you accept is that you will have problems self-healing, so play with a teammate who can help. If you don't want to do anything to help yourself and don't want anyone else to help you, then you just need to find a way to not take any health damage. 

Simple concept, really. And definitely not  something that should be a problem for anyone who is able to accept that their choices affect their gameplay experience.

So would it be a bad thing if DE added a new healing-based mod tomorrow? OP's point is that healing is an essential function, so it doesn't make sense to allow for the possibility of a player not having reliable access to it. The fact that you feel this is implausible or that you are comfortable having already gained reliable access to it doesn't somehow detract from the validity of that statement.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Easy.

1) It's not needed.

Neither was changing Health Conversion so that it doesn't lose stacks from taking shield damage. The mod was perfectly viable in its default state. That doesn't mean the change was a bad thing.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

It takes away resources from fixing actual problems,

This is such a non-argument. It's not your within the realm of your responsibility or authority to allocate DE's resources.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

or improving the game while they're working on what is, for all intents a non-issue. 

Why are you the sole authority on what qualifies as an "improvement?" Pretty sure the idea behind adding an attrition safety net is "improving the game."

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

2) The suggestion would negate the point of having many of those things listed in the link. You now have multiple resources that are actually useless and need to be removed, or severely over powered and need to be nerfed.

Patently false. A persistently available method for counteracting attrition does not need to match or exceed the existing healing mods and arcanes, nor does it need to serve as a means of escaping death when taking large amounts of damage. It just needs to help players keep up with attrition.

What resources would be made useless?

What would need to be removed?

What would be severely overpowered and require a nerf?

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

3) The concept of a balanced game would be totally out of the window. Why? Because a lot of people currently manage without the likes of Life Strike, this thread has several examples. Those players, and even the OP would become for all purposes unkillable in lower levels of play (which many of us already are)

So if it's an existing problem, how does this change actually make that worse?

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

and so you just eliminated any aspect of challenge, unless you buff enemy damage to the point where weaker players will once again have absolutely no hope of survival. And then we're right back where we started.

Wut. The game lacks challenge due to excessive damage output and effectively unlimited access to CC. Adding an attrition countermeasure wouldn't have any noticeable effect on that.

31 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

4) Did I mention that it's not needed? Oh? I did? Good. Because it's not. 

Nice try. Now that you have your answers, I'm sure you will try another tack. Good luck with that, Tenno. 

Sigh. There's no need for another tack.

You haven't done much beyond explain why you personally don't like it or think it's necessary, though. Great, you're entitled to your opinion. It's still just an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MysticDragonMage said:

im not waiting for @DiabolusUrsus to respond to this just to show you that more than two people supporting this topic.

1) i've seen this format many times and it is just an extremely weak/bad argument that contributes nothing to any concept or discussion (and quite annoying on that note). just because you prefer that the devs fix something else implies that you disagree with every concept this community comes up with unless it refers that that thing you desperately want fixed. whatever that thing is, im sure we can use the same format and maybe you'll know how it feels.

2) this is a game. anything can be rebalanced to have purpose. take life strike for example which may be going away soon, but some form of it may still exist in melee 3.0. this is your only legitimate argument so far.

3) you are implying and scared that the concepts are going to be overpowered just because they are in words and not in the game yet. this argument is more or less on a personal level; obviously you like a challenging experience, but that's just you prefer. a system like this can be balanced if done right and i trust that the devs can do it right while still having a challenging experience.

4) getting a little salty...

 

You really should have waited, because it doesn't matter how many people think that they want something. It's not a popularity contest. What matters if if what they're asking for is needed or an improvement. 

Also in case you were worried, I already saw your earlier reply. I just didn't have much to say to it that hadn't been said in the first 3 pages. 

 

Regarding #1, no. Just no. We live in a world with unlimited wants and limited resources. Just like in the game people need to make decisions based on what's needed most or will produce the greatest benefit. If you don't understand that, then I'm sorry but there's little anyone here can do to help with that. 

Regarding your little "if you don't support us we will try and sabotage whatever you support to teach you a lesson", please feel free to do what you like. It won't make a whit of difference, because if what I support is important and needed then it'll happen despite anything you can do. At worst it'll be a futile gesture on your part, at best it will expose a weakness that we can try and iron out before the Devs waste their time butting heads with it. 

In this case the weakness is that they already did enough work to make this change unnecessary. 

#2  Do you realise how long we've been waiting for the melee rework? Do you want to guess how long they'll be monitoring the system and trying to tweak settings to rebalance things when it drops? Balance is important and messing around with it is a can of worms. Saying "it can be rebalanced" is great, but it is a lot of work. 

#3 Scared? Of becoming even more unkillable? Of not having any challenge? Of them breaking the game where so many people already play endless missions for hours to face a legitimate challenge, and complain about ennui? Of them implementing a half-baked, unnecessary idea that will simply increase the powercreep? Of them breaking the game because a few people don't understand or want to play in a way that ignores the game mechanics? You bet your bottom dollar I'm scared of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Then make that argument when responding to the OP or these various examples, not me.

I paraphrased to help clarify the core issue. I happen to agree with OP's conclusion, but my argument in favor of it is not the same.

(Sorry, it's a bit long and I'm on a mobile so if I miss anything please let me know and I'll try and deal with it as I can.)

First, welcome again to the thread. Now you need to figure out if you are restating (unnecessarily) what the OP said or not. Because you claim you are in accord, but also claim that you aren't. If you are please consider using spoiler tags, if you aren't please consider not saying that you are paraphrasing. 

Oh and the core issue from what I've seen is this: you recognise that myriad options exist, but you don't think that you should have to use any, and are upset that your choices can have consequences on your gameplay. 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Now are we talking difficulty, or attrition? Last I checked it was attrition. So let me ask you this: play against Grineer or Infested, with no healing options. Will you or will you not eventually run out of heath?

Did I say the game was impossible? No. Just that the design was bad.

I'm reading that first part as "do something silly that ignores gameplay mechanics for the game until you die and then admit that you died". Sadly for you within the parameters you gave, I can take Rhino, to early capture missions, and run them repeatedly, successfully completing the mission, and never have to worry about the attrition you're claiming is going to kill everyone. Especially since you aren't interested in difficulty, only attrition. 

That's called using my options, adapting to conditions and, being smart with my choices. Give it a shot. You may like the results. 

Oh? Starting weaker players in a starter zone where they can grind for resources, learn the mechanics, and gradually work up to higher levels of play is "bad design"? Since when? 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that attrition is an omnipresent problem and should have some sort of universal safety net built into the game.

We have one. It's called having many options. You can find options to fit any play style. You can choose different frames. You can choose to play with people who can heal you. You can also choose to do silly things like choosing poorly. Each of your choices will have consequences and opportunity costs. That's not a bad thing. 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Not for anyone who is limited to solo play.

This is assuming that a) the game teaches lessons clearly enough to hold players accountable, and b) those lessons somehow serve as a counterexample to the points I'm making.

Huh. I wasn't aware of anything that could not be obtained during solo play that was obtained from play in squads. Is that what you're claiming happens? Solo players can build a dojo, solo players can take down Eidolons, kill bosses, complete starcharts and do the quests. I'm a bit confused by what being solo changes other than spawn rates. I hope you will elaborate. 

And yes the game teaches us how to play, even if by trial and error. And given the players who are tackling elite alerts and doing well enough to complain about the rewards, I'd say that it does it well enough. Not every pupil is a good student. Some are slow but get there in time with effort. Some are even obstinate and refuse to ever try to learn. 

And yes the fact that many are able to trivialise the level 35+ enemies and going up to the hundreds in endless missions is an indication that the claims of not being able to heal effectively, are pretty bogus. 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Did I make that claim? If not, stick to discussing that claim with the person who made it, please.

Is it possible to not have any of those options or no?

So would it be a bad thing if DE added a new healing-based mod tomorrow? OP's point is that healing is an essential function, so it doesn't make sense to allow for the possibility of a player not having reliable access to it. The fact that you feel this is implausible or that you are comfortable having already gained reliable access to it doesn't somehow detract from the validity of that statement.

No, it's not realistically possible to not have any of those options. Because they do exist. It's possible to chose to forsake them. At that point, you are simultaneously choosing to live with the consequences of your choices. 

Oh I don't know if it would be bad. It's possible. But I can tell you that the half-baked suggestions I've seen so far on this thread would be a bad idea if implemented. And just so we're clear, no I haven't unlocked all of the healing options yet. And I'm OK with that because I can make informed choices about what I will do in the meantime. I don't need to try and break the game mechanic in order to demand an easier time. And I can see how it could go very badly, as I mentioned in my previous post. 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Neither was changing Health Conversion so that it doesn't lose stacks from taking shield damage. The mod was perfectly viable in its default state. That doesn't mean the change was a bad thing.

Ah.... So your defense of it being unnecessary is to point to something else that may not have been necessary and...? Nothing? That's disappointing. 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

This is such a non-argument. It's not your within the realm of your responsibility or authority to allocate DE's resources.

Why are you the sole authority on what qualifies as an "improvement?" Pretty sure the idea behind adding an attrition safety net is "improving the game."

Funny. We seem to be on the feedback section. It means that the Devs seem to be giving us the freedom to say what we'd like or not like, what we think they should spend time and resources on to improve the game, or not. Is that not what it's here for?

And I'm not the sole authority on anything. That's on DE. Not you, not me. But it's a bit hard for me to understand how you can try that piece of ridiculosity and then claim to be pretty sure that the proposal you are making is an improvement. This is where I have to ask you if you are the pot or the kettle, isn't it? 

Now to show that it's an improvement, you need to show that it's needed. Several people have replied here saying that it's not and giving reasons. So far your only reason is "if I don't take any of the options available to me, then I have a problem".

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Patently false. A persistently available method for counteracting attrition does not need to match or exceed the existing healing mods and arcanes, nor does it need to serve as a means of escaping death when taking large amounts of damage. It just needs to help players keep up with attrition.

And these players it needs to help, are the ones who have chosen to forsake all other healing options as per your hypotheticals? In other words, the people who go naked to a knife fight? If a system helps keep them from "attrition", what do you think it will do to the players with an iota of common sense? "Unkillable. Godly. Needs to be nerfed. Boring." Those are the phrases that come to mind. 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

What resources would be made useless?

What would need to be removed?

What would be severely overpowered and require a nerf?

Three questions, one answer: Check the link that you scoffed at. It has a nice list. (Efficient!) 

 

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

So if it's an existing problem, how does this change actually make that worse?

Wut. The game lacks challenge due to excessive damage output and effectively unlimited access to CC. Adding an attrition countermeasure wouldn't have any noticeable effect on that.

Right now the problem is mainly affecting the so called endgame players. What you're demanding is actually to make it harder for you to die. All of a sudden your average player becomes that much more like an endgame player, more able to tank it up in the squishy frames despite having it poorly modded. So you just took, weapons too strong, too much cc, and added way too easy to regain health. And your justification? That boils down to: "It's already broken lolz let's break it moar!"

2 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Sigh. There's no need for another tack.

You haven't done much beyond explain why you personally don't like it or think it's necessary, though. Great, you're entitled to your opinion. It's still just an opinion.

That sword cuts both ways doesn't it, Damocles. Forgot that, didn't you? You shouldn't have. 

 

Nice try. Didn't rate. Sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

(Sorry, it's a bit long and I'm on a mobile so if I miss anything please let me know and I'll try and deal with it as I can.)

Noted; will do.

Quote

First, welcome again to the thread. Now you need to figure out if you are restating (unnecessarily) what the OP said or not. Because you claim you are in accord, but also claim that you aren't. If you are please consider using spoiler tags, if you aren't please consider not saying that you are paraphrasing.

There is no contradiction. I have the same conclusion (anti-attrition mechanics are needed) but reached it through different reasoning. Ergo, rebutting OP's reasoning does not apply to what I am saying and is not interchangeably applicable.

Quote

Oh and the core issue from what I've seen is this: you recognise that myriad options exist, but you don't think that you should have to use any,

False. I think that there should be a baseline (though less effective) attrition countermeasure that is reliably available regardless of loadout. This is aimed at making the game less frustrating for when players lack the appropriate options, or when the options they DO have are unsuitable to their needs (e.g., Lifestrike is fairly counter-productive for Mesa as it reduces her health, requires her to be in melee mode to activate, and competes with her powers for energy consumption).

Quote

and are upset that your choices can have consequences on your gameplay.

I'm not upset at all; this is you projecting for your own convenience. I am, however, interested in making the game more fair.

Quote

I'm reading that first part as "do something silly that ignores gameplay mechanics for the game until you die and then admit that you died". Sadly for you within the parameters you gave, I can take Rhino, to early capture missions, and run them repeatedly, successfully completing the mission, and never have to worry about the attrition you're claiming is going to kill everyone. Especially since you aren't interested in difficulty, only attrition.

It should be fairly obvious that attrition does not apply equally to every Warframe, but the existence of Rhino/Nidus/Inaros doesn't do anything to help the Warframes that suffer more from it. If a Warframe isn't taking much in terms of attrition, an attrition countermeasure will be fairly worthless to it. As such, that's irrelevant.

Quote

That's called using my options, adapting to conditions and, being smart with my choices. Give it a shot. You may like the results.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what I have and have not done, but they're not really helping your point so please give it a rest.

Quote

Oh? Starting weaker players in a starter zone where they can grind for resources, learn the mechanics, and gradually work up to higher levels of play is "bad design"? Since when?

Did I say that? No.

Relying on more experienced players to carry and guide newbies through early content suggests that there is a problem with early content. In my book, that doesn't qualify as good design. You're ignoring the areas Warframe struggles in to focus on its generic attributes that apply to pretty much every halfway-decent RPG ever made.

Quote

We have one. It's called having many options. You can find options to fit any play style. You can choose different frames. You can choose to play with people who can heal you. You can also choose to do silly things like choosing poorly. Each of your choices will have consequences and opportunity costs. That's not a bad thing. 

So you are claiming that it is impossible for players to own none of the applicable self-healing options? I'm setting health orbs aside because those are rare enough without relevant perks that they cannot be depended upon to combat attrition.

Quote

Huh. I wasn't aware of anything that could not be obtained during solo play that was obtained from play in squads. Is that what you're claiming happens? Solo players can build a dojo, solo players can take down Eidolons, kill bosses, complete starcharts and do the quests. I'm a bit confused by what being solo changes other than spawn rates. I hope you will elaborate.

I misread your statement as using experienced players to buffer early-game content. My mistake.

Quote

And yes the game teaches us how to play, even if by trial and error. And given the players who are tackling elite alerts and doing well enough to complain about the rewards, I'd say that it does it well enough. Not every pupil is a good student. Some are slow but get there in time with effort. Some are even obstinate and refuse to ever try to learn.

... yet in a game that depends on hooking new players and encouraging them to spend money on it, relying on the fairly inaccessible trial-and-error method is not good design. Warframe should strive to be accessible as possible for maximum player retention. Failing to do so, while not necessarily catastrophic at this point, is bad design.

Quote

And yes the fact that many are able to trivialise the level 35+ enemies and going up to the hundreds in endless missions is an indication that the claims of not being able to heal effectively, are pretty bogus.

Trivializing enemies has nothing to do with being able to heal and everything to do with being able to CC-lock them. Simply not getting attacked is indisputably more effective than trying to out-heal infinitely scaling DPS.

Quote

No, it's not realistically possible to not have any of those options. Because they do exist. It's possible to chose to forsake them. At that point, you are simultaneously choosing to live with the consequences of your choices. 

False.

  • Rejuvenation - must be acquired from alerts, which can take a VERY long time to show up.
  • Arcane Grace - locked behind Eidolons, which require significant progression to down successfully.
  • Life Strike - rare mod.
  • Equilibrium - must be purchased from Simaris.
  • Hema - must be researched and crafted.
  • Medi-Ray - uncommon mod locked behind a dual-layer of grind.
  • Hunter Recovery - can only be farmed during the applicable events.
  • Desecrate - only available to Nekros.
  • Lasting Purity - requires player investment in New Loka and ownership of Vulkar.
  • Healing Return - rare mod.
  • Scattered Justice - requires player investment in Steel Meridian and ownership of Hek.
  • Magus Elevate - locked behind substantial Quills and gem grind.
  • Magus Nourish - locked behind substantial Quills and gem grind.
  • Sancti Magistar - requires player investment in New Loka.
  • Winds of Purity - requires player investment in New Loka and ownership of Furis.
  • Hysteria - only available to Valkyr.
  • Elemental Ward - only available to Chroma, and doesn't really combat attrition for the player.
  • Regenerating Molt - requires player investment in Red Veil/Steel Meridian, and only available to Saryn.
  • Arcane Victory - locked behind Eidolons, which require significant progression to down successfully.
  • Avenging Truth - requires player investment in Arbiters of Hexis, and ownership of Silva & Aegis.
  • Shattering Justice - requires player investment in Steel Meridian, and ownership of Sobek.
  • Scarab Swarm - only available to Inaros.
  • Blade of Truth - requires player investment in Arbiters of Hexis, and ownership of the Jaw Sword (which is fairly rare).
  • Blessing - only available to Trinity.
  • Justice Blades - requires player investment in Steel Meridian, and ownership of Dual Cleavers.
  • Bright Purity - requires player investment in New Loka, and ownership of Skana.
  • Mend & Maim - only available to Equinox.
  • Defy - only available to Wukong, and comes with attrition of its own.
  • Gilded Truth - requires player investment in Arbiters of Hexis, and ownership of Burston Prime, which is vaulted.
  • Neutralizing Justice - requires player investment in Steel Meridian and ownership of Miter.
  • Renewal - only available to Oberon.
  • Blazing Chakram - only available to Nezha.
  • Haven - only available to Limbo, and not self-applicable.
  • Disarming Purity - requires player investment in New Loka, and ownership of Panthera.
  • Health Restore - frickin' random drop that many players won't know exists or how to grind it.
  • Curative Undertow - requires player investment in Cephalon Suda/New Loka, only available to Hydroid.
  • Devour - only available to Inaros.
  • Stinging Truth - requires player investment in Arbiters of Hexis, and ownership of Viper.
  • Pool of Life - requires player investment in New Loka/The Perrin Sequence, and only available to Trinity.
  • Well of Life - only available to Trinity.
  • Reckoning - only available to Oberon.
  • Desiccation - only available to Inaros.
  • Large Team Health Restore - requires player investment in Steel Meridian/New Loka.
  • Medium Team Health Restore - requires research.
  • Hirudo - requires crafting the Kogake, and a decent crit build to be effective.

New players aren't guaranteed to have any of these options, which by default means it is possible to not have access to them. Acquiring these tools requires both knowledge of their existence (which isn't well documented) and notable investment of time/resources.

Quote

Oh I don't know if it would be bad. It's possible. But I can tell you that the half-baked suggestions I've seen so far on this thread would be a bad idea if implemented.

What's half-baked about specific healer enemies that drop health orbs on death? It benefits enemy factions, secures adequately reliable access to universal healing to combat attrition, and rewards prioritizing targets. I'm starting to think you aren't even fully considering the suggestions you read.

Quote

And just so we're clear, no I haven't unlocked all of the healing options yet. And I'm OK with that because I can make informed choices about what I will do in the meantime.

Yet you DO have some of the options unlocked. That puts you in a different situation from someone who doesn't.

Quote

I don't need to try and break the game mechanic in order to demand an easier time. And I can see how it could go very badly, as I mentioned in my previous post.

What mechanic are we breaking?

Quote

Ah.... So your defense of it being unnecessary is to point to something else that may not have been necessary and...? Nothing? That's disappointing.

I'm pointing out that something being unnecessary doesn't make it bad. You're making a blanket statement and assuming your conclusion is self-evident when it's purely subjective.

Quote

Funny. We seem to be on the feedback section. It means that the Devs seem to be giving us the freedom to say what we'd like or not like, what we think they should spend time and resources on to improve the game, or not. Is that not what it's here for?

I didn't say otherwise, but you're acting like your disagreement with what we'd like is somehow a rebuttal of its validity... when it isn't.

Quote

And I'm not the sole authority on anything. That's on DE. Not you, not me. But it's a bit hard for me to understand how you can try that piece of ridiculosity and then claim to be pretty sure that the proposal you are making is an improvement. This is where I have to ask you if you are the pot or the kettle, isn't it?

Nope, because:

Quote

Now to show that it's an improvement, you need to show that it's needed. Several people have replied here saying that it's not and giving reasons. So far your only reason is "if I don't take any of the options available to me, then I have a problem".

I already have:

  • It is possible to lack access to said healing options.
  • Attrition is common and unavoidable without specialized tools (e.g., Iron Skin), which makes access to said options critically important.
  • For newer players - especially solo players - being hit with unavoidable attrition while being given zero tools to counter it feels decisively unfair and frustrating.
Quote

And these players it needs to help, are the ones who have chosen to forsake all other healing options as per your hypotheticals? In other words, the people who go naked to a knife fight? If a system helps keep them from "attrition", what do you think it will do to the players with an iota of common sense? "Unkillable. Godly. Needs to be nerfed. Boring." Those are the phrases that come to mind.

No, as I have said repeatedly.

Also note that anti-attrition measures don't need to protect players from taking lots of damage or help them out-heal enemy DPS. They only need to allow players to reverse attrition.

Quote

Three questions, one answer: Check the link that you scoffed at. It has a nice list. (Efficient!)

False.

  • A weaker but always-available form of healing does not make any of the linked healing options useless. You're exaggerating.
  • The existence of an alternate source of healing does not mean any other source of healing must necessarily be removed. More exaggeration.
  • How would the addition of a new type of minor healing make pre-existing healing require a nerf? That makes no logical sense.
Quote

Right now the problem is mainly affecting the so called endgame players.

What? Since when? Why are you continuing to ignore that my reasoning is not the same as OP's reasoning?

Quote

What you're demanding is actually to make it harder for you to die.

Not at all.

  • I'm not demanding anything. Stop projecting.
  • I'm suggesting that we lower the barrier for entry on Warframes that suffer from attrition without reliable access to self-heals. This benefits primarily newer players, not veterans who already have access to better options.
Quote

All of a sudden your average player becomes that much more like an endgame player,

Justify how something like an enemy dropping health orbs suddenly makes a player an end-game player.

Quote

more able to tank it up in the squishy frames despite having it poorly modded.

Tanking applies to withstanding sustained DPS. I didn't suggest anything that would improve a player's ability to tank. Only to counteract attrition, which is NOT tanking.

Quote

So you just took, weapons too strong, too much cc, and added way too easy to regain health.

Too easy how? I don't think you even have a concrete idea of what I'm suggesting. You see "self healing" and immediately assume "free Life Strike," when I'm not suggesting anything remotely similar.

Quote

And your justification? That boils down to: "It's already broken lolz let's break it moar!"

I'm saying that compared to existing game-breakers, adding an option for healing that is by default weaker than all the existing options for healing isn't going to break it at all.

Quote

That sword cuts both ways doesn't it, Damocles. Forgot that, didn't you? You shouldn't have. 

Nice try. Didn't rate. Sorry. 

It really doesn't, because I'm not relying on baseless assertions and gross exaggeration of your viewpoints to support my opinion.

Edited by DiabolusUrsus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

There is no contradiction. I have the same conclusion (anti-attrition mechanics are needed) but reached it through different reasoning. Ergo, rebutting OP's reasoning does not apply to what I am saying and is not interchangeably applicable.

The end result is the same. It's not needed. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

False. I think that there should be a baseline (though less effective) attrition countermeasure that is reliably available regardless of loadout. This is aimed at making the game less frustrating for when players lack the appropriate options, or when the options they DO have are unsuitable to their needs (e.g., Lifestrike is fairly counter-productive for Mesa as it reduces her health, requires her to be in melee mode to activate, and competes with her powers for energy consumption).

Lacking options = being brand new to the game. After that the whole line of reasoning becomes "I don't want to use any of the myriad options available to me". Life Strike no good? Use energy pizzas, or any other option. Don't want to? OK, but that's on you. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

I'm not upset at all; this is you projecting for your own convenience. I am, however, interested in making the game more fair.

The game is fair. If you want to do something that is a very bad idea in advanced play, you will have a bad time. Beyond that you are asking for the game to be made easier when it doesn't need to be. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

It should be fairly obvious that attrition does not apply equally to every Warframe, but the existence of Rhino/Nidus/Inaros doesn't do anything to help the Warframes that suffer more from it. If a Warframe isn't taking much in terms of attrition, an attrition countermeasure will be fairly worthless to it. As such, that's irrelevant

That's the second frame you can unlock in the game. You can use it to complete just about everything in the star-chart, and it will definitely allow you to get many of the mods/frames that you claim are so difficult to get, expanding your options. It is a very good option to deal with your issues. The fact that you don't want to use it, or did not think of the scenario that easily breaks your rhetorical question, doesn't make it irrelevant. It makes your choices to not use your options wisely, myopic. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

You're making a lot of assumptions about what I have and have not done, but they're not really helping your point so please give it a rest.

Your repeated offering of "but what if I actively choose to do something that doesn't consider the core mechanics of the game and my available options" tells me that the assumption is correct. As such an appropriate response is "stop making poor choices". 

 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Relying on more experienced players to carry and guide newbies through early content suggests that there is a problem with early content. In my book, that doesn't qualify as good design. You're ignoring the areas Warframe struggles in to focus on its generic attributes that apply to pretty much every halfway-decent RPG ever made

What? Newbs in the starter zone don't need experienced players to carry them. They become more experienced players as they learn to play from the starter zone. This is core to many many games. Are you sure you are familiar with the starter zone/newb experience? 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

So you are claiming that it is impossible for players to own none of the applicable self-healing options? I'm setting health orbs aside because those are rare enough without relevant perks that they cannot be depended upon to combat attrition.

Welcome to Warframe. As I have pointed out, Rhino exists, he is the second frame, unlocked on the second planet. By the time you get to him you have probably already built a sentinel with vacuum. You will have started collecting mods from the very first mission. You will also be starting to learn about modding your frames and weapons. Soon you will be able to run fissure missions and open the relics you already have. You will be able to trade some of the rewards for platinum, which you can use to help you get other mods/weapons/frames/slots/etc. You can join/create a clan and build labs to research many new and exciting things such as team health restores which will help you to, not die. 

Literally only a brand new player can be expected to have no options. This is common and also explains the low level of enemies in the starter zone. They are expected to "play the game, and advance" gaining more options along the way. If you can't grasp these concepts then you can try to argue "what if they don't have any options" but you probably won't be able to grasp most of the concepts in the game. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

I misread your statement as using experienced players to buffer early-game content. My mistake.

Is that why you left the spurious comment 2 sections above? Couldn't you have taken it out? 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

yet in a game that depends on hooking new players and encouraging them to spend money on it, relying on the fairly inaccessible trial-and-error method is not good design. Warframe should strive to be accessible as possible for maximum player retention. 

Well for those "bad students" a part of the game is also this forum where there's a specific section to ask questions and get help. There's also a wiki. While I do think that a system should be in place to explain things more clearly for new players, I don't think that giving all players another built-in passive/active "don't worry you won't die, lol, it'll all regenerate in just a bit" is needed. We already have myriad options to deal with health regeneration. Just because some people want to claim that none of them will work if they specifically choose to use none, doesn't mean anything is wrong with the game. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Trivializing enemies has nothing to do with being able to heal and everything to do with being able to CC-lock them. Simply not getting attacked is indisputably more effective than trying to out-heal infinitely scaling DPS

The enemy can't hurt you if they're all dead? Next you'll claim that the best defense is "a good offense". Either way, if it makes health regeneration as a whole unnecessary, then what you are claiming is necessary, really isn't. Because you have options that include "just don't make bad choices". 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

False.

  • -snip-

New players aren't guaranteed to have any of these options, which by default means it is possible to not have access to them. Acquiring these tools requires both knowledge of their existence (which isn't well documented) and notable investment of time/resources.

New players - and yes we're talking about brand new players again aren't we - start in the starter zone facing single digit level enemies, so their minimal health regeneration needs are met by the game in various ways. So your claims which require a single specific scenario to hold any validity are spurious and can be ignored, because those are not the players who will be facing off against level 35+ enemies. As they play they can unlock all of the above and will require them and good judgment to survive. Your ability to follow a link and find all of those options suggests that it's documented quite nicely. 

Again, are you sure that you are familiar with the new player experience? I suggested that you go back and give it a try, but you didn't seem to take it seriously. Perhaps you should?

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

What's half-baked about specific healer enemies that drop health orbs on death? It benefits enemy factions, secures adequately reliable access to universal healing to combat attrition, and rewards prioritizing targets. I'm starting to think you aren't even fully considering the suggestions you read.

Because health is already an enemy drop. Because we can already survive without it. Because bumping health drops will not fix anything, simply shift the problem and we'll be right back here in a few weeks with the complaint that the op can't survive level 40+ enemies because they simply don't want to learn to play in a sensible manner for the challenges they face. It's as though you're fixated on what you think is a problem with the balance of the game, but is really just a matter of people complaining about the consequences of their choices, and can't see that changing the game won't actually help those people. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Yet you DO have some of the options unlocked. That puts you in a different situation from someone who doesn't.

And yet I was in that position months ago, but have no vivid recollection of being unable to survive level-appropriate content. And now I find myself possessed of several options to suit my needs, as are most players who have progressed even a moderate way through the star chart. So, no. Not so very different as you seem to want to think. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

What mechanic are we breaking?

Welcome to the Thread, it as about healing and managing health issues in mission. On this thread you've repeatedly insisted that if you do not mod wisely (core game mechanic), or wisely choose to use what options are available to you (core game mechanic), issues arise where you have difficulty managing your health due to incoming damage (core game mechanic). The fact that you are suggesting that players who are choosing to be the equivalent of brand new players in terms of what is available to them, will eventually die from damage suggests that you don't really grasp that. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

I already have:

  • It is possible to lack access to said healing options.
  • Attrition is common and unavoidable without specialized tools (e.g., Iron Skin), which makes access to said options critically important.
  • For newer players - especially solo players - being hit with unavoidable attrition while being given zero tools to counter it feels decisively unfair and frustrating.

Only by ignoring the obvious. The only players who lack any options at all are newbs playing solo who are facing weaker enemies in the starter zone and so can learn to manage their gameplay without instantly dying. Playing level appropriate content will give them the options that they do not yet have. Even death is an effective way for them to manage their health loss issues, as they have multiple revives. Again, I strongly suspect that you are not as familiar with the new player experience as you believe. 

Recall, playing solo is also a choice you can make. Not choosing poorly is a good idea. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

No, as I have said repeatedly.

Also note that anti-attrition measures don't need to protect players from taking lots of damage or help them out-heal enemy DPS. They only need to allow players to reverse attrition.

Players dealing with high levels of incoming damage and no options would have actively chosen to carry no other means of healing on a mission where they needed it. That's on them not on the game. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

False.

  • A weaker but always-available form of healing does not make any of the linked healing options useless. You're exaggerating.
  • The existence of an alternate source of healing does not mean any other source of healing must necessarily be removed. More exaggeration.
  • How would the addition of a new type of minor healing make pre-existing healing require a nerf? That makes no logical sense.

Then you're exaggerating it's usefulness. You are asking for the addition of something that won't solve any problems, won't be particularly useful, won't actually help you in any significant way with the hypothetical problem you pose of someone who isn't able to grasp the current concept of healing or actively tries to avoid using it. 

It's something that you are claiming to need, to fix a problem, but it is not a "fix" to your hypothetical problem that doesn't realistically exist? That's a tough one all right. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

What? Since when? Why are you continuing to ignore that my reasoning is not the same as OP's reasoning?

Because that's the only place where I have even begun to encounter the problem you are claiming to have. Level appropriate enemies don't cause the game to stop being playable, and even your "try playing without healing until you die and then accept it was due to the inevitable health attrition caused by incoming damage" requires that "endgame" style of play. In the end you're both making the same argument for something that's a non-issue for people who accept that they have options and avail themselves of appropriate ones. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Not at all.

  • I'm not demanding anything. Stop projecting.
  • I'm suggesting that we lower the barrier for entry on Warframes that suffer from attrition without reliable access to self-heals. This benefits primarily newer players, not veterans who already have access to better options.

demand [dih-mand, -mahnd]

verb (used with object)

to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right

to ask for peremptorily or urgently

to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/demanding

Please stop projecting that others are projecting, especially if your main argument for doing so is semantic, unsupported by the meaning of the words used. 

And once again, new players start in lower level zones where the requirements of entry are already quite low and by playing, can rapidly gain access to at least some of the options that you are claiming that they don't have access to. Those allow them to progress, and gain others. Eventually they become veteran players. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Justify how something like an enemy dropping health orbs suddenly makes a player an end-game player.

I did exactly that in the second half of the sentence that you truncated. It's difficult to believe that you legitimately didn't see it while responding. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Tanking applies to withstanding sustained DPS. I didn't suggest anything that would improve a player's ability to tank. Only to counteract attrition, which is NOT tanking.

And increased passive/active methods of supplementing the health needed to withstand sustained DPS especially in the long run is......? Oh right good, we'll call that "enhancing the ability to tank" shall we? Excellent. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Too easy how? I don't think you even have a concrete idea of what I'm suggesting. You see "self healing" and immediately assume "free Life Strike," when I'm not suggesting anything remotely similar.

Want me to show you that I do? Too easy because it's not really needed in the starter zone, except in endurance runs of the endless missions, which are not typical for newer players and not something that DE has expressed interest in encouraging. Too easy because it's not really needed by more experienced players except for those in similar situations to the previous. Too easy because we keep having to circle back to players choosing to forsake all available options, and then wondering why they have issues surviving. You keep thinking that I'm missing what you have suggested. I'm not. I'm just focusing on the possible/probable effects it will create right now, not the proposed mechanic of how it will create them. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

I'm saying that compared to existing game-breakers, adding an option for healing that is by default weaker than all the existing options for healing isn't going to break it at all.

Again: "It's already broken, lolz, let's break it moar!!!" is not a good argument. 

7 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

It really doesn't, because I'm not relying on baseless assertions and gross exaggeration of your viewpoints to support my opinion.

Uh, yeah, you are relying on baseless assertions. Every single time you have tried to suggest that a player can theoretically exist who has absolutely no options, and would be absolutely unable to change that, that's been baseless. At that point in time, you're no longer talking about Warframe. 

Edited by (PS4)guzmantt1977
Minor edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Literally only a brand new player can be expected to have no options. This is common and also explains the low level of enemies in the starter zone. They are expected to "play the game, and advance" gaining more options along the way. If you can't grasp these concepts then you can try to argue "what if they don't have any options" but you probably won't be able to grasp most of the concepts in the game.

The enemy can't hurt you if they're all dead? Next you'll claim that the best defense is "a good offense". Either way, if it makes health regeneration as a whole unnecessary, then what you are claiming is necessary, really isn't. Because you have options that include "just don't make bad choices". 

New players - and yes we're talking about brand new players again aren't we - start in the starter zone facing single digit level enemies, so their minimal health regeneration needs are met by the game in various ways. So your claims which require a single specific scenario to hold any validity are spurious and can be ignored, because those are not the players who will be facing off against level 35+ enemies. As they play they can unlock all of the above and will require them and good judgment to survive. Your ability to follow a link and find all of those options suggests that it's documented quite nicely. 

Again, are you sure that you are familiar with the new player experience? I suggested that you go back and give it a try, but you didn't seem to take it seriously. Perhaps you should?

Hey, it's you. Let me just pull a few specifics from this segment I've extricated.

"Are you familiar with the new player experience?"

Yes - I've replayed under a new account with strictly no assistance. Even been the assistance to other actual newbies in spite of the lack of gear, which adds some fresh perspective.

"Only brand new players have no options"

Yes - but they should be considered too. As per my previous in this thread, they (now) have access to shielded gameplay long before health OR energy can be reliable. But this carries with it the attrition problem. Every slash proc, every Infested dealing toxin damage, every time they're in over their head and shields get depleted is effectively a permanent hit to survival.

"New players don't have to worry about it because X"

X = Enemy levels/quantity

Even low-level enemies can inflict status. The slash procs may not be much, but they're there and they add up. Single-digit levels expire long before being a 'new player' and access to resources improve. These players are barely modded for extra health or damage, so they're both more exposed (longer time-to-kill per enemy) and more susceptible (lesser health pool) to health attrition. This shows especially in endless missions (even as little as reaching a B rotation), and doubly so when it's a Defense. With nothing protecting the pod and high times-to-kill, fresh players can easily end up needing to face-tank to hold attention.

X = Rhino/abilities

These abilities require energy. Energy is a luxury until a source of generation or mods make the effect-per-energy much greater. Even if Rhino's good enough - if a new player is forced into a specific warframe, when they have extremely limited slots, then that suggests a flaw in the baseline of the game. Small regenerations would go a long way to (health) not requiring Iron Skin, or (energy) to use Iron Skin or CC abilities which also deal with the threat issue more reliably.

"Next you'll claim the best defense is a good offense"

Actually, this is 100% truth in the early stages of the game right now. Later on you can - sometims must - beef up tankiness or use stealth to avoid everything outright, but early on it's a toe-to-toe battle, and until you accumulate and rank up your mods, as a general rule your defense is absolutely reliant on your offensive capacity not putting you at risk of losing that battle of attrition on your limited pool of health.

This is from my aforementioned experience replaying from scratch:
Melee annihilates gunplay starting from zero mods and MK-1 gear (especially if you chose the Bo to start due to better reach/area). Excalibur's Exalted Blade is far-and-away more effective than basic weaponry or the other starter-frame abilities. With it (and if RNG provided enough energy, Blind to get the bonus multiplier on top), you can go from fresh account up through as many junctions as you can before MR and construction times slow you down, and experience minimal resistance. Even with the limited energy supplies, it's just no contest.

Sure, you could try Iron Skin tanking. But if you still take an eternity per enemy, they'll get through it sooner than they drop enough energy orbs to let you re-cast.

Edited by EDYinnit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they could add in some healing stations throughout certain levels? It would be thematic since the enemy forces would theoretically be able to use them as well. The player could hack them and get 2 or 3 extra health orbs. It makes a lot more sense than random lockers and containers. It would also give Mirage something else to booby trap.

Something like this would hardly imbalance the game. Shields regenerate but they don't do jack squat for all the slash and poison procs that bypass them entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EDYinnit said:

Hey, it's you. Let me just pull a few specifics from this segment I've extricated.

"Are you familiar with the new player experience?"

Yes - I've replayed under a new account with strictly no assistance. Even been the assistance to other actual newbies in spite of the lack of gear, which adds some fresh perspective.

"Only brand new players have no options"

Yes - but they should be considered too. As per my previous in this thread, they (now) have access to shielded gameplay long before health OR energy can be reliable. But this carries with it the attrition problem. Every slash proc, every Infested dealing toxin damage, every time they're in over their head and shields get depleted is effectively a permanent hit to survival.

"New players don't have to worry about it because X"

X = Enemy levels/quantity

Even low-level enemies can inflict status. The slash procs may not be much, but they're there and they add up. Single-digit levels expire long before being a 'new player' and access to resources improve. These players are barely modded for extra health or damage, so they're both more exposed (longer time-to-kill per enemy) and more susceptible (lesser health pool) to health attrition. This shows especially in endless missions (even as little as reaching a B rotation), and doubly so when it's a Defense. With nothing protecting the pod and high times-to-kill, fresh players can easily end up needing to face-tank to hold attention.

X = Rhino/abilities

These abilities require energy. Energy is a luxury until a source of generation or mods make the effect-per-energy much greater. Even if Rhino's good enough - if a new player is forced into a specific warframe, when they have extremely limited slots, then that suggests a flaw in the baseline of the game. Small regenerations would go a long way to (health) not requiring Iron Skin, or (energy) to use Iron Skin or CC abilities which also deal with the threat issue more reliably.

"Next you'll claim the best defense is a good offense"

Actually, this is 100% truth in the early stages of the game right now. Later on you can - sometims must - beef up tankiness or use stealth to avoid everything outright, but early on it's a toe-to-toe battle, and until you accumulate and rank up your mods, as a general rule your defense is absolutely reliant on your offensive capacity not putting you at risk of losing that battle of attrition on your limited pool of health.

This is from my aforementioned experience replaying from scratch:
Melee annihilates gunplay starting from zero mods and MK-1 gear (especially if you chose the Bo to start due to better reach/area). Excalibur's Exalted Blade is far-and-away more effective than basic weaponry or the other starter-frame abilities. With it (and if RNG provided enough energy, Blind to get the bonus multiplier on top), you can go from fresh account up through as many junctions as you can before MR and construction times slow you down, and experience minimal resistance. Even with the limited energy supplies, it's just no contest.

Sure, you could try Iron Skin tanking. But if you still take an eternity per enemy, they'll get through it sooner than they drop enough energy orbs to let you re-cast.

Oh hi. Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I seem to have you on ignore, for some reason. 

 

Congratulations on somehow managing to survive the new user experience, more than once! Thank you for providing proof that players somehow manage to do it under the current system. Obviously they've been considered otherwise they would have all been stuck in the perpetual cycle of "certain doooooooom!!!1!" the way that others on this thread seem to be suggesting. 

Some how you seem to have forgotten that while the players are barely modded, the weaker enemies are also easier to kill. While some may believe this to be accidental, it's not. It provides balance to the game and explains why higher level content is gated. 

And yes Rhino's abilities cost energy. But that's, once again what's commonly known as a trade off/opportunity cost. And here's something that you may have forgotten, that first sentinel who helps us to vacuum up additional energy (and health)... You remember when you gained access to that? 

Now, I don't know about you, but nobody forced me to use Rhino. And I've never discarded a frame until I got the Prime. I continued to use Excal long after I got my Rhino. Part of the reason is that as I progressed I got new mods, new gear, new frames, and new options. I have trouble believing that your experience, either of them, was significantly different. 

 

And yes, the line about the best defense is true. I was pointing out that the comment preceeding it, which was another way of saying what I responded to was what you might describe as a "blatantly obvious" statement. I'm surprised that you missed that. Maybe I should have wrapped it around a larger brick? But thank you for agreeing, in detail, that it applies. 

 

Have another great day, Tenno. 👍

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:
  1. Congratulations on somehow managing to survive the new user experience, more than once! Thank you for providing proof that players somehow manage to do it under the current system. Obviously they've been considered otherwise they would have all been stuck in the perpetual cycle of "certain doooooooom!!!1!" the way that others on this thread seem to be suggesting. 
  2. Some how you seem to have forgotten that while the players are barely modded, the weaker enemies are also easier to kill. While some may believe this to be accidental, it's not. It provides balance to the game and explains why higher level content is gated. 
  3. And yes Rhino's abilities cost energy. But that's, once again what's commonly known as a trade off/opportunity cost. And here's something that you may have forgotten, that first sentinel who helps us to vacuum up additional energy (and health)... You remember when you gained access to that? 
  4. Now, I don't know about you, but nobody forced me to use Rhino. And I've never discarded a frame until I got the Prime. I continued to use Excal long after I got my Rhino. Part of the reason is that as I progressed I got new mods, new gear, new frames, and new options. I have trouble believing that your experience, either of them, was significantly different.
  5. And yes, the line about the best defense is true. I was pointing out that the comment preceeding it, which was another way of saying what I responded to was what you might describe as a "blatantly obvious" statement. I'm surprised that you missed that. Maybe I should have wrapped it around a larger brick? But thank you for agreeing, in detail, that it applies.

I'll just number-itemise, because the day has been too long to mess around unboxing individual points.

  1. It's certainly survivable, but in doing so alongside others I can see where my experience made it much easier in my second time than it is currently as someone's first. Bear in mind my first was under damage 1.0 and all that past, so it's barely comparable at all; my genuine-newbie compatriots had a whole lot of death and, in not being exempt from a drop or two myself, I can still identify where the shortfalls are - where bad tastes can be left in the mouths of new players that a light baseline regen might absolve.
  2. I haven't missed this. I specifically addressed it. Even low enemies can break through shields, even low enemies can proc, and it's rather easy to progress past those Level 3 Lancers while still being objectively within the 'new' category. I'm not sure when you started, but incoming damage is, and ramps up, much more so than it used to in the past. Right down to Moas, Troopers and Elite Lancers; some casualties of balancing player weapons without properly separating them from enemy damage profiles.
  3. I spoke under the assumption that what drops is picked up, Vacuumed or otherwise. Health orbs don't except from one-time opportunities (containers and lockers). Energy is available on-kill - but kills are generally slower/fewer, each point of energy worth far less for players without their Strength/Range/Duration and especially Efficiency stat mods. Rhino was a specific mention of yours, but a fair one due to early availability and one of the more effective abilities for our context.
  4. However, for a new player with 2-4 slots, asking them to either A) Die cheaply or B) use Rhino is a false choice. It's indirect coercion, 'forcing' in a not-quite-literal sense (semantics). There's room for improvement to promote flexibility without it being at the expense of the underequipped player's experience - especially when Excalibur's 'best defence' of superior damage output is so much more productive anyway (perhaps excessively so, leading to so many mindless Swish-Swish players).
  5. I admit I largely skimmed the post I was quoting and didn't dig into the preceding context. I thought you were employing incredulous sarcasm in disagreement, not lampooning the obvious. It's an indirect relationship that could be interpreted to support either way; 'defense is near-useless anyway so adding better baseline is already futile' vs. 'this is why defense is unusable so it should be improved at base to make it as reliable as offense'.

There's subjectivity in both camps in regards to the genuine 'have-not' playerbase, but I'd say there are objectively enough health sources for the lategame player. Shields could use a beast-generic Protect to round out the resupply options, though.

It's always an interesting sight to have Life Strike almost deified when I've never used it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

The end result is the same. It's not needed.

Do you understand what a strawman is, though?

Quote

Lacking options = being brand new to the game. After that the whole line of reasoning becomes "I don't want to use any of the myriad options available to me". Life Strike no good? Use energy pizzas, or any other option. Don't want to? OK, but that's on you.

Not when a player doesn't have health restore prints OR the credits/resources to craft them en-masse yet.

Quote

The game is fair. If you want to do something that is a very bad idea in advanced play, you will have a bad time. Beyond that you are asking for the game to be made easier when it doesn't need to be.

... That's really not what this suggestion is about. I'm not going to continue repeating this for your entertainment. The change in difficulty would be MINIMAL. Enemies would still be just as able to burst down squishy Frames; the only thing this changes is whether or not random unblockable slash procs can eventually kill you even if you never take any other health damage.

Quote

That's the second frame you can unlock in the game. You can use it to complete just about everything in the star-chart, and it will definitely allow you to get many of the mods/frames that you claim are so difficult to get, expanding your options. It is a very good option to deal with your issues. The fact that you don't want to use it, or did not think of the scenario that easily breaks your rhetorical question, doesn't make it irrelevant. It makes your choices to not use your options wisely, myopic.

The only one demonstrating myopia here is you.

New player buys Mesa with plat. Your solution is for them to use Rhino. #genius.

Quote

Your repeated offering of "but what if I actively choose to do something that doesn't consider the core mechanics of the game and my available options" tells me that the assumption is correct. As such an appropriate response is "stop making poor choices". 

You're continuing to strawman, please stop.

Quote

What? Newbs in the starter zone don't need experienced players to carry them. They become more experienced players as they learn to play from the starter zone. This is core to many many games. Are you sure you are familiar with the starter zone/newb experience?

Yep. Pretty sure I know Warframe relies pretty heavily on word of mouth to give new players a sense of direction. You apparently also expect new players to depend on experienced players to bypass RNG and acquire healing ASAP.

Quote

Welcome to Warframe. As I have pointed out, Rhino exists, he is the second frame, unlocked on the second planet. By the time you get to him you have probably already built a sentinel with vacuum. You will have started collecting mods from the very first mission. You will also be starting to learn about modding your frames and weapons. Soon you will be able to run fissure missions and open the relics you already have. You will be able to trade some of the rewards for platinum, which you can use to help you get other mods/weapons/frames/slots/etc. You can join/create a clan and build labs to research many new and exciting things such as team health restores which will help you to, not die.

You can do all of those things, but not instantly. If you go into the game knowing all of that you can even do it quickly... But new players often DON'T know that.

Quote

Literally only a brand new player can be expected to have no options. This is common and also explains the low level of enemies in the starter zone. They are expected to "play the game, and advance" gaining more options along the way. If you can't grasp these concepts then you can try to argue "what if they don't have any options" but you probably won't be able to grasp most of the concepts in the game. 

What I can't grasp is why you think brand new players don't matter enough to be worth considering, and why you are assuming that they all share your intimate knowledge of the game and its workings.

Quote

Is that why you left the spurious comment 2 sections above? Couldn't you have taken it out?

Could've, but I felt it became relevant anyway and so left it in. You're also in no position to critique MY rhetoric.

Quote

Well for those "bad students" a part of the game is also this forum where there's a specific section to ask questions and get help.

What percentage of the playerbase do you think visits the Forums?

Quote

There's also a wiki. While I do think that a system should be in place to explain things more clearly for new players, I don't think that giving all players another built-in passive/active "don't worry you won't die, lol, it'll all regenerate in just a bit" is needed.

Your most critical defense appears to be hyperbole. How would adding an enemy that drops guaranteed health orbs as a priority target allow players to passively escape death?

Quote

We already have myriad options to deal with health regeneration. Just because some people want to claim that none of them will work if they specifically choose to use none, doesn't mean anything is wrong with the game.

Again, argue this with THEM, not ME.

Quote

The enemy can't hurt you if they're all dead? Next you'll claim that the best defense is "a good offense".

I mean, that's not untrue. Scaling DPS means that mass CC is superior to self-healing, though. Or did you expect Trinity to be the best endurance-runner simply because she has Blessing?

Quote

Eitherway, if it makes health regeneration as a whole unnecessary,

Good thing it doesn't do that.

Quote

then what you are claiming is necessary, really isn't. Because you have options that include "just don't make bad choices". 

You're missing the point of the system, which is not to make self-healing obsolete. Self-healing would be for recovering from or negating high damage when enemies are actually capable of killing the player directly. The attrition countermeasure would only help prevent players from suffering a "death of 1000 cuts" against enemies they otherwise have no problems beating.

In other words, active self-healing would make anti-attrition obsolete, not vice-versa.

Quote

New players - and yes we're talking about brand new players again aren't we - start in the starter zone facing single digit level enemies, so their minimal health regeneration needs are met by the game in various ways. So your claims which require a single specific scenario to hold any validity are spurious and can be ignored, because those are not the players who will be facing off against level 35+ enemies.

I didn't realize enemies below level 35 were unable to proc slash or toxin. /s

Quote

As they play they can unlock all of the above and will require them and good judgment to survive. Your ability to follow a link and find all of those options suggests that it's documented quite nicely.

Not when the wiki is a resource that isn't directly available in-game.

Quote

Again, are you sure that you are familiar with the new player experience? I suggested that you go back and give it a try, but you didn't seem to take it seriously. Perhaps you should?

Yep, pretty sure. I'm really not interested in a war of anecdotes.

Quote

Because health is already an enemy drop. Because we can already survive without it. Because bumping health drops will not fix anything, simply shift the problem and we'll be right back here in a few weeks with the complaint that the op can't survive level 40+ enemies because they simply don't want to learn to play in a sensible manner for the challenges they face.

I see your slippery slope and repeat strawman, and raise you one valid argument.

Quote

It's as though you're fixated on what you think is a problem with the balance of the game, but is really just a matter of people complaining about the consequences of their choices, and can't see that changing the game won't actually help those people.

It's as though you're fixated on denying players you look down on to the point that you won't actually consider the core intent of the suggestion or be constructive about it.

Quote

And yet I was in that position months ago, but have no vivid recollection of being unable to survive level-appropriate content.

Did you typically play solo?

Quote

And now I find myself possessed of several options to suit my needs, as are most players who have progressed even a moderate way through the star chart. So, no. Not so very different as you seem to want to think.

Too bad your personal experience is not definitive.

Quote

Welcome to the Thread,

Why do you keep saying this?

Quote

it as about healing and managing health issues in mission.

More specifically, attrition. I know.

Quote

On this thread you've repeatedly insisted that if you do not mod wisely (core game mechanic), or wisely choose to use what options are available to you (core game mechanic), issues arise where you have difficulty managing your health due to incoming damage (core game mechanic).

No, I haven't insisted that at all. Stop strawmanning.

Quote

The fact that you are suggesting that players who are choosing to be the equivalent of brand new players in terms of what is available to them, will eventually die from damage suggests that you don't really grasp that. 

I'm not talking about OP now, am I? Only you are.

Quote

Only by ignoring the obvious. The only players who lack any options at all are newbs playing solo who are facing weaker enemies in the starter zone and so can learn to manage their gameplay without instantly dying.

Since when is attrition about instant death?

Quote

Playing level appropriate content will give them the options that they do not yet have.

Really? So which non-Warframe-specific healing mod drops by from any area up to Saturn?

That would be Hunter Recovery only, which is event-exclusive.

Quote

Even death is an effective way for them to manage their health loss issues, as they have multiple revives. Again, I strongly suspect that you are not as familiar with the new player experience as you believe. 

So you think it is better design to make new players pay earned affinity until they acquire auxiliary self healing instead of simply giving them a minor attrition safety net? Really?

Quote

Recall, playing solo is also a choice you can make. Not choosing poorly is a good idea.

Tell that to players with bad internet connections or in low-population areas. They don't matter either, is that right?

It is a better idea to design the game around solo play (lowest common denominator) and scale the game for groups than to say "well sorry, Solo players, you're SOL."

Quote

Players dealing with high levels of incoming damage and no options would have actively chosen to carry no other means of healing on a mission where they needed it. That's on them not on the game.

Yep, I agree. Which is why I'm talking about attrition and not tanking.

Quote

Then you're exaggerating it's usefulness. You are asking for the addition of something that won't solve any problems, won't be particularly useful, won't actually help you in any significant way with the hypothetical problem you pose of someone who isn't able to grasp the current concept of healing or actively tries to avoid using it.

That's a baseless assertion.

Quote

It's something that you are claiming to need, to fix a problem, but it is not a "fix" to your hypothetical problem that doesn't realistically exist? That's a tough one all right. 

More baseless assertions. There's no point in arguing if you're just going to dismiss everything out of hand.

Adding a more reliable source of health orbs instead of relying purely on random drops would plausibly counteract attrition.

Quote

Because that's the only place where I have even begun to encounter the problem you are claiming to have.

Good thing this isn't about you, then.

Quote

Level appropriate enemies don't cause the game to stop being playable, and even your "try playing without healing until you die and then accept it was due to the inevitable health attrition caused by incoming damage" requires that "endgame" style of play.

I mean, that's what attrition is though. All it takes is bad luck with procs.

Quote

In the end you're both making the same argument for something that's a non-issue for people who accept that they have options and avail themselves of appropriate ones.

Based on your inability to follow my examples without immediately jumping to logical extremes, I'm not sure how much credibility your assessment of my argument has.

Quote

demand [dih-mand, -mahnd]

verb (used with object)

to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right

to ask for peremptorily or urgently

to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/demanding

Please stop projecting that others are projecting, especially if your main argument for doing so is semantic, unsupported by the meaning of the words used.

Making a suggestion is not the same thing as making a demand.

In this case, your chosen definition is heavily dependent on context (e.g., to demand civil rights reform as just/proper/necessary).

Your prior rhetoric was aimed at implying I was insisting on a change with some degree of entitlement, which is not true. I'm suggesting an additional feature aimed at solving a problem, as well as offering examples to illustrate how the feature would resolve that problem.

I'm open to rebuttal, but thus far you've been using bad counterexamples grounded in fallacy.

Quote

And once again, new players start in lower level zones where the requirements of entry are already quite low and by playing, can rapidly gain access to at least some of the options that you are claiming that they don't have access to. Those allow them to progress, and gain others. Eventually they become veteran players.

Again, assuming they have the requisite knowledge to fast-track acquisition of self healing... When most of them DON'T.

Quote

I did exactly that in the second half of the sentence that you truncated. It's difficult to believe that you legitimately didn't see it while responding. 

No, you didn't. You conflated counteracting attrition with tanking.

Would you use Rejuvenation to tank?

Quote

And increased passive/active methods of supplementing the health needed to withstand sustained DPS especially in the long run is......? Oh right good, we'll call that "enhancing the ability to tank" shall we? Excellent.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting the relevant length of term?

Tanking is only applicable to short-term instances of damage. Countering gradual attrition from Slash/Toxin is not tanking.

Or would you consider a Banshee using health restores a tank simply because she survived a mission?

Would you consider a Nekros without Health Conversion or Shield of Shadows a tank simply because Desecrate generates health orbs?

Quote

Want me to show you that I do?

Yes, please do, because your constant use of hyperbole suggests otherwise.

Quote

Too easy because it's not really needed in the starter zone, except in endurance runs of the endless missions, which are not typical for newer players and not something that DE has expressed interest in encouraging.

POE begs to differ.

Quote

Too easy because it's not really needed by more experienced players except for those in similar situations to the previous.

Huh. It's almost like those experienced players have options rendering my suggestion fairly obsolete. I coulda sworn you said something prety similar...

So if they already have stronger options, how is the game suddenly easier than it already is? That's nonsensical.

Quote

Too easy because we keep having to circle back to players choosing to forsake all available options, and then wondering why they have issues surviving.

No, that's just your circular and irrelevant ranting.

Quote

You keep thinking that I'm missing what you have suggested. I'm not.

Quite clearly, you are.

Quote

I'm just focusing on the possible/probable effects it will create right now, not the proposed mechanic of how it will create them.

So your entire counterargument depends on a fixed status quo with no further potential for change or adjustment? Fascinating.

Quote

Again: "It's already broken, lolz, let's break it moar!!!" is not a good argument. 

Strawwwwwwwmaaaaaannnnnnnnnnn.

My argument is that it will not break anything, precisely because it is obsolete next to preexisting options.

Quote

Uh, yeah, you are relying on baseless assertions. Every single time you have tried to suggest that a player can theoretically exist who has absolutely no options,

It's not hypothetical. It is verifiable fact that these players exist.

Quote

and would be absolutely unable to change that, that's been baseless.

I didn't say they were unable to change that. However, the existing self-healing options are not easily and reliably acquired before mid-game and fast acquisition of self-healing depends on knowledge which new players aren't likely to have.

Quote

At that point in time, you're no longer talking about Warframe. 

😕

Why are you acting like Warframe is set in stone with no potential for redesign? Given how regularly this game undergoes radical change, this sentiment comes across as absurd.

As a current example, Melee 2.0 is in a much better spot than WF's early game experience, yet it's getting a complete overhaul.

My suggestion is fairly conservative with a minor potential impact by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

I'll just number-itemise, because the day has been too long to mess around unboxing individual points

I wish the mobile site let us do that easily. It would be a huge improvement. 

17 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

It's certainly survivable, but in doing so alongside others I can see where my experience made it much easier in my second time than it is currently as someone's first. Bear in mind my first was under damage 1.0 and all that past, so it's barely comparable at all; my genuine-newbie compatriots had a whole lot of death and, in not being exempt from a drop or two myself, I can still identify where the shortfalls are - where bad tastes can be left in the mouths of new players that a light baseline regen might absolve.

That's absolutely understandable. However what that means is that the frames, gear, options, health orb drops, and lack thereof isn't the most limiting factor. It's the experience that you get along the way. (Sounds rather cheesy, I admit.) And while a boost to health regen may help the newbs, your experiences clearly indicate that it's not an absolute necessity as the content is fully "survivable". Remember that they get 4 lives per mission, not counting team revives. A part of that early experience is learning that the squad is not just there to steal your glory, but help one another, and of course, "try to avoid dying when possible". 

25 minutes ago, EDYinnit said:

I haven't missed this. I specifically addressed it. Even low enemies can break through shields, even low enemies can proc, and it's rather easy to progress past those Level 3 Lancers while still being objectively within the 'new' category. I'm not sure when you started, but incoming damage is, and ramps up, much more so than it used to in the past. Right down to Moas, Troopers and Elite Lancers; some casualties of balancing player weapons without properly separating them from enemy damage profiles.

You ran into Moas on Earth? Well a lot must've changed since late February. And yeah, as newer players progress the enemies get do stronger. That's a good lesson isn't it? But remember, the enemies you already killed, dropped some stuff you could go on to equip to make yourself stronger as well. 

1 hour ago, EDYinnit said:

I spoke under the assumption that what drops is picked up, Vacuumed or otherwise. Health orbs don't except from one-time opportunities (containers and lockers). Energy is available on-kill - but kills are generally slower/fewer, each point of energy worth far less for players without their Strength/Range/Duration and especially Efficiency stat mods. Rhino was a specific mention of yours, but a fair one due to early availability and one of the more effective abilities for our context.

I've had that said elsewhere. I did an experiment on Lith, which, while hardly definitive showed that I had little trouble using Rhino's Iron Skin ability as well as others without being short on energy. I can't do it anymore because I gave up my Rhino for the Prime, but I might decide to try it again to confirm that the experience hasn't changed much. 

A part of why I can get by is that I understand better now how Iron Skin works and turn it on when it can do the most good. That's probably experience improving gameplay again, rather than gear, or any tweak to the health drops. 

1 hour ago, EDYinnit said:

However, for a new player with 2-4 slots, asking them to either A) Die cheaply or B) use Rhino is a false choice. It's indirect coercion, 'forcing' in a not-quite-literal sense (semantics). There's room for improvement to promote flexibility without it being at the expense of the underequipped player's experience - especially when Excalibur's 'best defence' of superior damage output is so much more productive anyway (perhaps excessively so, leading to so many mindless Swish-Swish players).

No, it's more of a "first choice". Or maybe second because you highlighted another option, wherein the player can choose to modify how they play to increase survivorship. 

Also remember, as you kill more stuff faster, you also get more drops while the enemy is not getting more time to shoot at you. Kill rate correlates to drops, and thus to health gain per second. 

1 hour ago, EDYinnit said:

There's subjectivity in both camps in regards to the genuine 'have-not' playerbase, but I'd say there are objectively enough health sources for the lategame player. Shields could use a beast-generic Protect to round out the resupply options, though.

I agree with both and have chosen to use the options for shield regen on several of my frames and sentinels. My issue is that I don't see the necessity of changing the baseline, in a way that would boost more experienced players, and while an enemy that drops a few extra health orbs is an interesting idea, I don't see why they should create and integrate a new system that's not currently needed. 

1 hour ago, EDYinnit said:

It's always an interesting sight to have Life Strike almost deified when I've never used it at all.

Same. And that's been echoed throughout the thread by others as well. But it's currently one of the many options and they can use it if they choose. It just doesn't float my boat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:
  1. That's absolutely understandable. However what that means is that the frames, gear, options, health orb drops, and lack thereof isn't the most limiting factor. It's the experience that you get along the way. (Sounds rather cheesy, I admit.) And while a boost to health regen may help the newbs, your experiences clearly indicate that it's not an absolute necessity as the content is fully "survivable". Remember that they get 4 lives per mission, not counting team revives. A part of that early experience is learning that the squad is not just there to steal your glory, but help one another, and of course, "try to avoid dying when possible". 
  2. You ran into Moas on Earth? Well a lot must've changed since late February. And yeah, as newer players progress the enemies get do stronger. That's a good lesson isn't it? But remember, the enemies you already killed, dropped some stuff you could go on to equip to make yourself stronger as well. 
  3. I've had that said elsewhere. I did an experiment on Lith, which, while hardly definitive showed that I had little trouble using Rhino's Iron Skin ability as well as others without being short on energy. I can't do it anymore because I gave up my Rhino for the Prime, but I might decide to try it again to confirm that the experience hasn't changed much. 
    A part of why I can get by is that I understand better now how Iron Skin works and turn it on when it can do the most good. That's probably experience improving gameplay again, rather than gear, or any tweak to the health drops. 
  4. No, it's more of a "first choice". Or maybe second because you highlighted another option, wherein the player can choose to modify how they play to increase survivorship. 
    Also remember, as you kill more stuff faster, you also get more drops while the enemy is not getting more time to shoot at you. Kill rate correlates to drops, and thus to health gain per second. 
  5. I agree with both and have chosen to use the options for shield regen on several of my frames and sentinels. My issue is that I don't see the necessity of changing the baseline, in a way that would boost more experienced players, and while an enemy that drops a few extra health orbs is an interesting idea, I don't see why they should create and integrate a new system that's not currently needed.
  1. Naturally, the experience is the primary factor. But if I can look at myself not being perfectly proof against death despite my thousands-hours veterancy (not to 'pull rank' on you - but as a quantifier vs. the newbies) and look for causes in that context plus recollections of times past (mostly pre-Medi-Ray) it's easy for me to identify that 'attrition' issue of gradual but inevitable demise. Not everyone wants to play in a squad (and not just for those reasons you and I butted heads on before), nor should they feel like they have to, and for those.. well, 4 revives is their limit, so ideally we'd only want them using one to learn, not as a memetic "guess i'll die" reaction.
  2. Like I said - 'new players' to me carries long past the first couple of junctions. In my experiment, under ideals, the stopgaps were MR and constructing certain things - which puts a limit at around Saturn's area at the least. There and between, players have to encounter all sorts of factions and are pushing into Elite variants. In particular due to MR, a player's got to push through a sizable count of weapons too - this and general credit/endo supply limits how much those drops actually get to do. Here, too, experience is a huge asset, in judging what to build, what mods to invest and (due to budgeting) how much.
  3. Interesting. Mind if I ask the other extenuating factors? Such as, affecting Mods, target wave for your experiment to reach, squad/nonsquad play and (if squad) whether those were similarly or vastly better equipped? Certainly your own experience is relevant, but .. well, going into a mobile defense Sortie can be a risky business even as Frost when alone (unless you've got energy generation to cast lots of a well-modded-for Avalanche). That may sound tangential, but it comes around to how ideal individual factors can still be weighed down by the rest.
  4. This and the previous point are intertwined somewhat, so mostly following the thought process: It's possible that Rhino is anomalously viable among the earliest options due to the persistence of the Skin. Others are largely one-and-done affairs; in the case of CC in particular, new arrivals are of course completely unaffected. One good option is not the same as adequate options, though - again, in the specific new-player case before those other options do start to arrive.
    I'm not sure how you correlated kills and health gain given previous assertions tht enemies don't drop health orbs, unless you were inferring the energy gain for healers/more Iron Skin.
  5. It's certainly not an absolute necessity, as I said. In no way is this objective need. But it could definitely improve the feeling - nobody wants to feel like failure is completely out of their hands, albeit a temporary one until your buddies pick you up or you Revive. I hardly think adding one Rejuvenation's worth baseline would do much for later players, but it could be a subtle yet valuable benefit for those first finding their feet.
    Energy much the same - one Energy Siphon is rarely huge, but it'd be a nice starter to let newbies feel out their abilities without feeling like they wasted a semi-irreplaceable resource. A couple health per second, an energy point every couple seconds, just.. the little things.

Of course, it wouldn't be 'new system' at all for this little. Just applying effects that are already there - baked energy generation exists in Archwings, odds are good that health and a lesser amount of energy couple be baked into all frames the same way.

Edited by EDYinnit
completed missing section
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Do you understand what a strawman is, though?

-snip-

Hoo brother. That's quite a lot of... Something?

Let's get some facts out in the open so that we can deal with the silly straw man fallacies you've been working on crafting, shall we? 

I'm a relatively new player. I started in February of this year. I'm rolling up to 250 logins. I have, like everyone else here managed to survive early game play and build my way up. I'm MR16. I'm very average. I don't have all of the frames. I'm not an elite endgame player. But I am capable of doing some nice runs, and I can solo the Teralyst. And yes I have a ghost clan I built mostly solo, with the majority of the research unlocked with the exception of the Bio Lab stuff. 

 

So no, I don't look down on the players who can't do what I do yet. But I will probably look down on the people who claim that what I did was so very difficult to achieve and pretend that it's impossible to do. And most probably on people who pretend that because someone is new they're not going to be able to improve, or learn. Because we all started at square one. We're all working our way up. Yes, making good choices affects gameplay. Yes knowing how to make the most of what you have, will affect gameplay. Yes it takes some effort to get there. Yes, there are always going to be options. You may not like them but they're there. 

Regarding how I play, I prefer public groups, but a lot of the time I end up going in solo. A part of the reason is that I'm in the 3rd world, with all the infrastructure issues that implies, in a country where the estimated population is 1.3million. I've met a total of 2 other local players, one in game and one in the Forum. I've met one from a few islands over but due to the way our nations are hooked up to the Internet, that's no better than someone on the other side of the continent of North America from where I am (significantly worse in fact). So please, do tell me more about how very very easy it is for me to play in public matches. 

Now the rest of the post contains a lot of ree about my responses but very little that's new or useful as far as I can tell. All of what you said seems to down to "I don't think so and you can't make me". 

You haven't shown how any of what you suggested would be useful, and are contradicting yourself on whether it would be useful, claiming alternately that it would be minimal and yet be able to prevent deaths. Worse the mechanic you propose may require significant changes, either creating or modifying an enemy class (one assumes at least 4 one for each faction) and salting the drop tables for that enemy with health orbs. 

And once again claiming that something is already broken isn't justification for breaking it more. 

 

Oh and to balance the irony of the first snip this bit gets special attention:

6 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

There's no point in arguing if you're just going to dismiss everything out of hand.

That pot cuts both ways, Damokettles. (See how I cleverly combined the two? It works because... Oh you know what, never mind.) You've tried to dismiss every single option available to players and act like newbs will never be able to progress because of how very difficult it is to make good choices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EDYinnit said:
  1. Naturally, the experience is the primary factor. But if I can look at myself not being perfectly proof against death despite my thousands-hours veterancy (not to 'pull rank' on you - but as a quantifier vs. the newbies) and look for causes in that context plus recollections of times past (mostly pre-Medi-Ray) it's easy for me to identify that 'attrition' issue of gradual but inevitable demise. Not everyone wants to play in a squad (and not just for those reasons you and I butted heads on before), nor should they feel like they have to, and for those.. well, 4 revives is their limit, so ideally we'd only want them using one to learn, not as a memetic "guess i'll die" reaction.
  2. Like I said - 'new players' to me carries long past the first couple of junctions. In my experiment, under ideals, the stopgaps were MR and constructing certain things - which puts a limit at around Saturn's area at the least. There and between, players have to encounter all sorts of factions and are pushing into Elite variants. In particular due to MR, a player's got to push through a sizable count of weapons too - this and general credit/endo supply limits how much those drops actually get to do. Here, too, experience is a huge asset, in judging what to build, what mods to invest and (due to budgeting) how much.
  3. Interesting. Mind if I ask the other extenuating factors? Such as, affecting Mods, target wave for your experiment to reach, squad/nonsquad play and (if squad) whether those were similarly or vastly better equipped? Certainly your own experience is relevant, but .. well, going into a mobile defense Sortie can be a risky business even as Frost when alone (unless you've got energy generation to cast lots of a well-modded-for Avalanche). That may sound tangential, but it comes around to how ideal individual factors can still be weighed down by the rest.
  4. This and the previous point are intertwined somewhat, so mostly following the thought process: It's possible that Rhino is anomalously viable among the earliest options due to the persistence of the Skin. Others are largely one-and-done affairs; in the case of CC in particular, new arrivals are of course completely unaffected. One good option is not the same as adequate options, though - again, in the specific new-player case before those other options do start to arrive.
    I'm not sure how you correlated kills and health gain given previous assertions tht enemies don't drop health orbs, unless you were inferring the energy gain for healers/more Iron Skin.
  5. It's certainly not an absolute necessity, as I said. In no way is this objective need. But it could definitely improve the feeling - nobody wants to feel like failure is completely out of their hands, albeit a temporary one until your buddies pick you up or you Revive. I hardly think adding one Rejuvenation's worth baseline would do much for later players, but it could be a subtle yet valuable benefit for those first finding their feet.
    Energy much the same - one Energy Siphon is rarely huge, but it'd be a nice starter to let newbies feel out their abilities without feeling like they wasted a semi-irreplaceable resource. A couple health per second, an energy point every couple seconds, just.. the little things.

Of course, it wouldn't be 'new system' at all for this little. Just applying effects that are already there - baked energy generation exists in Archwings, odds are good that health and a lesser amount of energy couple be baked into all frames the same way.

1, I disagree. 4 lives can be used as an option, not because its a shrug and just die scenario, but because there are going to be times when death and revival are actually the better option if you don't mind the xp loss. You get health and energy restored, and it knocks down the enemies around you. 

I remember reading about people using the operators and lakes in PoE to rapidly teleport back to the gate after bounties. There's also Primed regen + sacrifice. I figure it's like those. Yes it's better in my mind to not die, but if you're willing to, for a reason that serves a purpose, go right ahead. I've been in such scenarios in defence missions where people just left the objective to take shots. 

2. Yeah OK, I'll run with that. But your experience and mine were different. I took my time getting up the map. I was busy doing everything simultaneously. 😅

Well except for conclave....I worked up the syndicates, the ostron standing, ran bounties, built the dojo and labs about 2 months in. Did research including grinding materials for it. Opening relics, dealing with Baro and the quests. (Still have a couple quests to finish). Farming for mods, getting Gara and Titania. Doing MR tests (which sometimes meant going back and figuring out what I'd been thinking about wrong all along...) 

So my Star Chart progress was very stop and go. I later realised how good I had it compared to the people rushing through, even though they may have been more efficient. 

3. It varied. I'd often take my new frames there to learn the basics. (Like taking a spin in a parking lot before hitting the road.) The sentinel with vacuum, was a big factor in making life easier in all cases. I really dislike not having one for the vacuum. 

I'd taken Rhino stripped down by accident (wrong config) and noticed the difference, but was able to keep up the Iron Skin without any significant issues, as long as I wasn't spamming stomp. I think that 10 was the highest in a group of total newbs. Another couple times I made 15 with a "higher" ranked player in the group (usually a Frost) but I would have had different gear each time. 

Iron Skin can be very much set and forget. I think that for 50 energy, it is something close to 1700 points to start with before mods and incoming damage, which is nothing to sniff at in Lith. I could be wrong because all of the times were before it showed the values at the top AFAIK. 

4. No, one option wouldn't be. But pair it with the "I can afford to die and revive a few times if necessary", "I can play with others who can revive me", "If I can kill them before they hurt me much, my shields will take the damage", "If I change the way I play, rolling, moving, I take less damage if I do those special attacks I get to kill them faster" and "oh cool a new mod that makes me Steve Austin: better, stronger, faster!". And who knows what else? At some point we've got to admit that new players aren't the helpless mewing things that they're being made out to be. They're going to be able to learn and advance just like we did. 

We always have options. We may not realise that we do, we may not like them or choose to use the alternatives, but the whole game is based around using the options available to us and accepting the costs of what we choose. And everyone who has replied to this thread has managed to do just that so far. What hubris would drive someone to think that others can't do what we've all managed, that they can't exercise the same agency that we did? 

And health orbs do drop on Earth missions, depending on what you've killed. Not everything drops them, but you stumble across Grineer shooting at feral Kubrows during the exterminate, kill every last one of them, and you're going to find red orbs dropping. 

5. Doesn't rejuvenation heal a percentage? A percent of little, is less. How significant will that effect be for those who have base health, as opposed to say an Inaros with max vitality? Scattering more orbs like the other suggestion is more likely to help newer players, but at the cost of having to create/rework the enemies, possibly drop tables as well. If its available throughout the chart they would be a bit silly during high level endurance runs, if it's available only on the lower planets then you're teaching the newer players something very flawed which they need to totally unlearn later unless the effect scales up. The argument that either could be an improvement, isn't the same as showing that it would be. Claims that it's a "minor effect" clash with "it will keep people from dying". Claims that it is an needed change, clash with the fact that all who are discussing it, didn't. Claims that it is needed because new players don't even know what they don't know, clash with the intent of the suggested change, the new players would be better served by requesting an improved tutorial system. 

 

Show that there would be an actual benefit. I see your point about creating a better impression, but to me it's the same as creating a false impression that the game must be easy. It just shifts the wall that they're about to run into, a little farther down the road. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Let's get some facts out in the open so that we can deal with the silly straw man fallacies you've been working on crafting, shall we?

I'm a relatively new player. I started in February of this year. I'm rolling up to 250 logins. I have, like everyone else here managed to survive early game play and build my way up. I'm MR16. I'm very average. I don't have all of the frames. I'm not an elite endgame player. But I am capable of doing some nice runs, and I can solo the Teralyst. And yes I have a ghost clan I built mostly solo, with the majority of the research unlocked with the exception of the Bio Lab stuff. 

I don't really think that's relevant at all, but okay.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

So no, I don't look down on the players who can't do what I do yet.

It's funny that you've adopted strawman as a buzzword when... I never said you looked down on newbs.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

But I will probably look down on the people who claim that what I did was so very difficult to achieve and pretend that it's impossible to do. And most probably on people who pretend that because someone is new they're not going to be able to improve, or learn.

Please point out where I said that it is hard to progress in Warframe. While you're at it, also point out where I said they could not improve or learn. (Hint: You can't, because I didn't.)

Warframe progression isn't hard, it's just overly-complex and poorly documented to the extend that a newbie's best options for orienting themselves are word of mouth and referring to a fan-written wiki. True, many players are capable of exploiting those options, but expecting them to is bad design when your game relies on player retention to make its money. Fortunately for Warframe, it got big enough during its infancy when the game was somewhat more accessible that it can keep going on momentum alone. However, just because things didn't go catastrophically wrong doesn't make its design good.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Because we all started at square one. We're all working our way up.

Yet that square one has changed quite a bit over the years, hasn't it? The new player experience is not actually stable common ground beyond the vaguest of blanket statements. Players from all walks of life start up Warframe with experiences so vastly different they may as well be alien. Joining a Moon Clan on Day 1 is going to yield a different progression curve from being blocked out of matchmaking by a bad connection, and good 'ol RNG is going to have a huge impact on how the experience develops separately from anything else. So let's not pretend otherwise, okay?

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Yes, making good choices affects gameplay.

Where did I deny this?

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Yes knowing how to make the most of what you have, will affect gameplay.

Yes it takes some effort to get there. Yes, there are always going to be options.

You may not like them but they're there.

Again, why are you parroting facts that were never in dispute? Drop the strawmen, please.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Regarding how I play, I prefer public groups, but a lot of the time I end up going in solo. A part of the reason is that I'm in the 3rd world, with all the infrastructure issues that implies, in a country where the estimated population is 1.3million. I've met a total of 2 other local players, one in game and one in the Forum. I've met one from a few islands over but due to the way our nations are hooked up to the Internet, that's no better than someone on the other side of the continent of North America from where I am (significantly worse in fact). So please, do tell me more about how very very easy it is for me to play in public matches.

For me to tell you more I would have had to tell you something about it in the first place, no? This is the first time either of us has made any claims about your matchmaking capabilities, and I still don't see how any of this is relevant. This discussion is not about you.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Now the rest of the post contains a lot of ree about my responses but very little that's new or useful as far as I can tell. All of what you said seems to down to "I don't think so and you can't make me".

Still waiting for you to make a valid argument instead of clinging to your lifeline of rhetorical mud-slinging.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

You haven't shown how any of what you suggested would be useful, and are contradicting yourself on whether it would be useful, claiming alternately that it would be minimal and yet be able to prevent deaths.

I'm sorry my claims are so confusing to you. I will spell them out for you again in simple and accessible format.

  • An anti-attrition mechanic would have a minimal effect on the player's ability to tank. It cannot, will not, and should not save them if they are unable to mitigate enough raw damage to survive in the first place.
  • However, it would allow them to potentially escape death owing exclusively to minor attrition. That is, cumulative damage taken from:
    • Shields breaking momentarily - inevitable, unless you play the game like a cover-shooter (obviously, this only applies to Warframes that can't fully negate damage).
    • Slash procs - inevitable, with no early-game tools to prevent them (again, aside from very specific Warframes).
    • Toxin procs - less of an issue, but still applicable.

There is no contradiction in those statements unless you exaggerate them to logical extremes, as you have done repeatedly.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Worse the mechanic you propose may require significant changes, either creating or modifying an enemy class (one assumes at least 4 one for each faction) and

Since when are players not allowed to ask for (debatably) significant changes?

Even if for arguments' sake we let you assert that 4 enemies is some monumental burden... why couldn't this role simply be delegated to an existing unit from each faction? That would eliminate the need to create new assets entirely. I nominate:

  1. Eviscerators
  2. Scavenger Drones
  3. Ancient Healers
  4. Corrupted Ancient Healers
1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

salting the drop tables for that enemy with health orbs.

Why can't the health orbs simply be guaranteed drops exempt from its normal loot table, like Oxium? Hrmmmmmmmm...

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

And once again claiming that something is already broken isn't justification for breaking it more.

You can claim that I said something as much as you want, but if I didn't actually say it, you're just using another strawman

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Oh and to balance the irony of the first snip this bit gets special attention:

That pot cuts both ways, Damokettles. (See how I cleverly combined the two? It works because... Oh you know what, never mind.) You've tried to dismiss every single option available to players

I have successfully dismissed them.

Is it possible to have access to zero of the self-healing options at any time? Yes. Therefore, there are situations where "but you have options" doesn't actually apply. As such, there is value in a minor safety-net mechanic regarding attrition.

There's a difference between dismissing something out of hand (for lack of a valid counterargument) and dismissing an argument through counterargument.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

and act like newbs will never be able to progress

Again, point out where I said progression is impossible.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

because of how very difficult it is to make good choices. 

How do you expect a player to make a good choice if they don't actually have access to the relevant options?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

It's funny that you've adopted strawman as a buzzword when... I never said you looked down on newbs.

Hooo brother. You're getting worse by the minute at this point. I never said that you said that I looked down on newbs

 

See if you can follow along:

17 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

It's as though you're fixated on denying players you look down on to the point that you won't actually consider the core intent of the suggestion or be constructive about it.

 

10 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

So no, I don't look down on the players who can't do what I do yet. But I will probably look down on the people who claim that what I did was so very difficult to achieve and pretend that it's impossible to do. And most probably on people who pretend that because someone is new they're not going to be able to improve, or learn. 

By manufacturing a motive of looking down on people for my disagreement, you're accusing me of elitism. By showing that I view myself as very average (something I raised much, much earlier) and why, I dismantled that silly straw man you were trying to hoist. You probably don't like it, but that's life. 

 

 

Ready for the next one? That's... good?

17 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Tell that to players with bad internet connections or in low-population areas. They don't matter either, is that right?

When you commented about connecting to nearby players on good connections, you were making another rather silly strawman, by trying to make it seem as though the option of playing in groups was something that is somehow easier for me than others and so I don't care about them. 

I am your player with poor connection in a low population region. I explained this and gave enough detail for you to grasp the situation. So what do you do when I point this out? 

8 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

For me to tell you more I would have had to tell you something about it in the first place, no? This is the first time either of us has made any claims about your matchmaking capabilities, and I still don't see how any of this is relevant. This discussion is not about you.

Oh right. Deny that you ever talked about whether I consider players in low population areas with poor connection relevant. 

At this point I have to wonder whether you're a singular person making all of this up and just conveniently forgetting, or if you are tag-teaming with multiple people just all jumping in without referring to what was written before. In either case, I suspect that I should once again welcome you to the Thread, as you seem not to be aware of the earlier content. 

8 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Yet that square one has changed quite a bit over the years, hasn't it? The new player experience is not actually stable common ground beyond the vaguest of blanket statements. 

That's why I suggested that you try to refresh your view on the new player experience. My experience is relatively current, and it's a legitimate new player experience. You'll be starting with the knowledge that you already have, so any benefit you gain is basically going to put you at the top tier of the "fast learner" tables at the beginning. You would be on par with modern gamers who have no trouble translating skills from other games and better twitch reflexes. If you don't have medi-ray as you claimed on the previous page, and mostly play solo, there's a possibility that you've not completed the start chart and don't have as much current skill as the "endgame" players soloing multiple Tridolon hunts/night. That's not a bad thing, because it means that you probably won't be the dude who solo's and blazes through the map in days and gets stuck at the end, because you only have MR3, you'll probably be closer to average newer players. 

One way or the other, I'm guessing that you'll survive the experience in a lot better shape than you seem to currently believe. 

 

As to a lot of the rest, let's look at this from a different perspective. A lot of your comments seem to indicate that we should all cater to the weakest players. I do not. I believe that in a world with limited resources, we should try to use them to do what brings the most benefit to the greatest number. 

Catering to players who aren't able to make good choices, or learn to make good choices, isn't a good idea. The energy would be better spent by dropping in a suggestion to visit the wiki and better learn how to play, than trying to shore up the health of people who aren't able to manage their health. Because, again, all your suggestion leads to, is shifting where they will begin to experience the problem, and have to learn to deal with it, from the starter zone, to further along in the Star Chart, and worse you'll be settling them up for failure because you would be teaching them to expect a mechanic to save their bacon time and time again, when it just won't do that at all. 

Let me show you why:

8 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Warframe progression isn't hard, it's just overly-complex and poorly documented to the extend that a newbie's best options for orienting themselves are word of mouth and referring to a fan-written wiki. True, many players are capable of exploiting those options, but expecting them to is bad design when your game relies on player retention to make its money. Fortunately for Warframe, it got big enough during its infancy when the game was somewhat more accessible that it can keep going on momentum alone. However, just because things didn't go catastrophically wrong doesn't make its design good

Basically this is what you should be asking them to fix first. Educate the  players and your problem is substantially reduced for all new players, not just the weak ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

1, I disagree. 4 lives can be used as an option, not because its a shrug and just die scenario, but because there are going to be times when death and revival are actually the better option if you don't mind the xp loss. You get health and energy restored, and it knocks down the enemies around you. 

I remember reading about people using the operators and lakes in PoE to rapidly teleport back to the gate after bounties. There's also Primed regen + sacrifice. I figure it's like those. Yes it's better in my mind to not die, but if you're willing to, for a reason that serves a purpose, go right ahead. I've been in such scenarios in defence missions where people just left the objective to take shots. 

2. Yeah OK, I'll run with that. But your experience and mine were different. I took my time getting up the map. I was busy doing everything simultaneously. 😅

--

So my Star Chart progress was very stop and go. I later realised how good I had it compared to the people rushing through, even though they may have been more efficient. 

3. It varied. I'd often take my new frames there to learn the basics. (Like taking a spin in a parking lot before hitting the road.) The sentinel with vacuum, was a big factor in making life easier in all cases. I really dislike not having one for the vacuum. 

I'd taken Rhino stripped down by accident (wrong config) and noticed the difference, but was able to keep up the Iron Skin without any significant issues, as long as I wasn't spamming stomp. I think that 10 was the highest in a group of total newbs. Another couple times I made 15 with a "higher" ranked player in the group (usually a Frost) but I would have had different gear each time. 

Iron Skin can be very much set and forget. I think that for 50 energy, it is something close to 1700 points to start with before mods and incoming damage, which is nothing to sniff at in Lith. I could be wrong because all of the times were before it showed the values at the top AFAIK. 

4. No, one option wouldn't be. But pair it with the "I can afford to die and revive a few times if necessary", "I can play with others who can revive me", "If I can kill them before they hurt me much, my shields will take the damage", "If I change the way I play, rolling, moving, I take less damage if I do those special attacks I get to kill them faster" and "oh cool a new mod that makes me Steve Austin: better, stronger, faster!". And who knows what else? At some point we've got to admit that new players aren't the helpless mewing things that they're being made out to be. They're going to be able to learn and advance just like we did. 

And health orbs do drop on Earth missions, depending on what you've killed. Not everything drops them, but you stumble across Grineer shooting at feral Kubrows during the exterminate, kill every last one of them, and you're going to find red orbs dropping. 

5. Doesn't rejuvenation heal a percentage? A percent of little, is less. How significant will that effect be for those who have base health, as opposed to say an Inaros with max vitality? Scattering more orbs like the other suggestion is more likely to help newer players, but at the cost of having to create/rework the enemies, possibly drop tables as well.

 

Show that there would be an actual benefit. I see your point about creating a better impression, but to me it's the same as creating a false impression that the game must be easy. It just shifts the wall that they're about to run into, a little farther down the road. 

  1. I don't feel it's a matter of 'better' to have to revive for health - even if it doesn't cost anything to a maxed loadout. It's a very feeling thing. Personal perspectives may differ, but I'm a strange individual for overanalysis. Like in that other thread - I try to consider things objectively where possible, and as many subjective views as I can where necessary. Being in that situation where you're learning, moderately succeeding but die because you can't recover (beside death/revival) when you do make mistakes or take some unfortunate procs seems to me that it wouldn't feel great. Sort of like getting noscope one-shot killed by a highlevel/sortie Ballista before they had their tells.
  2. Hey, I understand that. My start to the game was, I think, mostly farming good old Vor for the first week or so before I started pushing deeper into the Star Chart as it was back then. I can't say fairer than that my information is very extrapolated, there's no way to undo my experience even if I were to unmod everything and build an unranked 'frame. But I try to assess as much as I can to get the best estimates.
  3. Thanks for the supporting info. It definitely seems like, from the defensible perspective, Rhino is a bit of an outlier in the same way Excalibur is offensively for the early player (per my second-run experience). Add to that the player-experience and it's inarguably better effective in those ways that are difficult to quantify and account for after the fact.
    I also forgot that Rhino's parts are early-available, but resources are not; primarily the need to hit Void for the Systems' required Control Module. It still incites you to push further as a newbie, clearing through Phobos at least, or getting those mid-region resources from lucky Plains bounties.
  4. Personally as I said in point 1, the downed/death state within my considerations is the failure state. Reaching that is the point at which I imagine the player, consciously or not, processing the situation and possibly asking themselves if that felt 'fair' to them. Of course I'm not suggesting unmodded players should be able to stand there being shot and never die, but the small recovery would exist mainly to make mistakes impermanent with regards to an eventual possibility of being downed.
    You might be right about Kubrows dropping health orbs, I'll double check on that one that it isn't just the dens. Still, dens only supply so many bat-dogs, so there's still a limit. Higher than old 'standard' tilesets, perhaps enough so.. but only while on Earth.
  5. You're getting confused between Rejuv and Physique, I think. Physique is % (base) health pool increase, Rejuv is like Energy Siphon - a flat per-second generation. 3hp/sec, to be exact, which is quite minor by itself. There's also Medi-Ray which is percentile recovery; 12% health regen over 4 seconds with a 15s cooldown (assuming cooldon starts after regen ends, this is 12%/29s = a little over 0.4% per second averaged.)
    I don't think it's much work to throw health orbs into drop tables. There's probably a "general drops" template which gets called upon to throw out ammo and energy orbs, to which health orbs could easily be included in their own seeded category (so as not to reduce the other supplies).
    As I said before, it's less about "don't die" to me than it is "only die for reasons that aren't extended attrition".

 

I can't really show that there's a benefit, because it's just extrapolating that soft-science of psychological 'feel'. But, I know I can get pretty salty (especially in competitive) if I can't identify that there was something I could reasonably do to react once a situation presents itself. Open a door and get instant gibbed by a 0.001-second reaction time enemy? Unreasonable. Procced with more than my HP's worth in slash/toxin (before I could just operator out)? Guess I'll die, thanks game.

It's just a reasoned personal opinion/judgement, here. Welcome to disagree.

Edited by EDYinnit
trimmed a little from the quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EDYinnit said:
  1. I don't feel it's a matter of 'better' to have to revive for health - even if it doesn't cost anything to a maxed loadout. It's a very feeling thing. Personal perspectives may differ, but I'm a strange individual for overanalysis. Like in that other thread - I try to consider things objectively where possible, and as many subjective views as I can where necessary. Being in that situation where you're learning, moderately succeeding but die because you can't recover (beside death/revival) when you do make mistakes or take some unfortunate procs seems to me that it wouldn't feel great. Sort of like getting noscope one-shot killed by a highlevel/sortie Ballista before they had their tells.
  2. Hey, I understand that. My start to the game was, I think, mostly farming good old Vor for the first week or so before I started pushing deeper into the Star Chart as it was back then. I can't say fairer than that my information is very extrapolated, there's no way to undo my experience even if I were to unmod everything and build an unranked 'frame. But I try to assess as much as I can to get the best estimates.
  3. Thanks for the supporting info. It definitely seems like, from the defensible perspective, Rhino is a bit of an outlier in the same way Excalibur is offensively for the early player (per my second-run experience). Add to that the player-experience and it's definitely better-effective in those ways that are difficult to recover from.
    I also forgot that Rhino's parts are early-available, but resources are not; primarily the need to hit Void for the Systems' required Control Module. It still incites you to push further as a newbie, clearing through Phobos at least, or getting those mid-region resources from lucky Plains bounties.
  4. Personally as I said in point 1, the downed/death state within my considerations is the failure state. Reaching that is the point at which I imagine the player, consciously or not, processing the situation and possibly asking themselves if that felt 'fair' to them. Of course I'm not suggesting unmodded players should be able to stand there being shot and never die, but the small recovery would exist mainly to make mistakes impermanent with regards to an eventual possibility of being downed.
    You might be right about Kubrows dropping health orbs, I'll double check on that one that it isn't just the dens. Still, dens only supply so many bat-dogs, so there's still a limit. Higher than old 'standard' tilesets, perhaps enough so.. but only while on Earth.
  5. You're getting confused between Rejuv and Physique, I think. Physique is % (base) health pool increase, Rejuv is like Energy Siphon - a flat per-second generation. 3hp/sec, to be exact, which is quite minor by itself. There's also Medi-Ray which is percentile recovery; 12% health regen over 4 seconds with a 15s cooldown (assuming cooldon starts after regen ends, this is 12%/29s = a little over 0.4% per second averaged.)
    I don't think it's much work to throw health orbs into drop tables. There's probably a "general drops" template which gets called upon to throw out ammo and energy orbs, to which health orbs could easily be included in their own seeded category (so as not to reduce the other supplies).
    As I said before, it's less about "don't die" to me than it is "only die for reasons that aren't extended attrition".

 

I can't really show that there's a benefit, because it's just extrapolating that soft-science of psychological 'feel'. But, I know I can get pretty salty (especially in competitive) if I can't identify that there was something I could reasonably do to react once a situation presents itself. Open a door and get instant gibbed by a 0.001-second reaction time enemy? Unreasonable. Procced with more than my HP's worth in slash/toxin (before I could just operator out)? Guess I'll die, thanks game.

It's just a reasoned personal opinion/judgement, here. Welcome to disagree.

1, a big part of the problem is that "feels" are subjective not objective. In my case I started the game knowing that I'm a noob. For me this meant acceptance that I will fail, "everybody falls the first time". I also accepted that it's a video game, and that failure isn't permanent, that we're given multiple lives to try and complete the mission objectives. The self-revival mechanic also showed me that the Devs anticipated us unavoidably going down from time to time, and incorporated an offensive aspect to revival (that it knocks down nearby enemies) as well as a built in defensive aspect, short term invulnerability so you can gtfo. To counter the benefits, a cost was added and a limit to the number of times it could be done. (Later I learned that players facing much more difficult content can get extra revives which seemed fair.) 

Objectively this makes death a viable option. It may not be the one we want to use, but it's there for us from the very start. 

2. That's true for all of us, and it's why I suggested refreshing their new player experience to Bear-dude a while ago. At least we'd be comparing notes about the same thing, even if we came at it from different angles. And that way all the claims of how terrible/insurmountable/impossible/whatever the experience is, would hopefully be just a bit more realistic. Like I said to him, our experience with the game would shift us towards the top of the class but I generally feel that there'll probably always be some D.A.R.Y.L. with a NES Power Glove who makes us look like we're standing still. 😧

3. No problem, I'd started paying attention because someone claimed that the energy drop rate is too low on Earth. It didn't click with my memories, so I checked with a new frame. I should probably have kept a journal or something, but it didn't seem to be important at the time. 

And yeah the materials are pretty far flung, but I think that they also drop in daily logins and alerts. I think that's how I managed. Could be wrong. And there's usually a taxi around if folks want to ask for one. 

4. Oh other stuff drops it too, like the enemy Kubrows and the Kavats for sure. It's not a very common thing but I'm sure that it's in their drops. 

Like I said in 1, death's not always palatable, but it's not always permanent either. The mission objective is the only real goal we need to achieve. Not taking damage/dying isn't one for most of the game modes. Beyond that, we're talking about feeling upset because there are things we can't control, aren't actually in the goals we've been given, and are just additional things that we're tacking on top of what we've been asked to do. It's on you if you want to, but not really needed. 

5. Ah OK, point taken. But doesn't it just shift the problem. Instead of going down to level 10, you'll just have the exact same problem at 15, or 20 or 30 or... You get the idea. The salt that you talk about from the instagib would still exist, just from a slightly higher level of enemy. The higher level procs (and your vitality mod) makes the 3hp/sec unnoticeable at higher levels, while newbs probably got conditioned to think "health is going to regenerate", so a whole bunch of someones come here screaming about how DE took away their health regen and why should they have to actually manage their own health? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Hooo brother. You're getting worse by the minute at this point. I never said that you said that I looked down on newbs

 

See if you can follow along:

Oh no you don't. Here's the full context of that discussion, with no deliberate omissions aimed at concealing the truth:

Your first statement (emphasis mine):

On 2018-10-25 at 5:01 AM, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

It's as though you're fixated on what you think is a problem with the balance of the game, but is really just a matter of people complaining about the consequences of their choices, and can't see that changing the game won't actually help those people.

You are clearly talking about people like the OP, whom you see as simply too stubborn to make the "right" choice.

So, I responded:

21 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

It's as though you're fixated on denying players you look down on to the point that you won't actually consider the core intent of the suggestion or be constructive about it.

We are clearly still talking about people who HAVE access to self-healing, but are dissatisfied with the available options. I am accusing you of being too focused on rejecting complaints to actually attempt constructive criticism... Which you are obligated to do.

I'm not just making a random accusation out of thin air; I'm basing it on your repeated representation of those players as simply stubborn or lazy.

Then you gave this reply out of left field:

14 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

So no, I don't look down on the players who can't do what I do yet. 

The only players who "can't do what you do yet" are newbs, because they probably don't have access to the same healing options. Thing is, we were talking about players who CAN do what you do.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

By manufacturing a motive of looking down on people for my disagreement, you're accusing me of elitism.

No, I am not fabricating a motive. I am making an accusation based on the observed content of your posts. I'm not accusing you of elitism, because you're looking down on players who have progressed at LEAST as far as you have.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

By showing that I view myself as very average (something I raised much, much earlier) and why, I dismantled that silly straw man you were trying to hoist. You probably don't like it, but that's life. 

I'm fairly convinced at this point that you don't actually understand what a strawman is.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Ready for the next one? That's... good?

When you commented about connecting to nearby players on good connections, you were making another rather silly strawman, by trying to make it seem as though the option of playing in groups was something that is somehow easier for me than others and so I don't care about them.

Dead wrong.

Get this through your skull: this discussion is not about you.

You mentioned grouping up as a means of escaping attrition (through team reviving). I pointed out that there are some players who CAN'T connect reliably to teammates and are thus limited to solo. Those players also matter.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

I am your player with poor connection in a low population region. I explained this and gave enough detail for you to grasp the situation. So what do you do when I point this out? 

I say "Oh my GOD, stop being so egocentric!"

You obviously are NOT my player with poor connection, because you can reliably connect to public matchmaking. If you can connect, great! But there are others who CAN'T reliably connect.

That means they have it worse than you do.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Oh right. Deny that you ever talked about whether I consider players in low population areas with poor connection relevant.

I'm denying that YOUR quality of connection has any relevance. You are not representative of the entire playerbase.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

At this point I have to wonder whether you're a singular person making all of this up and just conveniently forgetting, or if you are tag-teaming with multiple people just all jumping in without referring to what was written before. In either case, I suspect that I should once again welcome you to the Thread, as you seem not to be aware of the earlier content.

:facepalm: well ok, then.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

That's why I suggested that you try to refresh your view on the new player experience. My experience is relatively current, and it's a legitimate new player experience.

Legitimate, but NOT FULLY REPRESENTATIVE. Thus, purely anecdotal.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

You'll be starting with the knowledge that you already have, so any benefit you gain is basically going to put you at the top tier of the "fast learner" tables at the beginning.

Which would make me a very bad sample for testing the new player experience of a complete newbie, wouldn't it?

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

 You would be on par with modern gamers who have no trouble translating skills from other games and better twitch reflexes. If you don't have medi-ray as you claimed on the previous page, and mostly play solo, there's a possibility that you've not completed the start chart and don't have as much current skill as the "endgame" players soloing multiple Tridolon hunts/night. That's not a bad thing, because it means that you probably won't be the dude who solo's and blazes through the map in days and gets stuck at the end, because you only have MR3, you'll probably be closer to average newer players.

Do you not see all these assumptions as dangerous and unreliable? Stop wasting time with elaborate theorycrafting.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

One way or the other, I'm guessing that you'll survive the experience in a lot better shape than you seem to currently believe. 

Yes, because I have already invested enough time in Warframe to know what I like about it.

That doesn't necessarily apply to a new player just trying the game out, though, does it? Warframe depends on player retention, so first impressions should be a big concern.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

As to a lot of the rest, let's look at this from a different perspective. A lot of your comments seem to indicate that we should all cater to the weakest players. I do not. I believe that in a world with limited resources, we should try to use them to do what brings the most benefit to the greatest number.

Ah, the good 'ol greatest happiness principle, otherwise known as the tyranny of the majority. That explains a lot about you.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Catering to players who aren't able to make good choices, or learn to make good choices, isn't a good idea. The energy would be better spent by dropping in a suggestion to visit the wiki and better learn how to play,

You don't get to dictate how other players should choose to deliver feedback.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

 than trying to shore up the health of people who aren't able to manage their health.

The only reason they can't manage their health is because the game hasn't given them any tools to do that yet.

Thus, I am suggesting that the game give them a tool. This isn't rocket-science.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

 Because, again, all your suggestion leads to, is shifting where they will begin to experience the problem, and have to learn to deal with it, from the starter zone, to further along in the Star Chart,

That's a GOOD thing! It is fair to start challenging players more once they have the tools to tackle that challenge!

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

 and worse you'll be settling them up for failure because you would be teaching them to expect a mechanic to save their bacon time and time again, when it just won't do that at all.

What? It would only save them from attrition. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card granting immortality, and it certainly wouldn't teach them to rely on health orbs for tanking because that simply doesn't work.

Unless they're using Health Conversion, which would be a perfectly valid strategy and not a bad habit.

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Let me show you why:

Basically this is what you should be asking them to fix first. Educate the  players and your problem is substantially reduced for all new players, not just the weak ones. 

No, I can suggest my own preferred fix and let DE sort it out. You don't set the priorities.

Still, nice job conveniently ignoring all the points you couldn't counter! What a sham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

1, a big part of the problem is that "feels" are subjective not objective. In my case I started the game knowing that I'm a noob. For me this meant acceptance that I will fail, "everybody falls the first time". I also accepted that it's a video game, and that failure isn't permanent, that we're given multiple lives to try and complete the mission objectives. The self-revival mechanic also showed me that the Devs anticipated us unavoidably going down from time to time, and incorporated an offensive aspect to revival (that it knocks down nearby enemies) as well as a built in defensive aspect, short term invulnerability so you can gtfo. To counter the benefits, a cost was added and a limit to the number of times it could be done. (Later I learned that players facing much more difficult content can get extra revives which seemed fair.) 

Objectively this makes death a viable option. It may not be the one we want to use, but it's there for us from the very start. 

2. That's true for all of us, and it's why I suggested refreshing their new player experience to Bear-dude a while ago. At least we'd be comparing notes about the same thing, even if we came at it from different angles. And that way all the claims of how terrible/insurmountable/impossible/whatever the experience is, would hopefully be just a bit more realistic. Like I said to him, our experience with the game would shift us towards the top of the class but I generally feel that there'll probably always be some D.A.R.Y.L. with a NES Power Glove who makes us look like we're standing still. 😧

3. No problem, I'd started paying attention because someone claimed that the energy drop rate is too low on Earth. It didn't click with my memories, so I checked with a new frame. I should probably have kept a journal or something, but it didn't seem to be important at the time. 

And yeah the materials are pretty far flung, but I think that they also drop in daily logins and alerts. I think that's how I managed. Could be wrong. And there's usually a taxi around if folks want to ask for one. 

4. Oh other stuff drops it too, like the enemy Kubrows and the Kavats for sure. It's not a very common thing but I'm sure that it's in their drops. 

Like I said in 1, death's not always palatable, but it's not always permanent either. The mission objective is the only real goal we need to achieve. Not taking damage/dying isn't one for most of the game modes. Beyond that, we're talking about feeling upset because there are things we can't control, aren't actually in the goals we've been given, and are just additional things that we're tacking on top of what we've been asked to do. It's on you if you want to, but not really needed. 

5. Ah OK, point taken. But doesn't it just shift the problem. Instead of going down to level 10, you'll just have the exact same problem at 15, or 20 or 30 or... You get the idea. The salt that you talk about from the instagib would still exist, just from a slightly higher level of enemy. The higher level procs (and your vitality mod) makes the 3hp/sec unnoticeable at higher levels, while newbs probably got conditioned to think "health is going to regenerate", so a whole bunch of someones come here screaming about how DE took away their health regen and why should they have to actually manage their own health? 

 

  1. I absolutely accept that fact and am merely debating one side of the hypothetical. Of course death shouldn't be absent so that mistakes can be improved upon, but I see a balance perhaps not yet struck for that early experience. Bear in mind that the revives were far less 'free' back in my original newbie period as well. Four per frame per day, unless you paid. That cost has been long obsoleted, of course, but self-revivals are still limited within the mission. Even if I sorely doubt I'm risking all of them for the mission, and even if my gear is maxed and the affinity loss is irrelevant, still doesn't mean I don't dislike a cheap death, right? And that's all the little recovery would be. One less cheap death, and the one new players are most likely to run afoul of.
  2. Well, I for one am not calling it impossible by any stretch. Just looking at where the inconsistencies might lie, where the game might not do itself justice in the eyes of someone trying it out afresh.
  3. I find the best analogy for the lategame player with regards to energy is the Energy Reduction Sortie modifier. It's there, still, but your regen sources are hamstrung and you can't hold onto as much. Going into those without a plan (and definitely not using Restores!) is pretty much how I figure it feels for new players relying purely on orbs, little mod assistance, and little experience of how best to use what they have.
    I also never liked taxis. Like you say for other things, I always considered them bad precedent. So that leaves a player in their starter until RNG of logins/bounties graces them, or they push up to Ceres (reliable O-cells), and the Void via Phobos (covering the rest of general resources). Without outside advice, players not inclined to be 'tanks' by nature probably have a non-Rhino goal they heard of, or would just stick to their starter, I figure.
  4. Yeah, again, not arguing there. It's 'feels-y', but feels can easily sway people. As far as you or I would be affected, we couldn't care less ho many people don't stick with the game, but feedback doesn't have to be self-serving, I'm sure DE wouldn't say no to a bigger player (and potential customer) base.
    I did confirm just now that wild Kubrows drop health orbs. Slightly less limited HP on Earth, then.
  5. I notice pretty quickly when someone's got a Rejuv in a pick-up squad, even though it's mostly irrelevant. Abject idiocy aside, I doubt anyone would suggest that it's been "taken away" past the early levels. Besides, as we established, there are enough alternatives to move onto once acquired later. It doesn't need to match progression.
    Remember, the goal isn't to immunise against dying early-game, it's to avoid dying through attrition only. Imagine playing a level ~10 (nonscaling) endless mission having no health regen, 9 million shields, and no opposing toxin damage - you'd be safe from pretty much everything.. except that occasional -1, -1, -1 ticking away because of the incidental slash procs, eventually, eating your not-millions-deep health pool. Small baked-in regen, or health orbs dropped universally, would compensate.

Although it's a later-player benefit, perhaps health orbs being dropped more and (in addition to addressing the attrition problem) making things like Health Conversion and Arcane Pulse usable without 'frame-sourced orbs isn't a bad thing either. Those seem like poor design choices as is.

Edited by EDYinnit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...