Modding 3.0 would be great for Warframe

[Elementalos]

On 2018-12-13 at 12:00 AM, Aheael said:

One of the silent rules of every game is you never mess with core game mechanics

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call a boring mod a fundamental core mechanic of Warframe.

Unequipping Serration doesn't fundamentally change the game, you just do less damage (and DE finally removing the mod would inevitably include rebalancing to address that anyways).

On 2018-12-16 at 9:01 PM, Klokwerkaos said:

the problem with mods isn't the damage aspects, that appears to be the issue on the surface, but it's not, the problem is enemy scaling and AI.

Enemy scaling is a huge problem with Warframe's endgame and I'm kind of baffled DE hasn't done more to address it (I remember reworking armor and damage types to improve the endgame being on the table a full year ago and it doesn't look like any of that has actually happened yet) but "Serration is really boring" and "Enemy scaling is broken" are kind of separate issues. There's a little overlap in how busted enemy scaling effects elemental mod choices, but other than that fixing one doesn't preclude changing the other.

[Steel_Rook]

I'm personally of the opinion that "mod stacking" is one of the primary problems with the current mod system. The game already blocks multiple instances of the same mod (and I thank my lucky star for that!), but this system is fairly easy to get around by using multiple instances of the same buff across multiple mods. Want health? Cool, slot Vitality, Vigor and Gladiator Resolve. You also want Armour? OK, slot Steel Fibre, Armoured Agility and Gladiator Aegis. Oops! There go 6 of your 8 slots! Yes, that's a bit of an exaggeration for Warframes, but it absolutely is not for weapons, where Elemental Damage encourage you to stack two, three, even four of the same type, and there's very little reason to not stack multishot mods.

While I realise that's not going to work with the current balance system, I still feel that a restriction to only instance of a given buffing EFFECT is a good first step. If multiple instances of the same effect are equipped on a piece of gear, use only the one with the highest value. That way, you could stack for instance Armoured Agility and Steel Fibre. Only the Steel Fibre armour buff would be active. Armoured Agility's sprint speed buff would still be active, but its armour buff would be "suppressed."

Basically, every buff should only ever cost a single slot. Dual-Effect mods should be seen as an alternative to Single-Effect mods, not something to just throw onto the pile on top of the single-effect mod you were always going to use anyway. I want people to have a reason to NOT use Serration or NOT use Vitality beyond situations where they don't want any of those stats to begin with. I want people to have incentive to use Vigor INSTEAD OF Vitality and Redirection. I want to see people use elemental damage mods for the element, rather than just because they're 90% bonus stacking damage. I mean, there's currently very little reason to use the basic elemental damage mods because you want at least a couple of elemental mods and that combines into compound elemental damage.

Losing slots to mandatory mods defeats the purpose of giving players that choice in the first place. It reduces variety and pushes player builds towards a formulaic meta. At some point, the distinction between customisation with mandatory choices and no customisation at all stops existing entirely, and I start questioning why the game pretends to have customisation in the first place. So far, the only way I've been able to eke out some kind of personality out of my builds was to deliberately make them sub-optimal by skipping "mandatory" mods and gimping my own performance for the sake of striking a balance between gear that's effective and I also don't absolutely hate.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

I'm personally of the opinion that "mod stacking" is one of the primary problems with the current mod system. The game already blocks multiple instances of the same mod (and I thank my lucky star for that!), but this system is fairly easy to get around by using multiple instances of the same buff across multiple mods. Want health? Cool, slot Vitality, Vigor and Gladiator Resolve. You also want Armour? OK, slot Steel Fibre, Armoured Agility and Gladiator Aegis. Oops! There go 6 of your 8 slots! Yes, that's a bit of an exaggeration for Warframes, but it absolutely is not for weapons, where Elemental Damage encourage you to stack two, three, even four of the same type, and there's very little reason to not stack multishot mods.

While I realise that's not going to work with the current balance system, I still feel that a restriction to only instance of a given buffing EFFECT is a good first step. If multiple instances of the same effect are equipped on a piece of gear, use only the one with the highest value. That way, you could stack for instance Armoured Agility and Steel Fibre. Only the Steel Fibre armour buff would be active. Armoured Agility's sprint speed buff would still be active, but its armour buff would be "suppressed."

Basically, every buff should only ever cost a single slot. Dual-Effect mods should be seen as an alternative to Single-Effect mods, not something to just throw onto the pile on top of the single-effect mod you were always going to use anyway. I want people to have a reason to NOT use Serration or NOT use Vitality beyond situations where they don't want any of those stats to begin with. I want people to have incentive to use Vigor INSTEAD OF Vitality and Redirection. I want to see people use elemental damage mods for the element, rather than just because they're 90% bonus stacking damage. I mean, there's currently very little reason to use the basic elemental damage mods because you want at least a couple of elemental mods and that combines into compound elemental damage.

Losing slots to mandatory mods defeats the purpose of giving players that choice in the first place. It reduces variety and pushes player builds towards a formulaic meta. At some point, the distinction between customisation with mandatory choices and no customisation at all stops existing entirely, and I start questioning why the game pretends to have customisation in the first place. So far, the only way I've been able to eke out some kind of personality out of my builds was to deliberately make them sub-optimal by skipping "mandatory" mods and gimping my own performance for the sake of striking a balance between gear that's effective and I also don't absolutely hate.

Obvious cherry picking is cherry picking.

Mod stacking applies to Warframes as well. Want more effective health and to live longer? Slot Steel Fiber, Vitality, Adaptation, Rolling Guard, Arcane Guardian, Arcane Grace etc etc.

Want more effective damage on gun? Damage, multishot, Ele.

Heck, I can even break down the gun ones?

Gun has crit but no status? Sure, you need the mandatory mods (Damage and Multishot). In goes the Crit Chance and Crit Damage, then a couple of 90% elementals. For primary you have picks between Hunter munitions/Viral or any other element you want. You may consider 60/60 mods for stuff that need it.

Gun has status but no crit? 60/60 elementals go in. As much multishot as you can. Crit mods don't exist and are not a thing.

Gun viable for both status and crit? Build like a crit gun but with 60/60 mods instead.

You seem to suggest that all variety is destroyed simply because no one uses so called "utility" mods. You know, if you are modding say, Opticor or Lenz, then Vile Acceleration is suddenly Meta. If it is not either, Vile Accelration is a waste of ammo. The new Exergis looks like it could do with a reload speed mod or two. Same for the post patch Tonkor and the Vectis.

If you are using Chroma, suddenly you need to throw away Serration because of how Chroma's damage formula works. Yes, you throw away Serration entirely because Chroma demands a gun with no base damage mods to fully enjoy his power.

All guns will always have a most effective build, but the most effective build for gun A is never the same as gun B unless their stats are very similar (e.g. Telos Boltor to Soma P and Prisma Gorgon). 

It isn't the fact that people don't use base elements, it is simply that combined elements just scale better overall. Things like Corrosive, Viral, Radiation procs are useful at any level, while things like heat procs and shock procs are just inferior to the combined ones. Special mention can be made for toxin vs Corpus, but heavy corpus has armor too so you will just be better off using Corrosive or Viral/Slash anyway.

Warframe does have customization - if you holistically take into account what GUN you are using, not just what mods you are slapping on the gun. Also, what frame you use and how it synergizes with the gun. For example, would you build corrosive weapons on a proper Saryn build? It's silly so no.

[Steel_Rook]

11 minutes ago, Datam4ss said:

You seem to suggest that all variety is destroyed simply because no one uses so called "utility" mods. You know, if you are modding say, Opticor or Lenz, then Vile Acceleration is suddenly Meta. If it is not either, Vile Accelration is a waste of ammo. The new Exergis looks like it could do with a reload speed mod or two. Same for the post patch Tonkor and the Vectis.

Like I said, I'm aware that there are exceptions. And yes, I'm also aware of how radical what I'm suggesting is. My issue here is more fundamental, however, and has to do with the cost of slots. Simply put, slots are cheap for the majority of items, simply because the most effective way to build them is to overload on a few buffs to the exception of everything else. Slots are cheap, but what they cost is build variety. What they cost is diversity within the same item. You're right - different guns are built in different guns and Warframes are built differently, but how many way per gun? How many per Warframe? Because of how many slots stacked mods take up and how powerful they can be, I'd argue not very many.

You mention "meta," and that's my primary beef. The meta dictates "this" weapon is built "this" way, and it unfortunately usually has a point. Now, I can obviously make some allowance, such as I don't intend to be fighting level 150 enemies, I can probably survive not having ALL OF THE HEALTH and maybe I can swap in an Augment mod, instead. Maybe even something that's not going to straight-up increase my performance but which is going to make the game more convenient for me to play. That's where Inaros' Negation Swarm is for me. I can slap on several thousand more effective health on him easily if I got rid of that mod, and probably a good 10K effective health if I got rid of a few others that I like but people insist aren't meta, but because I'm fighting less severe enemies I can afford to take that hit. But I'm still taking a hit, either way.

My general push here is that stacked mods reduce build variety by effectively reducing the number of unique effects we can put on our gear in favour of stacking multiples of the same effect. That's always going to be an issue with Points Buy systems. In the interest of full disclosure, this very thing is why I hate Diablo 2 with a passion. That game had such a wealth of cool abilities to use, but heavily incentivised taking maybe 3 or 4 of them and dumping all of your points there. Giving players the choice between diversity and performance is always going to lead to less diversity because it's human nature to always pick performance, even when you don't need it. And I say "human nature" because even those of us who deliberately don't pick performance end up feeling stupid about it, and further end up taking abuse from the community for complaining about content when we don't want to "try harder" or "git gud" or whatever the kids say these days.

As such, I'm always going to favour systems which block players from stacking buffs. Again - Warframe already does this. Imagine for a moment a Warframe modding system which allowed you to slot as many instances of the same mod as you owned on the same item, and you tell me if that would be a better, more diverse system. Because I know I wouldn't be here if that were the case.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

Like I said, I'm aware that there are exceptions. And yes, I'm also aware of how radical what I'm suggesting is. My issue here is more fundamental, however, and has to do with the cost of slots. Simply put, slots are cheap for the majority of items, simply because the most effective way to build them is to overload on a few buffs to the exception of everything else. Slots are cheap, but what they cost is build variety. What they cost is diversity within the same item. You're right - different guns are built in different guns and Warframes are built differently, but how many way per gun? How many per Warframe? Because of how many slots stacked mods take up and how powerful they can be, I'd argue not very many.

You mention "meta," and that's my primary beef. The meta dictates "this" weapon is built "this" way, and it unfortunately usually has a point. Now, I can obviously make some allowance, such as I don't intend to be fighting level 150 enemies, I can probably survive not having ALL OF THE HEALTH and maybe I can swap in an Augment mod, instead. Maybe even something that's not going to straight-up increase my performance but which is going to make the game more convenient for me to play. That's where Inaros' Negation Swarm is for me. I can slap on several thousand more effective health on him easily if I got rid of that mod, and probably a good 10K effective health if I got rid of a few others that I like but people insist aren't meta, but because I'm fighting less severe enemies I can afford to take that hit. But I'm still taking a hit, either way.

For example, Gram Prime. You can build full crit, full status or Hybrid. If you want it fast you can also stack berserker and primed fury. Now, what I can see is that you are asking that Gram Prime be buildable for Channeling as well.

If all weapons can be built in all ways, that defeats the variety of weapons in the first place or the existence of mods. Why use mod A if mod B gives the same performance? Variety for variety's sake is no variety at all. Because in that case why would anyone take build A over build B? Then the most META build will simply be the one that is the most ammo efficient and easiest to farm.

31 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

My general push here is that stacked mods reduce build variety by effectively reducing the number of unique effects we can put on our gear in favour of stacking multiples of the same effect. That's always going to be an issue with Points Buy systems. In the interest of full disclosure, this very thing is why I hate Diablo 2 with a passion. That game had such a wealth of cool abilities to use, but heavily incentivised taking maybe 3 or 4 of them and dumping all of your points there. Giving players the choice between diversity and performance is always going to lead to less diversity because it's human nature to always pick performance, even when you don't need it. And I say "human nature" because even those of us who deliberately don't pick performance end up feeling stupid about it, and further end up taking abuse from the community for complaining about content when we don't want to "try harder" or "git gud" or whatever the kids say these days.

As such, I'm always going to favour systems which block players from stacking buffs. Again - Warframe already does this. Imagine for a moment a Warframe modding system which allowed you to slot as many instances of the same mod as you owned on the same item, and you tell me if that would be a better, more diverse system. Because I know I wouldn't be here if that were the case.

What is the difference, actually, in adding more unique effects over stacking multiples of the same effect? In the end, it is simply still a similar push towards performance. Diversity in modding means less reason for diversity in guns. Sticking with the Diablo analogy ... why does Diablo have multiple different classes with multiple different armor sets to focus on different things? To encourage you to play the game with a new class, new build and new focus every time.

You keep asking for diversity in modding, failing to see the diversity in frame/gun pairings, or the vast array of weapons and frames.

Slotting many instances of the same mod doesn't even work for optimization of power, to say the least. Multiplicative scaling always wins in the end of the day, so the more layers of mods you slot, actually the more efficient it is.

[Steel_Rook]

55 minutes ago, Datam4ss said:

If all weapons can be built in all ways, that defeats the variety of weapons in the first place or the existence of mods. Why use mod A if mod B gives the same performance? Variety for variety's sake is no variety at all. Because in that case why would anyone take build A over build B? Then the most META build will simply be the one that is the most ammo efficient and easiest to farm.

 

The point is personal choice, personal preference, personal convenience. Not everything in the game boils down to "what's the most efficient." As long as the difference in efficiency is low enough, personal choice overrides numerical superiority. Some people - and I count myself among them - build for concept, for feel, for theme or for any number of "intangible" qualities. I personally prefer a "machinegun" style of play, which means magazine increases, ammo pool increases, ammo pick-up increases, etc. And while I can have all of those, they result in a weaker weapon by a not-insignificant margin. I can't fit ammo pool buffing abilities because I need those slots for Serration, Multishot, etlemental damage, critical hits, etc.

I find your view of the game to be very reductive, considering only the mechanical optimisation aspect without even commenting on theme, character concept, feel or anything besides "what's the best weapon." That's been one of the most frustrating aspects of asking for advise on the steam forums. I might as for a decent Machinegun build for the Prisma Gorgon or the Tenora, only to be told to stop using them and get the vaulted Soma Prime instead. Technical issues aside, that's not the point. I want to use the Tenora, and swapping to another gun isn't addressing my question. I'm not going to pick the Pyrana Prime just because I'm told it's "the best" weapon even if it's actually true (which I don't know one way or another) because that's not the weapon I want to use.

Why would anyone take Build A over Build B? Because that individual person likes Build A over Build B. I mean, why do would anyone colour their Warframe Red over colouring it Blue, when Blue is obviously the superior colour? A system which allows flexibility and multiple equivalent option, that system offers greater variety and more room for both experimentation and personal preference.

 

56 minutes ago, Datam4ss said:

You keep asking for diversity in modding, failing to see the diversity in frame/gun pairings, or the vast array of weapons and frames.

 

Why can't we have both? Or failing that, what's the point of the modding system in the firs place? If every gun has two or three (or one) way of building it, why even pretend to give players that choice? Why give us three build slots for weapons, why give us mods we're just about never going to use? Because if that's the intended function of the modding system, then the only actual impact it has on the game experience is to trick newbies into gimping their gear and having a rotten time of it. If I don't have a choice in how I build my weapons, why am I asked to choose? What need, function or utility is this system filling?

It's entirely possible I'm playing this game for the wrong reasons, but I'm not doing this so I can see big numbers on-screen. I'm here because of the cool space ninjas in space, wielding big guns and big swords and fighting giant robots. I'm here because the Opticore looks like a space ship with a pistol grip. I'm here because the Inaros Ramses skin is absolutely awesome. I'm here because I can get an absolutely absurd auto-shotgun machinegun pistol, and I can carry two of them at the same time. The numbers matter, optimisation matters, but theme and variety and preference matter a lot more. I don't go into the game thinking "what are the best items I can have?" I go into it thinking "This is awesome! How can I make THIS work?"

If there's only a single way to make THIS work, then why pretend to let me choose how to build it and get it wrong? And what happens if the only way to make THIS work doesn't match the way I'm trying to use it? I go pick a different weapon that I don't like because THAT works better? Well, there goes all my enthusiasm right there. If I don't care about the theme of what I'm using, then I'm certainly not going to care about how much damage it does. In theory I could play the entire game with a rubber chicken if it did enough damage, but I'm certainly not going to be as invested at that point, because I'm going to actively resent the item I'm using.

And yes, I know about MR. I'm aware that this game desperately wants me to use all of the things. I'm working on, little by little. But at the end of the day, I'm not going to keep all of the things. I'm not going to keep the Pangolin Sword, I'm not going to keep the Sonicor, I'm not going to keep Penta. They may be perfectly fine weapons, but I hate them regardless and have no reason to bother storing them once I've gained 30 levels' worth of MR out of them. That's the big irony of Warframe - it has such a wide inventory of weapons, but the majority of them use the same build and, frankly, play very similarly to each other, min/maxing aside.

The long and short of it is this: I'd rather have meaningful variety in weapon builds in addition to meaningful variety in weapons. The two are not mutually exclusive. Choices matter because preferences differ.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Steel_Rook said:

The point is personal choice, personal preference, personal convenience.  --- Removed for Length --- A system which allows flexibility and multiple equivalent option, that system offers greater variety and more room for both experimentation and personal preference.

You know, telling this to me, who has favored the Cycron over all other guns since the Cycron came out doesn't make it very convincing. Things like theme, feel etc, you can easily get a gun up to standard with those. I have used the Broken War and Cycron for a long time (you can check my profile if you do not believe me) despite neither being Meta or the best, even with rivens on them. But I do well enough.

Again, as I did say, the system already allows flexibility with many new weapons coming out with hybrid stats that may require different modding for different situations. Warframe's core isn't really a game where guns are simply a fashion bundle about how cool it is. Guns are meant to be tools that fit a situation. If I fight an enemy with a damage cap, I sure won't pack an Opticor. If your kind of modding was allowed, as I said, guns in the same class with no unique mechanic would essentially become indistinguishable from each other and become stat sticks. The whole point of forcing you to mod a gun in one way is precisely so you can get the most out of said gun, and to make you invest mods, formas etc into the gun. The gun itself has its theme and concept - Prisma Gorgon, for example, is the Crit Gorgon, while Wraith is the Status Gorgon. If you want to play outside the gun's strength and theme, by all means, go ahead.

The simplest analogy would be to ask an olympic swimmer to play baseball. Sure, he's an athlete and maybe he tried it out a bit in school, but he's not going to do better than any properly trained batsman or pitcher. Guns are the same. Nerfing the mods or forcing mod variety does nothing to change the base gun. Giving the olympic swimmer a softball glove for baseball isn't going to make him a better batter, for example.

Your personal preference comes in choosing the gun. The swimmer would naturally pick the swimming pool over the baseball bat.

14 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

Why can't we have both? Or failing that, what's the point of the modding system in the firs place? If every gun has two or three (or one) way of building it, why even pretend to give players that choice? Why give us three build slots for weapons, why give us mods we're just about never going to use? Because if that's the intended function of the modding system, then the only actual impact it has on the game experience is to trick newbies into gimping their gear and having a rotten time of it. If I don't have a choice in how I build my weapons, why am I asked to choose? What need, function or utility is this system filling?

Some mods are simply relics from before damage 2.0 which DE were lazy to remove. For example, the normal status mods when the dual status mods obviously give you way more benefit for way less cost.

I will not deny that some of those mods have niche uses and you are likely to see them on some people's guns, especially reload speed or fire rate. Of course, there are silly mods such as the 30% IPS damage ones which don't deserve to exist because there are better equivalents for the same mod cost, but these are probably also relics which really could do with being removed.

Also, it is a nice thing to have easier to obtain mods which you can throw away for better ones later. Your guns have slots to fill, you might as well fill them. No player starts with a super comprehensive mod selection. I had a few friends in game so I got my damage mods at the start ... and only the damage mods. Nothing else. I had to farm up most of my stuff over time and when you start out, some marginal benefit is better than none.

20 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

It's entirely possible I'm playing this game for the wrong reasons, but I'm not doing this so I can see big numbers on-screen. I'm here because of the cool space ninjas in space, wielding big guns and big swords and fighting giant robots. I'm here because the Opticore looks like a space ship with a pistol grip. I'm here because the Inaros Ramses skin is absolutely awesome. I'm here because I can get an absolutely absurd auto-shotgun machinegun pistol, and I can carry two of them at the same time. The numbers matter, optimisation matters, but theme and variety and preference matter a lot more. I don't go into the game thinking "what are the best items I can have?" I go into it thinking "This is awesome! How can I make THIS work?"

Most of the content is doable EASILY with badly built gear. I have a max fire rate grakata for the lols and it works fine for most of the starchart, so long as I use Chroma with it.

But when the going gets tough and the team needs it, sometimes your personal taste and preference need to make way for the greater good and you MUST build "best". Also, having overkilling guns is a good thing when there are many people who love to just stand around for free exp.

Themes and feels don't matter if the mission is going to fail. You wouldn't care what's the color of your military beret if a sniper nailed you in the head.

24 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

If there's only a single way to make THIS work, then why pretend to let me choose how to build it and get it wrong? And what happens if the only way to make THIS work doesn't match the way I'm trying to use it? I go pick a different weapon that I don't like because THAT works better? Well, there goes all my enthusiasm right there. If I don't care about the theme of what I'm using, then I'm certainly not going to care about how much damage it does. In theory I could play the entire game with a rubber chicken if it did enough damage, but I'm certainly not going to be as invested at that point, because I'm going to actively resent the item I'm using.

And yes, I know about MR. I'm aware that this game desperately wants me to use all of the things. I'm working on, little by little. But at the end of the day, I'm not going to keep all of the things. I'm not going to keep the Pangolin Sword, I'm not going to keep the Sonicor, I'm not going to keep Penta. They may be perfectly fine weapons, but I hate them regardless and have no reason to bother storing them once I've gained 30 levels' worth of MR out of them. That's the big irony of Warframe - it has such a wide inventory of weapons, but the majority of them use the same build and, frankly, play very similarly to each other, min/maxing aside.

As a Cycron user I have to disagree with the first part. You don't have to pick a different weapon, unless your life choices have made you stuck with MK1 weapons (which can still be forced into viable territory with a riven). 

In the end of the day, you say majority use the same build and play similarly. I mean, in real life, it doesn't matter even if you use an M4 with a grenade launcher, silencer, casket mag and acog scope, you are still going to use it the same way a terrorist uses his unmodded AK. A gun is still ... a gun. How surprising is that? Before you wax on things like LMG suppressive fire or sniper one shots ... you realize in the end of the day all the guns are still meant to put bullets into enemies and kill them by putting said bullets into enemies.

28 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

The long and short of it is this: I'd rather have meaningful variety in weapon builds in addition to meaningful variety in weapons. The two are not mutually exclusive. Choices matter because preferences differ.

If you want meaningful weapon builds with actual variety, the mods themselves are already a problem. They only alter base stats. They don't change how a gun plays. Without this kind of mechanical alterations, it will still come down to "most efficient modding" within a narrow set of rules. Even if you put magazine size and fire rate on a Soma P, in the end you are still firing bullets into enemies. Just more bullets.

But hey, unlike you I don't need 10 different ways to build a Prisma Gorgon, so I'm not complaining.

[Steel_Rook]

1 hour ago, Datam4ss said:

But hey, unlike you I don't need 10 different ways to build a Prisma Gorgon, so I'm not complaining

You know what? Fine, have it your way. You've been hostile in your responses the entire way through. I've said my peace, you can feel free to list all the ways in which I'm wrong. I'm simply not going to respond.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Steel_Rook

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

You know what? Fine, have it your way. You've been hostile in your responses the entire way through, and at this point it's obvious you're just looking to pick a fight. I've said my peace, you can feel free to list all the ways in which I'm wrong to hold an independent opinion and I'm simply not going to respond.

I never intended to pick a fight and have not actually responded with hostility, but it appears that I am not allowed to hold an opposing opinion, argue for said opinion or have a different interpretation of what DE's grand plan is. It appears I am toxic for having such alternative viewpoints and airing them.

Have a good day, and thank you for your time.

[Teridax68]

11 minutes ago, Datam4ss said:

I never intended to pick a fight and have not actually responded with hostility, but it appears that I am not allowed to hold an opposing opinion, argue for said opinion or have a different interpretation of what DE's grand plan is. It appears I am toxic for having such alternative viewpoints and airing them.

You seem to have missed the part where Steel_Rook directly quoted a part of your post that was needlessly condescending, immature and hostile, not to mention bizarre in its attempt to frame a desire for weapon diversity as some kind of negative. You are perfectly allowed to hold a contrary opinion, but your behavior on here has gone far beyond that, as you've attacked Steel_Rook's person in addition to their arguments just for disagreeing with you. Please don't do that again.

[Guest]

Just now, Teridax68 said:

You seem to have missed the part where Steel_Rook directly quoted a part of your post that was needlessly condescending, immature and hostile, not to mention bizarre in its attempt to frame a desire for weapon diversity as some kind of negative. You are perfectly allowed to hold a contrary opinion, but your behavior on here has gone far beyond that, as you've attacked Steel_Rook's person in addition to their arguments just for disagreeing with you. Please don't do that again.

If that is considered hostile, I have nothing left to say with regards to how sensitive this world has become. A fact is a fact and there is no need to sugar coat it. I really lack the necessity to build a gun in more than the three ways allocated by the number of loadout tabs. He has said necessity and it is reflected in his posts. What is wrong with outright stating it?

A rose by any name is just as sweet ... and faeces by any name is still as smelly. Representing an equivalent idea with a whole loopy paragraph is hardly my intent when the point is easier to get across with one sentence that you may not like. I only stated what is reflected.

For example, you can call me a shallow man for prizing a girl's beauty over her character. It's a fact and I accept it, even if it is not a nice thing to hear. So can you get back on topic now?

I could debate morality and such for a day, but not on a Warframe forum. I do not like to be misinterpreted, though.

[Teridax68]

11 minutes ago, Datam4ss said:

If that is considered hostile, I have nothing left to say with regards to how sensitive this world has become. A fact is a fact and there is no need to sugar coat it.

Sugar coat what, exactly? How exactly does the passage Steel_Rook quoted move the conversation forward in any way? No amount of florid nonsense you produce can disguise the fact that you personally attacked someone else just because you disagreed with them. If you are unable to see that your behavior was unnecessarily snide and destructive, even after several people have pointed the fact out to you, and believe that it is somehow everyone else's responsibility to not get offended by your rude attitude, this public forum may not be the space for you.

Quote

I really lack the necessity to build a gun in more than the three ways allocated by the number of loadout tabs. He has said necessity and it is reflected in his posts. What is wrong with outright stating it?

Where did they say this, exactly? Even if they did, their opinion is just as valid as yours, and to try to put them down simply for disagreeing with you is hypocritical when this has also been your defense of your own antisocial behavior. Looking through their posts, the main message I got was simply that build diversity is lacking in Warframe's modding system (which is true), and that they, along with many other players, would like to see more diversity. If you don't feel a need for that, that's fine, but then why push back so hard? What do you stand to lose if they get their wish, and weapons become more diverse? If you truly do not care how many different builds you get to have for any given weapon, why place yourself in opposition to someone advocating for more weapon diversity? The only way this would make sense is if you opposed having more build diversity in the game, and that is a position I have yet to see properly defended.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Teridax68

[Steel_Rook]

To expand a little bit on what I've said here: I typically have a very harsh view of choice in video games, especially when it comes to gameplay systems. If choice exists, players need to be both informed enough to make it and it has to matter. If either of those isn't true, then it's not a real choice. In my experience, false choices create problems down the line, both because they open people up to "building wrong" with no real upside and because they lead people to believe they have agency which they really don't. More than that, though, I generally don't believe in giving players the choice between what they like and what they "have to do." If the game expects performance, then it seems demoralising to give players the choice between that and guns/characters/tactics they'd otherwise have liked.

The above is a bit abstract, so to be a bit more specific: What would Warframe lose if each weapon had three fixed builds, with players simply expected to find and "slot in" the correct mods in order to "activate" aspects that that builds was always going to have? I'm not saying nothing would change. Rivens would go right down the toilet, for one, but those are a separate issue. Beyond that, a number of creative and exotic builds will be invalidated. But in terms of the game's general population, would much of substance change? When the majority of people build a certain weapon a certain way, how much would forcing that build onto everyone else really change? Obviously I'm not advocating for anything this extreme. I am, however, bringing up a deliberately hyperbolic argument to try and demonstrate my feelings towards the modding system. Crucially, that it's not a system with which to create builds, but rather a system by which to match preexisting builds either that other people have made or that the individual item's stat best lend themselves to.

A counterpoint I like to bring up is Relic's old 2011 WH40K: Space Marine game. That game's "build" system was excessively reductive, consisting of a class choice which then allowed you to pick a weapon and two perks. That's it. Now, granted - that game doesn't have anything even approaching Warframe's library of items, but it managed to get a substantial amount of variety out of a small arsenal. Weapons worked very differently from each other, character Abilities were tied to class and Perks were VERY powerful but you also had a VERY limited selection of them. I feel it's this mutual exclusivity, this limit on what you could actually bring which led to variety. You could have an extra gun or double the health (which made a HUGE difference there) or a tenth of the heat buildup, etc. And mind you, that was two perk slots PERIOD, that you picked how to split between offensive and defensive abilities.

Again, I'm not expecting Warframe to become Space Marine. They're different beasts entirely. Rather, my point was to address the subject of "granularity." Warframe is a hugely granular game where your stat modifiers often come in a number of small chunks stacking into a big number consuming multiple slots. Due to the way video games work, broad specialisation is ALWAYS better than generalisation so it's almost always superior to stack multiples of the same buff than to grab small versions of a bunch of other buffs. That's why I feel that a hard limit on stacking the same buff from multiple mods (which is to say, only the highest buff value is active, the rest are suppressed) would serve to force people away from broad specialisation and into at least slightly more diverse, preference-driven builds.

The common argument when these things come up goes along the lines of: "You make Serration inherent, then everyone uses Multishot. You make that inherent, everyone uses more elemental damage. Etc., etc." While there's some truth to that, the universality of how people build tends to have a pretty rapid diminishing return. Yes, the first few options absolutely EVERYONE is going to use, but you get towards the third? Fourth? You start getting disagreements. Is reload speed better than a larger magazine? Do I want the health mod and the shield mod, or do I want the half-health/half-shield mod and an extra slot? I'm speaking broadly, of course, but my point is that "personal preference" has a not insignificant weight of its own. Most people will pick performance when the performance difference is significant, but more will be inclined to pick up "cool stuff" when the cost isn't as high.

I don't expect to see my proposed system implemented into the game, of course. That would hit a lot of people's builds very, very hard. Ultimately, it's a matter of what the community wants. General consensus seems to be that all anyone cares about is grinding for loot, so the higher the numbers the faster the grinding, with no real attachment to the underlying gear or theme. Threads like this one, though, and the "horde shooter" one remind me that there's room for a bit more... Irresponsibility, I suppose? A bit more desire to choose things which are cool, things which sound or feel fun, things we actually want. I'm a rather simple individual, personally. Give me a bullet hose with a massive magazine and high ammo pick-up, and I'll usually be perfectly happy hosing down hordes of enemies... Yet asking about how to do this is what got me some of the most heat over on the Steam forums because apparently that's just not very efficient. Having tried all the Gorgons, all the Somas, the Tenora, both of the Supras... Yeah, I can see where they were coming from, kind of, but I still love my proto-LMGs.

I guess at the end of the day, what I'm proposing is a modding system that's expressly LESS flexible than what we have right now. I'm not going to deny that. However, this is borne of my belief that limiting what players can do is as important in game balance as expanding what they can. In the case of weapon modding, I feel we'd benefit from a few more restrictions, though that belief is obviously coloured by my own bias and preferences.

[Klokwerkaos]

10 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

To expand a little bit on what I've said here: I typically have a very harsh view of choice in video games, especially when it comes to gameplay systems. If choice exists, players need to be both informed enough to make it and it has to matter. If either of those isn't true, then it's not a real choice. In my experience, false choices create problems down the line, both because they open people up to "building wrong" with no real upside and because they lead people to believe they have agency which they really don't. More than that, though, I generally don't believe in giving players the choice between what they like and what they "have to do." If the game expects performance, then it seems demoralising to give players the choice between that and guns/characters/tactics they'd otherwise have liked.

The above is a bit abstract, so to be a bit more specific: What would Warframe lose if each weapon had three fixed builds, with players simply expected to find and "slot in" the correct mods in order to "activate" aspects that that builds was always going to have? I'm not saying nothing would change. Rivens would go right down the toilet, for one, but those are a separate issue. Beyond that, a number of creative and exotic builds will be invalidated. But in terms of the game's general population, would much of substance change? When the majority of people build a certain weapon a certain way, how much would forcing that build onto everyone else really change? Obviously I'm not advocating for anything this extreme. I am, however, bringing up a deliberately hyperbolic argument to try and demonstrate my feelings towards the modding system. Crucially, that it's not a system with which to create builds, but rather a system by which to match preexisting builds either that other people have made or that the individual item's stat best lend themselves to.

A counterpoint I like to bring up is Relic's old 2011 WH40K: Space Marine game. That game's "build" system was excessively reductive, consisting of a class choice which then allowed you to pick a weapon and two perks. That's it. Now, granted - that game doesn't have anything even approaching Warframe's library of items, but it managed to get a substantial amount of variety out of a small arsenal. Weapons worked very differently from each other, character Abilities were tied to class and Perks were VERY powerful but you also had a VERY limited selection of them. I feel it's this mutual exclusivity, this limit on what you could actually bring which led to variety. You could have an extra gun or double the health (which made a HUGE difference there) or a tenth of the heat buildup, etc. And mind you, that was two perk slots PERIOD, that you picked how to split between offensive and defensive abilities.

Again, I'm not expecting Warframe to become Space Marine. They're different beasts entirely. Rather, my point was to address the subject of "granularity." Warframe is a hugely granular game where your stat modifiers often come in a number of small chunks stacking into a big number consuming multiple slots. Due to the way video games work, broad specialisation is ALWAYS better than generalisation so it's almost always superior to stack multiples of the same buff than to grab small versions of a bunch of other buffs. That's why I feel that a hard limit on stacking the same buff from multiple mods (which is to say, only the highest buff value is active, the rest are suppressed) would serve to force people away from broad specialisation and into at least slightly more diverse, preference-driven builds.

The common argument when these things come up goes along the lines of: "You make Serration inherent, then everyone uses Multishot. You make that inherent, everyone uses more elemental damage. Etc., etc." While there's some truth to that, the universality of how people build tends to have a pretty rapid diminishing return. Yes, the first few options absolutely EVERYONE is going to use, but you get towards the third? Fourth? You start getting disagreements. Is reload speed better than a larger magazine? Do I want the health mod and the shield mod, or do I want the half-health/half-shield mod and an extra slot? I'm speaking broadly, of course, but my point is that "personal preference" has a not insignificant weight of its own. Most people will pick performance when the performance difference is significant, but more will be inclined to pick up "cool stuff" when the cost isn't as high.

I don't expect to see my proposed system implemented into the game, of course. That would hit a lot of people's builds very, very hard. Ultimately, it's a matter of what the community wants. General consensus seems to be that all anyone cares about is grinding for loot, so the higher the numbers the faster the grinding, with no real attachment to the underlying gear or theme. Threads like this one, though, and the "horde shooter" one remind me that there's room for a bit more... Irresponsibility, I suppose? A bit more desire to choose things which are cool, things which sound or feel fun, things we actually want. I'm a rather simple individual, personally. Give me a bullet hose with a massive magazine and high ammo pick-up, and I'll usually be perfectly happy hosing down hordes of enemies... Yet asking about how to do this is what got me some of the most heat over on the Steam forums because apparently that's just not very efficient. Having tried all the Gorgons, all the Somas, the Tenora, both of the Supras... Yeah, I can see where they were coming from, kind of, but I still love my proto-LMGs.

I guess at the end of the day, what I'm proposing is a modding system that's expressly LESS flexible than what we have right now. I'm not going to deny that. However, this is borne of my belief that limiting what players can do is as important in game balance as expanding what they can. In the case of weapon modding, I feel we'd benefit from a few more restrictions, though that belief is obviously coloured by my own bias and preferences.

What you lose is freedom and discovery and growth within the game, not to mention complexity and niche builds.

You seem very fixated on this notion of "mandatory mods" but nobody is making them mandatory but you.  That's a YOU thing and you don't get to blame that on DE.

You can go clear the star chart without any mods even installed if you're skilled and knowledgeable enough, so I dont' see how they are "mandatory" in any way.

You are the one that chooses actively to make the most busted build you can manage.  When you blame that behavior on DE, it doesn't help your case at all, and instead seems to work against your argument entirely.

Literally no one is stopping you from making alternate niche builds but you, and that's again, a YOU thing.

I personally am in favor of the current modding system, but instead would want to address enemy scaling and AI.  Resolving those things would likely manage to fix a healthy chunk of the issues with modding.

[Steel_Rook]

13 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

What you lose is freedom and discovery and growth within the game, not to mention complexity and niche builds. You seem very fixated on this notion of "mandatory mods" but nobody is making them mandatory but you.  That's a YOU thing and you don't get to blame that on DE. You can go clear the star chart without any mods even installed if you're skilled and knowledgeable enough, so I dont' see how they are "mandatory" in any way. You are the one that chooses actively to make the most busted build you can manage.  When you blame that behavior on DE, it doesn't help your case at all, and instead seems to work against your argument entirely. Literally no one is stopping you from making alternate niche builds but you, and that's again, a YOU thing.

I just want to point out that nearly every sentence in what you said starts with "YOU." The majority of your argument is aimed at me, rather than my argument. What counter-arguments you propose aren't actually directed at anything I've said, such as references to blaming Digital Extremes or issues clearing the Star Chart. While this isn't an insult, it's pretty much the definition of argumentum ad hominem. My argument is flawed because I'm flawed. I hope you realise that there's literally nothing I can say in response to this aside from defending my character, which I doubt is going to change anything. Simply put, you're not going to change how I feel on the matter by wagging your metaphorical finger and typing "YOU" in all caps over and over again.

In theory, I can do anything in Warframe. I can play completely without mods, or indeed completely without weapons. I'm sure I can theoretically clear the Star Chart with nothing more than the Blast proc from a Bullet Jump. Game design isn't a matter of what's theoretically possible, but rather a matter of what said design encourages players to do. Looking at the distribution of choices players make is typically a good measure of what players feel encouraged to do. When it comes to the modding system, by and large players are encouraged to stack multiples of the same buff across multiple mods, rather than mod for a broader range of stats. I'm of the opinion that that encourages less build diversity without really offering much complexity or replayability in return.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Steel_Rook

[MJ12]

14 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

What you lose is freedom and discovery and growth within the game, not to mention complexity and niche builds.

You seem very fixated on this notion of "mandatory mods" but nobody is making them mandatory but you.  That's a YOU thing and you don't get to blame that on DE.

You can go clear the star chart without any mods even installed if you're skilled and knowledgeable enough, so I dont' see how they are "mandatory" in any way.

You are the one that chooses actively to make the most busted build you can manage.  When you blame that behavior on DE, it doesn't help your case at all, and instead seems to work against your argument entirely.

Literally no one is stopping you from making alternate niche builds but you, and that's again, a YOU thing.

I personally am in favor of the current modding system, but instead would want to address enemy scaling and AI.  Resolving those things would likely manage to fix a healthy chunk of the issues with modding.

How would addressing AI fix the issues with modding?

Moreover, people should be aware that making AI that is believable and beatable by humans is actually immensely hard, and thus suggesting AI changes is not a minor change, but something that is ludicrously expensive and time-consuming.

[Teridax68]

10 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

To expand a little bit on what I've said here: I typically have a very harsh view of choice in video games, especially when it comes to gameplay systems. If choice exists, players need to be both informed enough to make it and it has to matter. If either of those isn't true, then it's not a real choice. In my experience, false choices create problems down the line, both because they open people up to "building wrong" with no real upside and because they lead people to believe they have agency which they really don't. More than that, though, I generally don't believe in giving players the choice between what they like and what they "have to do." If the game expects performance, then it seems demoralising to give players the choice between that and guns/characters/tactics they'd otherwise have liked.

I personally very much agree with this, and believe this is at the core of why so many customization or choice systems fail in games. Games like Diablo III or League of Legends have potential billions of combinations of choices, yet both are notorious for being lacking in diversity, because out of those billions, only a small handful of choices are truly considered viable. In theory, the player could choose ignore the meta and play how they like, but in doing so the game would punish them by not letting them progress as hard or as far. In a multiplayer PvP game like League, building wrong can also signify a loss, which is why intentionally making out-of-meta choices there is a reportable offense. Effectively, these games punish players for making choices available to them, sometimes severely, even though those choices are nonetheless presented to the player, and so without any overt indication that one is expressly better than the other. While it could be good to teach the player that certain choices are better-suited for certain situations in these kinds of games, if a choice is always the best to make, or always a worse choice than others, then it simply sets the player up to fail.

A common expression that gets thrown around is "given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game": even though players may personally prefer one playstyle over another, or simply consider a playstyle less fun to play, they will still find themselves naturally driven to go for the less fun playstyle if it happens to be optimal by whichever important metric (usually because it makes them beat the game faster or more easily). If one playstyle is clearly optimal over the others, this means that one playstyle tends to dominate and leave the others underused, and this is amplified further if the game is multiplayer, where each playstyle is likely to have been tested massively, and where there's an even greater pressure to maximize performance. Thus, regardless of whether or not one personally wants more diversity, it is an objective fact that in a game where one style of play clearly outperforms the others, that playstyle is likely to dominate, which means that if designers want diversity in their game, they cannot pretend that the false choices that exist are actual choices that get made in significant enough amounts. Either Warframe is a game that offers choice to the player or it isn't: if it is, which seems to be the case considering its customization systems, then it needs to make those systems offer genuine choice. If not, then it shouldn't have choice systems to begin with if they offer no real choice.

[MJ12]

22 minutes ago, MJ12 said:

How would addressing AI fix the issues with modding?

Moreover, people should be aware that making AI that is believable and beatable by humans is actually immensely hard, and thus suggesting AI changes is not a minor change, but something that is ludicrously expensive and time-consuming.

To build on this, there is a very good chance what @Klokwerkaos is asking with regards to AI changes might literally be more difficult and time-consuming than DE literally binning every single progression mechanic in Warframe, mods, level-ups, ability level-ups, forma, cosmetics, experience, slots, the Operator, the foundry, enemy levels-and rebuilding progression from scratch, from first principles.

So again, what do people mean by 'addressing AI'?

[Mach25]

3 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

I just want to point out that nearly every sentence in what you said starts with "YOU." The majority of your argument is aimed at me, rather than my argument....

I put users who behave like that on ignore so we can continue discussion of the issue at hand.

So far, you've hit the nail on the head with all of your posts. I appreciate hearing from someone else whose experience is very broad and is able to speak on issues with clarity. Agreed with your posts - I never did like the modding system as it is right now for precisely the reasons you've stated. Hopefully these things will be altered in the future to make mods in this game actual modifications, not justifications.

In another game, I downloaded and installed a mod that made damage perk upgrades marginal at best - the base weaponry and modifications to them made all weapons viable in combat, where even the cheapest weapon could be used in a pinch. Granted, it's a different beast, but you understand what I'm saying.

Hopefully something like that will come in the future to where we will actually be able to get build diversity on our weapons and frames.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Mach25

[Teridax68]

15 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

What you lose is freedom and discovery and growth within the game, not to mention complexity and niche builds.

... why? Please list examples of complex or niche builds that would be lost by addressing mandatory mods.

15 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

You seem very fixated on this notion of "mandatory mods" but nobody is making them mandatory but you.  That's a YOU thing and you don't get to blame that on DE.

This fundamentally misunderstands how games and metagames work. When an optimal strategy arises, there is reason for it to dominate (it gives quicker or better results than the alternatives), and no practical reason for it not to, therefore that strategy tends to dominate. In games that are in ongoing development, such as Warframe, that tends to cause the game to balance itself around these optimal strategies, and in this case, mandatory mods. You posted at an exceptionally poor time, considering how DE presented in today's dev stream just how present these mods are in players' builds, so there is really no valid reason to pretend that mandatory mods don't exist in Warframe.

15 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

You can go clear the star chart without any mods even installed if you're skilled and knowledgeable enough, so I dont' see how they are "mandatory" in any way.

By all means, please demonstrate. Show us the way, because so far I have not seen even a single player even attempt this. Show us how easy it is to do so, how reasonable it is to expect this especially from someone new to the game, and how effective it is compared to the way people normally play.

15 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

You are the one that chooses actively to make the most busted build you can manage.  When you blame that behavior on DE, it doesn't help your case at all, and instead seems to work against your argument entirely.

They are by no means the only one. Again, you can pretend all you like that people don't go for mandatory mods, or certain optimal builds, but in the end it is you who are the special snowflake here, not everyone else pointing out the obvious problem of mandatory mods. Again, today's dev stream is evidence of this.

15 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

Literally no one is stopping you from making alternate niche builds but you, and that's again, a YOU thing.

Sure, one can make a ton of different builds, but how will those builds actually work? How good will my Nidus truly be if I just build shield and shield regen mods on him? What about a gun with only zoom and silencer mods? Perhaps these builds may even have some advantage in some situation, but how realistic is it to use them, compared to proper builds?

15 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

I personally am in favor of the current modding system, but instead would want to address enemy scaling and AI.  Resolving those things would likely manage to fix a healthy chunk of the issues with modding.

... um, what? How exactly does enemy AI relate in any way to the topic of player modding?

[MirageKnight]

15 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

What you lose is freedom and discovery and growth within the game, not to mention complexity and niche builds.

You seem very fixated on this notion of "mandatory mods" but nobody is making them mandatory but you.  That's a YOU thing and you don't get to blame that on DE.

You can go clear the star chart without any mods even installed if you're skilled and knowledgeable enough, so I dont' see how they are "mandatory" in any way.

You are the one that chooses actively to make the most busted build you can manage.  When you blame that behavior on DE, it doesn't help your case at all, and instead seems to work against your argument entirely.

Literally no one is stopping you from making alternate niche builds but you, and that's again, a YOU thing.

I personally am in favor of the current modding system, but instead would want to address enemy scaling and AI.  Resolving those things would likely manage to fix a healthy chunk of the issues with modding.

I hate to break it to you, but "You're wrong because I said X" doesn't count as a valid counter-point. Here's a thought...rebut their argument with an actual counterpoint that has some credible evidence to back it up...

...or is attacking people and pointing fingers the best you have to offer in this discussion?

If yes, then you're contributing nothing here and just wasting everyone's time.

1 hour ago, MJ12 said:

How would addressing AI fix the issues with modding?

It wouldn't have any effect on builds centered around AoE spamming that's for sure, as that sort of thing can't be avoided by the AI.

[MJ12]

4 minutes ago, MirageKnight said:

It wouldn't have any effect on builds centered around AoE spamming that's for sure, as that sort of thing can't be avoided by the AI.

That's not entirely correct. What the AI could do in response to AoE spam builds, especially in Survival, is simply hang outside of the radius of the AoE behind a chokepoint which they constantly spam grenades and rockets into as suppressive fire.

Spoiler alert: This is unfun and frustrating.

You can counter most player tactics with AI, it's just that almost all these counters are aggressively unfun. And that gets back to the point where AI that both looks smart and is actually not aggravating is hard.

Edited December 21, 2018 by MJ12

[MirageKnight]

Just now, MJ12 said:

That's not entirely correct. What the AI could do in response to AoE spam builds, especially in Survival, is simply hang outside of the radius of the AoE behind a chokepoint which they constantly spam grenades and rockets into as suppressive fire.

That's a good point - and thank you for the civil response / counterpoint. Mind you it would force the player to close the gap or rely on ranged weapons to deal with enemies - so not necessarily a bad thing. However, as you said...

1 minute ago, MJ12 said:

Spoiler alert: This is unfun and frustrating.

Potentially yes.

[DatDarkOne]

27 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Sure, one can make a ton of different builds, but how will those builds actually work? How good will my Nidus truly be if I just build shield and shield regen mods on him? What about a gun with only zoom and silencer mods? Perhaps these builds may even have some advantage in some situation, but how realistic is it to use them, compared to proper builds?

I might be one of the few who would or have done builds such as what you mentioned.  But I must also admit that I'm not even close to representing the actions/tendencies of the player base.  😀 

I do them mostly just to see what would happen or to get a better idea of how a mechanic in game works.  

Not disagreeing with your point.  More adding to it with some reasons why it would be done.  

Happy Hunting Tenno.  

[Mach25]

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

By all means, please demonstrate. Show us the way, because so far I have not seen even a single player even attempt this. Show us how easy it is to do so, how reasonable it is to expect this especially from someone new to the game, and how effective it is compared to the way people normally play.

...Sure, one can make a ton of different builds, but how will those builds actually work? How good will my Nidus truly be if I just build shield and shield regen mods on him? What about a gun with only zoom and silencer mods? Perhaps these builds may even have some advantage in some situation, but how realistic is it to use them, compared to proper builds?

Agreed. Something flagrantly wrong with the whole "I can clear the star chart naked" argument is, is the TTK acceptable without using mods? Will the lack of those mods (which are used as a tool of progression at this point in time - developer words, not mine) make the game unnecessarily hard? Remember that this title is supposed to be about space ninjas and is meant to be a power fantasy against hordes - ninjas and hordes have been emphasized to make my point. These two concepts necessarily mean enemies are not meant to have protracted lifespans and battles are meant to be reasonably brief, not long, drawn-out affairs. Will lack of use of these mods make the game harder than it should be and go against the game's intended design principles? Yes it will.

Looking at how the developers think, their releases, target audience and general aura, if I may use the term, we understand their vision of the game. This product is not meant to be Dark Souls or what have you. The developers set the balance to be around level 30-40 enemies - anything over that is when the game starts to become more difficult and it is not balanced for, confirming its description as a "power fantasy." Veterans and knowledgeable players can easily sweep those guys away, thus fulfilling the intended premise - we now have a clear frame of reference in which we can hold discussion on the topic at hand.