Built in weapons

[(XBOX)ParrotTom]

Are other frames with built in weapons like Garuda going to be introduced. I don't mean exalted weapons or other ability related weapons, I mean like if Mesa would use her regulators if she didn't have a secondary or Excalibur would use his blade (both heavily toned down) if he didn't have a melee weapon.

[Gurpgork]

What would it really add to Excal or Mesa's kit, though? It's a passive of really questionable usefulness even on Garuda. Garuda's Talons don't really even make a top 5 list of best melee weapons you can put in her hands, and that problem would be astronomically bigger on Excal and Mesa. 

[(XBOX)ParrotTom]

15 minutes ago, Gurpgork said:

What would it really add to Excal or Mesa's kit, though? It's a passive of really questionable usefulness even on Garuda. Garuda's Talons don't really even make a top 5 list of best melee weapons you can put in her hands, and that problem would be astronomically bigger on Excal and Mesa. 

Why not? There doesn't really need to be a reason other than that. It's something new, doesn't negatively affect gameplay, adds a little more variety, most likely better than most other weapons in those categories. It's not like it would be a bad thing for characters with built in weapons to be able to use a toned down version out of the associated ability.

[Gurpgork]

13 minutes ago, (XB1)ParrotTom said:

Why not? There doesn't really need to be a reason other than that.

There does need to be another reason when it takes time and dev resources to implement. 

16 minutes ago, (XB1)ParrotTom said:

It's something new, doesn't negatively affect gameplay, adds a little more variety, most likely better than most other weapons in those categories. It's not like it would be a bad thing for characters with built in weapons to be able to use a toned down version out of the associated ability.

We have hundreds of weapons in the game. Adding merely a couple more that can only be used with specific Warframes doesn't strike me as a huge win for variety. 

It wouldn't be a bad thing, no. But it also wouldn't be a meaningful improvement. Why would you want to use a toned down version of Exalted Blade when you can just use Exalted Blade? If it had an unsustainable energy cost or something, then I could understand why someone would want to be able to freely use a toned-down lightsaber katana, but in its current state, I don't really see the point. 

[(XBOX)GearsMatrix301]

Since Garudas talons are labeled as part of her passive. I hope not.

[Atsia]

Gurpgork is right, adding it to any existing frame really won't be worth the effort. Maybe more will come, but I personally doubt it'll any time some, of at all.

[Birdframe_Prime]

4 hours ago, (XB1)ParrotTom said:

Why not?

To quote a guy, "When the answer for why you don't do something is 'why not?' that is a motivator for your own action. When the answer for why somebody else doesn't do something for you is 'why not?' then it's entitlement."

On the other hand, to be completely fair to the concept... there is a practical issue with that. If we were to add weapons on to existing frames in the same way as Garuda's passive, the ones that it would make sense (in theme) to add them to, would be creating worse versions of their base abilities. It wouldn't help them in the sense you would think and it would also serve to make levelling that frame more difficult because of the extra layer of having the weapon to Forma.

In that sense, much like when I took Garuda out to level her Nagantaka crossbow, it didn't level up as fast as it should have, making me spend extra time on the process compared to any other frame in the game (because of the way Affinity is apportioned to weapons from other players' Affinity Share). Plus trying to take her levelling on her own Talons was difficult again, because she primarily kills large amounts with her 4/1 combo and going in for Melee is often not a good option with a frame that's only got damage prevention in the forwards facing direction and enemy can flank.

Moving on...

Excal already has the Exalted Blade, Valkyr already has her own Talons, Ivara already has her Artemis Bow, Wukong has the Iron Staff and Mesa has the Regulators. These weapons are actually (apart from Artemis bow, which is better in base stats per arrow and in number of arrows fired at once, than any other bow in the game) not as good as you'd think. The reason they function so well is because they are affected by Ability Strength and Augments on top of the base Mods. When you have a force multiplier like that it will significantly boost the damage that the weapon is capable of, and even on top of that you will have the bonus effects of equipping that weapon, such as ranged strikes, life steal, or even auto-aim in the case of Regulators.

All of these weapons need to be modded, Forma'd several times, and bring something unique to the table. While if you look at Garuda's Talons they still need modding, adding Forma, but bring nothing unique to the table other than their existence. They're not even particularly good Claw weapons, with there already being one of the most powerful melee weapons in the game (the Venka Prime) standing above them by a long measure.

So you'd be introducing these other weapons as a copy of something that's actually fairly unique (the only other frame to come with something like it is Hildryn, who requires an Archwing Weapon Launcher to access hers...), but you're introducing them in a state where they will literally never be better, or more functional, or even as much fun as the weapons those frames already have access to.

Then there's the argument of precisely why DE should go back and add one Frame's passive to every other frame it might possibly apply to... I would usually argue that, but I actually want that to happen in the case of Hildryn (shield gating tester frame), so it's not impossible. The question is more built off all of the above; knowing that it's not even all that good of a function to add, is it worth that effort? Does it add anything meaningful to the frames themselves? And the answer does fall biased on the 'no' side, even in the best case scenario.

[Teridax68]

7 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

There does need to be another reason when it takes time and dev resources to implement. 

And yet DE sees fit to spent their precious time and resources on utterly unnecessary features that are still fun to have, like an entirely new hacking system just for the new Corpus Gas City tileset. For sure, DE can only work on so many features at once, but let's not pretend that they're optimizing their work pipeline to the finest degree, or steering clear of flavorful additions to the game. Innate weapons have the potential to introduce unique gameplay and play off of frames in ways no other weapon can, which is why I personally feel the way forward should be to develop on them, not restrict them to one gimmick on a single frame.

[Birdframe_Prime]

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

And yet DE sees fit to spent their precious time and resources on utterly unnecessary features that are still fun to have, like an entirely new hacking system just for the new Corpus Gas City tileset.

That's one-and-the-same as a concept though. They're reworking Corpus elements to make the faction better, just the same as when they added new aspects for the Grineer when they upped the quality on the Shipyards and Earth and then started in on the Plains. The Grineer got their new hacking game back with the tile-set upgrades, why wouldn't the Corpus?

There are clear teams working on different resources, each team has their time optimised to get the next projects out.

Not going to say that the Devs never do anything for fun, and there are some things that they do intend to go back and give to every frame (namely Hildryn's Passive if it works... if it doesn't? Eh...), but there just isn't any gain, even in the 'for fun' category for doing this change. You'd get worse weapons than the frames already have access to, because they would have to be balanced and treated like regular weapons.

I mean, why would you give Mesa access to Regulators that have manual aiming, require Ammo, need to be Reloaded, and have worse base stats than a basic-modded Aklex Prime? When you can just press 4 and kill everything in front of you in the time it would take you to switch to your other Regulators and started shooting in the general direction of the enemy.

It just doesn't have a purpose, and it doesn't sound even remotely fun, especially with the way that would interfere with levelling.

[Teridax68]

1 minute ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

That's one-and-the-same as a concept though. They're reworking Corpus elements to make the faction better, just the same as when they added new aspects for the Grineer when they upped the quality on the Shipyards and Earth and then started in on the Plains. The Grineer got their new hacking game back with the tile-set upgrades, why wouldn't the Corpus?

Because the Corpus already have a hacking minigame. Why do they need two? Moreover, the same argument can be made for warframes: if Garuda got her talons as an innate weapon, why can't every other frame with a cool weapon as well?

1 minute ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

There are clear teams working on different resources, each team has their time optimised to get the next projects out.

Sure, but DE does not have a team dedicated to making new hacking minigames, they allocate resources from common pools towards different aspects of the game. The company's production pipeline for Warframe is clearly not optimized, and DE themselves said as much with regards to 2018.

1 minute ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Not going to say that the Devs never do anything for fun, and there are some things that they do intend to go back and give to every frame (namely Hildryn's Passive if it works... if it doesn't? Eh...), but there just isn't any gain, even in the 'for fun' category for doing this change. You'd get worse weapons than the frames already have access to, because they would have to be balanced and treated like regular weapons.

There isn't any gain... to you, and that's ultimately what your argument boils down to. For others, myself included, there visibly is, as I mentioned above. Also, if a weapon has to be balanced like a regular weapon... why would it be worse than regular weapons, again? Like I said, it's an opportunity to have these weapons have unique mechanics in relation to their owner frame that regular weapons simply cannot have, at least not without having the mechanic be useless for every frame but one (e.g. the Cobra and Crane), so there definitely is a novel and potentially quite fun space to explore here.

1 minute ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

I mean, why would you give Mesa access to Regulators that have manual aiming, require Ammo, need to be Reloaded, and have worse base stats than a basic-modded Aklex Prime? When you can just press 4 and kill everything in front of you in the time it would take you to switch to your other Regulators and started shooting in the general direction of the enemy.

Because they'd open up flavor and potentially new gameplay? Sure, Mesa can just press 4 to kill anything she wants, which is also why she doesn't use her 1 at all, but by that same token, Garuda can completely ignore her talons, and just cast and shoot enemies to death. Despite this, Garuda has her talons as innate weapons, because those are a cool and fun thing to have.

1 minute ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

It just doesn't have a purpose, and it doesn't sound even remotely fun, especially with the way that would interfere with levelling.

... why would it interfere with leveling? Again, all of this is ultimately nothing but your own opinion, an opinion itself supported only by vague value judgments, rather than any concrete explanation. Why doesn't it have a purpose? Why does it not "sound even remotely fun"? I personally think those could be quite fun, particularly since Garuda's talons were well-received.

[Gurpgork]

5 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

why would it interfere with leveling?

It literally does interfere with leveling, though. If allies get kills, then it distributes the gained XP among the weapons you have equipped. If you’re trying to level any weapon on Garuda besides her talons, then the talons steal XP from the weapon you want to level, even if the Talons are already level 30. That has nothing to do with opinions. That is factually how affinity works. 

https://warframe.fandom.com/wiki/Affinity

"Unless specified otherwise, all Affinity gained uses the split according to the general rule: 25% of the amount goes to your Warframe and 75% of the amount is divided evenly among all equipped weapons (25% each for three, 37.5% each for two, or the full 75% if only one is equipped)."

5 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

but by that same token, Garuda can completely ignore her talons, and just cast and shoot enemies to death.

Yes. She can. Exactly. This is why it doesn’t add anything to her gameplay. 

Gunplay Garuda is arguably better than melee Garuda to begin with, and even if you want to use melee, a crit melee will stand head and shoulders above her Talons because her kit benefits crit weapons much more strongly than status weapons. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Gurpgork
Citation and elaboration

[Birdframe_Prime]

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Because the Corpus already have a hacking minigame. Why do they need two? Moreover, the same argument can be made for warframes: if Garuda got her talons as an innate weapon, why can't every other frame with a cool weapon as well?

Actually, they'll still only have 1, this one we have for them is the same one that existed since the beginning of the game, now they're actually getting their own custom one.

As for the Warframes, sure, why not bring in every new Warframe with one? I mean, funnily enough Hidryn is getting one (that you have to get an Archwing Gun Launcher for) so it's possible. But the difference is that all the other Warframes already exist and would have to have this added to them.

What you and everyone that wants this is talking about is going back through and introducing multiple custom weapons for no other reason than 'it would be cool', which is a pure opinion that the people doing the work may simply not agree with.

Want to step in and do that yourself? Sure, go right ahead, and DE will thank you for helping out and contributing your time. Otherwise, opinion based 'cool' levels aren't a basis for getting a team of professionals to take time out of their day when they could far more aptly use that time for things like actually fixing bad frames and working on new ones.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

There isn't any gain... to you, and that's ultimately what your argument boils down to.

My argument boils down to 'there isn't any gain to the majority of players, and there isn't any gain to the people actually doing the work'.

DE think these other frames work just fine as they are, otherwise they would all be getting reworks and not just Wukong.

I, personally, would rather that DE bring out these cool weapons as actual weapons, something not exclusive to a Warframe at all, and let us pick and choose which frame to run them with as we do with practically all the others.

Honestly, Garuda's Talons are barely even good... As my opinion, I don't want them putting in all that effort just for something sub-par compared to the already above-par weapons those frames use. As an objective assessment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with these frames not having unique weapons, and it's absolutely fine to have a passive function like Garuda's Talons be an exclusive passive to that frame.

Alternatively... It would be cool if everyone got Ash's passive, too, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

[Teridax68]

8 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

It literally does interfere with leveling, though. If allies get kills, then it distributes the gained XP among the weapons you have equipped. If you’re trying to level any weapon on Garuda besides her talons, then the talons steal XP from the weapon you want to level, even if the Talons are already level 30. That has nothing to do with opinions. That is factually how affinity works. 

But that's an incredibly niche function that can easily be satisfied with any other frame. You don't stop from leveling, you just level a little slower. How is that a valid excuse to hold off on an entire gameplay feature?

8 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

Yes. She can. Exactly. This is why it doesn’t add anything to her gameplay. 

... that's not how options work, though? Loki can play perfectly fine without Irradiating Disarm, for example, but if he equips it and the right mods, he can fulfil an entirely different function, and benefit from entirely new gameplay. Just because Garuda can play without her talons doesn't mean the feature is worthless, as her innate weapon remains flavorful and enjoyable to use.

8 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

Gunplay Garuda is arguably better than melee Garuda to begin with, and even if you want to use melee, a crit melee will stand head and shoulders above her Talons because her kit benefits crit weapons much more strongly than status weapons. 

And this is relevant to the point... how? Sure, Garuda's innate weapon would benefit better from crit over status, and her kit doesn't support her intended melee playstyle, but then again, so what? Why is this an argument against giving more frames innate weapons of their own?

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Actually, they'll still only have 1, this one we have for them is the same one that existed since the beginning of the game, now they're actually getting their own custom one.

And this has been said where, exactly? The only thing I saw showcased was just this one new minigame, with different gameplay from the one we have now, and with specific reference to Alad V.

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

As for the Warframes, sure, why not bring in every new Warframe with one? I mean, funnily enough Hidryn is getting one (that you have to get an Archwing Gun Launcher for) so it's possible. But the difference is that all the other Warframes already exist and would have to have this added to them.

Yes, and?

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

What you and everyone that wants this is talking about is going back through and introducing multiple custom weapons for no other reason than 'it would be cool', which is a pure opinion that the people doing the work may simply not agree with.

Or, conversely, that they may very much agree with. You are in no position to say, because you are not one of the people doing the work. You do not get to speak on those people's behalf. What you can, though, is offer your own feedback and present your own opinion, without having to hide behind the presumption of someone else's.

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Want to step in and do that yourself? Sure, go right ahead, and DE will thank you for helping out and contributing your time. Otherwise, opinion based 'cool' levels aren't a basis for getting a team of professionals to take time out of their day when they could far more aptly use that time for things like actually fixing bad frames and working on new ones.

Sure, right after you step into the London, Ontario offices and personally rework Zephyr yourself. Because that's apparently how feedback works.

But honestly, though, this is one of the most stultifying arguments I've seen on the forums thus far. Apparently, it is not worth suggesting novel, interesting and fun gameplay for a video game in ongoing development, nor is one allowed to provide feedback on the feedback forums unless that feedback passes your personal taste test. You are in absolutely no position to try to bully other people into not giving feedback when you have personally made thread upon thread asking for DE to rework Zephyr, a frame that is by no means among the worst right now. At the end of the day, this once again boils down to you hiding behind DE to pass your own opinions as theirs: this isn't really about DE needing to better spend their time elsewhere, this is about you wanting DE to spend time working only on the issues you care about, and nothing else. As already stated above, DE are demonstrably not masters of optimizing their production pipeline, and after 2018 this fact has become general knowledge, so trotting out that excuse to dismiss any feedback you personally don't agree with is not going to lend you any credibility.

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

My argument boils down to 'there isn't any gain to the majority of players, and there isn't any gain to the people actually doing the work'.

You are not the majority of players. Again, you keep inflating your own opinion here to dangerous degrees with exactly zero substance behind it: I get it, you don't want this change to happen, that doesn't mean that there aren't many more people who do want it, as noted by the many threads and different proposals that keep popping up from different players asking for the same thing. There is absolutely gain to the people doing the work, as warframes are a product, and they'd be increasing the value of their product. Because so many innate weapons already have models on frames, and as evidenced by Garuda's pretty simple innate weapons, it does not take as much added work to include said weapons as producing a brand new one, meaning DE gets to reuse their assets in ways players would accept and enjoy.

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

DE think these other frames work just fine as they are, otherwise they would all be getting reworks and not just Wukong.

Perfect! Clearly, then, that means Zephyr does not, and never will need a rework, and you can stop posting more threads about her. 😉

But seriously though, this argument is inane, not to mention incredibly hypocritical given your history on these forums. DE, like any other video game, has a production pipeline where they tackle issues in sequence, rather than everything at once, so it's rather obvious that they'd focus on reworking a few problem frames at a time, rather than update the whole roster immediately. Moreover, even in the case where DE believes a frame is fine, they also change their minds over time, as noted by the changes to Titania in spite of her fairly recent design. Additionally, a frame need not be in the dumpster for it to be deserving of feedback: whether DE chooses or not to work on that feedback sooner, later or never is up to them, but the feedback itself is worth having at any given time, so it is perfectly valid to give criticism and suggestions to frames that are doing decently, or even well.

Just to pick an example you know well, Zephyr is in a pretty okay state right now, as she received a rework recently, has a place in the game, and is far more functional than before, yet you clearly see fit to ask for more, when frames like Vauban clearly need more urgent work than she does. In the case of this particular thread, though, giving older frames innate weapons isn't a rework, it's a pure optional addition to their gameplay. In this respect, it's much closer to offering an augment to these frames (which happens regularly, despite many of these augments requiring new animations, tech, additional work, etc.), than to reworking them in any capacity.

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

I, personally, would rather that DE bring out these cool weapons as actual weapons, something not exclusive to a Warframe at all, and let us pick and choose which frame to run them with as we do with practically all the others.

They did with the Cobra and Crane. The interaction with Baruuk was so niche and difficult to appreciate that it took over a week after release for people to even notice that it existed. No thanks, if we're going to be doing weapons with particular interaction with frames, you might as well make those weapons innate to said frames. Moreover, what you are proposing in fact reduces the scope of potential options: if Volt is allowed to have literal bolts of pure lightning as an innate weapon, that would make perfect sense on him, but absolutely wouldn't on any other frame. In your proposed system, because every weapon would be expected to work with every frame, such a potentially awesome innate weapon wouldn't even be allowed to exist. 

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Honestly, Garuda's Talons are barely even good... As my opinion, I don't want them putting in all that effort just for something sub-par compared to the already above-par weapons those frames use.

... to you.

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

 As an objective assessment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with these frames not having unique weapons, and it's absolutely fine to have a passive function like Garuda's Talons be an exclusive passive to that frame.

Sure, but why should that be the case? Does Garuda's innate weapon need to be a feature exclusive only to a certain frame? Perhaps you may not be enthusiastic at the idea of having more innate weapons, but that does not justify your enthusiastic opposition to them, particularly as valid arguments have been provided (which you have dismissed out of hand) for their continued inclusion and generalization.

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Alternatively... It would be cool if everyone got Ash's passive, too, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

You think Slash needs a buff?

[Gurpgork]

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

... that's not how options work, though? Loki can play perfectly fine without Irradiating Disarm, for example, but if he equips it and the right mods, he can fulfil an entirely different function, and benefit from entirely new gameplay. Just because Garuda can play without her talons doesn't mean the feature is worthless, as her innate weapon remains flavorful and enjoyable to use.

The difference between Loki with and without Irradiating Disarm is a lot more significant than Garuda with and without her talons. The Talons perform no function that another weapon cannot perform, while Irradiating Disarm fulfills a meaningfully different purpose than unaugmented Disarm. They play exactly the same as the Ripkas and the Venka Prime, only with different stats. That's what makes the function worthless. Being vaguely Garuda flavored isn't a meaningful gameplay difference. 

And while fun is ultimately the purpose of a video game, that doesn't necessarily mean that fun alone is always a good enough reason to add stuff like this. Sure, Garuda's Talons are kinda fun to use, but so is the Arca Titron, and that thing also has some of the best stats in the game to back up how fun it is. And also unlike the Talons, it actually has unique qualities that set it apart from other hammers in a meaningful way beyond just bigger numbers. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

And this is relevant to the point... how?

Because if it's really questionably useful on Garuda, the guinea pig of this mechanic, then why would it be anything more than questionably useful on other Warframes, especially other Warframes that already have weapon mod-scaling abilities? I don't see the reason to get excited about the prospect of Atlas fists, Mesa dual pistols, or an Excalibur sword when Landslide, Peacemaker, and Exalted Blade would do much more work anyway. 

The entire justification for using Garuda's talons starts with "you can" and ends with "they're cool." The one and only unique thing about them is that only Garuda can use them, and that's a straight-up detriment.  

And to reiterate, other weapons in the game are also flavorful and enjoyable to use while being better than Garuda's talons and not being restricted to specific Warframes. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

And this has been said where, exactly?

The current Corpus hacking minigame used to be the standard hacking minigame across all factions until the Grineer one was added to the game. Grineer, Corpus, and Corrupted all shared the same hacking minigame. Now only the Corpus and Corrupted have it. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

You think Slash needs a buff?

The point there isn't "slash should be better," it was more that if "it would be cool" is enough justification to give other Warframes Garuda's passive, then doesn't it follow that "it would be cool" would also be enough justification to justify giving Ash's passive to other Warframes? Sure, it would definitely be cool, but that doesn't automatically make it a good idea. 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Gurpgork

[(XBOX)ParrotTom]

On 2019-02-14 at 11:40 PM, (XB1)ParrotTom said:

Why not? There doesn't really need to be a reason other than that. It's something new, doesn't negatively affect gameplay, adds a little more variety, most likely better than most other weapons in those categories. It's not like it would be a bad thing for characters with built in weapons to be able to use a toned down version out of the associated ability.

Can we not have this topic turn into an argument? I would like to bring this post up as to why.

Would it really be so bad for say Artemis bow to fire like a regular bow when her ult is inactive?

Would it really be so bad for Valkyr to have access to her claws when hers is in active?

Excalibur using his sword like a regular sword when not using his ult? Especially Umbra when his would be on par with or greater than other primed weapons?

None of these additions to frames that have built in weapons would be bad. So why is everyone arguing about this? 'Why not' may be a poor reason, but look at the number of things they added because 'why not'! Captura, wyrmius, tennofighter, archwing weapons OUTSIDE of archwing missions, how about stalker mode when that finally comes around? 'Why not' didn't stop them from adding features that no one uses or asked for.

[Teridax68]

5 hours ago, (XB1)ParrotTom said:

Can we not have this topic turn into an argument? I would like to bring this post up as to why.

Would it really be so bad for say Artemis bow to fire like a regular bow when her ult is inactive?

Would it really be so bad for Valkyr to have access to her claws when hers is in active?

Excalibur using his sword like a regular sword when not using his ult? Especially Umbra when his would be on par with or greater than other primed weapons?

None of these additions to frames that have built in weapons would be bad. So why is everyone arguing about this? 'Why not' may be a poor reason, but look at the number of things they added because 'why not'! Captura, wyrmius, tennofighter, archwing weapons OUTSIDE of archwing missions, how about stalker mode when that finally comes around? 'Why not' didn't stop them from adding features that no one uses or asked for.

This I think sums up most of this discussion. Putting aside how I feel there are legitimate reasons to include innate weapons beyond just "why not", at the end of the day the feature as discussed so far presents no real drawbacks, aside from preventing some people from cheesing Affinity distributions quite as hard on certain frames. It is perfectly valid to not personally see value in innate weapons, or to believe that other features in the game need more urgent work (I 100% agree that there are other things to prioritize first in the current state of the game), but it is utterly weird to take that personal opinion and try to bash everyone else over the head with it in a full-blown argument. If you truly believe that your personal preferences are the only ones that matter and worth catering to, and that everyone else's needs to be silenced if they disagree with yours, then you have utterly failed to understand the very notion of feedback, public forums, and plurality of opinions, and are better off spending your time elsewhere.

8 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

The difference between Loki with and without Irradiating Disarm is a lot more significant than Garuda with and without her talons. The Talons perform no function that another weapon cannot perform, while Irradiating Disarm fulfills a meaningfully different purpose than unaugmented Disarm. They play exactly the same as the Ripkas and the Venka Prime, only with different stats. That's what makes the function worthless. Being vaguely Garuda flavored isn't a meaningful gameplay difference.

I'm sorry, the claws Garuda has on her arms at all times, which she uses as part of her ability set, are only "vaguely Garuda flavored"? The amount of spin being put on this argument is dizzying. At the end of the day, her claws are their own melee weapon, and do happen to have by far the highest attack range among all claw weapons, so the weapon is in fact unique, despite not requiring much effort to make. It's a nice bit of additional flavor and gameplay that players wanted, players got, and players appreciated, which is precisely why there have been so many requests for more innate weapons.

8 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

And while fun is ultimately the purpose of a video game, that doesn't necessarily mean that fun alone is always a good enough reason to add stuff like this. Sure, Garuda's Talons are kinda fun to use, but so is the Arca Titron, and that thing also has some of the best stats in the game to back up how fun it is. And also unlike the Talons, it actually has unique qualities that set it apart from other hammers in a meaningful way beyond just bigger numbers.

This argument is utterly devoid of meaning: what is the actual reason why something fun shouldn't be added to a video game? Sure, the Arca Titron is beautifully designed, but what does that have to do with Garuda's Talons? Why shouldn't they have been added to the game again?

8 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

Because if it's really questionably useful on Garuda, the guinea pig of this mechanic, then why would it be anything more than questionably useful on other Warframes, especially other Warframes that already have weapon mod-scaling abilities? I don't see the reason to get excited about the prospect of Atlas fists, Mesa dual pistols, or an Excalibur sword when Landslide, Peacemaker, and Exalted Blade would do much more work anyway. 

"Questionably useful" how? Of course the weapon's useful, it's a decent melee weapon and it allows players to fulfil the fantasy they got from seeing her of being able to slice people with her claws. The fact that you personally do not see the value in this, or in any other innate weapon, has no bearing on the fact that many players do in fact like the feature and want more of it. Put another way, just because you personally do not see a reason to get excited about all of these potential innate weapons does not mean no reason exists, or that everyone shares your opinion, and it is this fundamental refusal to acknowledge other people's point of view that is at the core of your argumentation.

8 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

The entire justification for using Garuda's talons starts with "you can" and ends with "they're cool." The one and only unique thing about them is that only Garuda can use them, and that's a straight-up detriment.  

... why? Also, this is a flat-out lie, as the weapon looks and feels flavorful to Garuda, despite the minimal work that went into them. Again, you are projecting your own personal preferences regarding Garuda's talons onto everyone else here. You are not wrong to feel whichever way you feel about Garuda or her innate weapons, but that does not entitle you to pretend like everyone else feels the same way you do.

8 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

And to reiterate, other weapons in the game are also flavorful and enjoyable to use while being better than Garuda's talons and not being restricted to specific Warframes.

... to you. Again, this is purely your own opinion, which you are trying to assert as fact. Moreover, the argument is itself logically fallacious: just because flavorful weapons exist that aren't highly specific to a particular warframe does not mean the game cannot have fun, flavorful, frame-exclusive weapons, as noted above already with the example of, say, pure lightning bolts for Volt. It does not take that much imagination to think of weapons that could provide fun and novel gameplay, but that would only really make sense on a particular frame, so there is absolutely a niche worth exploring here.

8 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

The current Corpus hacking minigame used to be the standard hacking minigame across all factions until the Grineer one was added to the game. Grineer, Corpus, and Corrupted all shared the same hacking minigame. Now only the Corpus and Corrupted have it.

So you do not, in fact, have any evidence that even remotely suggests that DE is introducing this new hacking minigame with the intention of having it replace the current Corpus hacking minigame, and make the one we have now exclusive to the Corrupted. Got it.

8 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

The point there isn't "slash should be better," it was more that if "it would be cool" is enough justification to give other Warframes Garuda's passive, then doesn't it follow that "it would be cool" would also be enough justification to justify giving Ash's passive to other Warframes? Sure, it would definitely be cool, but that doesn't automatically make it a good idea. 

Why would it be cool, though? Ash's passive isn't some new item to play with, it's a pure numbers buff to Slash, and unlike innate weapons, there is a distinct reason not to generalize it to all frames, because Slash as it currently exists is already far too strong, and buffing it would make the game even more unbalanced. Adding new innate weapons, by contrast, would not unbalance the entire game, and the fact that they'd be restricted to individual frames means they'd actually be easier to balance than all other weapons, as even the most OP innate weapon wouldn't become meta on all other frames.

[Scruffel]

Wait, why do certain Warframes need innate weapons? I'm not talking in the sense in that they have drawbacks nor would not add anything, I'm talking about how is this a need? At most, I see this less as substantial feedback more as some sort of 'want' or request.

If DE is going to add something to the game, and the only supporting argument towards what someone wants is a 'Why not?', then it's probably not worth spending time and resources on due to how little it seems like it would change anything.

[Birdframe_Prime]

My views are not based on just my own opinion. Your constant accusation of me 'over-inflating' my views is laughable because for every thread that's popped up to ask for these, a dozen people have pointed out that the only thing the change would make is extra grind and some flavour that's completely unnecessary to the frame overall. When I say the majority I'm not inflating anything, I'm specifically stating it because it's the observable situation.

And, the point about the Devs is entirely based on answers they themselves have given as reasons for things not happening. The reason why fun, lore additive and flavour functions have not happened is because of the amount of work and how much they're already doing, examples include the Prime Trailers, the metallic colour palettes, the continuation of Solar Rail conflicts and more. The reason that these fun things, some of them simple, some of them not so simple, have not happened is because the Devs do not have the time to dedicate to them, not and keep other updates in development.

And you even seem to have confused Warframes for paid products. Warframe's monetisation is based on the cosmetics and skipping the grind, not on the Warframes themselves, there is no 'product improvement' here, people already go and farm these frames because they want them and no 'passive weapon' is going to affect that in a meaningful way.

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Perfect! Clearly, then, that means Zephyr does not, and never will need a rework, and you can stop posting more threads about her. 😉

Ahahahahahhahaha... Oh, you're actually trying to make this a real point.

Feedback on frames is useful because it can make a frame work better, or point out actual existing flaws in a frame.

As the weapons you want to add are not based on making the frame work better, because they literally won't make any function they already do better, even the argument about 'more options' doesn't hold water, as the opposite can also be argued; if a player doesn't want to take a Melee then being forced to take one is less options. Making equipping a weapon mandatory is less options than having that weapon available in the roster of regular weapons and choosing to have it.

Neither are they based on the frames having a flaw that needs to be fixed, because them not having these weapons is clearly no detriment to them.

The difference between feedback on any given frame and this thread is that actual problems with a warframe can be solved and actual improvements to an under-performing frame can be discussed, while this thread is the 'oh, but I just want it' entitlement of seeing something cool and unique that a frame has and wanting it not to be unique anymore. It helps nothing and solves nothing, because it's in no way a problem if it doesn't happen, while buggy or under-performing frames are a problem because they aren't working as intended.

To be honest, though, most of this argument is just putting up the opposite view to see if there really are valid points that could make this happen. I'm a scientific mind, if you could provide a solid argument in favour, then I would see your point and include that in future discussions myself. And if DE turned around tomorrow and said 'passive weapons for everyone!' in a tweet I genuinely wouldn't care.

But neither you, nor any of the others, have raised any objective reason, in fact barely any subjective reason other than 'we think it would be cool', for the change to happen.

And, as I mentioned earlier, when the only answer to 'why?' is 'why not?' to a personal situation where you're doing the work, then it's motivation, but when the answer is 'why not?' and you aren't the one having to do the work, it's just entitlement.

[Teridax68]

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

My views are not based on just my own opinion. Your constant accusation of me 'over-inflating' my views is laughable because for every thread that's popped up to ask for these, a dozen people have pointed out that the only thing the change would make is extra grind and some flavour that's completely unnecessary to the frame overall. When I say the majority I'm not inflating anything, I'm specifically stating it because it's the observable situation.

You are not a dozen people, and not even half that amount has opposed the change proposed here. Moreover, for whichever dozen people stay here to oppose the thread each time it gets posted, there are dozens more posts coming from many different players making the exact same request. None of this, by the way, does anything to discount the fact that you are still arguing from opinion, as you are not providing any concrete basis from your arguments other than your own feelings, feelings that are inevitably shared by a select few others. You do not even have a consensus, you simply have a tiny number of people who happen to agree with you, unless you somehow believe twelve is a significant portion of Warframe's playerbase.

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

And, the point about the Devs is entirely based on answers they themselves have given as reasons for things not happening. The reason why fun, lore additive and flavour functions have not happened is because of the amount of work and how much they're already doing, examples include the Prime Trailers, the metallic colour palettes, the continuation of Solar Rail conflicts and more. The reason that these fun things, some of them simple, some of them not so simple, have not happened is because the Devs do not have the time to dedicate to them, not and keep other updates in development.

In which case it should be easy to point to wherever the devs said it would be too much work to add more innate weapons. Which you haven't done. As said above, the devs do work hard, but they visibly spend plenty of time working on non-essential features, as noted by the new hacking minigame, so your argument by assertion here has already been answered multiple times in this thread.

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

And you even seem to have confused Warframes for paid products. Warframe's monetisation is based on the cosmetics and skipping the grind, not on the Warframes themselves, there is no 'product improvement' here, people already go and farm these frames because they want them and no 'passive weapon' is going to affect that in a meaningful way.

Warframes literally can be brought for Platinum though. They are a part of Warframe's sales model, and a major one at that. I don't think I'm the one getting confused here. Moreover, the claim that innate weapons would add no value to frames is not only itself pure, unsubstantiated opinion, but is itself a lie, as noted by the success of Garuda's innate weapons and the many requests it has generated for follow-ups.

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Ahahahahahhahaha... Oh, you're actually trying to make this a real point.

Feedback on frames is useful because it can make a frame work better, or point out actual existing flaws in a frame.

So then why oppose innate weapons? This is, after all, feedback on frames that could make them work better. Your argument here is completely hypocritical.

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

As the weapons you want to add are not based on making the frame work better, because they literally won't make any function they already do better, even the argument about 'more options' doesn't hold water, as the opposite can also be argued; if a player doesn't want to take a Melee then being forced to take one is less options. Making equipping a weapon mandatory is less options than having that weapon available in the roster of regular weapons and choosing to have it.

I'm sorry, what's stopping an innate weapon from making a frame work better? You are lying here once again by making outlandish claims that can be easily disproven, again as noted by current examples. Also, if you don't want to use a melee weapon, simply do not use Garuda's talons, or the equivalent. No one is forcing you to press the melee button, and you don't even have a loss in aesthetics, as Garuda has her claws on regardless. You are grasping at straws here and desperately relying on a non-argument to pretend like innate weapons have drawbacks.

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Neither are they based on the frames having a flaw that needs to be fixed, because them not having these weapons is clearly no detriment to them.

Suggesting fixes to flaws is not the total extent of frame feedback, and you know this. This is why your own Zephyr threads not only aim to fix her perceived flaws, but make her feel better to play by whichever standard you have set. Once more, the suggestion for innate weapons falls very much under the same umbrella, and trying to create this artificial distinction between two perfectly valid pieces of feedback undermines your credibility not only on this thread, but for your own proposals regarding Zephyr, as all the criticisms you are laying out here could easily be applied to your own feedback.

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

The difference between feedback on any given frame and this thread is that actual problems with a warframe can be solved and actual improvements to an under-performing frame can be discussed, while this thread is the 'oh, but I just want it' entitlement of seeing something cool and unique that a frame has and wanting it not to be unique anymore. It helps nothing and solves nothing, because it's in no way a problem if it doesn't happen, while buggy or under-performing frames are a problem because they aren't working as intended.

I'm sorry, where exactly has any player expressed entitlement towards innate weapons? Where has any player claimed here that they were entitled to this feature any more than any other form of feedback? Once again, you are lying here, and relying on tired dog whistles to frame those whose feedback you disagree with as "entitled", all while claiming that you yourself are entitled to DE's attention and effort towards a frame that is nowhere near at the top of the rework priority list. Moreover, there is discussion to be had, and this discussion could in fact have a chance to be even more interesting if you were to refrain from questioning the very concept of feedback when it comes from someone other than yourself. There's plenty of room to discuss how this could be implemented, how to address whichever concerns some players may have regarding their implementation, which weapons different frames could have, which gameplay these weapons could provide, and so on. Once again, it is perfectly valid to not like the idea, but your aggressive, vocally minoritary opposition to this suggestion is the reason why discussion has not moved beyond justifying the basic fact that players are free to give feedback, and you do not get to police them based on your own personal agenda. You are not entitled to gatekeep the Warframe forums, nor are you entitled to DE's special attention over any other player.

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

To be honest, though, most of this argument is just putting up the opposite view to see if there really are valid points that could make this happen. I'm a scientific mind, if you could provide a solid argument in favour, then I would see your point and include that in future discussions myself. And if DE turned around tomorrow and said 'passive weapons for everyone!' in a tweet I genuinely wouldn't care.

Except many arguments have already been provided on this thread, and you are visibly far too emotionally compromised in this argument to even pretend to play devil's advocate. It is not demonstrative of a scientific mind to lie and deliberately engage in fallacious rhetoric to argue one's point, or to ignore evidence clearly presented in front of oneself when it does not suit one's personal opinions. If you truly did not care, you would not have spent this much time repeating the same tired arguments over and over again, and drafting a storm in a teacup all to silence the mere possibility of suggesting this sort of change, let alone its implementation.

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

But neither you, nor any of the others, have raised any objective reason, in fact barely any subjective reason other than 'we think it would be cool', for the change to happen.

I don't think you understand what "objective" means. I raised the very simple point that innate weapons can satisfy thematic and gameplay niches for weapons that wouldn't be appropriate to every frame, and cited the example of thunderbolts for Volt. You may not find the idea of throwing bolts of lightning personally interesting, but the fact remains that this is a clear example of a weapon that would be appropriate as an innate weapon, but not as a general weapon. Thus, there is objectively a currently unexplored niche for weapons that innate weapons can fulfil, but general weapons cannot. Beyond this, many more arguments have been given as to why there is value to having these innate weapons, as noted by the popularity of the suggestion itself, so your repeated, desperate pretense here that only a single argument was uttered in their favor is itself an easily disproven lie. Again, if you're such "a scientific mind", why do you feel the need to lie so often and so brazenly in this argument?

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

And, as I mentioned earlier, when the only answer to 'why?' is 'why not?' to a personal situation where you're doing the work, then it's motivation, but when the answer is 'why not?' and you aren't the one having to do the work, it's just entitlement.

I don't think you understand what entitlement means. To be clear, entitlement is when one feels one is owed something: in this particular case, while there are certainly players who have suggested innate weapons on frames, and who'd very much like to see them happen, exactly no-one here has expressed the notion that DE somehow owes it to them to make these weapons. Once more, this is a double standard you are drawing here between your own feedback and everyone else's that is not only dishonest, but dangerous, as it is founded upon a fundamental disrespect for others and their opinions. As mentioned above, this is the absolute last thing one needs on a feedback forum, and your behavior here has been visibly detrimental to any productive discussion.

9 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Wait, why do certain Warframes need innate weapons? I'm not talking in the sense in that they have drawbacks nor would not add anything, I'm talking about how is this a need? At most, I see this less as substantial feedback more as some sort of 'want' or request.

When has anyone said that this was a need? More generally, what is a need in Warframe? To you or me, Vauban certainly needs a rework if he is to become viable, for example, but in the grand scheme of things, if Vauban were to never receive any changes in the future, and Warframe puttered on while leaving him to rot, the game as a whole would still do just fine. Thus, there is no need at the game level for any one frame to receive changes, at least not in the game's current state. Framing the validity of any sort of feedback in terms of wants vs. need is therefore pointless, but also disingenuous, as few other threads here are held to this same standard, not to mention dangerous, as this sort of mentality can be and is easily weaponized to dismiss any feedback one personally doesn't like, as evidenced by some users in this very thread.

9 hours ago, Scruffel said:

If DE is going to add something to the game, and the only supporting argument towards what someone wants is a 'Why not?', then it's probably not worth spending time and resources on due to how little it seems like it would change anything.

And yet DE is spending time on a new hacking minigame no-one needs, and has expended considerable amounts of effort throughout the whole of the game's development on features that were in no way necessary. We did not need relays populated with denizens of Cetus or Fortuna, nor did we need the Grineer on the radio, or any of the seasonal decorations that can be bought for one credit, all of which took modeling work, and in some cases sound design. The Earth tileset did not need plantlife covering the ground, our ships did not need a somachord capable of playing the game's soundtrack on command for free, and Garuda did not need her talons as a bespoke melee weapon. Yet here we are.

Put simply, the notion that DE is laser-focused on only delivering essential content that we need the most is a myth, and always has been. For sure, DE works hard, some projects are more urgent than others, and some suggestions would take more work to implement than others, but at the end of the day, the devs have been expending considerable effort on a regular basis to deliver us content that is cool, for the sake of cool content rather than immediate monetization. It is, in fact, one of the major reasons why Warframe is so well-loved by the community, because DE will take the time to deliver cool ideas because hey, why not? Why not have pet cats and a pump-action shotgun? Why not have a dedicated photography tool and a whole slew of intricate Dojo decorations? Even if the only argument in favor of frame-specific weapons was "why not?", that would still be a valid argument. The real question to ask here is: why are a vocal minority of people applying this exceptionally stringent standard to this one particular type of suggestion, and not to every other one being made in this space?

This isn't to say that "why not?" is the only argument in favor, by the way. If you scroll up on this thread, or even just this post, there are plenty more reasons to support the inclusion of more innate weapons in the game. Within the set of all possible things that can be implemented as a fun and interesting weapon, only a partial subset of those are covered by our current, general weapons. If you want to include, say, missiles of pure flame, bolts of pure lightning, or simply weapons protruding from a specific frame's body, that's not really going to work for everyone, only one specific warframe. To refuse to include more innate weapons in Warframe is to refuse to ever include these sorts of weapons, and that begs the question: why? Why should we not have these weapons in Warframe? Why should the game limit itself by not even considering their inclusion?

[Scruffel]

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

When has anyone said that this was a need? More generally, what is a need in Warframe? To you or me, Vauban certainly needs a rework if he is to become viable, for example, but in the grand scheme of things, if Vauban were to never receive any changes in the future, and Warframe puttered on while leaving him to rot, the game as a whole would still do just fine. Thus, there is no need at the game level for any one frame to receive changes, at least not in the game's current state. Framing the validity of any sort of feedback in terms of wants vs. need is therefore pointless, but also disingenuous, as few other threads here are held to this same standard, not to mention dangerous, as this sort of mentality can be and is easily weaponized to dismiss any feedback one personally doesn't like, as evidenced by some users in this very thread.

Wait, you say that I am promoting a dangerous mentality for simply questioning the importance of an addition of innate weapons, yet; that's all I did? I wasn't trying to diminish the discussion, I was trying to extend it. Also nice job dodging the question I was asking, by asking even more questions. But fine, I will answer yours.

Now, technically no one has said this is a need, but considering how this thread within a feedback section, you should probably realize that you are technically proposing ideas towards the developers. And as a developer, I wouldn't want to listen to someone that's simply making requests and wishes, I would want to listen to constructive feedback that gives me somewhere to work and improve on. That's why this thread barely has any weight to it, because there isn't really a point for this feature to be added at all. If this thread were to go into details the different ways on how this could significantly benefit Warframes, then sure I would agree. But it didn't do that. And a need is Warframe is pretty simple: objective problems that are found within the game that need fixing and attention brought to. Yes, reworks count as them, because people want to play certain Warframes but can't when they are not at their best potential.

Speaking of rework and potential, there actually would be an impact on not changing Vauban. The player count for Vauban would drop, the amount of people spending Forma and Plat (and even TennoGen items) towards him would drop, and his relevancy and importance within the meta would continuously drop. All of these things are not beneficial to DE at all, and I really do hope they address the current issues with some Warframes.

Also I like you are trying to say that you shouldn't diminish the points brought up by other people simply because you don't like them, yet you are literally doing it here:

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

You are not a dozen people, and not even half that amount has opposed the change proposed here. Moreover, for whichever dozen people stay here to oppose the thread each time it gets posted, there are dozens more posts coming from many different players making the exact same request. None of this, by the way, does anything to discount the fact that you are still arguing from opinion, as you are not providing any concrete basis from your arguments other than your own feelings, feelings that are inevitably shared by a select few others. You do not even have a consensus, you simply have a tiny number of people who happen to agree with you, unless you somehow believe twelve is a significant portion of Warframe's playerbase.

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

And yet DE is spending time on a new hacking minigame no-one needs, and has expended considerable amounts of effort throughout the whole of the game's development on features that were in no way necessary. We did not need relays populated with denizens of Cetus or Fortuna, nor did we need the Grineer on the radio, or any of the seasonal decorations that can be bought for one credit, all of which took modeling work, and in some cases sound design. The Earth tileset did not need plantlife covering the ground, our ships did not need a somachord capable of playing the game's soundtrack on command for free, and Garuda did not need her talons as a bespoke melee weapon. Yet here we are.

Okay let me address all of these points cause I feel like you missed the point:

1. The new hacking mini-game seems to be connected towards the new Gas tileset, which in general is going to bring new enemy types, new parkour mechanics, new mods, new missions, and that hacking mini-game is a small part to it. In fact, they had addressed that they wanted to change hacking back in a Devstream, so are you trying to say that DE has no idea what they are doing then?

2. The Cetus and Fortuna relays are meant to not only world build (as with many locations), but also allow access to many different people that serve multiple purposes (fishing, mining, conservation, kitguns/zaws). It's not meant to just look pretty, because there's clearly a purpose to it. You could also say the same with the relays in general, yet they have very clear purposes.

3. The radio and seasonal decorations could have taken any amount of time that could have been taken on them, the same could be said about the Halloween events or even the seasonal color palettes. And plus, it should very clear by now that DE literally isn't working on one single thing at a time (and yes I'll explain later why this is different when it comes to Warframes). Also, the radio is clearly meant to add some small world building. Right now there clearly seems to be something important going on with it too.

4. Okay, and? You could say that about a lot of tilesets. Sea Lab tilesets dont need water in them, Gas tilesets dont need gas around it, Shipyard tilesets dont need scrap metal and conveyor belts, Infested ship tilesets dont mutations all around them. Why not just make every single faction location look the exact same while we are at it? If that's not what you meant, then why complain about it?

5. Yeah, the somachard... the thing that was included alongside mostly everything else in the Persona Quarters? I guess we also don't need that too right?

Look, if you're only argument against thing that already exist is "Oh we didn't need them" for something that is not in the game, then it raises two issues. It's inferring that all the work that DE did before was useless and didn't add to nothing (which probably isn't constructive at all). And it also mean that DE should add every single thing that the community request because 'it would be fun and neat'?. If you answer to any of these questions are no, then the same answer could be also assumed what DE's response may be towards this. Now you may say, "But, Garuda didn't need her Talons at all".

That's where we bring up developer intention. Maybe it was always intended that Garuda was meant to use her claws, just like how many things are intended to be created for in this game. If the developer did not intend for something to happen, then it could be the cause of two things: neglect or lack of intervention. More Warframes not having innate weapons, is due to how the developer neglected that idea at the time. So why should they go back and change things they did not intend to add in the first place? It's not a bug nor major issue, it's a flavor addition at most.

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Put simply, the notion that DE is laser-focused on only delivering essential content that we need the most is a myth, and always has been. For sure, DE works hard, some projects are more urgent than others, and some suggestions would take more work to implement than others, but at the end of the day, the devs have been expending considerable effort on a regular basis to deliver us content that is cool, for the sake of cool content rather than immediate monetization. It is, in fact, one of the major reasons why Warframe is so well-loved by the community, because DE will take the time to deliver cool ideas because hey, why not? Why not have pet cats and a pump-action shotgun? Why not have a dedicated photography tool and a whole slew of intricate Dojo decorations? Even if the only argument in favor of frame-specific weapons was "why not?", that would still be a valid argument. The real question to ask here is: why are a vocal minority of people applying this exceptionally stringent standard to this one particular type of suggestion, and not to every other one being made in this space?

Well just like you brought up all of the other things that apparently wasn't necessary for DE to create things, I could just simply make a counter point of "Well they didn't need to make this at all". "Why not" is not a valid argument just because DE has made things you considered to have been things they just wanted to create for no reason. There's nothing to refute within the statement, so trying to make it seem like a valid point is void. I could just continuously say "But why though?" and no one would progress at all in any way because there's nothing to advance further with such a small statement. Also again, demeaning the opinion of others by trying to make it seem lesser and weak in comparison is not needed. I could quite literally say the exact same thing about your opinion (even without evidence) and claim ignorance. Again, nobody advances nor benefits. It's pointless to bring up.

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

This isn't to say that "why not?" is the only argument in favor, by the way. If you scroll up on this thread, or even just this post, there are plenty more reasons to support the inclusion of more innate weapons in the game. Within the set of all possible things that can be implemented as a fun and interesting weapon, only a partial subset of those are covered by our current, general weapons. If you want to include, say, missiles of pure flame, bolts of pure lightning, or simply weapons protruding from a specific frame's body, that's not really going to work for everyone, only one specific warframe. To refuse to include more innate weapons in Warframe is to refuse to ever include these sorts of weapons, and that begs the question: why? Why should we not have these weapons in Warframe? Why should the game limit itself by not even considering their inclusion?

The only claims towards innate weapons are "it's possible" and "it would be cool and fun". That could literally be said for quite honestly anything. Again, if there's no substance at all to the point being made, then it's probably not a good point. People have already addressed why these weapons are not necessary, because they are not necessary at all. I am not going to be repeating myself nor should anyone else, but if you want to repeat the same counterpoints over then over again, fine. But I will say one thing:

The game is not being limited for not having innate weapons for Warframes, you are the one applying this limit to the game because you don't have what you want. And if you continue to argue for it without bringing evidence for it's necessity, I'm sorry but that is entitlement. Having the feeling that something should be added just because it's possible.

[Gurpgork]

I think what I’m not understanding about the pro side of this debate is why adding a handful of new weapons with the very heavy restriction that they can only be used on a single Warframe is a big step forward for player choice and build diversity. With almost 40 Warframes, that’s like 3% of the roster that can actually use each of these weapons. That doesn’t strike me as opening a world of new avenues. 

I think what would add overall more interest and diversity to the game would be new Warframe passives with totally new interactions with specific weapon types. It would be an idea using Excal’s passive or Mesa’s passive as a starting point as opposed to Garuda’s, but going much further. 

Like one potential example would be changing Mesa’s passive so that you could equip a secondary weapon in her melee slot. Another might be making Octavia have higher headshot damage with silent weapons, but faster movement while wielding loud weapons, as an outlandish and unrefined idea.

Flavor and interest are worthwhile goals, but I would see a system of favored weapons to be superior to innate weapons for accomplishing it. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

You may not find the idea of throwing bolts of lightning personally interesting, but the fact remains that this is a clear example of a weapon that would be appropriate as an innate weapon, but not as a general weapon.

I kinda feel the other way around on this. Getting some kind of energy gauntlet where we could throw lightning bolts or fireballs instead of using a gun would be an awesome addition to the game. It would open up an entire new avenue and would potentially totally change the feel of gunplay while you’re using it. It would make a true “mage” playstyle feel possible in this game in a way it’s never been before. It could even have an alt fire that consumed energy and behaved like a fifth ability in some ways. It’s an awesome idea with tons of possibilities. 

So why in the world would you take something so potentially innovative and interesting and saddle it with the tremendous restriction that you can only use it while you’re playing Volt? That restriction isn’t necessarily even super thematic, because the entire game revolves around strange new blends of sci fi and fantasy, so some kind of techno-magic gauntlet that lets other Warframes throw lightning bolts wouldn’t inherently be out of place in the game. And even if specifically making it lightning would step on Volt’s toes too much, then it could do something besides lightning instead. 

I’m just opposed to taking something as potentially far reaching and innovative as a “mage weapon” and turning it into a gimmick that only one or two Warframes can use. 

[Birdframe_Prime]

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

There's plenty of room to discuss how this could be implemented, how to address whichever concerns some players may have regarding their implementation

How isn't the issue, it's why. The why from anyone here is pure opinion on aesthetic and that's just not a valid reason to do it over, say, adding in a weapon that more frames can use.

Plus, you're flat out accusing me of lying when nothing I've said is untrue. For example, one of my arguments against them is that they don't make frames better, you call me a liar because I'm somehow implying that they are stopping a frame from being better, when that's not what I said at all. I said they don't make the frame better, not that they stop it from being better, and the reason is that even with the example we do have, the innate weapons don't actually add anything there either.

Garuda's claws don't add anything to her other than aesthetic and an extra melee weapon to level. They don't play into her kit, don't interact with anything she does, are modded exactly the same as other claw weapons rather than having any function like an Ability Weapon would, and don't even have a unique function (which other weapons do for their own flavour).

And your other accusations are just as ridiculous, you're twisting my words to claim I'm lying and it's transparent.

There is no objective reason to give Garuda's passive to other frames when they have their own passives and Ability Weapons. And more importantly there is nothing wrong with letting her passive stay unique to her.

4 minutes ago, Gurpgork said:

I kinda feel the other way around on this. Getting some kind of energy gauntlet where we could throw lightning bolts or fireballs instead of using a gun would be an awesome addition to the game.

I agree, but I'll also note that it ignores the fact that we do have a gun that shoots lightning bolts in game already... and gauntlets that shoot radioactive balls of plasma or beams of fire... So variants of those are completely possible, and would then be used on any frame, although could have unique functions when used by a specific frame, just like Baruuk's signature weapon has a little bonus when he uses it, but other frames can equip it too.

[Teridax68]

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Wait, you say that I am promoting a dangerous mentality for simply questioning the importance of an addition of innate weapons, yet; that's all I did? I wasn't trying to diminish the discussion, I was trying to extend it. Also nice job dodging the question I was asking, by asking even more questions. But fine, I will answer yours.

But I answered the question rather clearly: innate weapons aren't a need, but that does not diminish their value as a suggestion, and there is so little prospective new content that qualifies as a real need in Warframe that applying such a criterion for validity makes strictly no sense, and at worse devalues the near-entirety of feedback being made on this space (hence why it's a dangerous mentality to go about on a feedback forum). As evidenced by the body of your post here, you did not come to this thread innocently just to ask questions, you came here with your mind already made up, and an agenda to push, so you don't get to play coy here either. 

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Now, technically no one has said this is a need, but considering how this thread within a feedback section, you should probably realize that you are technically proposing ideas towards the developers. And as a developer, I wouldn't want to listen to someone that's simply making requests and wishes, I would want to listen to constructive feedback that gives me somewhere to work and improve on.

Then it is good you are not a developer, then, because your idea of what does, or rather doesn't qualify as constructive feedback is now the way developers operate when taking in player feedback. As said several times now already on this thread, DE has taken plenty of time to implement "requests and wishes", which is one of the reasons why they are known for being among the best at communicating with their playerbase. Moreover, the suggestions made here have indeed been constructive: constructive feedback aims to present opportunities for improvement, which the proposal for innate weapons covers, and many arguments have been made in their favor, which you seem to have conspicuously ignored. If this thread were to, say, bash the developers, or simply claim that the game had no problems and does not ever need to change no matter what, neither of those things would be constructive feedback.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

That's why this thread barely has any weight to it, because there isn't really a point for this feature to be added at all.

There it is. Once again, you are visibly not here to promote discussion, you're here to silence it: just because you personally do not see a point to this feature, this apparently means this feature has no point at all, and all the people who indeed see value in innate weapons (which includes DE themselves, as shown with Garuda and now Hildryn) somehow don't count, at least not in the face of your personal opinions.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

If this thread were to go into details the different ways on how this could significantly benefit Warframes, then sure I would agree. But it didn't do that. And a need is Warframe is pretty simple: objective problems that are found within the game that need fixing and attention brought to. Yes, reworks count as them, because people want to play certain Warframes but can't when they are not at their best potential.

Except it did:

8 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

I raised the very simple point that innate weapons can satisfy thematic and gameplay niches for weapons that wouldn't be appropriate to every frame, and cited the example of thunderbolts for Volt. You may not find the idea of throwing bolts of lightning personally interesting, but the fact remains that this is a clear example of a weapon that would be appropriate as an innate weapon, but not as a general weapon. Thus, there is objectively a currently unexplored niche for weapons that innate weapons can fulfil, but general weapons cannot. Beyond this, many more arguments have been given as to why there is value to having these innate weapons, as noted by the popularity of the suggestion itself

So you are, quite simply, flat-out lying, and being wilfully ignorant of arguments presented on this very thread. Moreover, your definition for what qualifies as a "need" in Warframe is laughably stilted, not to mention unsupported: by your own definition, a massive overhaul to a frame that's already doing fine would somehow be more necessary to the game than a piece of content that satisfies an unfulfilled niche in high player demand, because according to you proposals are necessary to Warframe if and only if they aim to change existing content. This arbitrary definition holds no water, and is visibly self-serving.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Speaking of rework and potential, there actually would be an impact on not changing Vauban. The player count for Vauban would drop, the amount of people spending Forma and Plat (and even TennoGen items) towards him would drop, and his relevancy and importance within the meta would continuously drop. All of these things are not beneficial to DE at all, and I really do hope they address the current issues with some Warframes.

Zero times zero is still zero. Less facetiously, though, Vauban has so few players that the prospective loss of their money is almost bound to be far less than the prospective gains to be had from putting resources that'd be used to rework him into developing cool, new, monetizable content, or simply catering even more to popular frames. Thus, there is a perfectly valid monetary argument to be made for ignoring Vauban forever, and instead devoting resources towards stuff that sells. In fact, this same argument could be used to justify innate weapons, if these make frames more likely to sell (and I'd argue that Garuda's claws, or at least their thematic, is one of her selling points). This is the danger that comes with arguing out of pure necessity: if you want to act like DE should only put resources into stuff that can be directly monetized for optimal returns, that's fine, but be prepared to see content you love get forgotten simply because there's better use for the developers' time elsewhere. More generally, the issue of exclusively addressing top-priority tasks to the starvation of everything else is one of the most basic problems in any kind of resource allocation, which is why intelligent pipelining involves taking time to address less important tasks alongside the higher-priority ones.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Also I like you are trying to say that you shouldn't diminish the points brought up by other people simply because you don't like them, yet you are literally doing it here:

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

And this is hypocritical... why? As clearly stated in the very paragraph you quoted, my point was exactly what you've been saying: no-one's opinion is inherently more valuable than anyone else's, which means that nobody gets to pretend like they count as a one-man consensus. The fact that this user has two others agreeing with them on this specific thread, one among dozens of threads making the same proposal and receiving support from many more people, also means they also have no right to pretend that there is a consensus against this sort of idea. I am not dismissing this person's opinion out of hand, I am in fact including it as one alongside my own, and have repeatedly taken pains to explain how it is perfectly valid to dislike the suggestion being made here. What I take issue with, has been with the attempts to bully the OP and people who agree with them into silence by telling them they shouldn't even give feedback on a feedback forum.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Okay let me address all of these points cause I feel like you missed the point:

1. The new hacking mini-game seems to be connected towards the new Gas tileset, which in general is going to bring new enemy types, new parkour mechanics, new mods, new missions, and that hacking mini-game is a small part to it. In fact, they had addressed that they wanted to change hacking back in a Devstream, so are you trying to say that DE has no idea what they are doing then?

Where did I say that DE had no idea what they were doing? You are deliberately misconstruing my point here: the very simple argument I'm making is that this new hacking minigame is entirely unnecessary to the game, because we already have a hacking minigame for the Corpus, and there is no precedent for a bespoke hacking minigame for just one tileset. In fact, the entirety of the Corpus Gas City tileset rework is unnecessary in face of how the current tileset is one of the better-made ones for parkour already. To be clear, my point isn't that DE shouldn't be working on this content, as I absolutely love what I've seen of all this new content and look very much forward to playing it (including the new hacking minigame): rather, my point is that DE is demonstrably able and willing to put tons of work into stuff the game doesn't strictly need, simply because it would be fun for us players, so we shouldn't pretend like they only focus on what's strictly necessary. This also seems to be a point you are very deliberately trying to dodge, as for all your laundry list of the content being introduced with this tileset rework, you have utterly failed to explain why even a single one of these features would be necessary, let alone what the game needs the most right now.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

2. The Cetus and Fortuna relays are meant to not only world build (as with many locations), but also allow access to many different people that serve multiple purposes (fishing, mining, conservation, kitguns/zaws). It's not meant to just look pretty, because there's clearly a purpose to it. You could also say the same with the relays in general, yet they have very clear purposes.

And the same could thus be said of innate weapons, which have a purpose by dint of being weapons, and would contribute to the flavor, theme and gameplay of warframes. Moreover, you have completely misunderstood me: I'm not talking about Cetus or Fortuna, I'm talking about our standard Tenno relays finding themselves populated with Ostrons and Solaris. This addition did not need to happen, because Cetus and Fortuna already do that worldbuilding, but it was nonetheless a welcome addition that players enjoyed, regardless of the work it took. For all the excuses you're conjuring up here, everywhere you look in Warframe there is an example that can be cited of the devs adding stuff for the sake of a cooler and more fun game, and not out of immediate necessity.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

3. The radio and seasonal decorations could have taken any amount of time that could have been taken on them, the same could be said about the Halloween events or even the seasonal color palettes. And plus, it should very clear by now that DE literally isn't working on one single thing at a time (and yes I'll explain later why this is different when it comes to Warframes). Also, the radio is clearly meant to add some small world building. Right now there clearly seems to be something important going on with it too.

You are grasping at straws here, and very obviously trying to dodge the point by writing a whole lot of stuff that says nothing in the end: say what you want, the fact remains that DE put time and resources into developing seasonal content that a) isn't strictly necessary to the game, b) doesn't contribute to monetization when it can be purchased for 1 credit, and c) doesn't even contribute to worldbuilding, unless you're willing to argue for the worldbuilding value of silly rabbit ears and pumpkin helmets. Moreover, you are using "worldbuilding" so liberally here as an excuse to justify any piece of superfluous content that it could be used to justify anything: case in point, innate weapons could absolutely contribute to worldbuilding by expanding upon warframes, developing upon their thematic, and offering a feel of the in-game universe that pure abilities alone may not be able to cover.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

4. Okay, and? You could say that about a lot of tilesets. Sea Lab tilesets dont need water in them, Gas tilesets dont need gas around it, Shipyard tilesets dont need scrap metal and conveyor belts, Infested ship tilesets dont mutations all around them. Why not just make every single faction location look the exact same while we are at it? If that's not what you meant, then why complain about it?

Because I wanted you to say exactly what you said here, and thus prove my point. Make no mistake: I am absolutely, 100% in favor of content that is strictly not necessary to the game, that is in fact one of my central arguments, which is why I have just demonstrated to you that there is indeed value in adding features to a game that cannot be said to be strictly necessary. I absolutely love all of the features I brought up, which is precisely why I cited them as examples of content that is unnecessary, by your own standards, yet still valuable (in my opinion, at least, though many players seem to agree with me). Put another way: you are wrong to argue that the game should only include content that is deemed necessary, and argue against the inclusion of frame-specific weapons because of it, as the rationale you are using is absurd and leads to exactly the kind of ridiculous situation you have been so kind as to mention.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

5. Yeah, the somachard... the thing that was included alongside mostly everything else in the Persona Quarters? I guess we also don't need that too right?

No, we don't. We do not need the Somachord at all. We could easily just listen to the game's soundtrack on some site instead. The Somachord was not a necessary addition to Warframe, yet in my opinion, and presumably yours too, it was still a valuable addition. The same goes for many other non-monetized features that came with our Personal Quarters, like the Ludoplex, Frame Fighter (which arguably ended up not contributing that much to the game), articulas, and so on. Once again, I am applying your own logic here to show exactly what kind of a game you'd end up having if one followed it to the end. Warframe may not need that much content in the immediate, but all of this "unnecessary" content has contributed significantly to the game's enduring value in the bigger picture. The same can be argued for innate weapons on frames, due to the unique contributions they can bring to a frame's theme, gameplay, and general fantasy.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Look, if you're only argument against thing that already exist is "Oh we didn't need them" for something that is not in the game, then it raises two issues. It's inferring that all the work that DE did before was useless and didn't add to nothing (which probably isn't constructive at all).

And considering how this is a direct application of your own rationale, this inference comes from you, not me. It is impressive to see you destroy your own argument so thoroughly here: once more, I am 100% in favor of all of these "unnecessary" features, as I think almost all of them have been tremendously valuable to the game and my enjoyment of it, and would therefore call them useful. These are not, however, features that would pass under the standards you are setting for the purpose of this particular thread, because according to you on this thread, a feature is worth having only insofar as it is needed. 

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

And it also mean that DE should add every single thing that the community request because 'it would be fun and neat'?. If you answer to any of these questions are no, then the same answer could be also assumed what DE's response may be towards this. Now you may say, "But, Garuda didn't need her Talons at all".

I'm sorry, what should we be assuming from DE here? Why? Of course we shouldn't satisfy every single community requests on the mere basis that some would find them "fun and neat", because some of the suggestions made are detrimental to the game: a player might find it "fun and neat" to turn Warframe into a mobile tower defense game, but that is obviously not something most of the playerbase would want, because that's not the game we primarily want to play when we play Warframe. Similarly, a player might find it "fun and neat" to add a self-insert warframe to the game with eyes, a mouth and coherent speech, made up entirely of anime references, yet that is likely not something DE would want to add, because that would completely break with the aesthetic that they have set so far for their warframes (this is also why DE have refrained from adding more skins with the same aesthetic as Nova Visage, despite its immense success, as it breaks with the visual and thematic direction they've set for the rest of the game). There are valid reasons to not include every player suggestion ever made. However, no such justification has so far been given to oppose including more frame-specific weapons in the game; instead, you have simply tried to dismiss the proposal under the implication that, as a feature that wasn't immediately necessary to the game, it was not worth adding, which has led to the above logical conclusion of such a wrong-headed approach.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

That's where we bring up developer intention. Maybe it was always intended that Garuda was meant to use her claws, just like how many things are intended to be created for in this game. If the developer did not intend for something to happen, then it could be the cause of two things: neglect or lack of intervention. More Warframes not having innate weapons, is due to how the developer neglected that idea at the time. So why should they go back and change things they did not intend to add in the first place? It's not a bug nor major issue, it's a flavor addition at most.

So you bring up developer intention... just to say that you have no idea what the developers' intentions are? Why even bring them up, then? Moreover, your argument here makes exactly no sense, as Garuda's innate weapon was visibly a new feature the developers had tried out, with immense success, not the product of years of retroactive neglect. Moreover, while it is impossible to guess the developers' intentions, from the looks of it they're perfectly happy with giving frames bespoke weapons, as evidenced by Baruuk and now Hildryn: put another way, literally every single new frame since Garuda whose kit we've seen has been given an exclusive weapon, and yet here you are, stuck over a year in the past, still trying to act like frame-specific weapons are somehow rare, unprecedented, or unsuccessful.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Well just like you brought up all of the other things that apparently wasn't necessary for DE to create things, I could just simply make a counter point of "Well they didn't need to make this at all".

But they did, and you clearly see value in their additions. Thus, you are clearly exercising a double standard when it comes to judging the suggestion of innate weapons on frames, as opposed to literally any other piece of new content in Warframe.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

"Why not" is not a valid argument just because DE has made things you considered to have been things they just wanted to create for no reason. There's nothing to refute within the statement, so trying to make it seem like a valid point is void.

... why? It is your own argument here that is vacuous, as the premise is false (I never assumed DE created content "for no reason", and I challenge you to quote me on that), and the mode of reasoning nonexistent (why is this statement unfalsifiable? I cited numerous examples, so there is a method of proof here). My point isn't that we should include content in Warframe on the mere basis of "why not?", my point is that it is perfectly valid to suggest new content in the game provided it is congruent to it (and it is, given how we already have Garuda's Talons), and that if your only counter-argument to that is "why is this necessary?", then you have no counter-argument to make.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

I could just continuously say "But why though?" and no one would progress at all in any way because there's nothing to advance further with such a small statement.

Which is precisely what you have done, and the reason why this discussion continues to be bogged down when people like you keep questioning whether we are even allowed to give feedback on a feedback forum.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Also again, demeaning the opinion of others by trying to make it seem lesser and weak in comparison is not needed. I could quite literally say the exact same thing about your opinion (even without evidence) and claim ignorance. Again, nobody advances nor benefits. It's pointless to bring up.

Where have I done this, pray tell? I have not dismissed any of your arguments out of hand, by the way, as I have made a consistent effort to back up my statements with examples and proper reasoning, and done the same when criticizing your own. There is a meaningful difference between having an opinion and simply saying something wrong, and the difference is that the latter can be argued, whereas the former cannot. You do not get to pretend like no-one else's opinion but your own is valid here, all while complaining that you can't make unsubstantiated or wrong claims without getting called out for it.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

The only claims towards innate weapons are "it's possible" and "it would be cool and fun". That could literally be said for quite honestly anything. Again, if there's no substance at all to the point being made, then it's probably not a good point.

This is, once again, a flat-out lie, as evidenced here:

8 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

I raised the very simple point that innate weapons can satisfy thematic and gameplay niches for weapons that wouldn't be appropriate to every frame, and cited the example of thunderbolts for Volt. You may not find the idea of throwing bolts of lightning personally interesting, but the fact remains that this is a clear example of a weapon that would be appropriate as an innate weapon, but not as a general weapon. Thus, there is objectively a currently unexplored niche for weapons that innate weapons can fulfil, but general weapons cannot. Beyond this, many more arguments have been given as to why there is value to having these innate weapons, as noted by the popularity of the suggestion itself

Repeating the same lie over and over again will not make it sound any truer, particularly when you are talking to someone who has been a part of this same discussion.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

People have already addressed why these weapons are not necessary, because they are not necessary at all.

Ergo, all of the above examples of how silly this reasoning is. Once more, there is a visible double standard at play here, where anything you personally do not consider necessary is not even worth considering, even though you are quite happy with plenty of other features in the game you also do not consider essential. Your statement here is a complete non-argument.

5 hours ago, Scruffel said:

I am not going to be repeating myself nor should anyone else, but if you want to repeat the same counterpoints over then over again, fine. But I will say one thing:

The game is not being limited for not having innate weapons for Warframes, you are the one applying this limit to the game because you don't have what you want. And if you continue to argue for it without bringing evidence for it's necessity, I'm sorry but that is entitlement. Having the feeling that something should be added just because it's possible.

That is not what entitlement means, and this argument as a whole makes exactly no sense. By that same token, the game is not being limited for having sub-par frames or weapons, you're just limiting yourself by wanting to play them in situations where they don't work well, such as any mission above Level 30. By this same reasoning, asking for any rework to a frame you like, particularly a frame that isn't doing poorly at all, is entitlement, and you should simply not post at all. Again, this is why your reasoning is dangerous, in addition to being entirely wrong: the fundamental intention here behind your arguments isn't to stimulate discussion or work with other players in an exchange of opinions, so much as outright silence this discussion and any opinion that disagrees with yours, under the basis that only your ideas are valid and everyone else's are only "entitlement". It is a mentality that is itself demonstrative of gross entitlement, and that is completely at odds with the very purpose of this discussion space.

6 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

I think what I’m not understanding about the pro side of this debate is why adding a handful of new weapons with the very heavy restriction that they can only be used on a single Warframe is a big step forward for player choice and build diversity. With almost 40 Warframes, that’s like 3% of the roster that can actually use each of these weapons. That doesn’t strike me as opening a world of new avenues. 

Because, once again, out of the entire set of possible weapons that could be included in Warframe, not all of them are weapons that make sense on all frames. It would not make very much sense for every frame to be able to use Garuda's claws, for example, because those are an extension of her own body and power, and the same could be said for pure elemental power being shot out of a frame like Volt or Ember. Thus, allowing for frames to have bespoke weapons would indeed open up a world of new avenues, because it could open up the possibility of weapons that wouldn't otherwise get included in the general roster. What I personally do not understand is why you believe conspicuously refusing to include these weapons in the game would somehow contribute positively to player choice or new gameplay.

6 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

I think what would add overall more interest and diversity to the game would be new Warframe passives with totally new interactions with specific weapon types. It would be an idea using Excal’s passive or Mesa’s passive as a starting point as opposed to Garuda’s, but going much further.

"Hey guys, this idea's crap because I said so. Look at my idea instead!"

But yeah, no. Both examples you have given of "interactions" with specific weapon types are pure stat boosts, not genuinely new gameplay, and if you think about the thing you've proposed for even a little bit, it starts to break down very quickly, because there are huge differences in stats and gameplay among weapons of the same class, such that tacking on any additional effect onto them would have to be balanced along an incredibly wide spread, to say nothing of future additions. To take a random example: if Loki, for example, automatically dealt lethal damage to unalerted enemies with melee weapons, that'd sound great and would work essentially like Covert Lethality on most weapons... and then you'd get to the Redeemer Prime, whose ranged blast would then literally one-shot any unit at any time due to how its Blast proc has enemies briefly count as unalerted. There'd be whips to consider, whose range coupled with stealth would also one-shot crowds of enemies at a time. You could make the passive more specific to avoid these edge cases, but each further restriction would constrain choice, until the end result would basically just be another Covert Lethality. This is but one example, but I can guarantee you any frame-to-weapon effect with any gameplay is going to run into abuse cases like the above.

This isn't to say that your suggestion is bad, per se, as it could produce some potentially interesting effects, it's just that balancing such a feature would be inherently messy, and could potentially even limit the design of further weapons, if said weapon would generate an abusive interaction with an existing frame passive. By contrast, because innate weapons are tied to individual frames, they'd only need to be balanced around that one frame, which would allow them to have much crazier gameplay that no general weapon could provide.

6 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

Like one potential example would be changing Mesa’s passive so that you could equip a secondary weapon in her melee slot.

And if she runs out of ammo, what happens? What does it even achieve to have to separate secondaries in two separate slots?

6 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

Another might be making Octavia have higher headshot damage with silent weapons, but faster movement while wielding loud weapons, as an outlandish and unrefined idea.

So basically just a permanent movement speed boost, then, because you could just take an unsilenced weapon (which most weapons are, especially with standard builds) and run faster.

I'm being unduly harsh here, but the point I'm trying to make is that you should not so lightly dismiss one feature you dislike in favor of one you like on the pure basis of opinion, because someone else can just as easily do what you've done here, and shoot your ideas down simply because they personally don't see the value in them. This is why we need to make an effort to acknowledge each other's opinions and not try to establish one's own preferences as fact. I personally do not see the value in your own suggestion, and I do think there are legitimate criticisms to make, but just like innate weapons, there is a precedent for what you're suggesting in the game, and it does not take much to think of how your suggestion could lead to some cool gameplay.

6 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

Flavor and interest are worthwhile goals, but I would see a system of favored weapons to be superior to innate weapons for accomplishing it. 

That's fair, though one does not exclude the other. As mentioned above, I also do think innate weapons present distinct advantages over favored weapons, as they can be made to have much more tailored gameplay. Seeing how you've cited examples for your own proposal, it would only be fair for me to do the same (with placeholder ideas thrown out fairly lightly):

Example 1, Harrow's Thurible: a slow, crit-based flail-like melee weapon with below-average damage but above-average range. Restores a small amount of Energy with each successful hit, and channeling 3 grants the Thurible a special attack on the next hit that deals bonus damage, increased on headshot. If you want to go even further, you could also have slam attacks chain enemies in Harrow's immediate vicinity on impact, and open them up for headshots.

Example 2, Mesa's Regulators: fast-firing, crit-based dual pistols. Each headshot fired with these pistols grants Peacemaker a number of special shots when activated, allowing Mesa to shoot all enemies within line of sight in all directions and at full power for each of those shots.

These don't have to be the pinnacle of stellar gameplay, but the basic gist of it is that these could be weapons with gameplay specific to the frames wielding them, in the above case by directly interacting with certain abilities. In both cases, these are weapons that likely wouldn't fit on every frame, but that could still be worth having around, particularly since the model's already there.

6 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

I kinda feel the other way around on this. Getting some kind of energy gauntlet where we could throw lightning bolts or fireballs instead of using a gun would be an awesome addition to the game. It would open up an entire new avenue and would potentially totally change the feel of gunplay while you’re using it. It would make a true “mage” playstyle feel possible in this game in a way it’s never been before. It could even have an alt fire that consumed energy and behaved like a fifth ability in some ways. It’s an awesome idea with tons of possibilities. 

An energy gauntlet =/= raw elemental power shooting directly out of one's hands. We already have an energy gauntlet, the Staticor, and while it allows for awesome Super Saiyan gameplay, it in no way emulates the gameplay one could expect to have from casting out flaming meteors, or throwing bolts of lightning like Zeus. This is, once again, why there is a space for more specific weapons. 

6 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

So why in the world would you take something so potentially innovative and interesting and saddle it with the tremendous restriction that you can only use it while you’re playing Volt?

Because nobody other than Volt would make sense throwing out pure lightning from their fingertips. Even you know this, which is why you automatically went through some mental gymnastics to offer some ersatz weapon that in no way resembles the original suggestion.

6 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

That restriction isn’t necessarily even super thematic, because the entire game revolves around strange new blends of sci fi and fantasy, so some kind of techno-magic gauntlet that lets other Warframes throw lightning bolts wouldn’t inherently be out of place in the game. And even if specifically making it lightning would step on Volt’s toes too much, then it could do something besides lightning instead.

So, effectively, something that is in no way, shape or form what was originally suggested, because you yourself are aware that the original suggestion would not work as a weapon for all frames. Why go through all of this hassle when there's a perfectly good idea to start with?

6 hours ago, Gurpgork said:

I’m just opposed to taking something as potentially far reaching and innovative as a “mage weapon” and turning it into a gimmick that only one or two Warframes can use. 

But I'm not suggesting something as vague as a "mage weapon" here, I'm suggesting something far, far more specific, i.e. pure fireballs or lightning each with their own mode of usage. Again, for all your talk about how innate weapons would somehow restrict avenues of gameplay, you are doing exactly what you've been cautioning against right now, by limiting your range of possibilities and bending perfectly good ideas out of shape just to make them conform to your own, more limited system. Your very opposition here is itself supporting evidence in favor of frame-specific weapons.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

How isn't the issue, it's why. The why from anyone here is pure opinion on aesthetic and that's just not a valid reason to do it over, say, adding in a weapon that more frames can use.

Why is "why" an issue here? First of all, you are simply lying, as plenty of arguments have already made in favor of frame-exclusive weapons that go beyond pure opinion on aesthetic, but on top of that, as has already been discussed, you are asking for an exceptional amount of justification for a suggestion that few to no other proposals follow, not even ideas that have made it into the game, as mentioned above. Why? At the end of the day, you have produced exactly zero arguments against the inclusion of more frame-weapons other than a feigned lack of supporting argumentation, and the fact that Garuda's weapons have produced few to no drawbacks itself suggests the concept is unlikely to have that many issues.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Plus, you're flat out accusing me of lying when nothing I've said is untrue. For example, one of my arguments against them is that they don't make frames better, you call me a liar because I'm somehow implying that they are stopping a frame from being better, when that's not what I said at all. I said they don't make the frame better, not that they stop it from being better, and the reason is that even with the example we do have, the innate weapons don't actually add anything there either.

Let me just bring up what you wrote again, because you really don't seem to get it:

18 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

As the weapons you want to add are not based on making the frame work better, because they literally won't make any function they already do better, even the argument about 'more options' doesn't hold water, as the opposite can also be argued; if a player doesn't want to take a Melee then being forced to take one is less options. Making equipping a weapon mandatory is less options than having that weapon available in the roster of regular weapons and choosing to have it.

You are explicitly trying to claim that these weapons would be detrimental to the owner frames. Once more, there is literally no point to lying when you can be and have been directly quoted on the matter, and trying to deny when you've been caught red-handed just makes you look even worse. Your entire line of argumentation here has been disingenuous, and has relied exclusively on unfounded opinion, wilful ignorance of arguments made here, and outright fabrication.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Garuda's claws don't add anything to her other than aesthetic and an extra melee weapon to level. They don't play into her kit, don't interact with anything she does, are modded exactly the same as other claw weapons rather than having any function like an Ability Weapon would, and don't even have a unique function (which other weapons do for their own flavour).

Indeed, and even that little was enough for players to love this new feature and ask for many more frames to receive the same treatment. You are only supporting my point here: even the bare minimum is considered a major plus by many players, even if you personally do not see the value in it, so one can only imagine how much more value these innate weapons could bring if they had more interaction with specific frames and their kits. What else are you even trying to argue here?

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

And your other accusations are just as ridiculous, you're twisting my words to claim I'm lying and it's transparent.

Twisting your words where? Again, I'm having trouble understanding how you're expecting to con anyone here when I have literally answered your direct quotes, point for point. I am not twisting your words, I am responding directly to things you have actually said. Every time you repeat the lie that the only argument made in favor of innate weapons here is "why not?" I can simply pull whichever paragraph made an argument and prove that you are lying, as has already been done.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

There is no objective reason to give Garuda's passive to other frames when they have their own passives and Ability Weapons. And more importantly there is nothing wrong with letting her passive stay unique to her.

Garuda's passive is bonus damage based on her missing health. Trying to frame her innate weapon as "Garuda's passive" as if this were some intrinsic feature that only she should ever be allowed to have is a desperate reach, particularly when Baruuk and now Hildryn both have exclusive weapons of their own.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

I agree, but I'll also note that it ignores the fact that we do have a gun that shoots lightning bolts in game already... and gauntlets that shoot radioactive balls of plasma or beams of fire... So variants of those are completely possible, and would then be used on any frame, although could have unique functions when used by a specific frame, just like Baruuk's signature weapon has a little bonus when he uses it, but other frames can equip it too.

And, just like Gupgork, you are automatically limiting yourself here by twisting a perfectly valid suggestion out of shape, and forcing it to turn into something it's not just to fit a restrictive idea of what counts as acceptable in Warframe. For all your talk about how you think there's nothing going for innate weapons, you yourself implicitly acknowledge that those weapons are capable of offering something normal weapons can't, in this case the ability to hurl fire or lightning directly from one's hands, rather than some device. By bending over backwards to distort and dismiss the ideas I proposed simply because of restrictions you have set for yourself, you have proven that innate weapons have a place in the game.

[Birdframe_Prime]

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

You are explicitly trying to claim that these weapons would be detrimental to the owner frames.

No, I'm not. Flat out, you cannot accuse me of lying over this, I never said they were detrimental. I simply said that there are reasons why they don't make the frame better.

Try as much as you like, that is not a lie.

Even when you directly quote me, I have never once said they're actually detrimental, I have said that they offer no quantifiable improvement other than aesthetic. I have then presented a counter-argument to your claim of them 'offering more choice' by pointing out that it's just as easy to say that they offer less because a player can, and does, have the option to not take a weapon in that slot for reasons that can include wanting to level another weapon faster, while putting these innate weapons on the frames then forces players to have one equipped.

But you instead decided to twist that into claiming I'm lying?

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Garuda's passive is bonus damage based on her missing health.

Oh?

Let's see what a simple screenshot can do. This one from another user called ZoeyCrimson on another discussion thread:

Spoiler

Oh wait... it's almost like her passive says 'Slashes with her talons if no melee weapon is equipped' in there...

This is getting sad Teridax.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

And, just like Gupgork, you are automatically limiting yourself here by twisting a perfectly valid suggestion out of shape, and forcing it to turn into something it's not just to fit a restrictive idea of what counts as acceptable in Warframe.

Far from that, you just have never answered the actual question.

The question of 'why?' is what's always been there. The reason to do something is as important as what you're doing.

I've already said that if DE actually turned around and agreed to it, I wouldn't care, because that's them making the decision and agreeing that they want to see it more. For them, the internal answer of 'why not?' is their motivator in that sense, because they're the ones doing the work. That's the whole reason that fun little changes like mini-games happen.

But when you're the one suggesting the change, there should always be a reason, because you're not the one doing it. What I am doing is questioning the reasons for the change to see if they would convince somebody to do the extra work. And, basing my replies on the reasons why other changes haven't been made over plenty of other suggestions in the past, aesthetic isn't a good reason.

How is already shown, we've got a direct example of the how. That's fine and currently isn't really in the discussion. The 'what' has even been shown, we've seen what innate weapons are; they're just weapons that appear when you don't want to use another, they have no benefits to them over any other weapon you could equip, especially when those other weapons not only have better stats, many of them have unique functions that can play into that Warframe better than an innate one would, and as a final point against them the frames that you would apply them to already have better options.

And the only reason to put them on is that they might be 'cool'?

How does that benefit the frame at all from an objective standpoint? It isn't a detriment, it's a nothing, a non-entity change. When that's all the positive you can say about it, then you might as well buy a Deluxe skin, call that a buff to their aesthetic and get as much fun out of it.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Birdframe_Prime

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

On 2019-02-15 at 3:12 AM, (XB1)ParrotTom said:

Are other frames with built in weapons like Garuda going to be introduced. I don't mean exalted weapons or other ability related weapons, I mean like if Mesa would use her regulators if she didn't have a secondary or Excalibur would use his blade (both heavily toned down) if he didn't have a melee weapon

I don't think Mesa or Excal need the help, but there is a whole class of built in weapons that aren't exalted.

For instance: Gara's glass sword, Khora's whip, Atlas's fists, etc. These weapons still rely on "stat sticks", and while that does allow some interesting builds (5 dispo riven on some PoS melee) it feels very clunky.

All the weapons that frames have that aren't exalted abilities should get a similar passive/modding interface to Garuda's.

Weapons that are exalted are more problematic.