Built in weapons

[(XBOX)ParrotTom]

1 minute ago, (XB1)KayAitch said:

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. 

Best thing I could say would be to add another weapon for some frames so for example excalibur gets a new melee that's modded differently from exalted blade. Frames may not need it, but it would still be an interesting feature to have on top of extra weapons for mastery.

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

2 minutes ago, (XB1)ParrotTom said:

Best thing I could say would be to add another weapon for some frames so for example excalibur gets a new melee that's modded differently from exalted blade

Is that not just another melee? I'm not sure that's needed.

Meanwhile the stat stick mechanic feels rather rudimentary now that we have moddable exalted. Garuda feels like a bit of an experiment in how they could do that better for weapons that don't justify an exalted ability, but that should still feel part of the frame's kit.

[Birdframe_Prime]

1 hour ago, (XB1)KayAitch said:

Meanwhile the stat stick mechanic feels rather rudimentary now that we have moddable exalted. Garuda feels like a bit of an experiment in how they could do that better for weapons that don't justify an exalted ability, but that should still feel part of the frame's kit.

Interesting thought there, maybe it is an experiment, maybe it was an after-thought, but being able to skip the stat-stick function might be well worth it.

A small, self-contained modding screen for those specific functions... but on the other hand, the reason that DE did the whole 'affected by mods' ability function in the first place was because they wanted the base abilities to be one thing, and then with the potential to be better if the right melee setup was used. That separation was, at least until modded Ability Weapons came along, a key difference between what they wanted the base frame to be capable of, and what a min-maxed frame was capable of.

[Tiltskillet]

I think I'd enjoy seeing  every frame get an innate, unique weapon.  But there's not much point IMO unless they actually do have some unique interplay with the frame's abilities or role.  Garuda's Talons don't do this, so they don't fit the bill.  Even though I like them well enough for what they are, they're just kind of a vestigial feature as far as I'm concerned.

The main reason I'd like this is that four abilities and a passive feel a little constrained to me, and this would be a way to open things up a little without meaning a change in how our controls work.  And, if done right, not require quite as much balancing as abilities do.  Secondarily, I'd appreciate the added differentiation between frames.

But without it being an enhancement to abilities in some way, I don't think it justifies development time compared to so many  other things in this game.    A complete set of innate weapons on every frame that  enhanced gameplay as little as Garuda's  do would feel like both a wasted opportunity and a waste of time to me.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Tiltskillet

[Scruffel]

4 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

-snip-

Thanks for responding, now I see your entire reason for why innate weapons should be added (What? You did it too):

"Innate weapons extend the theme of the Warframe and improve it, could provide unique gameplay mechanics, adds more mastery points and unique aspects to the Warframe, people apparently want this, it can be done, and it could explore a new way to add weapons to the game".

The problem with this whole reasoning, is that this is exactly what another category of weapons are: Signature weapons. Of course, not all Warframes have one, but I feel like it's way much more easier to add a signature weapon rather than an innate one. When you think about it, you would have to remake and reconfigure how exactly a Warframe is scripted in order to accommodate for the new feature of their own exclusive; Signature weapons really don't have this issue. Now if you wanted for there to be some special effects with the Warframe, you could just do the same thing with Baruuk's signature (not his Exalted), it would be a lot less work and it doesn't necessarily restrict the weapon to a single user.

Now Exalted weapons are in fact, weapons restricted for a single user, but that's mostly because that weapon is connected to the overall kit of the Warframe's abilities or Passive (all of them are abilities too). This is why Garuda's Talons are disappointing to a gameplay degree is that they don't necessarily do anything for her kit. If she was able to buff her abilities or even have some extra interaction entwined with them, then I wouldn't question their importance nor usage. Yet, they really are just a signature weapon connected to the Warframe; It could have easily just been a standard claw weapon with it's own unique holster style to Garuda (similar to Chroma's Tonfa holster) and a description of "Garuda's favorite/signature murder tool".

That's why it's not exactly needed for current Warframes to have innate weapons because the idea is easily replaceable with a signature weapon. It's strange how you mention that Garuda may have influenced Baruuk's or Hildryn's, yet those are not innate. Those are Exalted, and clearly have some sort of usage within their abilities. I know you mentioned that old Frames can still have some interesting and unique weapons, but I don't know how exactly a general player base would view that as. Give a good Warframe an insanely powerful weapon, people want it nerfed. Give a good Warframe a meaningless weapon, people want it buffed. It could just add another layer of power creep or wasted potential.

Plus, if you wanted to improve a Warframe that's not performing well, then a rework would be much better. It could address the current issues of the Warframe's kit, and add anything that could greatly benefit the frame. The thing about innate weapons that don't exactly improve a frame, is the fact that they can be completely optional or just simply ignored. Adding something to a Warframe that can be just pushed aside, is not a good change.

You could say that some of these problems could be applied to signature weapons, yes it can, but at least they are not strictly attached to a Warframe that you also have to consider within the rebalancing. Now there is another thing to consider, the theme and aesthetic importance. Sadly, DE has always and will continue to break the whole exclusivity of these aspects. When and how? Syandanas and Ephemerals. Some Warframes do in fact have signature or themed Syandanas for them (even Prime and Deluxe ones), yet DE allows you to attach them to anyone you want. Ephemerals seem to have similar themes and effects that were once exclusive to Warframes (smoke = Ash, grass = Oberon, thunder = Volt, blood = Garuda). In fact, there could be some people who may have wanted Garuda's Talons to be a separate weapon from herself, so it could be inferred that there are some ways people don't necessarily like this exclusivity. Even her blood effects are not entirely exclusive because of the Sigil that her bundle contains.

Honestly I don't see the point of innate weapons, if signature weapons seem a lot better. In reality, the only downside about them is that they are detached from the Warframe (literally) and would require an extra Weapon Slot. But if that is the only real downside about them, then it's definitely better than a lot of other ones that arise from innate ones (which have been brought up before so don't ignore them). And before you ignore what I just said, let me be very clear: I don't think that innate weapons are impossible nor entirely detrimental, I feel like they are not necessary due to the alternatives that arise with less problems connected to them.

6 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.

For starters, you did not have to insult Vauban nor his players like that. Second off, did you forget that the Nezha rework happened? People didn't play him because of how he was a weaker Rhino, was an inconvenience to himself, and also lacking in power that could only be achieved through very specific builds and play styles (for example, literally avoiding to use certain moves). But then, the rework made him into practically a different Warframe and made people really want to play him much more (which was convenient since his Deluxe skin was releasing). Again, DE has acknowledge the exact importance of reworks within their own Devstreams (it was literally on the whiteboard). And plus, neglecting Vauban and other frames would actually expose a level of incompetence that they are unwilling to fix the old things that don't work. I think you also forgot to mention the fact that TennoGen is not just a profit for DE, but also for the artists who create the items for the Warframe itself. While the acceptance of items is somewhat in the air in terms of how DE specifically accepts items, I wouldn't be surprised if 'character relevance and popularity is a key component to that. Someone could make an extremely good Vauban item to only get excluded because they made an item for a 'forgotten Warframe'. Blame the creator for putting themselves in that situation all you want, but it would be without a doubt unfair. I know you didn't brought this up in your original post, but you probably should have since it's another important aspect too.

6 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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. 

You don't need to twist my words and put speech into my mouth. I did not say that only complete reworks or changes to existing content are meant to be considered, in fact in my original post I was talking specifically about the way how this thread at first did not provide any substantial evidence to why it was necessary to consider or add. Again, I don't see how 'high player demand' is entirely an important factor because many things have been in high demand yet are not possible or impractical to add. For example, metallic or texture color palettes. You could probably find a couple threads talking about this, yes you can. But that does mean we should be allowed to ignore glaring issues within these suggestions? No. Popularity should not overthrow the bringing up of issues.

6 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Where have I done this, pray tell?

Right here:

6 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.

View it however you please as an argument or a claim, you are still trying to demean the others argument for no reason. This actually raises a dangerous mentality within itself, because by trying to make it seem like people are going against the others person's claim, it can pressure them into giving up for the sole reason of numbers against them. It's why I said I can bring up the same thing against yourself, because it's just way too easy to do so.

6 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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. 

Well sorry to say, but I personally don't see "Please add this" as feedback. Sure it's technically feedback to the developers since they have a general idea on what the community or players want, but it's not one that they can evaluate. In that case, every single concept and requested additions should also be called 'feedback', even if they don't provide the importance nor the benefit if DE were to grant their wishes. The pinned thread on the top of this General section states to "Back it up". No one needs to write an entire essay on something, just provide a good amount of reasoning towards your feedback. Reasons, that can be up to debate and even be refuted. You can't really refute a wish, because then it just revolves around the whole relationship of needs and wants.

7 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.

By your interpretation of my reasoning, that must means that every single suggestion is just entitlement and should be ignored. Just like this whole thread, right? My reasoning was talking about the way how people request for things for the sole purpose of just wanting them. You say that these weapons can improve a Warframe, yet it's questionable if they will all do so in coherent way. You say that these weapons can be specifically themed to them, but so can signature weapons. You say that these weapons can make Warframes be more unique, by trying to add something that's unique from another? And many other reasons I already addressed. So then, what's the main other reason to ask for innate weapons? Because if it's a want, and you feel like DE should add this, then it's just that. Entitlement.

[Teridax68]

6 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

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.

Alright, seeing how intent you are in insisting upon this, let's quote you again:

On 2019-02-16 at 8:48 PM, 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.

Emphasis in bold mine. You very clearly tried to insinuate that there was a detrimental effect to innate weapons in that they'd reduce a player's range of options on frames with them. It is bad enough to lie, and worse yet to insist upon denying the fact that you have been lying when evidence has been directly put forth. Repeatedly. Why insist upon this when you are clearly wrong? 

But let's just put that aside for one moment, because what you're saying now is even more interesting: from what you are telling me in your very last reply to me, you apparently never made the claim that these frame-specific weapons were detrimental, and seeing how hellbent you have been on shooting the idea down, it stands to reason then that you do not, in fact, see any detriment to the proposal. Why then expend so much time and effort opposing this idea then when there are no drawbacks? As has now been made abundantly clear, there are plenty of reasons why these are a good idea, one DE is taking on wholesale with their newest frames, and from what you are telling me now, adding them would induce no negative effects either. You are effectively opposing an proposed feature you yourself are admitting to being purely beneficial.

Quote

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?

I don't need to twist anything here, you are doing a perfectly good job of exposing yourself here as it stands.

Quote

Oh?

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

  Reveal hidden contents

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.

I see you are now attempting to finagle on semantics. For sure, her talons are listed under her passive (because where else is it going to be listed), but at the end of the day, you and I both know that her actual, passive gameplay mechanic is the damage she gets from her missing health, and her access to an innate weapon is an effect literally anyone could have for one of their own. It is not something with thematic or gameplay relevance unique to Garuda, particularly since Baruuk and Hildryn also have their own innate weapons. Your attempts to frame Garuda's innate weapon as some isolated passive that cannot be repeated again is, once again, a desperate reach, one that ultimately fails to detract from the basic fact that there is strictly no reason why other frames shouldn't have innate weapons, and that doing so would not diminish Garuda's uniqueness or theme in any respect.

Quote

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.

And here you are, caught lying yet again. Here's just a smattering of what I've been saying so far in response to "why?":

On 2019-02-15 at 12:39 PM, Teridax68 said:

Innate weapons have the potential to introduce unique gameplay and play off of frames in ways no other weapon can

This was in my very first post on this thread.

On 2019-02-15 at 3:23 PM, Teridax68 said:

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.

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.

This is was in my first reply to you.

On 2019-02-16 at 1:23 AM, Teridax68 said:

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. 

This was in my second reply to you.

22 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 your repeated, desperate pretense here that only a single argument was uttered in their favor is itself an easily disproven lie.

This was in another reply to you further down. Funny how we've trodden this ground already.

Quote

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?

This is part of that same reply, and on top of providing even more arguments in favor, cleanly refutes your entire line of argumentation here on how one should only evaluate frame-specific weapons on the basis of necessity.

This ignores my very last post here, which also argued this at length. So, once again, you have been caught flat-out lying: not only did I absolutely answer the question of "why?", I answered it exhaustively and produced many different arguments in favor, almost all of which in replies directed specifically towards you. To claim that I did not answer the question is, therefore, to lie, which is what you have done in your reply here, and in many of your previous posts on this thread, as itself evidenced in the passages I quoted. To quote you: this is getting sad, Birdframe. I come here ready to have a proper discussion, give a whole bunch of diverse arguments and examples to support the OP's proposal, and so far your only response so far has been to bleat out the same feeble, already-disproven BS, irrespective of anything that has been said. You have deliberately refused to move conversation forward and respond to arguments given to you on a constant basis, and in your desperate attempts to save face in an argument you had lost from the onset, you have only succeeded in ridiculing yourself by insisting upon denying a fact that can be, and has been easily proven. As has just been proven, I gave plenty of reasons why innate weapons would benefit the game, and in your post you are telling me not even you find any detriments to the feature. You have therefore utterly failed to convince even yourself of the point you have been trying to argue this entire time.

Quote

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.

Okay, but Baruuk has a bespoke weapon, and so does Hildryn. As has already been said, literally every post-Garuda frame whose kit we've seen includes an innate weapon, so DE clearly has agreed to the idea already. Your attempts to impose your own opinions upon DE are therefore not only grossly inappropriate and pointless, but factually wrong.

Quote

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.

Why is aesthetic not a good reason, again? At the end of the day, nothing you have said here matters, because ultimately you're not questioning anything, you are dismissing a valid suggestion out of hand and attempting to silence those who have good things to say about it. As has been shown above already, plenty of reasons have been given, and that is a fact regardless of how many times you try to deny it.

Quote

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.

This in itself is already an attempt to shift the goalposts to this argument by trying to claim that the only "real" innate weapons are Garuda's Talons, when plenty more innate weapons exist, as evidenced by Baruuk and Hildryn. It also tries to pretend that innate weapons can somehow never possess unique gameplay or interaction with frames, without giving even a shred of evidence as to why this should be the case. Nice try, but no.

Quote

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

That, but as said above, also the fact that these weapons are capable of providing unique gameplay, fulfilling unique fantasies standard weapons cannot cover, and developing upon the gameplay and identity of warframes without overloading them with extra abilities. But sure, keep telling yourself that none of those arguments have been made several times already, I'm sure you'll convince yourself eventually.

Quote

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.

See above, I guess? As has now already been said quite a few times, the notion that these innate weapons somehow provide no benefit at all is your own opinion, and an unsubstantiated one at that. Meanwhile, even something as simple as Garuda's Talons have been vastly popular among the playerbase, as have been Exalted weapons as well for even longer. This is a passion shared not only by players, but also by DE, as noted by their inclusion of bespoke weapons in their three most recent kits. As such, the ship has already sailed, and you are among the extremely vocal, yet equally minoritary portion of people who still think you can retroactively stop DE from making more of these things if you bully enough people on the feedback forums.

1 hour ago, Scruffel said:

Thanks for responding, now I see your entire reason for why innate weapons should be added (What? You did it too):

"Innate weapons extend the theme of the Warframe and improve it, could provide unique gameplay mechanics, adds more mastery points and unique aspects to the Warframe, people apparently want this, it can be done, and it could explore a new way to add weapons to the game".

The problem with this whole reasoning, is that this is exactly what another category of weapons are: Signature weapons. Of course, not all Warframes have one, but I feel like it's way much more easier to add a signature weapon rather than an innate one. When you think about it, you would have to remake and reconfigure how exactly a Warframe is scripted in order to accommodate for the new feature of their own exclusive; Signature weapons really don't have this issue. Now if you wanted for there to be some special effects with the Warframe, you could just do the same thing with Baruuk's signature (not his Exalted), it would be a lot less work and it doesn't necessarily restrict the weapon to a single user.

The problem with this whole reasoning is that it does not seem to understand what signature weapons are, or how they work. Signature weapons are simply weapons released alongside a warframe, which may have some aesthetic or even gameplay similarities. The one case of a signature weapon properly interacting with a frame has been the Cobra and Crane, whose hidden passive is so insubstantial it may as well not exist (the weapon itself is not even that amazing on Baruuk, let alone interactive with him or his kit). Meanwhile, most signature weapons have little to no relevance to the frame they're attached to, e.g. Khora and the Hystrix, the Euphona Prime and Banshee Prime, or Trinity Prime and the Dual Kamas Prime. You may as well drop the "signature" tag here, because these weapons almost never have any particular synergy or identity coupling with the frame they're bundled with, and in fact many of these weapons do not even possess unique gameplay. As such, if you're looking for a way to include unique weapon gameplay that would interact with frames and their abilities, this ain't it. Meanwhile, you may refer to the examples I gave in my previous post with Harrow's Thurible and Mesa's Regulators, as illustrations of how bespoke weapons could offer far more specific and tailored gameplay, coupled with proper aesthetic and thematic relevance, than any general or even "signature" weapon.

Quote

Now Exalted weapons are in fact, weapons restricted for a single user, but that's mostly because that weapon is connected to the overall kit of the Warframe's abilities or Passive (all of them are abilities too).

Okay, and that counters your entire previous argument. DE can and have made bespoke weapons for frames, and this is in fact at this point a common occurrence. QED.

Quote

This is why Garuda's Talons are disappointing to a gameplay degree is that they don't necessarily do anything for her kit. If she was able to buff her abilities or even have some extra interaction entwined with them, then I wouldn't question their importance nor usage. Yet, they really are just a signature weapon connected to the Warframe; It could have easily just been a standard claw weapon with it's own unique holster style to Garuda (similar to Chroma's Tonfa holster) and a description of "Garuda's favorite/signature murder tool".

Yes, because clearly having everyone wield Garuda's claws, one of her central defining visual and gameplay features, wouldn't take away from her identity at all.

Quote

That's why it's not exactly needed for current Warframes to have innate weapons because the idea is easily replaceable with a signature weapon. It's strange how you mention that Garuda may have influenced Baruuk's or Hildryn's, yet those are not innate. Those are Exalted, and clearly have some sort of usage within their abilities.

Trying to fiddle with semantics does strictly nothing to detract from the fact that Baruuk and Hildryn have weapons made just for them, that only they can use. These are innate weapons, as Exalted weapons are a subset of innate weapons (no Exalted weapon is available to more than one frame, therefore it is indeed innate to that frame). At the end of the day, DE have visibly no problem making weapons that they'll only give to a single frame, and the results are always positive: even in the case of Baruuk, whose own innate weapon feels lackluster, there is a tremendous number of threads asking for it to be buffed, simply because players want to use the ability more, and are prepared to construct their entire build for him around it.

Quote

I know you mentioned that old Frames can still have some interesting and unique weapons, but I don't know how exactly a general player base would view that as.

Positively. You need only look at these forums, Reddit, etc. to see plenty of players suggesting concepts for exalted weapons, innate weapons, etc. for practically every frame, including existing ones.

Quote

Give a good Warframe an insanely powerful weapon, people want it nerfed. Give a good Warframe a meaningless weapon, people want it buffed. It could just add another layer of power creep or wasted potential.

Which is why thankfully there typically exists a state of balance where something is neither insanely powerful nor meaningless, which is typically referred to as "balanced". The very fact that innate weapons would only need to balanced around exactly one frame would make this significantly easier than for any other weapon, too.

Quote

Plus, if you wanted to improve a Warframe that's not performing well, then a rework would be much better. It could address the current issues of the Warframe's kit, and add anything that could greatly benefit the frame. The thing about innate weapons that don't exactly improve a frame, is the fact that they can be completely optional or just simply ignored. Adding something to a Warframe that can be just pushed aside, is not a good change.

Why? Also, who here is proposing to include innate weapons as band-aids to poorly performing frames? Moreover, what's all this twaddle about options being automatically bad if they're optional, when optional-yet-fun frame augments exist?

Quote

You could say that some of these problems could be applied to signature weapons, yes it can, but at least they are not strictly attached to a Warframe that you also have to consider within the rebalancing. Now there is another thing to consider, the theme and aesthetic importance. Sadly, DE has always and will continue to break the whole exclusivity of these aspects. When and how? Syandanas and Ephemerals. Some Warframes do in fact have signature or themed Syandanas for them (even Prime and Deluxe ones), yet DE allows you to attach them to anyone you want. Ephemerals seem to have similar themes and effects that were once exclusive to Warframes (smoke = Ash, grass = Oberon, thunder = Volt, blood = Garuda). In fact, there could be some people who may have wanted Garuda's Talons to be a separate weapon from herself, so it could be inferred that there are some ways people don't necessarily like this exclusivity. Even her blood effects are not entirely exclusive because of the Sigil that her bundle contains.

... sure, but at the end of the day, all of this content was made from the get-go to work on every frame. Once again, you appear to be confusing signature content, i.e. content in Warframe that is developed around the same time as a particular frame and bundled along with it for commercial reasons, and bespoke content, i.e. content made to work exclusively with for a frame. Your argument breaks down all the more when you consider the fact that warframe is full of bespoke content, namely warframe skins, helmets, and even various attachments like the Mortos Binds, to say nothing of their abilities. Are you saying every warframe should be able to take on any other frame's appearance and borrow their abilities? For sure, some people may want this, because you will inevitably find someone with a weird opinion given large enough numbers, but that does not justify making literally everything in Warframe available to literally everyone else when there are clear thematic, aesthetic, and gameplay reasons against it. As such, innate weapons are in this respect no different, and have a place in the game, particularly since so many of them exist already.

Quote

Honestly I don't see the point of innate weapons, if signature weapons seem a lot better.

Indeed, and that is ultimately from what flows the entirety of your argumentation here. As said before, you never were here to play to some middle ground or enquire on other players' thoughts, you came here not only with your mind already made up, but also with a very specific goal to push your own opinions over everyone else's. You may personally believe there is no value to innate weapons, and that these could somehow all be turned into signature weapons (ignoring completely the examples already given several times of stuff like throwing out fireballs or bolts of lightning for Ember of Volt respectively, which wouldn't be able to be carried as is to other frames and still make sense), but not everyone else agrees with you, or has to. You have to respect this, and not act like they shouldn't give feedback or suggestions on the game simply because you don't like their idea.

Quote

In reality, the only downside about them is that they are detached from the Warframe (literally) and would require an extra Weapon Slot. But if that is the only real downside about them, then it's definitely better than a lot of other ones that arise from innate ones (which have been brought up before so don't ignore them). And before you ignore what I just said, let me be very clear: I don't think that innate weapons are impossible nor entirely detrimental, I feel like they are not necessary due to the alternatives that arise with less problems connected to them.

I'm sorry, which detriments to innate weapons again? So far, the arguments made have been that they'd slow down min-maxed leveling, and that there are bigger fish to fry, including on weapons more frames could use. The former argument is trivial in the face of larger gameplay, as evidenced already by people using Garuda and accepting the fact that they can't cheese leveling guns quite as hard with her, and the latter has also already been debunked numerous times. It is rather interesting that you'd insinuate that I'd deny or ignore any of this, when you yourself have been conspicuously ignoring all the arguments made in favor of innate weapons, including reasons why they offer something general weapons (including signature weapons) don't, as referenced above. As such, this particular point feels more like a case of psychological projection more than anything else.

Quote

For starters, you did not have to insult Vauban nor his players like that.

Cry me a river. I did not insult Vauban or his playerbase, I merely pointed to the fact that Vauban is not frequently played at all, which is itself a fact DE themselves confirmed when they showed warframe play rates. I'm not sure what you're trying to start here, but it ain't working.

Quote

Second off, did you forget that the Nezha rework happened? People didn't play him because of how he was a weaker Rhino, was an inconvenience to himself, and also lacking in power that could only be achieved through very specific builds and play styles (for example, literally avoiding to use certain moves). But then, the rework made him into practically a different Warframe and made people really want to play him much more (which was convenient since his Deluxe skin was releasing). Again, DE has acknowledge the exact importance of reworks within their own Devstreams (it was literally on the whiteboard). And plus, neglecting Vauban and other frames would actually expose a level of incompetence that they are unwilling to fix the old things that don't work.

You are, once again, telling me exactly what I wanted you to say. You really don't seem to get it: I am absolutely on board with you here, I think DE absolutely should rework frames that struggle, and so sooner rather than later. However, if one were to follow your own reasoning of only dedicating resources towards features designed for maximal direct returns, that would not be possible, as there would always be something out there capable of generating revenue. This is why your rationale sucks, and why it is all the more silly to apply it to innate weapons as a means of dismissing the idea.

Quote

I think you also forgot to mention the fact that TennoGen is not just a profit for DE, but also for the artists who create the items for the Warframe itself. While the acceptance of items is somewhat in the air in terms of how DE specifically accepts items, I wouldn't be surprised if 'character relevance and popularity is a key component to that. Someone could make an extremely good Vauban item to only get excluded because they made an item for a 'forgotten Warframe'. Blame the creator for putting themselves in that situation all you want, but it would be without a doubt unfair. I know you didn't brought this up in your original post, but you probably should have since it's another important aspect too.

Again, you are destroying your own argumentation far better than I could have done. Of course, it'd be unfair if content creators got ignored or punished for dedicating effort to unpopular frames, but at the end of the day, a) business is rarely, if ever fair, and b) what is generating such outrage from you here is nothing more than the product of the reasoning you have tried to apply to innate weapons. In a world where features are only assigned any value on the basis of being immediately necessary to the game, or directly responsible for optimizing monetization (which innate weapons could in fact contribute to, as warframes have a price tag), the situation you are describing is exactly the kind of horrible stuff that could happen. It is therefore a dangerous mentality to go by when attempting to censor opinions and suggestions you personally dislike on a space designed for the express purpose of players giving feedback.

Quote

You don't need to twist my words and put speech into my mouth. I did not say that only complete reworks or changes to existing content are meant to be considered, in fact in my original post I was talking specifically about the way how this thread at first did not provide any substantial evidence to why it was necessary to consider or add.

Actually, you said this:

19 hours ago, Scruffel said:

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.

So you not only very much framed the issue of needs purely through the lens of changes to existing content, to the exclusion of adding new content, you specifically mentioned reworks as an example of necessary change. I am not putting words in your mouth, I am quoting you directly and showing you exactly what is wrong with what you are saying. Do you not even agree with what you've said just a post ago?

Quote

Again, I don't see how 'high player demand' is entirely an important factor because many things have been in high demand yet are not possible or impractical to add. For example, metallic or texture color palettes. You could probably find a couple threads talking about this, yes you can. But that does mean we should be allowed to ignore glaring issues within these suggestions? No. Popularity should not overthrow the bringing up of issues.

But by your own admission, the example you have cited is itself not particularly popular, in addition to having some fundamental problems preventing its implementation. By contrast, innate weapons are a popular concept not only among Warframe's playerbase, but among DE themselves, as noted by the prevalence of bespoke weapons on kits, especially recently. On top of that, so far no reason has been given as to why there'd be any fundamental issues to implementing these in the game, particularly since the existence of Garuda, and soon Hildryn, are both two out of many more examples of these frame-specific weapons being added without any issue.

Quote

Right here:

I'm sorry, this demeans their opinion... how, exactly? Is it demeaning now to point out that your opinion is not innately worth that of many more others, or are you just offended because you happen to be one of the very few people agreeing with that user? Again, as has been said multiple times now, it is perfectly valid to dislike the notion of innate weapons, and at no point have I made any attempt to demean or devalue this. What I have opposed, however, have been the constant attempts by a very select few people, yourself included, to silence people with valid feedback to give on this feedback space, simply because their feedback is not something you personally agree with. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell others their opinions about the game aren't valid simply because they don't conform to your own, much less bully people into not giving any feedback on Warframe that you do not personally approve of.

Quote

View it however you please as an argument or a claim, you are still trying to demean the others argument for no reason. This actually raises a dangerous mentality within itself, because by trying to make it seem like people are going against the others person's claim, it can pressure them into giving up for the sole reason of numbers against them. It's why I said I can bring up the same thing against yourself, because it's just way too easy to do so.

What are you even trying to say here? That consensus is evil if you disagree with it? Again, please point to what exactly I demeaned, where and why, because the quote you took demeaned no-one. What your argument seems to be indicating, however, is that you seem to be under the impression that your opinion is demeaned whenever someone points out that it is not automatic, objective fact, and that it is not inherently worth the collective opinion of many more people. To be clear, your opinion can still be valid even if it goes against a consensus, as is the case here, but the fact would still remain that your opinion would be minoritary. The fact that you frame your own opinion in opposition to people who like the idea of innate weapons also belies your true intention: your opinion here isn't simply that you dislike innate weapons, your opinion here is that you dislike innate weapons and that anyone who does not agree should shut up, so as to snuff out the mere possibility of DE taking the idea to heart. That's not a healthy mentality, nor is it even one that will ever give you the results you want, considering how DE is already on board with the idea, as evidenced by their three most recent frames.

Quote

Well sorry to say, but I personally don't see "Please add this" as feedback. Sure it's technically feedback to the developers since they have a general idea on what the community or players want, but it's not one that they can evaluate. In that case, every single concept and requested additions should also be called 'feedback', even if they don't provide the importance nor the benefit if DE were to grant their wishes. The pinned thread on the top of this General section states to "Back it up". No one needs to write an entire essay on something, just provide a good amount of reasoning towards your feedback. Reasons, that can be up to debate and even be refuted. You can't really refute a wish, because then it just revolves around the whole relationship of needs and wants.

Sure, and I can agree that the OP on this thread gives no justification of its own, except plenty of reasoning has already been given at this point, yet for some reason you still appear unsatisfied. The reality of the situation here is that you do not view the OP's suggestion as invalid because it lacks justification, but that you see it as invalid, period, and so regardless of any justification given. If this weren't the case, you would not be spending so much time shooting down the OP's suggestion now, after plenty of supporting arguments have been provided throughout this discussion.

Quote

By your interpretation of my reasoning, that must means that every single suggestion is just entitlement and should be ignored. Just like this whole thread, right?

You are literally proving my point, once again. Yet again, the absurd example you are giving now is the pure product of the same silly reasoning you have tried to apply to dismiss the OP's suggestion. Indeed, if one were to follow your own rationale and dismiss every suggestion as "entitled", then no suggestion would be valid. That is why you should probably stop trying to throw out the term "entitlement" whenever someone proposes the addition of a feature they'd like that would fit the game, particularly when your usage of the term does not suggest an understanding of its meaning.

Quote

My reasoning was talking about the way how people request for things for the sole purpose of just wanting them. You say that these weapons can improve a Warframe, yet it's questionable if they will all do so in coherent way.

Questionable... why? Once again, you are attempting to pass your opinion as objective fact here, particularly since the situation is much less hypothetical than you're trying to present it, given the fact that innate weapons already exist in Warframe, and are consistently successful to boot.

Quote

You say that these weapons can be specifically themed to them, but so can signature weapons.

Which is false, as evidenced above, and demonstrates a complete and likely deliberate misunderstanding of the potential that has been cited for innate weapons.

Quote

You say that these weapons can make Warframes be more unique, by trying to add something that's unique from another?

From another what?

Quote

And many other reasons I already addressed. So then, what's the main other reason to ask for innate weapons? Because if it's a want, and you feel like DE should add this, then it's just that. Entitlement.

And, once again, that is not what entitlement means. If anyone felt like DE owed them the implementation of their suggestions by fiat, then they would absolutely have an entitled attitude, but once again, nobody here is acting like they are entitled to the automatic and immediate implementation of innate weapons. I find it utterly strange that you would recognize your own reasoning as absurd not two paragraphs above, yet immediately try to repeat it here: by your own rationale, every suggestion is entitlement, as players are making these suggestions because they want them to happen. Put another way, it is perfectly valid to want a suggestion to happen, and it is not entitlement to make suggestions in the hope DE implements them. DE is obviously in no way obligated to implement player feedback, and there could be plenty of reasons not to implement a suggestion, but that does not invalidate implementing stuff in the game simply because there is player demand for it, as has been said above already. As it stands, plenty more supporting arguments have been given to justify the inclusion of innate weapons beyond mere want from a handful of people, so framing the proposal as the latter is blatantly untruthful and dishonest.

2 hours ago, Tiltskillet said:

I think I'd enjoy seeing  every frame get an innate, unique weapon.  But there's not much point IMO unless they actually do have some unique interplay with the frame's abilities or role.  Garuda's Talons don't do this, so they don't fit the bill.  Even though I like them well enough for what they are, they're just kind of a vestigial feature as far as I'm concerned.

The main reason I'd like this is that four abilities and a passive feel a little constrained to me, and this would be a way to open things up a little without meaning a change in how our controls work.  And, if done right, not require quite as much balancing as abilities do.  Secondarily, I'd appreciate the added differentiation between frames.

But without it being an enhancement to abilities in some way, I don't think it justifies development time compared to so many  other things in this game.    A complete set of innate weapons on every frame that  enhanced gameplay as little as Garuda's  do would feel like both a wasted opportunity and a waste of time to me.

This is a take on the matter I can very much agree with. At the end of the day, while Garuda's Talons have proven a popular feature that have gotten players to ask for more, the specific implementation of her innate weapon is devoid of real creativity, and I think does not even begin to approach the potential that could be achieved with frame-specific weapons. Personally, I want to see bespoke weapons that have unique interactions with a frame's abilities, and unlock new opportunities for gameplay in ways that push the frame's theme and identity even further. Frame-specific weapons are already a hybrid between a weapon and an ability, and I think that needs to be taken further with future innate weapons, so that the space gets used to showcase gameplay no general weapon can have. With this in mind, I'd also like to see Garuda's Talons reevaluated sometime in the future, so that they'd interact a bit better with her kit (e.g. by being crit-based, rather than status-based, and having some sort of unique ability interaction, e.g. lifesteal against enemies affected by the mark on her 4).

Edited February 18, 2019 by Teridax68

[Birdframe_Prime]

16 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

You very clearly tried to insinuate that there was a detrimental effect to innate weapons in that they'd reduce a player's range of options on frames with them.

I said it can also be argued. It's a counter point to your own argument that there were more options in order to show that the point you made about more was entirely subjective.

18 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

So you not only very much framed the issue of needs purely through the lens of changes to existing content, to the exclusion of adding new content

No, I narrowed it to not adding this content. New content I'm all for. Adding these weapons in the form of the way they did for Baruuk is absolutely fine, because all the frames can use them and then there's a benefit to using them with a specific frame. And despite your repetition, the interaction with Baruuk is not so niche of a thing that it isn't a benefit.

Further than that, who's making sweeping assumtions now? Baruuk has a signature weapon and an Ability weapon, so that isn't an Innate weapon like you're arguing for, and Hildryn has an Archwing weapon, which you need an Archwing Weapon Launcher to deploy (as shown in the devstream) so it is still not an innate weapon either. DE have not 'clearly agreed' to anything there, and you're the one putting words in their mouth now.

In the same way, all of your grandstanding about 'fulfilling a fantasy' and on how these would play into the theme could easily be fulfilled by signature weapons without making them innate. And even then, how is it any better than the actual fantasy fulfillment that the frames already have by bringing out some of the most powerful weapons in the game using their abilities to empower them above and beyond anything else we have in terms of function or effect?

Teridax, this is getting sad. Every single one of your arguments is just repetition at this point, and you're making more and more utterly overblown claims. That, and you continually falsely accuse me of lying when nothing I've said has been untrue. You don't have any reason to actually change any given Warframe instead of just putting in more weapons that have unique effects when used with a specific frame, which would achieve exactly the same effect as an innate weapon, or possibly even more if the interaction was actually interesting (given that Garuda's have no effect other than being mid-tier claw weapons).

Garuda's talons are her passive function and are only such, professed on stream, because her abilities ended up not using them enough for the community at large while she was still in the development stage. If they'd been used more, or were even an Ability weapon, then it's the most likely conclusion to say that they wouldn't even have existed as innate weapons at all.

The simple facts of the matter is that any of the Ability Weapon frames don't need them, they wouldn't be improved by them, and there are better ways to achieve the effects, the aesthetic and the 'fantasy' you want without this method.

[Scruffel]

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

The problem with this whole reasoning is that it does not seem to understand what signature weapons are, or how they work. Signature weapons are simply weapons released alongside a warframe, which may have some aesthetic or even gameplay similarities. The one case of a signature weapon properly interacting with a frame has been the Cobra and Crane, whose hidden passive is so insubstantial it may as well not exist (the weapon itself is not even that amazing on Baruuk, let alone interactive with him or his kit). Meanwhile, most signature weapons have little to no relevance to the frame they're attached to, e.g. Khora and the Hystrix, the Euphona Prime and Banshee Prime, or Trinity Prime and the Dual Kamas Prime. You may as well drop the "signature" tag here, because these weapons almost never have any particular synergy or identity coupling with the frame they're bundled with, and in fact many of these weapons do not even possess unique gameplay. As such, if you're looking for a way to include unique weapon gameplay that would interact with frames and their abilities, this ain't it. Meanwhile, you may refer to the examples I gave in my previous post with Harrow's Thurible and Mesa's Regulators, as illustrations of how bespoke weapons could offer far more specific and tailored gameplay, coupled with proper aesthetic and thematic relevance, than any general or even "signature" weapon.

You acknowledge that signature weapons are tied to how the Warframe's aesthetic, theme, and gameplay similarities, yet say at the same time, that they don't fit the Warframes in any sort of way? So which one is it? It doesn't matter if the Cobra and Crane special effect with Baruuk is not entirely significant, it's still exist (and it's in the description). Also you are probably confusing weapons that are included within their bundle, since it's pretty obvious those are not their signatures. When it quite literally states a weapon is X's signature, that's what I am mainly referring to (even though some bundles still slightly connect to the Warframe like Equinox's Grineer weapons because of Tyl Regor is where you farm her or even Trinity Prime's Dual Kamas Prime because of the aesthetic shared). Hystrix shares the same aesthetic as Khora, and relates to her theme since they are both Greek names and it means 'porcupine'. Banshee Prime and Euphone Prime are practically the same thing, with Euphona meaning sound and sharing styles. And you are also say that most of these signature weapons are not unique, though 3 of 4 you listed have unique traits about them.

Also I did see your Harrow and Mesa suggestions, and to be quite honest, those could have also been signature weapons as well, considering what Baruuk's was (since it does actually relate to one of his abilities), since most of them are basically buffs or extensions of their already existing abilities. And no, I am not saying that literally having them be the Warframe's models, just different ones that are still themed towards them.

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

Okay, and that counters your entire previous argument. DE can and have made bespoke weapons for frames, and this is in fact at this point a common occurrence. QED

The only similarities that Exalted and innate weapons have is that they are attached to a Warframe. Yet, it's very clear that the main difference is how one of them is a part of the Warframe's abilities. You keep bringing this up later on as if they exactly the same thing, because they are not. Adding an Exalted weapon to a Warframe is different than an innate one, since it's supposed to be connected directly into the current abilities. In fact, most suggestions of that sort are made with the intention of allowing players to directly mod and improve their own Warframe's abilities; not adding a completely new weapon to the Warframe. Exalted weapons existing does not counter my argument because they are much more different then innate or signature weapons, they are practically modifiable abilities.

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

Yes, because clearly having everyone wield Garuda's claws, one of her central defining visual and gameplay features, wouldn't take away from her identity at all.

You missed my point. I was referring due to how Garuda's Talons have no relation nor benefit to her abilities, that they practically could have just been a signature weapon. I know it's part of her identity, and it's part of her model too, that still doesn't change how they are not significant besides the fact that are the first ever innate weapon. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

At the end of the day, DE have visibly no problem making weapons that they'll only give to a single frame, and the results are always positive: even in the case of Baruuk, whose own innate weapon feels lackluster, there is a tremendous number of threads asking for it to be buffed, simply because players want to use the ability more, and are prepared to construct their entire build for him around it.

DE has no problem with making Exalted or innate weapons for new Warframes or making ones for already existing ones? You keep mixing up the difference between these 2 things.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Positively. You need only look at these forums, Reddit, etc. to see plenty of players suggesting concepts for exalted weapons, innate weapons, etc. for practically every frame, including existing ones.

Again, Exalted and innate weapons are not the same thing as I have pointed out before.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Which is why thankfully there typically exists a state of balance where something is neither insanely powerful nor meaningless, which is typically referred to as "balanced". The very fact that innate weapons would only need to balanced around exactly one frame would make this significantly easier than for any other weapon, too.

Well, when you add an innate weapon to a frame, you would have to somewhat account for exactly that Warframe is going to change. For example, your Thurible slam attack idea might be problematic since it could just end up replacing Harrow's 1 entirely since it's practically a free and probably more efficient version of the ability now (also free energy per hit is a bit crazy too). Baruuk's C&C effect is different since you are technically doing the same sleeping effect as 2, but it differs for how faster and how much you can make enemies sleep within a time frame as well as the other benefits that come from Lull. A weapon that can be used for everyone, is not really bothered with making sure every single Warframe doesn't have broken stuff with some since, that would be way to hard to track and isn't entirely necessary. If there was some sort of insanely broken combination or problem with two specific ones, that might be only time they would need to have to intervene within that situation.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Why? Also, who here is proposing to include innate weapons as band-aids to poorly performing frames? Moreover, what's all this twaddle about options being automatically bad if they're optional, when optional-yet-fun frame augments exist?

This thread is in the Warframe section, so it would be assumed by default you are trying to improve them. Also options are not bad because they are optional (which was not my point since I was talking about IF an innate weapon was bad nor did anything for the Warframe), they are bad when they do not serve a significant purpose for that Warframe and are extremely replaceable. Just like how certain augments can be really fun and even crucial for some frames, some augments really don't add much and are overall a gimmick.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

.. sure, but at the end of the day, all of this content was made from the get-go to work on every frame. Once again, you appear to be confusing signature content, i.e. content in Warframe that is developed around the same time as a particular frame and bundled along with it for commercial reasons, and bespoke content, i.e. content made to work exclusively with for a frame. Your argument breaks down all the more when you consider the fact that warframe is full of bespoke content, namely warframe skins, helmets, and even various attachments like the Mortos Binds, to say nothing of their abilities. Are you saying every warframe should be able to take on any other frame's appearance and borrow their abilities? For sure, some people may want this, because you will inevitably find someone with a weird opinion given large enough numbers, but that does not justify making literally everything in Warframe available to literally everyone else when there are clear thematic, aesthetic, and gameplay reasons against it. As such, innate weapons are in this respect no different, and have a place in the game, particularly since so many of them exist already.

I am clearly not confusing anything. I have specifically mentioned content that is themed for a Warframe but not exclusive to them, so trying to bring up Warframe helmet and skins make no sense. It's extremely obvious what Warframe uses an "Excalibur Graxx" but there's nothing that says that within something titled "Due Volpi Syandana". And again, you keep on mistaking Exalted weapons for innate ones.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

I'm sorry, which detriments to innate weapons again? So far, the arguments made have been that they'd slow down min-maxed leveling, and that there are bigger fish to fry, including on weapons more frames could use. The former argument is trivial in the face of larger gameplay, as evidenced already by people using Garuda and accepting the fact that they can't cheese leveling guns quite as hard with her, and the latter has also already been debunked numerous times. It is rather interesting that you'd insinuate that I'd deny or ignore any of this, when you yourself have been conspicuously ignoring all the arguments made in favor of innate weapons, including reasons why they offer something general weapons (including signature weapons) don't, as referenced above. As such, this particular point feels more like a case of psychological projection more than anything else.

Well let's actually list some problems with innate weapons:

Having to rescript Warframes to accommodate for these changes, having to maintain a balance to make sure the weapon does not conflict with the current Warframe, giving the player a Weapon that they didn't choose (illusion of choice), even more Forma spend, the reasons you and others have mentioned, etc. Why even question my claim about the detriments of the innate weapon they are very clear ones present through out the whole thread too? I also acknowledge some of the reason for them as well, so why ignore them now?

Also, you are not a psychologist. Stop trying to make this about personal claims or problems. We are in an online forum, talking about a video game's situation with its own features. There is literally no need into getting into semantics about whether or not I am evil.

I am not even willing to respond to any of your further comments, since it just consists of missing my points, twisting my words, and making up some baseless claims about who I am. If you can't understand that I am giving my opinion, then it's not my fault. I can keep responding to topics about the actual game we were talking about, not personal attacks. And by the way, discussing on whether or not something is entitlement is not necessarily personal, only if you apply it to yourself.

[Teridax68]

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

I said it can also be argued. It's a counter point to your own argument that there were more options in order to show that the point you made about more was entirely subjective.

You are once again trying to play with semantics to weasel out of the fact that you have been blatantly caught lying. At the end of the day, either you made the argument or you didn't, and the fact that you mentioned it means you did. If you don't even believe in what you're saying, why say it at all? Like the rest, the argument you suggested was also answered: some players may find it less possible to cheese leveling on certain frames with innate weapons, but then the easy answer to that is to just pick another frame, or level up a tad slower. 

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

No, I narrowed it to not adding this content. New content I'm all for. Adding these weapons in the form of the way they did for Baruuk is absolutely fine, because all the frames can use them and then there's a benefit to using them with a specific frame. And despite your repetition, the interaction with Baruuk is not so niche of a thing that it isn't a benefit.

Don't take my word for it. Despite your own repetition, the Cobra and Crane has been panned, precisely because at the end of the day the weapon fails to stand out, and does not provide any particularly deep interaction with Baruuk or his kit (remind me again how Baruuk's kit specifically benefits from a weapon that puts enemies to sleep?). You could, of course, give it a deeper set of interactions with him, but the further you go, the less sense it would make for that weapon to become generally available, particularly if key parts of its functionality end up hinging upon Baruuk's kit. This is ignoring the fact that some weapons are already intrinsic to certain frames, like Garuda's Talons, Harrow's Thurible, or Mesa's Regulators, and that there is an identity problem to making these weapons generally available.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Further than that, who's making sweeping assumtions now? Baruuk has a signature weapon and an Ability weapon, so that isn't an Innate weapon like you're arguing for, and Hildryn has an Archwing weapon, which you need an Archwing Weapon Launcher to deploy (as shown in the devstream) so it is still not an innate weapon either. DE have not 'clearly agreed' to anything there, and you're the one putting words in their mouth now.

From the looks of it, you are still the one making sweeping assumptions, because Baruuk's Exalted weapon is in fact an innate weapon, and Hildryn does in fact have an innate weapon as well, namely a launcher that consumes shields to fire (and this is separate from her signature Arch-Gun). DE have clearly agreed to more frame-exclusive weapons here, and the fact that you have failed to do even a modicum of research before expounding your opinion shows just how little good faith you are approaching this argument with, and how little credibility you have. Go watch the latest dev stream before embarrassing yourself next time.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

In the same way, all of your grandstanding about 'fulfilling a fantasy' and on how these would play into the theme could easily be fulfilled by signature weapons without making them innate. And even then, how is it any better than the actual fantasy fulfillment that the frames already have by bringing out some of the most powerful weapons in the game using their abilities to empower them above and beyond anything else we have in terms of function or effect?

I don't think you understand what a gameplay or thematic fantasy entails, because bringing a very powerful weapon to any frame is a separate fantasy from having a frame wield its power in the form of a weapon unique to itself. Volt throwing lightning bolts like a Greek god or spraying electricity from his fingertips like a Sith lord are both separate fantasies from Volt blowing stuff up with an Opticor, or quickly mowing down enemies with an Orthos Prime. Pure elemental lightning is also not something a signature weapon can provide, because that is the sort of weapon only Volt would make sense to wield. Moreover, I challenge you to name a single signature weapon that truly develops upon the theme of a warframe, or provides meaningful interaction with their gameplay. The Cobra and Crane and Nagantaka are perhaps the closest we've gotten to, and neither complement the frames they were released with particularly well, let alone develop upon their identity and gameplay. Beyond that, because "signature weapons" are typically just weapons developed at the same time as a warframe, and bundled together with them, few to none of them have any relation whatsoever with the frame they're released with, as has been said above.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Teridax, this is getting sad. Every single one of your arguments is just repetition at this point, and you're making more and more utterly overblown claims.

This comes across as a rather interesting bit of projection, seeing how you are the one who has been repeating yourself in spite of the discussion long having moved forward. Even now, you keep repeating the same lies, all while embarrassing yourself by making claims that are utterly ignorant, and desperately trying to make anyone believe your opinion is law. As noted above in my previous reply to you, I have done quite a fair bit to advance discussion by putting forth new arguments and citing more examples, yet you have decided to stagnate by deliberately ignoring all of this and trying to fall back to a position where you think you had any credibility. At the end of the day, it sounds more like you're frustrated that I'm not giving a different response each time to your same point: so long as you keep repeating the same BS, you will keep getting the exact same response, and if you expect that to change... well, good luck with that.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

That, and you continually falsely accuse me of lying when nothing I've said has been untrue.

You mean like how I quoted this thread directly on multiple occasions to prove that you were lying when a) you claimed that you never made any arguments against innate weapons, and b) you claimed that no-one ever made arguments in favor of innate weapons besides "why not"? Like you're saying, Birdframe, this is getting sad. How many times do you think you have to lie about this further before anyone believes you? How exactly do you expect to convince me, or anyone else for that matter, when evidence has been posted several times already?

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

You don't have any reason to actually change any given Warframe instead of just putting in more weapons that have unique effects when used with a specific frame, which would achieve exactly the same effect as an innate weapon, or possibly even more if the interaction was actually interesting (given that Garuda's have no effect other than being mid-tier claw weapons).

Alright, seeing how you're insisting upon this lie, let's pull out all of the quotes yet again:

On 2019-02-15 at 12:39 PM, Teridax68 said:

Innate weapons have the potential to introduce unique gameplay and play off of frames in ways no other weapon can

This was in my very first post on this thread.

On 2019-02-15 at 3:23 PM, Teridax68 said:

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.

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.

This is was in my first reply to you.

On 2019-02-16 at 1:23 AM, Teridax68 said:

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. 

This was in my second reply to you.

On 2019-02-17 at 2:05 AM, 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 your repeated, desperate pretense here that only a single argument was uttered in their favor is itself an easily disproven lie.

This was in another reply to you further down.

Quote

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?

This is part of that same reply.

So yeah, by all means, please keep on lying. It's not like this is a thread on the internet where our full conversation on here is logged and easy to retrieve at a moment's notice. Fact of the matter is, there are plenty of reasons to add more innate weapons to the game, and in such a way that signature weapons simply cannot cover adequately. You can keep on denying this if you like, but at the end that only reflects upon you, not the topic at hand.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Garuda's talons are her passive function and are only such, professed on stream, because her abilities ended up not using them enough for the community at large while she was still in the development stage. If they'd been used more, or were even an Ability weapon, then it's the most likely conclusion to say that they wouldn't even have existed as innate weapons at all.

I'm sorry, where did DE ever say that they made her talons an innate weapon just because she didn't use them enough? They're also part of her 1, so that argument in itself makes no sense. Again, you can keep on reaching in trying to pretend that Garuda having an innate weapon is itself essential to her identity and something that cannot be added to other frames, but the reality of the situation is that hers are but one out of many more innate weapons, and that there is strictly no reason why she'd be affected negatively if more frames had bespoke weapons of their own.

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

The simple facts of the matter is that any of the Ability Weapon frames don't need them, they wouldn't be improved by them, and there are better ways to achieve the effects, the aesthetic and the 'fantasy' you want without this method.

... to you. Once again, nothing you have said here is supported by anything other than your personal opinion, and in fact much of what you said is wrong, as has already been explained above. Arguing by repetition on this will get you nowhere, because at the end of the day, your points have already been responded to long ago, and the only way you will be able to move forward in this conversation is if you respond to what's been said to you, instead of falling back upon the usual lies. The choice is yours on whether or not you want to have something new come out of this conversation, Bird.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

You acknowledge that signature weapons are tied to how the Warframe's aesthetic, theme, and gameplay similarities, yet say at the same time, that they don't fit the Warframes in any sort of way? So which one is it?

I... didn't? I simply said that there were no particularly strong ties between signature weapons and the warframes meant to own them in general, and that the game's history clearly shows that signature weapons are mostly just weapons bundled together with warframes at a simultaneous time of release, rather than anything truly connected to them. It is rather strange that you'd try to frame signature weapons as a singular, monolithic thing when there is significant variance among said weapons: the closest we've ever gotten to a signature that's truly tied to a warframe is the Cobra and Crane, a failed experiment due to the design restrictions imposed by the need for a generally-applicable weapon, and the vast majority of signature weapons simple have no connection to the warframe they were paired with, as with the above examples. Is this so hard to understand? 

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

It doesn't matter if the Cobra and Crane special effect with Baruuk is not entirely significant, it's still exist (and it's in the description).

Indeed it exists, and its very existence shows precisely why signature weapons cannot hope to cover the design ground that can be achieved with innate weapons. Its interaction with Baruuk was minimal and did nothing for his kit, and ultimately it couldn't, because any more specific interaction with the frame's kit would have made it even less applicable to the rest of the roster. Again, there are plenty of examples of weapons I cited in this very thread that opponents of innate weapons could not find a place for as general weapons, simply because the weapons' identity was so closely tied to a frame that the only way to have them make sense for every frame would be to turn them into something completely different. The fact that such a weapon already exists in-game, in the form of Garuda's Talons, is sufficient.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Also you are probably confusing weapons that are included within their bundle, since it's pretty obvious those are not their signatures. When it quite literally states a weapon is X's signature, that's what I am mainly referring to (even though some bundles still slightly connect to the Warframe like Equinox's Grineer weapons because of Tyl Regor is where you farm her or even Trinity Prime's Dual Kamas Prime because of the aesthetic shared). Hystrix shares the same aesthetic as Khora, and relates to her theme since they are both Greek names and it means 'porcupine'. Banshee Prime and Euphone Prime are practically the same thing, with Euphona meaning sound and sharing styles. And you are also say that most of these signature weapons are not unique, though 3 of 4 you listed have unique traits about them.

This is some pretty desperate reaching. Where is the aesthetic similarity between Trinity Prime and the Dual Kamas Prime, besides the fact that they are two among many more primes? What does the Hystrix contribute to Khora's kit, and how does it relate to it? What about the Banshee Prime and Euphona Prime? If we're going to be saying there's a deep connection between any two Greek names, why is the Euphona Prime not Khora's signature weapon as well, then? Also, where is this arbitrary distinction you are drawing when there are so many examples of signature weapons with no interaction with their frames, as noted above? Again, while there are indeed weapons bundled together with warframes that aren't their signature weapons, signature weapons are nonetheless bundled together with warframes on release. All of this obfuscation does nothing to detract from the fact that signature weapons have consistently failed to provide interesting synergies and interactions between weapons and frames, and that it is therefore ludicrous to hold off on more innate weapons, which have proven consistently successful, in the hope that they'll start doing so.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Also I did see your Harrow and Mesa suggestions, and to be quite honest, those could have also been signature weapons as well, considering what Baruuk's was (since it does actually relate to one of his abilities), since most of them are basically buffs or extensions of their already existing abilities. And no, I am not saying that literally having them be the Warframe's models, just different ones that are still themed towards them.

How? Mesa's Regulators are literally a part of her body, and both weapons are central to their respective frames' identity. How is it okay to take a portion of one frame's identity and give it to another, let alone everyone else? Both weapons as I mentioned them would also be far too deeply connected to their owners' gameplay to be portable to a general weapon, and in the case of the Energy restore on the Thurible, there are plenty of balance reasons as for why that shouldn't be made available to more frames than just Harrow. For all your talk of entitlement, your approach here demonstrates a disturbing degree of entitlement to the unique features of individual warframes, with complete disregard for their identity, and balance at large.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

The only similarities that Exalted and innate weapons have is that they are attached to a Warframe.

Also exclusive to them, made specifically for them, a core part of their identity... you know, innate. 🙂 

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Yet, it's very clear that the main difference is how one of them is a part of the Warframe's abilities. You keep bringing this up later on as if they exactly the same thing, because they are not. Adding an Exalted weapon to a Warframe is different than an innate one, since it's supposed to be connected directly into the current abilities. In fact, most suggestions of that sort are made with the intention of allowing players to directly mod and improve their own Warframe's abilities; not adding a completely new weapon to the Warframe. Exalted weapons existing does not counter my argument because they are much more different then innate or signature weapons, they are practically modifiable abilities.

But they really aren't, particularly since Exalted weapons are now moddable like any regular weapon as well. They are just as connected to a Warframe as Garuda's Talons, just as exclusive as Garuda's Talons, and even as optional as Garuda's talons, as using these Exalted weapons is a matter of choice (the player can easily go about an entire mission without touching their Exalted weapon, and in the case of certain frames like Ivara or Wukong, this isn't uncommon). You keep drawing this futile, arbitrary distinction between what is ultimately the same kind of weapon, a class of weapon that has been well-established in the game for years, which players keep asking more of, and that has been successfully implemented in a slightly different manner with Garuda. At the end of the day, you can give Exalted weapons whichever special status you like, the fact remains that these are weapons exclusive to specific warframes, all of which utterly destroy the silly notion that the entirety of all weapons in Warframe can or should be made available to everyone else.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

You missed my point. I was referring due to how Garuda's Talons have no relation nor benefit to her abilities, that they practically could have just been a signature weapon. I know it's part of her identity, and it's part of her model too, that still doesn't change how they are not significant besides the fact that are the first ever innate weapon. 

If you know her talons are part of her identity and model... why are you arguing? You can whine all you want about how Garuda's Talons don't have any specific interactions with her kit, at the end of the day you yourself admit that they are intrinsic to her identity nonetheless. They may not be significant to you, but they are to many more players, which is once again why so many players have been asking for the same thing to be done to many more iconic frame weapons.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

DE has no problem with making Exalted or innate weapons for new Warframes or making ones for already existing ones? You keep mixing up the difference between these 2 things.

And you keep drawing arbitrary lines in the sand in order to establish false dichotomies. As it stands, the answer is both, as Exalted Blade, the OG innate weapon, was an addition to Excalibur's kit, not something he had from the very beginning. There are therefore clear precedents for adding Exalted and innate weapons for new and old warframes, so you can stop pretending like it's not the case

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Again, Exalted and innate weapons are not the same thing as I have pointed out before.

Except they are, as I have pointed out before. The game establishes no distinction between the two, and the wiki lists them under the common banner of Exalted weapons. You have no reason whatsoever to establish a false dichotomy here, other than to somehow attempt to convince me that the game isn't chock-full already of weapons that are exclusive to a single frame, which appeal so much to players that Exalted weapons are among the most commonly-requested features for both new and old frames, as noted on these very spaces.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Well, when you add an innate weapon to a frame, you would have to somewhat account for exactly that Warframe is going to change. For example, your Thurible slam attack idea might be problematic since it could just end up replacing Harrow's 1 entirely since it's practically a free and probably more efficient version of the ability now (also free energy per hit is a bit crazy too).

Except the slam attack wouldn't replace the 1 if it affected only the immediate area around the slam, as specified already in the original suggestion, because it would be far smaller than the range of his 1. Free Energy per hit is only "crazy" if the amount restored is excessive: in a hypothetical scenario where you restored only 0.01 Energy per hit, the restore would certainly not be crazy (because it would be so tiny as to not even exist). There is therefore a clear way to balance these features, especially since, once again, you'd only have to balance them against a single frame. For sure, there would always be balance considerations, but then again this can be said of any gameplay feature, and the fact remains that these frame-exclusive weapons would be much easier to balance than weapons made available to every frame at once.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Baruuk's C&C effect is different since you are technically doing the same sleeping effect as 2, but it differs for how faster and how much you can make enemies sleep within a time frame as well as the other benefits that come from Lull.

But you are saying nothing here, only that the overlap between the Cobra & Crane and Baruuk's Lull isn't as bad as it could be. At the end, the sleep effect does not benefit Baruuk any more than any other frame, and in fact anti-synergizes with the Restraint erosion on his 1. It is a visibly tacked-on mechanic that does not expand upon Baruuk's gameplay in any way, and if you dove deeper into trying to create more interaciton, you'd only push the weapon further away from working on the rest of the roster. By contrast, just to go back to my example of Harrow's Thurible, which I cobbled together in under a minute, the chain effect on slam would play completely to Harrow's emphasis on headshots, as would the bonus damage after channeling 3. This is the difference between a weapon with a gimmick nobody cared about, and one that would be a proper extension of a warframe, a hybrid between a weapon and an ability.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

A weapon that can be used for everyone, is not really bothered with making sure every single Warframe doesn't have broken stuff with some since, that would be way to hard to track and isn't entirely necessary. If there was some sort of insanely broken combination or problem with two specific ones, that might be only time they would need to have to intervene within that situation.

"I don't want to deal with the massive effort of checking a weapon's specific gameplay effects against all current and potential warframes, so I'll just throw these weapons out there without considering any of their potential interactions with individual warframes, and see if anything catches fire."

Great balancing philosophy right there /s. At the end of the day, you yourself admit that giving a weapon any particularly specific gameplay would make it "too hard to track", thereby proving my point that innate weapons are not only far easier to balance by comparison, but legitimately balanceable with respect to their unique effects. It is strange how you keep making excuses for clear issues that would arise and have arisen with more complex gameplay effects on broadly available weapons, all while nitpicking in an attempt to convince me that innate weapons are somehow not good for the game, in spite of their clear success.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

This thread is in the Warframe section, so it would be assumed by default you are trying to improve them. Also options are not bad because they are optional (which was not my point since I was talking about IF an innate weapon was bad nor did anything for the Warframe), they are bad when they do not serve a significant purpose for that Warframe and are extremely replaceable. Just like how certain augments can be really fun and even crucial for some frames, some augments really don't add much and are overall a gimmick.

Sure, but at the end of the day, augments exist, and many of them have in fact improved the gameplay of warframes, including with optional augments like Concentrated Arrow. Therefore, innate weapons in the style of Garuda's Talons have that same potential, as they too would improve a frame in an optional manner, and have done so already with Garuda. That you personally do not see any significant purpose in the entirety of innate weapons is, ultimately, your own problem, and no-one else's.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

I am clearly not confusing anything. I have specifically mentioned content that is themed for a Warframe but not exclusive to them, so trying to bring up Warframe helmet and skins make no sense. It's extremely obvious what Warframe uses an "Excalibur Graxx" but there's nothing that says that within something titled "Due Volpi Syandana". And again, you keep on mistaking Exalted weapons for innate ones.

You clearly still seem to be confusing a few things, because you still appear keen on trying to establish this double standard where some warframe features should be exclusive to them, i.e. skins, helmets, abilities, because of how tied they are to their identity, yet innate weapons, which are themselves tied to the identity of their warframes, somehow don't count among these. Exalted weapons are innate weapons, and ultimately both are extensions of a warframe and their core identity, which signature weapons aren't. This is where the entitlement is palpable, because despite being clearly shown that you cannot simply cannibalize another frame's identity just because you want to, with examples to boot, you still try to act like you should be entitled to wield an extension of another frame's model, identity, etc. just because you hate the idea of having weapons exclusive to any one frame. This is all the more transparent when you expound the value of "signature weapons" all while exclaiming how you find innate weapons worthless.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Well let's actually list some problems with innate weapons:

Having to rescript Warframes to accommodate for these changes,

Having to change something to change something is a problem now? Please. Also, once again, it's been done before, with no issues, so this is a non-problem.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

having to maintain a balance to make sure the weapon does not conflict with the current Warframe,

As opposed to having to maintain a balance to make sure the weapon does not conflict with every warframe in the game, and every warframe that will ever wield it in the future, so in fact his is an improvement over general weapons.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

giving the player a Weapon that they didn't choose (illusion of choice)

So then let the player unequip the weapon. Simple as that. Barring that, they can simply choose not to use the weapon. The one example we have is Garuda, and because her claws are stuck to her model regardless, there is no change in appearance whether or not you have them equipped. Once again, this is a non-issue, and on top of this you don't seem to understand what the illusion of choice means (hint: it's when the player is given a choice, but only one or a small subset of the options is valid).

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

even more Forma spend

Why is this a problem? Wouldn't it be good for DE? Also, who here is forcing players to put Forma into these weapons?

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

the reasons you and others have mentioned, etc.

Have mentioned, with the explicit purpose of debunking them, which happened immediately after.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Why even question my claim about the detriments of the innate weapon they are very clear ones present through out the whole thread too? I also acknowledge some of the reason for them as well, so why ignore them now?

Where did I ignore them, though? I directly addressed them and pointed out how you were reaching every single time. This is where the double standard comes out again, because you are visibly picking nits to try to discredit a feature that has already proven successful (and so without displaying any of the problems you mentioned), all while layering excuse upon excuse to justify appropriating key items of a frame's identity for yourself. Again, this is not a discussion of hypotheticals, because innate weapons already exist in the game. Deal with it.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

Also, you are not a psychologist. Stop trying to make this about personal claims or problems. We are in an online forum, talking about a video game's situation with its own features. There is literally no need into getting into semantics about whether or not I am evil.

And I've been saying any of this... where, exactly? I simply pointed out that you were projecting criticisms of your own argumentation onto me, as I had pointed out with examples. It does not take a psychologist to do this. You are in no position to talk about semantics when you have been endlessly finagling on the semantics of innate versus Exalted weapons, nor are you one to talk about personal claims problems when you have been making sweeping accusations in calling every proponent of innate weapons entitled. Once again, your accusations here are yet more projection.

6 hours ago, Scruffel said:

I am not even willing to respond to any of your further comments, since it just consists of missing my points, twisting my words, and making up some baseless claims about who I am. If you can't understand that I am giving my opinion, then it's not my fault. I can keep responding to topics about the actual game we were talking about, not personal attacks. And by the way, discussing on whether or not something is entitlement is not necessarily personal, only if you apply it to yourself.

I can perfectly understand that you are giving your opinion, the problem is simply that you are trying to state your opinion as fact, and bash other people for not sharing your opinion to the letter. You are very obviously backtracking here when just a couple posts ago you were accusing me and everyone who disagreed with you on this subject of "entitlement". Once again, you are continuing to project, as whereas I have answered you point-for-point, with direct references to your own words, you have been the one to ignore arguments made (e.g. all the arguments in favor of innate weapons, every time you claimed that the only argument made was "why not"), misrepresent my position and arguments (e.g. by insinuating that I felt like DE owed me the implementation of this feature), and and throw baseless accusations my way (e.g. by accusing me of entitlement for daring to give feedback on a feedback forum). If being presented with facts makes you not want to post any further, then good riddance.

[Birdframe_Prime]

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

because Baruuk's Exalted weapon is in fact an innate weapon

It's an ability weapon, Teridax, not an Innate weapon. Garuda's claws are the only innate weapon in the game. This is like the ridiculous claim that they aren't part of her passive all over again.

There is nothing wrong with this function being unique. There is no reason for it to be added to other frames. You are getting worked up over absolutely nothing more than your view not being supported. And I'm not going to feed your ridiculous, overblown fantasy that you're right anymore. Nor am I putting up with you calling me a liar.

Let it go. I'm doing just that. Later tater.

[Scruffel]

You know I am also about to head out too. I can't keep on doing the same thing over and over again, it's just really getting obnoxious.

But I do want to address one thing:

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

If being presented with facts makes you not want to post any further, then good riddance.

Even if are presenting 'facts' or your opinions, you keep bringing your own deductions of who I am and trying to some baseless claims about who others are too. Don't even question where you've done it because you have done it multiple times, trying to accuse people of doing things there not. It's really gotten to the point where you hindered the discussion yourself. And the fact that you even find satisfaction in getting people to not want talk again, is somewhat ironic due to how you've said in the past you never wanted to ruin the conversation. To be honest, this only makes you look like a terrible person. I'm going to keep posting in this forum, but not in this thread. I'm tired, bye.

[Teridax68]

28 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

It's an ability weapon, Teridax, not an Innate weapon. Garuda's claws are the only innate weapon in the game. This is like the ridiculous claim that they aren't part of her passive all over again.

Repeating yourself here does not make you any less wrong. Both are bespoke weapons created exclusively for a single frame, and the repeated success of this mechanic defeats your whole argument that the game cannot afford to have more frame-exclusive weapons. Developers love innate weapons, as do players, and pretending that adding more of these would somehow sink the game merely reflects upon your own biases, rather than anything pertaining to facts.

28 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

There is nothing wrong with this function being unique. There is no reason for it to be added to other frames.

There is nothing wrong with this function being added to other frames. There is no reason for it to be unique.

28 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

You are getting worked up over absolutely nothing more than your view not being supported. And I'm not going to feed your ridiculous, overblown fantasy that you're right anymore. Nor am I putting up with you calling me a liar.

Let it go. I'm doing just that. Later tater.

Interesting that you'd accuse me of "getting worked over absolutely nothing more than [my] view not being supported" when you have been drumming up a huff and turning this thread into a pointless argument from your very first post on here, and calling people names whenever they dared to express an opinion different from your own. Suggesting that innate weapons have a place of the game isn't a "ridiculous, overblown fantasy", but you presenting it as such is, and demonstrates just how laughably extreme a position you have taken in this argument. Once again, the ship has sailed on this already, so if anyone here needs to let go of their obsession over a status quo that has ceased to exist since 2015, it's you.

9 minutes ago, Scruffel said:

Even if are presenting 'facts' or your opinions, you keep bringing your own deductions of who I am and trying to some baseless claims about who others are too. Don't even question where you've done it because you have done it multiple times, trying to accuse people of doing things there not. It's really gotten to the point where you hindered the discussion yourself. And the fact that you even find satisfaction in getting people to not want talk again, is somewhat ironic due to how you've said in the past you never wanted to ruin the conversation. To be honest, this only makes you look like a terrible person. I'm going to keep posting in this forum, but not in this thread. I'm tired, bye.

This last post perfectly illustrates the degree of projection at hand: you accuse me of making baseless claims about other people's nature, only to immediately call me a terrible person, on the sole basis that I have criticized your negative and dishonest attitude in this discussion. No matter how much you try to deny the facts, at the end I can simply bring up the relevant quote pointing out exactly what you've said, in full context, and disprove whichever lie you were trying to uphold. It does not damage the conversation when a troll leaves, which is why I am perfectly happy with you not posting here, as your intent from the very beginning has visibly been to silence discussion and bully people for giving valid feedback. By contrast, I have tried to move conversation forward by providing examples of what the OP's suggestion could contribute to the game, and the conversation only slowed down when I had to constantly justify the basic validity of giving feedback on a feedback space. It is, in many ways, like trying to have a discussion on a topic in evolutionary biology, only to be forced to justify the very existence of evolution to a denialist. So long as you continue to push forth the disgusting notion that everyone should only be allowed to present feedback you personally approve of, and so purely based on how much you personally like the idea, your contribution to this discussion will continue to remain at a net negative, which is why it would be to this thread's benefit if you went off to continue picking fights with someone else instead, or better yet, no-one at all.

[Gurpgork]

53 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

It is, in many ways, like trying to have a discussion on a topic in evolutionary biology, only to be forced to justify the very existence of evolution to a denialist. 

Wh

What?

[Teridax68]

10 minutes ago, Gurpgork said:

What?

The OP made a suggestion asking for more built-in weapons on warframes, a topic that is well-grounded due to DE adding this type of weapon to the game already. They also visibly wanted to discuss the implementation of said weapons, which weapons and frames to give this treatment to, etc. However, discussion got bogged down because a vocal handful of people decided to question the very notion of innate weapons, in spite of them already existing in the game, and the validity of giving feedback in and of itself. Effectively, what could have been a productive discussion on an established topic has turned into an argument due to the actions of a vocal minority of people denying the very existence, and proven success, of these weapons. This is, of course, assuming your response was questioning the relevance of the comparison, rather than the validity of evolutionary theory (in which case RIP).