Make the game harder.

[FrostDragoon]

12 hours ago, (XB1)Architect Prime said:

That's a waste of time, not a challenge. 

The part that would actually piss me off about that wouldn't be that I might die once or twice, but that they despawn if I do, denying me the reason for wanting them to spawn in the first place.

[Quistris]

On 2019-10-14 at 12:48 AM, MakubexKido said:

i remember the original wolf of saturn six, the untapped and its undegraded form, which used to fck people in the ass if they went on a mission unprepared
now imagine the grineer introduced a new assault unit composed of 4 or 5 heavy unity, one for every tenno, as threatening as the first wolf
you runnin on a capture mission, and while on your way to extraction these guys will shows up like satellite drop infantry in plains of eidolon or will just appear out of nowhere in a ship tileset, and they will give the tenno the good ol "oh lawd help us" face

So, I have two reactions to this:

1. Please no. I cannot say no hard enough. And,
2. I think I get where you're coming from.

To clarify: I don't think I'm a particularly amazing player. I can just about do 60-90 minute missions, the odd solo arbitration for a half hour or something, etc. I don't think I'm amazing.  play mostly to have fun.

While I can appreciate the desire for something that challenges you (I've felt that call, it's why I'm here) The Wolf... Was not fun. I remember going into a levelling run on Hydron where all of us were leveling stuff. I was chatting with my dearheart at the time, and they ended up almost crapping their pants with laughter as four MR 20+ people ended up running around as star children slowly plinking away at this behemoth. When they put on Yackity-Sacks (I might be mispelling that), I almost lost it, too. The shared pain was a bit of a bonding experience, but he spawned in at wave 2 and we left at wave 5. About 40 minutes after we started.

But the thing is... The thing is... That concern? That worry about the Wolf having showed up to kick our asses? About wanting that loot and not being sure we could get it? That was excellent. The fight may have been awful (and the Wolf was basically a "Please have an anti-wolf tool in your party at all times" statement, holy crap did I play a lot of Valkyr with some Radiation Talons this spring) but the feeling of it, unless it eventually ground me down and basically just made me hang my head because 'oh boy, here comes another choice: spend 30 minutes fighting this thiccest of thiccbois or just abandon it and come back', was excellent. And I think trying to capture that sense of 'oh crap, here comes trouble' is probably important. I just am not sure that the Wolf was a good model for this.

I'm actually kinda hoping the Nemesis system ends up supplying this some, although I don't know if that'll be true or not until it happens. I feel like that system holds a lot of potential to address at least some of my specific concerns as a player. I'm not waiting with baited breath, but I am reservedly hopeful. At the moment, I'm not entirely sure what a good sort of... Assassin/"here comes trouble" system would like look, I haven't put a lot of thought into the question. But, I think I would definately have to encourage it away from 'bullet sponge'/'DPS race' stuff, as someone who doesn't really enjoy playing most of the tank/DPS frames. But, again, I'm one of those people that likes running frames like Nyx, or Limbo. Tricksy, kinda off-the wall frames.

Regarding Fortuna: I never actually knew they nerfed the Fortuna enemies. I did notice that they felt weaker when I finally went back to Orb Valis, but my builds were also MUCH better at that point, so I chalked it up to that. Let me be clear: I hated the Venus enemies when they launched, but they felt... Sort of appropriate? For the Corpus, I mean. Increasingly, I feel like one of the issues may be that having only one solution (use gun on man) is making designing interesting enemies a bit problematic when we can zip around at hyper speeds and our guns are sort of tactical nukes. I feel like the answer may, in fact, lie in enemies being able to negate us, but I feel like - so far - all the negations are problematic in their own ways. Either they are visually difficult to understand, or else they are absolute fail states (on/off). Hrm. I'll have to have a think about that, but that's my initial reaction to all of this.

Regarding a difficulty slider, should someone from [DE] read this: that really wouldn't go amiss. I love certain tilesets, but like... Unless I'm running fissures or farming plants, there's not a lot of reason or challenge or fun to be had on Earth unless I'm in the Plains or leveling up a newly-forma'd build.

[FrostDragoon]

56 minutes ago, Winter_One said:

Regarding a difficulty slider, should someone from [DE] read this: that really wouldn't go amiss. I love certain tilesets, but like... Unless I'm running fissures or farming plants, there's not a lot of reason or challenge or fun to be had on Earth unless I'm in the Plains or leveling up a newly-forma'd build.

Being able to set difficulties would be great. Preserve the existing star chart as "minimum" difficulty for those nodes so as not to throw the rewards out of whack, but allow you to set their starting level 10 - 200 levels higher if you want. Would also appreciate being able to add Nightmare/Sortie modifiers to it while we're at it. All the weird nerfs over the years toward "experience caves" kind of went out the window with the introduction of ESO, so letting players "exp cave" anywhere they want would go a long way toward seeing more of the map actually get played and be less boring for us as well.

[Quistris]

10 minutes ago, FrostDragoon said:

Being able to set difficulties would be great. Preserve the existing star chart as "minimum" difficulty for those nodes so as not to throw the rewards out of whack, but allow you to set their starting level 10 - 200 levels higher if you want. Would also appreciate being able to add Nightmare/Sortie modifiers to it while we're at it. All the weird nerfs over the years toward "experience caves" kind of went out the window with the introduction of ESO, so letting players "exp cave" anywhere they want would go a long way toward seeing more of the map actually get played and be less boring for us as well.

...I hadn't even thought of that. If they did this, I'd probably spend SO much time in Earth Excavation.

 

...You know what'd be sort of awesome? If they basically had different 'difficulty' and 'reward' settings.

These numbers are pulled completely from the usual place, so please, don't take them as any sort of actual thing, but, what if the enemy level could determine not like... resources and things, but like... The mission rewards? The following is purely example based on a Starchart, please don't take it as some well-thought out proposal, just a proof-of-concept thing:

Say we had the following options:

• Level 1-10 Enemies
• Level 11-20 Enemies
• Level 21-30 Enemies
• Level 31-40 Enemies

Now image that you had a 'loot slider' that could unlock as you moved down the difficulty settings, meaning at any point you could select the unlocked option or any lower option. Again, this wouldn't effect drops or anything, just like the 'reward every five minutes' for survival. The rotation rewards, that's it. Something like this:

• Level 1-10 Enemies (Lith-Centric Rewards + Occasional Meso)
• Level 11-20 Enemies (Meso-Centric Rewards + Occasional Neo)
• Level 21-30 Enemies (Neo-Centric Rewards + Occasional Axi)
• Level 31-40 Enemies (Split Neo + Axi Rewards (Ala Xini))

And boom. Suddenly, you can have people playing through different tilesets, no longer seeing like the same 2-3 tilesets, and able to get the rewards that they're after.

[FrostDragoon]

9 minutes ago, Winter_One said:

...I hadn't even thought of that. If they did this, I'd probably spend SO much time in Earth Excavation.

 

...You know what'd be sort of awesome? If they basically had different 'difficulty' and 'reward' settings.

These numbers are pulled completely from the usual place, so please, don't take them as any sort of actual thing, but, what if the enemy level could determine not like... resources and things, but like... The mission rewards? The following is purely example based on a Starchart, please don't take it as some well-thought out proposal, just a proof-of-concept thing:

Say we had the following options:

• Level 1-10 Enemies
• Level 11-20 Enemies
• Level 21-30 Enemies
• Level 31-40 Enemies

Now image that you had a 'loot slider' that could unlock as you moved down the difficulty settings, meaning at any point you could select the unlocked option or any lower option. Again, this wouldn't effect drops or anything, just like the 'reward every five minutes' for survival. The rotation rewards, that's it. Something like this:

• Level 1-10 Enemies (Lith-Centric Rewards + Occasional Meso)
• Level 11-20 Enemies (Meso-Centric Rewards + Occasional Neo)
• Level 21-30 Enemies (Neo-Centric Rewards + Occasional Axi)
• Level 31-40 Enemies (Split Neo + Axi Rewards (Ala Xini))

And boom. Suddenly, you can have people playing through different tilesets, no longer seeing like the same 2-3 tilesets, and able to get the rewards that they're after.

I actually meant to include something like that in my post, but spaced it because I got distracted by RL stuff. The star chart already follows a rewards progression based on tier, so beginning your mission at those higher tiers should dictate the reward table for that run. However, the rewards probably shouldn't change as the mission scales (since it doesn't currently) because that would undermine the purpose of wanting to start at that tier in many cases. For example, I want to farm Venus Excavation at tier 2 (it's 1 by default), that table is dictated by the difficulty slider once I start the mission and locks in for the duration of that run.

[Quistris]

1 hour ago, FrostDragoon said:

However, the rewards probably shouldn't change as the mission scales

If I accidentally implied this, I really didn't mean to! I meant that you'd pick from the options at the start of the mission, and that was your thing. Basically, exactly the way you thought it should be. XD

[Zebiko]

One side people want more challenge, and the other side people don't want things harder. Guess which side can both people do? Which side is more readily available for people to play?

More difficulty makes less people able to do it, and DE doesn't want that. It's a balancing thing, hard enough to allow for majority to play, have fun, and complete it. 

Harder isn't always more fun. For instance, some riven challenges are a pain to do and potentially impossible for certain players. (I don't care about people replying if all of them were easy for you, good for you for missing the point, go play dark souls) 

To me, I like the Dynasty Warriors type of game play that warframe brings, minus the interesting boss fight encounters. Hopefully kuva lich will help that out. 

[Quistris]

1 hour ago, Zebiko said:

Harder isn't always more fun. For instance, some riven challenges are a pain to do and potentially impossible for certain players. (I don't care about people replying if all of them were easy for you, good for you for missing the point, go play dark souls) 

I actually entirely agree with this, although I dunno that that tone is particularly helpful. But yeah, it's part of why I don't really bother going for hours and hours.

 

1 hour ago, Zebiko said:

To me, I like the Dynasty Warriors type of game play that warframe brings, minus the interesting boss fight encounters. Hopefully kuva lich will help that out.

I'm into this. I have the same hope for the Kuva Liches/Nemesis systems myself, among others.

The thing is, from your post, it sounds like you're trying to avoid any increase in difficulty. It's a very "mine or thine", "if it's not black it MUST be white" sort of thing, and I dunno that that's helpful. I do think - and I do think it's very, very important - to not force increased challenge on people who want it. Let DE create the base game they mean to. But that doesn't mean challenge can't exist. I feel like your fear is that power-granting things will be locked behind extended challenges, (please tell me if I'm reading too much into what you say, I could be misinterpreting). If that's the case, then I am on 'your side' as it were, in that. I don't think that things should be hidden behind advanced difficulty if that's not what DE wants. But I don't think that means difficult challenge can't exist. I mean, most games have difficulty slides/settings for a reason.

I do think your point is worth saying here, although I don't think taking an oppositional approach is helpful to the discussion. There's no real reason both can't happily exist.

[FrostDragoon]

1 hour ago, Zebiko said:

One side people want more challenge, and the other side people don't want things harder. Guess which side can both people do? Which side is more readily available for people to play?

More difficulty makes less people able to do it, and DE doesn't want that. It's a balancing thing, hard enough to allow for majority to play, have fun, and complete it. 

Harder isn't always more fun. For instance, some riven challenges are a pain to do and potentially impossible for certain players. (I don't care about people replying if all of them were easy for you, good for you for missing the point, go play dark souls) 

To me, I like the Dynasty Warriors type of game play that warframe brings, minus the interesting boss fight encounters. Hopefully kuva lich will help that out. 

It isn't a binary choice, though. That's why these suggestions for custom difficulty or a difficulty slider make so much sense. The game has a base difficulty the devs intend for it to be played at, but people wanting a challenge would have the freedom to ramp it up more (potentially for better rewards in some cases). As long as the unique and important rewards for any given mission are part of the base mode, rather than excluded by that difficulty slider, there shouldn't be any real problem with it.

[Joezone619]

I really like the "choose your difficulty" idea, i think what im trying to say with my post is things arn't challanging enough. in the higher level areas, the *difficulty* is hard enough, but theres no challange, i dont have to actually DO anything, just keep hitting the same enemies anywhere till they fall.

Things like the nox i think threw it in the right direction. enemies that CAN be damaged by normal means, but will only actually start taking REAL damage if shoot them here, or melee this, or hit that. enemies with specific weaknesses like that would be a fun way to rework heavy units.

Heavy gunners could have an ammo-pack on their hip that once shot, either explodes and does headshot-like damage or forces them to go to melee

Napalms could have a fuel tank on their back, that when stuck, explodes forces them to a normal gun, and/or just sets them on fire XD

Bombards should have bags of explosives near their legs, that explode when hit, blasting them across the room, or just flat out killing them.

Bursas should have a bit more damage resistance OR spawn more regularly, and have their shields able to be broken.

Ancients, should have their effects increased, but only able to effect a number of enemies. (although the infested seem pretty balanced in terms of "challange", they seem fine)

 

Stuff like that would be cool in a rework, giving them weaknesses like these and making them more damage resistant, or more of a threat to be picked out from a group first. Eximus units are due for a rework too but mostly because DE has somewhat neglected them over the years.

[FrostDragoon]

3 minutes ago, Joezone619 said:

(although the infested seem pretty balanced in terms of "challange", they seem fine)

Energy drain is a pretty sh*t mechanic, right behind Nullifiers. There has to be a better way to induce "challenge" than undermining the core design of the game.

[Joezone619]

Energy drain is a pretty sh*t mechanic, right behind Nullifiers. i agree. and abilitly Lock isn't really better either

[DOOMPATRIOT]

Love your post, but...

What you are proposing is challenging, not hard content (which I totally agree on).

You can already have difficult content in Warframe, but it is lock down between a wait of 1 hour, I mean in Mot, passing the hour mark makes the game really fun and hard (personally), the only thing I wish is that we could be instantly against lvl 100 enemies and go beyond that point.

But still really wish DE did this.

[Joezone619]

DE Make it happen!.... please?

[Quistris]

On 2019-10-19 at 2:42 AM, Joezone619 said:

Energy drain is a pretty sh*t mechanic, right behind Nullifiers. i agree. and abilitly Lock isn't really better either

I actually disagree with this. And hear me out on this one.

I don't think energy drain is a bad mechanic. The idea of an enemy that can rob you of your resources is a fairly solid one, from a design standpoint.

I think the entire problem is [DE]'s how. 

As of right now, most Energy Drain units (Various names for the infamous Energy Leech Eximii) have a different colour scheme to their fellows. And... That's it. In a fast-paced game that sometimes has dozens of enemies in a room being a (sometimes only slightly) different colour to your fellows does NOT let me engage and counteract this. In general, I feel like Eximus units have... Issues, with the Energy Leech being the best example of this. It's just kinda there, a randomly much more durable enemy with a particularly obnoxious effect. If there was a better way to tell a priority target in this game apart from silhouette, I think that this problem might go away. I don't have an answer for that, but the major issue is that an Energy Leech Nox (let's say) looks almost exactly the same as a Nox, and shares the same core shape.

Way back in City of Heroes, there was this faction of enemies called Malta (or maybe The Malta, I don't remember). And their entire gimmick was that they carried anti-hero tech. Power suppression, energy drains, you name it. While the game was slower paced, and that helped, it was also fairly is to locate the different enemies that did the various sorts of issues, and it could, if you put work into figuring out how to approach them and weren't just trying to nuke everything as fast as possible, both make them a more interesting fight and could provide an enormous sense of satisfaction in taking out a whole group of them without a single hitch. And, energy drain was one of their main things. Did all their units have it? No. Some were just basic 'dudes with guns', but basically we're talking about all their specialist units (for Grineer, this is everyone outside of Lancers and Butchers) carrying some form of 'messing with your business'.

[Quistris]

On 2019-10-19 at 1:57 AM, Joezone619 said:

I really like the "choose your difficulty" idea, i think what im trying to say with my post is things arn't challanging enough. in the higher level areas, the *difficulty* is hard enough, but theres no challange, i dont have to actually DO anything, just keep hitting the same enemies anywhere till they fall.

Things like the nox i think threw it in the right direction. enemies that CAN be damaged by normal means, but will only actually start taking REAL damage if shoot them here, or melee this, or hit that. enemies with specific weaknesses like that would be a fun way to rework heavy units.

Heavy gunners could have an ammo-pack on their hip that once shot, either explodes and does headshot-like damage or forces them to go to melee

Napalms could have a fuel tank on their back, that when stuck, explodes forces them to a normal gun, and/or just sets them on fire XD

Bombards should have bags of explosives near their legs, that explode when hit, blasting them across the room, or just flat out killing them.

Bursas should have a bit more damage resistance OR spawn more regularly, and have their shields able to be broken.

Ancients, should have their effects increased, but only able to effect a number of enemies. (although the infested seem pretty balanced in terms of "challange", they seem fine)

 

Stuff like that would be cool in a rework, giving them weaknesses like these and making them more damage resistant, or more of a threat to be picked out from a group first. Eximus units are due for a rework too but mostly because DE has somewhat neglected them over the years.

...I think I see what you're saying here.

While I'm not sure about the implementation you're suggesting, I definitely get what you're saying behind it. I've... started getting to the point where I can sit in a survival arbitration for about an hour on my own and come out with my skin basically intact. And you're right, it's... Not super engaging. It's difficult, yes. But it feels like a formula sort of difficult.

I've never played a Dark Souls game, so I can't honestly argue that I'd like for Warframe to go in that direction, but I think what you're speaking to is probably best summed up as a lack of engagement with the enemies. I can understand that, and I tend to agree with that. I'm choosing the term 'engagement' here, because it's relatively 'difficulty-neutral' as it were? It's something that the whole game could potentially use to improve itself without excluding anyone from doing it. Maybe it would be something that would matter at higher levels, where skill is more of a factor (around Sortie 2-3, I suppose. Post normal Starchart, certainly) but that doesn't necessarily make an enormous impact starting out in terms of ability to kill and get into the game. Again, I'm hoping that the Liches (and their counterparts) provide some diversity to this.

There's a counter-argument to this, which I will propose later, when I'm less tired. (In no small part, it's that it would take away the whole 'get into a groove and zone' vibe that Warframe can sometimes have and that I have also sometimes enjoyed.) I'm not against the notion, and in fact I'm pro more enemy engagement, but I think it's important to consider the opposite side and look for potential downsides or issues when discussing something, especially if you want the developers to actually give it a consideration. 

[(PSN)PanserKunst]

I'd like AI for enemies to become more sophisticated. It's a tricky balance for sure as it's not just implementation and tuning but also what the engine can sustain performance-wise. As Warframe could be considered a nearly horde shooter? Performance is critical especially where consoles are concerned. You lucky or unlucky PC'ers (depending on your finances can adjust.) Would most people agree that AI for WF is more or less pretty simplistic? Seeing Elites in Halo Reach taking cover behind dynamic objects was pretty remarkable. Squads of Jackals in ODST maintaining formation and behaving like a cohesive unit. inter-dependency between one enemies behavior and another. I think this could be a good avenue to approach to not just improve sophistication but also engagement with the player(s).

[FrostDragoon]

46 minutes ago, Winter_One said:

I actually disagree with this. And hear me out on this one.

I don't think energy drain is a bad mechanic. The idea of an enemy that can rob you of your resources is a fairly solid one, from a design standpoint.

I think the entire problem is [DE]'s how. 

To a point, I could agree, but the how is the problem.

Enemies can have energy drain as a passive aura that depletes you at a rapid pace, but Ember got completely f**ked over and is being "reworked" because her aura was "not engaging enough." Doesn't seem right.

I think the Ancient Disruptors are the example I would point to of energy drain done in an acceptable manner--if you can avoid taking damage from them, they can't drain you. Parasitic chargers are the other end, and that version is more what I was talking about as particularly cancerous design that should be removed from the game.

[Quistris]

32 minutes ago, FrostDragoon said:

To a point, I could agree, but the how is the problem.

Enemies can have energy drain as a passive aura that depletes you at a rapid pace, but Ember got completely f**ked over and is being "reworked" because her aura was "not engaging enough." Doesn't seem right.

I think the Ancient Disruptors are the example I would point to of energy drain done in an acceptable manner--if you can avoid taking damage from them, they can't drain you. Parasitic chargers are the other end, and that version is more what I was talking about as particularly cancerous design that should be removed from the game.

Yeah, I feel like we're on the same page here.

To dredge up the old CoX example, Malta Sappers basically had an attack on a windup that would delete a large chunk of your energy bar. You could do stuff to them in this windup: attempt to nuke them down, mezz them, pull aggro from a teammate, etc. You could interact with it.

That whole "massive energy drain aura" is a problem. There's no real notification of it, the enemies don't stand out, etc...

RE: Ember's rework. I haven't really made too much comment on it in the official thread yet, as I feel like everyone else's voice is loud enough already, but the further away from the announcement we are, the more I'm concerned about it. That, and my biggest issue is I really need some time to sit down and play with a frame before getting an opinion on it, and the rework is just so different.

[Quistris]

55 minutes ago, (PS4)PanserKunst said:

I'd like AI for enemies to become more sophisticated. It's a tricky balance for sure as it's not just implementation and tuning but also what the engine can sustain performance-wise. As Warframe could be considered a nearly horde shooter? Performance is critical especially where consoles are concerned. You lucky or unlucky PC'ers (depending on your finances can adjust.) Would most people agree that AI for WF is more or less pretty simplistic? Seeing Elites in Halo Reach taking cover behind dynamic objects was pretty remarkable. Squads of Jackals in ODST maintaining formation and behaving like a cohesive unit. inter-dependency between one enemies behavior and another. I think this could be a good avenue to approach to not just improve sophistication but also engagement with the player(s).

I actually think this would be a really nifty way to go. And Halo on normal isn't considered some sort of grand difficulty challenge, is it?

Edit:

To be clear. I have only ever played the first Halo because at the time it was the only one to get port'd to PC. The PvP multiplayer was alright, but I did not care much for the campaign. I suppose it could have been fun with a friend, but they gutted the ability to play that from the game, for some reason. I never really thought the series was especially amazing? But generally I'd give it around a 6 out of 10 or so, definitely above average. Even there, though, I feel like the AI was more responsive than a lot of Warframe's AI usually is. But that performance issue pops up again, as usually there were like... Maybe 1/2 to 1/4th as many enemies on screen as in your average Warframe map room.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Winter_One

[(PSN)PanserKunst]

14 minutes ago, Winter_One said:

I actually think this would be a really nifty way to go. And Halo on normal isn't considered some sort of grand difficulty challenge, is it?

Heroic difficulty, a step above Normal was what Bungie (From Combat Evolved to Reach) felt was the way Halo should be played. When I played Campaign a lot, Heroic was my bread and butter. It was the right blend of difficulty where unwise tactics (starting an encounter with depleted shields or reloading  when surrounded, to say nothing of not letting yourself get surrounded in the first place. etc.) would kill you if you persisted in it. Major enhancements to AI I believe surfaced most strikingly in Halo 3. That's when AI started hiding behind dynamic objects like crates that where blown out of place by a grenade or rocket (Speculation) the AI examined an appropriate side to hide behind and utilized it. Combat has a more organic feel and came alive. When Elites were killed, grunts scattered and ran, and became easy targets. Breakdown of unit cohesion was something believable... and it never got old. AI is what made Elites and Hunters in Halo so dangerous and feared.

Halo campaigns were carefully crafted whereas Warframe just throws enemies at you with no real thought about it other than you are wave twenty so you'll be seeing Nox more often and he'll have more armor, more health... you get the point. Good well planned AI can create extraordinary events, sometimes rare things the creators never imagined would ever happen. I think this might be a good way to go, and could breathe new life into WF.

[FrostDragoon]

1 hour ago, Winter_One said:

RE: Ember's rework. I haven't really made too much comment on it in the official thread yet, as I feel like everyone else's voice is loud enough already, but the further away from the announcement we are, the more I'm concerned about it. That, and my biggest issue is I really need some time to sit down and play with a frame before getting an opinion on it, and the rework is just so different.

I've always been against them ruining ("nerfing") World on Fire, though wouldn't have minded the rest of her kit getting a rework since it felt so disjointed. Instead, they did it backwards for bad reasons that were repeated by the sheep among the community who listen to Youtubers/streamers instead of thinking about how that frame actually fits into the game. I almost don't even care what they do with her rework now that I've seen the preview in the dev stream showing that WoF is entirely gone and is now just a dumb single use nuke.

[Quistris]

1 minute ago, FrostDragoon said:

I've always been against them ruining ("nerfing") World on Fire, though wouldn't have minded the rest of her kit getting a rework since it felt so disjointed. Instead, they did it backwards for bad reasons that were repeated by the sheep among the community who listen to Youtubers/streamers instead of thinking about how that frame actually fits into the game. I almost don't even care what they do with her rework now that I've seen the preview in the dev stream showing that WoF is entirely gone and is now just a dumb single use nuke.

Ehhhh... I'm not... Lemme think of how to put this.

While I don't know exactly the Ember rework went the way it did and can't speculate, I think that might be reading too much into why they did what they did (unless they've said somewhere). While I do tend to lean that they've gone too far, though, I'm also very much in a 'wait and see' sort of camp. I feel like I'd want to sit down and pick the brains of whoever was behind the Ember redesign as to why they went with what they went with before I started either casting aspersions or saying that they did what they did in bad faith. I don't particularly like the looks of it myself, but there's just so many questions there that we don't really know the answer to to be able to say.

Although - while I'm not sure that this thread is the right place to have that discussion - I would be keen to know why you feel the rework was done backwards and where you felt Ember fit into the game as it stood, pre-rework announcement.

Also, speaking of disjointed, I actually feel like her old kit was more coherent than her new one. This new one sort of feels all over the place to me.

[Joezone619]

DE Really needs to do something to make enemies more... inclusive? interactive? idk the word im looking for.

[Goodwill]

You have to fight an army of Vay Heks.