Blink nerf and railjack archwing gameplay.

[Variks_Prime]

Sadly gonna have to mostly agree with you. The changes to archwing are so bad, so harmful to my enjoyment of anything to do with archwing, that I'm now avoiding free roam and archwing missions as much as possible in the hopes they get fixed before I have to touch them again much. My enthusiasm for Railjack has pretty much died. I'm struggling to feel like buying the Prime Vault would be a good idea... (I've bought the past several...) Right now I just can't bring myself to spend the money on it after a patch like this.

 

Why? Because the new movement model for long range traversal is clunky and unfun, a huge step down from Itzal's brand of blink. Twice the distance or not, 3 seconds is just too long, and a single long straight jump every 3 seconds is generally inferior to more control from more, shorter jumps as well.

 

Constructive feedback: The model could be improved greatly by giving us a dedicated blink bar with enough charge for 3 blinks at full, regening enough for 1 blink of half the current distance EVERY second. It might need to be more than that but this would be a good start, and shorter, more controllable, more interactive blinks is VERY important to usability. Feeling like you're just coasting slowly for the 3 seconds between blinks is not a good feeling. And as-is, I've gone from using mostly Itzal to EXCLUSIVELY Itzal because with the new, nerfed blink, getting as much base speed as possible during those coasts is MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER. This didn't solve, or even help, the archwing diversity issue: it made it worse. Also, the key binding doing both blink and the weird up-jump thing is awkward and uncomfortable, could the upjump be moved to the transference key or something? I keep accidentally doing that when I want to blink, and it makes the changes even MORE annoying. Archwing is just too unpleasantly slow and awkward in atmospheric flight now, and I doubt it's going to be any better in railjack missions.

 

At least I still have non-free roam, non-archwing missions to play instead. But being forced to go to plains and the vallis for resources is just... ugh. It makes the game unpleasant. Please give me better excuses to shovel money at you, DE. Ya dropped the ball on these archwing changes.

[Tyreaus]

1 hour ago, Variks_Prime said:

Twice the distance or not, 3 seconds is just too long, and a single long straight jump every 3 seconds is generally inferior to more control from more, shorter jumps as well.

Agreed with this. I do like that stopping is so much easier and fluid than before—people seem to complain about that responsiveness being too much like ground fighting, but having to loop around Interception nodes five times just to stay within the acquisition range was not especially fun—but being able to blink more often would just feel more controllable and responsive. Plus more effective in smaller maps, since the current blink range often has me headbutting a wall in any non-open-world map.

Not sure what's up with the "up jump" thing you're talking about, though. I'm on keyboard and haven't run into that issue. Maybe something with keybinds?

[Tyreaus]

Though I'm one who more likes the current feel of Archwing, I have been seeing a bit of feedback regarding the new Archwing system, and there's a few major things I've noticed:

1. Some people like the inertia of the old system, some of whom have asked for a toggle

2. Some people like the "flight sim" feel, with 6DOF and the like

_{Also some people would like Blink to be shortened in cooldown and distance but that's not this topic.}

So I had a bit of a concept to expand the "Sprint to Afterburner" function so that it changes to more of a "plane" mode when held, much closer to how Archwing used to function. E.g., if you press and hold sprint (or toggle it, as per the control option), you don't necessarily move, but you gain the afterburner capability with sprint + forward (and, IIRC, other directions as well). As long as sprint is held, momentum carries through, just like the old Archwing system. So you can, for example, hold shift and tap forward for small bursts of speed that let you continue to drift forward. As soon as you let go, everything gets reset: the player reorients and their momentum stops, just like it does in the current Archwing. That, I think, gets the best of both worlds: it gives traversal the potential to be dynamic like it used to be, but also utilizes the snappier "hover" movement that fits more stationary combat a bit better and allows for reasonable stops.

Basically: hold / toggle* sprint for old Archwing (with option for Experimental Flight like before), release for current Archwing.

_{*I'm honestly not sure if Archwing has a toggle-to-sprint / afterburner function, it being tied to Blink now and all. Could perhaps need a bit of a keybinding tweak of sorts...}

[Fenrys_Delta]

I´m excited for the railjack content, sure, but the changes to archwing are just awful.

I´m all for giving a blink to all the archwings, but why change the flight model?

Archwing was fast and fun to fly before, we could roll and it was a joy to use.

Now it´s pretty much like space archwing flight model and that just SUCKS. Plus, I´m pretty sure it´s slower now, too.

Please, DE, revert the changes to archwing flight model. You tried to implement this before and we didn´t like it then.

Why would we like it now? 

What do you guys think?

[Berserkerkitten]

I don't think it really matters what they do with the flight system at this point. Someone is always going to hate it, no matter what.

I do miss being able to roll and fly upside down, though.

[Kaotyke]

4 minutes ago, Berserkerkitten said:

I don't think it really matters what they do with the flight system at this point. Someone is always going to hate it, no matter what.

Pretty much. There is no winning here.

4 minutes ago, Berserkerkitten said:

I do miss being able to roll and fly upside down, though.

I used to do that, then I noticed my head was unconsiously tildting 80 degrees to make sense of what I was seeing

[FireSegment]

On 2019-11-24 at 4:18 PM, Smilomaniac said:

Was the blink "spamming" a problem? No. You broke it into this clownish sprint mashing that makes no sense.
Was the afterburner a problem? No. Engaging afterburner was probably the single thing about archwings that felt good. Yet you removed this.
Was the movement an issue? No, you had two options that people could switch between that made sense in different ways.

Amazing, every single thing you said was wrong

- The izalt old blink isn't a problem for you doesn't mean it isn't a problem of the game. Locking fast travel option to only one AW is the bad thing for everyone.

- DE did not remove Afterburner, they moved it to hold LShift+W, it isn't feel the same but it's there.

- AW movement has never felt good, not even after this change, but now it at least feel a little better in precision thx to the drift being removed.

On 2019-11-24 at 4:18 PM, Smilomaniac said:

Now we're all at the same level: It's bad for everyone. Just revert the change and admit that you didn't even play test this, much less have a solution to the "problem".
I don't know if this is another Scott level of stubborness, like when you insisted that Vacuum was somehow a luxury mechanic, but it definitely seems like the itzal blink was a "problem" for developer ego and literally no one else.

No. Izalt blink is a problem at the scale of Zorren-coptering. This change isn't as successful as the Parkour 2.0 that fixed the coptering but it's still success at making Izalt being a brain-dead must have.

DE have nothing to admit to you, you are not a shareholder of their company. Don't like it? Then do something else, make actual suggestion, use K-drive, whatever. Making toxic rants speak more about yourself than about the problem.

[SussySnek]

25 minutes ago, Fenrys_Delta said:

Archwing was fast and fun to fly before

27 minutes ago, Fenrys_Delta said:

What do you guys think?

 

 

[Tyreaus]

29 minutes ago, Fenrys_Delta said:

What do you guys think?

I think the snappiness of the "hover" part works very well. I also think they could easily add in the old parts of Archwing that people liked with the Afterburner function. The old Archwing worked well for traversal. The current one works well for combat. Both together shining in their respective strong points would be ideal.

[(PSN)FriendSharkey]

I think they should get rid of it and let us go Silver Surfer with our K-drives...FTW.

[OniDax]

Archwing has *always* been boring, because flying them is dull. They could at least improve the animations so that it feels cooler to fly them. What archwing needs is a proper flight model (as in, when you're going forward, the archwing is being propelled forward, when you turn, you turn on a curve, etc.) with proper flight animations. Right now, the archwing floats in the air and moves like a fixed object, not like something that is actually flying through the air. And that makes archwings boring to fly. Blink or no blink isn't the issue. Rolling or no rolling isn't the issue. Inertia isn't even the issue. It's that the archwings don't actually fly like they should. They aren't animated like they should.

Edited November 30, 2019 by TheGildedOni

[Gravitus123]

Honestly i really love the movement now Steve mentioned they wanted it to feel more like Zone of the Enders and they almost completely nailed it the only thing id want to change is that weird foward roll movement that you can do by accident its pointless plus it only slows you down or just give archwing specific keybindings so i can rebind the blink to a different button.

Also some new archwing content hopefully with railjack cuz theres really no point in playing it once you get all the weapons and arhcwings

[Smilomaniac]

21 minutes ago, FireSegment said:

Amazing, every single thing you said was wrong

- The izalt old blink isn't a problem for you doesn't mean it isn't a problem of the game. Locking fast travel option to only one AW is the bad thing for everyone.

- DE did not remove Afterburner, they moved it to hold LShift+W, it isn't feel the same but it's there.

- AW movement has never felt good, not even after this change, but now it at least feel a little better in precision thx to the drift being removed.

Amazing, you offer three opinions and claim mine to be wrong. What's wrong with you people.

You're yet another person claiming the blink "was a problem" despite no one explaining why. Probably because you know the reason is at best subjective and a hard point to argue, especially when you trying to counter an opinion.
You weren't locked into using the Itzal, you could pick whatever you wanted. This is a brain dead argument, because the underlying premise is that you FEEL forced to use it, because it's the best at traveling. Guess what (and I've repeatedly stated this throughout the thread) you're not supposed to use archwing in the open world levels, you're actively discouraged from it, which is why you get shot down as soon as you engage in combat.
That means archwings are at best all transportation options and the rest is there for you to mess around with when you're not in a hurry, to good around with. You're free to use the other archwings in any of the other content as much as you want. Of course if you did, you'd know there are meta options in those missions as well and I'm pretty sure you haven't spent a second anywhere to debate that point.

Yeah there is an afterburner and it sucks now. They might as well have removed it for all it matters and just increased the general speed that tiny amount more.

You're right, the movement never felt good. Is it more precise now? Sure. Is it better? I don't think so.

24 minutes ago, FireSegment said:

No. Izalt blink is a problem at the scale of Zorren-coptering. This change isn't as successful as the Parkour 2.0 that fixed the coptering but it's still success at making Izalt being a brain-dead must have.

DE have nothing to admit to you, you are not a shareholder of their company. Don't like it? Then do something else, make actual suggestion, use K-drive, whatever. Making toxic rants speak more about yourself than about the problem.

Don't like my thread? Stay out of it, making toxic replies like this speaks volumes of the kind of person you are.

[Fenrys_Delta]

I think we should be able to choose which system to use. The archwing is much slower and dumbed down, now.

I used to feel like the thing was going really fast, zipping around the map, rolling and suff.

Now it´s just... meh.

I can´t understand DE´s fixation on making the archwing LESS fun to use.

[Toppien]

while i think the former archwing flight system was stupid, i agree that it should had been left an option for people who wanted the vomit inducing. and unresponsive movement system

the option was there before, idk why they took it out

and idk why people are being so rough at archwing, i think its fun i love it since day 1 and from all the different iterations of the flight system i think this is the best one of them all

Edited November 30, 2019 by Toppien

[Celimbor]

Archwing was never fun to  use, it was just the most efficient way to move around in the open world levels. The archwing type missions always sucked and will suck until DE either completely trashes it or rebuilds  it with better understanding of what can make space  flight and combat fun.

It's current state is absolutely pathetic. not only the flight itself feels much worse now, you can't even jet through the boring and empty maps like before because DE decided to remove Itzal's blink, for some reason, and add the most dumb skill imaginable in it's place. Redesigns like this really make me question if DE actually plays the game outside of their livestreams, and the answer is most likely no.

[OniDax]

9 minutes ago, Celimbor said:

Archwing was never fun to  use, it was just the most efficient way to move around in the open world levels. The archwing type missions always sucked and will suck until DE either completely trashes it or rebuilds  it with better understanding of what can make space  flight and combat fun.

It's current state is absolutely pathetic. not only the flight itself feels much worse now, you can't even jet through the boring and empty maps like before because DE decided to remove Itzal's blink, for some reason, and add the most dumb skill imaginable in it's place. Redesigns like this really make me question if DE actually plays the game outside of their livestreams, and the answer is most likely no.

We know the answer is no.

Edited November 30, 2019 by TheGildedOni

[(PSN)Ozymandias-13-]

I never thought archwing stopped being boring. 

I'm keeping an open mind for when consoles get that update... but I really don't expect it to be any more interesting.

Archwing missions still suck, and Itzal will still be the best for open world since its abilities don't directly compete with warframes'. All of them are still bad choices for engaging in combat with ground enemies but at least Itzal can be invisible when you choose to fight with it. 

[Orblit]

The instant stop and such bother me too much...just doesn't feel right.  You can say it's better for combat, but being able to aim while drifting off into the direction you were just boosting toward was so nice..

[Fenrys_Delta]

The thing is basically a JETPACK. So, you can[t expect much maneuverability out of it. But at least it FELT right.

Now it feels generic and sluggish. Just like space archwing missions.

They should have replaced space archwing flight system with the one used in the open world, not the other way around.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Fenrys_Delta

[Teridax68]

On 2019-11-30 at 2:58 PM, DoomFruit said:

Except that unless your driving is 100% perfect, hoverboards are actually slower than parkour on open world areas due to the inexplicable nerfs that they were given (not that they were much faster before). They're definitely slower than small child dashing. And they are 100% inferior to flying. Why would I bother with a skateboard when the slowest archwing I can get (Elytron) is not only faster in a straight line, but *can* fly in a straight line because it doesn't have to worry about terrain, lets you shoot while you're on it, still retains enemy radar, loot radar and item vacuum, and even has its own abilities to use.

There is absolutely zero reason to ever use a hoverboard in this game.

I completely agree, which is why nobody uses K-Drives outside of grinding Vent Kid rep and Mastery. This is also why I'd like to buff/rework K-Drives so that they're significantly faster and more maneuverable: they're a vehicle with a place in the game, but currently mediocre implementation that holds them back, which is why I'd rather improve on that than have players abandon it and rely on a method of traversal that is said on this very thread to be boring.

Quote

Don't forget that you still have to get to the mission in the first place as well. Unless both the start and end points are right next to the entrance, the vast majority of players (myself included) are going to fly there and back instead of taking a long trek on foot.

Sure, you could simply redesign objective placement to work in a loop from and to the hub entrance. I'm 100% for this.

Quote

Additionally, it doesn't matter how much fun it is to travel overland when you're doing the same mission for the 100th time to try and get whatever this month's resource is. Doing something repetitively until you have accomplished a particular task provides a very good incentive to try and remove as much of the something as possible so that you can get the task's reward sooner. That's why there are so many threads about current meta loadouts, riven disposition changes and suchlike. If the purpose were the game and not the loot (and hence the fastest acquisition thereof), you wouldn't see those at all.

Oh, I agree that the game incentivizes people to play for loot, but I think there is a difference between players optimizing their play to be as efficient as possible (even if it's not always the most fun strategy), and players outright asking the developers to cut the video game out of the video game just so that they can access loot faster: the former is players acting rationally given the incentives and constraints they're running by, the latter is players losing the forest for the trees, and becoming so consumed by the drive to gain loot that they forget that their purpose in this game should be to have fun, first and foremost. This is why I'm asking for the developers to push for the opposite direction, and change the game so that the new optimal player strategy aligns more closely with the most generally enjoyable one possible. Ideally, given appropriate buffs to K-Drives and changes to bounty objective placements, this may even shave time off of traversal relative to the new meta of Archwing boosting across the Plains and Vallis.

On 2019-11-30 at 3:00 PM, Smilomaniac said:

Ok, bad faith, let's go with that and go over everything you've said.

Bad faith simply means you're approaching a debate with ill will towards the person you're debating with, and a deliberate intent to sabotage the debate with the intent to make yourself look like you've won, at the expense of the debate's substance. It doesn't touch upon volume of posting, and as your reply here shows, it's perfectly possible to post a wall of text in bad faith.

Quote

1. You quote one line of my OP, arguing that blink is a problem due to people not doing the content in between bounty points, like "camps" and "ground level encounters".
You've not yet stated/pointed out the problem, nor did you actually refer to anything in my OP besides your disagreement.

This is both a lie and a misrepresentation of my point. Just so that we're arguing off of the reference directly, and not just alluding to something farther back on the thread, here is my first reply to your post:

On 2019-11-27 at 5:40 PM, Teridax68 said:

Yes, it absolutely was: putting aside how it made Itzal the only Archwing worth having in open levels, it also completely threw away the vastness of the Plains and Vallis by having the player skip pretty much instantly through all of the terrain, all of the enemy camps, all of the ground-level encounters, from one bounty objective to the next. Even with Blink nerfed, Archwing still does that by letting the player make a rapid beeline while flying over anything that could make travelling from point A to B more interesting. The current implementation may not be ideal (In particular, Itzal's compensatory 1 is a joke), but it's not like there was no problem at all.

Notice that I mention players skipping through ground-level content, not avoiding doing all of it its entirety, so you framing my point as me intending to make the player wipe every camp between bounty objectives and the like is misleading. Unless, of course, by "doing" you simply mean passing through in such a way that the player gets the attention of those camps, ground-level encounters, etc., and so has to outmaneuver them or fight, in which case... why is that a bad thing, again?

Moreover, my post clearly states the problem, elaborates on it, and refers directly to one of your key quotes:

On 2019-11-24 at 9:18 AM, Smilomaniac said:

Was the blink "spamming" a problem? No.

So you are also lying about me not referring to your OP, which has now been subsumed into another thread by dint of being a second-degree complaint. It is your OP and our subsequent responses that have been nothing but unsubstantiated opinions, so you are particularly ill-positioned to question others on the substance of their posts.

Quote

This is funny, because you later go on to complain about how I'm only responding to one part of your later post.

When your comment was still a thread of its own, it was anyone's game to respond to any part of the OP's they disagreed with, which I did. By contrast, you decided to debate me directly, yet did so by only taking fragments of my posts and deliberately ignoring the bits that you didn't feel you could convincingly respond to. You are thus establishing a false equivalence between two clearly distinct types of responses.

Quote

Essentially you're turning the topic away from what I'm talking about and trying to debate what you want to, which is to state that blink is a problem but not explain why.

But as clearly shown above, I do explain why, and your entire diatribe hinges upon the assumption I was contesting. Back when your comment had a title attached, it directly blamed players instead of Blink, so I was in fact responding to you pertinently. You may not have wanted my dissent, but that is different from me railroading the discussion into a different topic, which did not happen.

Quote

Unless of course your point is that people should stop and smell the flowers in a game that has you repeat content hundreds of times over, but I'm sure that isn't it.

Well no, my point is that traversal should be interesting, not that it should be longer than what we have now. I'm not actually happy with the current situation either, because now we take longer to do the same things as before, except travelling through the air's still boring. Besides taking traversal to K-Drives, which would allow traversal to have some of the same elements of fun as parkour (which is generally well-liked despite being something we spend hundreds or thousands of hours doing), I'm proposing to cut out as much unnecessary travel as possible by putting bounty objectives closer to each other and the entry point into Cetus/Fortuna, so that our overall trajectory for a bounty ends up looking more like a loop than a criss-cross.

Quote

2. You counter my post by saying you don't actually want to slow people down and then immediately say "not that much" disproving your previous statement, you just want camps closer together, which would mean less travel time altogether but that apparently isn't your point even though blink is a problem. You hand the problem off to to the ether to come up with a "healthy" solution.

It seems like you're intentionally trying to get confused by what is ultimately a very simple rationale: my core intent is to make traversal healthy, i.e. engaging and enjoyable. If this requires making traversal take longer than it does now, that is something I'd be okay with, even if I'm not expressly looking to do so. My core proposal is to make K-Drives, rather than Archwing, our mode of fast travel, because travelling by K-Drive has us engage with the environment and enemies while Archwing lets us zoom above them all, but my secondary, additional proposal is to change the bounty objective placement algorithm so as to eliminate as much unnecessary travel as possible. Furthermore, my proposal to make K-Drives our new mode of fast travel entails both buffing their speed and reworking their control scheme to make them more maneuverable, so that they can be as fast as possible while still being able to handle terrain properly. Put together, these changes may or may not speed up traversal overall, but whereas that is your primary concern, it is not mine, as what I'm aiming for is simply a state of traversal that gives us things to do in-between objectives, even if it's as basic as jumping around terrain in interesting ways as we speed towards the next location.

Quote

Other gems in this reponse are "don't like it, don't play it", "just grit your teeth and bear it" as well as a not so subtle insinuation that I apparently don't want to make an effort in the game, because I'd like to spend less, or no time traveling in open world content.

Oh, it's not an insinuation: you're overtly asking to have entire bits of the game cut out just so that you can get to the loot faster, and do not seem to care whether or not that content can be made enjoyable. It is a patently unhealthy approach to the game that leads to no productive conclusions, and raises doubts as to why you even play this game at all if you don't enjoy playing it. It's not entirely your fault, by the way, as Warframe does make heavy use of Skinner Box mechanics to foster engagement where fun is lacking, but it is still not great to refuse to look past that, and remain so shackled to that drive that you take to the forums and demand less game in your game. Worse still, you've been attacking other players for daring to ask for content to be made more fun and for abuse cases to be removed, which is outright counter-productive. In the end, if the problem with an essential piece of content is that it's not enjoyable, then it should be made enjoyable, and if you refuse to engage with that content no matter the general player appreciation of it, that's your own problem, one the devs have no obligation to solve for you.

Quote

You respond to me calling you entitled for telling others how to play and call me entitled for wanting "reduced content" even though it's a feature that's been heavily nerfed and I'm not calling for the removal of anything, rather I want it reinstated.

Which means you are asking for the game to change in a way that was clearly deemed unhealthy, simply because you personally feel it should be that way. The fact that you believe this is simply a natural thing that should happen, and reject all reasons to the contrary, is what makes you act entitled in this respect. That ship has sailed, and you're not getting your exploit back.

Quote

You're basically wrong on this point for a couple of reasons but you go on to blame me for not wanting to put the effort in, once again, somehow expecting me to believe that travel time is effort, when we both know that's just a repeated, vaguely disguised personal attack.

I certainly don't, and I'm not attacking your character here, so much as pointing out that you are asking for game content to be removed with the explicitly stated intent of obtaining loot quicker. I'm not even accusing you of not wanting to make an effort here, so much as not wanting to play any actual video game: it is you who are framing play as effort, not me, particularly as I'm advocating for content to be made enjoyable when possible, rather than removed. The fact that you consider the mere act of play to be something unpleasant is what I'm pointing out as deeply unhealthy: really, I'm not trying to shame you for this or anything, I'm trying to make you realize that you are going into this discussion with such a fundamentally wrong premise, and such a deep-seated dislike for the game you are forcing yourself to play, that your best option may very well be to take a break, just so that you can get enough distance to realize whether or not you're actually enjoying yourself with this game. This isn't a problem with you specifically, so much as Warframe itself, which like many other services tends to rely on certain tactics to keep players playing even when they're not having fun.

Quote

My response is basically to pin you on one point which is that you use buzzword terminology like 'healthy gameplay' and argue that it's nonsense, which in this context it absolutely is.

But it clearly isn't, and the mere fact that you dismiss the notion of "healthy gameplay", i.e. gameplay generally acknowledged to be enjoyable and sustainable, as nonsense, belies the fact that you're not even interested in playing a video game here. There are clearly standards for what kind of gameplay qualifies as healthy and what doesn't, and Blink spam fell into the latter category. The only reason you're arguing that this is nonsense is because you are viewing the entirety of the subject under the narrow lens of how quickly you can get towards your intended loot, which as pointed out above is a fundamentally blinkered and destructive approach to any sort of video game design that misunderstands why loot even exists in the first place.

Quote

In vague terms, "healthy game design" is what you probably personally use to describe anything that could compromise in a positive way.

"Compromise in a positive way"? What does that mean? Are you sure you're not the one here using terms without understanding them properly?

Quote

Since I'm being charitable, you could argue that game changes made to reduce "toxic behaviour" (another term that is basically bull) in a competitive game, could be considered an example of "healthy design".

Sure, but also, the fact that you consider toxic behavior to be a myth itself belies a fundamental and probably deliberate lack of understanding of game design. Players arguing over whether or not one of them should kill their Kuva Lich is a clear example of toxic behavior, because when that happens players generally antagonize and harass each other, which is generally not considered a good thing. They do so because of the design of Kuva Liches, which ask the player to attempt to kill them, but usually punish the player for doing so as well. Thus, that bit of design is patently unhealthy as well. Similarly, when the optimal way to traverse a vast, detailed map is to basically teleport instantly to whichever point of interest, and thus defeat the point of the map and the enjoyment to be had in traversing it, that too is unhealthy design.

Quote

Fundamentally I don't agree with you and you didn't offer an actual solution, you just pointed out that there's probably a good solution out there.

The fact that you even listed some of the concrete suggestions I proposed above in your reply makes this claim ring particularly hollow. We both know this is a lie, so you have no reason to embarrass yourself by pretending otherwise.

Quote

Additionally I tell you that I'm not interested in a quote war (and basically tell you to stick it).

I think the problem is less that you're not interested in a quote war, and more that you feel uncomfortable about making any sort of precise quote, because your arguments rely on deliberate misinterpretations of prior quotes and outright fabrications. Your statements here are laced with inaccuracies and outright lies, such that I've had to pull quotes in your stead to set the record straight. Moreover, the fact that you've repeatedly insisted on not wanting to debate in the past, only to launch into this tirade upon losing face for the third or fourth time, clearly shows your intentions were never to have any sort of productive discussion, only to spew vitriol at some target because you got your little skip button taken away from you. You are the one who opened yourself up to challenge in the first place, so you don't get to tell others to shut up when they take you up on it: for example, you could've ignored my reply entirely... but that would've meant you wouldn't have had the last word, and something tells me you find that even less acceptable than having your comments answered point-by-point. Choices.

Quote

3. It's a quote war.
You yet again conflate me not wanting to waste time with a lack of applied effort for reward. 3rd time.

So, as pointed out above, this is a lie, as I have made no such accusation. I could not care less about "effort" in the context of Warframe's gameplay, and it is you who have introduced the term in relation to our argument. I care about enjoyment here, because unlike you, I play this game to enjoy myself first and foremost. Thus, when a part of the game is not enjoyable, my first instinct is to try to see why it's not enjoyable, and propose to fix that, rather than expect to rely on some cheesy mechanic to skip it. I am criticizing your stance here not on the basis of effort, but because your approach is reductive to the point of being harmful if applied to the game: Warframe is not just a collection of loot with busywork in-between, it is a video game whose process of getting to that loot is supposed to be fun as well. Taking out the gameplay out of a game because loot is the only thing you care about makes no sense.

Quote

You then insist there is healthy design and now you introduce the idea that improving design is a good thing, insinuating that nerfing one ability is good design but also stating "even if it doesn't make it perfect" which I can only assume means compromise = good.

So there are a few interesting observations to be made from your claim here:

1. As shown above as well, you don't seem to think there is such a thing as healthy design, which is worrying.
2. You seem to think improving a game's design is not a good thing, which... yikes.
3. You seem to believe that nerfs cannot possibly be good for a game, which is a demonstrably silly, if all too common notion.

All of which combine to suggest that if you're getting offended by some change to Warframe, that's probably a good sign, and the devs should keep doing it. As it stands, yes, I do think a significant, if imperfect improvement is better than no improvement at all, and I'm not sure why you would question that to begin with.

Quote

Again being charitable, you could argue that all archwings getting blink was the dev's compromise. Not a great argument but whatever, I see the point in the devs trying to reach out a hand. I don't think it's good enough, you probably do, in the end it's a moot point.

I mean, I clearly don't, as I want the devs to go farther. I just think it's a step in the right direction, whereas you're still attached to the idea of Warframe forever remaining a game with vast levels, that are nonetheless meant to be trivialized through the abuse of an otherwise-useless teleport ability that wasn't designed with those levels in mind.

Quote

You then accuse me of wanting to trash talk others, dodging my point and calling me unproductive.

Which you did. Your very thread accused other players of being the real problem with the changes to Blink, and you've clearly spent a lot of time attacking people who disagreed.

Quote

Finally the majority of your third post is about how I responded to you, even though you responded to me first, you then condescendingly explain debating and call me out for being bad at debating (assuming it was ever a debate), then you defend your quote war tactic, complain about me sticking to one of your points (mmm hypocrisy) and finally accuse me of picking fights.

This is probably my favourite response. I'm sure you can see why.

As pointed out above, I don't think you quite understand what hypocrisy is or how it works, and the only reason I "condescendingly" explained debating to you is because you blatantly did not understand the concept, as even now you still think you get to throw venom at other people, all while somehow being entitled to immunity from backlash. As stated already, you are the one who chose to write a thread (a redundant one, might I add, given how it's been merged), one that was deliberately offensive in nature. I, like many others, gave my feedback, which you took offense to and decided to argue against, despite perplexingly not making the effort to argue properly. You quote mining me and ignoring the broader context and content of my arguments is not the same as me picking a quote that was specifically the core of your own argument. Similarly, you seem to believe being quoted and responded to precisely is a bad thing, hence your whining about "quote wars", yet don't seem to actually justify that: why is being quoted on what you've said, and being responded to on those quotes, so bad?

Quote

4. You talk about how it's totally a debate because I'm responding to you and that I "don't get to dismiss your opinion" because you've called me out on mine, that blink spam is not a problem.

Well yes, if I present an opinion different from yours, and you decide to contest that opinion through argumentation, that is the foundation of a debate. The only reason the nature of the debate has been in question is because you seem to be under the enduring belief that you can somehow win in this situation, by whichever standard you have set, without actually making any cogent arguments. Clearly, that hasn't worked out so well for you.

Quote

You wrote 'problems' implying there are now multiple problems, despite not once explaining what any of them actually are.

This is one of the reason why it's useful to have a "quote war", because your statement here is so devoid of context or reference that it makes no sense (and similar issues in the past is what has continually made your posting come across as at least mildly detached from sane conversation): which part of my replies are you referring to? Is it the part where I mentioned Itzal's Blink had problems in my third response? Because I did, as you well know, list them already, so if that's what you're responding to, you are lying yet again.

Quote

You go on about healthy design again and how it's totally a thing and that I just don't get the concept even though you have at no point explained what it is.

So first off, the fact that games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable to play is self-evident, such that it is bizarre you would even request justification on this, but secondly, I did in fact elaborate on healthy game design:

On 2019-11-29 at 12:13 PM, Teridax68 said:

The problem with the reductive mentality of taking out all the parts of the game that aren't rewards is that you're ultimately asking to take the game out of Warframe, and are merely ending up expressing that you dislike playing the game you are playing. The solution to this shouldn't be to destroy the game, but to make it genuinely enjoyable.

Throughout this discussion, I have consistently maintained that healthy design entails making game content enjoyable and engaging to play for its intended playerbase, so your refusal to understand this basic concept is really not my problem.

Quote

You argue travel (in open world) isn't a mindless timewaste, without actually arguing why, but then state that travel is the "majority" of the game" and widely enjoyed.

You have impressively managed to disprove your own claim within the same sentence: as you yourself just admitted, I pointed out already that traversal is a core component to Warframe, and is intended to be something that we spend much of our playtime doing, while also being an enjoyable thing to do. Thus, if the mere act of traversing some content isn't enjoyable, the traversal needs to be made fun, not eliminated wholesale. I fail to see why this should be different for bigger levels, and you yourself have failed to justify the distinction as well.

Quote

At this point I assume you have had an an aneurysm, because none of that is in any way true. I assume you mean parkour, which is an active gameplay element, is somehow comparable to flying in a straight line. Either way you're going to have to concede that this is not a great argument.

I would raise the question right back at you, as you seem to have missed the fact that I've suggested on numerous occasions now that K-Drives would work better as our mode of fast travel than Archwing, for precisely that reason (you in fact responded to that, which makes your statement here all the stranger). You yourself have talked about "compromise", and so precisely because I mentioned that Archwing traversal is not interesting, due to how flight as a mode of traversal isn't interesting in the Plains and Vallis. Even you implicitly acknowledge this here.

Quote

You maintain I'm unhinged, grandstanding (?),

From Wikipedia:

Grandstanding: Dramatic or showy behaviour intended to impress an audience or observers.

So when you produce the following paragraph:

On 2019-11-29 at 1:49 PM, Smilomaniac said:

I don't need to address every pedantic point you make because it's blatantly obvious that you have no ground to stand on. Call me unhinged all you want, the simple fact is that you had your legs swept out from under you, which is funny since you never had any ground to stand on in the first place.

Which is devoid of actual substance, but instead made up entirely of bloviatory claims where you loudly insist that you've beaten me in a debate you also refuse to admit to be having, that's grandstanding. You can tell me I'm condescendingly explaining this to you, but in this particular case you yourself signalled you did not understand the meaning of this term, despite the fact you could have easily researched it, and with a modicum of self-awareness identified how it applied to the quote I'd used it for.

Quote

making lots of bold claims, state that I wrote "no ground to stand on" twice (Ouch! You got me!), incoherent and intellectually lazy. Also you're not salty, I'm totally salty and I've been pushed into a corner.

I mean, you clearly are, as noted by you going on this full-blown wall of text recounting all of my replies to you, all because you're big mad that I've held you accountable to your statements, whereas you apparently believed you could say whatever you wanted on a public forum, yet somehow face no contrary opinion. You don't have any ground to stand on, because ultimately your entire stance here is based on an opinion that is not only wholly unsubstantiated, but that would in fact be detrimental to the game if applied to it. You may only view this game through how quickly you can get to your loot, but I and quite a few others seem to understand that there is more to Warframe than just loot, and that loot is meaningless without a game to actually apply it to. Thus, I would rather have a fun video game than an automated loot dispenser, thanks very much.

Quote

This is where it gets really good; You then state that you've totally explained what healthy design is and that I have a comprehension issue.

As pointed out above, I did in fact explain what should normally be a self-evident term, so it really is a comprehension issue. 

Quote

Considering that this post is now a massive block of garbage that nowhere mentions what you're actually going on about, is genuinly funny.

This actually describes your own post perfectly, both in size and quality of content. Meanwhile, the post you were attempting to refer to wasn't particularly large, and answered your points pertinently.

Quote

You haven't explained it at all. I can only assume you maybe tried to imply it or forgot that you never actually did and was too-mad-bro to realize it.

See above. The fact that you are still trying to project your saltiness onto me here is as transparent as it is humorous.

Quote

And that's it, we're back to what I quoted at the top there.

Two things are probably going to happen at this point, provided you didn't give up (although having said that you're probably going to do a third thing just to spite me).
You're going to quote all of this block of text and go over every single point, which let me honest I'm not going to respond to genuinly, or you're going to do the sane thing and give up.

You're right, I did quote you point-by-point, because I believe in being held accountable to the things one says, particularly on a public forum. Once more, if you believe you can throw whichever idle words to the wind and not have people respond to you with anything else than full agreement... think again. At this point, you are now presented with the same choices: if you want to make it easy on yourself, you could perhaps avoid repeating yourself quite so much (this would've cut the volume of your post by approximately half, and would've probably made no difference in your attempts to convince me or yourself of the veracity of your claims), and if you want to make it even easier still, you could perhaps stop focusing so much on making stuff up, and instead try to focus on our disagreement over what we want out of Warframe.

Quote

Throughout all of that you haven't explained what you mean by healthy gameplay or design and you haven't explained why blink spamming was not only a problem, but that there were multiple problems with it.

This is you yet again repeating yourself, so see above. This includes my very first response, which I've kindly posted here for reference, that listed multiple problems with Blink, so really, you should perhaps make an effort to read what has been said before publicly embarrassing yourself in this manner. This is again where you could perhaps benefit from a dash of quote warring, as actually quoting me on these things would make for far more precise and concrete discussion... though from the looks of it that may not be to your advantage, hence why you've been avoiding it.

Quote

I'm sure you'd love to tell me more about how I'm a wonderful person after writing this, but if you could show me how not to argue in bad faith and stick to explaining those two points, then I will respond in kind and make a genuine effort to understand your viewpoint.

I'm glad you asked! While it is mildly disturbing that you wouldn't understand how to approach debate constructively, rectifying it is easy. Just do the following:

1. Don't lie.
2. Don't make stuff up in absence of evidence.
3. Don't pretend that arguments haven't been made when they have.
4. When able to do research for yourself, do it, and don't ask the other person to justify basic or self-evident concepts.
5. Take the time to justify your own claims, preferably with logical arguments and examples.
6. If you want to argue, take the time to argue properly as per the above, and if you don't, just don't reply. Claiming that you're not here to debate, while debating, just looks stupid.
7. Stay on-topic.
8. Avoid repeating yourself.
9. Avoid making statements that carry no substance or inherent value to the discussion.

Basically, just be honest, and actually care about the topic of discussion. If you can't do that, you are better off not posting at all. Best of luck!

Edited December 19, 2019 by Teridax68

[DoomFruit]

1 minute ago, Teridax68 said:

Sure, you could simply redesign objective placement to work in a loop from and to the hub entrance. I'm 100% for this.

That's still not ideal.

Solution 1: start and end points are close to the main gates, missions are close together so that you don't have to travel far to get to each stage and as such there isn't as large a demand for fast travel (but people are still going to use their archwings even for a few hundred metres, the desire to speedrun is very strong in the playerbase). There's now a "problem" in that you're never going to see the outskirts of this open world map. I, personally, do not give a crap about this and see it as the better option. However, the level designers might complain that their stuff isn't getting seen. I've no idea how much influence this will have with respect to directing the overall game.

Solution 2: as above, but missions are spread out so that players travel across more of the open world during missions. Players are now pushed to see more of the world, but the required distance to travel opens up and they're going to break out their archwings and just bypass as much of it as possible - so we're right back where we started.

[Teridax68]

37 minutes ago, DoomFruit said:

Solution 1: start and end points are close to the main gates, missions are close together so that you don't have to travel far to get to each stage and as such there isn't as large a demand for fast travel (but people are still going to use their archwings even for a few hundred metres, the desire to speedrun is very strong in the playerbase). There's now a "problem" in that you're never going to see the outskirts of this open world map. I, personally, do not give a crap about this and see it as the better option. However, the level designers might complain that their stuff isn't getting seen. I've no idea how much influence this will have with respect to directing the overall game.

I don't think that's the case, though: the low-level bounties wouldn't go far out, for sure, but the five-objective ones could in fact take the player to farther locales. This would, among other things, have players explore the map more the more advanced the bounty, which is progression in and of itself.

[ixidron92]

It seems the cooldown is here to stay, seeing as how a simple, single digit numeric change hasn't happened in 10 days already.

[Uthael]

27 minutes ago, ixidron92 said:

It seems the cooldown is here to stay, seeing as how a simple, single digit numeric change hasn't happened in 10 days already.

Hey, don't say "here to stay"! Some "simple number changes" happened only years after they should!

You have every right to make this into a "long-wanted change, often talked about".