Blink nerf and railjack archwing gameplay.

[Ayures]

I don't like how weird and twitchy it feels and there's a complete lack of a feeling of mass with the insta-stop.

But my biggest problem right now though is that I can't exit archwing.  I always used to just melee out of it and now that doesn't work. I can even equip my melee on the archwing but can't use it and it does nothing. What did they change it to?

[edit] I had to rebind the melee keybind to what it already was. GG DE.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Ayures

[Tahoma]

7 minutes ago, Ayures said:

I can't exit archwing. 

[edit] I had to rebind the melee keybind to what it already was. GG DE.

Megan had this issue on Prime TIme yesterday, so they're probably aware of it, at least.

[Ishredpapers]

23 hours ago, Xzorn said:

Ripline lets Itzal move while remaining invisible much as Blink allows.
You can combine to two for high forward momentum while remaining invisible. Worse than spamming Blink? Sure but far from useless.
I foresee DE making Blink break Invisibility in the future anyways so Ripline will be it's only method if that becomes the case.

Tell me 1 situation where someone would use this combo of 2 and then 1 instead of just, ya know, moving forward normally using 2 again for invisibility. Ripline/Zipline, whatever it is, is useless, keep coping.

[Xzorn]

7 minutes ago, Ishredpapers said:

Tell me 1 situation where someone would use this combo of 2 and then 1 instead of just, ya know, moving forward normally using 2 again for invisibility. Ripline/Zipline, whatever it is, is useless, keep coping.

 

What? I pretty much said to maintain momentum. You're confusing coping with acceptance.
DE didn't just randomly pick an ability. They gave it one of the worst in-game abilities on purpose.
Scream if you want. They'll probably just nerf Itzal more in the future.

[Ishredpapers]

9 minutes ago, Xzorn said:

 

What? I pretty much said to maintain momentum. You're confusing coping with acceptance.
DE didn't just randomly pick an ability. They gave it one of the worst in-game abilities on purpose.
Scream if you want. They'll probably just nerf Itzal more in the future.

What are you even talking about lmao, no one is screaming. They removed momentum completely as before you had to break with 2, now it stops, regardless how fast you move, instantly. Momentum was a hindrance in Tridos, how are you maintaining anything zipling yourself to the ground hahaha.

[Steel_Rook]

4 hours ago, OvisCaedo said:

What WAS the point of having free roam maps in the first place? To have every mission spaced out by a couple of minutes of running through empty hills between the small area objective zones? I guess I'm just of the opinion (and always have been) that the open landscapes were ALWAYS a bad idea and failed design. They just got made because the big open areas to "explore" has been a big trend in gaming so they needed to try to clumsily ape it without having any idea of how to make it actually work well with how their game plays. It even gave a big spectacle to boast about!

From what I know of DE, they've always wanted to make a proper "World MMO," and Cetus seems to have been their ambitious attempt to do that. Would explain why we're helping rag-wearing savages kill 10 rats in the "overworld," as well. But yes, I fully agree that DE's original design for the Plains was really, really dumb. With Archwings heavily limited and shared, it seems like we were indeed intended to hoof it between objectives which is REALLY BORING. That's the worst part of any MMO and why people buy mounts first chance they can. Nobody likes wasting long stretches of time with nothing.

With that said, I do feel there's merit to Free Roam maps with rapid-but-not-instant transportation. I talked about this in another thread (one reason why I prefer large merged threads over many duplicate ones), but I feel the "physicality" of having a literally large world that we are simultaneously able to traverse quickly and the sense of empowerment this creates are worth having regardless. To be perfectly honest, I'd take a version of Warframe where instances are comprised of many small locations connected via Archwing flight over the Warframe we have now. Imagine Jupiter, but with each platform being only a few rooms, with players leaping over the railings and flying to those other platforms in the skybox - that's what I personally want. There's merit to having some amount of manual busywork in video games. When everything becomes too seamless and automated, player interaction with the world decreases and the game starts to feel more arcadey and more repetitive.

For me, current Archwing boost speeds are more than fast enough to get me everywhere I need to go on the Plains and in the Vallis while still being both slow enough to matter and low-flying enough to at least encounter terrain. In my experience, Blink spam might as well have been old-school "point on the map" fast travel.

 

4 hours ago, OvisCaedo said:

Fast travel wasn't the problem, the lack of any meaningful gameplay whatsoever on the wide open spaces between objectives was. It's still not there, flying between them still won't be fun, and Itzal will still do it fastest.

I'd caution against trying to add "meaningful gameplay" to travel is almost always a bad idea. In most games, travel is so common that it becomes routine. Trying to create engagement or challenge out of a routine action just has the effect of making it routine AND annoying. Again, I played years of City of Heroes fighting my way from mission to mission for the fun of it, and even I would still transition to just flying/jumping/running past all the enemies on the way after a while. It doesn't matter what you do, it's always going to be an interruption. I'm fine with adding some physicality to routine actions, such as the hacking minigame when interacting with a console rather than just having it trip by pressing the Use key on it and indeed such as manually flying or riding a bike or what have you long distances. As long as flight time is within the 10-15 second range (and it mostly is), I find it adds enough without being too distracting. At the same time, I don't see a way to have meaningful adventures every time I go mining for gems.

[Xzorn]

28 minutes ago, Ishredpapers said:

They removed momentum completely as before you had to break with 2, now it stops, regardless how fast you move, instantly.

 

Why don't you actually try the ability. Invis, Ripline and Blink then come back here and tell me you aren't still moving after Blink.

Of course if you do it poorly you'll keep moving right into a rock or even backwards away from your blink location like a YoYo.

Ripline IS the momentum.

[Nitro747]

8 hours ago, DoomFruit said:

Yep. And even Elytron is faster than those pointless skateboards.

It's pretty funny, really. I forget who said it, but one of the livestreams had them saying "Itzal gets used too much, we'll 'fix' it by nerfing blink".

Whoever that was, they never even tried to think about why Itzal even gets used so much in the first place. It's still the fastest Archwing due to its base sprint speed. Because of the rampant SAM spam in open-world missions, archwings aren't really usable for combat. Itzal has the best utility options as well - cloak is useful, and vacuum is almost vital for getting the loot from eidolon hunts (profit taker as well).

There are a whole bunch of annoying, intrusive mechanics in the game. Instead of fixing them, the devs go straight for "let's force the players to encounter them more".

 

Without pointing out names, I'll tell you whose idea was this: same developer who held back univacuum for YEARS when even other devs agreed to it, throwing a tantrum about "I don't want players to be able to do that" as his main reason. It was also same dev responsible for the rather lackluster Vauban rework and who had the AMAZING idea of replacing bounce with speed pad (another pathetic replacement). Those decisions are seriously holding the game back and they always go for the worst options available regarding ballancing things out and often prefer to take the easy path, as we could see with the ripline replacing literal teleportation...

[Teridax68]

14 hours ago, Smilomaniac said:

This is not a debate, you added your opinion to my feedback thread, which makes it fair game. If it's irrelevant to the topic, which your opinion is, then I have no responsibility to entertain it beyond calling you out.

So is this or is this not a debate, then? Because on one hand you're claiming that it's not, but then are doing so while actively trying to debate me. You also don't really get to dismiss my opinion as "irrelevant" when I've directly called you out on your claims that Archwing Blink spam had no problems.

14 hours ago, Smilomaniac said:

If you wanted to expand your argument on what's "healthy", you would've already done so, but since you already conceded that it's a simple suggestion (or rather simplistic), it's more likely that you got defensive, salty and now just want to argue.

This is sounding rather confused, as the simplicity of a suggestion is not in contradiction with the need to elaborate on a related concept. As it stands, my simple point is that there is patently such a thing as healthy design, and that there are some fairly basic ways to get towards it when it comes to Archwing and traversal; the only problem here is that you either refuse to acknowledge this, do not understand the concept, or both, and have been attempting to blame this on me.

14 hours ago, Smilomaniac said:

Adding more travel time is not healthy. Trying to pretend that more mindless timewaste, such as travel time, is some sort of effort to get rewards is the stupidest thing you've said so far.

How is travel a "mindless timewaste"? Are you not aware of the fact that travel time makes up the majority of our gameplay in Warframe, yet is widely enjoyed all the same? Moreover, you are repeating yourself here and ignoring the point being made, which is that I'm proposing to reduce travel time in many respects and shift it to a traversal mechanic that isn't in fact mindless (K-Drives interact with the environment by being ground-based).

14 hours ago, 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.

Okay, but this is the exact sort of ranting that comes across as unhinged: you're grandstanding, plain and simple, and making lots of bold claims about how you've swept out my legs despite the fact that I've apparently had no ground to stand on (twice!), in spite of a line of argumentation on your part that is visibly incoherent and intellectually lazy. All of the hyperbole in your posts belies the fact that is in fact you who are the saltiest person on this thread, as demonstrated by your every single post here, including the OP, and have pushed yourself into a corner.

14 hours ago, Smilomaniac said:

Prove me wrong, tell me all about your argument and how you're promoting healthy gameplay when talking about increasing travel time. I'm sure it's fascinating and not a waste of time at all.

I did, as seen above and in my previous replies. If you managed to miss that, that brings into question not just your ability to debate, but basic reading comprehension as well.

[GruntBlender]

On 2019-11-28 at 4:39 AM, Gaxxian said:

So, why they destroyed itzal?

 

19 hours ago, Rogunz said:

There is still no reason to use any archwing but itzal for archwing missions

Come on, people, pick one.

19 hours ago, Gaxxian said:

So, i you didnt know how to play it... i just can say: Learn to play

"Git gud, scrub" isn't an argument, the controls were bad and now they're better. You don't like the new system because you're some kind of masochist that Stockholmed themselves into loving the old ones. You're the minority. With Empyrean, the controls are going to become a much larger part of the game, so they have to be good for most of the people, not the small bunch that liked the old style. There's a reason AW was almost universally hated by the playerbase.

[sehafoc]

On 2019-11-24 at 2:03 AM, Smilomaniac said:

No, the itzal spam didn't "feel" great

I'm not sure I agree... Blink spamming across a map and dropping out of the sky to rain death upon Graneer was one of the most satisfying things in gaming for me.

[Xzorn]

I still miss the old school controls.

• Sideways rolling in the old system covered a large distance. It was actually a proper dodge where now it's like you just roll for looks.
• I do like the increased speed of vertical ascend and descend. I also like the slight turbulence you get when moving.
• Strafing is slower than old controls still and It'll prolly take forever to stop pressing Afterburn only for nothing to happen.

It's less worse than version 2 controls but still not better than version 1 controls for me. Archwing was just more accurate and fast before.

Far as the Blink situation. Good luck. This is very much a "Vacuum Within" situation where it will take quite a bit of community push and we'll still end up at an unreasonable half way point where we have to put a staple mod on every companion when there's no damn room then have "meta build" problems. Big surprise.

[DoomFruit]

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

How is travel a "mindless timewaste"? Are you not aware of the fact that travel time makes up the majority of our gameplay in Warframe, yet is widely enjoyed all the same?

Travel is the biggest timesink? How? I can see that happening in capture missions, maybe even spy missions, but everything else is either killing (survival, exterminate, disruption) or sit on this point (MD, defence, intercept, excavation).

The movement mechanics on land are good, but that's because it flows and blends very nicely with the combat. Going 2 kilometres to your next objective on an open world map doesn't add any fun, it's just mindless bullet jump spam in the same direction.

For an open-world game where the combat is the core (for instance, Planetside 2), distances and travel times serve both to allow the situation of battle to change as you're on your way, and also to allow you to either consolidate and co-ordinate your forces (if you're a good leader) or to lose any unit cohesion you once had (if you're just waving a zerg rush around).

For this game, the only real objective is the loot at the end of the mission. The combat is always going to be pretty much the same. Anything that delays or interferes with the loot acquisition is therefore a problem for us.

[Smilomaniac]

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

I did

k' cool story bro. Totally convinced.

[Rogunz]

2 hours ago, GruntBlender said:

Come on, people, pick one.

Itzal was massively nerfed by the changes to blink but it's still the best archwing for travel/rewards and has some of the best abilities for combat. It's like how the endo gains from excavation arbitrations were massively reduced but excavation will still reward you with way more endo than other modes.

2 hours ago, GruntBlender said:

"Git gud, scrub" isn't an argument, the controls were bad and now they're better. You don't like the new system because you're some kind of masochist that Stockholmed themselves into loving the old ones. You're the minority. With Empyrean, the controls are going to become a much larger part of the game, so they have to be good for most of the people, not the small bunch that liked the old style. There's a reason AW was almost universally hated by the playerbase.

Archwing wasn't hated it was just ignored because there was no reason to do archwing missions. That meant there was also no reason to look for, turn on, and learn the better experimental flight controls unless you liked doing those missions so a lot of complains were from people who never touched anything but the default flight model. DE could have left experimental flight alone and only changed the default flight model for people who want something extremely simple.

[Xzorn]

1 hour ago, DoomFruit said:

Travel is the biggest timesink? How? I can see that happening in capture missions, maybe even spy missions, but everything else is either killing (survival, exterminate, disruption) or sit on this point (MD, defence, intercept, excavation).

 

I mean technically transversing the randomized tilesets is (was) a core aspect of the game coined by old RPGs long ago and a great asset to re-play value. In that regard speed has pretty much been an issue after Damage 2.0 once enemies themselves were no longer the main obstacle to slow players which has only gotten worse.

It would be nice to get some of that back in the game. Ya know stuff like "Don't jump past 10 enemies because it might corner you and cause a mess" kinda stuff. Rewards for not causing a mess. Bonuses for taking the stealthy approach. Something. I guess my point is there's supposed to be tactical purpose in a randomized tileset against enemies and there hasn't been for a long time. Even the most basic games like Diablo 1 had corner and door blocking. Players taking advantage of terrain on the fly.

In an open world. Specifically one that never changes like PoE / Vallis trying to limit travel is kin to disabling fast travel in Skyrim or similar games. It's just a meaningless time sink with no purpose outside immersion which loses it's flair pretty quick in this game. A sinful out-of-game method just to slow players down.

Sadly the place where movement, speed and positioning matter is the place DE isn't looking anymore.
They're caught up making players fight the same boss 300+ damn times. Oh jeez, I wonder why we want it to go faster.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Xzorn

[DoomFruit]

20 minutes ago, Xzorn said:

 

I mean technically transversing the randomized tilesets is (was) a core aspect of the game coined by old RPGs long ago and a great asset to re-play value. In that regard speed has pretty much been an issue after Damage 2.0 once enemies themselves were no longer the main obstacle to slow players which has only gotten worse.

It would be nice to get some of that back in the game. Ya know stuff like "Don't jump past 10 enemies because it might corner you and cause a mess" kinda stuff. Rewards for not causing a mess. Bonuses for taking the stealthy approach. Something. I guess my point is there's supposed to be tactical purpose in a randomized tileset against enemies and there hasn't been for a long time. Even the most basic games like Diablo 1 had corner and door blocking. Players taking advantage of terrain on the fly.

In an open world. Specifically one that never changes like PoE / Vallis trying to limit travel is kin to disabling fast travel in Skyrim or similar games. It's just a meaningless time sink with no purpose outside immersion which loses it's flair pretty quick in this game. A sinful out-of-game method just to slow players down.

Sadly the place where movement, speed and positioning matter is the place DE isn't looking anymore.
They're caught up making players fight the same boss 300+ damn times. Oh jeez, I wonder why we want it to go faster.

Now you're getting me nostalgic for how the game was back in mid 2013. Before coptering was widely known, when we still had stamina to worry about and when energy was a vital resource to be used only when needed (as opposed to our current zenurik & fleeting expertise spammability). Fewer enemies, slower and more thoughtful gameplay. Damage 1.0's armour ignoring charge attacks on melee helped as well, meaning that if you wanted to melee an enemy, you'd not only need to approach them just right to minimise your exposure to fire, but timing your strike was also important.

I've still got a couple of Shadowplay videos from back then. Not quite that early (the beginning of 2014 - just after Damage 2.0, so there's no real point in charge attacking with melee, also coptering was well known at that point), but it's interesting to watch them and see myself sliding ever so often to let my stamina recharge while keeping speed, or ducking behind a wall whenever I need to reload to avoid getting shot.

[Xzorn]

18 minutes ago, DoomFruit said:

Now you're getting me nostalgic for how the game was back in mid 2013. Before coptering was widely known, when we still had stamina to worry about and when energy was a vital resource to be used only when needed (as opposed to our current zenurik & fleeting expertise spammability). Fewer enemies, slower and more thoughtful gameplay. Damage 1.0's armour ignoring charge attacks on melee helped as well, meaning that if you wanted to melee an enemy, you'd not only need to approach them just right to minimise your exposure to fire, but timing your strike was also important.

 

I'm right there with ya. Damage 1.0 was hardly perfect but there were some important aspects to a shooter that I miss greatly. Aiming at weak points to kill enemies. Limited resources. Almost forgot about Stamina and two fold on the melee. I still remember how much fun it was to charge attack Furax. Melee wasn't as much about DPS. It was about hitting something hard as $%&* then getting the hell out.

For years I held onto Endurance runs to keep that dream of "Enemies are the obstacles" alive but it's just too much time investment.

Did you happen to catch Exilcon? There was this one streamer that disrespected the game while playing Path2. He was like "I'm just gunna speed run. Where's the hard content" skip to 4min later; he's running for his life because of the mess his "speed run" caused. It was hilarious. I love when game punish like that and he died 3 times for it.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/510735591?t=03h49m46s

Enemies are the obstacles. Not consoles, Cold barrels, load times, immune periods, ect.

[Uthael]

I'm going to split this into 3 consecutive posts so people can leave different reactions on parts of this post.

The problem of Itzal's Blink:
Maybe if old Itzal's 1 left long-lasting Nova's Wormholes for others, people wouldn't be left behind. Everyone could pick their favorite AW And if nobody picked Itzal, nobody would get left behind either.
Now, I don't know what this new content that requires slow travel implies, but surely there were other solutions. For example, a Simaris' cooldown on that one ability in that one instance of content would've spared a lot of people's good will in Fortuna and Vallis. Another example could be Void Dash in the Ropalolyst fight .

[Uthael]

The problem of inertia:
The result now is that you can't glide at half-speed. You either go full throttle or full stop. However, I believe that most people prefer the today's automatic brake to the old drifting after you release W. Having said that, all that was needed was to make pressing S to be a much more responsive break (like today's releasing W). Itzal has its 2 as a solution to this, but other AWs felt sluggish.

[Uthael]

The problem of a simplified control set:
For this, there was no reason to remove "Experimental flight" from Options. Everyone likes feeling "in control", but different people like different controls. It's the same as in cars. Some people can't switch from automatic, others can't switch from manual. Having a choice matters.

Personally, I liked "manual". I don't like too much of movement assist and I'd rather spend a lot of time adjusting to take that control in my own hands. Be able to loop, fly 60° tilted, etc.

There's tree things I've always missed though:
1) Having to watch where the ground is. A HUD indicator like in flight simulators would've been great.
2) (I forgot about what I was going to write here. Will probably edit again later)
3) A way to reset my rotation. Someone suggested rolling backwards for this.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Uthael

[Colyeses]

On 2019-11-24 at 10:25 AM, AdunSaveMe said:

And yeah, Itzal Blink was a problem. It meant everyone used Itzal, because it was lightyears faster than anything else. So other Archwings were left in the dust, Itzal was relegated to being a Blink taxi, and you either teleported across the map instantly, or you trundled to your location using a clunky and strangely-designed flight model.

That wasn't an Itzal problem however. The issue is that nothing in an Archwing's kit makes any difference. Regular Archwing used to be atrocious to play and in the PoE and OV both, you -can't- use Archwings for anything but transport because every single enemy carries a salvo of homing missiles that kill your Archwing in one hit. This reduces Archwings to a vehicle, so the obvious conclusion is that the fastest vehicle is objectively the best pick.

If the anti-air missiles were toned down, there'd be a chance for the other Archwings to contribute... -anything-. You could bring an Elytron for nukes or an Amesha for support. But if you do that now, you just get shot down and can't use Archwing abilities. So you stick with the Itzal because it's still the fastest.

[Teridax68]

5 hours ago, Smilomaniac said:

k' cool story bro. Totally convinced.

Whether or not you personally are is irrelevant, as it does not prevent the fact that my case has been made, and not just by myself. That you refuse to acknowledge this with all the visible bad faith you've shown throughout your own thread matters not.

5 hours ago, DoomFruit said:

Travel is the biggest timesink? How? I can see that happening in capture missions, maybe even spy missions, but everything else is either killing (survival, exterminate, disruption) or sit on this point (MD, defence, intercept, excavation).

During which you are continuously parkouring, and in missions like Mobile Defense, Spy, Sabotage, Disruption, and so on, much of the time spent is spend travelling around, whether or not combat may be involved.

5 hours ago, DoomFruit said:

The movement mechanics on land are good, but that's because it flows and blends very nicely with the combat. Going 2 kilometres to your next objective on an open world map doesn't add any fun, it's just mindless bullet jump spam in the same direction.

Sure, which is why I'm not proposing to ground the player to parkour, because K-Drives are to those levels what parkour is to indoor tilesets, with a build-in interaction system for land features.

5 hours ago, DoomFruit said:

For an open-world game where the combat is the core (for instance, Planetside 2), distances and travel times serve both to allow the situation of battle to change as you're on your way, and also to allow you to either consolidate and co-ordinate your forces (if you're a good leader) or to lose any unit cohesion you once had (if you're just waving a zerg rush around).

For this game, the only real objective is the loot at the end of the mission. The combat is always going to be pretty much the same. Anything that delays or interferes with the loot acquisition is therefore a problem for us.

Which includes the actual game, hence why that kind of reductive reasoning is inherently problematic. I can agree to reducing unnecessary delays, which is also why I want to put bounty objectives much closer to each other, but reducing any and all delays and interferences to the obtention of loot just has you remove features to the point where the game ceases to be enjoyable or meaningful. This is why I'd rather take what we have and first see if it can be made fun (and I think traversal in the Plains and Vallis can be made fun), rather than reduce Warframe to some progress bar one waits for to distribute goodies.

[DoomFruit]

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

Sure, which is why I'm not proposing to ground the player to parkour, because K-Drives are to those levels what parkour is to indoor tilesets, with a build-in interaction system for land features.

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.

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

I can agree to reducing unnecessary delays, which is also why I want to put bounty objectives much closer to each other, but reducing any and all delays and interferences to the obtention of loot just has you remove features to the point where the game ceases to be enjoyable or meaningful. This is why I'd rather take what we have and first see if it can be made fun (and I think traversal in the Plains and Vallis can be made fun), rather than reduce Warframe to some progress bar one waits for to distribute goodies.

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.

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.

[Smilomaniac]

13 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Whether or not you personally are is irrelevant, as it does not prevent the fact that my case has been made, and not just by myself. That you refuse to acknowledge this with all the visible bad faith you've shown throughout your own thread matters not.

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

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

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.

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.
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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.
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.