Empyrean bringing new type of grind.. stop!

[Mints]

8 minutes ago, IntheCoconut said:

Multiple people have posted examples of their MKIII having worse stats, the Wiki lists the stats showing its possible, even highly probably, to get worse stats than your MKII with very little trade-off in terms of modifiers. I personally take that as proof and evidence enough that you can waste your time and resources upgrading for a higher tier with worse stats.

It's not proof of MK1 parts being better than MK3 parts, which is what I challenged in the first place.

8 minutes ago, IntheCoconut said:

As for me, I'm moving on and considering the case closed

Then maybe you should read what the OP claimed, because you're arguing something else entirely. You don't get to say someone's wrong for challenging the assertion that MK1 stuff is better than MK3 stuff by posting a bunch of MK2 stuff. It doesn't follow.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Mints

[0_The_F00l]

53 minutes ago, Mints said:

It's not proof of MK1 parts being better than MK3 parts, which is what I challenged in the first place.

Then maybe you should read what the OP claimed, because you're arguing something else entirely. You don't get to say someone's wrong for challenging the assertion that MK1 stuff is better than MK3 stuff by posting a bunch of MK2 stuff. It doesn't follow.

Is it really important to you that it be MK1?

i dont think it is possible for Mk1 to be worse than MK 3 in any category.

The bigger argument is regarding the stats of a higher tier component being worse than a lower tier one.

You want to be pedantically specific? Then victory to you my friend cause you are right from all the different stats i have seen people post and referring the Wiki MK1 cannot be better than MK3 ... in the same house for base stats. Maybe request the OP to correct his exaggeration would be a better approach.

 

But just so we are on the same page, and there is no margin of misunderstanding.

MK1 components: Only have one stat boost,.

MK2 components : Only have 2 stat boosts,

MK3 components: have 2 stat boosts (shields have 3rd) + bonus effect.

If it is on the the base stat under consideration, then MK3 can have equal value to MK1 at worst (i have seen a MK1 at 10 capacity and have gotten one MK3 at 10 capacity) in the same house.

If it is the extra stat , you can only compare MK2 and MK3 as MK1 does not have the second stat, and as shown by above examples MK2 can be better than MK3 in those specific stats.

If you want to compare on the bonus effect, it is very much subjective, bonus damage on shield depletion doesn't mean much if you are skilled enough to keep shields above zero, same way bonus shield recharge while cloaked is rather pointless but can work for low cloak duration builds.

It gets trickier when you go into comparing stats between different houses as well.

Edited January 3, 2020 by 0_The_F00l

[DoomFruit]

3 hours ago, Mints said:

No, it's not good enough because it shows a reactor with three distinct stats, one of which is very high and the last of which has no determinate value unless someone actually knows the mechanics of how stats are assigned. In fact, Zetki reactors are specifically descibed as sacrificing avionics capacity for flux capacity and that is reflected in what you just posted. Unless you have an image of an MK1 Zetki with identical stats or better you've proven nothing. Next.

The OP of this thread claimed "mk1 has better stats than mk3." Prove it or go away.

P.S. If you post an image of an item that has more stats than the other you're still not proving anything. Example: An MK1 Engine that only has speed bonus has a higher speed bonus than an MK2 Engine that has both speed bonus and boost bonus. Show me an MK1 Reactor that's superior to an MK3 reactor with the same stat types but higher values. I doubt you can.

The high stat is basically irrelevant. Having a high flux capacity is useless if you don't have the mod points to be able to fit in the powers that use it. The proof comes from experience in actually building and using a railjack. Had you done so, you'd already know that the mods you want (hull, armour, turret damage at the absolute minimum) cost a lot (10-14 points each) to equip. Flux capacity is only going to be necessary for high drain powers - missile swarm or void hole. That costs another 10 points. You start with 30 capacity. Do the arithmetic here, it's not hard.

The last one I already mentioned: "with a minor perk". It's not exactly hard to understand what it does. 50% chance to put out a new fire after 5s = a fire spawns, 5 seconds later it has a 50% chance of going away by itself.

At this point, you're being willfully ignorant towards railjack mechanics.

[schilds]

If you're going to argue what is better or worse, you need to define/choose your metric first. Especially in a discussion with other people, otherwise you'll just talk past each other.

When it comes to reactors, the metric most people use is purely avionics capacity. By that metric, the claim that you can drop Mk3 gear worse than Mk1 gear is accurate.

 

Of course it's possible that they should be using a different metric, but that's a totally different argument.

For example, should their metric be flux capacity or some combination of all stats?

• I haven't been running out of energy to cast abilities in Veil Proxima. I mostly use Munitions Vortex, but maybe when I get Void Hole that will change.
• You can get more energy from the forge (though I've not had to so far), and usually energy regen is a more important stat than max energy capacity.
• The Mk3 perks on components are nice but, either only rarely come into play, or have a minor effect .

I'd argue that, given these points, choosing just avionics capacity as the metric is totally reasonable.

Edited January 3, 2020 by schilds

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

10 hours ago, Mints said:

No honey, I don't hunt proof for the people making assertions. That's their job. Cough it up. Then we can talk about what's wrong, why it's wrong, and what to do about it. Until then it's just a bunch of pointless griping and anecdotal evidence.

Just today I rolled a mkIII That had pretty much the same stats but slightly higher then a mki rj item. It's very upsetting. Not only am I a clan leader who usually tends to try to grind out everything first for his clan but the grind for the parts just aren't fun. Railjack isn't bad and I'm not playing just to get the best ship. But right now I'm stuck in a progression loop.fighting in the  veil without proper weapons sucks. And my mkIIs just don't cut it. Right now I can't progress that much further even though based on the amount of grinding me and my freinds have been doing. I usually have to run viel missions in pubs because my ship can't take it rn 

[MirageKnight]

1 hour ago, DoomFruit said:

At this point, you're being willfully ignorant towards railjack mechanics.

I think they just want to be right at this point, even if it means moving the goal posts, hand-waving, name-calling, and telling people they don't agree with to "go away".

I studied philosophy, so I understand the important distinction between stated opinions and arguments, where the latter involves sound reasoning and evidence to back up the assertions being made. In a proper debate, the idea is to uncover what is actually true and correct - not for someone to BE correct. We arrive at the truth by examining the reasoning on all sides and verifying that the evidence being presented is indeed correct or can be verified. Most importantly, all participants must be willing to concede that they might be incorrect in their reasoning or that the information that they have to support their argument could very well be flawed or at least insufficient.

Reasonable evidence was needed to back up the assertion that wreckage drops can actually have worse stats than comparable researched gear of equivalent or lesser level / mark...and ultimately was presented by at least two people. Evidence that can be verified by ANY player.

If no-one is willing to accept this as reasonable evidence to support the claim...then they're just being stubborn and unwilling to accept that they might be wrong.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by MirageKnight

[SandDune]

3 hours ago, Mints said:

It's not proof of MK1 parts being better than MK3 parts, which is what I challenged in the first place.

Yeah just tell that to the Mk3 engines I keep getting with 10-15 speed and min boost rolls when I have a mk1 vidar engine with 28 speed which is actually faster overall...

And an edit to make it clearer : Mk3 is SUPPOSTED to be better, but with how the min-max roll RNG can is and will be, you can easily with bad enough luck get Mk1s that constantly outperform any Mk3 you acquire (like in my case) which IS the issue.  DE just needs to make the min roll cap much higher so that you CAN'T get Mk3s that are inferior to Mk1s.

Edited January 3, 2020 by SandDune

[MirageKnight]

1 minute ago, SandDune said:

Yeah just tell that to the Mk3 engines I keep getting with 10-15 speed and min boost rolls when I have a mk1 vidar engine with 28 speed which is actually faster overall...

Screenshots or it didn't happen. /s

To add to the rest of the feedback given, I can verify this as well. I really hope the devs sort this mess out soon.

[Spectre-8]

If you dislike grinding Warframe is not for you .

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

20 minutes ago, Spectre-8 said:

If you dislike grinding Warframe is not for you .

We dislike grinding vs actual content 

[seprent]

why not just make it so the lowest a reactor can go is the highest the one below it can go? so at least that way a mark 3 reactor can't be worse than a mark 2 with a little boon on the side of it because when you do tier systems normally you use the highpoint of the tier below for the base of your next tier 

FC = Flux Capacity
AC = Avionic Capacity
What DE has now > using highest of last tier as a base for the next

Sigma Mk1 10 AC 0 FC > No changes basic Mk1 gear 
Zetki Mk1 5-10 AC 0 FC > 10-15 AC 10-30 FC
Vidar Mk1 10-25 AC 0 FC > 10-25 AC 5-10 FC
Lavian Mk1 10-20 AC 0 FC > 10-20 AC 10-30 FC

Sigma Mk2 30 AC 50 FC > No changes basic Mk2 gear
Zetki Mk2 5-30 AC 30-100 FC > 15-30 AC 30-100 FC
Vidar Mk2 25-50 AC 10-70 FC > 25-50 AC 10-70 FC
Lavian Mk2 10-40 AC 30-70 FC > 20-40 AC 30-70 FC 

Sigma Mk3 50 AC 100 FC > No changes is basic Mk3 gear
Zetki Mk3 10-50 AC 50-300 FC > 30-70 AC 100-350 FC
Vidar Mk3 30-100 AC 10-100 FC > 50-120 AC 70-190 FC
Lavian Mk3 20-70 AC 40-200 FC > 40-90 AC 70-230 FC

At Least this way if you get screwed by RNG you don't have a Mk3 Reactor being worse than a Mk2 reactor you have a Mk2-3 pretending to be a max rolled Mk1-2 the pretending Mk2 having a small boon on the side as well so at least it still more valid then a actual Mk2

Edited January 4, 2020 by seprent

[AuroraSonicBoom]

Can't say more than agree 100%. Not even getting the grind over with by having the best stats once you get a drop you farmed for is just asinine. It's just another excuse for the "the grind IS the game" crowd to use against any criticism regarding the game's progression. We're seeing Warframe become like any other MMO at the moment, and if we dont yell loud enough they'll just turn its progression system into yet another endless gear treadmill.

[844448]

12 hours ago, Fl_3 said:

The balance feels wrong. The level of power we have when we finish Veil feels like the level of power we should have when we leave Earth. 

Reason behind this? People who keep claiming the game is too easy, them falling asleep while playing, now you have that not so easy to do mission and power is still there if you use Hyperstrike, the Serration for railjack

 

12 hours ago, Fl_3 said:

Forcing players to rely on RNG to drop multiple things each with a less than 2% drop chance that are pretty much required and need to be maxed out to make the games introductory zone feel like fun?

Because that's what people see as fun and "sustainable" content. Apparently there's no reason to play just for fun and gameplay, just for chasing rewards and scream content drought afterwards and playing for the sake of playing is a grave sin in warframe

[Mints]

10 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Is it really important to you that it be MK1?

Uh huh, yeah, it is, because that's what the OP claimed.

8 hours ago, DoomFruit said:

At this point, you're being willfully ignorant towards railjack mechanics.

At this point you're defending a logic fallacy.

[0_The_F00l]

9 minutes ago, Mints said:

Uh huh, yeah, it is, because that's what the OP claimed.

At this point you're defending a logic fallacy.

Pedantic specificity it is then.

[Mints]

17 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Pedantic specificity it is then.

Leave it to someone named Fool to declare the procedure of logic and proper assignment of the burden of proof "pedantic."

[Next-of-Sin]

25 minutes ago, Mints said:

Leave it to someone named Fool to declare the procedure of logic and proper assignment of the burden of proof "pedantic."

You do see that in the name of "logic" you derailed an entire thread, and proved that you understood what OP meant but just stuck to the tiny little detail that didn't fit.

You might be right but goddammit you're a jerk and you're not helping, nor being constructive. You don't appear as trying to discuss, you're just trying to be right.

 

Edit : And I checked wiki and of course, a reactor MK 3 CAN (there are factors at play so it depends) be worse than a MK 1.

It could all have been prevented with one stroll on the wiki but no. Wth just happened here seriously.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Next-of-Sin

[0_The_F00l]

1 hour ago, Mints said:

Leave it to someone named Fool to declare the procedure of logic and proper assignment of the burden of proof "pedantic."

Whatever you say mints , Ad hominem much?

Also I already set the premise of the argument in my previous statement , which you seem to have ignored.

seems you only want to be correct as the other person stated and dont really care about the actual topic at hand,

[Next-of-Sin]

Just now, 0_The_F00l said:

Whatever you say mints , Ad hominem much?

Also I already set the premise of the argument in my previous statement , which you seem to have ignored.

seems you only want to be correct as the other person stated and dont really care about the actual topic at hand,

Learnt that recently, you meant ad personam, ad hominem is when you use the other person argument for you against them. Just FYI, hope you don't take it personally, absolutely not an attack.

[0_The_F00l]

12 minutes ago, Next-of-Sin said:

Learnt that recently, you meant ad personam, ad hominem is when you use the other person argument for you against them. Just FYI, hope you don't take it personally, absolutely not an attack.

Not sure its ad personam , as he hasn't stated any personal preferences, only that MK1 cannot be worse than MK2, and has demanded proof.

He has on the other hand used my Alias as a basis to downplay my statements, so directly attacking my capability to put forth a logical argument and not actually addressing the statement. So unless he has a personal dislike for Aliases that indicate a personality or people not agreeing with him, it would very much be ad hominen for that specific statement.

It could very much be ad personam just cause he doesnt like people disagreeing with him on principle , but not what i was calling him out on.

 

I also do not take offense at genuine attempts to correct something  🙂

 

[Next-of-Sin]

4 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Not sure its ad personam , as he hasn't stated any personal preferences, only that MK1 cannot be worse than MK2, and has demanded proof.

He has on the other hand used my Alias as a basis to downplay my statements, so directly attacking my capability to put forth a logical argument and not actually addressing the statement. So unless he has a personal dislike for Aliases that indicate a personality or people not agreeing with him, it would very much be ad hominen for that specific statement.

It could very much be ad personam just cause he doesnt like people disagreeing with him on principle , but not what i was calling him out on.

 

I also do not take offense at genuine attempts to correct something  🙂

 

"However, the term's original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason" " from Wikipedia.

Just noticed that English speakers don't make the difference, while Frenches still do, for whatever reason. So we're both right technically I guess.

[BigKahuna]

On 2020-01-03 at 2:14 AM, Mints said:

Whereas what I mean is that he needs to prove it. His anecdote and opinion are not enough. Evidence is necessary to make claims like this.

Guy, you've seen the wiki.  You know that certain MK1 reactors can roll with higher capacity than some MK3.  You're pulling the "burden of proof" card, but you know exactly where you can look it up as does everyone else that plays the game.

 

You're not being logical or smart of scientific.  You're on the lines of challenging some one to prove the claim that humans require water to survive.  It's well known, easy to look up, and widely accepted.

 

Anyways, for anyone else reading this, real scientist aren't like this at all.  Please don't think we are like this guy.  We don't turn off our Common Sense switch and just parrot random logical fallacies at people and hope we come off as being smart (we know that's actually dumb and embarrassing).  We, at the very least, know how to use google to look up something this painfully easy to verify.  

 

As for the actual topic of the thread, I have given up on the Railjack content.  It was fun at first, but eventually the random stat rolls ruined it for me.  I don't enjoy going out in a group with friends, getting a lucky drop for a reactor, coming back to dry dock and we all have different stats on it.  It's not fun to celebrate getting a great roll when your friends that fought by your side get a bad roll on the same gear.  It just makes everyone feel bad.  

Edited January 4, 2020 by BigKahuna

[rukashu]

it's not a different type of grind, it's the same griend we had since we played the first time, same as the kuva lichs, something that get's boring really fast :(

[Vlada91]

Yea we need farming to bee more fun and not just excuses for playing for long annoying runs over and over again... we need to bee more rewarding and to know why we playing all this. I stop playing because I finish the secret quest,because in that time I whose playing I didn't see use for me to play more this game mode even if I whose enjoying wee much just playing reiljack...

[MirageKnight]

I'm just going to leave this here...

For Mk III's, that's insulting and worse than Sigma Mk III's. While technically better than Mk I's, the improvement is negligible to the point that it has little positive impact on gameplay. To top it off, that added resource costs for repairing is just adding injury to insult.

Sure we can opt to NOT repair, but that doesn't change the fact that this is terrible.

7 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

Guy, you've seen the wiki.  You know that certain MK1 reactors can roll with higher capacity than some MK3.  You're pulling the "burden of proof" card, but you know exactly where you can look it up as does everyone else that plays the game.

They won't. They're completely convinced they're right and everyone else just needs to accept that.

For all their claims of "burden of proof" and accusations of "logical fallacies" with regard to counter arguments, this person is doing nothing more than arguing in bad faith while attacking other people as well.

My university philosophy teacher would be shaking their head in disappointment if they saw this thread.

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by MirageKnight