Necramechs have 12 mod slots, yet cannot equip 12 mods

[anarchy753]

Seriously if they're gonna have 1.5x the mod slots, they should have 1.5x the capacity. What's the point in having if even at 12 polarised slots you can't fit mods in each?

[UwUber]

You can fit 12 mods if you use the crappy 7 drain melee mods :3

[(PSN)MYKK678]

38 minutes ago, anarchy753 said:

Seriously if they're gonna have 1.5x the mod slots, they should have 1.5x the capacity. What's the point in having if even at 12 polarised slots you can't fit mods in each?

The point is Balance, and to make sure Multiple Mod arrangements are viable instead of just 1. Systems not new to this game (See Railjack) or even new to any game.

Is this the first time you've encountered it?

[Qianna]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)MYKK678 said:

The point is Balance, and to make sure Multiple Mod arrangements are viable instead of just 1. Systems not new to this game (See Railjack) or even new to any game.

Is this the first time you've encountered it?

There's only one viable arrangement for Necramechs, and it's the most performant one. All other configurations are gimmicks. Same but a little less strict with Railjack. Besides, if the configuration balance was the intended design they could limit the number of slots to six or eight, and weight of mod per slot would be that much higher.

[anarchy753]

1 minute ago, (PS4)MYKK678 said:

The point is Balance, and to make sure Multiple Mod arrangements are viable instead of just 1. Systems not new to this game (See Railjack) or even new to any game.

Is this the first time you've encountered it?

Except they're not viable, and we could still do "multiple mod arrangments" on the 8-10 slots we can actually use anyway.

Is this the first time you respond to legitimate grieveances with the game just to be patronising?

[(PSN)MYKK678]

2 minutes ago, Qianna said:

There's only one viable arrangement for Necramechs, and it's the most performant one. All other configurations are gimmicks. Same but a little less strict with Railjack. Besides, if the configuration balance was the intended design they could limit the number of slots to six or eight, and weight of mod per slot would be that much higher.

 

1 minute ago, anarchy753 said:

Except they're not viable, and we could still do "multiple mod arrangments" on the 8-10 slots we can actually use anyway.

Is this the first time you respond to legitimate grieveances with the game just to be patronising?

I get where you're both coming from and i know about this "1 and only" option, but no 1 person can reasonably define what is/isn't "viable". Viable is subjective and depends on a persons preferences and playstyle. All 3 of us most likely play Warframe vastly differently. At 1 stage everyone thought that Rubico was "the only viable wep against Eidolons", now that afterthought is just funny.

Point being, because we all play differently, there cannot inherently be only 1 viable option. Limits exist ofc, but i currently dont use the mod setup you're referring to and am doing fine.

[Eklipse2k2]

There's this thing called specialization that exists, so just because we dont have the capacity to fill every mod slot with maxed mods doesn't make the mech any less viable if you choose the right setup for yourself. I myself specifically have mine built for range and durability so melee is only there to keep baddies away. A jack of all trades is a master of nothing.

[Qianna]

11 hours ago, (PS4)MYKK678 said:

 

I get where you're both coming from and i know about this "1 and only" option, but no 1 person can reasonably define what is/isn't "viable". Viable is subjective and depends on a persons preferences and playstyle. All 3 of us most likely play Warframe vastly differently. At 1 stage everyone thought that Rubico was "the only viable wep against Eidolons", now that afterthought is just funny.

Point being, because we all play differently, there cannot inherently be only 1 viable option. Limits exist ofc, but i currently dont use the mod setup you're referring to and am doing fine.

Disclaimer: I'm a super casual player, and if there are no interesting cosmetics I'll buy my way out of grind with platinum 9 out of 10 times.
--
Any one person can reasonably define which build yields higher performance¹, and that build would be defined as the most viable². Performance as a metric could be measured by contribution on a per objective basis, statistics recorded and compared against a different set tied to a different build.

For example: set A is measured to be 20% higher than set B in a sample of 100 exterminate missions. The build tied to set A, therefore, is the best for said mission type.
Considering how indifferent most builds are when it comes to core mods, the variation between build A and build B is so miniscule that more likely than not the higher performing configuration will record higher in most situations.

As for Rubico, metas change. If weapon A is better than B at doing X, then weapon A is a no-brainer³ when it comes to X.


NOTES:
1) In this context, performance describes the individual contribution to a mission objective weighed against itself, varied only by configuration. Unbound by context I would define performance as missions complete per unit time.
2) In a pool of 50 configuration where 5 yield same results within a 5% margin, all 5 could be considered viable. When a pool is restricted to less than 2, at most 3 configurations, at the same margins, only the most performant configuration should be considered viable.
3) When the only factor that is concerned is statistical result describing performance. "Fun" to use or any subjective factors are disregarded.

[anarchy753]

9 hours ago, Eklipse2k2 said:

There's this thing called specialization that exists, so just because we dont have the capacity to fill every mod slot with maxed mods doesn't make the mech any less viable if you choose the right setup for yourself. I myself specifically have mine built for range and durability so melee is only there to keep baddies away. A jack of all trades is a master of nothing.

Yes, but you can make your useless punching build with 8 slots. The issue is that they've chosen to give us more slots for the first time, without the ability to actually make use of them in a meaningful way.

[(PSN)MYKK678]

9 hours ago, Qianna said:

Disclaimer: I'm a super casual player, and if there are no interesting cosmetics I'll buy my way out of grind with platinum 9 out of 10 times.
--
Any one person can reasonably define which build yields higher performance¹, and that build would be defined as the most viable². Performance as a metric could be measured by contribution on a per objective basis, statistics recorded and compared against a different set tied to a different build.

For example: set A is measured to be 20% higher than set B in a sample of 100 exterminate missions. The build tied to set A, therefore, is the best for said mission type.
Considering how indifferent most builds are when it comes to core mods, the variation between build A and build B is so miniscule that more likely than not the higher performing configuration will record higher in most situations.

As for Rubico, metas change. If weapon A is better than B at doing X, then weapon A is a no-brainer³ when it comes to X.


NOTES:
1) In this context, performance describes the individual contribution to a mission objective weighed against itself, varied only by configuration. Unbound by context I would define performance as missions complete per unit time.
2) In a pool of 50 configuration where 5 yield same results within a 5% margin, all 5 could be considered viable. When a pool is restricted to less than 2, at most 3 configurations, at the same margins, only the most performant configuration should be considered viable.
3) When the only factor that is concerned is statistical result describing performance. "Fun" to use or any subjective factors are disregarded.

Appreciate the well-thought-out explanation but i think you might have misunderstood my point.

First off you're 100% correct in your explanation. Math doesn't lie so if X has better numbers than Y or Z then X is definitely the better option. But the definition of "better option" much like the definition of "viable" is what is in flux. X is only better than Y or Z if your goal is "kill things asap" or if its "reach  max potential damage". Much like any other equation, there has to be a goal to reach for the equation to make sense. My point is that as players are different, they play different. We all have different preferences and as such, have different goals. Your goal may be "Max Damage" whereas mine is usually just "Whats Fun". So somebody's "better option" or "only viable option" is inherently Not a better option or only viable option for another. Thus "viable" is near impossible to define, as 1 viable option cannot fit into everyones playstyle.

[Qianna]

23 hours ago, (PS4)MYKK678 said:

Appreciate the well-thought-out explanation but i think you might have misunderstood my point.

First off you're 100% correct in your explanation. Math doesn't lie so if X has better numbers than Y or Z then X is definitely the better option. But the definition of "better option" much like the definition of "viable" is what is in flux. X is only better than Y or Z if your goal is "kill things asap" or if its "reach  max potential damage". Much like any other equation, there has to be a goal to reach for the equation to make sense. My point is that as players are different, they play different. We all have different preferences and as such, have different goals. Your goal may be "Max Damage" whereas mine is usually just "Whats Fun". So somebody's "better option" or "only viable option" is inherently Not a better option or only viable option for another. Thus "viable" is near impossible to define, as 1 viable option cannot fit into everyones playstyle.

Oh yea, I completely agree with you on the fun aspect of it. But again, even if the viability of a build is subjective and individual to each player, the viable option is still the most optimal one, that provides the most amount of <insert subjective metric here>. So, if you're having the most fun (where most fun = most performant, in this instance) with configuration A, you wouldn't play any other configuration, unless your metric shifts from X to Y.

In any case, you always pick the one configuration that yields the best results, regardless of what they could be. What I was trying to point out, is that a viable option in any scenario (as mentioned in my previous comment) is the one you'd pick over the best choice, where drawbacks are mostly negligible, but it provides some other value that outweighs the cons.
For example: if my best weapon deals X damage, but my preferred weapon deals X-n damage, (where N>weight of preference) and I pick my preferred weapon to play with instead, there's probably some other hidden value that holds greater weight to *ME* than most optimal performance.

For instance (although this particular one is inverted), I picked Ash over my Excalibur (which I enjoyed playing the most due to aesthetic reasons) because Ash's passive was providing me a much greater benefit in damage than attack speed on Excalibur. The damage output far outweighed my subjective preference, and Excalibur just isn't viable for me anymore.
If I every play differently this may shift to again, and damage won't play a valid role anymore.
You can draw a Venn diagram representing the options of your playstyle(s) and see which frames and weapons overlap. To narrow down items you can take the sets of overlaps and introduce them into more specific diagrams until there's only one two elements left in the resulting set, and weigh the remaining elements against each other.

I personally would only advocate to play the game in a way that provides the most enjoyable experience, regardless of whether it's min-maxing or doing. That being said, I still stand by my first comment where I said there's only one objectively viable option for Necramechs, and there is: the objectively better one. The rest is demagogy.

[Steel_Rook]

On 2020-09-14 at 1:54 PM, (PS4)MYKK678 said:

Your goal may be "Max Damage" whereas mine is usually just "Whats Fun". So somebody's "better option" or "only viable option" is inherently Not a better option or only viable option for another. Thus "viable" is near impossible to define, as 1 viable option cannot fit into everyones playstyle.

That's not what the topic is about, though. Does your version of fun require 12 slots? I suppose if it's "fill all 12 slots regardless of resulting build" it might, but that seems a little niche, I'm sure you'll agree. Giving Necramechs 4 extra slots without giving them extra mod capacity just means that most if not all builds will end up not using at least 2-4 of them. It brings to mind a question - why? What goal was this decision accomplishing? And to that I have only a single, most probably answer: DE didn't have time to implement Necramechs using Archwing Melee weapons, meaning they had to dump the melee mods into the general Necramech mod pool, which meant throwing in a few extra slots for melee mods. After all, they've seen how much we despise having to mod our Beast pets for everything + melee.

The problem is that - in typical DE fashion - they've now walled themselves in. When Necramech Archmelee comes out, what do they do? Do they remove four slots? Do they retire the melee mods? Or do they leave the mods in so that players can double-dip on all the melee mods? Of course, there's also the "who am I kidding" consideration, because let's face it - IF Necramechs ever get Archwing Melee weapons, that'll be 2-5 years down the line and at that point we can just call it Necramech Revised and indeed shift slots around.

[keikogi]

36 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

problem is that - in typical DE fashion - they've now walled themselves in. When Necramech Archmelee comes out, what do they do? Do they remove four slots? Do they retire the melee mods? Or do they leave the mods in so that players can double-dip on all the melee mods? Of course, there's also the "who am I kidding" consideration, because let's face it - IF Necramechs ever get Archwing Melee weapons, that'll be 2-5 years down the line and at that point we can just call it Necramech Revised and indeed shift slots around

It would have been way more practical to just give the necromech fist as a weapon that cannot be removed and later add "gravimag " for melee weapons but no we had to reinvent the wheel. It not like the "new" desing has been tried and it failed. 

I also feel like a lot of these mods come from DE need to create new mods even if the more sensible aprouch is just to not have a mod at all. For example , there is a mod to increase charge damage , you know it would be more sensible to just make it scale out of melee damage mods but that's just to streamlined for DE ( its not like the warframe jump kick mod has been tried and failed ). I also used to joke about how good parkour 2.0 would have been if bullet jump was a mod but DE went ahead and kinda of did it with hydraulic something.

[Steel_Rook]

7 minutes ago, keikogi said:

It would have been way more practical to just give the necromech fist as a weapon that cannot be removed and later add "gravimag " for melee weapons but no we had to reinvent the wheel. It not like the "new" desing has been tried and it failed. 

That's... Actually really clever. Legit makes me feel sheepish for not having thought of it :) Yeah, giving Necramechs a placeholder melee weapon that can take dedicated melee mods would have avoided so many issues, not to mention future-proofed them towards Archwing Melee implementation. Even if DE never implemented Archmelee weapons for Necramechs, it would still have been a superior design since melee mods could have gone towards the placeholder melee weapon. This is exactly what a lot of us have been suggesting for Kubrows and Kavats. Good idea, absolutely.

 

9 minutes ago, keikogi said:

I also feel like a lot of these mods come from DE need to create new mods even if the more sensible aprouch is just to not have a mod at all. For example , there is a mod to increase charge damage , you know it would be more sensible to just make it scale out of melee damage mods but that's just to streamlined for DE ( its not like the warframe jump kick mod has been tried and failed ).

And then there's this, yes. For whatever stupid reason (probably grind), everything has to have its own mods. I've long maintained that Archwings and Archguns ought to just use Warframe and gun mods, but nope! They have their own versions. Rubedo-Lined Barrel is basically Archwing Serration, after all. With Necramechs, DE didn't even try to pretend. We didn't get "Reinforced Chassis" or "Spall Liner" or anything. Nope, it's just "Necramech Vitality." It's the same with all the Necramech mods - they're just "Necramech <Warframe Mod Name>". DE could have easily let us use Warframe mods on our Necramechs, or at the very least Archwing mods, but nope. It's a thinly-veiled excuse to make us grind the same mods again. Yeah, sure - why not have eleventy billion copies of the same mod with different names.

[UUDDLRLRBA_START]

I'm about to forma all but two of the slots (so 10 forma?).

Until Archmelee is available, there is no reason for Necramech Pressure Point - maybe Fury or Reach (it's to KB enemies while your gun is charging).

[(XBOX)YoungGunn82]

10 minutes ago, UUDDLRLRBA_START said:

there is no reason for Necramech.

FTFY 😅

[outseeker]

I kinda agree that you shouldn't have to forma every slot in your build, and if you do it still doesn't allow you to fill all those slots with the "good", max rank mods you've collected.

They did a lot to fix that problem on the Railjack after some time I think- hopefully the same consideration will be given to the necramechs.

[UUDDLRLRBA_START]

On 2020-09-16 at 6:18 AM, outseeker said:

I kinda agree that you shouldn't have to forma every slot in your build, and if you do it still doesn't allow you to fill all those slots with the "good", max rank mods you've collected.

They did a lot to fix that problem on the Railjack after some time I think- hopefully the same consideration will be given to the necramechs.

Hopefully. They haven't even released the second mech yet.

[anarchy753]

On 2020-09-16 at 11:18 PM, outseeker said:

I kinda agree that you shouldn't have to forma every slot in your build, and if you do it still doesn't allow you to fill all those slots with the "good", max rank mods you've collected.

They did a lot to fix that problem on the Railjack after some time I think- hopefully the same consideration will be given to the necramechs.

You can't even fit 12 maxed out bad mods. you get 11 at the absolute most if you use all the lowest drain mods, and that means giving up 2 of the durability mods and intensify.

[taiiat]

On 2020-09-13 at 9:45 AM, Qianna said:

Besides, if the configuration balance was the intended design they could limit the number of slots to six or eight, and weight of mod per slot would be that much higher.

that's not how appropriate Mod balancing works. just as we see with Warframes and Weapons - there is no real variety. because we're limited by Mod Slots it's simply a matter of calculating what gives the highest EHP bonus or relative Damage increase or Et Cetera.

there is a choice in having the Slots to Equip more Mods but not everything at once. then there's the possibility to generalize and have some of everything, or a lot of fewer things.

 

even so a few of the Mods could stand to have their Costs reduced by 1-2, but there is a sound premise for actual choices to be there, versus what we've had elsewhere where our choices sum up to which Mod gives a higher relative Damage increase.

On 2020-09-15 at 8:51 AM, Steel_Rook said:

I've long maintained that Archwings and Archguns ought to just use Warframe and gun mods

the ship sailed on having somewhat balanced Mods for normal Weapons, but ArchWeapons bypassed that problem by using different Mods. it's a good thing.
Mechs using Archwing Mods would probably be fine, though the Archwing Mods aren't strong enough to make that work so again it's a good thing that the Mods are separated.

[BahamutKaiser]

Maybe they'll get an upgrade later, but I do find it rather silly that warframes get 10 mod slots with an aura that grants greater capacity than a Necramech with 12 mod slots. 

[Qianna]

17 hours ago, taiiat said:

that's not how appropriate Mod balancing works. just as we see with Warframes and Weapons - there is no real variety. because we're limited by Mod Slots it's simply a matter of calculating what gives the highest EHP bonus or relative Damage increase or Et Cetera.

there is a choice in having the Slots to Equip more Mods but not everything at once. then there's the possibility to generalize and have some of everything, or a lot of fewer things.

You hadn't understood what you read. Might want to go back and read it again until you do.