Its time for immortal pets....

[xombob89]

12 hours ago, Butterfly85 said:

Completed Steel Path, do sorties, arbies and a fair amount of Profit Taker runs. Only reason I don't do eidalons is the hydrolyst fight ruins my eyes.

 As for frames, I take the frames that are tailored to the mission in question. 

So you are saying that for Steel Path, Deimos and any other "deadly" content you only use self-reviving pets and dont see a problem? 

If I take, lets say Banshee my pets die immendiately because shes too weak to support link mods and the regular ones are garbage. And since pets couldnt survive sentients at all on the event, they are gonna be in trouble when new content involving them is released. 

Pets should not be entirely reliant on the warframe you are using when it comes to survivability. I would sacrifice ALL my offensive mods if I could make them a little tougher. 

I agree game needs difficulty, but this is not difficulty, just annoyance. 

[DebrisFlow]

10 hours ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

Again, not impressed. 

You literally indicate that you have a choice of 2 functionally immortal pets, (really it's far more than that, but would require you to actually understand how to make wise choices or at least build, and occasionally revive your pets before they die, or after).

You're playing the "I don't want what I want, despite it being what I have said I want, and what I want is to have pets that don't die, so I can choose, but then I'd never need to choose, so give me what I want, because I want it". At some point you're going to develop a level of self awareness and cringe when you look back at your posts. But how long it takes, is anyone's guess. That's on you.

In the last post i literally used the word "companion types", not "companions", to indicate the vulpaphyla family and the djinn**. Go back and re-read. Yes, it's 4 in total. You can trhow in vasca semi-decent-tankiness. But when you say "far more than that" is just one of your convenient rhetoric exaggerations.

As i said before, i was contrary to immortal pets, just them being adjusted to be to more suitable or viable. Still misinterptreting my words and using the imaginary discussion you made wiht me in your head to counter-argument. Clear your mind from this prejudice, go back, take a deep breath and re-read. It will be useful also in real life.

I already showed you how my position is already closer to the general game design than yours is, based on an observation on the kind of diversity we actually have (40+ warframe/ hundred of weapons with highly overlapping abilities and purposes -> available choice of a variaty of sub-optimal tools >> necessity of a few dedicated tools). All of your counter arguments are based on a mere supposition of how i would (not)employ a broader companions usability if that diversity came into reality...

...at some point you're going to develop a level of self awareness and cringe when you look back at your posts. But how long it takes, is anyone's guess. That's on you.

 

**and in a post before i used the shorting "vulpa and djinn", because i assumed that with your vast and deep knowledge of this game features and mechanics you would have certainly understood vulpa = vulpaphyla = 3 pets. Guess i assumed too much.

[Liljeman]

Give adaptation for for all companions, aswell as mods to improve their shield gating.

[Slayer-.]

I don't run attack mods on some of my sentinels the ones with no attack mods on the enemies just target my sentinels all the time and it's pathetic they die within minutes of entering a high mission.

My Sentinels are forma'd to the hilt and still with every survival mod on them it was a waste of forma in the first place, been going on about this for years and this new shield gating on sentinels is garbage. Tried all sort of mods nothing works.

They also don't have spawn protection while you're reviving so bam they're dead all over and Prime Regen just lets them live a little longer.

[Butterfly85]

6 hours ago, xombob89 said:

So you are saying that for Steel Path, Deimos and any other "deadly" content you only use self-reviving pets and dont see a problem? 

If I take, lets say Banshee my pets die immendiately because shes too weak to support link mods and the regular ones are garbage. And since pets couldnt survive sentients at all on the event, they are gonna be in trouble when new content involving them is released. 

Pets should not be entirely reliant on the warframe you are using when it comes to survivability. I would sacrifice ALL my offensive mods if I could make them a little tougher. 

I agree game needs difficulty, but this is not difficulty, just annoyance. 

I did all of steel path with either my kavat or a sentinel. Cleared ut out before Deimos dropped. They die occasionally, but so did I, if i got careless while using Vauban or Limbo.

The only thing I do mod wise is not give my sentinel an attack mod. They do naff all damage anyway and I'm trying not to draw aggro unnecessarily. I just play games in wierd ways. 🤷‍♀️

Also fwiw, I'm not picking an argument here. You asked what I ran and I answered. 😊

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

13 hours ago, Corvid said:

I would literally accept a mod that locked out all but three of my Sentinel's mod slots (for Vacuum, Animal Instinct, and Medi Ray, in my case) but made it invincible.

I'm sure most of us would. But you see that's the problem. If we got that, how often would you choose to use anything else? 

At that point it's not a QOL issue, it's going to become a build diversity issue. And one that doesn't just affect our choices in a very limited set of activities, but across the board. 

Like you I seldom choose the new-kavats, or Djinn, despite the fact that everything else can die in mission. But I'll use them when it's clear that they are better suited for the job I want done. The thread we're on makes it clear that others can see the utility value of what they bring to the table. 

It's clear that the devs have always wanted us to have to make choices, and to adapt to the situations that we'll be facing. With the option to make everything viable for every single possible mission, you aren't going to encourage the freedom to choose, it would effectively destroy the need to choose wisely. 

 

[UUDDLRLRBA_START]

Let mechs revive your pets (like Warframes and Space Children).

Problem solved.

[Corvid]

47 minutes ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

I'm sure most of us would. But you see that's the problem. If we got that, how often would you choose to use anything else? 

At that point it's not a QOL issue, it's going to become a build diversity issue. And one that doesn't just affect our choices in a very limited set of activities, but across the board. 

Why does mortality have to be a factor? If all Sentinels were immortal, I'd still have the choice between (for example) scanning and highlighting weakpoints with Helios, or Carrier's Ammo benefits, or CC with Djinn and Wyrm, or Stealth with Shade.

Right now, I use Djinn near-exclusively, because it's the only Sentinel that I can rely on to actually stick with me through a mission. The current system does not promote build diversity, it inhibits it.

Also, you seem to have ignored the point that pretty much no other game handles utility functions like this, for good reason.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 minute ago, Corvid said:

Why does mortality have to be a factor? If all Sentinels were immortal, I'd still have the choice between (for example) scanning and highlighting weakpoints with Helios, or Carrier's Ammo benefits, or CC with Djinn and Wyrm, or Stealth with Shade.

Right now, I use Djinn near-exclusively, because it's the only Sentinel that I can rely on to actually stick with me through a mission. The current system does not promote build diversity, it inhibits it.

Because it's the only relevant counter to the utility they all provide. 

[Corvid]

9 minutes ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

Because it's the only relevant counter to the utility they all provide. 

And why exactly does utility need a counter?

It doesn't in other games.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

40 minutes ago, Corvid said:

And why exactly does utility need a counter?

It doesn't in other games.

Because it creates a choice point for us. Again, would you realistically ever choose the new-kavats or Djinn, if your Helios, Carrier, or Smeeta self-revived? We both know that Djinn and the new-kavats bring utility to the table, just like the others, but in the same way that Carrier doesn't scan for us, or give us those sweet Smeeta buffs, the others don't give us the loot boost that carrier does. The "bonus" from the new-kavats and Djinn is in their effortless longevity.

You and I both know that pets in general can already be given linked health, and healing on melee, then strapped to a ridiculous health pool and keep them in the game far longer, but that'sa  choice we have to make. They can also be revived by players who want to, again a choice. We can forsake having to do any of that with a choice, but at the cost of the bonus that any of the other options bring, and that's a choice that you and I have both made when we felt the benefits outweighed the costs. So to claim that they're totally non-viable (pathing issues aside), if they don't also self revive/become immortal, isn't really cutting it.

This freedom to choose, but at a cost, exists throughout the game. We both know that the Devs want us to make that sort of choice, for diversity in the game, because we've both seen way too many threads about disposition changes. When any one option so outweighs the others that people start using it across the board, they try to do things that encourage us to go back to evaluating the situations we face, and adapt.

 

[Corvid]

1 minute ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

Because it creates a choice point for us. Again, would you realistically ever choose the new-kavats or Djinn, if your Helios, Carrier, or Smeeta self-revived?

Yes, because they fulfil functions other than just being immortal. Djinn charms and draws in enemies (and with the Gazal skin is my personal favourite aesthetically). Panzer is a mini-Saryn. Crescent Lifts enemies and amplifies damage. Sly buffs your Evasion.

These are all things that players would be able to choose between even if companion mortality was not a factor. So presenting it as though removing the need to babysit your companion would somehow remove the reason to take those pets vs the others displays a remarkable degree of ignorance as to what they can actually do beyond negating a game mechanic that exists purely to frustrate.

And still you ignore the fact that other games with similar companions don't force you to do said babysitting. I'm not going to bother responding to you further until you address this: Why are utility functions something that requires a drawback in this game when they don't in others?

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 minute ago, Corvid said:

And still you ignore the fact that other games with similar companions don't force you to do said babysitting. I'm not going to bother responding to you further until you address this: Why are utility functions something that requires a drawback in this game when they don't in others?

Why shouldn't this game be it's own game? Based on that logic, all games should just devolve into Go or Mancala.

[Corvid]

24 minutes ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

Why shouldn't this game be it's own game? Based on that logic, all games should just devolve into Go or Mancala.

That's not my argument and you know it. Let me know when you decide to respond in a way that doesn't strawman my position.

This isn't a matter of turning Warframe into other games, it's a matter of seeing what those other games did well and implementing it here to reduce frustration. Y'know, something that DE have constantly shown willingness to to over the near-decade of this game's lifespan.

This time you apparently decided to ignore the first part of my post, which I will interpret to mean that you do not have a rebuttal. To think I once held you in esteem on these fora...

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

36 minutes ago, Corvid said:

This time you apparently decided to ignore the first part of my post, which I will interpret to mean that you do not have a rebuttal. To think I once held you in esteem on these fora...

No mate, I rebutted it, you rejected the idea that having us choose based on strengths and weaknesses is a part of the game. Here, you seem to want to choose only between strengths, and have weaknesses simply not be a part of it. That's a common thing on here, "anything which messes with our power fantasy, takes away the feeling of invulnerability must be removed". I disagree, and showed why. 

What you claim is inconvenience only for the sake of inconvenience, I see as an intentional weakness that we have to choose to accept, or pick something which doesn't have that weakness, at the cost of having to accept the loss of a given strength. That type of choice permeates the entire game, and appears to be fully intentional. It forces us to accept the diversity, and find ways to meet our goals. What you're advocating, I see as a homogenisation, wherein our choices would become far less meaningful. 

 

I've said all of this before, and I know you're able to see it in my replies. I accept your choice to disagree, but to pretend that they haven't already been made in advance, well that's a bit disappointing.

 

[Corvid]

Poor game design should never be a drawback that the player needs to consider. Your "rebuttal" essentially amounts to saying that players should have to play babysitter if they want basic functions that other games give by default.

It would probably do you good to realise that I'm a player who does want to see this game be reworked to be more challenging. Escorting an NPC just so you can have access to basic QOL functions isn't a challenge. It's a hassle. Acting as though a few options that mitigate the problem somehow removes it is idiotic, and misses the entire point of why it's an issue. It's not a case of trading "strengths for weaknesses", it's deciding how much BS you want to put up with from a bad mechanic.

Regardless, I'm done arguing with a brick wall. You will have no further responses from me.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

20 minutes ago, Corvid said:

Escorting an NPC just so you can have access to basic QOL functions isn't a challenge. It's a hassle.

Regardless, I'm done arguing with a brick wall. You will have no further responses from me.

If only we had ones that self-revive. Wait, you said you use one of those, didn't you? You chose an option that didn't have that weakness, by forsaking some other strength. And you seem to agree that multiple options exist. 

Have a good one, Tenno.

 

 

[DebrisFlow]

2 hours ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

What you claim is inconvenience only for the sake of inconvenience, I see as an intentional weakness that we have to choose to accept, or pick something which doesn't have that weakness, at the cost of having to accept the loss of a given strength. That type of choice permeates the entire game, and appears to be fully intentional. It forces us to accept the diversity, and find ways to meet our goals. What you're advocating, I see as a homogenisation, wherein our choices would become far less meaningful. 

"It forces us to accept the diversity, and find ways to meet our goals" -> if it forces us it's not a choice, it's a necessity. You can call it "wise choice" or "optimal choice", to dress it as to give it the appearance of choice, but it is indeed only a constraint deduction: you cannot really choose if the only useful choice is the best choice...which leads to everyone needing to use the same optimal tool...which ironically backfires in becoming "What you're advocating, I see as a homogenisation" ...homogenisation! Don't you see your contradiction in this? You defend what's actually causing the homogenisation you fear, in all the vastity of high level content where companions survaivability is relying on the only 4 (forced)choices. At this point "wherein our choices would become far less meaningful" is exactly the position your are putting us into, with an easy to solve binary good/bad, while they would become truly meaningful and actually more finely challenging in a scenario with more viable companions with subtle differences to analyse.

You already argued that learning to make the best choice is THE path to follow to progress in the game, i already pointed out from observational evidence that's only A preliminary component of the game, not its entirety, being also based on experiencing free (not forced) diversity.

The difference between my position and yours is that in your case homogenisation is induced and actually observable in game as forced "meta", in mine homogenisation is a suppositional state you fear everyone in the game would fall into. Your position strenghtens a mindset limitation, my position advocates for true free choice, which i already pointed out from observational evidence is in the philosophy of the game. Your positions is actually now leading to companions homogenisation in a vast array of high level missions, my position would give the free choice of joining the homogenisation...or not. 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

47 minutes ago, DebrisFlow said:

"It forces us to accept the diversity, and find ways to meet our goals" -> if it forces us it's not a choice, it's a necessity. You can call it "wise choice" or "optimal choice", to dress it as to give it the appearance of choice, but it is indeed only a constraint deduction: you cannot really choose if the only useful choice is the best choice...which leads to everyone needing to use the same optimal tool...which ironically backfires in becoming "What you're advocating, I see as a homogenisation" ...homogenisation! Don't you see your contradiction in this? You defend what's actually causing the homogenisation you fear, in all the vastity of high level content where companions survaivability is relying on the only 4 (forced)choices. At this point "wherein our choices would become far less meaningful" is exactly the position your are putting us into, with an easy to solve binary good/bad, while they would become truly meaningful and actually more finely challenging in a scenario with more viable companions with subtle differences to analyse.

You already argued that learning to make the best choice is THE path to follow to progress in the game, i already pointed out from observational evidence that's only A preliminary component of the game, not its entirety, being also based on experiencing free (not forced) diversity.

The difference between my position and yours is that in your case homogenisation is induced and actually observable in game as forced "meta", in mine homogenisation is a suppositional state you fear everyone in the game would fall into. Your position strenghtens a mindset limitation, my position advocates for true free choice, which i already pointed out from observational evidence is in the philosophy of the game. Your positions is actually now leading to companions homogenisation in a vast array of high level missions, my position would give the free choice of joining the homogenisation...or not. 

You're still counting wrong, because you clearly depend on others to make your choices for you. I'mma let you figure that out on your own.

[DebrisFlow]

1 hour ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

You're still counting wrong, because you clearly depend on others to make your choices for you. I'mma let you figure that out on your own.

No please, i'm really curious to see you climbing another mirror

[(XBOX)TheWayOfWisdom]

Companions other than Panzer, Smeeta, Adraza, Helios, and the occasional Moa exist? Wack.

Wouldn't need immortal companions if DE actually looked at enemy damage scaling and better normalized our EHP ranges, but 🤷‍♀️.

[Corvid]

18 minutes ago, (XBOX)TheWayOfWisdom said:

Wouldn't need immortal companions if DE actually looked at enemy damage scaling and better normalized our EHP ranges, but 🤷‍♀️.

Probably still would, considering splash damage and all.

Besides, how do you "normalise" HP relative to something that scales indefinitely?

[(XBOX)TheWayOfWisdom]

33 minutes ago, Corvid said:

Probably still would, considering splash damage and all.

Besides, how do you "normalise" HP relative to something that scales indefinitely?

You scale with a function that has a horizontal asymptote, preferably a low one.
Let's go for a mildly extreme example. A level 80 Elite railjack lancer does ~524 damage a shot, and shoots a burst of 4 that's more or less instant. So that's 2096 damage which is hitscan (and has pretty good crit and status chance).
Excalibur Umbra has ~4200 health EHP with a full umbral set. So you're gone in 8 bullets (2 bursts) pretty much. Inaros with the same conditions has 20,552 health ehp, and eats 39 bullets (10 bursts) before biting the sand. How do you make enemies deal with someone that takes 5x as many bullets to kill as another, without the other being overwhelmed.
So our issue is that we can output tremendous amounts of damage, but we can't go to the point where we'd use/need it without "cheese" survivability mechanics like invisibility, death cheats, invulnerability, or multiple DR layers. (And before someone says use adaptation; You eat 10 bullets as Umbra and 52 with Inaros with Adaptation, pretty much insignificant for Umbra, a decent improvement as Inaros)
 

[(PSN)smb-twisted]

On 2021-01-27 at 4:31 PM, (PSN)AbBaNdOn_ said:

Who else is sick of dead pets in all new content?

Between Op Venom and Isolation vaults,  mechs and pets DO NOT go together.  

If you arent going to let them do the things we bring them for then get rid of em.     If my warframe isnt dieing,  if my mech isnt dieing,  then why the hell is my pet dieing???

Just let pets ignore all damage,  remove some mod slots if you have to.

you've built your pet badly then. i've not had a pet go down in venom or iso vaults. iso vaults, are you serious?

 

my little kavat is fine up to maybe 90 minutes in kuvival and being fair, i wouldn't expect them to last forever.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 hour ago, DebrisFlow said:

No please, i'm really curious to see you climbing another mirror

Ask the people who keep mentioning that their companions don't die during these activities. We have options that allow us to have pets that remain viable in everything outside of long endurance runs. You've been here long enough to know that, but you seem to have missed some things. Like I said, I'mma let you figure it out on your own.