Its time to remove affinity range - in every gamemode

[Nexeroff]

48 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

I guess there's a distinction that can be made, but in either case it's a negative outcome: either the "friendly, sociable player" is punished, or the "friendly, sociable player" is not rewarded which is basically the same as a punishment. In both cases the "friendly, sociable player" gets less because of the "selfish" player's actions, and that it's a bad thing. I agree with you on that, which is why I think those "selfish" players should contribute to the team by having their drops and Affinity shared. There's nothing you can do to make these players not be selfish, and if you can't beat them then you might as well profit from them.

Then stop complaining when they do.

You don't need to beat them, you don't need to give them any attention at all, you don't need to do anything.  You don't reward bad behavior, you reward good behavior.  If you don't wish to behave in the way the game developers intend, then you don't get a reward. 

Punishment is not the same as not receiving a reward.  The reward is extra XP you otherwise would not have, if someone were being punished and it was done so with xp, then punishment would be taking away XP that is not affinity. 

Again you are trying way too hard to lend credence to what you suggest.  Rewarding bad behavior is not smart, it only encourages more bad behavior.  Like a child throwing a fit, you don't give the child what they want and are throwing a fit to get, you do not reinforce bad, antisocial behavior, you ignore it.

Indigenous people of North America had a brilliant strategy when dealing with their children.  They simply ignored behavior in their children that was not acceptable, and rewarded behavior that was.  When I was working towards my Masters in Psychology we did all kinds of studies on rewarding and not rewarding.  I can tell you this, any time you reward bad behavior, anti social behavior, behavior that is not productive to a group effort you are encouraging more of the same.

A reward has nothing to do with punishment.  If for example the reward is, you do this you get that and you don't do this so you don't get that then you were not punished you simply did not meet the requirements of the reward.  It's really simple and easy to understand.  If you behave in a way that deserves a punishment response, there is no reward to speak of, you are punished for your bad behavior. something might be taken away or you might be punished in some other way but it does not relate to, nor have anything to do with any reward.  Nobody is being punished when you do not meet the requirements of a reward, you simple did not meet the requirements.  Sometimes not meeting those requirements has to do with someone in your group not playing their role, contributing to the group.

Take baseball for example, it's a team effort.  If someone on your team is off in left field somewhere playing as an individual and not a team player, and the batter hits a pop fly into left field and that team member did not get it, failed, and this is repeated and that team loses.  It's not punishment that they lost, they just simply didn't meet the requirements to win and didn't mostly because of the one bad team player.

So what you really are suggesting is that you want to play in a team, like a baseball team.  You don't want to work towards the team goals, you don't want to work with the other members of the team, and you want to be rewarded as if you did.  That would be like my example of the person in left field and the team getting a win regardless that they didn't win at all.

You are thinking of these things as individuals and that's not what playing in a team is, nor how it relates to what we are talking about.  In this case, the group is the entity, like a corporation is an entity under the law but has many people contributing.  If you do not contribute to the group effort, the group earns less affinity.  The fault is yours personally for failing the group and behaving selfishly, but it's the entire group that did not meet some of the requirements of the reward, so the person who caused the failure gets no reward, and the ones who's fault it was not only lack the reward they would otherwise have obtained from the selfish player.  Nobody is punished, this is a fallacy.  But lets think about this a little further.  The person, the one that runs off and leaches or is killing fewer enemies and those producing fewer resource drops, etc?  They are not really doing anything to create extra xp in the form of affinity anyway.  Because they are playing selfishly, they are actually doing far, far less and whatever resources or affinity XP they might produce is insignificant and minimal, so it doesn't really make that big a difference, or matter anyway.  It feel for the most part it's just how it makes people who are doing the actual work towards the mission goals that become upset because that bad player is getting credit for something they did not contribute.  In this case, I feel the bad player should be punished even more than they are punishing themselves.

I would actually like to see a self governing community, one in which people could give a + or - for any given player in a mission.  If the player accrues too many negative votes then they are punished in some way, like maybe they get fewer resources, or they are banned from joining a queue of other players and are only able to play solo for a length of time.  When I played Ultima Online they actually had a jail where if you behaved badly, your character was put in that jail for a specific length of time.  It worked awesome, people who displayed bad behavior learned quickly that they would not be tolerated.  People really liked it because those who behaved badly, didn't get to play with other people they were stuck in a tiny little square for 24+ hours. 

You are right in this respect, people who behave poorly, who do not contribute to the group effort should be punished.  I realize you are calling not meeting the requirements of a reward, punishment and that is incorrect as I have pointed out, but I do agree that selfish people who queue in a group to play as a team, and do not, should be punished in some way.  That is really the only way people like you will stop taking advantage of other people, stop playing selfishly and instead just play solo so they do not impact anyone negatively.  Punish people and they will stop behaving in certain unwanted ways.  I do wish DE would implement something like that.  They do so in chat, I would like to see it expanded to include people who behave poorly or selfishly as well.  Wouldn't that be awesome?  All the people who cause problems in missions get weeded out or change their behavior if they way to play?  It's not ever going to happen, but I raise my glass to wishing it would.

[DreisterDino]

vor 45 Minuten schrieb Tesseract7777:

Combine them with Vazarin's affinity range increase which I always have turned on in public games, and I do mean ALWAYS. I always use Vazarin in pubs. 

You will get so much affinity range its crazy. And like someone mentioned already, they can affect Blessing (which has a nice new augment coming out soon) and Covenant as well. 

Vazarin is underrated, at least for pubs. eight free rez's, 25 extra meters affinity. A dash power that heals people and makes them invincible for five seconds and works on defense operartives and stuff btw. A second dash upgrade that stuns enemies and temporarily opens them to finishers, only briefly though compared to the Naramon finisher dash/stun upgrade. Either way, Vazarin is just so amazing in public games. 

Vazarin is one of the few ways Focus feels like it should be, that you can be the healer and dps/seflish frame at the same time. I can be Ash the assassin and secondarily be a healer/damage stopper with my operator. 

To me the others give you a lot of utility, but none of that have that same feel of "I can use this focus school to be a true hybrid class along with my Warframe". 

Guess i need to try out Vazarin a bit more ^^

One question though... why eight revives? Do i missunderstand something with those 4 instantaneous revives or is there something else?

[Zimzala]

15 minutes ago, Nexeroff said:

I would actually like to see a self governing community, one in which people could give a + or - for any given player in a mission.  If the player accrues too many negative votes then they are punished in some way, like maybe they get fewer resources, or they are banned from joining a queue of other players and are only able to play solo for a length of time.  When I played Ultima Online they actually had a jail where if you behaved badly, your character was put in that jail for a specific length of time.  It worked awesome, people who displayed bad behavior learned quickly that they would not be tolerated.  People really liked it because those who behaved badly, didn't get to play with other people they were stuck in a tiny little square for 24+ hours. 

I could really get behind that system if it was automated around your idea of 'being a good teammate or not', but not so much if it was player driven, because people.

I think that kind of a system could be abused too easily by bad actors, but I would happily be proven wrong. Even here on these forums they changed to just a Like option, for example.

But a system that monitored how well you buffed other players, how often you stayed in buff range, how often you revived others, w/e, could still be gamed in some way and there are always bad actors.

So, I am personally totally for creating more incentives for players to work together and even a system through which players can be scored on it, that might make me actually co-op now and then.

How in UO did they prevent the gaming of the system? I never played that one myself.

[Tesseract7777]

1 minute ago, DreisterDino said:

Guess i need to try out Vazarin a bit more ^^

One question though... why eight revives? Do i missunderstand something with those 4 instantaneous revives or is there something else?

Instead of it being split between them as some might assume at first glance, the four insta revives are four per your operator and four per your warframe. 

[PublikDomain]

3 hours ago, Nexeroff said:

If you do not contribute to the group effort, the group earns less affinity.

And that's not fair to the group, is it? If the individual's actions contributed no matter where they were on the map, then the group as a whole would earn more Affinity. The bad behaviour you're so upset by would no longer be bad. It would be good, and everyone would be rewarded for it.

Or it could remain bad and nothing changes and you get to write more angry letters. 🤷‍♀️

3 hours ago, Nexeroff said:

You don't need to beat them, you don't need to give them any attention at all, you don't need to do anything.

Well you're not doing a very good job of that, lol

3 hours ago, Zimzala said:

I think that kind of a system could be abused too easily by bad actors, but I would happily be proven wrong.

Potential for abuse is definitely the main thing brought up when people talk about reputation or things like vote-kicking. The discussion never seems to go into that further though, but as long as the reputation or vote-kick system was backed by ingame mechanics it should be fine.

For example, maybe you could always give a player a +1 for being friendly, but giving them a -1 for being passive would only be possible if the anti-AFK detected passive play. Maybe you can only give a -1 for being rude if its accompanied by an abuse report. And obviously your reputation shouldn't be sensitive to one-time changes, or changes from people on your friends list or clan or alliance, or from players you haven't actually played with, etc. Giving too much reputation too quickly could also make your kudos or complaints less weighty, and abusing things like abuse reports could lock you out of giving reputation or reports at all. Edit: It could also look at your account age or play-time to weed out botting. Likewise a vote-kick system would be fine as long as voting can only start when a player reaches some automated threshold of inactivity.

Being able to give negative reputation or vote-kick without any provocation would certainly lead to abuse, but gating it behind automated detection would limit that to the point where it can't really happen.

[DarkSkysz]

On 2021-09-02 at 7:39 PM, PublikDomain said:

Affinity system is a problem that still needs addressing as it is.

Well, imo a toggle to allow or deny affinity share with someone on demand would fix most of the issues...

Whe you see that garbage trinity with only gears level 0, you can disable affinity share with him, so you won't get affinity from his kills and he won't get affinity from you.

The only one to lose with that... is the leecher, but nobody care about those worms anyway.

[(NSW)Greybones]

24 minutes ago, DarkSkysz said:

Well, imo a toggle to allow or deny affinity share with someone on demand would fix most of the issues...

Whe you see that garbage trinity with only gears level 0, you can disable affinity share with him, so you won't get affinity from his kills and he won't get affinity from you.

The only one to lose with that... is the leecher, but nobody care about those worms anyway.

🤔 Hrm, yes. If they're not contributing to the mass slaughter of everything around, what are they even part of the team for? Their help should be necessary, and if they're not helping... well, that's on them

edit: Without their help, the chances of a mission failure happening is higher. No-one wants that, so not helping shouldn’t be encouraged

[Nexeroff]

6 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

And that's not fair to the group, is it? If the individual's actions contributed no matter where they were on the map, then the group as a whole would earn more Affinity. The bad behaviour you're so upset by would no longer be bad. It would be good, and everyone would be rewarded for it.

Or it could remain bad and nothing changes and you get to write more angry letters. 🤷‍♀️

Hahaha, there you go, trying way too hard again.  You try far too hard to troll about emotions people do not feel and attribute all kinds of things you cannot possibly know about anyone, while they are playing a game, as if it's true.  It's called assumptive reasoning, it's the same tactics some cops use to get you to allow them to do things that they would not be allow to do unless you gave them permission for example, when a police officer asks "you don't mind if I search your vehicle" they are using assumptive reasoning.  When you make the claim " the bad behavior you're so upset by" that is an assumptive claim, it's not true, as a matter of record and fact I have repeatedly stated that it doesn't bother me, that they don't affect me and that I only feel bad for the newer players that need affinity and all other goodies.  But mad, about someone who is selfish?  Why would I ever be, I don't care about them, I could not care less about them, they do not matter to me for this reason, they are not contributing at all.  If they were contributing I would be happy about that.  If they do not play as a group team member when they queue as a group team member, then they don't matter to me.  They don't matter to the game, and thus are not rewarded.  People that matter in a group team effort earn the reward naturally, and are rewarded.  People who do not earn it are ignored.  They are not punished, just simply not rewarded because they have not met the requirements of that reward.

No upset, I might laugh at them when someone says something and points out they are leaching or being lazy or playing stupidly because it's true.  Think about it, some people go out of their way not to do what is so easy and simple to do without even trying, to get a reward.  They purposefully play against the team.  It's as if they want negative attention, crave it in fact because they get no attention at all and are not special in any way, not noticed so they instead display bad behavior, again like a small child, to get negative attention instead.

It's laughable, I can see why you personally want to play this way, you display some of that same behavior in this thread.  You try too hard to troll, to support a failed argument and use incorrect terms to describe things like rewards to make them seem like punishment.  You seek negative attention at every turn.

6 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Well you're not doing a very good job of that, lol

You cannot possibly know this or not, I have never played in any mission with you.  But let me be clear, just so you understand.

When in a mission the only time I might pay attention to someone like you, and that's what we are talking about in mission right?  Is when someone points out they are a leach, or playing against the team effort.  And in that case, I laugh, I might even type a little "lol" in the chat window.  But other than that, because of people like you playing selfishly, trolling, leaching, I just ignore you. 

Now, if you are talking about this thread in particular, and me not ignoring you here?  I have a very good reason for not ignoring you.  You see, you are putting yourself out there as a very specific type of person and many people can, if they choose to, follow this conversation.  Those that might have played like you have described yourself as being, might see things differently, they might even reason logically and realize how unproductive and antisocial their selfish gameplay is, they may never have really understood it to start with.  So by engaging you, and pointing out in each post where you are wrong, where you are lying, where you are misrepresenting the facts and meanings of words they then have an opportunity to make a choice between continuing their bad selfish behavior, or to become better, to present a better version of themselves, to contribute to the team effort as intended, as the game mechanics were created to reward.

The choice is theirs to make, but by responding to you, I expose you and those similar to you.

Maybe you feel I am beating you in this posts, I can assure you that's not my intent at all, you might feel that way for obvious reasons but it's not the case.  I could not care less beating you.  I care more about expressing facts.  If expressing facts proves your points incorrect or illogical I can assure you that's only a side affect of expressing facts.  I could not care less about beating you.  I don't need to beat you.  You are beating yourself.  It seems this fact also escapes you.

 

[BETAOPTICS]

On 2021-09-02 at 11:01 PM, PublikDomain said:

But Affinity Range is only a factor if people are leveling gear. If you're not leveling anything then the one and only incentive to stick around goes away. And even if you do stay within Affinity Range, it's not like the game actually incentivizes or requires cooperation. There aren't any combo kills or double-team attacks or enemies that require two players to defeat. We're already "playing together but alone" and it's been that way for years. Not sure if anything would really change in that respect, and it'd mean could explore the map even if your teammates wanted to go camp in a sewer.

Edit: Or more to my point, if changing the game's "playing together but alone" thing is desirable (I think that it is) then addressing that through actual gameplay mechanics and design would be far preferable to relying on a weak punishment for being too far away.

While this is also true, I am not entirely sure if more of the "undesired-effect" should be pursued design wise. Were we to focus on the co-op part of Warframe then in that case this should not be changed and rather other elements should be changed to better reflect this co-op focus. However considering how the game has gradually evolved, where once Warframes like Trinity were vital and now pretty much irrelevant then it is not like modern Warframe gameplay mechanics have encouraged this co-op aspect despite the games claimed premise of cooperation between the players. So despite Teserract7777 good response argument, I am not sure if co-op is the goal in DE's design philosophy or not these days. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

[Numerikuu]

On 2021-09-02 at 8:49 PM, Tesseract7777 said:

I strongly disagree. 

Affinity range is one of the only carrots that actually encourages Tenno to stay roughly near each other when doing stuff like Survival, etc. 

It would just make the game more anti-coop, as we could all run off to completely different corners of the map and share xp, playing together but alone. 

What's the fun of playing with random Tenno if your idea of playing with random Tenno is to be so far apart that you aren't interacting with them? 

I'd agree--if we were talking about Warframe from several years ago. Now days that 'carrot' is an old, shrivelled up one. Slap on top people being annoyed at AOE weapons/warframes stealing all the fun and you get people going off on their own in survivals, etc. Plus there being many ways now to level up fast.

That argument works for old Warframe, but not today's Warframe.

[PublikDomain]

17 hours ago, DarkSkysz said:

Well, imo a toggle to allow or deny affinity share with someone on demand would fix most of the issues...

Whe you see that garbage trinity with only gears level 0, you can disable affinity share with him, so you won't get affinity from his kills and he won't get affinity from you.

The only one to lose with that... is the leecher, but nobody care about those worms anyway.

But then a Saryn could go into ESO and turn off shared Affinity and sabotage the whole team. Is letting players maliciously deny others Affinity really a good thing?

And the "garbage trinity with only gears level 0" is the main person shared Affinity is there for in the first place. They're the one that needs the help, so I don't know why you'd want to go out of your way to punish them.

17 hours ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

🤔 Hrm, yes. If they're not contributing to the mass slaughter of everything around, what are they even part of the team for?

I dunno, healing and generating energy for the team? Playing the frame they like? How dare!

11 hours ago, BETAOPTICS said:

While this is also true, I am not entirely sure if more of the "undesired-effect" should be pursued design wise. Were we to focus on the co-op part of Warframe then in that case this should not be changed and rather other elements should be changed to better reflect this co-op focus. However considering how the game has gradually evolved, where once Warframes like Trinity were vital and now pretty much irrelevant then it is not like modern Warframe gameplay mechanics have encouraged this co-op aspect despite the games claimed premise of cooperation between the players. So despite Teserract7777 good response argument, I am not sure if co-op is the goal in DE's design philosophy or not these days. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

But roaming isn't strictly undesirable. If your sole metric for cooperation is "players sharing Affinity and reviving each other" then sure, players running around could surely be seen as an "undesired effect". But the game's own design encourages this. For example:

• Leaving Affinity Range to mop up the last enemies in Defense.
• Protecting your own tower in Interception - which is often outside of Affinity Range.
• Splitting up to tackle Spy Vaults faster.
• Splitting up to find Caches, remove Coolant, and going ahead to find the Blast Door console in Sabotage.
• Finding caches in other game modes where they're supported.
• Splitting up to complete Hive missions faster.
• Splitting up to do more Excavators at once.
• Running off to collect Life Support and activate distant Life Support towers in Survival.
• Escorting multiple groups in Defection.
• Hunting Demolysts and activating multiple towers in Disruption.
• Rushing in Exterminate and Capture.
• Splitting up to hack the consoles, find the keys, and going ahead to fire the cannon in Assault.
• Doing track-n-tranq in Deimos and PoE (extra standing for your teammates).
• Finding and marking Fragments (Cephalon Fragments, Somachord Fragments, Frame Fighter things, Kuria, etc).
• Finding and marking Ayatans and rare containers.
• Finding and marking the exit.
• Going ahead to prepare for the next Orphix.
• Defending multiple diffusers in Salvage.
• Cleaning up groups of enemies approaching the objective in Mobile Defense and Hijack.
• And so on.

So the game does encourage co-op. It's just the co-op it actually encourages is individuals running around the map advancing the shared mission, not sitting in the same room squabbling over kills. The game regularly encourages teams to split up and go outside of Affinity Range in just about every mission type but Assassination, Capture, and Exterminate. And in the latter two cases, players are encouraged to rush ahead to complete the mission faster which leaves players behind far outside of Affinity Range.

11 hours ago, Nexeroff said:

Hahaha, there you go, trying way too hard again.  You try far too hard to troll about emotions people do not feel and attribute all kinds of things you cannot possibly know about anyone, while they are playing a game, as if it's true.  It's called assumptive reasoning, it's the same tactics some cops use to get you to allow them to do things that they would not be allow to do unless you gave them permission for example, when a police officer asks "you don't mind if I search your vehicle" they are using assumptive reasoning.  When you make the claim " the bad behavior you're so upset by" that is an assumptive claim, it's not true, as a matter of record and fact I have repeatedly stated that it doesn't bother me, that they don't affect me and that I only feel bad for the newer players that need affinity and all other goodies.  But mad, about someone who is selfish?  Why would I ever be, I don't care about them, I could not care less about them, they do not matter to me for this reason, they are not contributing at all.  If they were contributing I would be happy about that.  If they do not play as a group team member when they queue as a group team member, then they don't matter to me.  They don't matter to the game, and thus are not rewarded.  People that matter in a group team effort earn the reward naturally, and are rewarded.  People who do not earn it are ignored.  They are not punished, just simply not rewarded because they have not met the requirements of that reward.

No upset, I might laugh at them when someone says something and points out they are leaching or being lazy or playing stupidly because it's true.  Think about it, some people go out of their way not to do what is so easy and simple to do without even trying, to get a reward.  They purposefully play against the team.  It's as if they want negative attention, crave it in fact because they get no attention at all and are not special in any way, not noticed so they instead display bad behavior, again like a small child, to get negative attention instead.

It's laughable, I can see why you personally want to play this way, you display some of that same behavior in this thread.  You try too hard to troll, to support a failed argument and use incorrect terms to describe things like rewards to make them seem like punishment.  You seek negative attention at every turn.

You cannot possibly know this or not, I have never played in any mission with you.  But let me be clear, just so you understand.

When in a mission the only time I might pay attention to someone like you, and that's what we are talking about in mission right?  Is when someone points out they are a leach, or playing against the team effort.  And in that case, I laugh, I might even type a little "lol" in the chat window.  But other than that, because of people like you playing selfishly, trolling, leaching, I just ignore you. 

Now, if you are talking about this thread in particular, and me not ignoring you here?  I have a very good reason for not ignoring you.  You see, you are putting yourself out there as a very specific type of person and many people can, if they choose to, follow this conversation.  Those that might have played like you have described yourself as being, might see things differently, they might even reason logically and realize how unproductive and antisocial their selfish gameplay is, they may never have really understood it to start with.  So by engaging you, and pointing out in each post where you are wrong, where you are lying, where you are misrepresenting the facts and meanings of words they then have an opportunity to make a choice between continuing their bad selfish behavior, or to become better, to present a better version of themselves, to contribute to the team effort as intended, as the game mechanics were created to reward.

The choice is theirs to make, but by responding to you, I expose you and those similar to you.

Maybe you feel I am beating you in this posts, I can assure you that's not my intent at all, you might feel that way for obvious reasons but it's not the case.  I could not care less beating you.  I care more about expressing facts.  If expressing facts proves your points incorrect or illogical I can assure you that's only a side affect of expressing facts.  I could not care less about beating you.  I don't need to beat you.  You are beating yourself.  It seems this fact also escapes you.

 

Sure thing, buddy.

[Nexeroff]

23 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Sure thing, buddy.

This is what you resort to, your arguments are bunk, nobody is going to reward you for your selfish behavior, you are not going to twist the meaning of a reward to mean punishment, why you persist is baffling.

[PublikDomain]

29 minutes ago, Nexeroff said:

This is what you resort to, your arguments are bunk, nobody is going to reward you for your selfish behavior, you are not going to twist the meaning of a reward to mean punishment, why you persist is baffling.

I think you should calm down.

[Ketec]

The range is minuscule - even playing defense in a roughly the same area, half the time people are out of range of someone.

[Nexeroff]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

I think you should calm down.

I think you shouldn't try so hard to convince people your selfish behavior is okay, or that a reward is punishment.  I think when you tell someone to calm down it's not because they are not calm, it's that you are trying, and trying way too hard I might add, to attribute an emotion to them that would cause them not to be calm so as to make them seem a certain way.

Failed again.

Look, you can either just stop, or admit you are wrong.  It's been explained, it's been pointed out, you persist to insist things that are just not true nor should be considered and all in an effort to support your selfish intent.

You try way too hard

[PublikDomain]

33 minutes ago, Nexeroff said:

I think you shouldn't try so hard to convince people your selfish behavior is okay, or that a reward is punishment.  I think when you tell someone to calm down it's not because they are not calm, it's that you are trying, and trying way too hard I might add, to attribute an emotion to them that would cause them not to be calm so as to make them seem a certain way.

Failed again.

Look, you can either just stop, or admit you are wrong.  It's been explained, it's been pointed out, you persist to insist things that are just not true nor should be considered and all in an effort to support your selfish intent.

You try way too hard

🤔

[Tesseract7777]

35 minutes ago, Nexeroff said:

You try way too hard

Says the guy whose every post is a book length treeatise but somehow still manages to say very little. 

[(NSW)Greybones]

4 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I dunno, healing and generating energy for the team? Playing the frame they like? How dare!

Nah nah, I think I get it now. You see... Warframe. Is an anagram. 🤯

You reverse it, and you get e...m...arfraw Grind. You get Grind. I need it to spell Grind for my argument, so it spells Grind. That's what anagrams do. Yes.

Warframe is Grind. And as such, it is vital that we contribute to the team. We need to kill faster for that EXP, and we need to stick together so spawns don't go all over the place so that we can kill faster. And we need to avoid that Mission Failure screen, because we are perpetually on the knife's edge in that regard; one person not pulling their weight will inevitably take us down, and all that we earned during the mission will be lost. It's not fair to others to not be efficient with your choice of equipment. That's what players expect when they join multiplayer with randoms, is it not?

[HintOfMalice]

On 2021-09-02 at 8:45 PM, (XBOX)TyeGoo said:

I'm curious how Warframe abilities based on affinity range would work, if they'd remove that and change it to normal ranges, or forget about it and we have endless range abilities xD (I think it's only a few though)

I'm not sure how long ago you started playing but Trinity's Blessing (which currently just uses affinity range) used to have infinite range. Also used to fully heal and provide invulnerability. God it really was a different game back then. 

 

I imagine they'd just have the range be unmoddable and have it fixed. 

[ebrl]

On 2021-09-08 at 8:32 PM, (NSW)Greybones said:

And we need to avoid that Mission Failure screen, because we are perpetually on the knife's edge in that regard

I thought we were talking about Warframe?

[(NSW)Greybones]

11 minutes ago, ebrl said:

I thought we were talking about Warframe?

Oh yeah. Scratch that, then

edit: Technically we’re talking about Multiplayer Warframe, but yeah, I get your point

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 hour ago, ebrl said:

I thought we were talking about Warframe?

…wait. If we’re not avoiding mission failure because it’s not a concept in Multiplayer…

…there’s… something not quite lining up here in regards to bringing whatever a player wants to play…

late edit: 🤔 I guess Efficiency is now the main factor in not bringing something other than the best. Failure would have been a huge setback, but with that out of the way, it comes down to doing things just plain faster to get through the slog faster

[Deminisis]

Seeing how often people want to run off into another room in survival to kill or people that speed through an extermination far ahead the team, I would like this change.

To the naysayers using the AFK argument, just cut off affinity after a few seconds of inactivity. Problem solved.

[iPathos]

On 2021-09-03 at 8:03 AM, (PSN)Unstar said:

If you want DE to see this, you'll want to move it to the Feedback forums; they don't look here.

They don't seem to look in many places of late, to be entirely honest.

On 2021-09-03 at 2:14 PM, RichardKam said:

.......so that I can just AFK at the start of my mission and leech affinity when you guys finish? 

No.

Understandable concern, there's an AFK timer which stops you gaining rewards (including affinity) already - just for concerns like this. Wouldn't be hard to also more easily allow players to submit reports of leechers to support if this was enacted.

[Temragon]

This would be a great change.