Abuse of the "Shield gate" mechanics

[--END--Rikutatis]

I honestly don't see much point in this decaying + shield gate "controversy". It's almost a non issue. 

1) If DE removes the interaction with decaying dragon key, you can still achieve the same gameplay results by just tweaking your build a little. Decaying makes it easier and lazier, but you can still do this without it by just doing a little extra math with the ratio of your brief respite/augur set vs your efficiency and power cost. 

2) Ehp facetanking on the better sponge frames can still comfortably get you to level 300-400+ enemies by just blindly facetanking without a care. At least shield gating requires more input and timing from the player, I'd say it takes more skill. 

3) If we're talking just baseline Steel Path (level 100-150ish enemies), even non-tank frames but with a decent amount of health can still facetank well enough to survive and not need shield gating by just slotting adaptation and an arcane guardian, plus a regular vitality mod.

So....

4) Shield gating only becomes the only viable strategy if you're doing endurance runs against enemy levels in the high hundreds or thousands. What's the percentage of players doing this? 

I mean, sure, decaying with shield gating does feel like an exploit or an abuse to me, but if DE removes it, it won't really change much. It's like when DE nerfed Chroma's buff and thought that'd prevent eidolons from being one shot... 

 

[(XBOX)TheWayOfWisdom]

2 minutes ago, --END--Rikutatis said:

1) If DE removes the interaction with decaying dragon key, you can still achieve the same gameplay results by just tweaking your build a little. Decaying makes it easier and lazier, but you can still do this without it by just doing a little extra math with the ratio of your brief respite/augur set vs your efficiency and power cost. 

Ah yes never slotting efficiency mods (and sometimes slotting negative efficiency) and up to 6 mods for energy to shield.

[(PSN)Unstar]

With all due respect, anyone who thinks using the Decaying Key is an "exploit" or a "bug" is being far too liberal with their definitions of these terms.  Using Decaying Key to buff shield-gating has been widely-used by players for 2 years.  If DE wanted players to not do this, they have had more than enough time to remove it from the game (it would be incredibly simple to add an extra debuff to the Decaying Key so that it delays or disables shield-gating).  However, DE has chosen not to remove this synergy.  At this point, buffing shield-gating with the Decaying Key is just part of the game.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

1 hour ago, Silligoose said:

While I share your sentiment and hope it changes the minds of the decision makers at DE, I'm not optimistic in this regards. I'm also going to have to ruin your day:

Based on this information and many updates with new abilities and/or mechanics, I've come to the conclusion DE does not really mind introducing mechanics that conflict with the flow of foundational mechanics in this game as one comes closer to endgame. The game enjoyed towards endgame does not exist there, is replaced by something that feels tactically- and strategically lacking in comparison, far more akin to a generic shooter and I'm not so sure DE cares. Current shield gating mechanics is but one example of this.

Because text book thinking is flawed. No one cares what some person who takes the game too seriously with their own written theorems thinks....because the game is doing great, is fun, and let's everyone flourish at their own pace.

 

[(XBOX)TheWayOfWisdom]

1 minute ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

With all due respect, anyone who thinks using the Decaying Key is an "exploit" or a "bug" is being far too liberal with their definitions of these terms.  Using Decaying Key to buff shield-gating has been widely-used by players for 2 years.

Vex Armor "bug" was in the game for longer. __Insert longstanding exploit__ has been in the game for __insert years__ surely it must be intentional.

[Silligoose]

2 hours ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

Because text book thinking is flawed. No one cares what some person who takes the game too seriously with their own written theorems thinks....because the game is doing great, is fun, and let's everyone flourish at their own pace.

 

Games that continue to build upon their foundational mechanics also do great, are also fun and can also still allow players to flourish at their own pace.

I would find it strange to play a fighting game, learn various combo's, special attacks, opponent moves and timings etc in order to progress to the harder difficulties, only for the game to say "oh btw, for these last opponents at our endgame, just use basic punch whenever", or to play a driving game, upgrade my car, tyres, engine, fine-tune them to get the most out of both straights and corners, learn the racing lines of the various tracks to beat the lower level leagues, only to find the highest echelon of the leagues to be... drag races, or to play an RPG in which one upgrades skills, stats, attacks etc, only for the final few levels to say "of btw none of that stuff that were essential in getting you here matters anymore, just use basic attacks". I suppose you could chalk up this "flawed" thinking to be "textbook".

The big difference between a game that continues to build upon its foundational mechanics into endgame and one that does not, is that the former retains its unique character, its essence, the gameplay that hooked players in the first place, while the latter does not. The former continues to place value on the progression within those mechanics, thereby continuing to place value on the player's time towards that progression in terms of skill, knowledge and gear. The latter does not. The former maintains direction, expanding towards greater depth, leading players to further levels of enjoyment, from one climax to the next, while the latter starts becoming a little... directionless... wishy-washy... if you will... trying to entice players with new, disjointed, more basic, gameplay mechanics hoping one of them sticks, but ultimately becoming a shriveled up shell of its former self, failing to present a climax and instead leading to frustration and/or disappointment.

For some, the latter is fine, wanted even, but for others... not so much.

[Silligoose]

4 hours ago, Battle.Mage said:

I dont care too. but new players shouldn't just be scared off like that! many missions cannot be completed without a public group. and that on normal............

it's not okay!

I'm not sure what you mean by saying new players shouldn't be scared off like that?

Warframe is presented as, and balanced around, being a co-op game, so it is no surprise that newer players struggle to complete certain normal Star Chart missions without a squad: That is normal for a more co-op focussed game.

[Akisohida]

No offense OP, but you sound like a 'Stop Having Fun' guy.

People doing something YOU don't like? It's wrong, a bug, broken, or otherwise needs removal or nerfing, because YOU think it's not the proper way to play the game.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

20 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Games that continue to build upon their foundational mechanics also do great, are also fun and can also still allow players to flourish at their own pace.

I would find it strange to play a fighting game, learn various combo's, special attacks, opponent moves and timings etc in order to progress to the harder difficulties, only for the game to say "oh btw, for these last opponents at our endgame, just use basic punch whenever", or to play a driving game, upgrade my car, tyres, engine, fine-tune them to get the most out of both straights and corners, learn the racing lines of the various tracks to beat the lower level leagues, only to find the highest echelon of the leagues to be... drag races, or to play an RPG in which one upgrades skills, stats, attacks etc, only for the final few levels to say "of btw none of that stuff that were essential in getting you here matters anymore, just use basic attacks". I suppose you could chalk up this "flawed" thinking to be "textbook".

The big difference between a game that continues to build upon its foundational mechanics into endgame and one that does not, is that the former retains its unique character, its essence, the gameplay that hooked players in the first place, while the latter does not. The former continues to place value on the progression within those mechanics, thereby continuing to place value on the player's time towards that progression in terms of skill, knowledge and gear. The latter does not. The former maintains direction, expanding towards greater depth, leading players to further levels of enjoyment, from one climax to the next, while the latter starts becoming a little... directionless... wishy-washy... if you will... trying to entice players with new, disjointed, more basic, gameplay mechanics hoping one of them sticks, but ultimately becoming a shriveled up shell of its former self, failing to present a climax and instead leading to frustration and/or disappointment.

For some, the latter is fine, wanted even, but for others... not so much.

Or they just didn't want another "spam a new raid every 3 months" formula, because that's all anyone has been doing the past 20 years.

I commend them for doing what they want instead of going corporate for sub par destiny players.

 

[Voltage]

On 2022-05-24 at 3:48 AM, (PSN)max141064 said:

this interaction is in the game since shield gating was introduced, if it was that much of a "bug" DE would've already changed it. 

I agreed with your post, but I just want to point out that this is a terrible assumption to make. Redeemer was silent for years, killing enemies with Trinity's link was a mechanic for years (and many other things), yet both of those got removed/changed purely because one day DE decided they didn't want them to work that way.

[Silligoose]

10 minutes ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

Or they just didn't want another "spam a new raid every 3 months" formula, because that's all anyone has been doing the past 20 years.

I commend them for doing what they want instead of going corporate for sub par destiny players.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, as this thread is about shield gating and I'm talking about foundational mechanics.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

5 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, as this thread is about shield gating and I'm talking about foundational mechanics.

The foundational mechanics are in their TOS and EULA which basically says it's their game and they reserve the right to do with it as they please.

 

[Silligoose]

20 minutes ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

The foundational mechanics are in their TOS and EULA which basically says it's their game and they reserve the right to do with it as they please.

 

Within context of the discussion, foundational mechanics of the game would be the mechanics that form the foundation of the game and its gameplay. 

Edit: Be that as it may, they can of course do with their game as they please. No one is arguing that. In the same breath, players can voice their opinions regarding whichever changes DE decides to make as well.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

38 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Within context of the discussion, foundational mechanics of the game would be the mechanics that form the foundation of the game and its gameplay. 

Edit: Be that as it may, they can of course do with their game as they please. No one is arguing that. In the same breath, players can voice their opinions regarding whichever changes DE decides to make as well.

Yea of course, just like the feedback that gave us shield gating. 

Because using inaros and revenant for everything doesn't seem very foundational. Now we're able to use more frames in higher content. 

[--END--Rikutatis]

7 hours ago, (XBOX)TheWayOfWisdom said:

Ah yes never slotting efficiency mods (and sometimes slotting negative efficiency) and up to 6 mods for energy to shield.

Brief respite and 2-3 augur can be enough depending on build. But even if low efficiency builds can't fit every loadout, there's still all the various frames that can get overshields on demand, and even some helminth abilities. 

[(XBOX)TheWayOfWisdom]

4 minutes ago, --END--Rikutatis said:

Brief respite and 2-3 augur can be enough depending on build.

Means you've picked a frame with <100 base shield (uncommon) and are using a 100 base energy cast at neutral efficiency. 4th abilities aren't know for being particularly quick casts either.
Or you're running negative efficiency, in which case you better hope your base shield pool is <150 (still assuming you're using a 100 base energy skill)

[Maryph]

Il y a 12 heures, --END--Rikutatis a dit :

Brief respite and 2-3 augur can be enough depending on build. But even if low efficiency builds can't fit every loadout, there's still all the various frames that can get overshields on demand, and even some helminth abilities. 

Yet, you can't subsume anything on any frames, some kits are actually well thought (yeah it's surprising), you can't replace an ability to add survivability or you'll lose interactions between your powers.
Helminth isn't a way to fix DE's poor designs, they need to understand that.

[SneakyErvin]

12 minutes ago, Maryph said:

Yet, you can't subsume anything on any frames, some kits are actually well thought (yeah it's surprising), you can't replace an ability to add survivability or you'll lose interactions between your powers.
Helminth isn't a way to fix DE's poor designs, they need to understand that.

The only thing you cant replace which breaks a frame completely is Feast on Grendel, because he needs to consume enemies for his other skills. All other frames can replace any skill they want. You just need to think slightly more on certain frames, like if you replace 1 on Chroma or Enox, you have to remember to pick the right energy color so you are in the right element or form when you run missions.

[(PSN)Unstar]

21 hours ago, (XBOX)TheWayOfWisdom said:

Vex Armor "bug" was in the game for longer. __Insert longstanding exploit__ has been in the game for __insert years__ surely it must be intentional.

This is comparing apples and oranges (in this case, bugs and exploits), because nobody would have ever suggested that a player was abusing an exploit for simply pressing 3 with Chroma.

DE knows about the Decaying Key synergy.  It's easy to fix and they've had 2 years to fix it.  They have made the choice not to.  If it was an exploit they have had more than enough time to correct it.  Again, they have chosen not to.  When genuine exploits exist in games, developers are quick to patch them out.  The fact that 2 years have passed without this happening is solid evidence that this is not an exploit.

That is of course not to say that it couldn't be removed someday in the future, which is entirely possible.  But until that happens, it's an established part of the game.

[fo3nixz]

23 hours ago, (XBOX)TheWayOfWisdom said:

Vex Armor "bug" was in the game for longer. __Insert longstanding exploit__ has been in the game for __insert years__ surely it must be intentional.

and old CO :(

[Silligoose]

19 hours ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

Yea of course, just like the feedback that gave us shield gating. 

Because using inaros and revenant for everything doesn't seem very foundational. Now we're able to use more frames in higher content. 

That situation was as a result of the imbalances with regards to the discrepancies in durability in different frames: One was given durability stats so high that he would barely notice a shot that killed squishier frames. The other, straight up immune to shots from enemies. These are game-breaking imbalances and instead of addressing the imbalance properly and having mechanics build correctly in a balanced way, a new mechanic was introduced (shield gating) that stood in direct conflict with the flow of durability mechanics: As a result, we now sit with a situation where, instead of higher shields becoming more valuable in terms of durability at higher levels of play, they have the opposite effect, which means frames designed to be more durable via shields actually turn out to be harder to keep alive at high levels of play (Hildryn excluded due to her kit) and the frame that is built around the idea of being a tank, Inaros, becomes the least durable frame, getting one-shot by enemies that cannot kill glass-canon frames. 

The imbalance wasn't fixed, it was masked. It could've have been fixed properly by addressing the discrepancies in durability and players would be able to use more frames at higher levels of content while maintaining the flow of durability mechanics, but instead we get bizarro world where a glass-canon becomes easier to keep alive than tankier frames. 

"Yeah, but that only happens at very high levels of play in endurance runs, so what's the problem?" is a sentiment often echoed within the community, but they've failed to notice unaddressed imbalances bleed through the band-aids and make their way into non-endurance missions anyway.

I don't want to go too deep into it, but squishies can still essentially get one-shot in SP non-endurance missions by way of toxin. High shields are still vastly inferior to high health+armor durability and due to DE not wanting "all-or-nothing" mechanics, such as certain forms of cc or shield gating, to be in the favour of players at all times, additional mechanics are brought in to either bypass those "all-or-nothing" mechanics, or prevent it. It was most recently seen with the change to Eximus units that are straight up immune to cc and the Zariman missions where mag procs are handed out like candy on Holloween. We'll likely get an Infested arc soon, where Venomous Eximus are encoutered more often and no one should be surprised when squishies drop like flies in those missions, because the band-aid won't hold.

Had they simply fixed the durability imbalance, squishies would've been viable at high levels of play anyway, cc immunity (which I do not think is a good mechanic), would not have been as devastating for some players and their frames, evasion would've had more value and DE wouldn't have to go to the extremes they do, to try to present something a little more challenging.

[Tiltskillet]

It seems like the words "abuse" and "exploit" are a tall and unnecessary hurdle in a productive discussion about this.  And maybe "intended" and "unintended" as well.

[Rakosta_Kai]

45 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

That situation was as a result of the imbalances with regards to the discrepancies in durability in different frames: One was given durability stats so high that he would barely notice a shot that killed squishier frames. The other, straight up immune to shots from enemies. These are game-breaking imbalances and instead of addressing the imbalance properly and having mechanics build correctly in a balanced way, a new mechanic was introduced (shield gating) that stood in direct conflict with the flow of durability mechanics: As a result, we now sit with a situation where, instead of higher shields becoming more valuable in terms of durability at higher levels of play, they have the opposite effect, which means frames designed to be more durable via shields actually turn out to be harder to keep alive at high levels of play (Hildryn excluded due to her kit) and the frame that is built around the idea of being a tank, Inaros, becomes the least durable frame, getting one-shot by enemies that cannot kill glass-canon frames. 

IIRC, Shield Gating didn't get requested because of the issues you've noted.

It got requested because players were tired of getting OHK'd with full shields up so we requested a "space" that allowed the shield to be broken before HP took damage.
Is that space now being exploited on select low shield frames with the decaying key equipped? Yup. Lower shield values regen faster so the lowest regen at the fastest pace
Is that important? Not really. The Modes where death can matter toward mission completion still do actually matter regardless of shield gating.

The crux of the game's modes is to complete the mission objective moreso than it is to survive long enough to complete the objectives. 
Players have 4-6 revives per mission as it is which makes complaints about shield gating somewhat pointless anyway.

[Silligoose]

54 minutes ago, Padre_Akais said:

IIRC, Shield Gating didn't get requested because of the issues you've noted.

It got requested because players were tired of getting OHK'd with full shields up so we requested a "space" that allowed the shield to be broken before HP took damage.
Is that space now being exploited on select low shield frames with the decaying key equipped? Yup. Lower shield values regen faster so the lowest regen at the fastest pace
Is that important? Not really. The Modes where death can matter toward mission completion still do actually matter regardless of shield gating.

The crux of the game's modes is to complete the mission objective moreso than it is to survive long enough to complete the objectives. 
Players have 4-6 revives per mission as it is which makes complaints about shield gating somewhat pointless anyway.

 

 

Players generally dislike being OHK'd, especially when it comes from an unexpected direction, as it can lead to no counter-play, however, most players accept that in many games with survival modes, one will eventually die. One will eventually fail. Many even accept eventually get OHK'd (I personally prefer not to get OHK'd, as it grants an opportunity for counter-play, but it depends on the game in question and the mechanics at play). Many embrace this eventual point of failure, because it means they have a mode in which the goal is simply to see how far one can go, set a personal record and then they can try to beat it. However, many disliked getting OHK'd in their squishier frames in situations where tankier frames barely flinched, as they felt forced to play tankier frames to advance much further in their endurance runs and this happened simply because the game was severely imbalanced with regards to durability. It is that simple and I understand the grievance. The imbalance could've been addressed multiple ways. Shield gating was chosen. 

It is no surprise the current iteration of Shield Gating is disliked by many. They dislike that higher shield numbers generally mean lower top-end durability, just as they would dislike higher EHP values generally leading to lower durability, just as they would dislike higher damage stats generally leading to lower damage. That's why we keep seeing suggestions for higher shield numbers to yield a greater shield gate advantage and why threads such as these pop up, in which players voice their displeasure with mechanics in which lower durability stats are rewarded with greater survivability in high levels of play.

Players dislike imbalances, especially massive ones and complaining about them is far from pointless, as enough complaints may lead to improvement.

[Mag_Gaming]

What are you mad about exactly?

 

And it doesn´t sound like you used the setup yourself at all.

Vitality + adaptation combo with other general survivability of the frame or by subsumed gloom provide basically immortal frames up until lvl 200-300 where adaptation starts to fall off and invicibility mechanics start taking it´s place due to enemies dealing far too much damage for adaptation and armor to cover so even if something gives you 99% damage reduction it doesn´t matter since an enemy still oneshots you.

That´s why you´ll see in high end endurance runs people only using either invis frames like ash or ivara since they´ve always been good in endurance OR shield gating.

 

It just sounds like you have absolutely no idea what you´re talking about.

Nerfing it would result in invis frames taking completely over in endurance runs like they did before shield gating and you can watch octavia sit and just spam crouch and cast 1 from time to time instead of a much more active and engaging way of playing endurance with shield gating.