Discussion: Frames vulnerable while in Operator.

[Tsukinoki]

10 hours ago, 4thBro said:

1) These won't outfarm an active player.

It's not just "outperforming" in the sense you can get X of whatever in an hour AFK compared to Y of whatever in an hour playing actively.
You have to consider the, very real, "Player did this simple script and left their PC on for 12 hours farming rewards with literally zero interaction on their part."

And no, that's not a "far fetched" thing.
It's something that has happened.  Multiple times.

DE doesn't want to open a door that allows that to happen again.

 

It's why you can't just down a capture target and leave them down forever without the mission failing.
People used that to farm for resources with an automated script that was perfectly safe since the enemies were stuck on a given level and they could just use AoE abilities with a movement script and get infinite resources while not touching the game in any way.

DE reported on someone who did this in a squad for over 18 hours straight.  So they patched it.

 

Thing is this:
DE wants you to play the game.
Not be able to set up a simple script and have the game play itself and farm infinitely for days on end with no player interaction.

To that end they make you vulnerable while having some abilities active while you're in operator.
Especially with how easy it is to put dispensary on any frame to get around the energy cost of having an ability active....

Does this become slightly annoying in very speciifc circumstances?  Sure.
Does it prevent a ton of AFK abuse and botting groups setup to run for days and days and days?  Definitely.
Does DE see that benefit as outweighing the downsides?  Seems like it.

[4thBro]

My dude......

If you're bringing scripting and botting into the discussion, the ground you stand on vanishes.

 

Couldn't I just throw Inaros into a survival and have him melee in circles for 20 hours with a bot? That's MORE reliable than a bot going Operator & whatnot.

 

Give me a break...

 

This is what I mean. You guys complain about what seems to me was some guy making a viral YT video, and then "fixing" it in the worst way possible, ignoring similar or worse issues, and then throwing the case in the basement, stamped as "resolved," where it'll never be looked at again.

 

This is not the way.

[(NSW)Greybones]

4 hours ago, Her_Lovely_Tentacles said:

Leaving your Warframe unattended with active defensive skills is a tactical risk.

Leaving it unattended without any defenses is not a risk at all.

Does that not seem backwards to you?

🤔 It does enable a player to just run around as operator, so long as you turn the oven off and lock the door before you leave. I probably wouldn’t be the first to complain if they removed invulnerability from an inactive frame, though sometimes I just like being the Operator/Drifter

[(XBOX)Lady Ukita]

As someone who plays a lot of SP Void Cascade and Circuit, when enemy level or density reaches a certain threshold where health-tanking is basically suicide unless your frame's kit can support it—Baruuk, Citrine, Chroma, etc.—going into operator mode even for a second sometimes leads to your frame getting instantly evaporated within the incoming fire, despite the 90% DR. Most warframes either have a channeled or duration-based ability in their kit, so rarely will you ever benefit from the invincibility you get transferring into your operator, unless you're just not using abilities.

I do agree that having frame invincibility even with an ability active for the entire duration within operator mode is blatantly broken, as Xaku's kit, for an example, would be even more busted if you were able to camp in operator mode with no risk. Although, I don't see why we can't have like, a few seconds of invincibility while transferring outside of operator mode so your frame is protected for a little bit as you do operator things. Like I said before, 90% DR falls off in high-end content, and for someone who tends to play glass cannons like Gyre or Xaku it gets a little frustrating when my frame gets nuked the moment I transfer out.

[taiiat]

52 minutes ago, (XBOX)Lady Ukita said:

Although, I don't see why we can't have like, a few seconds of invincibility while transferring outside of operator mode so your frame is protected for a little bit as you do operator things.

i could go for that. much like what spacekid already has.

[0_The_F00l]

16 hours ago, 4thBro said:

Are we talking about, like... programming? No, I'm not assuming they can just make something that's true become false, or whatnot. But they CAN very easily just slap a x0 damage multiplier on your Frame if you're in Operator. Yes, they CAN do that, very easily.

Partially about programming and partially about application of the frames effects. That's why I mentioned the other examples even if you do turn off damage,  damage isnt the only capability that frames have at their disposal. 

16 hours ago, 4thBro said:

 

And I think at THIS point you're just nitpicking. You really do need to figure out your line in the sand. At what point do you no longer care if people have invuln Warframes? It can't be always. Because, at this rate, you'd complain if an entire player slot was being spent on giving its allies +5% credit drop wHiLe BeiNg iNvULneRabLe.

Seriously. Who the freak cares, dude? WHY are we in this thread defending this mechanic so vehemently? It's SO weird. There are literal game modes where literal Frames literally can't participate. All because somebody farmed some Rubedo, SLOWER than you can, but they put in less effort than you did, so... therefore... they deserve nothing???

It's SO WEIRD!

It's so weird...

Nitpicking ? When you are the one focusing solely on turning off damage ? In a very specific game mode , with a very specific frame ?  What a rubbish claim based on an already rubbish argument.

If I had the option I would say frames only get invulnerability similar to how they get shield gates for a very brief moment or they get decaying DR from 100% to 0% over time. That's my line in the sand. 

You are the one that started the thread , so clearly you are the one that cares the most , I am perfectly content with how things are at the moment but if changes are to be done you need to first understand why the things are as they are.

And it's less about defending the existing mechanics and more about opposing your immature assumptions of how things should change. Come up with more reasonable changes to discuss and I might actually agree with you.

I also have no idea what the #*!% you are talking about with regards to rubedo , maybe try using words that make sense to explain what you are thinking.

The only thing weird about this is your inability to see the issues that can come up with giving all frames invulnerability *at all times the operator is out.

*Edited in later to clarify what I mean.

Edited July 26, 2023 by 0_The_F00l

[4thBro]

5 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Nitpicking ? When you are the one focusing solely on turning off damage ?

I feel like the rug's been pulled from under my feet.

I wasn't focusing on damage, it was the primary argument about "frames dealing lots of ability damage while being invulnerable". So I addressed it, and now I just got told that I'm focusing too much on it, lol...

 

21 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

In a very specific game mode , with a very specific frame ?

This is a strawman fallacy, though. You know full well that those are just examples I'm using. They aren't my entire argument. I am clearly not stating that "this game mechanic needs to be changed because it's hard on Mirage players in the Void Cascade game mode".

It's... just the example I'm using. And I hate that fallacies force me to waste so much time addressing them like this.

 

22 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

You are the one that started the thread , so clearly you are the one that cares the most , I am perfectly content with how things are at the moment but if changes are to be done you need to first understand why the things are as they are.

Yes, I agree. I clearly care more than you and other people in this thread do. So, like... then why are you gatekeeping me here? You know? You don't care, I do, and you're the one keeping me from being able to play certain game modes on over half the Frame roster.

You're probably perfectly content with how things are because you don't play the parts of the game that I play. That's like if Railjack was in a totally crappy place, and you were complaining, and then I swooped in and said "UH ACTUALLY THE GAME IS FINE RIGHT NOW" even though I never touch Railjack.

Do you see how this is not okay?

 

35 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

And it's less about defending the existing mechanics and more about opposing your immature assumptions of how things should change. Come up with more reasonable changes to discuss and I might actually agree with you.

I'm okay with you disagreeing with my suggested changes. But I don't really know WHY you disagree with them. Anybody can say to anyone else, "No not that," and just keep saying that indefinitely so that the bill never passes. But what on earth is there to disagree with?

Your entire issue is that Frames can kill enemies while the player sits in Void Mode and their Frame is invuln.

I suggest that these Frames can no longer kill things while the player sits in Void Mode.

And you say, "No not that," and gatekeep the bill from passing??? Why??? This EXACTLY solves what you're complaining about. And it comes with no downsides or side effects.

You say, "No not that," but you say that these Frames DYING is a better solution??? It's just so bizarre. It's so forced.

And I honestly think you know this. But you're doubling down at this point.

 

38 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I also have no idea what the #*!% you are talking about with regards to rubedo , maybe try using words that make sense to explain what you are thinking.

Rubedo is an in-game resource, dude. I'm using it to represent not only itself, but all other similar resources. Alloy. Ferrite. Whatever. Totally mundane resources that everyone has literal millions of. Because that's what you farm by sitting in infinite game modes, lol.

Nobody's making plat off Rubedo. Nobody's breaking the economy. Nobody's ruining the game sitting in Survivals for a while.

 

And, again, if we're talking about actual scripting/botting... You didn't solve botting by making Frames vulnerable during Operator, LOL. That's like watching a video of somebody getting robbed by a guy wearing shoes, and thinking you solved crime by banning shoes.

 

44 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

The only thing weird about this is your inability to see the issues that can come up with giving all frames invulnerability at all times.

Another fallacy.

 

Plugging in the generalized statement that you provided, yes, anyone would conclude, "Wow! Yeah, that sounds like a problem! EVERYONE can just become INVINCIBLE at ANY TIME FOREVER???"

But that's so... that's SO CLEARLY an intentional fallacy, I feel like I'm being silly even responding to it.

 

It's just Frame invincibility while you're not even using the Frame.

Suddenly it sounds quite different, doesn't it? Has a bit of a different ring to it.

 

While your statement says, "The man with the AK47 is also completely invulnerable," my statement says, "The man sitting on the toilet is also completely invulnerable."

 

You can't just come into this thread and say, "Frames shouldn't be able to be invincible whenever they want." Because that's not even remotely the whole story, and you know it.

You know what you're doing.

I just don't know why you're doing it.

[Tsukinoki]

13 hours ago, 4thBro said:

If you're bringing scripting and botting into the discussion, the ground you stand on vanishes.

Why?
Because you say so?

Even though it's one of the main reasons that DE has added a bunch of stuff into the game to prevent AFK and botting that can have a negative impact on actual players in certain situations (AFK timer causing you to lose rewards if you aren't moving around enough, various missions that trigger count downs to failure if you aren't killing enough, various missions that after completing the objective can get a random '5 minutes till you lose if you don't extract', and more).

Scripting/botting was one of the reasons for not making your frame literally invulnerable while you're in kid mode.

If you don't think that reason matters bring that up with DE.....

13 hours ago, 4thBro said:

Couldn't I just throw Inaros into a survival and have him melee in circles for 20 hours with a bot? That's MORE reliable than a bot going Operator & whatnot.

Except for the constant enemy level increases that would push you out...and except for the bad AI pathing that makes AoE weapons/abilities the only constistent way to bot missions....,

And you still wouldn't be more reliable than invulnerable AoE abilities buffing/killing everything around them.  Which your idea would make utterly trivial and would allow for them to push a lot longer than they do because now they have constant buffs and other things without having to worry about survivability or any of that.

 

You're basically saying "Hey this is already a thing, so why don't we make it completely trivial and even easier to do!!!!!"

And good luck convincing DE to do that.
They have taken a lot of steps to curtail botting and scripting...and this idea would just make it much easier to script and bot with next to no upsides anywhere else....

[0_The_F00l]

45 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

I feel like the rug's been pulled from under my feet.

I wasn't focusing on damage, it was the primary argument about "frames dealing lots of ability damage while being invulnerable". So I addressed it, and now I just got told that I'm focusing too much on it, lol...

Please let me know where I have said damage is the primary reason why this exists. You seem to be projecting or confusing other comments with mine. As you are the one that keeps coming back to damage potential. And then ignore the parts where it is clearly highlighted it's not the case. 

If you wish to argue i recommend you do so properly and not misrepresent the views of those that are taking the time to have this discussion.

You have repeatedly "nitpicked" only specific parts of my comments and ignored many others. It does not help your credibility and only cements you as an immature whiner.

50 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

This is a strawman fallacy, though. You know full well that those are just examples I'm using. They aren't my entire argument. I am clearly not stating that "this game mechanic needs to be changed because it's hard on Mirage players in the Void Cascade game mode".

It's... just the example I'm using. And I hate that fallacies force me to waste so much time addressing them like this.

Your examples are weak and nitpicked and don't give a holistic view. That was the main point I was coming to. If you have issues with your specific loadout the problem is with the loadout not the game .

56 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

Yes, I agree. I clearly care more than you and other people in this thread do. So, like... then why are you gatekeeping me here? You know? You don't care, I do, and you're the one keeping me from being able to play certain game modes on over half the Frame roster.

You're probably perfectly content with how things are because you don't play the parts of the game that I play. That's like if Railjack was in a totally crappy place, and you were complaining, and then I swooped in and said "UH ACTUALLY THE GAME IS FINE RIGHT NOW" even though I never touch Railjack.

Do you see how this is not okay?

Nobody is gatekeeping you here you are free to stop anytime , 

But some of us are trying to explain why things are as they are and you are the one with his thumbs in his ear going "lalalalala you are wrong I am right lalalala" , it seems more like you don't care to actually understand.

If you don't recognise the logical reason for something existing, then you won't be able to convince the ones actually responsible for the changes to implement it.

I also don't complain like you , so i am certain I will not be in the same position as you. I have given clear reasoning for why things are as they are instead of merely whining.

1 hour ago, 4thBro said:

I'm okay with you disagreeing with my suggested changes. But I don't really know WHY you disagree with them. Anybody can say to anyone else, "No not that," and just keep saying that indefinitely so that the bill never passes. But what on earth is there to disagree with?

Your entire issue is that Frames can kill enemies while the player sits in Void Mode and their Frame is invuln.

I suggest that these Frames can no longer kill things while the player sits in Void Mode.

And you say, "No not that," and gatekeep the bill from passing??? Why??? This EXACTLY solves what you're complaining about. And it comes with no downsides or side effects.

You say, "No not that," but you say that these Frames DYING is a better solution??? It's just so bizarre. It's so forced.

And I honestly think you know this. But you're doubling down at this point.

What a load of bullS#&$, don't put words into people's mouths and then argue using those words. I have not said the things you are claiming. If you lack the ability to comprehend what is said i suggest reading again and asking for clarity.

This is also not a forum where things get "passed or failed" this is general discussion , nobody here has any special power to do anything other than convince the rest of the participants one way or another. DE will end of the day whatever they feel like no matter how many "passing votes" you get.

And are you intentionally ignoring things already said or are you genuinely unable to see the issues highlighted ?

The reason I disagree is because I can see potential exploits that you clearly are blind to.

1 hour ago, 4thBro said:

Rubedo is an in-game resource, dude. I'm using it to represent not only itself, but all other similar resources. Alloy. Ferrite. Whatever. Totally mundane resources that everyone has literal millions of. Because that's what you farm by sitting in infinite game modes, lol.

Nobody's making plat off Rubedo. Nobody's breaking the economy. Nobody's ruining the game sitting in Survivals for a while.

And, again, if we're talking about actual scripting/botting... You didn't solve botting by making Frames vulnerable during Operator, LOL. That's like watching a video of somebody getting robbed by a guy wearing shoes, and thinking you solved crime by banning shoes.

 

If that's what you think then you are not only lacking common sense you are lacking understanding the economics of trading within the game. 

Let's me try to break it down for you. There are a few evergreen tradable items in the game. Prime parts, relics , arcanes , (Riven) mods and you can farm resources that lets you acquire these things in many such game modes via steel essence , Riven slivers , and as actual drops as well.

The fact that you are not acknowledging this feels very much like gaslighting.

4 hours ago, 4thBro said:

 

Another fallacy.

 

Plugging in the generalized statement that you provided, yes, anyone would conclude, "Wow! Yeah, that sounds like a problem! EVERYONE can just become INVINCIBLE at ANY TIME FOREVER???"

But that's so... that's SO CLEARLY an intentional fallacy, I feel like I'm being silly even responding to it.

 

It's just Frame invincibility while you're not even using the Frame.

Suddenly it sounds quite different, doesn't it? Has a bit of a different ring to it.

 

While your statement says, "The man with the AK47 is also completely invulnerable," my statement says, "The man sitting on the toilet is also completely invulnerable."

 

You can't just come into this thread and say, "Frames shouldn't be able to be invincible whenever they want." Because that's not even remotely the whole story, and you know it.

You know what you're doing.

I just don't know why you're doing it.

You really do suck with examples , but you are on point in taking things out of context and nitpicking specific comments. And i probably should have clarified that it was  with regards to using operator that such conditions should apply and not at all times. That's on me.

So if it is not clear then let me re confirm , if you are in operator mode you should not be invincible while having any ability that provides passive benefits. It should either be for a very short period or with a gradual decay of DR over time.

[Her_Lovely_Tentacles]

It's crazy how many people in this thread are missing the entire point.

The system is inconsistent and as a whole a detriment to the game.

 

Why are defensive abilities making your Warframe more vulnerable to damage?

Why are only some offensive abilities making you vulnerable?

 

I've seen the argument brought up a couple of times that it would be OP if this mechanic was to be removed.

Mirage was also an example a couple of times.

 

So, let's analyze Mirage specifically.

The current state of the game is that Mirage can continue to do lots of damage with Explosive Legerdemain while retaining invincibility during Transference.
Just quickly popping into the frame, casting her 2 once, and popping out again with Transference. Basically invulnerable the whole time.
This is already in game like this.

However, if she were to activate her 1 or her 3, you know, those self buffs that have defensive components (and damage buff components that cannot be utilized while not piloting the frame), she will instead be vulnerable during Transference.

 

This is the state of the game we are talking about.

 

This doesn't make sense.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Her_Lovely_Tentacles

[Tsukinoki]

31 minutes ago, Her_Lovely_Tentacles said:

and damage buff components that cannot be utilized while not piloting the frame

Except for total eclipse which spreads the buff to nearby allies at full potency....and considering that the damage buff is a multiplicative buff applied to total damage after mods that would be rather broken to have a perfectly safe mirage in the middle of the map constantly granting 400% damage modifier (or more with certain loadouts or helminth) to allies with literally zero way for enemies to have any counterplay to that and with abilities such as Dispensary able to keep that mirage with energy.

I mean if you're bringing up augments with explosive ledgermain then you should consider augments for mirages other abilities.

 

So if you consider an ability like that on Mirage, then yes it makes perfect sense that she's not invulnerable while providing a massive damage buff in the middle of the map.....

And DE should consider situations like that because that is exactly the type of situation that players would abuse....

Edited July 26, 2023 by Tsukinoki

[Her_Lovely_Tentacles]

9 minutes ago, Tsukinoki said:

Except for total eclipse which spreads the buff to nearby allies at full potency....and considering that the damage buff is a multiplicative buff applied to total damage after mods that would be rather broken to have a perfectly safe mirage in the middle of the map constantly granting 400% damage modifier (or more with certain loadouts or helminth) to allies with literally zero way for enemies to have any counterplay to that and with abilities such as Dispensary able to keep that mirage with energy.

I mean if you're bringing up augments with explosive ledgermain then you should consider augments for mirages other abilities.

 

So if you consider an ability like that on Mirage, then yes it makes perfect sense that she's not invulnerable while providing a massive damage buff in the middle of the map.....

And DE should consider situations like that because that is exactly the type of situation that players would abuse....

Octavia can do stuff like that without augments.

This entire discussion feels ridiculous.
People in this thread are just being contrarian for no reason.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Her_Lovely_Tentacles

[Tsukinoki]

17 minutes ago, Her_Lovely_Tentacles said:

Octavia can do stuff like that without augments.

This entire discussion feels ridiculous.
People in this thread are just being contrarian for no reason.

And octavias damage buff is much weaker than Mirage since it's additive and not multiplicative (which means a 200% damage modifier is basically equipping a second serration or heavy caliber which does very little for the final damage)....and relies on sound level rather than just "Are you standing in the light?  Then get a 4x-8x (with helminth invigoration) damage multiplier!"
Damage multipliers are far more effective than damage adders.

 

A mirage standing in the middle of a map casting a total eclipse damage buff while being 100% invulnerable is just way too unbalanced....which is why you can't just do that by hopping into kid mode and leaving a mirage in the middle of the map with her abilities active.

[(XBOX)Lady Ukita]

1 hour ago, Tsukinoki said:

A mirage standing in the middle of a map casting a total eclipse damage buff while being 100% invulnerable is just way too unbalanced....which is why you can't just do that by hopping into kid mode and leaving a mirage in the middle of the map with her abilities active.

You're giving way too much credit to a simple damage buff when Octavia, for an example, can cast her 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ability without disabling her invincibility whilst in operator mode. Wisp can buff with her motes without disabling her invincibility in operator mode, and her motes has infinite duration while giving insane buffs; much more impactful than buffing the damage of your weapons. Meanwhile, if Kullervo casts his 2nd ability and enters operator mode during its cast time, he remains vulnerable for the entire time you're transferred out despite the fact his 2nd ability only channels for 5 seconds, and it's only a self-centered healing tool—not as impactful as Octavia's kit or Wisp's motes despite the fact they retain their invincibility.

I hope you see the issue, it's the inconsistency. Gauss can have Thermal Sunder active, an AOE damage and CC ability, while retaining invincibility in operator mode. Kullervo having Storm of Ukko active, an AOE damage and CC (somewhat) ability, disables his invincibility in operator mode. Does that make sense?

Edited July 26, 2023 by (XBOX)Lady Ukita
Edit

[0_The_F00l]

5 hours ago, Her_Lovely_Tentacles said:

The system is inconsistent and as a whole a detriment to the game.

2 hours ago, (XBOX)Lady Ukita said:

I hope you see the issue, it's the inconsistency.

I agree with this in essence , but the resolution lies outside the current discussion.

There are far too many mechanics that work in a weird way with various things, DE has painted themselves into a corner with piling on so much multiplicative effects,

A squish of the different multipliers and clear categorization of the effects to make them more consistent would be the more appropriate way.

[4thBro]

14 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

Except for total eclipse which spreads the buff to nearby allies at full potency....and considering that the damage buff is a multiplicative buff applied to total damage after mods that would be rather broken to have a perfectly safe mirage in the middle of the map constantly granting 400% damage modifier (or more with certain loadouts or helminth) to allies with literally zero way for enemies to have any counterplay to that and with abilities such as Dispensary able to keep that mirage with energy.

I mean if you're bringing up augments with explosive ledgermain then you should consider augments for mirages other abilities.

 

So if you consider an ability like that on Mirage, then yes it makes perfect sense that she's not invulnerable while providing a massive damage buff in the middle of the map.....

And DE should consider situations like that because that is exactly the type of situation that players would abuse....

See, again, you're using fallacies to force yourself to continue with your stance.

You cherrypick Eclipse's augment that buffs teammates, but we've said multiple times that Hall of Mirrors makes the Frame vulnerable, even though Hall of Mirrors NEVER provides any bonus whatsoever to allies, nor can they idle-kill enemies while you're in Operator.

 

You know what you're doing. And we know that you're doing it. Can you just stop doing it now?

 

15 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

Why?
Because you say so?

What is this kindergarten rebuttal? Lol.

HONESTLY? Yes. because I say so - and I say so with logic and reason backing it. So, yes, because I say so, if you wanna oversimplify it.

15 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

Even though it's one of the main reasons that DE has added a bunch of stuff into the game to prevent AFK and botting that can have a negative impact on actual players in certain situations (AFK timer causing you to lose rewards if you aren't moving around enough, various missions that trigger count downs to failure if you aren't killing enough, various missions that after completing the objective can get a random '5 minutes till you lose if you don't extract', and more).

Scripting/botting was one of the reasons for not making your frame literally invulnerable while you're in kid mode.

If you don't think that reason matters bring that up with DE.....

Like I said, making Frames vulnerable during Operator isn't "fixing botting". Refer back to my shoes example, because maybe you didn't read it or understand the point I'm making with it. (I can explain it, if you wish.)

15 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

Except for the constant enemy level increases that would push you out...and except for the bad AI pathing that makes AoE weapons/abilities the only constistent way to bot missions....,

And you still wouldn't be more reliable than invulnerable AoE abilities buffing/killing everything around them.  Which your idea would make utterly trivial and would allow for them to push a lot longer than they do because now they have constant buffs and other things without having to worry about survivability or any of that.

"Constant enemy level increases"? It takes like EIGHT HOURS for enemies to reach 4-digit levels, or something along those lines.

We're talking about BOTTING.

Bots can just extract whenever they want and start a new game. Do you even know what you're trying to argue, anymore?????

15 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

You're basically saying "Hey this is already a thing, so why don't we make it completely trivial and even easier to do!!!!!"

And good luck convincing DE to do that.
They have taken a lot of steps to curtail botting and scripting...and this idea would just make it much easier to script and bot with next to no upsides anywhere else....

... Do you even know what I'm saying anymore???

I'm saying Frames should be invulnerable, but deal zero damage, while you're in Operator mode. And we can extend that to also be, uhh, they can't CC enemies, or they can't buff allies, or whatever the hell you're arbitrarily complaining about. I don't really care, honestly. I just want to play the game, and if the game is demanding that I go Operator for the literal mission objective, I don't want to be forcibly joinked back to my Frame that now has 2 HP and dies to the next incoming hit, which by the way is already a pixel away from hitting, because the game LITERALLY has to go through some sort of CAMERA ANIMATION TIME to take me back to my Frame, LMAO.

 

HOW are you even arguing against this?

 

15 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Please let me know where I have said damage is the primary reason why this exists. You seem to be projecting or confusing other comments with mine.

I'm not projecting or confusing, but I AM saying "you" as a collective, not as in YOU specifically. Keep in mind, I'm debating with many people on the opposite side of my own, while your side has the majority of posts in this thread (I think).

So, yes, I am often combining statements you make with statements others are making, and addressing them together at times (but not always).

 

15 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

You have repeatedly "nitpicked" only specific parts of my comments and ignored many others. It does not help your credibility and only cements you as an immature whiner.

On the contrary, I'm making a point to address every little bit. It's taking up a lot of space to do so, but I'm making a conscious effort not to appear like I'm cherrypicking. I'm actually kind of baffled that, despite SPECIFICALLY making sure I don't cherrypick, you're calling me a cherrypicker......

 

But I guess I'm not surprised.

 

15 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Your examples are weak and nitpicked and don't give a holistic view. That was the main point I was coming to. If you have issues with your specific loadout the problem is with the loadout not the game .

I actually just scoff-laughed out loud with a "what?" IRL...

My loadout issue is that I play Mirage? Is... is that what we're doing now???

 

Or, no, wait. Is my loadout issue that I don't play sub-100% duration so that my buffs time out constantly, allowing me the freedom to go Operator and do mission objectives without my Frame dying?

 

No - please - elaborate on this one. I want to watch you attempt to validate what you just said to me.

 

What's my loadout problem that makes me unable to facetank level 2,000 Thraxes on Mirage while I do Void Cascades on my Operator?

 

15 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

But some of us are trying to explain why things are as they are and you are the one with his thumbs in his ear going "lalalalala you are wrong I am right lalalala" , it seems more like you don't care to actually understand.

If you don't recognise the logical reason for something existing, then you won't be able to convince the ones actually responsible for the changes to implement it.

I also don't complain like you , so i am certain I will not be in the same position as you. I have given clear reasoning for why things are as they are instead of merely whining.

Ok, first off... complaining is how things get better. If nobody complained because everyone was... what? "Trying to be a man," or something along those lines? Then nothing would improve.

It's called complacency. And that's what happens in a world with no complaining. Learn to respect complainers, to be honest, LOL. (As long as it's smart complaining, at least.)

 

I am SINCERELY thankful that you and others have explained to me why the game mechanic exists. Because I did not know what the reason for it was. I honestly thought, at first, that it was just vulnerability for Frames with active defensive abilities, which seemed backwards to me, and so I made this thread asking why certain other abilities still caused vulnerability.

HOWEVER, that being said... Upon learning the real reason for this mechanic... it only confounds me even further. HOW in the WORLD can this mechanic have been created WITH THE NOTION that it is the SOLUTION TO BOTTING???

That, right there, absolutely blows my mind.

 

So you say... "If you don't recognize the logical reason for this"... Well, guess what? Correct. I do not recognize the logical reason for this.

 

I recognize wanting to counter botting. Yes.

But I do not recognize this as countering bots. I do not recognize this as logical. No.

You got me there.

 

15 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

What a load of bullS#&$, don't put words into people's mouths and then argue using those words. I have not said the things you are claiming. If you lack the ability to comprehend what is said i suggest reading again and asking for clarity.

This is also not a forum where things get "passed or failed" this is general discussion , nobody here has any special power to do anything other than convince the rest of the participants one way or another. DE will end of the day whatever they feel like no matter how many "passing votes" you get.

And are you intentionally ignoring things already said or are you genuinely unable to see the issues highlighted ?

The reason I disagree is because I can see potential exploits that you clearly are blind to.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, lol. All I said that you said is, "No not this." Which you ARE saying. You ARE telling me, no, not this.

Are you not???

 

I am very much aware that nothing "passes or fails" based on posts here. However, if you think an entire community agreeing or disagreeing on something has no sway whatsoever, then that would be silly to believe.

The PROBLEM, I imagine... now... after seeing this thread... is that the community probably NEVER unanimously agrees or disagrees with something, and so DE never has a direction to go on, based on unanimous community belief.

After seeing that we can't even all agree that maybe certain Frames shouldn't automatically be excluded from certain game modes.

 

But...

"The reason I disagree is because I can see potential exploits that you clearly are blind to."

Tell me, then.

Tell me what exploits you see that I do not.

 

Okay. The setup is this:

When you go Operator, your Frame is invulnerable, and your Frame cannot influence surrounding allies or enemies.

 

... ... ... Okay, GO!

What's the exploit?

[4thBro]

15 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

If that's what you think then you are not only lacking common sense you are lacking understanding the economics of trading within the game. 

Let's me try to break it down for you. There are a few evergreen tradable items in the game. Prime parts, relics , arcanes , (Riven) mods and you can farm resources that lets you acquire these things in many such game modes via steel essence , Riven slivers , and as actual drops as well.

The fact that you are not acknowledging this feels very much like gaslighting.

This is a pet peeve of mine. The overuse of the term "gaslighting". (Which I feel has picked up drastically over the last few years, for whatever reason.)

 

It's not gaslighting to be in a discussion and trying to convince other people that you're right. BY NATURE, in doing that, you're also trying to convince other people that they're wrong. That's not gaslighting. That's disagreeing.

[0_The_F00l]

24 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

 

I'm not projecting or confusing, but I AM saying "you" as a collective, not as in YOU specifically. Keep in mind, I'm debating with many people on the opposite side of my own, while your side has the majority of posts in this thread (I think).

So, yes, I am often combining statements you make with statements others are making, and addressing them together at times (but not always).

Then  you are making a generalisation fallacy , if you want to quote me and argue about things I said go ahead , but don't waste my time with false accusations. My views are not the same as the "collective" views. The community is not a hive mind.

Different people have different views of things, this is not a singular monolithic argument and is made of multiple distinct but related points. I am arguing specific points. If you are unable to stay on point i recommend atleast clarifying when you are referring to the individual and where you are referring to "the collective".

32 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

On the contrary, I'm making a point to address every little bit. It's taking up a lot of space to do so, but I'm making a conscious effort not to appear like I'm cherrypicking. I'm actually kind of baffled that, despite SPECIFICALLY making sure I don't cherrypick, you're calling me a cherrypicker......

 

But I guess I'm not surprised.

That's a lie. Feel free to compare what you have quoted and my original comments where you took it from and see how much has not been quoted or acknowledged.

34 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

 

 

I actually just scoff-laughed out loud with a "what?" IRL...

My loadout issue is that I play Mirage? Is... is that what we're doing now???

 

Or, no, wait. Is my loadout issue that I don't play sub-100% duration so that my buffs time out constantly, allowing me the freedom to go Operator and do mission objectives without my Frame dying?

 

No - please - elaborate on this one. I want to watch you attempt to validate what you just said to me.

 

What's my loadout problem that makes me unable to facetank level 2,000 Thraxes on Mirage while I do Void Cascades on my Operator?

That you are trying to facetank lvl 2000 thraxes is the problem.

37 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

 

 

Ok, first off... complaining is how things get better. If nobody complained because everyone was... what? "Trying to be a man," or something along those lines? Then nothing would improve.

It's called complacency. And that's what happens in a world with no complaining. Learn to respect complainers, to be honest, LOL. (As long as it's smart complaining, at least.)

Complaining is not the same as criticizing. Knowing the difference will help you realise what you are doing is complaining.

39 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

I am SINCERELY thankful that you and others have explained to me why the game mechanic exists. Because I did not know what the reason for it was. I honestly thought, at first, that it was just vulnerability for Frames with active defensive abilities, which seemed backwards to me, and so I made this thread asking why certain other abilities still caused vulnerability.

HOWEVER, that being said... Upon learning the real reason for this mechanic... it only confounds me even further. HOW in the WORLD can this mechanic have been created WITH THE NOTION that it is the SOLUTION TO BOTTING???

That, right there, absolutely blows my mind.

So you say... "If you don't recognize the logical reason for this"... Well, guess what? Correct. I do not recognize the logical reason for this.

 

 

 

I recognize wanting to counter botting. Yes.

 

But I do not recognize this as countering bots. I do not recognize this as logical. No.

 

You got me there.

It is not the whole solution , It is part only of a solution and even then it's not perfect. Like a wheel is part of a car but it can still have badly aligned tyres or punctures , the solution isn't to replace rubber tyres with titanium ones. You will not face punctures ever again but there will be difficulties that may be worse.

2 hours ago, 4thBro said:

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth, lol. All I said that you said is, "No not this." Which you ARE saying. You ARE telling me, no, not this.

Are you not???

I have been rather clear in my explanation and not made the statements you claim, your poor comprehension is not something I can help with if you choose to ignore things already said.

2 hours ago, 4thBro said:

I am very much aware that nothing "passes or fails" based on posts here. However, if you think an entire community agreeing or disagreeing on something has no sway whatsoever, then that would be silly to believe.

The PROBLEM, I imagine... now... after seeing this thread... is that the community probably NEVER unanimously agrees or disagrees with something, and so DE never has a direction to go on, based on unanimous community belief.

After seeing that we can't even all agree that maybe certain Frames shouldn't automatically be excluded from certain game modes.

If you have only now learnt that the community will never unanimously agree on anything then you are really lacking experience on such forums.

I am also not sure from which dark hole you pulled out the frames automatically excluded part.

DE does what DE wants to do , it may or may not be as per your liking , don't beat yourself over about it. If you really want DE to see it then I recommend taking it to the feedback section.

2 hours ago, 4thBro said:

 

But...

"The reason I disagree is because I can see potential exploits that you clearly are blind to."

Tell me, then.

Tell me what exploits you see that I do not.

 

Okay. The setup is this:

When you go Operator, your Frame is invulnerable, and your Frame cannot influence surrounding allies or enemies.

 

... ... ... Okay, GO!

What's the exploit?

Ah , so you are changing your original stance.

Besides Didn't we already go through this with regards to how it's not the simplicity of turning off a switch ? or are you lacking enough retention time for it ? And you are now changing your opinion from from "should be invulnerable in operator mode " to "should be invulnerable and not influence the surrounding in operator mode" these are two different things if you aren't aware and I can see myself agreeing to the later if you can explain the more accurate instance of how that can be done and what qualifies as influencing.

 

2 hours ago, 4thBro said:

This is a pet peeve of mine. The overuse of the term "gaslighting". (Which I feel has picked up drastically over the last few years, for whatever reason.)

 

It's not gaslighting to be in a discussion and trying to convince other people that you're right. BY NATURE, in doing that, you're also trying to convince other people that they're wrong. That's not gaslighting. That's disagreeing.

It is gaslighting when you claim someone says something they havent and also not even discuss the point highlighted by going in a tangent.

The very fact that you quoted my comment and ignored 80% of what has been mentioned regarding the ability to influence economics shows how poorly thought your arguments are leaving you to try and deflect or outright ignore it in the hopes the opponent forgets about it as well. That is exactly gaslighting

 

[4thBro]

4 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

That you are trying to facetank lvl 2000 thraxes is the problem.

You HAVE to facetank them.

YOU AREN'T IN CONTROL OF YOUR FRAME WHILE YOU ARE IN OPERATOR MODE.

And because of the mechanic that YOU are so vehemently defending, your Frame ALSO isn't invulnerable while you're in Operator mode.

You LITERALLY have no choice but to facetank them. On your Frame. That you have no control over.

Have you even played any Zariman missions??? Actual question at this point. ACTUAL question at this point. Please answer it.

Void Cascades aren't the only example of the grievances of vulnerable Frames. Void Angels also highlight the issue. In both of these scenarios, you are F.O.R.C.E.D. to use your Operator. I don't know how many times I have to stress this. You are F.O.R.C.E.D. to use your Operator. And the objectives you have to take care of on your Operator take anywhere from 10 to 100 seconds, generally speaking.

 

I'm not "TRYING" to facetank level 2000 Thraxes. I'm TRYING to play the game. And the GAME FORCES me to facetank level 2000 Thraxes. Which I cannot do on most Frames. Which makes me come to the forums and make a thread about it. Which makes me realize just how few people are also playing this game's content, and have no idea of the game's issues. While they defend the game's... ... ... issues. And protect... the game's issues.

 

(So. Freaking. Weird.)

 

11 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Complaining is not the same as criticizing. Knowing the difference will help you realise what you are doing is complaining.

Semantics. I don't care what you wanna call it, or what label you wanna staple onto my words so that you can have an easier time dismissing them.

 

What I'm doing is calling out a very big issue with the game. That's it. That's all. It's very simple. Have fun with your stapler.

 

13 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Ah , so you are changing your original stance.

Besides Didn't we already go through this with regards to how it's not the simplicity of turning off a switch ? or are you lacking enough retention time for it ? And you are now changing your opinion from from "should be invulnerable in operator mode " to "should be invulnerable and not influence the surrounding in operator mode" these are two different things if you aren't aware and I can see myself agreeing to the later if you can explain the more accurate instance of how that can be done and what qualifies as influencing.

That's not changing my original stance at all, lol. At best, it's adding a patch note...

 

Correct, my original statement was just... "Frames should be invulnerable." Plain and simple. FRANKLY, I see no issue with just that. Even with all the "exploits" you're all crying about, these "exploits" seem so inconsequential to me... Oh no, some guy is farming sub-optimally!... Oh no!...

HOWEVER, if it's such a concern to everyone else, then I have no issue adding to my statement.

"Frames should be invulnerable, and have no influence on allies or enemies."

 

This is still effectively the same statement. The first version of the statement doesn't EXCLUDE the possibility of the second version of the statement. That's why it's totally ludicrous for you to try to backtrack right now by saying the two statements are "totally different," and that I "changed my tune".

 

Again: We both know what you're doing. Stop doing it.

 

19 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

It is gaslighting when you claim someone says something they havent and also not even discuss the point highlighted by going in a tangent.

The very fact that you quoted my comment and ignored 80% of what has been mentioned regarding the ability to influence economics shows how poorly thought your arguments are leaving you to try and deflect or outright ignore it in the hopes the opponent forgets about it as well. That is exactly gaslighting

I read everything, and if I didn't respond, then I thought it to be even less relevant than the... ... irrelevant things I've already responded to.

But okay, let's see... I'll go back and respond directly to whatever you said about the economics of it.

 

19 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

If that's what you think then you are not only lacking common sense you are lacking understanding the economics of trading within the game. 

Let's me try to break it down for you. There are a few evergreen tradable items in the game. Prime parts, relics , arcanes , (Riven) mods and you can farm resources that lets you acquire these things in many such game modes via steel essence , Riven slivers , and as actual drops as well.

(This, I assume?)

 

I mean... these are just things. These are just things that you can get in the game called Warframe.

Yeah, sure. I guess bots that use Void Mode can get these.

But bots that DO ANYTHING can get these.

WHY ARE WE ONLY TARGETING VOID MODE??? It's so WEIRD. It's so MIND-BLOWINGLY short-sighted. It's so absolutely BONKERS, that any example I think of is going to sound stupid as hell. Because of COURSE it will. Because the situation that it's IMITATING is stupid as hell.

 

Oh, too much street violence? The last incident involved a guy bashing someone's head in with a cell phone? OKAY! LET'S MAKE CELL PHONES ILLEGAL!

[dusts off hands]

Problem solved, gentlemen! Street violence is no more! A toast to a job well done!

 

^ See? You want to say that example is bad. But the reality is that it's COMPLETELY on point. It's EXACTLY what we got going on here.

And that's totally bananas.

[0_The_F00l]

42 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

You HAVE to facetank them.

YOU AREN'T IN CONTROL OF YOUR FRAME WHILE YOU ARE IN OPERATOR MODE.

And because of the mechanic that YOU are so vehemently defending, your Frame ALSO isn't invulnerable while you're in Operator mode.

You LITERALLY have no choice but to facetank them. On your Frame. That you have no control over.

Have you even played any Zariman missions??? Actual question at this point. ACTUAL question at this point. Please answer it.

Void Cascades aren't the only example of the grievances of vulnerable Frames. Void Angels also highlight the issue. In both of these scenarios, you are F.O.R.C.E.D. to use your Operator. I don't know how many times I have to stress this. You are F.O.R.C.E.D. to use your Operator. And the objectives you have to take care of on your Operator take anywhere from 10 to 100 seconds, generally speaking.

 

I'm not "TRYING" to facetank level 2000 Thraxes. I'm TRYING to play the game. And the GAME FORCES me to facetank level 2000 Thraxes. Which I cannot do on most Frames. Which makes me come to the forums and make a thread about it. Which makes me realize just how few people are also playing this game's content, and have no idea of the game's issues. While they defend the game's... ... ... issues. And protect... the game's issues.

 

(So. Freaking. Weird.)

No you dont , you have the option to leave if you are overwhelmed , there is no rule that you need to stay there indefinitely till such high levels , the only one forcing you to do that is yourself. You also have the choice to pick suitable loadouts that work well with being in operator mode and decide when you have reached your breaking point, Dont blame others fr your own compulsions.

47 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

Semantics. I don't care what you wanna call it, or what label you wanna staple onto my words so that you can have an easier time dismissing them.

 

What I'm doing is calling out a very big issue with the game. That's it. That's all. It's very simple. Have fun with your stapler.

I guess nuances are lost on you , let me make it clear:

Criticize puts more attention on the thing being criticized. Complain puts more attention on the person complaining. When you criticize something, you're saying "Here's what's wrong with it," but when you complain you're saying "I'm not happy about this."

You can do both , but if you only complain you will likely not get solutions.

51 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

That's not changing my original stance at all, lol. At best, it's adding a patch note...

 

Correct, my original statement was just... "Frames should be invulnerable." Plain and simple. FRANKLY, I see no issue with just that. Even with all the "exploits" you're all crying about, these "exploits" seem so inconsequential to me... Oh no, some guy is farming sub-optimally!... Oh no!...

HOWEVER, if it's such a concern to everyone else, then I have no issue adding to my statement.

"Frames should be invulnerable, and have no influence on allies or enemies."

 

This is still effectively the same statement. The first version of the statement doesn't EXCLUDE the possibility of the second version of the statement. That's why it's totally ludicrous for you to try to backtrack right now by saying the two statements are "totally different," and that I "changed my tune".

 

Again: We both know what you're doing. Stop doing it.

 

I believe every can see what you are doing not just me.

52 minutes ago, 4thBro said:

 

I read everything, and if I didn't respond, then I thought it to be even less relevant than the... ... irrelevant things I've already responded to.

But okay, let's see... I'll go back and respond directly to whatever you said about the economics of it.

 

(This, I assume?)

 

I mean... these are just things. These are just things that you can get in the game called Warframe.

Yeah, sure. I guess bots that use Void Mode can get these.

But bots that DO ANYTHING can get these.

WHY ARE WE ONLY TARGETING VOID MODE??? It's so WEIRD. It's so MIND-BLOWINGLY short-sighted. It's so absolutely BONKERS, that any example I think of is going to sound stupid as hell. Because of COURSE it will. Because the situation that it's IMITATING is stupid as hell.

 

Oh, too much street violence? The last incident involved a guy bashing someone's head in with a cell phone? OKAY! LET'S MAKE CELL PHONES ILLEGAL!

[dusts off hands]

Problem solved, gentlemen! Street violence is no more! A toast to a job well done!

 

^ See? You want to say that example is bad. But the reality is that it's COMPLETELY on point. It's EXACTLY what we got going on here.

And that's totally bananas.

No , there are many more instances which you have ignored , starting from the beginning which is why i am calling you the nitpicker.

and no one is only targeting void mode , there are many other things that are in place to avoid it , as i mentioned its part of a larger consideration, you are the one focusing solely on void mode.

And your examples still suck.