Opt out option for specific buffs

[Featherstone]

I feel like this might need to be mentionned, since I assume I can't be the only one that this might bother.

Lately, I've been doing some more public missions, and with the overwhelming presence of either wisp of volt (or even both) in pretty much 9/10 missions, I feel the need for some kind of option that would allow players to deactivate the ability to receive specific buffs. I did mention wisp and volt specifically because the speed buffs are getting extremely annoying, either gameplay-wise or just for navigation: the whole melee convulsing makes it rather hard to handle properly (with specific combos, lunge attacks, etc.) while the whole wall-headbutting by just walking really just makes the experience horrible.

And yes, I know I can just backflip to get rid of volt's speed, but having to do it every 5 seconds because of a speed spammer is kinda not helping in any kind of way. Also, we have absolutely no way to get rid of wisp's speed apart from falling out of map.

I get that some players like speed and attack speed (great for them really) but for the love of everything, allow others to have some kind of option to just not have to deal with this in almost every single mission.

[Nekomian]

This comes up every few weeks and my response will always be the same - Gameplay mechanics should not be togglable like this, as it causes confusion. You'd end up with situations where everyone blocks a teammate's shared buffs and it weakens their build significantly and arbitrarily, and they have no way of knowing if members of their squad would have this block enabled or not until they attempt to use the skill in a mission.

If the ability itself is causing problematic behavior it should just be reworked or changed to play nicer / be less disruptive. We don't need a new complicated system of ability blocks and having to navigate the complexities of that, it causes too much disruption and confusion to squad play not ever knowing if your buffs will affect teammates or not. If a teammate uses a skill, the expectation for all players should be that it should apply consistently every time so there's no ambiguity.

[AlexisFox]

4 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

This comes up every few weeks and my response will always be the same - Gameplay mechanics should not be togglable like this, as it causes confusion. You'd end up with situations where everyone blocks a teammate's shared buffs and it weakens their build significantly and arbitrarily, and they have no way of knowing if members of their squad would have this block enabled or not until they attempt to use the skill in a mission.

If the ability itself is causing problematic behavior it should just be reworked or changed to play nicer / be less disruptive. We don't need a new complicated system of ability blocks and having to navigate the complexities of that, it causes too much disruption and confusion to squad play not ever knowing if your buffs will affect teammates or not. If a teammate uses a skill, the expectation for all players should be that it should apply consistently every time so there's no ambiguity.

That's a really bad position to take on something like this. If it's supposed to be a buff and someone is not being affected positively by it then why should they accept it just because someone else wants to put it on them? The devs gave people a way to remove the speed buff from Volt because it was causing people issues, their solution of backflip to remove it is not working for people because of ability spam causing them to have spend too much time constantly removing a buff they don't want. It doesn't weaken someone's build for the devs to give people the option to just not be affected by that buff if that person is just going to remove it anyway. By blocking the buff in the first place you don't cause that person to waste time trying to get the buff off which makes it so they can be more effective in the mission as opposed to spending half their time backflipping. That only strengthens the team and it doesn't stop the person applying buffs from enjoying the benefits of the buff for themselves.

It's also not that complicated to add in options in the settings to refuse certain classes of buffs like "Block movement speed buffs" or any other type of buff that is causing someone grief for some reason. Default setting would just be don't block anything and those that have a problem can turn it on. The only reason to have a problem with that is if you want to cause someone grief with your "buffs."

[Nekomian]

12 minutes ago, AlexisFox said:

If it's supposed to be a buff and someone is not being affected positively by it then why should they accept it just because someone else wants to put it on them? The devs gave people a way to remove the speed buff from Volt because it was causing people issues, their solution of backflip to remove it is not working for people because of ability spam causing them to have spend too much time constantly removing a buff they don't want.

Reread what I wrote - if it's causing issues for people then the ability itself should be reworked entirely to no longer cause these problems. Buffs should not be selective and should apply consistently, in a non-disruptive manner. I could say "oh, no I don't want roar buffs, I don't want extra damage" too, as wild as that is with this logic of "why should they accept it just because someone else wants to put it on them". This is a team game, and team buffs should apply equally and always be treated as such. If it is detrimental / not a buff to some, it should be reworked to be more accommodating.

14 minutes ago, AlexisFox said:

It's also not that complicated to add in options in the settings to refuse certain classes of buffs like "Block movement speed buffs" or any other type of buff that is causing someone grief for some reason.

It's a lot more complicated than you're making it, considering each ability script would need to be changed, and it would also need to accommodate for buffs to mobility, movement speed, parkour velocity, and other stats that are indirectly affected. It's not as simple as "just turn off the multiplier for it" when each interaction is coded separately.

I understand that people want to control movement better and get nauseous from things like volt or wisp's speed, but allowing players to individually toggle what buffs affect them has horrible ramifications for squad play (and on the individual level, as I can totally see bug reports made for "why doesn't this ability affect my teammates? why doesn't this ability work on me, DE bad it's bugged!!!!"). Even limiting it to Volt or Wisp, putting down a mote and 1/3rd of your ability just arbitrarily not working on teammates kinda sucks, and would cause some animosity among teams (i.e. "why aren't you accepting my buffs, you're extending the mission longer with how slow you're going") and discourage use of these frames in squad play. A better solution, so people don't immediately leave on seeing a volt and abilities work as intended / there is no confusion about buffs applying or not, is just to rework the problematic ones that cause people to leave.

[Pakaku]

5 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

This comes up every few weeks and my response will always be the same - Gameplay mechanics should not be togglable like this, as it causes confusion. You'd end up with situations where everyone blocks a teammate's shared buffs and it weakens their build significantly and arbitrarily, and they have no way of knowing if members of their squad would have this block enabled or not until they attempt to use the skill in a mission.

If the ability itself is causing problematic behavior it should just be reworked or changed to play nicer / be less disruptive. We don't need a new complicated system of ability blocks and having to navigate the complexities of that, it causes too much disruption and confusion to squad play not ever knowing if your buffs will affect teammates or not. If a teammate uses a skill, the expectation for all players should be that it should apply consistently every time so there's no ambiguity.

If I am a player who is constantly trying to aim-backflip out of a Volt speed buff, which is a distraction, then I'm pretty sure I am already okay with "weakening" my build

Edited January 10 by Pakaku

[AlexisFox]

5 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

Reread what I wrote - if it's causing issues for people then the ability itself should be reworked entirely to no longer cause these problems. Buffs should not be selective and should apply consistently, in a non-disruptive manner. I could say "oh, no I don't want roar buffs, I don't want extra damage" too, as wild as that is with this logic of "why should they accept it just because someone else wants to put it on them". This is a team game, and team buffs should apply equally and always be treated as such. If it is detrimental / not a buff to some, it should be reworked to be more accommodating.

Yes, I did read that and I thought you would have identified when I said "The devs gave people a way to remove the speed buff from Volt because it was causing people issues, their solution of backflip to remove it is not working for people because of ability spam causing them to have spend too much time constantly removing a buff they don't want." to be the response to that specific part of your post but obviously I thought too much of your ability to pull apart the different parts of my response and associate them with what they went to. So to be more clear.

5 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

if it's causing issues for people then the ability itself should be reworked entirely to no longer cause these problems.

Speed buffs were causing issues for people and the devs reworked it so that you could backflip to turn off Volt's speed buff because that was the specific buff that people were complaining about at the time. It was reworked. The rework is obviously not solving the problem since people are still complaining about the problem. So, a new rework is being requested and the suggestion is to allow players to just block it from applying in the first place. This is a rework suggestion being made.

5 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

Buffs should not be selective and should apply consistently, in a non-disruptive manner. I could say "oh, no I don't want roar buffs, I don't want extra damage" too, as wild as that is with this logic of "why should they accept it just because someone else wants to put it on them". This is a team game, and team buffs should apply equally and always be treated as such.

If buffs should not be selective then why do we have the ability to turn off Volt's speed buff after it's been applied, or choose to step out of Limbo's effect, or anything else that some player is able to affect us with that in many cases is a positive thing but in select circumstances is problematic? There is a valid reason to be able to select what buffs we want and do not want to have on us at any given time whether you agree with that or not. If you personally want to be affected by any and all buffs applied to you then that is your choice, but your choice should not be the deciding factor for someone else. How someone else wants to play is their choice, not yours.

5 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

If it is detrimental / not a buff to some, it should be reworked to be more accommodating.

Exactly! It should be reworked to be more accommodating and that's what's being asked for.

5 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

It's a lot more complicated than you're making it, considering each ability script would need to be changed, and it would also need to accommodate for buffs to mobility, movement speed, parkour velocity, and other stats that are indirectly affected. It's not as simple as "just turn off the multiplier for it" when each interaction is coded separately.

So apparently there's misunderstanding going on with this because in your original post you said,

10 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

We don't need a new complicated system of ability blocks and having to navigate the complexities of that,

which to me implies that you are referring to complication from the point of view of the user not the devs, but now you're talking about the scripting of the abilities and how they all interact on a coding level which is generally not something a user is concerned with since all the user has to worry about is clicking a selection in a settings menu and then it just works the way they were told it's going to work. I personally don't have a problem with some bit of coding being complicated for the devs to write. A lot of code is complicated to write, it's kind of why they get paid to write it. They have a specialized education in doing exactly that because it's complicated. It being complicated for the devs is not a reason to not do it. All it means is that doing it could take a while, and that's fine. We still want to let the devs know that this is a problem so that they can work on finding solutions to it. If no one points it out as a problem it will never be fixed.

5 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

I understand that people want to control movement better and get nauseous from things like volt or wisp's speed, but allowing players to individually toggle what buffs affect them has horrible ramifications for squad play (and on the individual level, as I can totally see bug reports made for "why doesn't this ability affect my teammates? why doesn't this ability work on me, DE bad it's bugged!!!!"). Even limiting it to Volt or Wisp, putting down a mote and 1/3rd of your ability just arbitrarily not working on teammates kinda sucks, and would cause some animosity among teams (i.e. "why aren't you accepting my buffs, you're extending the mission longer with how slow you're going") and discourage use of these frames in squad play. A better solution, so people don't immediately leave on seeing a volt and abilities work as intended / there is no confusion about buffs applying or not, is just to rework the problematic ones that cause people to leave.

I'll start with your point on bug reports, if the default setting is to accept all buffs then that will reduce potential bug reports of this nature and you'll end up getting them only from people that forgot they blocked those buffs and someone will respond to the post with "did you block the buff in the settings? Check X setting." Then others with the same problem will be able to find that post in a search and not need to make a bug report post because they have their solution. Will some still make that post because they didn't do a search first? Yes they will, but it's no different than what happens already. Not implementing something that will help people out does not make fewer false issues occur it just means those false issues will be about something else.

As for animosity among teams, if someone isn't accepting your buff it's because they feel like your buff is causing them a problem and accepting it and smashing their face in every wall because they can't handle moving at that speed is going to make the mission take longer than not taking the buff in the first place so they don't spend half the mission face planted and trying to pry themselves off the terrain. The only thing animosity-wise that's going to happen is a shift from people who are upset that they getting thrown into walls by a team mate's buff having animosity against the player spamming the buff to the people who want to apply that buff having animosity against the people blocking it. Overall I see that as being a decrease in overall animosity because the people who are going to be upset by that are the ones that apply it to mess with others not because they think it's helping their team. Those who apply it to help their team will understand that it's not helpful to everyone and those that turn it off are hindered by it so they'll be happy that it's being turned off so they can freely use it to help those who are helped by it without having to think about those who aren't.

That's only going to encourage more use of those frames since I'm sure there's people out there who actively don't bring those frames because they know how problematic they can be.

[Nekomian]

37 minutes ago, AlexisFox said:

Speed buffs were causing issues for people and the devs reworked it so that you could backflip to turn off Volt's speed buff because that was the specific buff that people were complaining about at the time. It was reworked. The rework is obviously not solving the problem since people are still complaining about the problem. So, a new rework is being requested and the suggestion is to allow players to just block it from applying in the first place. This is a rework suggestion being made.

To be clear - this suggestion to block abilities is not a rework. Nothing about the ability itself is being "reworked" or changed. The suggestion was a global buff blocking toggle - not unique to one ability. It would still function exactly the same for everyone else, and would be in no way reworked.

The solution to this should never have been "allow users to backflip", but it was made because the buff applies consistently every time and then the player can make a decision on how to approach it. You used Limbo's rift as an example too - people can walk out of the rift, though I would arguably not call that ability a buff but a form of cc to enemies, but it casts the exact same way every time and players have expectations for it.

41 minutes ago, AlexisFox said:

If you personally want to be affected by any and all buffs applied to you then that is your choice, but your choice should not be the deciding factor for someone else. How someone else wants to play is their choice, not yours.

This is true to a degree, but it's an online multiplayer game. The choices teammates make will impact and influence deciding factors for others. I do not think deciding what buffs apply to you or not is "how someone wants to play" in regards to a team game - otherwise, they could just choose to play solo. By participating in a team, if you ignore or disable other's abilities and skills you're also influencing how that person plays as well, tacitly reducing their usefulness for the sole purpose of "I don't like it", whether it's a valid reason or not. I could just as easily state someone wants to join a bounty and then go off from the team and go fishing / mining the whole time, not contributing to the team, because that's how they "want to play", even though it's not fair to the squad. I think the game should attempt to focus more on cooperative play, which would avoid individual player toggles for gameplay mechanics. Everyone is playing the same game and getting the same buffs, with those same expectations of the objectives.

49 minutes ago, AlexisFox said:

implies that you are referring to complication from the point of view of the user not the devs, but now you're talking about the scripting of the abilities and how they all interact on a coding level which is generally not something a user is concerned with

I'm referring to both - from the user perspective it needs to be clear (i.e. cast ability, it affects everyone, works the same way every time for consistency) and requests to dev teams need to be reasonable. My issue with the comment was it said it's "not that complicated to add in options in the settings to refuse certain classes of buffs", when it's not that simple. There's a lot of factors that go into toggles, and they add tech debt. All of these things are considerations when making requests as player expectations need to be grounded in reality. I could just as easily say "just recode the entire net code, it's EZ" with no justification or understanding of the code base or functionality that goes into it, but that request would not be reasonable.

1 hour ago, AlexisFox said:

Then others with the same problem will be able to find that post in a search and not need to make a bug report post because they have their solution.

In my experience this does not happen, there's 100s of posts all about the exact same bug. There's lots of posts of people forgetting to remove filters from mods or dragon keys. I used this as an example that a change like this would cause lots of confusion, because players would no longer know if their casts will affect teammates whatsoever.

1 hour ago, AlexisFox said:

Overall I see that as being a decrease in overall animosity because the people who are going to be upset by that are the ones that apply it to mess with others not because they think it's helping their team.

If we're specifically referring only to something like volt's speed, sure - but any buff would cause more problems. The OP is specifically referring to "the need for some kind of option that would allow players to deactivate the ability to receive specific buffs", mentioning volt & wisp specifically because their speed buffs tend to be reported to cause problems with movement. It becomes confusing (and likely frustrating) when a player blocks mesmer skin because it's "EZ mode" or blocks all sources of damage buffs as some personal challenge, thereby making it harder for the rest of the players by having less equal contribution from squad members. It would be easier to just rework (not add a toggle for) the problematic skills so they no longer cause issues for players whatsoever.

[AlexisFox]

13 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

To be clear - this suggestion to block abilities is not a rework. Nothing about the ability itself is being "reworked" or changed. The suggestion was a global buff blocking toggle - not unique to one ability. It would still function exactly the same for everyone else, and would be in no way reworked.

In your opinion, which is a wrong opinion. You have the right to be wrong and you are.

13 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

This is true to a degree, but it's an online multiplayer game. The choices teammates make will impact and influence deciding factors for others. I do not think deciding what buffs apply to you or not is "how someone wants to play" in regards to a team game - otherwise, they could just choose to play solo. By participating in a team, if you ignore or disable other's abilities and skills you're also influencing how that person plays as well, tacitly reducing their usefulness for the sole purpose of "I don't like it", whether it's a valid reason or not.

Are you aware that in most, if not all, MMOs if someone places a buff on you and you don't want it you can just click on the buff to turn it off? Those are online multiplayer games centered around team based play as well but they don't require anyone to accept an effect they don't want. Part of balancing online play is giving people the tools they need to play in whatever way suits them best. If that's someone wants to play with extra challenges then they need to be able to opt into that challenge, if they don't want to participate in X thing then they need to be able to opt out of that thing. You can't force people to do things just because you think they should. If someone is playing in a way that doesn't align with how you want to play then you just don't play with that person. That's ok. You don't have to play with everyone. That's why there's ignore and block lists. Yes it's a team game, and you get to pick your team. If you are playing with random players then you have to accept that they will all have their own individual objectives and be doing those objectives regardless of what you think they should be doing. That includes when you go out to do a bounty. If you select a bounty and go out into a public matchmaking for it someone on the team might not participate in that bounty. It does happen. That's why when you want to do a bounty with a team it's always best to do them with people you know and who want to participate in that bounty, not randoms.

13 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

I'm referring to both - from the user perspective it needs to be clear (i.e. cast ability, it affects everyone, works the same way every time for consistency) and requests to dev teams need to be reasonable. My issue with the comment was it said it's "not that complicated to add in options in the settings to refuse certain classes of buffs", when it's not that simple. There's a lot of factors that go into toggles, and they add tech debt. All of these things are considerations when making requests as player expectations need to be grounded in reality. I could just as easily say "just recode the entire net code, it's EZ" with no justification or understanding of the code base or functionality that goes into it, but that request would not be reasonable.

There is nothing unreasonable about asking for a way to block a buff you don't want, your grasping at straws here trying to inflate this to something it's not. It's not a request to "recode the entire net code" just because with no justification for why it would be necessary to do something like that. This comparison is completely unequivocal. The request to be able to block certain buffs has justification which was provided by citing the specific buffs that were causing problems, stating what the exact problem was, and offering a potential solution to the problem. The devs are in no way required to accept that solution to the problem, they are free to come up with their own solution if they can think of an option that's more elegant and simpler for them.

 

13 hours ago, Naroxas44 said:

In my experience this does not happen, there's 100s of posts all about the exact same bug. There's lots of posts of people forgetting to remove filters from mods or dragon keys. I used this as an example that a change like this would cause lots of confusion, because players would no longer know if their casts will affect teammates whatsoever.

I already addressed this, you clearly didn't read it. Yes, there are people who do NOT search their issue before posting about it. That's NEVER going to stop. It is also NEVER going to be a reason to NOT implement a feature. Bringing it up as point is irrelevant.

The last part of what you said has already been addressed in my other points so I'm not rehashing it again.

In summary, your points are ineffective arguing points that hold no weight and only serve to force others to do what you think they should be doing and you have no right to dictate that of anyone. Everyone has the right to choose for themselves how they want to play the game, if you don't like how they choose to play the game then don't play with them.

[Nekomian]

Going to only respond to a few of these as I don't have too much time at the moment:

24 minutes ago, AlexisFox said:

In your opinion, which is a wrong opinion. You have the right to be wrong and you are.

You can debate semantics all day if you'd like, but nothing is reworking the ability. The request was asking for exclusions to it on an individual basis.

28 minutes ago, AlexisFox said:

Are you aware that in most, if not all, MMOs if someone places a buff on you and you don't want it you can just click on the buff to turn it off?

FFXIV is the only one I've seen that allows that, and it plays a LOT differently from a small squad-based looter shooter. I'm sure that serves its purposes in those games, but would cause a lot more problems with how Warframe is set up.

30 minutes ago, AlexisFox said:

There is nothing unreasonable about asking for a way to block a buff you don't want, your grasping at straws here trying to inflate this to something it's not.

My point was that you're claiming something is "simple" without understanding the complexities on how to code that or what the code base looks like. I'm not saying players need to understand that in its entirety for every request, but that this assumption on the simplicity of implementing it was based on conjecture.

34 minutes ago, AlexisFox said:

It is also NEVER going to be a reason to NOT implement a feature. Bringing it up as point is irrelevant.

It was meant as a point to indicate user confusion - even without posts, there would be in-game confusion regarding what buffs are and aren't working across teammates. The game might as well just only apply all buffs to the player who casted them at that point given the ambiguity. I don't see how you can ignore this glaring flaw in a system with buff toggles, as it's extremely important to know what interactions you can perform with other players in a team game.

[tucker_d_dawg]

There is a universal toggle to turn off buffs... Set it to solo play.
Less restrictive but somewhat controllable is to set it to invite only
Less restrictive still  is to leave it public, but recruit.


The upside of full public, non recruiting is you generally get faster full squad matchmaking
The downsides are innumerable, and getting random buffs is just one of them.

 

Edited January 11 by tucker_d_dawg

[Birdframe_Prime]

To report the standing of this topic:

DE did address this over the course of several months dubbed 'The Speed Test' by people that remember it. In this, DE tried to rework the way players received the buff from Speed because, as we know, it is not universally loved.

Those that do not like the buff specifically do not like it because it changes their reaction times, their familiar or necessary movements to navigate, and so on. According to DE's actual in-game stats of people that actually opted out of Speed consistently, the people that do not like Speed are in the vast minority, but they are still important to DE's quality of life testing for the game. Those that want speed and actively stayed with the Volt when navigating to make use of Speed's melee and movement buffs was a more sizable group of players, and those that didn't really care, but also didn't opt out even after being told that they could opt out, made up the majority, but not by an overwhelming margin.

One thing they stated quite clearly before they began the process is this: "Buffs are designed to be Buffs, they will be treated as such, and we don't want a case where people can set a passive toggle to deny a buff outright. Not only does this make a setting that people could turn on and forget, in case of reworks where we fix the problem and players then don't get the new buff, but it also makes our coding incredibly buggy for each and every update we do where a setting like this could accidentally make it so that something incredibly bad happens, like denying all buffs and leaving a frame as if it doesn't even have mods."

Basically; No, they will never do an 'automatic deny' option for buffs like Speed or Motes, but yes they want to try to fix things for players that don't appreciate them.

So, quite a few options were tried. The first idea was to simply make Speed a pick-up. Volt cast the ability, went faster, and dropped a shiny ability pick-up like Wisp's Motes for the buff. However... the people that wanted Speed had to keep finding the pick-ups, and when the Volt re-cast, the old pickups vanished and they had to try and catch up without Speed to find the new ones before those, in turn, vanished. The people that didn't want Speed found that players would drop the pickups in transition spaces, like hallways, doorways and narrow walkways where they naturally pushed the button to enter the next room faster, and so it was usually impossible to avoid the pickups.

In this case, the opt-out was still necessary.

Other options included changing the opt-out to a different function. Such as the forwards roll, or the sideways roll. Again, the people that wanted Speed couldn't maintain it, and in this case not even the Volt that cast it, because rolling forwards is an important part of the natural faster movement cycle.

So in this case the fix made the ability worse for everyone that wanted the buff, wasting casts more often than not, and went against DE's desire for a buff to be a buff.

Similar problems arose with the other changes they made. In all cases, two outcomes happened: Either the buff couldn't be maintained by people that actively wanted it, or the basic opt-out was still needed.

Which led to the conclusion, for DE at least, that there's not really much they can do for players that don't like these particular buffs. The opt-out they had was the 'least terrible' idea they had implemented, so it stuck.

Speed is a buff to them, and will remain so, and DE want players to receive buffs from other players. We know that not all buffs are useful in all situations. When doing a Spy vault, having Wisp's Shock motes isn't helpful because it alerts all the guards. When trying to capture a Simaris target, having a Roar buff could make a player accidentally kill it while killing the surrounding enemies. Standing in the darkness will give Mirage up to 90% DR with her Eclipse, but she actually wants the massive weapon damage buff, not the DR.

There are situations where buffs are not what we want. And sadly... Speed is one that they've tried to fix, and couldn't fix to anyone's satisfaction.

[Kaggelos]

Ideally, and this is a purely personal and subjective take on my part, If I could I would deny all buffs for myself. Stress test and playing around with builds Is something I really do enjoy and I do not appreciate other players skewing my numbers and stats. 

I'm not saying that what they are doing is bad, I'm just saying that it's for me personally very disruptive.

[Reed_McCloud]

On 2024-01-10 at 9:28 AM, Nekomian said:

This comes up every few weeks and my response will always be the same - Gameplay mechanics should not be togglable like this, as it causes confusion. You'd end up with situations where everyone blocks a teammate's shared buffs and it weakens their build significantly and arbitrarily, and they have no way of knowing if members of their squad would have this block enabled or not until they attempt to use the skill in a mission.

If the ability itself is causing problematic behavior it should just be reworked or changed to play nicer / be less disruptive. We don't need a new complicated system of ability blocks and having to navigate the complexities of that, it causes too much disruption and confusion to squad play not ever knowing if your buffs will affect teammates or not. If a teammate uses a skill, the expectation for all players should be that it should apply consistently every time so there's no ambiguity.

(I'm a few months late, but this post will be relevant in another 5 years, so who cares?)

In MMOs where understanding every class/job actually benefits team strategies, this is a sound and fair argument.

But this is Warframe. Team synergy is there, yes, but it is not a core mechanic. Not to mention that what synergy is there is generic and oft times not needed at all. So to argue that there would be "confusion" amongst players, I disagree. Aggressively disagree, at that.

There is more confusion for the player when they receive an unexpected buff that drastically alters the way that players planned loadout is functioning. Use the speed buff for example; Say you are using Despair with it's Incarnon adapter, you get a Wisp speed buff as you activate incarnon form, your entire magazine is gone before you can even think about planning your shots. This is one example of many where a player's planned experience is destroyed because DE still thinks Warframe is an MMO.

Buffs need to be toggleable. If I don't want Overguard, I shouldn't be forced to play with Overguard because of a new kids fascination with Dante. If I don't want Corrosive on my weapons from Saryn's Venom Dose (or any frame's similar ability), I shouldn't be forced to deal with corrosive. If I don't want your buffs, I shouldn't be forced to have your buffs.

Another way to say all of this is: I don't want my gaming experience to be dictated by how another person is playing. This is MY game. MY experience. Keep your buffs, I don't need them.

[Birdframe_Prime]

4 hours ago, Reed_McCloud said:

Say you are using Despair with it's Incarnon adapter, you get a Wisp speed buff as you activate incarnon form, your entire magazine is gone before you can even think about planning your shots. This is one example of many where a player's planned experience is destroyed because DE still thinks Warframe is an MMO.

Wow, I've seen over-exaggerations of a problem, and this is up there...

Look, I know this thread has been nekro'd from four months back. It happens.

Read the reason that it died; DE have already ruled on the topic of abilities they count as buffs. They made the decision after months of work, and have made some explicitly clear statements about what is and what isn't in line with their game design.

I can understand your opinions, for the most part... (the bad take on Incarnon charge and on Overguard are both just weird... even the take on having damage buffs from other frames is more an argument to make the few abilities that do that have non-combining elements, rather than combining with the initial elements you modded on).

This is just a literal case of 'asked and answered' by the people that make the game.

If you do not like buffs from other players, and don't want them (hypothetically, not you specifically) then Warframe co-op play is not for you.