Nuke Builds Are Ruining Gameplay Enjoyment

[Nira]

We need more skillets what can be turned on their side. Tilted, even. 

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

The ONLY way to fix the "problem" of nuke builds being the most efficient method of accomplishing the mission goals, is to introduce mission goals that cannot be accomplished most efficiently with nuking.

Personally, if I join a PUG, it's to accomplish a mission the most efficiently, otherwise I'd be going solo.
This means, in nearly all cases, killing everything as fast as possible (with the exception of waiting for enemies to become void corrupted), is the most efficient, and ideal way to play the mode. If someone has come into the mission not prepared to efficiently accomplish the mission's goal... they're the problem, not the nukers. (And nukers are having a blast, playing the game the way it is intended to be played - game enjoyment is not being ruined in their case.)

If there were new goals for missions, that require each player to go to a different place on the map before the next stage can begin, and they remain separated for the duration, all cooperating, and killing in whatever fashion they desire, that would probably work out well... but it would be a pain for disconnects, inevitable bugs (as seen in Scarlet Spear) and other issues that come with forced grouping objectives.)

There could be mission objectives that require NOT killing enemies in the area, such as to prevent a noticable change in the base for the secret mission to go unnoticed... as opposed to spy missions where their entire garrison is disappearing, alarms are going off and getting silenced, and at the end "nobody will know that you were here."... yeah... not buying that one ;)

 

This is a game design issue, not a player issue. Nobody is doing anything wrong by nuking a map and playing as efficiently as possible.
Demanding people slow down and play worse, waste their time going slower, just so everybody has an equal chance at kills... is really bizarre to me.

 

[Merkranire]

5 hours ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

The ONLY way to fix the "problem" of nuke builds being the most efficient method of accomplishing the mission goals, is to introduce mission goals that cannot be accomplished most efficiently with nuking.

Personally, if I join a PUG, it's to accomplish a mission the most efficiently, otherwise I'd be going solo.
This means, in nearly all cases, killing everything as fast as possible (with the exception of waiting for enemies to become void corrupted), is the most efficient, and ideal way to play the mode. If someone has come into the mission not prepared to efficiently accomplish the mission's goal... they're the problem, not the nukers. (And nukers are having a blast, playing the game the way it is intended to be played - game enjoyment is not being ruined in their case.)

If there were new goals for missions, that require each player to go to a different place on the map before the next stage can begin, and they remain separated for the duration, all cooperating, and killing in whatever fashion they desire, that would probably work out well... but it would be a pain for disconnects, inevitable bugs (as seen in Scarlet Spear) and other issues that come with forced grouping objectives.)

There could be mission objectives that require NOT killing enemies in the area, such as to prevent a noticable change in the base for the secret mission to go unnoticed... as opposed to spy missions where their entire garrison is disappearing, alarms are going off and getting silenced, and at the end "nobody will know that you were here."... yeah... not buying that one ;)

 

This is a game design issue, not a player issue. Nobody is doing anything wrong by nuking a map and playing as efficiently as possible.
Demanding people slow down and play worse, waste their time going slower, just so everybody has an equal chance at kills... is really bizarre to me.

 

Continually reminded that the mods want me to be nice to you problems, I’ll make it clear and then duck out;

I’m not going to become part of the problem just to keep up with your measuring contests, and I’m not going to try to convince anyone else to do so either since they’re completely validated for not doing so in the face of this player-driven issue.

The funny thing is, while you complain about having to stop doing things in order to play nice, I’m built in order to give you the space to still play; you’re the ones who build so that every move you make is clumsy and you’re living in a binary state of doing too much or nothing. I want you to play alongside, you’re the ones who need to build like you want to as well, yet gracious as you want to seem, you can’t stop what you’re doing

edit: You happy, mods? If you want something altered, just say the word and I’ll do it, but only in-so-far as to seem more civilised

Edited January 28 by Merkranire

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

Listen, I play a melee-only Inaros primarily. I don't run a nuke build, but I kill extremely fast. The difference between you and me, is that when people come along to these missions, nuking everything, *I don't get mad at them*; they're not taking fun away from me... they're helping to get the mission done faster than I could on my own.

Personally, I've never felt there was "nothing" for me to do in these situations, either... I can always find stuff to kill. Even if I didn't, though, and all I had to do is pick up reactant and rush to extraction... so be it, mission accomplished. PUGs are NOT where you go to "do your own thing" ... you are there to accomplish the mission objectives... that's all.

I don't get this obsession with forcing people to "play alongside" each other. That's not inherently better than getting objectives done faster... just differently, and far more important if everyone on the team shares that ideal (normally friends, or pre-made groups with like-minded play styles.)

 

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

Submitted that first reply before addressing some Game Design issues:
 

In Exterminate missions: Since you only get rewarded once you finish the mission, and no other objectives appear in the mission, finishing the mission means killing all the enemies as fast as possible and reaching extraction. That is what is encouraged by the Game Design. The more efficiently you can accomplish that goal, the better.

There are no benefits of getting the most head shots, there are no tangible rewards for opening the most chests (aside from the miniscule resources from said chests), there are no style points or anything else to take into consideration for how you are rewarded at the end of the mission. IF you could fail an exterminate mission by killing enemies too quickly, thus scaring away the remaining enemies, there would be a reason to slow down. If there were alternate ways to kill enemies faster than nuking, such as interacting with certain consoles in the mission that need to be approached without making a big disturbance, and then vent the atmosphere to the entire stage... for example, exterminating everything in one action...

See how Game Design would drive player choices?

It is entirely unreasonable for people to choose to get rewarded more slowly by not completing exterminate missions as quickly as possible. That goes against the game's design. There is no *good reason* to not nuke. It might be a player preference to treat Warframe like a Destiny-like cover shooter, going for all headshots, but that style of play is not how the game was designed to be played in a group setting (when you go solo, you can take as much time as you like, as long as you don't care about the mission rewards and objectives.)

 

This absolutely comes down to Game Design. Players are fully justified in accomplishing the missions as fast as possible, as that is how they get rewarded. You can play however you like solo, but it's not increasing how the game rewards you. That's Game Design influencing player choice. If you choose to try to impose how you like to play on a group, YOU are the one causing the issues (and it's really only affecting you and your anger), because that's personal preference, not how the game was designed.

Getting angry about how other people play the game is like drinking poison, and expecting it to hurt some other person, much like holding a grudge and not forgiving people for things they don't even know they did wrong. You can seethe and get angry all you like... but they're doing nothing wrong, and they're not hurting each other... it's just you who wants to force other players to play differently than the game was designed.

 

EDIT:
P.S. This is why nerfing the AoE meta will NEVER fix the AoE meta... it's a game design issue, where killing lots of enemies quickly is the most efficient way of playing... until they nerf ALL AoE things into the ground, so they're worse than single target weapons, people will continue to migrate from one "best AoE" to the next... it's an endless downward spiral, if nerfing is the chosen way to deal with it... which is why it's wrong, and it's a Game Design issue... that needs to be fixed with game objectives that don't involve AoE killing as the most effective tactic available. (META)

Edited January 28 by (PSN)AyinDygra
added P.S.

[Merkranire]

2 hours ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

Listen, I play a melee-only Inaros primarily. I don't run a nuke build, but I kill extremely fast. The difference between you and me, is that when people come along to these missions, nuking everything, *I don't get mad at them*; they're not taking fun away from me... they're helping to get the mission done faster than I could on my own.

Personally, I've never felt there was "nothing" for me to do in these situations, either... I can always find stuff to kill. Even if I didn't, though, and all I had to do is pick up reactant and rush to extraction... so be it, mission accomplished. PUGs are NOT where you go to "do your own thing" ... you are there to accomplish the mission objectives... that's all.

I don't get this obsession with forcing people to "play alongside" each other. That's not inherently better than getting objectives done faster... just differently, and far more important if everyone on the team shares that ideal (normally friends, or pre-made groups with like-minded play styles.)

 

I cannot continue this conversation with any sort of patience for some very pleasant player who will obviously not see a problem with not playing when by their admission  and in typical weirdly contradictory fashion they are concerned with overkill efficiency while trying to act like they’re not and stop fu-freaking trying to gaslight me like this isn’t a problem and that you lot are heroes and not something to be dreaded that enters the scene and strips away the game for someone else like you’ve already done for yourself and you don’t even understand what you’re missing in the first place while acting like you don’t already throw game design out given half a chance——

because I’m just going to get moderated again. I’ve already edited out a chunk that I’m pretty sure would get this deleted, and I’m not happy about it because the status quo sucks while trying to act like victims of anything more than themselves

Edited January 28 by Merkranire

[SneakyErvin]

4 hours ago, Merkranire said:

The funny thing is, while you complain about having to stop doing things in order to play nice, I’m built in order to give you the space to still play; you’re the ones who build so that every move you make is clumsy and you’re living in a binary state of doing too much or nothing. I want you to play alongside, you’re the ones who need to build like you want to as well, yet gracious as you want to seem, you can’t stop what you’re doing

If you gave people space like you claim you wouldnt complain about how other people chose to the play in a PuG. Which in this case would be the most effective way as the game is designed by giving us the options to do that after having played the game long enough to gain those toys and tools. So you are giving people space aslong as they play the way you want them to play and the moment they step over that line you complain about them killing too much or being too fast or whatever else you can come up with in order to complain and point fingers.

Considering how you talk, your gameplay approach is in an extreme minority in these types of games. You also sound horribly entitled by throwing around names and insults while being straight up uncivil towards people. This in addition to more or less putting words in other people mouths/texts when in reality it is just you not getting the actual point that they try to get across.

You'd think the lack of people sharing your idea on how things should be played is an indication of you perhaps being in the wrong. Yet you act as if your approach is superior, by continously having called other people bad at building, or builds bad in general simply because they dont share your view on how the game should be played. You also avoid to give straight answers when asked for specifics, like what you consider an acceptable amount of consideration towards poorly geared people before a high geared person steps in to solve the issue etc. If you have such strong opinions you clearly must have some detailed thoughts you can put to print aswell. Or are you just the Greta of WF going "bla bla bla" when you cant back up your opinions and statements?

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

To preface this post, it is not an attempt to engage you (Merkranire) in conversation, as you are done with it, this is simply a clarification for those reading (and to address the silly accusation of contradictory hypocrisy):

I play for my fun. When I want to "do my own thing" that is not the most efficient way to accomplish a mission, I will solo... I primarily play solo. I like to search every nook and crany of an area for Voca or Medallions or Ayatan Statues, and generally, Exterminate missions are the best place for that, because the objective is easy to navigate around my personal objective...

However, I'd NEVER do that activity if I went into a PUG exterminate. In a PUG exterminate, only the mission objective matters. My personal side objectives are entirely irrelevant, and if it would inconvenience the rest of the team from completing the mission as fast as possible, it would be wrong of me. When I go PUG, efficiency and success are all that matter.

I still don't run nuke frames, even in PUG groups, because I don't find them fun to play, but I love when other people use them. My enjoyment of the game is not impacted by personally being able to kill stuff all the time. There is a time and place for everything. I know when I can do my own thing, and when that would negatively impact the objectives of the mission, I won't force my whims on the rest of the people playing.

There is no contradiction here. (The game is not stripped away from me.)

[Merkranire]

12 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

If you gave people space like you claim you wouldnt complain about how other people chose to the play in a PuG. Which in this case would be the most effective way as the game is designed by giving us the options to do that after having played the game long enough to gain those toys and tools. So you are giving people space aslong as they play the way you want them to play and the moment they step over that line you complain about them killing too much or being too fast or whatever else you can come up with in order to complain and point fingers.

Considering how you talk, your gameplay approach is in an extreme minority in these types of games. You also sound horribly entitled by throwing around names and insults while being straight up uncivil towards people. This in addition to more or less putting words in other people mouths/texts when in reality it is just you not getting the actual point that they try to get across.

You'd think the lack of people sharing your idea on how things should be played is an indication of you perhaps being in the wrong. Yet you act as if your approach is superior, by continously having called other people bad at building, or builds bad in general simply because they dont share your view on how the game should be played. You also avoid to give straight answers when asked for specifics, like what you consider an acceptable amount of consideration towards poorly geared people before a high geared person steps in to solve the issue etc. If you have such strong opinions you clearly must have some detailed thoughts you can put to print aswell. Or are you just the Greta of WF going "bla bla bla" when you cant back up your opinions and statements?

Not today, Satan. The mods have made it clear that when we talk, we get moderated

And anyways, any sort of clarification of nuance falls on deaf ears with you, Ervin, so I’m fine with that. It’s partly why I lose my patience, but obviously you weren’t listening when I was patient before, so meh

Edited January 28 by Merkranire

[Merkranire]

-argh, no!-

Edited January 28 by Merkranire

[SneakyErvin]

24 minutes ago, Merkranire said:

Not today, Satan. The mods have made it clear that when we talk, we get moderated

And anyways, any sort of clarification of nuance falls on deaf ears with you, Ervin, so I’m fine with that. It’s partly why I lose my patience, but obviously you weren’t listening when I was patient before, so meh

Well atleast you start with a compliment, so that is always something.

Maybe if you try to clarify instead of running with assumptions it would help. You say it would fall on deaf ears but you havent even tried to clarify. You've only said "this and that must be done for consideration" while providing no scope. As I said, I gave the players in that group considerable consideration before stepping in, but even that was too little for you, so a scope on your view of what is appropriate space would help, since currently nothing seems to suffice and enough space is the point where the whole mission fails.

[Merkranire]

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

Well atleast you start with a compliment, so that is always something.

Maybe if you try to clarify instead of running with assumptions it would help. You say it would fall on deaf ears but you havent even tried to clarify. You've only said "this and that must be done for consideration" while providing no scope. As I said, I gave the players in that group considerable consideration before stepping in, but even that was too little for you, so a scope on your view of what is appropriate space would help, since currently nothing seems to suffice and enough space is the point where the whole mission fails.

Ugh, so edgy.

I’ve tried clarifying in the other topic we had a big row in, and you made it clear you weren’t interested. I’m not even sure where you got the idea that I was calling things bad builds, that’s a you thing. If there was anything approaching it, it would have been about how builds suited for a higher-level mission means they’re only suited for something lower-level insofar as it wrecks the joint, but I’m pretty sure that was part of the chain of responses that got deleted.

And then your mind exploded when I showed someone else an Argonak built designed for Arbitrations, and despite my telling you it wasn’t the only way to build your grey matter was already leaked out of your ears and all you could do was latch onto the fact that yes, it was a simple and straightforward build designed with Arbitrations in mind, which was the point of the build and, though this wasn’t part of that particular exchange, it was also an example of something I’d take to Arbitrations with intent to fight alongside someone else because it was designed for Arbitrations and had all the free slots and capacity necessary to further customise it.

Enough space is not the point where the mission fails, you just don’t know what enough is in the first place; I want you to fight alongside, but I’m expecting you to do something, and if you don’t, the mission may fail because the spawns are there but the player to counter them isn’t, but that’s not a guarantee. And what’s enough is different for every level tier! I’m not going to go through and list every build and equipment combo, that Argonak should have been sufficient to indicate that there’s a difference between making a Steel Path build and taking it to Arbitrations, and making an Arbitrations build and taking it to Arbitrations

[Circle_of_Psi]

I'm a little confused, what is going on here?

[SneakyErvin]

20 minutes ago, Merkranire said:

Ugh, so edgy.

I’ve tried clarifying in the other topic we had a big row in, and you made it clear you weren’t interested. I’m not even sure where you got the idea that I was calling things bad builds, that’s a you thing. If there was anything approaching it, it would have been about how builds suited for a higher-level mission means they’re only suited for something lower-level insofar as it wrecks the joint, but I’m pretty sure that was part of the chain of responses that got deleted.

And then your mind exploded when I showed someone else an Argonak built designed for Arbitrations, and despite my telling you it wasn’t the only way to build your grey matter was already leaked out of your ears and all you could do was latch onto the fact that yes, it was a simple and straightforward build designed with Arbitrations in mind, which was the point of the build and, though this wasn’t part of that particular exchange, it was also an example of something I’d take to Arbitrations with intent to fight alongside someone else because it was designed for Arbitrations and had all the free slots and capacity necessary to further customise it.

Enough space is not the point where the mission fails, you just don’t know what enough is in the first place; I want you to fight alongside, but I’m expecting you to do something, and if you don’t, the mission may fail because the spawns are there but the player to counter them isn’t, but that’s not a guarantee. And what’s enough is different for every level tier! I’m not going to go through and list every build and equipment combo, that Argonak should have been sufficient to indicate that there’s a difference between making a Steel Path build and taking it to Arbitrations, and making an Arbitrations build and taking it to Arbitrations

Edgy? No I just have a place in my heart for old grandpa Beelz. Or do you not like the morning sun and other magnificent wonders of the universe?

Clearly you havent since we werent discussing groups in that thread at all. And I've never said anyhting about bad builds, I've said there are builds and there are not-builds, simple as that. Not that this has anything to do with builds, but with grouping and what you deem expected from players in relation to other players, how one should consider the other etc. That is what you've failed to or avoided to explain. There is no scope regarding what is too little and enough consideration towards other players in your mind, that is what needs clarification so people might understand where you are comming from.

If you wanna discuss the details of the other thread do it there.

And what is alongside to you? I'm in the mission, I'm built so I can handle demos alone since there are 4 of them and 4 of us so we can do all 4 in one go as a group. That is alongside since all 4 does the mission together but can handle themselves. That however failed since the other 3 were undergeared yet were given freedom to try. So killing them 1 by 1 was needed. You cant give them more consideration than allowing them to try to the point where the demo reaches the target and nearly has time to detonate. Or should I have brought a build that would have just killed the demo by the time it reaches the conduit? Even if I would have done 99% of the damage to it just slower? Me using something worse doesnt mean the others do more in return, their damage would have still been just as insignificant in the end. No matter if I had chased the demo with a weaker tool from first contact all the way to the conduit or if I'd vaporize it in one hit as it reached the conduit.

So again, what would be inclusive and considerate?

Edited January 28 by SneakyErvin

[DarkQorvex]

On 2024-01-19 at 2:38 PM, Zinxori- said:

Say you got yourself a shiny new Gotva Prime from the Twitch Prime rewards, and you were itching to try it out in a mission. You pull up a Exterminate Fissure mission on Public matchmaking, just to increase the chances of a good reward. However, inevitably, and as many of you witnessed I'm sure whether you've been playing for 5 days or 2 weeks, that IDIOTS with no consideration for the others in the squad, will bring some ridiculous "nuke build" to Exterminate mission and blast all the enemies to hell in like 2-3 casts, and the mission is over before you even aimed up your weapon.

To some this is probably fine, and I'll sound like a complainer, but at MR27 and playing since 2015, I've seen every decent "nuke build" from Mirage Simulor to stuff like Saryn 4th spam in the current age. In things like Defense missions where the time to finish can go up due to enemies being spread out everywhere, using a wide-range, powerful nuking setup is ABSOLUTELY VALID AND UNDERSTANDABLE. But in a simple Axi Exterminate mission??? C'mon let me just shoot my Gotva and leave happy. I know I cannot be the only player who feels this way, but I'm probably one of few who would actually make a whole forum post about it. I hope this reaches players and that it generates a healthy discussion on why Nuke Builds should be UNACCEPTABLE in a simple mission like an Exterminate. Have respect for your fellow Tenno and LET THEM PLAY THE GAME TOO, or you'll risk stepping on someone's toes, even if you don't know it, or didn't intend it that way.

I understand your frustration it is realy valid, but there's no point in lashing out for something that's been there for a bunch of years by now, considering not only there are options other than public squads but also eventually you'll find a "non-nuke squad" on pubs and hopefully they'll be willing to go for multiple runs.

[Merkranire]

40 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Edgy? No I just have a place in my heart for old grandpa Beelz. Or do you not like the morning sun and other magnificent wonders of the universe?

Clearly you havent since we werent discussing groups in that thread at all. And I've never said anyhting about bad builds, I've said there are builds and there are not-builds, simple as that. Not that this has anything to do with builds, but with grouping and what you deem expected from players in relation to other players, how one should consider the other etc. That is what you've failed to or avoided to explain. There is no scope regarding what is too little and enough consideration towards other players in your mind, that is what needs clarification so people might understand where you are comming from.

If you wanna discuss the details of the other thread do it there.

And what is alongside to you? I'm in the mission, I'm built so I can handle demos alone since there are 4 of them and 4 of us so we can do all 4 in one go as a group. That is alongside since all 4 does the mission together but can handle themselves. That however failed since the other 3 were undergeared yet were given freedom to try. So killing them 1 by 1 was needed. You cant give them more consideration than allowing them to try to the point where the demo reaches the target and nearly has time to detonate. Or should I have brought a build that would have just killed the demo by the time it reaches the conduit? Even if I would have done 99% of the damage to it just slower? Me using something worse doesnt mean the others do more in return, their damage would have still been just as insignificant in the end. No matter if I had chased the demo with a weaker tool from first contant all the way to the conduit or if I'd vaporize it in one hit as it reached the conduit.

So again, what would be inclusive and considerate?

For starters, Ervin, I know that all you think about is Steel Path, and I’m not about to use the unbalanced game mode that already has 4-players worth of spawns for one player which means you already need to be built like you’re soloing the multiplayer portion.

Outside of SP, why is that Disruption not an example? Had you been like them, all four of you would have been on the lookout for Demos and would have worked together to bring them down, and if you felt confident enough that you could do multiple at once, then do that.

If all of you were built for content that was so out of range for that particular mission at that particular level that you couldn’t take down one demo, I would question whether there was something about the way the team played or something minor that could be changed without straight up sacrificing build flexibility and requirement for teamwork by building for something higher-level, though admittedly if you wanted to go further, you would appropriately start creeping up in levels that you’re building for.

You know how in most other co-op games they don’t give you the option to overpower the fight, and thus the game and some semblance of teamwork is preserved?

That’s a thing you gotta willingly choose in Warframe, and it frees up build and gear options and can be a lot of fun, but the game’s not going to stop you if you bring some Meta or higher-level build to the fight and blow everything away, and the game simply allows it instead of stopping you or forcing your build to behave differently than what you built it for.

 

 

Edited January 28 by Merkranire

[TeaHands]

45 minutes ago, Circle_of_Psi said:

I'm a little confused, what is going on here?

Looks like failure to utilize the Block function to me.

[Circle_of_Psi]

24 minutes ago, TeaHands said:

Looks like failure to utilize the Block function to me.

Fair enough, cuz this topic went from someone crying bout "nuke frames ruining THEIR fun" to two people fighting?

 

How was your day today?

 

^{_{Also I love the name}}

[SneakyErvin]

45 minutes ago, Merkranire said:

For starters, Ervin, I know that all you think about is Steel Path, and I’m not about to use the unbalanced game mode that already has 4-players worth of spawns for one player which means you already need to be built like you’re soloing the multiplayer portion.

Outside of SP, why is that Disruption not an example? Had you been like them, all four of you would have been on the lookout for Demos and would have worked together to bring them down, and if you felt confident enough that you could do multiple at once, then do that.

If all of you were built for content that was so out of range for that particular mission at that particular level that you couldn’t take down one demo, I would question whether there was something about the way the team played or something minor that could be changed without straight up sacrificing build flexibility and requirement for teamwork by building for something higher-level, though admittedly if you wanted to go further, you would appropriately start creeping up in levels that you’re building for.

You know how in most other co-op games they don’t give you the option to overpower the fight, and thus the game and some semblance of teamwork is preserved?

That’s a thing you gotta willingly choose in Warframe, and it frees up build and gear options and can be a lot of fun, but the game’s not going to stop you if you bring some Meta or higher-level build to the fight and blow everything away, and the game simply allows it instead of stopping you or forcing your build to behave differently than what you built it for.

But that isnt true. Nor is it relevant to the topic.

But it is outside of SP by your very own definition, since it was an Archon Disruption, which by your own words is not the same as SP. Something you made clear quite a while back in another thread when asked why you dont treat Archons and Netracells the same as SP. To which your answer since they arent according to you due to not having the specific SP modifiers. So this is very much about Disruptions outside of SP. Which you would have also understood when I earlier said I never do Disruption in PuGs since there is no way to know which rotation others need compared to your own needs. So this could have never been about SP Disruption since we are in a thread discussion PuG behavior and outcomes. And no one said confident to do multiple at once alone, I said multiple where everyone deals with one. Since doing several at once is very risky due to location of conduits locations and spawns. Which is why this disruption nearly failed, since the people that clearly couldnt handle demos at all slapped keys in eitherway.

What? I really have a hard time getting what you are trying to say or ask here? I'm starting to think you've never done anything archon due to how you talk here. Or you have an extremely short attention span and cannot remember what has been discussed. There is no going further in these disruptions, it's 8 conduits then it is time for the Archon (which could be "going further" I guess), so geared for that. As to something changed... It was a PuG as the topic of the thread discusses. Do you have some magic access to the arsenal on the fly during missions? I sure as hell dont. So I went in prepared to do my part as people tend to do i.e handle my conduit/demo as others handle theirs.

"Most" is a big word. No I really dont know of "most" other co-op games that dont allow that. I know of the poor co-op or GAAS games that lock everything to powerlevels so you practically never progress, where it is all an illusion and everything is the same. Like Inquisitor Martyr, where it doesnt matter if you have 5000 power levels or 500, if the content is 5200 or 700 in PL the enemies will deal the same % in damage and you will deal the same % less in damage to them. So going from 500 to 5000 gear has zero point really. The gear 4500 PL higher might provide you a total of 1% extra critical chance and 1% more X damage element on your weapon.

And you still havent been able to provide an answer to the question asked. Beating round the bush a whole lot though. I mean, if you cant formulate what you mean, your criteria on the subject of consideration for others, how are others supposed to know when they arent even into the niche playstyle approach of yours. If you dont know, the person that came up with the idea in the first place, it is very illogical to expect others to know. Absurd really.

Edited January 28 by SneakyErvin

[TeaHands]

9 minutes ago, Circle_of_Psi said:

Fair enough, cuz this topic went from someone crying bout "nuke frames ruining THEIR fun" to two people fighting?

I mean that's pretty par for the course with the forums nowadays lol, you know somethings off if there isnt at least one multi-page slap fight that spans across a few days.

27 minutes ago, Circle_of_Psi said:

How was your day today?

Good, thanks for asking, in-laws are over and we're all just chatting and hanging out. How is your day going?

29 minutes ago, Circle_of_Psi said:

Also I love the name

Thanks haha, it's an old inside joke from a time when I didn't like drinking tea but loved the aroma.

[Merkranire]

21 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

But that isnt true. Nor is it relevant to the topic.

But it is outside of SP by your very own definition, since it was an Archon Disruption, which by your own words is not the same as SP. Something you made clear quite a while back in another thread when asked why you dont treat Archons and Netracells the same as SP. To which your answer since they arent according to you due to not having the specific SP modifiers. So this is very much about Disruptions outside of SP. Which you would have also understood when I earlier said I never do Disruption in PuGs since there is no way to know which rotation others need compared to your own needs. So this could have never been about SP Disruption since we are in a thread discussion PuG behavior and outcomes. And no one said confident to do multiple at once alone, I said multiple where everyone deals with one. Since doing several at once is very risky due to location of conduits locations and spawns. Which is why this disruption nearly failed, since the people that clearly couldnt handle demos at all slapped keys in eitherway.

What? I really have a hard time getting what you are trying to say or ask here? I'm starting to think you've never done anything archon due to how you talk here. Or you have an extremely short attention span and cannot remember what has been discussed. There is no going further in these disruptions, it's 8 conduits then it is time for the Archon (which could be "going further" I guess), so geared for that. As to something changed... It was a PuG as the topic of the thread discusses. Do you have some magic access to the arsenal on the fly during missions? I sure as hell dont. So I went in prepared to do my part as people tend to do i.e handle my conduit/demo as others handle theirs.

"Most" is a big word. No I really dont know of "most" other co-op games that dont allow that. I know of the poor co-op or GAAS games that lock everything to powerlevels so you practically never progress, where it is all an illusion and everything is the same. Like Inquisitor Martyr, where it doesnt matter if you have 5000 power levels or 500, if the content is 5200 or 700 in PL the enemies will deal the same % in damage and you will deal the same % less in damage to them. So going from 500 to 5000 gear has zero point really. The gear 4500 PL higher might provide you a total of 1% extra critical chance and 1% more X damage element on your weapon.

And you still havent been able to provide an answer to the question asked. Beating round the bush a whole lot though. I mean, if you cant formulate what you mean, your criteria on the subject of consideration for others, how are others supposed to know when they arent even into the niche playstyle approach of yours. If you dont know, the person that came up with the idea in the first place, it is very illogical to expect others to know. Absurd really.

Sigh. Yeah, I guess it is absurd to expect that anyone has an idea of what they’re built for and how it leaves room for other players when they jump into a multiplayer mission. It’s not like you’ve tried or anything, usually it’d happen by accident and then you think something’s gone horribly wrong 

[(XBOX)EternalDrk Mako]

[NeonNebula9]

On 2024-01-19 at 9:38 PM, Zinxori- said:

Nuke Builds Are Ruining Gameplay Enjoyment

No they're not. 

Reading your rant, it's really hard to believe you've been playing since 2015 to be honest.

 

Quote

Say you got yourself a shiny new Gotva Prime from the Twitch Prime rewards, and you were itching to try it out in a mission.

Quote

C'mon let me just shoot my Gotva and leave happy. 

I got two words for you: PLAY SOLO.

Edited January 28 by NeonNebula9

[HeavyFarms]

1 hour ago, Merkranire said:

Sigh. Yeah, I guess it is absurd to expect that anyone has an idea of what they’re built for

This is entitlement. Its time to put this away.

Its absurd to have a game like warframe, with so many avenues of getting stronger, and think everyone should nerf themselves for anyone who joins their party. Seriously, people are building to beat the game, not be policed around by some goofball who thinks they are the arbiter of fun. (You're not the arbiter of fun, stop pretending you get to decide what people play.)
Seriously man, if you could understand how entitled you actually are, it would go a long way of you just endlessly complaining, to finding a solution that people actually like. 

If you want more matchmaking options, encourage more match making options. You want newbs and low levels so they don't "Curb" your enjoyment? Go for it. Add a matchmaking option to help weaker players. 

But every other thing you have said is just pure entitlement that stronger level players are hampering your fun cause they are stronger than you. Enough with your endless victim mentality. 

There's so many people arguing with you, because you have a choice. Public, and private. Your choice. You aren't a victim of anyone but yourself. 

[HeavyFarms]

3 hours ago, Merkranire said:

I’m not about to use the unbalanced game mode

Steel Path is balanced. Its balanced for the amount of strength warframe gives you. 

Anything under steel path is low level, easy content. The builds you are complaining about, are the builds more designed to handle the harder content. If you want teamwork in warframe, you can go hunt eidolons. 

Or you can go Trinity in Steel Path. Everyone loves more energy, healing, and DR. If you actually wanted to you know, help and not exclusively complain.

 

3 hours ago, Merkranire said:

You know how in most other co-op games they don’t give you the option to overpower the fight, and thus the game and some semblance of teamwork is preserved?

Yes. Its called Level Sync. And its actually unpopular. 

See games like Final Fantasy 14 or Destiny do this. You go into content at the level it was made for. In Destiny, there's a one way system where if an enemy is higher level than you, your gun does reduced damage. However if you and your gun is higher level than an enemy, you do normal damage, with your gun never gaining extra damage.

In FF14, you lose the majority of your stats, and lose whatever skills you have till you match the level. Again, unpopular. Level 90 people don't like losing 40 levels of skills and gear to Isync. Thankfully they added an option where you can go into content at whatever level you are. With a few exceptions, you aren't forced to be nerfed.

Warframe is made for people who grind power, and let them use their power.  Put your entitlement away and play the game, or find a different game to play.