Taking ARCHON SHARD off should be free by now!

[Voltage]

11 hours ago, (PSN)MYKK678 said:

What am I missing? Someone asked Reb if a rebalance was happening and the answer was a slightly longer version of yes. Where's the "direct result from feedback" part that you mentioned?

Where do you think DE got the inclination to reduce the Bile cost? Is this an intentionally obtuse question?

11 hours ago, (PSN)MYKK678 said:

While we're on questions, I never got an answer to one from before. So your master plan is to have all 5 slots locked out for everyone tomorrow, and everyone has to go and farm resources to unlock what they already had, right? Wasn't that your idea? Was that meant to be one of the reasonable solutions?

You just grandfather in slots players already have occupied with Shards, and explain that the change is better long term for player experimentation. I certainly agree that the longer they wait, the more annoying it may be for some, but that's not really our problem as players when we pointed this out day one. This also isn't a change you make in a vacuum. Ideally you'd accompany this change with other quality of life additions, such as a means of allowing players to break down fused Shards into their base counterparts. Whether that is just the base colors or Tauforged into 3 normal shards is up for more conversation, but that's another topic regarding this system.

11 hours ago, (PSN)MYKK678 said:

I know it's rather fun adding phrases like Nuance and Emotional Difference/Investment into conversations but it's just not working here. You're talking about a menu in a videogame. It has one viewpoint, there is no nuance. And if someone is getting Emotionally Invested in fake resources in a fake universe in a videogame, that's genuinely just odd behaviour. It's 100% understandable for someone to do so for a story, or a big unwanted change being made, or even a game shutting down.

I'm sorry you cannot understand why I used the words "nuance", "emotional" and "investment" in regards to this topic. They're quite relevant words when discussing a topic where players are spending time or resources on a system.

Warframe is a looter shooter. Most of the value in playing is your progression as a player and all your investment you put into gear and your account to tackle content. It's obvious that you see things so black and white and don't care about this aspect of the discussion, as I've seen in many different topics where you've commented. It's good to step back and understand why someone is writing negative feedback in the first place before jumping to comment whether the idea is something you personally agree with or not.

I'm skipping over the rest of your comment as it's just feeding a meta complaint. I much rather continue exploring ways to improve how Archon Shards feel to sink resources into instead of farming your comments for completely missing the point.

[PublikDomain]

12 hours ago, Voltage said:

Which is ironic, because DE has only earned this success because they are "in the trenches" when it comes to feedback, bug reporting and making changes over time.

Well that's the thing: it doesn't matter what DE has done or said or achieved or what the history and the facts and the statistics say. All that matters is that you're asking for something, and that immediately makes you bad and dumb and entitled and lazy and whining and so on.

[Venus-Venera]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Voltage:

I'm sorry you cannot understand why I used the words "nuance", "emotional" and "investment" in regards to this topic. They're quite relevant words when discussing a topic where players are spending time or resources on a system.

hey. Thanks for the excellent contribution!
I almost never read anything like that! And I hope I see that people read your entire topic completely. Extremely important what you wrote... so thanks again for that!

[(PSN)MYKK678]

1 hour ago, Voltage said:

Where do you think DE got the inclination to reduce the Bile cost? Is this an intentionally obtuse question?

You just grandfather in slots players already have occupied with Shards, and explain that the change is better long term for player experimentation. I certainly agree that the longer they wait, the more annoying it may be for some, but that's not really our problem as players when we pointed this out day one. This also isn't a change you make in a vacuum. Ideally you'd accompany this change with other quality of life additions, such as a means of allowing players to break down fused Shards into their base counterparts. Whether that is just the base colors or Tauforged into 3 normal shards is up for more conversation, but that's another topic regarding this system.

I'm sorry you cannot understand why I used the words "nuance", "emotional" and "investment" in regards to this topic. They're quite relevant words when discussing a topic where players are spending time or resources on a system.

Warframe is a looter shooter. Most of the value in playing is your progression as a player and all your investment you put into gear and your account to tackle content. It's obvious that you see things so black and white and don't care about this aspect of the discussion, as I've seen in many different topics where you've commented. It's good to step back and understand why someone is writing negative feedback in the first place before jumping to comment whether the idea is something you personally agree with or not.

I'm skipping over the rest of your comment as it's just feeding a meta complaint. I much rather continue exploring ways to improve how Archon Shards feel to sink resources into instead of farming your comments for completely missing the point.

Ah OK, you're one of the folks that forgets they play the game too and that they've already clearly established a history of original ideas. Everything automatically has to come from player feedback because its impossible to be anything else. Got it.

Sorry, let's rewind. So not only is your idea just a messier version of the already unreasonable change being asked for by very, very few people, but now it also solely punishes new players?? You weren't actually expecting me to go "oh OK that sounds good" were you? At least it explains why you think there's good ideas in here. I'm not even intentionally trying to mock you here, it's just an insane idea with no regards to new player experience or balance and is telling of how low you've set your bar.

You forgot to include the term "reading comprehension" in your extremely cliché "you can't understand" paragraph. Nuance in a game menu, Jesus...

I really don't care how many of my replies you've seen or not. I'm not sure what the purpose was of including that part but it certainly failed. Although I do want to thank you, the irony of you referring to Warframe as a Looter Shooter, whilst moaning about having to spend the aforementioned Loot and/or moaning about having to go and get the Loot, is amazing. Oh and see if you can spot your contradiction at the end there. (Hint: My posts could be considered negative feedback towards this silly idea.)

Well it's nice of you to admit you don't read the replies properly and merely look for key words or phrases to attack. It's a guaranteed way for anyone to completely sabotage their own point but honesty does indeed have its own rewards.

[Voltage]

1 hour ago, (PSN)MYKK678 said:

Ah OK, you're one of the folks that forgets they play the game too and that they've already clearly established a history of original ideas. Everything automatically has to come from player feedback because its impossible to be anything else. Got it.

If DE felt the Bile cost was too high in a vacuum of ignoring how players felt about the cost, why did it take an entire year to see the cost reduced by 20%?

1 hour ago, (PSN)MYKK678 said:

Sorry, let's rewind. So not only is your idea just a messier version of the already unreasonable change being asked for by very, very few people, but now it also solely punishes new players?? You weren't actually expecting me to go "oh OK that sounds good" were you? At least it explains why you think there's good ideas in here. I'm not even intentionally trying to mock you here, it's just an insane idea with no regards to new player experience or balance and is telling of how low you've set your bar.

Wait, so charging a player to use Shards is a form of punishment to you? So you do agree with most comments here that the cost is unnecessary in the way it's used?

When DE removed the ability to stack two Rank 3 Arcane sets in 2020, they increased the power of existing Arcanes to 1.5x strength (on average) at Rank 5 compared to Rank 3. This pushed players towards farming additional Arcanes to reach Rank 5 for a set, but the long term effect from this change has benefitted the game tremendously for all returning, current, or future players. This is where the Archon Shard feedback comes from. I'm not saying you'll completely avoid all negative feedback from a change like this, but you're doing players a favor for using the system later on.

I'd urge you to take a second and look at the bigger picture with this feedback.

Let me elaborate on what I meant further, just in case you misunderstood. Let's say I have a Frost Prime with 0 Archon Shards slotted. In the current system, slotting the first 5 shards is free. Every time I wish to swap out a shard after that, I pay 30% Helminth Bile. In my proposed feedback, I would spend 30% Bile 5 times to unlock all 5 slots, but afterwards swapping is free. What this translates to is that the current system is "cheaper" if you make less than 5 Shard changes. The proposed is "cheaper" if you make more than 5 shard changes. Moreover, the current system charges the player to lose something, whereas the latter system charges player to unlock and experience something. Emotionally, one player is paying to remove something, and one player is paying to gain something. This has a significant impact about how a player approaches the system, and how they feel about when they are engaging with it.

Here are what the result are with both systems:

1. One system charges the player every time they want to make adjustments, encouraging stale choices that stand the test of time. Resources sunk are seen as an avoidance.
2. One system charges the player to unlock a new system, encouraging diverse choices that can be changed in the future. Resources sunk are seen as a progressional investment.

Would you rather have option 1 or option 2? Any player who respects their own time would choose option 2. These are not opinions, they are the innate differences between what we have now, and what we could have. Coincidentally, those two choices describe Arcanes from 8 years ago (and we have option 2 for those too now by the way). If you want my personal opinion, I'll never have a resource problem in Warframe for the rest of the time I'm playing. The last time I needed a resource that was not just introduced was several years ago. I'm putting that opinion aside to show agreement and promote the ideas that make Archon Shards feel just that much better to use, even if within an economic sense, it makes little impact for me to use them.

I'd still like to know why you believe the current system we have is superior. Maybe there's a perspective I'm not thinking of as I have an extreme bias towards trying to respect my time while I'm playing and suggesting ideas on the Forums over the years.

I'm going to continue cropping out the parts of your replies that I can't see written in good faith and aimed at me instead of the topic of Archon Shards. I apologize if skipping over those points isn't `properly` responding to you.

Edited May 12 by Voltage

[Drachnyn]

vor 38 Minuten schrieb Voltage:

I'd still like to know why you believe the current system we have is superior. Maybe there's a perspective I'm not thinking of as I have an extreme bias towards trying to respect my time while I'm playing and suggesting ideas on the Forums over the years.

I guess current system is better when you just copy the single most popular build from overframe and move on lol

[PublikDomain]

5 hours ago, Voltage said:

Let me elaborate on what I meant further, just in case you misunderstood. Let's say I have a Frost Prime with 0 Archon Shards slotted. In the current system, slotting the first 5 shards is free. Every time I wish to swap out a shard after that, I pay 30% Helminth Bile. In my proposed feedback, I would spend 30% Bile 5 times to unlock all 5 slots, but afterwards swapping is free. What this translates to is that the current system is "cheaper" if you make less than 5 Shard changes. The proposed is "cheaper" if you make more than 5 shard changes. Moreover, the current system charges the player to lose something, whereas the latter system charges player to unlock and experience something. Emotionally, one player is paying to remove something, and one player is paying to gain something. This has a significant impact about how a player approaches the system, and how they feel about when they are engaging with it.

How would pay-to-unlock work with configs? You'd unlock the slot which would be shared like any other unlocker, but after that would you need extra Shards per config? With acquisition rates how they are (or with more drop sources) that'd probably be fine - though different from other types of items like mods and Arcanes.

[Voltage]

28 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

How would pay-to-unlock work with configs? You'd unlock the slot which would be shared like any other unlocker, but after that would you need extra Shards per config? With acquisition rates how they are (or with more drop sources) that'd probably be fine - though different from other types of items like mods and Arcanes.

The ideal to me is universal unlocks per frame. I'm not sure how to address the config issue personally.

[pinkxblack]

1 entire page gone! some posts had been deleted by administrator i guess, even with those harmless ones... anyway just for the record.

[(PSN)FrDiabloFr]

6 hours ago, pinkxblack said:

1 entire page gone! some posts had been deleted by administrator i guess, even with those harmless ones... anyway just for the record.

Lol

Edited May 14 by (PSN)FrDiabloFr

[SneakyErvin]

On 2024-05-13 at 2:12 AM, Voltage said:

The ideal to me is universal unlocks per frame. I'm not sure how to address the config issue personally.

I'd go with universal unlock and then each config will have 5 shard slots. So if you have the base 3 configs you can have 15 shards invested in the frame, if you've unlocked another config you can have 20 etc. And all of the shard switching and so on could be done in the arsenal.

Right-click = remove shard

Left-click a shard or empty slot = open shard menu

Pretty much how arcanes work except for shards not being equippable on several frames at the same time.

[Voltage]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'd go with universal unlock and then each config will have 5 shard slots. So if you have the base 3 configs you can have 15 shards invested in the frame, if you've unlocked another config you can have 20 etc. And all of the shard switching and so on could be done in the arsenal.

Right-click = remove shard

Left-click a shard or empty slot = open shard menu

Pretty much how arcanes work except for shards not being equippable on several frames at the same time.

The issue I have with this concept is how limited in acquisition Shards are. I could see it being reasonable if we gained a lot more Shards per week, but right now, I see slotting that many Shards into one Warframe just for flexibility as a massive pain. That's why I'm unsure how you'd go about this. I wouldn't like it to feel like the old restriction on modding sentinel weapons.

[SneakyErvin]

1 minute ago, Voltage said:

The issue I have with this concept is how limited in acquisition Shards are. I could see it being reasonable if we gained a lot more Shards per week, but right now, I see slotting that many Shards into one Warframe just for flexibility as a massive pain. That's why I'm unsure how you'd go about this. I wouldn't like it to feel like the old restriction on modding sentinel weapons.

Yeah true. Publik's idea would be best I think. A total pool more or less that can be used for every config. So if you want every single shard combination you'd need to add 5 of each shard to the total shard pool of the frame. But that would likely be a very edge case occurnace. It would work well with the fact we'd also have free removal at that point, so swapping shards between frames on the fly would also be an option.

[PublikDomain]

33 minutes ago, Voltage said:

The issue I have with this concept is how limited in acquisition Shards are. I could see it being reasonable if we gained a lot more Shards per week, but right now, I see slotting that many Shards into one Warframe just for flexibility as a massive pain. That's why I'm unsure how you'd go about this. I wouldn't like it to feel like the old restriction on modding sentinel weapons.

I guess that'd only happen if someone liked a frame enough to have a bunch of builds, at which point over-investing would probably be fine?

It's also been a while since I've calculated total Shard acquisition rates, but they're quite high now so I wonder if it'd be enough as-is. DE could always add more ways to get them, ofc.

[Voltage]

12 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

DE could always add more ways to get them, ofc.

It took forever just to get where we are now, which is fairly good, but still not enough to warrant sinking up to 30 Shards into a single frame just for customization flexibility.

[PublikDomain]

31 minutes ago, Voltage said:

It took forever just to get where we are now, which is fairly good, but still not enough to warrant sinking up to 30 Shards into a single frame just for customization flexibility.

But how often would that realistically happen? I only have one frame I'd over-invest in like that - most of the time so far it's really just one or two that I want to swap between configs.

Edit: for a complete example, I'd happily invest 30 Taus in my Khora Prime because she's my favorite and over-investing in her is a hobby. On my Yareli OTOH I have 3 I like as a good base and 2 situational ones I might want to swap between two different configs, so I'd probably stop at 7. My Protea is pretty locked in with 5 Crimson Taus, and I don't see that currently changing so I'd stop where I am at 5.

---

Out of curiosity, I did some counting and if you do all your chores (Archon Hunt, Bird-3, EDA, 3 Netracells - am I forgetting any?) the acquisition rate is currently right about 5 Regulars + 2 Taus per week. Fusing up you could get 5 Taus of every color (15 base + 15 fused) in about 12 weeks on average if you wanted to completely (over-)invest in a frame. For reference we started off with 1.8 Regulars + 0.2 Taus per week, where 5 Tau of any color would take 25 weeks on average.

Edited May 14 by PublikDomain

[-ShadowRadiance-]

42 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

But how often would that realistically happen? I only have one frame I'd over-invest in like that - most of the time so far it's really just one or two that I want to swap between configs.

Edit: for a complete example, I'd happily invest 30 Taus in my Khora Prime because she's my favorite and over-investing in her is a hobby. On my Yareli OTOH I have 3 I like as a good base and 2 situational ones I might want to swap between two different configs, so I'd probably stop at 7. My Protea is pretty locked in with 5 Crimson Taus, and I don't see that currently changing so I'd stop where I am at 5.

---

Out of curiosity, I did some counting and if you do all your chores (Archon Hunt, Bird-3, EDA, 3 Netracells - am I forgetting any?) the acquisition rate is currently right about 5 Regulars + 2 Taus per week. Fusing up you could get 5 Taus of every color (15 base + 15 fused) in about 12 weeks on average if you wanted to completely (over-)invest in a frame. For reference we started off with 1.8 Regulars + 0.2 Taus per week, where 5 Tau of any color would take 25 weeks on average.

Also if we where able to do this. 

It would keep us engaged with the system far longer. Which im all for. So you get my vote.

Vs now. 

Personally. Ive TAUd all my major frames and wont have to change any unless new types of shards/stats get added. Meaning im done. With my majorly used frames. Like 8 of em.

Meaning im also branching out to lesser used frames to shard them. 

But eventually il get to the point where im just waiting on new frames with excess shards and no frames to slot em into.

[insanitybit]

I don't really care a lot about whether taking them off is free, but switching an existing shard's bonus should absolutely be free, or at least reduced cost and it should have a native UX. If I click a shard I should be able to switch that shard's chosen bonus. Having to remove the shard just to re-add it, just to potentially remove it again and re-add it (in case I dislike the impact of the buff change) is annoying and slow and resource intensive, and doesn't even really make sense to cost bile when you're not "inserting" the shard you're just telling it to work differently.

Edited May 15 by insanitybit