Could we please alter Archon shards to cost bile when slotting, not removing? (Nvm that idea)

[Aruquae]

Title, if we’re not going to remove bile cost entirely, it makes more sense to use the bile to insert an archon shards into the Warframe, rather than removing it. 
 

Of course, one could argue the end result is exactly the same, but that’s only if you plan on swapping archon shards in and out. 
Idk, just seems to “make sense,” in my mind. Of course, my mind rarely makes sense in general sooooo…

Edit: It seems some people believe I don’t want to remove those bile cost entirely… this is a compromise because DE seems so insistent on keeping a Bile Cost. It’s a double edged sword of course

If they can remove it entirely, be my guest… but this post is under the assumption of DE not removing it. It’s an alteration 

Edit 2: My thoughts have changed, it seems this proposal was even worse than what’s already in the game. As for why my thoughts said, that would be due @Chewarette’s argument GGs

Edited May 6 by Aruquae

[LittleLeoniePrime]

23 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

only if you plan on swapping archon shards in and out

which is what people would like to do for build diversity sake...

I don't see why we can't just remove the cost entirely.

This also arguably makes the system far more expensive and incentivises you not to engage with it.

[(PSN)Sentiel]

There's so many ways to address this.

Use different resource than Bile.

Make more currently unused resources into Bile.

Let us use Fosfor for this.

Remove resource cost and make it time limited instead. As in, once inserted you can't remove the Shard for some time.

Just to name a few...

Paying for slotting isn't a solution. It just changes where the problem is but doesn't resolve the problem.

 

[_Anise_]

they should probably be removable with NO cost, it is effectively a mod with a different name, why should you pay anything for wanting to experiment with your build?

they should probably also (and this leans into why I suggest above) make it so you have shards for each mod config loadout

[Aruquae]

12 minutes ago, LittleLeoniePrime said:

don't see why we can't just remove the cost entirely.

Me neither, I edited my post to hold my thoughts. It seems DE is dead set on keeping some sort of bile cost, as opposed to it being free. 
If it could be free though, make it free DE… 

12 minutes ago, (PSN)Sentiel said:

There's so many ways to address this.

Use different resource than Bile.

Make more currently unused resources into Bile.

Let us use Fosfor for this.

Remove resource cost and make it time limited instead. As in, once inserted you can't remove the Shard for some time.

Just to name a few...

Paying for slotting isn't a solution. It just changes where the problem is but doesn't resolve the problem.

 

Agreed, it can solve the problem of removing archon shards for forging or something, but obviously… if you’re removing a shard, it’s to replace it with another shard.

[Aruquae]

3 minutes ago, _Anise_ said:

they should probably be removable with NO cost, it is effectively a mod with a different name, why should you pay anything for wanting to experiment with your build?

Agree with this, it’s practically a baby mod and you don’t have to pay for mods to be on there outside of forma.

 

3 minutes ago, _Anise_ said:

they should probably also (and this leans into why I suggest above) make it so you have shards for each mod config loadout

Agree a little less with this, only because it would make frames be able to equip multiple shards, which wouldn’t be able to be equipped by other frames. You could always change it freely, but if they keep the “go to helminth to change it” bit, it’s going to feel janky.

[Drachnyn]

I think upfront would be worse than the cost to remove. If I try out a shard and find it's not a fit then everything is the same but if I find it really is the right shard to use then under the current system I dont have to spend any resources.

Other than straight up removing the cost entirely, which is what I would prefer, spending the resources to make the slot itself open for removal would be a strict upgrade. That way we'd keep free insert and only have to pay for removal once.

[_Anise_]

3 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

because it would make frames be able to equip multiple shards

which wouldn't be a bad thing because in like maybe 5 years time you will have hundreds of shards to the point of their current scarcity being irrelevant? but yeah I did think maybe they could give you the option, like you go into a config and specifically press a button if you want to use different shards in a secondary config otherwise it just uses the same ones

(obviously with the shards only for your current config being active)

Edited May 6 by _Anise_

[Chewarette]

26 minutes ago, _Anise_ said:

they should probably be removable with NO cost, it is effectively a mod with a different name, why should you pay anything for wanting to experiment with your build?

they should probably also (and this leans into why I suggest above) make it so you have shards for each mod config loadout

DE: Noted, removing Mods now costs Bile

36 minutes ago, (PSN)Sentiel said:

Remove resource cost and make it time limited instead. As in, once inserted you can't remove the Shard for some time.

What ? No, I prefer the Bile cost over being hardlocked for god knows how long because I wanted to test something different

@Aruquae I'm really not sure how that would improve the situation to be honest. If anything, it would prevent new players, getting their first shards, to even slotting them anywhere until they're absolutely 200% sure it won't be wasted. Because new players do not have the same stockpile of resources we Vets have, nor even all Warframes (so why slotting it in a non-prime ?), so they'll very likely sit on it until they're confident enough to use them.

If I have to chose between "cost upon slotting" and "cost upon removing", I think the latter is the best one.

No need to discuss about the complete removal as it won't ever happen, it's some sort of resource sink (that was somehow easier to design than just stopping to create 247 new resources every hotfix) that's here to stay.

Edited May 6 by Chewarette

[0_The_F00l]

I already said that I don't particularly care ,

But I hope everyone has the awareness on how making wishes on a monkeys paw is not a good idea.

There are already precedence on how improvements to a frame costs resources/ time / both. 

Experimentation is also not as free as some believe ,

forma, especially umbra is already a thing,

Catalyst and reactors are a thing ,

Exilus adapters are a thing , 

Weapon and frame slots are a thing , 

Endo is a thing , 

In comparison bile that has multiple avenues of acquisition , doesnt have a hard time gate (kinda) and is not permanent.

 

Again , I am neither defending nor prosecuting , just asking players to be mindful of what you are asking for as changes may not be what you want it to be.

[Aruquae]

1 hour ago, _Anise_ said:

which wouldn't be a bad thing because in like maybe 5 years time you will have hundreds of shards to the point of their current scarcity being irrelevant? but yeah I did think maybe they could give you the option, like you go into a config and specifically press a button if you want to use different shards in a secondary config otherwise it just uses the same ones

True, but this is in 5 years on an already seasoned account. Long way to go before we can have spares to put on one warframe

That would be cool though, maybe they can implement the feature of changing the specific stats of a shard and have those be exclusive to builds (basically switch from health regen to extra energy depending on the configuration). Just a thought 

1 hour ago, Drachnyn said:

I think upfront would be worse than the cost to remove. If I try out a shard and find it's not a fit then everything is the same but if I find it really is the right shard to use then under the current system I dont have to spend any resources.

Hmmm that is true, of course… it would be better to remove all entirely 

 

56 minutes ago, Chewarette said:

DE: Noted, removing Mods now costs Bile

Aw fu-

 

56 minutes ago, Chewarette said:

I'm really not sure how that would improve the situation to be honest. If anything, it would prevent new players, getting their first shards, to even slotting them anywhere until they're absolutely 200% sure it won't be wasted. Because new players do not have the same stockpile of resources we Vets have, nor even all Warframes (so why slotting it in a non-prime ?), so they'll very likely sit on it until they're confident enough to use them.

If I have to chose between "cost upon slotting" and "cost upon removing", I think the latter is the best one.

No need to discuss about the complete removal as it won't ever happen, it's some sort of resource sink (that was somehow easier to design than just stopping to create 247 new resources every hotfix) that's here to stay.

Mmmm, I agree with all of this

Seems my proposal has more holes than what’s already implemented, good points brother

49 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Again , I am neither defending nor prosecuting , just asking players to be mindful of what you are asking for as changes may not be what you want it to be.

Bringing up the monkey paw… now that story is replaying in my head. Why did you have to do this? 

[0_The_F00l]

1 minute ago, Aruquae said:

 

Bringing up the monkey paw… now that story is replaying in my head. Why did you have to do this? 

I enjoy making people see that what they think will happen , what should happen and what actually happens are different things.

[Aruquae]

42 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I enjoy making people see that what they think will happen , what should happen and what actually happens are different things.

Respect, thinking deeper into an idea and learning what can happen is essential. Of course, there are too many possibilities, so we (I in this case) are bound to not think of all of them. Which is why the forums is helpful. Be able to see other people’s perspective can let me see what works and what doesn’t. This idea, certainly wouldn’t work. 

Edited May 6 by Aruquae
Too, not two.

[0_The_F00l]

5 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

Respect, thinking deeper into an idea and learning what can happen is essential. Of course, there are two many possibilities, so we (I in this case) are bound to not think of all of them. Which is why the forums is helpful. Be able to see other people’s perspective can let me see what works and what doesn’t. This idea, certainly wouldn’t work. 

The flip side is that if you think too deeply you will keep finding reasons of why it will fail.

The trick is to know that there are flaws,   but are the rewards worth the risk of failing? 

Having discussions helps identify both of these if done in a civil and logical manner.

[(XBOX)K1jker]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb (PSN)Sentiel:

 

Paying for slotting isn't a solution. It just changes where the problem is but doesn't resolve the problem.

 

Basically

[SneakyErvin]

A simple swap over to a one time unlock would be the most fair incase they are hellbent on having some cost tied to it.

This unlock could either be directly done by manually spending 30% bile on a slot for 150% total bile per frame, or a passive result as you remove shards on your frames over time. 5 shards removed from 5 different slots on a frame would mean all slots are unlocked, if you just constantly remove from a single slot that slot would atleast be free after the first removal of a shard.

edit: And there would be no cost tied to slotting shards.

Edited May 6 by SneakyErvin

[Aruquae]

41 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

This unlock could either be directly done by manually spending 30% bile on a slot for 150% total bile per frame, or a passive result as you remove shards on your frames over time. 5 shards removed from 5 different slots on a frame would mean all slots are unlocked, if you just constantly remove from a single slot that slot would atleast be free after the first removal of a shard.

Gave me a separate idea with this… I’m thinking it could function like helminth infusions. After taking out a certain amount of shards from a frame, that frame would give you a bile bonus or something. Less bile consumed, or no bile

As for original bike cost, 20% maybe? That way it’ll take up 100% of the Nile, but not more (for a single frame)

47 minutes ago, (XBOX)K1jker said:

Basically

Basically 

 

52 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

The trick is to know that there are flaws,   but are the rewards worth the risk of failing? 

In this case no, but I understand what you mean. 

[UnstarPrime]

I wrote this in another thread yesterday, but it seems even more pertinent in this one:

22 hours ago, UnstarPrime said:

Personally, I think it was an interesting choice for DE to have the cost come from removing a Shard rather than attaching a Shard.  It's more common for systems like this to charge upfront, making this a bit of an outlier.  I think DE chose this specific design because mathematically it benefits the player, in effect making the "first attach free".  With this system, you never get charged unless you want to undo a choice you made, meaning that on average players will be charged less (compared to a system that charges at the time of attaching) while still having an impediment to Shard swapping.

But players don't generally feel math.  Meaningful stretches of time separate the moments when we decide to attach a Shard and when we decide to remove it.  And that's one of the downsides of paying to undo rather than paying to do: the cost is there to incentivize thoughtful doing, but we only pay the price when we undo...and that feels bad.  If the cost was associated with attaching Shards, we would pay the price at the exact same time that we decided the cost was worth it to get the benefit of that Shard on our frame.

I offer this up as food for thought.  To be clear, I don't think either way of doing this is superior to the other; both have benefits, both have downsides.

[Aruquae]

1 minute ago, UnstarPrime said:

I wrote this in another thread yesterday, but it seems even more pertinent in this one:

I offer this up as food for thought.  To be clear, I don't think either way of doing this is superior to the other; both have benefits, both have downsides.

Your opinion is welcomed, I agree with past Unstar. Your thought lean moreso into consumer psychology which I guess can contribute to my thoughts of it just “feeling right.” As for the food for thought, agreed. Both have their downsides/benefits. The end results are quite similar. I daresay too similar for them to bother changing it. 

[SneakyErvin]

22 hours ago, Aruquae said:

Gave me a separate idea with this… I’m thinking it could function like helminth infusions. After taking out a certain amount of shards from a frame, that frame would give you a bile bonus or something. Less bile consumed, or no bile

As for original bike cost, 20% maybe? That way it’ll take up 100% of the Nile, but not more (for a single frame)

Yeah that would be an improvement too. So would the 20% per removal. Also spreading out the needed food would help, currently there is too much focus on bike parts and Nile water imo. 

p.s Gotta love auto correct since it leads to some hilarious unintended sentences!

[Aruquae]

59 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Yeah that would be an improvement too. So would the 20% per removal. Also spreading out the needed food would help, currently there is too much focus on bike parts and Nile water imo. 

p.s Gotta love auto correct since it leads to some hilarious unintended sentences!

FREAKING AUTO CORRECT
Not even going to change it at this point, maybe it’ll let Tenno know just how poultry the Nile is

POULTRY? I FREAKIN TYPED POLLUTED 

[SneakyErvin]

6 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

FREAKING AUTO CORRECT
Not even going to change it at this point, maybe it’ll let Tenno know just how poultry the Nile is

POULTRY? I FREAKIN TYPED POLLUTED 

Aahahahahaha! I'm dying over here!

Auto-correct is gunning for you, got you straight in the crosshairs, on your trail like a hellhound or Dog the bounty hunter if that is your fancy.