I dislike the new resistances/status/armor rework.

[Merkranire]

34 minutes ago, kuciol said:

Im saying they are pointless. You use the system for the sake of using it, not because it was good or beneficial, you literally had to gimp yourself to use it. It was flawed, unnecessarily convoluted and inconsequential to gameplay. You can use puch through on every weapon and it will do just fine, melee will always be just fine. You create the problem and search for solution and try to act superior to everyone else telling you that its pointless and nobody does that. There are plenty of options that not force you to handicap yourself.

You don’t deal with it nor do you want to, and that’s fine. That does not mean it was not relevant for someone who either wanted to use more than what you’re using, or those who actively went searching for it; there is no difference between the two when the game has fundamental mechanics that apply to either of the approaches when either looking for it or just wanting to use something else or use the same things in a different way finds itself engaging with the systems.

You’re still on about this “I’m better than you” nonsense when I’m trying to be as objective as possible; if someone used more options than what you used, built in different ways to what you do, they can experience something that you avoid. And that’s not a bad thing to not have to worry whether they’re being completely optimal or stress over whether they’re overkilling everything, they just need to know some basics and they’ve got every single way to build and every single piece of equipment to draw upon to customise their gameplay within the established rules of the game however they like

[kuciol]

Your first replay to people not agreeing with you was "you dont know sh.it", objective as hell. You dont have even 1 supporter here so where are those "looking to engage with the system". They can do the same with new, better one.

Old system was more restrictive when it comes to build diversity and that was stated by multiple people here. There where no obstacles to overcome when you where forced to build towards them and everything else just fell over despite being resistant. It was pointless no matter how you look at it. You may play as you like but dont act like its superior way, or that the old system was better. Only you seem to want it back. Strange isnt it? 

[Merkranire]

31 minutes ago, kuciol said:

Your first replay to people not agreeing with you was "you dont know sh.it", objective as hell. You dont have even 1 supporter here so where are those "looking to engage with the system". They can do the same with new, better one.

Old system was more restrictive when it comes to build diversity and that was stated by multiple people here. There where no obstacles to overcome when you where forced to build towards them and everything else just fell over despite being resistant. It was pointless no matter how you look at it. You may play as you like but dont act like its superior way, or that the old system was better. Only you seem to want it back. Strange isnt it? 

Why would it be strange? Is the community particularly known for its depth of build diversity or willingness to engage with something other than optimal grind? Is the community particularly renowned for its ability to work within limits and solve problems that any third person shooter would throw their way?

Objectively, what would you describe this community as? Because “Looking to engage with the game” does not spring to my mind

[Merkranire]

Oh wait, that sounds like I’m saying that the community doesn’t take advantage of the game and what it lets them do as a buildcrafting third person shooter, and that makes me sound like I know more than they do and I’m just some kind of arrogant jerk because I’m not advocating for endless samey gameplay and limited options, while simultaneously advocating for systems that provide alternative gameplay in the first place.

Hm, seriously, if you can think of a better way to spin it, @kuciol, I’m listening. 

[kuciol]

This game is more like diablo where the main premise is to mow down mobs and farm stuff. Its grinder in its core, not buildcrafting TPS like you try to make it. The whole point of making builds is to be more efficient. Your idea of "engaging" goes against that. You have no idea what you are talking about. Its not just looks like you are arrogant jerk when you literally say "you dont know how it works".

[Graavarg]

There was nothing essentially wrong with the "old system", but it was rendered "immaterial to success" by the growing focus on power & speed (instead of overcoming actual challenge) and by allowing some damages/procs to work a lot better than others. The latter was then further enhanced by a lot of the trickery/pokery by which DE tried to limit the "power fantasy", instead of enforcing how the Warframe in-game world was supposed to work. An example of an easy early "fix" would have been to introduce 100% immunity to certain damages/procs for enemies, which would effectively have countered the "you only need one weapon/trick to beat the game"-approach.

As many have already pointed out, this led to a situation where there was no need to engage with damages, procs and enemy weaknesses and strengths, you either just went for "enough power" or (when that didn't work) quickly googled a 'tuber-solution.

But from another viewpoint (also pointed out by many) having a more complex system IS engaging to players that are more focused on "mastering" the game rather than just "advancing". Not only are such systems a staple in many computer games (and going back to tabletop DnD, MtG etc. etc.), they allow a player to do two things:

1. Use knowledge to beat challenges (which really is rewarding to some players, surprise, surprise...)
2. Use knowledge to extend the available content once the game is essentially "beaten" (the only way to make the majority of the weapons "truly shine" is by using damage types, procs, rivens to enhance them and to sync them with warframe and other abilities).

It is a simple fact that players mostly focusing on advancing as rapidly as possible also constitutes the subgroup that are most willing to pay real money to achieve their goal. This is especially true if you compare such "Warframe is all about power and efficiency"-players with the two subgroups listed above. A player wanting to solve challenges by acquiring in-game knowledge is not going to pay to quickly advance past that challenge, that would remove a large part of the reason to play Warframe in the first place. And a player that has "been there and done that" everywhere in the game is not going to pay real money in order to work his/her way through all the esotheric weapons in the game, out of what you could call a love for the game itself (as corny as that sounds). Such a player is trying to create more content to explore, and paying to make that happen more quickly would be quite nuts.

If the change is all about enticing more paying "power crazies" to play Warframe, streamlining the "power fantasy" experience and making it easier and faster to reach the near-godhood that currently constitutes the Warframe "endgame", Warframe the game will be the poorer for it, over time. We all get (well, most of us do 😉) that DE needs money to keep Warframe alive, and that money has to come from "us, the players". But at the same time it is another fact that while all the "quirky" Warframe-players might nowadays be a minority in the game, they have always been a major part of the community. On the forum, in in-game interactions, even on Youtube. It would be a real shame if Warframe lost that part, leaving it as a humongous game that you can blast through easily enough (especially if you pay a few bucks to make it go faster). I would never have started on my Warframe journey if Warframe, at the time, would have been such a game. And the reasons I am not playing Warframe anymore has a lot to do with all that got "lost in translation" (or maybe "transition") from what the game once was to the power fantasy driven game it became. We were a bunch of players that loved the "complex co-op"-nature of Warframe, and unluckily that happens to be contrary to "solo power fantasy". 

All that said, I am 100% for ripping the old damage system apart and replacing it with something new, as it has been dysfunctional for years (even "many years"). And while going for "simple basics" is not necessarily a bad choice in itself, Warframe really (REALLY!!!) needs a complex damage/proc/weapon/armor-system "on top". And as part of that, the removal of all programmed-in cheats that only apply to us Tenno. The biggest fault with the old system was that it actually didn't work, as it was neither logical nor consistent, or even balanced.

A game that has thousands of combinations in the form of weapons, mods, warframes, abilities, enemies, environments etc. etc. as a core strength of the game simply has to build on that, but for some incomprehensible reason (to me anyway), DE decided to go the other way and instead push players to just blast past all that. While it cannot be "mandatory" to learn all that, making it mostly irrelevant is... well, downright stupid. So I am hoping that DE changing the basics is just the start of something better, and that once most of the basic wrinkles are ironed out a lot of "complexity" will be added on top of it all, enhancing the game. I have no interest whatsoever of playing a game that is a graphically glorified slot machine, especially considering the immense amount of other, more complex and engaging games out there. But a Warframe that is true to it's original setting, a Space Ninja Co-Op game set in a logical and functional game world of it's own, that still generates a few tingles down my gaming spine... 

Edited Wednesday at 08:42 AM by Graavarg

[Merkranire]

1 hour ago, kuciol said:

This game is more like diablo where the main premise is to mow down mobs and farm stuff. Its grinder in its core, not buildcrafting TPS like you try to make it. The whole point of making builds is to be more efficient. Your idea of "engaging" goes against that. You have no idea what you are talking about. Its not just looks like you are arrogant jerk when you literally say "you dont know how it works".

Whoah.

 

There’s… a lot of questions this raises. Having tried the game with the mindset like you’re describing, and having tried it with an alternative mindset, I’m not…. sure how you square with a game that strikes me as being, at its core, so much worse, nonsensical, and poorly designed when approached like you’re describing. I’ve played Diablo, and it kind of sucks at the best of times. And then when I tried playing this game like it’s Diablo or WoW, it sucked, but in a really confusing way where I was wondering what on earth the devs were thinking, throwing away my options for no real reason and having so little gameplay worth engaging with; the game got worse the longer I played it

I hope you haven’t been going around selling this mindset to newbies, because you are doing them no favours

[Merkranire]

3 hours ago, kuciol said:

This game is more like diablo where the main premise is to mow down mobs and farm stuff. Its grinder in its core, not buildcrafting TPS like you try to make it. The whole point of making builds is to be more efficient. Your idea of "engaging" goes against that. You have no idea what you are talking about. Its not just looks like you are arrogant jerk when you literally say "you dont know how it works".

Who told you to do this? Yeah, it’s a game where you earn more options, and the game lets you use them, but what you’re talking about is… to bin all the options you could use and chase some infinite idea of efficient grind, tying yourself to the chase for power far beyond what’s necessary and limiting your choices out of some strange sense of… turning the game into a second job to more efficiently earn things you never end up using

[Tsukinoki]

8 hours ago, kuciol said:

You need a weapon to deal with strongest units, bombards and heavy gunners. If your weapon is strong enough to kill those you dont need to change it ever, everything else will die faster and their on paper resistances do not matter.

This was (and still is) the biggest flaw with the entire system that renders most of the detractors complaints largely moot.

 

If you have 2 enemy types that have 6x-10x the next closest enemies EHP (within its faction), and when compared to another "heavy" unit from another faction has 100x its EHP (and is closer to 1000x the EHP of the rest of the common fodder in the other faction), what happens when you make a weapon to deal with that one unit?

Entire factions and their resistances/weaknesses are rendered utterly pointless because it literally doesn't matter because they can't even hope to come close to that one singular unit that you have a build for because you need a build for it in case it shows up in a mission.

 

Even at the lower levels of the game a Heavy Gunner easily beats out other units EHP by a nearly a factor of 10, and they are a common enough enemy that you need to have a way to kill them.  And once you can kill those Heavy Gunners, what about everything else in the room?

 

All the complexity in the world doesn't matter when you have EHP discrepancies that large.
It doesn't matter that we have 13 damage types, or how many health types the enemies have.
It was just on paper things that didn't matter in the least because of the sheer disparity between a few enemies and the rest of the entire game.

The necessity of building a weapon to deal with the actual heavy unit of the game rendered the rest of the system pointless.  After all who cares if your damage is dropped by 75% against enemy X, it has less than 1/100th of the heavy gunners EHP and therefore folds like a wet napkin.

 

Even ignoring the heavy units doesn't do much better when one faction starts off at around 3x-5x more EHP than other factions, and ends up with 30x+ more EHP at the higher levels, again basically being "If you build for this one faction the rest of the game folds like paper."

 

All of this is to say that the entire older systems "complexity" was purely for show and had little to no effect on actual gameplay because of the disparity between one faction (and more so just one singular unit) and the rest of the game rendered all of the on paper complexity utterly pointless to engage with.

Edited Wednesday at 11:58 AM by Tsukinoki

[Merkranire]

5 minutes ago, Tsukinoki said:

This was (and still is) the biggest flaw with the entire system that renders most of the detractors complaints largely moot.

 

If you have 2 enemy types that have 6x-10x the next closest enemies EHP (within its faction), and when compared to another "heavy" unit from another faction has 100x its EHP (and is closer to 1000x the EHP of the rest of the common fodder in the other faction), what happens when you make a weapon to deal with that one unit?

Entire factions and their resistances/weaknesses are rendered utterly pointless because it literally doesn't matter because they can't even hope to come close to that one singular unit that you have a build for because you need a build for it in case it shows up in a mission.

 

Even at the lower levels of the game a Heavy Gunner easily beats out other units EHP by a nearly a factor of 10, and they are a common enough enemy that you need to have a way to kill them.  And once you can kill those Heavy Gunners, what about everything else in the room?

 

All the complexity in the world doesn't matter when you have EHP discrepancies that large.
It doesn't matter that we have 13 damage types, or how many health types the enemies have.
It was just on paper things that didn't matter in the least because of the sheer disparity between a few enemies and the rest of the entire game.

The necessity of building a weapon to deal with the actual heavy unit of the game rendered the rest of the system pointless.  After all who cares if your damage is dropped by 75% against enemy X, it has less than 1/100th of the heavy gunners EHP and therefore folds like a wet napkin.

Sure didn’t play out like that was the case; when smacking a heavy enemy, they were tougher, but not so much tougher that dealing with them meant everything around them folded to the same weapon to the degree you’re describing, and they were tougher in a way that said “Tougher enemy, not boss enemy”; plus enemies like Nox had their whole weakpoint head, which if you’re one-shotting the dude with a bodyshot using an assault rifle, it’s worth looking at just what you’re built for and if you’re in that content

[Merkranire]

45 minutes ago, Tsukinoki said:

All of this is to say that the entire older systems "complexity" was purely for show and had little to no effect on actual gameplay because of the disparity between one faction (and more so just one singular unit) and the rest of the game rendered all of the on paper complexity utterly pointless to engage with.

Jesus #*!%ing christ….

[SneakyErvin]

14 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Also, I’m pretty sure it was gas that Grineer were resistant to (though don’t quote me on that), but even if they were resistant to toxin, why would you have been bringing toxin and magnetic anyways? Nowadays I can imagine why Magnetic, but then that just leads into the original thing I’ve been arguing about regarding roles your gear is built for and what you’re hitting an enemy with and having to consider how you’re built across your loadout to intertwine it with the combat instead of just one weapon solving all your problems

edit: 🤔 Come to think of it, wasn’t it the Robotics health type that was resistant to toxin? Things like MOAs made just punching through shields with toxin less of an option (unless you overbuilt) if you went shooting at them

They were iirc resistant to both. And why? I wouldnt, that is my point, but now there is actually a reason to. Although Mag+Heat is likely a better option versus regular grineer if you want to build to counter eximus better and deal enough damage to the weakest trash anyways. Then with a potential swap to Mag+toxin for Kuva since they are resistant to heat. Though my main point is that the new system provides far more options,

Yes, robotics were probably also resistant, since several health types were resistant to certain damage types. And no, toxin was still better since you would ignore all of their shields to hit their un-armored health directly since that pool was significantly lower. So the resistance didnt really matter.

1 hour ago, Merkranire said:

Sure didn’t play out like that was the case; when smacking a heavy enemy, they were tougher, but not so much tougher that dealing with them meant everything around them folded to the same weapon to the degree you’re describing, and they were tougher in a way that said “Tougher enemy, not boss enemy”; plus enemies like Nox had their whole weakpoint head, which if you’re one-shotting the dude with a bodyshot using an assault rifle, it’s worth looking at just what you’re built for and if you’re in that content

But it did play out like that, since it is... well... simple math. So it cant have played out any other way. You either handled the heavy unit acceptably, at which point it would play out like that, or you didnt handle the heavy. And if you built to brute force the heavy through say radiation, you would still have enough damage to also trivialize the trash, since the health of the heavy would be so many times higher that even without the bonuses from radiation the weaker units would die in no time. And if you did it through corrosive a whole part of the faction would also cave to that.

And regarding Nox. Well they arent the only heavy unit, so you likely could take them out without targetting their weakpoint, since you were likely using something that also could handle the non-weakpoint heavy units of the Grineer faction. It is also fun that you go to the worst possible as in bodyshots, when a weapon built to handle a heavy unit would pretty much 1HK a Nox hit in the fish bowl instead of just removing it.

[Venus-Venera]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb kuciol:

This game is more like diablo where the main premise is to mow down mobs and farm stuff. Its grinder in its core, not buildcrafting TPS like you try to make it. The whole point of making builds is to be more efficient. Your idea of "engaging" goes against that. You have no idea what you are talking about. Its not just looks like you are arrogant jerk when you literally say "you dont know how it works".

I became aware of Warframe from Diablo 1 + 2 (only with mods).

Unfortunately, Warframe has little to do with Diablo. Because it was really about history, atmosphere, adventure and first-class sounds. And much more.

I can't think of any precise terms at the moment. Because Warframe is actually just a nice way to pass the time if you do something on the side. So listening to audio books in the background and playing. But never something like Diablo 1 + 2 adventures... where I play as a necro and defeat a novice mage or explore a map with my new barbarian friend...

And if it's about "efficiency", then I would go to work and buy real items that really give me joy. Or why should I farm stuff in the game that I can't even buy toilet paper with... because if it's about "efficiency", then even slave work is much better. because there I even have something to eat at the end.

Edited Wednesday at 02:27 PM by Venus-Venera

[Tsukinoki]

It was simple basic math that made it play out like that.

Especially if you weren't fighting the grineer.

After all, guess what is a super common enemy to pop out of void fissures?  Oh yeah, corrupted heavy gunners.

 

Lets take a look at a corrupted heavy gunner at level 35 (mid starchart and still low leveled).
It had 44,543 EHP.  Pretty tanky.

 

Now say you're running a level 35 fissure against corpus.
The base mooks that fill most of the rest of the mission at that level?  1276-2686 EHP.
Ok what about a Tech, so we have a 'heavy' unit for comparison?  Slightly better at 6095 EHP.

The corrupted heavy gunner has 7.3x the EHP of the corpus "heavy" unit (and is much more common).
For the rest of the corpus its between 16.6x-34.9x the EHP.

 

And mind you this is at the low level of 35.  The disparity will ramp up very quickly as the levels get high and make this more and more pronounced as you go higher in levels.

 

At that point you're bringing along a gun that can deal with enemies that have 16.6x-34.9x the EHP of the average unit you're shooting at....and the corpus in the room will fall over if you so much as sneeze in their direction with a gun built to handle the corrupted heavy gunner that will spawn every few rooms.

Their resistances just flat out don't matter, and all because you have to bring along a weapon that can effectively kill the corrupted heavy gunner that will spawn in those missions.

 

The supposed complexity of the damage type system completely falls apart when you realize that in order to build a weapon to handle the semi-frequent heavy units that can appear mixed in with any faction (since relic runs are where a lot of mission time is spent), you have to utterly trivialize every other enemy in the room to the point where their resistances don't matter because they don't even come close to having 1/10th of the heavy units EHP at low levels, and at higher levels they don't even come close to having 1/100th of that heavy units EHP.

Edited Wednesday at 03:07 PM by Tsukinoki
Fixed typos

[kuciol]

6 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Who told you to do this? Yeah, it’s a game where you earn more options, and the game lets you use them, but what you’re talking about is… to bin all the options you could use and chase some infinite idea of efficient grind, tying yourself to the chase for power far beyond what’s necessary and limiting your choices out of some strange sense of… turning the game into a second job to more efficiently earn things you never end up using

Thats called power fantasy. 

 

3 hours ago, Venus-Venera said:

And if it's about "efficiency", then I would go to work and buy real items that really give me joy. Or why should I farm stuff in the game that I can't even buy toilet paper with... because if it's about "efficiency", then even slave work is much better. because there I even have something to eat at the end.

How you got to that conclusion is beyond me. You try to make builds to be good, right? Thats like the point isnt it? 

 

8 hours ago, Merkranire said:

Whoah.

 

There’s… a lot of questions this raises. Having tried the game with the mindset like you’re describing, and having tried it with an alternative mindset, I’m not…. sure how you square with a game that strikes me as being, at its core, so much worse, nonsensical, and poorly designed when approached like you’re describing. I’ve played Diablo, and it kind of sucks at the best of times. And then when I tried playing this game like it’s Diablo or WoW, it sucked, but in a really confusing way where I was wondering what on earth the devs were thinking, throwing away my options for no real reason and having so little gameplay worth engaging with; the game got worse the longer I played it

I hope you haven’t been going around selling this mindset to newbies, because you are doing them no favours

I dont have to sell anything, the gameplay loop is like PoE maps, or diablo rifts. Different genre but similar enough. Its not about mindset but how the game plays. You make more and more nonsensical arguments here.

Edited Wednesday at 06:06 PM by kuciol

[Xzorn]

3 hours ago, Venus-Venera said:

can't think of any precise terms at the moment.

 

It's called Immersion =D

On that other guy's note. Diablo wasn't about "mowing down enemies" esp Diablo 1. The enemy density did increase with D2 but it didn't get silly until D3 which followed suit with the whole Zombie horde shooter popularity. Both Warframe and Path of Exile did the same but there's flaws to high enemy density well as losing certain aspects of gameplay. If anyone played one of the ARPG before D2 (yes there were other ARPGs) the use of terrain and more methodical combat was present. To this day Diablo 1 has aspects to it's gameplay that are still superior to Diablo 2.

When Warframe first came out I associated it with First person Starcraft Diablo but it's nothing like it used to be much like the Diablo series.

 

3 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

Lets take a look at a corrupted heavy gunner at level 35 (mid starchart and still low leveled).
It had 44,543 EHP.  Pretty tanky.

 

This is a common logic flaw in comparison I used to see all the time. It omits that a Corrosive proc (used to) deal upwards of millions in eHP.

Players used to compared 99.997DR and such for eHP while ignoring this fact but in the end if you were using the right damage types. There was no notable kill time difference between a level 350 Grineer Napalm and Corpus Tech. I used Napalms for parsing due to the Corrosive armor double dips. There is something to be said about making use of other status/damage types but what players generally felt was a lack of status rates and the exponential HP increase of OG Damage 2.0.

People used to laugh when I would say some of the best weapons for scaling were the pure elemental low damage ones.
The premise was simple. You can amp your damage in many ways. Not so much status rates but that's a long dead tactic.

A lot of problems started when DE began using Armor as a crutch to make enemies more durable at pre 200 levels on other factions.
I was shooting level 100 enemies when Damage 2.0 came out. Years later they added Sorties for 'end-game' content. It's no wonder it fell apart.

[kuciol]

You can shift the blame wherever you want, you can keep crying about the ancient days but the point still stands. Old resistances didnt matter because weapon able to kill heavy units was overkill for everything else even when using wrong elements. Thats the reality.

[Merkranire]

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

They were iirc resistant to both. And why? I wouldnt, that is my point, but now there is actually a reason to. Although Mag+Heat is likely a better option versus regular grineer if you want to build to counter eximus better and deal enough damage to the weakest trash anyways. Then with a potential swap to Mag+toxin for Kuva since they are resistant to heat. Though my main point is that the new system provides far more options,

Yes, robotics were probably also resistant, since several health types were resistant to certain damage types. And no, toxin was still better since you would ignore all of their shields to hit their un-armored health directly since that pool was significantly lower. So the resistance didnt really matter.

So now there’s actually a reason to bring magnetic to a faction that was allegedly resistant to it. Does that not strike you as being in-line with the concept behind resistances where you bring a damage type that can find a use, but you have to be considerate of when to use it? Resistances don’t have much of an impact if the thing the enemy is resisting isn’t even part of the damage pool brought for the mission

And I remember hearing people talk all the time about toxin for corpus, but when I went playing around with it, I often found that distributing my damage across shields and health, while able to quickly handle things like crewmen, was often simply not as fast as doing direct unified damage to chew through shields, especially when hitting the corpus robotics (which I’d often switch to something electric-based); I was always wondering just how overbuilt for the content players were, which undermines the idea of resistances as has been noted many times before

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

But it did play out like that, since it is... well... simple math. So it cant have played out any other way. You either handled the heavy unit acceptably, at which point it would play out like that, or you didnt handle the heavy. And if you built to brute force the heavy through say radiation, you would still have enough damage to also trivialize the trash, since the health of the heavy would be so many times higher that even without the bonuses from radiation the weaker units would die in no time. And if you did it through corrosive a whole part of the faction would also cave to that.

And regarding Nox. Well they arent the only heavy unit, so you likely could take them out without targetting their weakpoint, since you were likely using something that also could handle the non-weakpoint heavy units of the Grineer faction. It is also fun that you go to the worst possible as in bodyshots, when a weapon built to handle a heavy unit would pretty much 1HK a Nox hit in the fish bowl instead of just removing it.

 

7 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

It was simple basic math that made it play out like that.

Especially if you weren't fighting the grineer.

After all, guess what is a super common enemy to pop out of void fissures?  Oh yeah, corrupted heavy gunners.

 

Lets take a look at a corrupted heavy gunner at level 35 (mid starchart and still low leveled).
It had 44,543 EHP.  Pretty tanky.

 

Now say you're running a level 35 fissure against corpus.
The base mooks that fill most of the rest of the mission at that level?  1276-2686 EHP.
Ok what about a Tech, so we have a 'heavy' unit for comparison?  Slightly better at 6095 EHP.

The corrupted heavy gunner has 7.3x the EHP of the corpus "heavy" unit (and is much more common).
For the rest of the corpus its between 16.6x-34.9x the EHP.

 

And mind you this is at the low level of 35.  The disparity will ramp up very quickly as the levels get high and make this more and more pronounced as you go higher in levels.

 

At that point you're bringing along a gun that can deal with enemies that have 16.6x-34.9x the EHP of the average unit you're shooting at....and the corpus in the room will fall over if you so much as sneeze in their direction with a gun built to handle the corrupted heavy gunner that will spawn every few rooms.

Their resistances just flat out don't matter, and all because you have to bring along a weapon that can effectively kill the corrupted heavy gunner that will spawn in those missions.

 

The supposed complexity of the damage type system completely falls apart when you realize that in order to build a weapon to handle the semi-frequent heavy units that can appear mixed in with any faction (since relic runs are where a lot of mission time is spent), you have to utterly trivialize every other enemy in the room to the point where their resistances don't matter because they don't even come close to having 1/10th of the heavy units EHP at low levels, and at higher levels they don't even come close to having 1/100th of that heavy units EHP.

 

1 hour ago, kuciol said:

You can shift the blame wherever you want, you can keep crying about the ancient days but the point still stands. Old resistances didnt matter because weapon able to kill heavy units was overkill for everything else even when using wrong elements. Thats the reality.

My number-cruching dudes, I don’t know what to tell you, but I just made the builds, followed the +s and -s, jumped into the content according to how I’m built, and through whatever balancing magic DE utilised, the game figured itself out.

And the way it figured itself out was that heavy units were crunchier than lights, but not so much that it was like facing an Angel or the Wolf, and resistances impacted moment-to-moment gameplay. Whatever metric you’re using to determine a “sufficient kill rate”, I have to wonder whether you were trying to treat heavies like they need to die as fast as fodder, which would mean that fodder then dies faster than fodder and resistances don’t matter as much if at all.

And I seriously have to question your idea of acceptable rate of killing because I know what’s considered acceptable in general, and what’s considered acceptable doesn’t leave room for things like enemies being a little tougher and hanging around a little longer, especially in the non-SP content

[kuciol]

Again you display arrogance and surprising willpower when it comes to missing a point. You didnt provide any reasonable argument this whole topic, besides crying "not true" interwoven with some hidden insults and passive-aggresive remarks. Keep being you i guess.

[Merkranire]

4 hours ago, kuciol said:

Thats called power fantasy. 

I dont have to sell anything, the gameplay loop is like PoE maps, or diablo rifts. Different genre but similar enough. Its not about mindset but how the game plays. You make more and more nonsensical arguments here.

The game plays and rewards like it’s a build-crafting TPS, where the designers are constantly trying to either entice or force us to mix things up, and you’re eschewing a huge portion of what the game lets you do if all you concern yourself with is being as efficient as possible. And trying to convince some newbie to approach the game like you do is just going to see them going through weird bouts of inconsistent difficulty, narrowing their own options as they progress instead of broadening, stressing over chasing power to a self-detrimental degree when the game clearly doesn’t even keep up after a certain point, treating options as trash before they even learn how to use them when the game gives them every opportunity to do so, and losing out on designed gameplay that works with the stuff they’ve earned. It’s super easy to get to a point where we no longer need more power, and there’s multiple stages of that point across the different level tiers, which means there’s multiple points of horizontal broadening that just get swept aside if all you do is think that the broadening of options happens at the highest level, when the highest level has the narrowest range of options

The power fantasy idea isn’t as narrow as you seem to think it is

Edited Wednesday at 10:44 PM by Merkranire

[Merkranire]

11 minutes ago, kuciol said:

Again you display arrogance and surprising willpower when it comes to missing a point. You didnt provide any reasonable argument this whole topic, besides crying "not true" interwoven with some hidden insults and passive-aggresive remarks. Keep being you i guess.

The point being that if you build to take down heavies, you squash everything else. Which I’m positing a counter argument in the form of building to do the content, and the heavies just sort of settle into place as heavies and the fodder settle into place as fodder and the game makes more sense than you’re alleging

[kuciol]

But it doesnt, proven time and time again. This game is power fantasy horde shooter. The point is killing tons of enemies that game throws at you at any moment, not being tactical about it. Here these argument ends. You try to prove the game is something it really isnt.

[Merkranire]

Just now, kuciol said:

But it doesnt, proven time and time again. This game is power fantasy horde shooter. The point is killing tons of enemies that game throws at you at any moment, not being tactical about it. Here these argument ends. You try to prove the game is something it really isnt.

Dude, I can see why you think that way, and it ain’t because of how the game’s designed, it’s because of your expectations and approach to the game

[kuciol]

Its literally how the game is designed. Everything in game forces you to kill more, faster, finish mission quicker. All the options you get are designed to help you with that. Thats how the game works!

[Merkranire]

2 minutes ago, kuciol said:

Its literally how the game is designed. Everything in game forces you to kill more, faster, finish mission quicker. All the options you get are designed to help you with that. Thats how the game works!

You don’t need to kill as fast as you’re claiming!

Yeah, you need some more damage to fight a level 80 enemy than you do to fight a level 30, damage attainable through modding; you don’t need enough damage to one-shot a level 9999 SP enemy for that level 80, which frees you up from slotting redundant amounts of damage and enable you to slot alternative options to customise your gameplay

What you’re positing sounds like it comes from a place where someone never bothered figuring out how much kill is overkill or just-right kill, and instead just opts for overkill come hell or high water and regardless of what gets binned to attain it