Warframes Should Have Their Own Weaknesses/resistances And Own Armor Types

[Deidaku]

I read the post about toxin resitance  made by Twilight053 : https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/255184-antitoxins-true-value-its-two-third-of-the-original-value/

 

 

it got me thinking.

 

Why do all the frames have flesh and ferrite armor?

 

 

I mean I  get the flesh part , but shoudln't they at least have different armor types an resistances.

 

THe logical ones :

 

Ember , MAg , Frost , Saryn , Volt , they should have innate 50% resistance to their element   minor resistance.  50% is too damn high

 

I mean ember getting burned , Mag disrupted and Saryn Poisoned? That doesn't make sense. And even if they should they should be resistant to them. ( at least the status effect)

 

+This could spice things up for the future PvP dark sector thingie. because if armors remain the same. all you need to win is a gun with poison or slash proc build and you kill everything.

 

The other frames could resist other things , rhino could resist puncture and impact procs , ( I'm out of ideas for the other frames present yours if you have any X) )

 

 

What do you guys think? should DE look into this?

Edited July 1, 2014 by Deidaku

[Marthrym]

I don't know. I don't care for PvP and don't intend to even get close to it, so whatever happens for PvP doesn't matter to me (still, good question).^^'

 

As for PvE, well it would really put some frames to a disadvantage (this applies to PvP too, now that I think about it...), because there probably is a "main" type of damage. A type of damage that is more present than any other. Same the other way around. If that's the case, I'm not really in favor of this suggestion. That and I like to able to do any type of mission with any frame without it becoming a chore (more than it already can be^^').

Some frames are already at a disadvantage in the current Warframe, I'd like to see this "fixed" first.^^

 

It is an interesting concept though. I'm just worried it might break a lot of things (again).

[Deidaku]

I don't know. I don't care for PvP and don't intend to even get close to it, so whatever happens for PvP doesn't matter to me (still, good question).^^'

 

As for PvE, well it would really put some frames to a disadvantage (this applies to PvP too, now that I think about it...), because there probably is a "main" type of damage. A type of damage that is more present than any other. Same the other way around. If that's the case, I'm not really in favor of this suggestion. That and I like to able to do any type of mission with any frame without it becoming a chore (more than it already can be^^').

Some frames are already at a disadvantage in the current Warframe, I'd like to see this "fixed" first.^^

 

It is an interesting concept though. I'm just worried it might break a lot of things (again).

I see how it could go wrong yes , but a lot of people have been asking for an "armor 1.0" or something like that.

 

Maybe the focus system was suppsoed to help but it's too far away now

[Archistopheles]

I rather have all frames the same than have to worry about only using Saryn vs infested.

[notionphil]

 

Ember , MAg , Frost , Saryn , Volt , they should have innate 50% resistance to their element

 

Sounds logical but would actually be gamebreakingly horrible!

 

Why? Proc balance is waaaay off. Basically, some frames would gain a tremendous amnt of survivability, and others not even a bump. Unless the resistances were chosen as balance factors, instead of logically/lorebased.

 

Why is it a bad idea?

 

1) Some elements are far more common than others:

 

How many Gas enemies are there? How many Ice? How many Electric? Radiation? However there are tons of fire, impact/punc/slash and plenty of toxic and magnetic.

 

2) Some elements are far more dangerous than others:

 

Who cares if you get an impact proc, puncture or radiation proc? However a toxic or magnetic proc is nearly a death sentence.

Edited July 1, 2014 by notionphil

[Tsukinoki]

@Deidaku
Problem with giving them an innate 50% resistance to their element is this:
Its horribly unbalanced.
There is only one enemy in the entire game that uses ice attacks and its a boss, meaning that Frosts resistance would never be useful and would never be seen.
Then you have Volt, who is just a smidge better because of the arc traps in grineer levels.  Mag would only be useful in some grineer +  infested missions.
And then you have saryn, who is in the middle and would only see the benefit on infested maps and no where else in the game.
Then you have ember who would gain a 50% immunity to some of the biggest damage dealers in the game (Scorches, Napalms, Ruk...)

Then you have all the rest of them and how impossible it would be to balance any resistance you give them, especially considering ember would hold a bar so far above the others it wouldn't be funny.
The only one that could compete with ember would be resistance to slash damage and procs.
Nothing else would even come close.

So your giving some frames a massive buff, while at the same time giving other frames such a small buff that they would never even see it or notice it.

[Deidaku]

Sounds logical but would actually be gamebreakingly horrible!

 

Why? Proc balance is waaaay off. Basically, some frames would gain a tremendous amnt of survivability, and others not even a bump. Unless the resistances were chosen as balance factors, instead of logically/lorebased.

 

Why is it a bad idea?

 

1) Some elements are far more common than others:

 

How many Gas enemies are there? How many Ice? How many Electric? Radiation? However there are tons of fire, impact/punc/slash and plenty of toxic and magnetic.

 

2) Some elements are far more dangerous than others:

 

Who cares if you get an impact proc, puncture or radiation proc? However a toxic or magnetic proc is nearly a death sentence.

Well about the enemy types aren't we getting a lot in future updates? 

in anycase I guess you're right

+ I think my suggested value is way too high.

 

+ what does an impact proc do to a player???

[Deidaku]

@Deidaku

Problem with giving them an innate 50% resistance to their element is this:

Its horribly unbalanced.

There is only one enemy in the entire game that uses ice attacks and its a boss, meaning that Frosts resistance would never be useful and would never be seen.

Then you have Volt, who is just a smidge better because of the arc traps in grineer levels.  Mag would only be useful in some grineer +  infested missions.

And then you have saryn, who is in the middle and would only see the benefit on infested maps and no where else in the game.

Then you have ember who would gain a 50% immunity to some of the biggest damage dealers in the game (Scorches, Napalms, Ruk...)

Then you have all the rest of them and how impossible it would be to balance any resistance you give them, especially considering ember would hold a bar so far above the others it wouldn't be funny.

The only one that could compete with ember would be resistance to slash damage and procs.

Nothing else would even come close.

So your giving some frames a massive buff, while at the same time giving other frames such a small buff that they would never even see it or notice it.

I guess you're right as well.

 

Looking back at my post I see how the value of 50% is way too high.......

Edited July 1, 2014 by Deidaku

[notionphil]

Well about the enemy types aren't we getting a lot in future updates? 

in anycase I guess you're right

 

+ I think my suggested value is way too high.

 

+ what does an impact proc do to a player???

 

Impact proc slightly moves your Tenno by an inch or so and has like a quarter second stagger

[Nkomo-Sama]

I read the post about toxin resitance  made by Twilight053 : https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/255184-antitoxins-true-value-its-two-third-of-the-original-value/

 

 

it got me thinking.

 

Why do all the frames have flesh and ferrite armor?

 

 

I mean I  get the flesh part , but shoudln't they at least have different armor types an resistances.

 

THe logical ones :

 

Ember , MAg , Frost , Saryn , Volt , they should have innate 50% resistance to their element

 

I mean ember getting burned , Mag disrupted and Saryn Poisoned? That doesn't make sense. And even if they should they should be resistant to them. ( at least the status effect)

 

+This could spice things up for the future PvP dark sector thingie. because if armors remain the same. all you need to win is a gun with poison or slash proc build and you kill everything.

 

The other frames could resist other things , rhino could resist puncture and impact procs , ( I'm out of ideas for the other frames present yours if you have any X) )

 

 

What do you guys think? should DE look into this?

Of course it makes perfect sense. Ember burned or Saryn poisoned is....dumb. Ember primes head is on fire all the time. AT LEAST resist the damned proc. No idea why innate or passive abilities are such a scary idea for DE. It is a good idea they have to know this by now. I just cannot see this coming later than U15. After they get U14 out the door I think we should ALL focus our creative efforts on paying attention to core mechanics/passives. The biggest problem I see is how can you do this to all the frames. I ask then should you do this to all the frames? If so Ash,Loki,Nova,Vauban,Valkyr,Hydroid,Zephyr and Nekros may be a problem based on our current enemy/damage types. Balance and enemy types are the problem.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Nkomo-Sama

[Psroij]

It would make sense, but only if the game was not so absolutely reliant on RNG for every little thing.

 

What good is having innate resistances on a frame when the player might go hours and hours before that innate resistance actually encounters a situation in which it proves useful?

 

If DE would fix some of the core issues of the game, and make the game's combat have some more depth, then this would be a good idea. Until that day happens (if ever) it is more worthwhile to just make every frame the same in terms of resistances, and rely on the crutch of mods if players really want a specific resistance.

[10twenty4]

I think it's a good idea. It makes sense thematically, and people are overblowing how valuable or how useless it would be, especially if it's just limited to the elemental frames.

[(PSN)ElZilcho]

Slight correction:

Don't players have alloy armor while specters have ferrite?

[(PSN)SofeSNBR]

Sounds logical but would actually be gamebreakingly horrible!

 

Why? Proc balance is waaaay off. Basically, some frames would gain a tremendous amnt of survivability, and others not even a bump. Unless the resistances were chosen as balance factors, instead of logically/lorebased.

 

Why is it a bad idea?

 

1) Some elements are far more common than others:

 

How many Gas enemies are there? How many Ice? How many Electric? Radiation? However there are tons of fire, impact/punc/slash and plenty of toxic and magnetic.

 

2) Some elements are far more dangerous than others:

 

Who cares if you get an impact proc, puncture or radiation proc? However a toxic or magnetic proc is nearly a death sentence.

Well judging my exprience about every non-infested, non-void mission Ice enemies are very common thanks to artic leaders appearing everywhere, even in frigging boss rooms. If your sentinel has coolant leak radation is big problem. Prob crewman's attacks are electric. Good idea, if elementals have natural max 10% resistance against their own elemental. While non elementals gets normal armor buffs in return.