Grineer Suck

[VinceBlood]

So :

We are supposed to be stronger at all times :

"Oh bo-ohh this games is so easy."

In good games,player must use brain to win,not press simple button, to "overcome" difficult odds, it's something called "sense of accomplishment".

In this kind of game, that's not gonna happen of course, the difficult odds is that we might be wounded,if all goes bad.Or hell,we have 4 revive a day!So we can easily go suicide style without real repercussion.

I am sorry if my theory isn't for you,but we have a post that literally ask for even MORE advantage of the already unfair advantage that we have on the enemy and no one can be honestly thinking that's a great idea.How can you feel better or have fun if you never feels in danger in the game?Or never need to outsmart the enemies that rely on numbers and cheap tactics?

You are practically saying "we are player WE MUST WIN" wich is very very stupid,and probably even boring.

 

I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying that your comparison is not exactly the best.  We are human beings.  Most of the time we will outsmart, outmaneuver, and outclass enemy AI unless the enemy AI is equipped with cheap tricks (like the Grineer are).

[JusticeJack]

I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying that your comparison is not exactly the best.  We are human beings.  Most of the time we will outsmart, outmaneuver, and outclass enemy AI unless the enemy AI is equipped with cheap tricks (like the Grineer are).

 

And that's WHY my point is made (imho),without cheap tricks, how can an AI not so sophisticated even hope to bother us?These kind of hateful maneuver are needed.

[lautalocos]

This guy seems to have equated something "sucking" with something that actually poses a threat. This guy is also missing the point of a shooter entirely. This post sucks.

i dont agree entirely with this topic, but grinner rollers and commanders a treath? sure. a fair and fun fight? F*** no

[Demonocolips]

i read this and all i thought was has this player gone against infested hordes yet because he'll be complaining all the more when read bodies block his shots and they just keep charging.

[Pyromite]

I prefer grineers. Rollers have never caused any problems with my Ember or Rhino, and I don't much see commanders. Last time they actually helped me across whole room towards extraction. Heavy units? Just don't go close to them. They are supposed to be harder than normal enemies. Scorpions? Seems bit unrealistic, bit annoying, but I don't mind.

[MJ12]

So :

We are supposed to be stronger at all times :

"Oh bo-ohh this games is so easy."

In good games,player must use brain to win,not press simple button, to "overcome" difficult odds, it's something called "sense of accomplishment".

In this kind of game, that's not gonna happen of course, the difficult odds is that we might be wounded,if all goes bad.Or hell,we have 4 revive a day!So we can easily go suicide style without real repercussion.

I am sorry if my theory isn't for you,but we have a post that literally ask for even MORE advantage of the already unfair advantage that we have on the enemy and no one can be honestly thinking that's a great idea.How can you feel better or have fun if you never feels in danger in the game?Or never need to outsmart the enemies that rely on numbers and cheap tactics?

You are practically saying "we are player WE MUST WIN" wich is very very stupid,and probably even boring.

 

So he's saying the... correct thing?

 

You are the player. You must win. Because losing is not fun in Warframe. Winning is fun. Games are about fun. Thus the player must win.

 

Notice that this statement says nothing about how easy it is to win? It says nothing about how quickly you win. It says nothing about the struggles you must go through to win. Just that, in the end, you should win.

 

Also, lol at your next post:

 

 

And that's WHY my point is made (imho),without cheap tricks, how can an AI not so sophisticated even hope to bother us?These kind of hateful maneuver are needed.

 

Somehow, games like Vanquish, ME3, Crysis, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Serious Sam, FEAR, Gears of War, etc etc etc... have tons of enemies who have AI 'not so sophisticated' and totally lack these 'kind of hateful maneuver' yet are a viable challenge. No, they aren't needed. They are a blight to be

 

You are laboring under the awful delusion that challenge is a good thing in and of itself.

 

WRONG.

 

Challenge in games only exists insofar as it keeps player interest. If challenge was a good thing in and of itself, the best games would be nearly impossible from the word go. If you were right, Hatetris (http://qntm.org/hatetris) would be way more fun than regular Tetris. After all, challenge is good, right? Hatetris is far more challenging, as it gives you the worst piece in the current situation.

 

Challenge is one of many methods to keep player interest, and not the only or even the best method. If a game is challenging solely via mechanics that do not keep player interest, or worse, actively drive it away (such as agency loss, i.e. Rollers, Scorpions, and Commanders, your much-loved foes, or mechanics that induce death spiral effects, such as Disruptors) that challenge is bad and the game would be a better game if that challenge is excised. Even if it'd make the game easier.

 

I think there's two main kinds of people who defend these kinds of tactics on the forums:

 

A) Guys suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, who think the reason they keep playing the game is stunlock and stagger adding 'fear' when in reality they keep playing for other reasons that they don't recognize themselves (the Skinner Box, for example)

 

B) Toxic customers who really don't care about how playable and fun the game is, as long as there's other people having less fun than they are.

 

Which one are you?

[Rusalki]

Actually, I disagree that losing shouldn't be fun - that's bad game design. Naturally the player shouldn't be rewarded for losing, but many of the games that I've enjoyed had moments where after I'd lost, I'd just sit back and think "Wow, that was amazing."

 

Warframe doesn't really accomplish that. If I die, it's usually to high-end mobs with the same AI, but with silly ramped up stats. I'm not losing to a smarter, more difficult enemy, just the same one with better stats. There's no sense of accomplishment in that, and it leaves me frustrated.

[VinceBlood]

And that's WHY my point is made (imho),without cheap tricks, how can an AI not so sophisticated even hope to bother us?These kind of hateful maneuver are needed.

 

I have tons of fun fighting Corpus, and their tricks are easy to identify and avoid.  Tech pop a Shield Osprey?  Get it.  MOA about to stomp?  Shoot it.  Railgun MOA charging?  Hide or fire.  Fusion MOA deploy its Drone?  Switch tactics and go for AoE.

 

Grineer tricks are autohit stunlocks that you cannot cannot CANNOT avoid.  If you're hit, you're hit and there's no way to avoid it or lessen the danger like you can with Corpus, and that's bad.  Stuff like that is most assuredly not needed. 

 

Now let's say that all Grineer have a 'wind up' before these things.  Commanders glow or charge up, Scorpions hold up their hand and pull back their wire to fire it, Rollers pause before sprouting blades and leaping into your face, Heavy Gunners have a BIG animation on their mandatory knockdown, etc.  All that would do wonders for the Grineer.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Vince613

[MJ12]

Actually, I disagree that losing shouldn't be fun - that's bad game design. Naturally the player shouldn't be rewarded for losing, but many of the games that I've enjoyed had moments where after I'd lost, I'd just sit back and think "Wow, that was amazing."

 

Warframe doesn't really accomplish that. If I die, it's usually to high-end mobs with the same AI, but with silly ramped up stats. I'm not losing to a smarter, more difficult enemy, just the same one with better stats. There's no sense of accomplishment in that, and it leaves me frustrated.

 

Losing should be fun but because people don't like losing it is naturally going to be less fun than winning. This is important. In the end, a game ideally should make you always think you're about to lose (to ramp up dramatic tension) while actually being sneakily designed so it's not actually easy to lose.

 

The more fun a game is while you lose (and the less progress you lose), the more viable it is to have a player lose often. But a game should be designed to allow the player to win to some degree even at a fairly low skill level, even if they can't access all 100% of the content. It's like Bayonetta, where you can set it on Very Easy Automatic and play literally one-handed, and then on the highest difficulty even people with hundreds of hours of experience in the game are challenged.

 

What's worst about Warframe difficulty is actually how badly it's set up. Either you're rofflestomping the enemy or you get stunlocked/Disruptored/knocked down inside an acid cloud and there is no way you can recover from the situation. That's not good difficulty. Good difficulty is where it's easy to get into bad situations (thus, dramatic tension) and also easy to get out of the same situations. Something really interesting about Crysis was how the enemies would stop shooting you for a small amount of time the moment you hit low health. It meant that although the enemies were incredibly accurate and damaging and thus one mistake could put you into a bad situation, you were almost never in a position where that bad situation ended up in unavoidable death.

 

Warframe has to be set up so that there are rarely any actual 'challenges', because being put in a bad situation is largely unavoidable death due to all the stunlocks and staggering going on. So you can't be challenged because if you added in serious challenge (i.e. you end up in bad situations often) what it'd translate to is "unavoidable death all the time". And that's terrible design.

[JusticeJack]

So he's saying the... correct thing?

 

You are the player. You must win. Because losing is not fun in Warframe. Winning is fun. Games are about fun. Thus the player must win.

 

Notice that this statement says nothing about how easy it is to win? It says nothing about how quickly you win. It says nothing about the struggles you must go through to win. Just that, in the end, you should win.

 

Also, lol at your next post:

 

 

 

Somehow, games like Vanquish, ME3, Crysis, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Serious Sam, FEAR, Gears of War, etc etc etc... have tons of enemies who have AI 'not so sophisticated' and totally lack these 'kind of hateful maneuver' yet are a viable challenge. No, they aren't needed. They are a blight to be

 

You are laboring under the awful delusion that challenge is a good thing in and of itself.

 

WRONG.

 

Challenge in games only exists insofar as it keeps player interest. If challenge was a good thing in and of itself, the best games would be nearly impossible from the word go. If you were right, Hatetris (http://qntm.org/hatetris) would be way more fun than regular Tetris. After all, challenge is good, right? Hatetris is far more challenging, as it gives you the worst piece in the current situation.

 

Challenge is one of many methods to keep player interest, and not the only or even the best method. If a game is challenging solely via mechanics that do not keep player interest, or worse, actively drive it away (such as agency loss, i.e. Rollers, Scorpions, and Commanders, your much-loved foes, or mechanics that induce death spiral effects, such as Disruptors) that challenge is bad and the game would be a better game if that challenge is excised. Even if it'd make the game easier.

 

I think there's two main kinds of people who defend these kinds of tactics on the forums:

 

A) Guys suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, who think the reason they keep playing the game is stunlock and stagger adding 'fear' when in reality they keep playing for other reasons that they don't recognize themselves (the Skinner Box, for example)

 

B) Toxic customers who really don't care about how playable and fun the game is, as long as there's other people having less fun than they are.

 

Which one are you?

I think you misunderstood me.

1 all the games you compared to warframe are totally different genre,and GOW was never much of a challenge,for example,if not at max difficulty wich is just you=glass vs them=bullets sponge,much like halo legendary difficulty, that is CHEAP.

Bayonetta and dmc are action,the difficulty is there,still frustrating but based on reflexes.At least it's better than ^

SS3 is a good example,but let's be honest,the only challenge is their number,wich can be seen as a cheap tactic (only strengh in number,wow, what a difficult strategy to elaborate).

Challenge is GOOD.Yes.And i should have stressed more than challenge ISN'T punishment, wich is ninja gaiden style, or legendary with all skulls on halo, i thought that would be obvious,my bad.

Cheap tactics are ok if limited like here.They CAN be avoided (Yes,THEY CAN BE AVOIDED)even if mr 300 hours make them sound impossible, so they are acceptable as a challenge to me and if they work,very rarely you can die for just getting stunlocked 3-4 times....

And what's with saying that if challenge is a good thing (i never said it's the only good thing,btw),games must be impossible.WHAT?Again,that's punishment,not challenge,altough at a first,distracted glance they may sound similar, they aren't.

Of course other things may interest players aside from challenge,but i never said the contrary.In a game of grinding,only challenge and lore remain,and guess what,we are short on both.

And saying "the player has fun only if he win"is totally wrong!Great games are fun when they makelose and think how to act smarter and avoid the same errors, games can be good even in defeat of the player.Never played Quake eh?

Guess your average fps is all you know about game : "I am the player,it's bad if i lose no fun bo-ohh" and it doesn't take a masochist to enjoy challenge.Don't you understand that if the game treats you like you MUST win is kinda offensive, more like a "you can't win on your own, i will help".

"WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WIN", i think it's better.I am not talking to make missions impossible,i am saying that in these kind of games of grinding and with rpg elemts the boredome is at least tuned down by facing mobs that CAN make you mad at any level,regardless of your frame,your weapons or potatoes and formas you used,so SOMETIMES you aren't destroying everything that face you without a sweat.

Of course you can disagree,and get back to play your games that will have you winning without too much problem.Or that will become difficult only about unfairness.

I prefer manly gaming to that,but maybe that's "masochism" for you.

 

Edited July 9, 2013 by JusticeJack

[Zero.No.Hikari]

Only real challenge from Grineer I feel is the Commander, he is fun to fight.  I go in for a melee strike only to have him behind me when I thought he was in front of me. They actually require a line of sight if you can go invisible the won't switch with you.  Try doing a Grineer mission with Aklato and the new Vandal and of course Hate.   It takes time and patience since the head shot and AP bonus is no longer affecting(effecting?) shields.

[MJ12]

I think you misunderstood me.

 

 

No, I understand you perfectly. You think that the current situation (where stunlock enemies are 'challenge' and thus you don't want them to be taken out because they're 'challenge') is at all acceptable. Except the lack of challenge is partially due to the fact that stunlock enemies make challenge untenable.

 

And what's with saying that if challenge is a good thing games must be impossible.WHAT?Again,that's punishment,not challenge,altough at a first,distracted glance they may sound similar, they aren't.Of course other things may interest players aside from challenge,but i never said the contrary.In a game of grinding,only challenge and lore remain,and guess what,we are short on both.

 

Except grinding is a very interesting thing in and of itself. Diablo had no real lore and no real challenge, same with Diablo II. Somehow these games managed to become extremely popular. Skinner Boxes are a thing and a very real method of keeping players interested. Farmville and other Zynga games are the ur-example of just how much the skinner box interests players. Those games had no challenge. Hell, they had no gameplay. People still threw millions of dollars into them because of the Skinner Box. Millions of dollars.

 

Your observations are kind of not borne out by any objective analysis of the game industry.

 

And saying "the player has fun only if he win"is totally wrong!Games are fun when they make us act smarter and avoid the same errors, games can be good even in defeat of the player.Never played Quake eh?Guess your average fps is all you know about game : "I am the player,it's bad if i lose no fun bo-ohh" and it doesn't take a masochist to enjoy challenge.Don't you understand that if the game treats you like you MUST win is kinda offensive, more like a "you can't win on your own, i will help".

 

Yes, I've played Quake. Funnily enough, Quake was actually not all that hard of a game unless you set it to 'I am a masochist' difficulty modes. What it was was frustrating and slightly annoying, because of how @(*()$ up an encounter could leave you permanently crippled (and thus you spent most of the time quicksaving and quickloading). Oh, and BTW, if you had trouble even then, you could just look up the cheat codes, which let you see 100% of the game. Games aren't inherently fun when they 'make us act smarter and avoid the same errors'. If that was inherently fun, doing multivariate calculus would be the funnest thing on Earth. Sadly it isn't.

 

And no, the game treating me like I 'MUST' win is not at all inherently offensive. Like any mechanic that empowers the player, it's bad only when done in a terrible fashion. Half-Life 2 and Left 4 Dead do exactly that. The worse you're doing, the more generous the game is with health and ammo pickups dropped from enemies and crates. The better you're doing, the less generous it is. The game adjusts itself to your ability, so it gives you an individualized challenge. Someone who is bad at shooters can have fun and think "man this game is challenging but really fun". Someone who is good at shooters can think the same thing. That's a good thing.

 

"WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WIN", i think it's better.I am not talking to make missions impossible,i am saying that in these kind of games of grinding and with rpg elemts the boredome is at least tuned down by facing mobs that CAN make you mad at any level,regardless of your frame,your weapons or potatoes and formas you used,so SOMETIMES you aren't destroying everything that face you without a sweat.

 

There is no difference between 'the player should be able to win' and 'the player must win'. Because in both cases the game is saying 'you are supposed to win, it just takes time'. And no, the boredom is not tuned down by facing mobs that can make you mad at any level. It's only increased. Because now you have frustrating interruptions to the skinner box. If an action RPG is challenging it should be challenging without tactics that interrupt the flow of gameplay.

 

You know what's the most exciting thing about these enemies you claim turn down the boredom? Having a Sentinel that eliminates any threat they provide. When the most exciting thing about an enemy is how good it feels when they're gone, well. It reminds me of the old saw about the guy who kept hitting himself with a hammer. His logic? "Because it feels so good when I stop!"

[JusticeJack]

 

 

Except grinding is a very interesting thing in and of itself. Diablo had no real lore and no real challenge, same with Diablo II. 't.

Games aren't fun when they make us act smarter and not repeat the same errors.

 

I think we should stop for decency.

Your arguments are so exellent.

Edited July 9, 2013 by JusticeJack

[Boomstick720]

 

Except grinding is a very interesting thing in and of itself. Diablo had no real lore and no real challenge, same with Diablo II. Somehow these games managed to become extremely popular. 

You just went full retard bro.

 

Or just one of those guys who thinks borderlands is the best shooter ever.

[MJ12]

I think we should stop for decency.

Your arguments are so exellent.

Diablo's Lore: There is a guy called Diablo. He is evil and under the town. Go kill him.

Diablo II's Lore: Diablo escaped the town. He is evil and has buddies. Go kill him.

Warframe's Lore: There are three enemy factions. They are all bad guys who want to kill you. Kill them.

No, "EU materials" don't count. Also, neither I or II were difficult. I made it all the way through Hell in D2+expansion without any real grinding and with really bad builds. I had no real problem despite that. Because they weren't particularly difficult.

Also, you apparently think that grinding isn't something that keeps players going when this is blatantly, objectively false. I'm sorry that reality doesn't fit your personal narrative, but it's true. One only has to look at things like ME3 MP (grind for weapons! Grind for characters!), Action RPGs in general (Torchlight was super-easy, surprisingly popular, and same with its sequel), and the ur-example: Farmville and other Zynga games.

Do you actually have any argument or do you think bolding facts as if disbelieving in them hard enough will make you correct?

[MJ12]

You just went full retard bro.

 

Or just one of those guys who thinks borderlands is the best shooter ever.

Just because I state an unpopular opinion doesn't make it wrong.

Tell me how grinding is totally and objectively incapable of sustaining interest in a game, though.

FYI: You'll have to explain the existence and popularity of Borderlands ( a FPS with mediocre shooting mechanics sustained via the Skinner Box), action RPGs compared to the full-up has-plots-and-characters-and-stories versions (which cut out all the RPG bits that aren't stats for... Grinding), MMOs in general (grindgrindgrindgrindgrindgrindgrind), F2P games (grindgrindgrindgrindgrindgrind), and finally Zynga (no gameplay, just grind, makes millions of dollars).

I'm not saying it's good thing. I'm saying that people claiming grinding can't sustain a game are objectively wrong.

[RealityMachina]

 

 

Or just one of those guys who thinks borderlands is the best shooter ever.

Using a game series that's been wildly successful doesn't exactly help your argument concerning the success potential of skinner boxes.

[MJ12]

This rat isn't hitting the lever because he likes grinding. It's because he totally sees the potential in the lever to be so much more than the one-dimensional farmfest it is!

Look, if you've been playing Warframe for more than ten or so hours you're probably here for the Skinner Box, like I am. Admitting it doesn't make you a bad person. In fact, admitting it can help make the game more fun. Because there is such a thing as bad farming (the alert system is it) and talking about how to make farming less frustrating instead of going "farming bad!" Will help the game for anyone who is addicted to the skinner box (i.e. most of us here).

And yes, challenge is a good way of doing it. But there's good challenge and bad challenge and defending bad challenge doesn't make it into good challenge.

[Xianyu]

You guys are all supporting my points.

 

The only units that are challenging are the ones that STUNLOCK YOU.

 

This is TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE game design.

 

If you can literally drop your controller/take your hands off the keyboard and the same exact S#&$ happens, then what's the point of even playing the game?

 

Oh, but you can DODGE the enemies!

 

NO, YOU CAN'T.

 

Radial blasts that are unavoidable, moving balls with blades on them that track you down until you stand on top of something/melee them to death when you get REALLY lucky.

 

And the @(*()$ scorpion is the worst offender.

 

Oh, you stopped for a moment to shoot at that enemy up ahead? WELL HAVE FUN! IT'S BULLS#&$ WIRE TIME!

 

Seriously.

 

What was it that was said? Oh, right. 'if you took away the stuns, then they'd just be a boring, weak enemy'.

 

@(*()$ EXACTLY.

 

Without their unavoidable, BS stuns and the like, they area weak, pointless enemy group. Their own CROWNING FEATURE is stun locking!

 

They are S#&$tily designed, and it's getting worse and worse with every new enemy set added to them.

 

They need to have their stuns removed and be given heat-seeking fricking nuclear missiles. Grenades. Traps. Napalm bombs.Slow-moving roller-balls that they throw out and cause a radial stun explosion when they get close.

 

But none of this unavoidable insta-stun bullS#&$.

 

Stuns DO NOT LEVEL UP. They do not SCALE.

 

I get stunned just as much on a level 10 planet with grineer, as I do on a level 40. That is not right. That's BS.

 

Getting thrown around the map by a level 10 scorpion as a level 30 Frost with 700 shields and health, and something more than 150 armor, is simply not fair and terrible, terrible game design. It's not challenging, it's ANNOYING.

[AluminumHaste]

Totally agree.

I'm done with this game, uninstalled because of what this very post describes.

You play a @(*()$ ninja, yet when he gets knocked over, gets up slower than my 80 year old grandmother when she's fallen down the stairs....again.

And every single time you get stunned you can't do anything. Can't jump. Can't roll. Can't dodge. Can't shoot. Can't crouch. Can't switch weapons. Can't even look around.

Like he said, might as well just let go of the mouse and keyboard for 5 seconds while my amazing ninja in a super suit slowly gets up off the ground.

 

It's been an interesting 65 hours or so. There's so much potential in this game and it's being wasted. No one at DE is listening. All that's coming out is new content yet the same old bugs still haven't been fixed.

Still broken headshot counter. Still have the stuck in crouch/sprint mode. Still have issues where not all rewards show up in your inventory after a match.

Eventually we'll get out of beta and these same horrible mechanics will still be in the game. And these morons want us to give them money for this crap.

I seriously hope this project flops and they go out of business. These guys should not be making games.

[Cleesus]

The Commander: Suck Level: DEFCON FIVE. This is the single most sucky enemy in the entire game. Period. If there is even one SLIVER of your character sticking out from behind a barell, be it FIVE HUNDRED METRES AWAY, he CAN, and WILL use his 'switch' power to teleport you to where he was. It doesn't matter where you are. It doesn't matter if it makes sense. It doesn't matter if it's tactically sound, or if you're shooting at eachother from fifteen metres away with both of you at either side of an empty room. He LIVES to switch places with you. And the only thing he loves more than swapping places is hiding behind scenery and waiting for his switch to recharge so he can DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN. Even better: If there are more than one, and up to even five in my experience, of these bastards roaming the halls, they will take great delight in taking turns teleporting you around the map. The switch is unblockable, and happens instantly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see where all this suckage is coming from?

 

Stagger, stagger, stagger, stagger, stagger. Knockdownn, knockdown, knockdown, knockdown, knockdown. And the crowning jewel on this multi-tier cake of excrement is the Grinner Commander, happily taking control away from your player and teleporting him around the map at whim, and the Scorpion, with her stupid javelin.

 

Had 3 of them teleporting me around yesterday, it is so annoying. There really is a special place in hell fo the grineer commander.

[ScribWere]

Honestly, other then the Grinneer commander, Rollers and Scorpions hooking you through cover/walls...

 

I think the Grinneer are the best designed of the enemies. Corpus are frustrating because they scale harder then the other races. Hell, Grinneer are actually easier now that Lancers aren't in higher level missions. The Elite Lancers Burston doesn't scale as dramatically as the Grakata did. But Corpus get incredibly frustrating. Mostly due to their behavior of firing nonstop whilst moving. Corpus are either obnoxious and incredibly easy. (say you have some form of cover and a long hallway) or able to down you almost instantly if say, a door opens and a moa's already stomping, you're stomped, and immediately three more moas run in, stomp in succession, and you're then downed by the incredible ability of Corpus units to simply not stop firing, fire from dramatic distances with great accuracy, and shoot through eachother. Grinneer stuns are generally not as lethal. They're annoying, stupid, and generally dumb as S#&$ enemy design...

 

But Corpus stuns are just freaking frustrating as hell. Moreso, Shield Drones are beyond frustrating. Mostly again, when a Moa charges in, you open up on it--its shields are gone, it's about to die--and a shield drone flies by, instantly giving it extra health to get off that stomp. Sometimes, it's even worse--and the shield drone is replaced by another shield drone, giving it another bar of health. It's just annoying. Not necessarily gamebreaking, but I find Corpus less fun to fight then Grinneer. (and Railgun Moas are annoying as hell when they somehow  get a lock on you through the level, and repeatedly just stun and stagger you every second whilst you are physically incapable of retaliating, as they're not actually anywhere near you. Maybe they're three floors up, maybe they're three floors down. maybe they saw you as they ran down a hall, hid in a room, and have been sniping you since. But nonetheless, it's annoying.

 

Infested are alright, I guess. Depending on the level in question and where they spawn, they're either comically easy to deal with, or stupid as hell. The primary problem is when spawns occur in a fashion that causes a massive amount of Ancients to spawn in a singular cluster and even at low levels, less heavily modded frames and weapons cannot possible kill said ancients fast enough through the three or four healers that come with such a group. Now, I've got heavily modded equipment and generally it's not a problem, but the problem with Infested is they're dramatically more difficult when you're lower level, even against low level infested. When I ran into my first infested mission, I had to empty my Braton  completely to kill that singular Toxic, and I died twice. I thought this was some kind of miniboss. He dropped nothing, and barely gave me EXP.

 

I realized the only way I could finish the mission was by sprinting nonstop and just running from everything I saw. Had I been Excalibur, it would have been easier. But Mag simply didn't have any way of dealing with the ancients. Vor (who way back then, at level 3 was actually hard. He could like, three hit me!) seemed easy as pee. A Toxic Ancient was a brutal hell monster with (luckily different now) an unintuitive weak spot and massive amounts of armor that made me deal 1-2 damage a hit with all my weapons. That, right there, is awful design.

[PaperAlien]

Have you even fought the Infested?

Charger: Defcon One (that's BAD, defcon one is actually the worst)- Nyaah nyaah AP attacks are weak on me. Nyaah nyaah at higher difficulties ONLY AP attacks can even hurt me. Nyaah nyaah using charged melees to bypass armour? Swarm you in tens and can stagger you out of a melee by using their basic claw attack. Also don't seem to stagger a lot themselves.

Runner: Fairly sucky- Staggered for letting a Runner pop in your face? Your fault. Staggered by 10 other Runners because you got staggered by Runners? Apparently the game thinks it's fair to blame you for that.

Leaper: Low-level sucky- Would have played fair, except that Chargers and Leapers and Ancients end up holding you in place so they can knock you over anyway.

Ancients: Pretty sucky- Extremely spongy, tentacle attacks are annoying as f*ck, and also tend to visually spazz out and look ugly.

   -Disruptors. Defcon -1. Draining all energy/shields and knocking you down in a single attack is absolutely the most infuriating and overkill thing that can happen in this game, apart from being wrongly banned till June 2035.