Why can't we lock loadout?

[Godmode_Ash]

***I know this topic has been brought up several times between WF forum and Steam forum. I have looked thru most of them but none of them had good argument against adding lock button to load-out. Some of replies didn't even make any sense so I am starting my new thread to make this idea fresh. Hopefully my message will get to the developers.***

 

Why do we not have lock button for preset load-out?

Why do we need a lock button for preset load-out? Because it is too easy to accidentally edit over the preset load-out we made.

Before you give me literature about "learn to pay attention," we are human so mistake do happen. Imaging if you have 10 different load-out for specific build then when you switch to specific weapon for sortie, only realized you just mess up one of your preset. This might have happened to some of you before, and it will happen to you in the future if you decide to use load-out.

I understand this is probably low priority feature in the game, comparing to balance pvp/warframe or other stuff. But even so why were people against it? What would be bad to add a lock button for load-out to prevent accidentally editing?

[Snib]

What's the problem with simply switching the weapon back though?

Rather than waste database space for a lock on loadouts I'd rather have more loadouts so I wouldn't have to change them around in the first place.

[Sibernetika]

2 hours ago, Snib said:

What's the problem with simply switching the weapon back though?

Rather than waste database space for a lock on loadouts I'd rather have more loadouts so I wouldn't have to change them around in the first place.

So the solution prevent wasting space on tje database is to add more slots increasing the size of the database? 

[Snib]

2 minutes ago, Sibernetika said:

So the solution prevent wasting space on tje database is to add more slots increasing the size of the database? 

No, the point was that if we "waste" more space I'd rather see it "wasted" for more slots. It was a play on DE's slightly silly argument that they cannot afford the database space for more loadout slots.

[LSG501]

Because it would make too much sense to have our loadouts stay fixed with what we set them with rather than 'resaving' every time we change something for a quick mission.

 

[Sibernetika]

2 minutes ago, Snib said:

No, the point was that if we "waste" more space I'd rather see it "wasted" for more slots. It was a play on DE's slightly silly argument that they cannot afford the database space for more loadout slots.

This is the 2nd time you have quoted me in 2 hours.. Either we're both bored or don't have lives lol

[Snib]

3 minutes ago, Sibernetika said:

This is the 2nd time you have quoted me in 2 hours.. Either we're both bored or don't have lives lol

Or maybe I received a notification when you quoted me and decided to reply? Mind blown.

[Sibernetika]

1 minute ago, Snib said:

Or maybe I received a notification when you quoted me and decided to reply? Mind blown.

Nah were running in the same topics as well, mind still perfectly intact

[Godmode_Ash]

9 hours ago, Snib said:

What's the problem with simply switching the weapon back though?

Rather than waste database space for a lock on loadouts I'd rather have more loadouts so I wouldn't have to change them around in the first place.

Because it would be annoying to have to fix loadout. Sometimes players might not even notice they broke their loadout until they are in middle of the mission.

Please explain to me why "adding more loadout" would solve the issue that a player can accidentally edit over his exist loadout?

[Snib]

Just now, Invoky said:

Because it would be annoying to have to fix loadout. Sometimes players might not even notice they broke their loadout until they are in middle of the mission.

Doesn't convince me. Nobody accidentally changes a loadout. You need to specifically go into your arsenal to do it, and probably with good reason (you wanted to rank up another weapon, needed a bow for sortie, etc.). Now if you were able to "lock" that loadout you'd still have unlocked it and changed it for the same reason as you did it without this feature. 

[Godmode_Ash]

Just now, Snib said:

Doesn't convince me. Nobody accidentally changes a loadout. You need to specifically go into your arsenal to do it, and probably with good reason (you wanted to rank up another weapon, needed a bow for sortie, etc.). Now if you were able to "lock" that loadout you'd still have unlocked it and changed it for the same reason as you did it without this feature. 

This is exactly what I mean in my first post that I have read many topic about this. Most people against this doesn't even have good argument, or even care about it. They just against it because they feel they don't need it, so the other people must NOT needing it.

Preset loadout are mean to be able for quick switch. EX: Ash build, banshee build etc. If I were to level a weapon, of course I will leave one of my loadout completely unlock so I can change new weapons faster. But I also want rest of my already set loadout to be locked so I don't accidentally edit over if I decide to go for farm/sortie in middle of leveling.

[RistN]

15 hours ago, Snib said:

Rather than waste database space for a lock on loadouts I'd rather have more loadouts so I wouldn't have to change them around in the first place.

Why would locking loadout require any memory at all?It would only be a option to lock or unlock it so we don't change it by accident.Some kind of warning message that appears when we try to change anything on loadout that is locked would be nice.

This is reasonable request from op that would be a nice QoL option.I messed up loadouts bunch of times by mistake.