A Trinity main tries out a Trinity rework

[Teridax68]

1 hour ago, OptimumBow0 said:

This is a really deep/complicated thread, but as someone who's regularly played Trinity I'd like to add my 2 cents

Passive: I like it

WoL: Regardless of how much more "difficult" it is to use it, it would be used, which is good enough for me. It differentiates it enough from being EV's sad twin.

EV: The potential for energy hogging is undesirable (as others pointed out). If 50% - 75% of the percent damage dealt was pulsed outwards, I think that would be a better compromise. That way there are scraps for the rest of the team and there is still an incentive to deal damage. However, I would still like for the passive-pulses to be preserved, because there are times when it is nice to just let EV do its thang and focus on taking down higher-priority enemies that just peeked around the corner.

Link: I like that you put a greater emphasis on the damage reflection because right now it's just there for show.

Blessing: I don't know what to think, but it sounds cool. And expensive.

My only reservation is that the WoL, Link, and Blessing changes will make her play more around her abilities to the point that she can't so much play the objective. But, then again, I'm pretty casual when I play her, so I don't know. 

I do think, though, that if she is to have this level of thought and care built into her ability casts that it would be neat if Link synergized with WoL and EV in some way. Like Linking to an EV'd enemy grants more direct energy flow, which would be beneficial for her now costlier abilities and increased casting (at least, it seems the necessity to cast would increase at the foundations of her kit).

That being said, this is awesome, I love when people talk about Trinity.

Thank you for the feedback! I can agree that there'd be more of a focus on abilities, though at the same time I feel at a high level there's currently a problem where Trinity focuses way too much on ability duration timers, unless she's EV-focused, in which case she just spends her entire time spamming the ability nonstop. If there are enemies to heal, then that should take up her attention, but at the same time, the downtimes here mean that she shouldn't be able to focus on non-stop heals even if she tried. I also tried to make some of the management easier by allowing her abilities to be mass-casted, and also by making her 1 fire-and-forget.

As for Link, I do think there's synergy with WoL and EV already: because WoL protects you from a ton of damage and status, but doesn't reduce its effects relative to Link, you can use both in conjunction to tank and damage enemies around you much more reliably. Because Link amplifies damage, and EV gives energy based on damage dealt, you'd also get to restore energy faster on linked enemies. Regarding EV specifically, I'm very strongly against having it restore energy to non-participating enemies, since it is precisely its ability to give energy to people who just so happen to be in the general vicinity, with no other associated gameplay, that makes Trinity's energy restoration so abusive.

1 hour ago, Azamagon said:

1) Yes, that's what I'm saying. I mentioned Total Eclipse before, remember? It follows the same issue, it's both overpowered (huge numbers of damage buffing), but also really underpowered (itsy bitsy range that only makes it useable in highly coordinated groups) at the same time.

I still don't follow. If an ability is good at one thing but bad at the other, and you don't like that, chances are you may simply be using the ability wrong. In this particular case, Pool of Life would still be plenty useful in solo play, in pubs, and so on, and I really don't see why organized play would suddenly cause its effectiveness to spike as drastically as you're speculating.

Quote

2) If you have to kill the target, it also makes it less broken by default. In that way, the team has to actively participate to take it down, to get that energy. Basicly the same thing, less kill-hog-like. Not to mention, it could then have other side-effects; It could set a DoT on the target similar to now (thus it helping itself to get the target down for that energy orb drop), it could still have a single target CC while ongoing.

This simply worsens every issue you mentioned. By your own reasoning, damage frames would still be the only ones getting kills, but the ability would become increasingly ineffective at higher levels, and players would still be able to get energy without participating in combat. It's the worst of all worlds.

Quote

Actually, I didn't judge it based on ESO, but on general gameplay. That's your own presumption.

General gameplay does not exclusively involve damage frames killing the entire map all the time. ESO does. Because you're basing your assessment on a whole bunch of factors that only happen in niche situations, i.e. ESO, it therefore comes across as rather obvious that this is the game mode you are basing your whole evaluation upon. If Trinity sucks in ESO, so be it, there are many other modes in which she'd succeed, not that she's ever had trouble succeeding in any game mode.

Quote

3) They could become near-abusive if they'd allow non-stop full overshields though. Especially along with your WoL-suggestion that provides plenty of damage-reduction, mind you. And I wasn't even thinking of overkill damage counting here, btw.

"If" being the crucial term here. You are only speculating, and I fail to see why anyone should give consideration to this when there are no supporting arguments to your claim here.

Quote

4) The keyword is exactly that thing you quickly scoffed off; "You may not link to new enemies while in motion". That. That's the tedium. That's the massive QoL-loss I meant. That's what I think many (me included) would really miss from it. Especially with 3 other abilities already requiring targetting.

"Massive QoL-loss"... when? How exactly does this inconvenience Trinity in her average play? Why does she need to be able to auto-detect enemies in range at all times? Moreover, for your consideration, holding the button for a quick probe, then holding again to end the link, would not only be far less costly than the current Link, but would also avoid Trinity accidentally alarming enemies by triggering some source of self-damage, making it better for stealth play, not worse. Once more, this is the kind of criticism that attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill, and so based entirely on untested speculation.

Quote

5) HUH? How is your version LESS inputrequiring than the current one?? In your version you'd have cast to link to every single new enemy that enters her range. Current one, it targets 3 by itself. My addition just let's you swap out one of those 3 currently linked ones to one of your own choosing (in those moments when you ACTUALLY want a particular enemy focused, like a Bombard or whatever). I just add QoL to it, you add complete tedium to it.

In my version, you can already hold the button to link to every enemy in range, and manually linking to 3 at a time is near-instantaneous. Meanwhile, what you're proposing requires Trinity to perform the full cast animation to link to 3 random targets, then fiddle around to choose whichever one she actually wants to link to, while also paying a full energy cost right from the start. My control scheme offers significantly more control, ease of use, and therefore quality of life, than yours, which attempts to jam a mechanic into an ability not designed to support it.

Quote

My version means you'd just run around, with the ability linking itself to all mooks like it currently does. Oh, there's a Bombard? Alright, I'll target this one enemy manually, since I want it focused down first. No biggie. Alternatively, I could just kill the smallfry nearby (if there aren't all that many close at the moment), then it'll link to the Bombard by itself eventually.

Let's run this situation through my system:

• You find a Bombard, and link to them manually. This is instantaneous, and costs no immediate energy. By the time you're done, you will have paid only a tiny energy cost, and virtually no extra input, to apply a potent debuff upon them.
• You want to kill the small fry as well. Hold to link to everyone, shoot the Bombard, and everyone else dies through the linked damage. No fuss.

Meanwhile, your scheme requires Trinity to constantly activate Link at timed intervals to check around for enemies, and only affords control over which specific enemies to focus if you target them directly while linked, which brings you back to the very problem you brought up. Keeping a timer up isn't fun, nor is paying a large energy cost each time for only very little effect. I can assure you that no Trinity player runs around the map spamming Link, particularly since the ability requires you to be on the ground to cast, and locks you into a fixed animation.

Quote

6) *sigh* I specifically said the number of enemies are vast. Not number of players. In that context I was talking specifically about how tedious -LINK- would be with manual targetting for every single enemy. Even with the holdcasting considered, yes, as you'd still have to link to each one with continuous input (be it single casted or holdcasted), instead of Link doing it by itself like now, while moving and all (yes, that auto-targetting while moving is incredibly important, moreso in your rework, actually, since you'd spend more time focusing casting WoL/Blessing on allies manually).

Except hold-casting would not require continuous input to maintain the link to enemies, so it really escapes me as to what it is you take issue with on Link. If the issue is simply that you want to auto-link to new enemies in range, that could be solved by having hold-casting switch to an auto-link mode, a la Bladestorm, but that's a whole new change for a tiny amount of functionality. You seem to be operating under the presumption that every frame needs to be able to affect everyone in range with just a button press, which is simply not true. Weapons don't operate on massive radial damage or CC, and many frames, including Trinity herself, tend to focus on single opponents, rather than entire crowds of enemies. If you want a support frame capable of outputting massive radial power without having to focus too hard on single targets, allow me to kindly direct you to Oberon and Harrow. In the meantime, if you're going to shoot down a Trinity rework that deliberately aims to make her more single target-focused, on the grounds that she doesn't have massive AoE, you may simply be in the wrong thread.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Teridax68

[Azamagon]

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

1) I still don't follow. If an ability is good at one thing but bad at the other, and you don't like that, chances are you may simply be using the ability wrong. In this particular case, Pool of Life would still be plenty useful in solo play, in pubs, and so on, and I really don't see why organized play would suddenly cause its effectiveness to spike as drastically as you're speculating.

2) This simply worsens every issue you mentioned. By your own reasoning, damage frames would still be the only ones getting kills, but the ability would become increasingly ineffective at higher levels, and players would still be able to get energy without participating in combat. It's the worst of all worlds.

3) General gameplay does not exclusively involve damage frames killing the entire map all the time. ESO does. Because you're basing your assessment on a whole bunch of factors that only happen in niche situations, i.e. ESO, it therefore comes across as rather obvious that this is the game mode you are basing your whole evaluation upon. If Trinity sucks in ESO, so be it, there are many other modes in which she'd succeed, not that she's ever had trouble succeeding in any game mode.

4) "If" being the crucial term here. You are only speculating, and I fail to see why anyone should give consideration to this when there are no supporting arguments to your claim here.

5) "Massive QoL-loss"... when? How exactly does this inconvenience Trinity in her average play? Why does she need to be able to auto-detect enemies in range at all times? Moreover, for your consideration, holding the button for a quick probe, then releasing it to end the link, would not only be far less costly than the current Link, but would also avoid Trinity accidentally alarming enemies by triggering some source of self-damage, making it better for stealth play, not worse. Once more, this is the kind of criticism that attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill, and so based entirely on untested speculation.

In my version, you can already hold the button to link to every enemy in range, and manually linking to 3 at a time is near-instantaneous. Meanwhile, what you're proposing requires Trinity to perform the full cast animation to link to 3 random targets, then fiddle around to choose whichever one she actually wants to link to, while also paying a full energy cost right from the start. My control scheme offers significantly more control, ease of use, and therefore quality of life, than yours, which attempts to jam a mechanic into an ability not designed to support it.

6) Let's run this situation through my system:

• You find a Bombard, and link to them manually. This is instantaneous, and costs no immediate energy. By the time you're done, you will have paid only a tiny energy cost, and virtually no extra input, to apply a potent debuff upon them.
• You want to kill the small fry as well. Hold to link to everyone, shoot the Bombard, and everyone else dies through the linked damage. No fuss.

7) Meanwhile, your scheme requires Trinity to constantly activate Link at timed intervals to check around for enemies, and only affords control over which specific enemies to focus if you target them directly while linked, which brings you back to the very problem you brought up. Keeping a timer up isn't fun, nor is paying a large energy cost each time for only very little effect. I can assure you that no Trinity player runs around the map spamming Link, particularly since the ability requires you to be on the ground to cast, and locks you into a fixed animation.

8 ) Except hold-casting would not require continuous input to maintain the link to enemies, so it really escapes me as to what it is you take issue with on Link. If the issue is simply that you want to auto-link to new enemies in range, that could be solved by having hold-casting switch to an auto-link mode, a la Bladestorm, but that's a whole new change for a tiny amount of functionality. You seem to be operating under the presumption that every frame needs to be able to affect everyone in range with just a button press, which is simply not true. Weapons don't operate on massive radial damage or CC, and many frames, including Trinity herself, tend to focus on single opponents, rather than entire crowds of enemies. If you want a support frame capable of outputting massive radial power without having to focus too hard on single targets, allow me to kindly direct you to Oberon and Harrow. In the meantime, if you're going to shoot down a Trinity rework that deliberately aims to make her more single target-focused, on the grounds that she doesn't have massive AoE, you may simply be in the wrong thread.

1) To put it like this: How many people do you see using Total Eclipse these days? Exactly, basicly no one. Why? Because the augment is extremely impractical and REQUIRES highly coordinated teamplay to be useable (not useful, but useable).

How would your Pool of Life be useable in solo, when it feeds of OTHERS' WoL-presences? Or are you saying it doesn't create it as an aura, but more like an instant "patch" on the ground who ANY ally can benefit from, Trinity herself included? If the latter, wow, that's one seriously powerful augment. You sure that wouldn't be a bit too OP?

2) Not exactly. The damage of EV itself could still scale (like it does now, but should then scale badly with negative duration, rather than benefit from it), meaning it would still be useable as a energysource (just not so immediate). Also, combat isn't everything in Warframe. Being able to get energy from Trinity, even while doing supportive nonkilling duties, should still be a thing imo. Your version of EV entirely kills that. But I guess we would have to agreed to disagreed on that?

3) Can you stop putting assumptions in here please? You brought in ESO in this, not me. General map gameplays can still be dominate by nukers (Equinox, Volt etc), so please, shut lay off that ESO assumption.

4) If? Believe me, players in general tend to be experts at breaking the game the best they can. I can totally see your EV-version with its current augment becoming a total immortality build, when you consider your WoL into it too. Yeah, it's not a certainty, but it's a VERY strong hunch.

5) It inconvience's Trinity because she has to activate Link whenever new enemies appear (if you then will even care about using it, as it'd become so tedious to support with it like this). Her ability to auto-detect enemies nearby has many hidden positives:

• It warns you that enemies are incoming from a certain direction that you might not currently be paying attention to, basicly giving you a non-radar version of Enemy Sense (which is immense and extremely underrated utility)
• It let's you know where to go to kill an enemy without having to visually scan for it (particularly useful in dark areas).
• Since it tells you where an enemy is walking, it can let you preemptively fire with non-hitscan weapons, hitting the enemy JUST as it comes around the corner.

This is just from the top of my head, mind you. And that's besides its ACTUAL direct benefits. Link is extremely underrated for its casting mechanics.

As for the other issues you mention about it (like stealth and such)

• Let it be cancellable (by holdcasting) (less issues with stealth)
• Make it a onehanded cast (no more issues with full casting animations)
• Make it castable midair (no more needing to cast it while on the ground)
• And, to make it less tedious overall (especially considering its cost), give it a higher base duration. It lasts rather briefly, all things considered.

See? No need to completely rehaul the ability for that.

As for the "fiddling around", that's only IF you want to link to particular targets. For even more convience, if the enemy you aim at (with zoom-active, I guess?) is within Link's range, that could also become a way to retarget one of Link's ... well, links. THAT would be easy to use, no doubt.

6) ... I forgot about that part.

Are you seriously believing that DE will let Trinity, of all Warframes, to be able to deal massive AoE damage via single target damage (in an almost Equinox kind of fashion)?  If (very strong if) the damage an enemy suffers is shared to ALL other Linked enemies, that damage really oughta be split amongst them. It'd be a lot more plausible with the 3-target limit (and even then, split among the remaining 2 enemies). That offensive damage-share sounds... far too strong if it has a complete AoE-targetting. Now I understand though, why you say it would be powerful, and why it would be fine to be fiddlier than the current version. But I honestly don't think DE would -ever- let Trinity have that kinda of offensive power.

Furthermore, your scenario is missing a small detail. An, imo, fiddly detail: You'd have to holdcast twice. First to unlink to all current targets (i.e. the Bombard), then again to target them all. That sounds rather clunky (again, imo).

7) Well, if you really (somehow?) think the cost is such a big issue (despite EV in her kit?), you could even mix my ideas by making it drain energy over time, also removing the "full cost for just one target"-thing you don't like. That way you have:

• First cast = Activate the ability. It autolink to 3 nearby enemies, and rechooses targets if they leave the radius or if one of the linked enemies die.
• Second cast = Deactivate the ability.
• Aiming during cast = Manually chooses the enemy you are aiming at, to become one of your Link-targets, if it's within range.

8 ) I like the autolinking because of the hidden utilities I mentioned above. Also because it feels unique. Further, because its automation lets you focus on actively using her other abilities. Having all 4 abilities being high-maintenance abilities sounds a bit too demanding from the player, imo.

Not to mention, I find it ironic that you feel an ability which is at max automatically targetting 3 enemies at once for a mere damage-amp (i.e. my / current version of Link) is somehow MORE AoE-focused than your version, which allows you to link to an unlimited amount of nearby targets via the holdcast, then obliterate all of them at once by just killing ONE of them...

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Azamagon

[Teridax68]

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

1) To put it like this: How many people do you see using Total Eclipse these days? Exactly, basicly no one. Why? Because the augment is extremely impractical and REQUIRES highly coordinated teamplay to be useable (not useful, but useable).

So the augment is niche, then. How exactly is that a bad thing?

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

How would your Pool of Life be useable in solo, when it feeds of OTHERS' WoL-presences? Or are you saying it doesn't create it as an aura, but more like an instant "patch" on the ground who ANY ally can benefit from, Trinity herself included? If the latter, wow, that's one seriously powerful augment. You sure that wouldn't be a bit too OP?

Trinity herself can benefit from it, there are no restrictions on which ally can benefit from the pool. I probably should have clarified, but the pool is static (as pools usually are), so it should not take much coordination to benefit from it. The ability is powerful when used right, but requires people to remain in place, which happens in some missions, but not others, so it has its uses. Incidentally, this augment does serve to ease some of the pressure related to casting WoL in heated, largely stationary combat, since it could supply WoL to more than one ally with just a single instant cast.

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

2) Not exactly. The damage of EV itself could still scale (like it does now, but should then scale badly with negative duration, rather than benefit from it), meaning it would still be useable as a energysource (just not so immediate). Also, combat isn't everything in Warframe. Being able to get energy from Trinity, even while doing supportive nonkilling duties, should still be a thing imo. Your version of EV entirely kills that. But I guess we would have to agreed to disagreed on that?

It is strange that you would tell me that "combat isn't everything", when your very criticism of my version of this ability is that it doesn't perform optimally in heavy combat situations. This is also after I told you that I deliberately made to the ability to be useful in stealthier play, so I simply do not get your point. Moreover, combat isn't everything, but combat is generally what requires energy for a warframe to perform. If you're not in combat, you should not be having problems with energy usage. I also fail to see how my version of EV "kills" supporting outside of combat, considering how the version of EV that exists in-game is an enemy-targeted ability that damages and alerts opponents.

Also, whether or not EV's damage were to scale, having it grant energy only on-kill still causes the ability to scale worse with levels, as you're still taking more time to get to your reward. Enemies with higher levels have more health than those same enemies at lower levels; this is a fact, not an "agree to disagree" situation.

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

3) Can you stop putting assumptions in here please? You brought in ESO in this, not me. General map gameplays can still be dominate by nukers (Equinox, Volt etc), so please, shut lay off that ESO assumption.

They can be, but that doesn't mean they are all the time, and even the slightest amount of play in Warframe should indicate this. The only game mode that features non-stop heavy combat in a cramped space, and which is almost always dominated by heavy AoE nukers, is ESO. Because this is the exact combination of criteria you are using to judge my rework, whether you like it or not, you are judging my Trinity kit based on how well you think she'd do on ESO. If you want me to stop mentioning ESO, perhaps you should stop repeating yourself by implicitly using it as your method of evaluation, and instead try to imagine how this kit would play out in a greater variety of scenarios, including scenarios where everyone around Trinity isn't dying simultaneously in a fraction of a second.

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

4) If? Believe me, players in general tend to be experts at breaking the game the best they can. I can totally see your EV-version with its current augment becoming a total immortality build, when you consider your WoL into it too. Yeah, it's not a certainty, but it's a VERY strong hunch.

Trinity can currently reach 93.75% damage reduction while also being able to stack full overshields, and while she is certainly durable, she isn't immortal. Meanwhile, there are frames with actual invincibility or immortality abilities in the game, such as Rhino, Nezha, Harrow or Wukong, and these frames certainly don't break the game. For sure, if Trinity were to stack a lot of Power Strength, she'd make her allies and herself very durable, but then again, I specifically intended for her spells to be individually powerful, if costly to apply on multiple targets. At the end of the day, it's your word against mine, and you hardly play Trinity at all.

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

5) It inconvience's Trinity because she has to activate Link whenever new enemies appear (if you then will even care about using it, as it'd become so tedious to support with it like this). Her ability to auto-detect enemies nearby has many hidden positives:

• It warns you that enemies are incoming from a certain direction that you might not currently be paying attention to, basicly giving you a non-radar version of Enemy Sense (which is immense and extremely underrated utility)
• It let's you know where to go to kill an enemy without having to visually scan for it (particularly useful in dark areas).
• Since it tells you where an enemy is walking, it can let you preemptively fire with non-hitscan weapons, hitting the enemy JUST as it comes around the corner.

This is just from the top of my head, mind you. And that's besides its ACTUAL direct benefits. Link is extremely underrated for its casting mechanics.

All of this requires you to pre-emptively cast Link, which brings us to the very same use cases as for my version of the ability. Bulletpoint 3 is also achievable in my own version, so I don't quite understand why you'd bring it up here. At the end of the day, my version of Link can do all of this better, whereas your presumed mode of usage for Link requires Trinity to pause, cast the ability and spend 75 Energy every few seconds for what is a worse Enemy Sense. As someone who actually has experience as Trinity, particularly hybrid Trinity, I can tell you this isn't how we use this ability, and the only times where the detection truly becomes useful is if there's an enemy stuck in terrain.

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

As for the other issues you mention about it (like stealth and such)

• Let it be cancellable (by holdcasting) (less issues with stealth)
• Make it a onehanded cast (no more issues with full casting animations)
• Make it castable midair (no more needing to cast it while on the ground)
• And, to make it less tedious overall (especially considering its cost), give it a higher base duration. It lasts rather briefly, all things considered.

See? No need to completely rehaul the ability for that.

I literally proposed all of this already in my version, which just so happens to do a better job of everything you're proposing. What does your version contribute again?

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

As for the "fiddling around", that's only IF you want to link to particular targets. For even more convience, if the enemy you aim at (with zoom-active, I guess?) is within Link's range, that could also become a way to retarget one of Link's ... well, links. THAT would be easy to use, no doubt.

The very reason you suggested your changes was to link to particular targets, in criticism of how my version of the ability apparently made this a chore. If your proposed change does a worse job at achieving its only intended goal than mine, I do not see why it is worth considering.

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

6) ... I forgot about that part.

Are you seriously believing that DE will let Trinity, of all Warframes, to be able to deal massive AoE damage via single target damage (in an almost Equinox kind of fashion)?  If (very strong if) the damage an enemy suffers is shared to ALL other Linked enemies, that damage really oughta be split amongst them. It'd be a lot more plausible with the 3-target limit (and even then, split among the remaining 2 enemies). That offensive damage-share sounds... far too strong if it has a complete AoE-targetting. Now I understand though, why you say it would be powerful, and why it would be fine to be fiddlier than the current version. But I honestly don't think DE would -ever- let Trinity have that kinda of offensive power.

So first off, I find it rather strange that you'd change your tune completely just to continue to try to shoot down the same idea, after admitting to having entirely misread my post. Are you trying to offer a legitimate critique, or are you just trying to win an argument?

It is also worth mentioning that the AoE link, as with the rest of my proposed kit, comes at a price, since linking indiscriminately to every enemy in range could be costly, especially if there are so many enemies around, as you mentioned. Once more, the focus here is on powerful single-target abilities (i.e. the ability's damage amp) which can be applied to multiple targets at a time for a much greater cost. Trinity could certainly blow up the contents of a small room, but only from time to time. The fact that you would consider this to be game-breakingly overpowered when you previously suggested giving Trinity both more AoE and more CC is... perplexing to me.

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

Furthermore, your scenario is missing a small detail. An, imo, fiddly detail: You'd have to holdcast twice. First to unlink to all current targets (i.e. the Bombard), then again to target them all. That sounds rather clunky (again, imo).

The first hold-cast would literally just incur the same animation as the current Link, and the second hold-cast would induce zero cost or animation. There is no real reason why this would be particularly clunky, particularly since each action would require exactly one input. By your logic, Bladestorm is an order of magnitude more clunky, yet you still seem to have no problem playing Ash.

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

7) Well, if you really (somehow?) think the cost is such a big issue (despite EV in her kit?), you could even mix my ideas by making it drain energy over time, also removing the "full cost for just one target"-thing you don't like. That way you have:

• First cast = Activate the ability. It autolink to 3 nearby enemies, and rechooses targets if they leave the radius or if one of the linked enemies die.
• Second cast = Deactivate the ability.
• Aiming during cast = Manually chooses the enemy you are aiming at, to become one of your Link-targets, if it's within range.

I find it difficult to believe your criticism of my kit's supposed clunkiness when, in the very next paragraph, you suggest a mode of casting that requires several more inputs to achieve the same results, and that is therefore significantly clunkier. Your suggestion also presumes Trinity always performs a full animation, and would only allow her to select which targets to link to during this animation, both of which are far less smooth than anything I've proposed. At this point, it mostly feels like you personally dislike my version of Link mainly because you had another iteration in mind, which I invite you to propose on your own thread.

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

8 ) I like the autolinking because of the hidden utilities I mentioned above. Also because it feels unique. Further, because its automation lets you focus on actively using her other abilities. Having all 4 abilities being high-maintenance abilities sounds a bit too demanding from the player, imo.

This I think is where the difference in experience playing Trinity shows. Autolinking doesn't "feel unique", and in my entire run as Trinity I have never had to use the ability just to detect enemies while on the move, even when I played solo missions and tried to play stealthily. Moreover, changing the ability to a toggle would reduce upkeep, as you would no longer need to monitor a duration, as would also be the case for every other ability I've proposed for Trinity, none of which expires after a set duration. None of the abilities I've proposed are particularly high-maintenance, as I've specifically designed them to not require constant attention from Trinity at every moment, and even if you do find aiming in the general direction of people to be challenging, I've enabled the options to be useful without even having to aim. If you were still to find all this to be too difficult somehow, once again, there are plenty of frames who play differently, and would be more your style. Not every frame in the game needs a kit made up entirely of radial abilities, nor does every warframe in the game need to conform to your personal playstyle above everyone else's.

54 minutes ago, Azamagon said:

Not to mention, I find it ironic that you feel an ability which is at max automatically targetting 3 enemies at once for a mere damage-amp (i.e. my / current version of Link) is somehow MORE AoE-focused than your version, which allows you to link to an unlimited amount of nearby targets via the holdcast, then obliterate all of them at once by just killing ONE of them...

My criticism wasn't simply of your version of Link, but of the sum total of the changes you are proposing, which try to tack on AoE to Trinity's kit and remove the options I suggested for finer control. Moreover, your version of Link is by nature AoE, as it cannot be made to tag a single target unless you position in a very particular manner. My version, by contrast, is single target-focused, and comes at a far more serious cost if it were to be used as actual AoE. My version of Trinity's AoE comes at a cost your suggestions do not even begin to consider, and while we're discussing irony, I recommend you take a look at the double standard between how you consider hold-casting to be too fiddly and high-maintenance when used on powerful ally utility, but somehow OP when used on enemy-focused debuffs.

[Buzkyl]

I very much enjoy these tweaks! However I have a few concerns.

 

Passive-Comparatively, the new proposed passive is a downgrade to her current. Her current passive reinforces her as a healer allowing her to revive allies faster, which allows them to get back in the fight. However the current passive does not bolster her role similarly.

Arguably, it can be considered a "crutch" as monitoring allies within 50M is accomplished via pressing Z. Which not only tells you what allies are in range but thier shields and energy as well. In essence your proposed passive is already available in-game.

Well of Life-I would remove the immunity to status, on the pure reason that steps on Oberon's territory. By having Trin provide status immunity you take away a niche from another support frame.I would also slightly tone down the based DR so that heavy DR requires more specialization. However my main concern is the status portion.

 

Energy Vampire-Should have a  small, passive energy regeneration feature for nearby allies. Players deal heavy damage and that EV target is going to die very quickly unless it has a form of damage mitigation to prevent it from being killed instantly as allies shoot it for energy.

Link-Pre-mitigated damage along with the DR of WoL can have this open to trinity just letting enemies kill themselves by her just standing there. As trin takes mitigated damage but deals unmitigated damage. Which I understand IS the intention but it's very much open abuse or potential AFK gameplay.

Even  the cost of heavy energy drain by linking to a room of enemies is offset by her EV costing no energy at all. Then throw in Zenrik and Energy pizzas energy drain is hardly an issue for this skill even at extremes.

Blessing-I have no issue with this but the augment is too broken. Self revives need heavy cost, a "free" revive every 30s is too strong. Oberon's is 90s and Nekros costs his entire energy pool, these thing should be treated very carefully with a heavy cost or appropriate cool down. 30s is too short

Edited July 11, 2018 by Buzkyl

[Teridax68]

28 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

I very much enjoy these tweaks! However I have a few concerns.

Thank you for the feedback! My thoughts on some of these points:

28 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

Passive-Comparatively, the new proposed passive is a downgrade to her current. Her current passive reinforces her as a healer allowing her to revive allies faster, which allows them to get back in the fight. However the current passive does not bolster her role similarly.

Arguably, it can be considered a "crutch" as monitoring allies within 50M is accomplished via pressing Z. Which not only tells you what allies are in range but thier shields and energy as well. In essence your proposed passive is already available in-game.

The current passive on Trinity isn't all that useful after The War Within, after which you have a much more reliable way of reviving allies. Also, being able to see allies through walls means you can target them with abilities, which is crucial to the functionality of the 1 and 4 I'm proposing.

28 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

Well of Life-I would remove the immunity to status, on the pure reason that steps on Oberon's territory. By having Trin provide status immunity you take away a niche from another support frame.I would also slightly tone down the based DR so that heavy DR requires more specialization. However my main concern is the status portion.

Both of these are valid concerns, for sure. I chose 50% DR to maintain the 75% DR one would get with Blessing and 50% Power Strength currently, but if that proves too high, or if the cap is too high, both could be lowered. 

28 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

Energy Vampire-Should have a  small, passive energy regeneration feature for nearby allies. Players deal heavy damage and that EV target is going to die very quickly unless it has a form of damage mitigation to prevent it from being killed instantly as allies shoot it for energy.

As mentioned above, I don't think a player should have access to the Energy of a target they're not participating in killing. If the issue is that a single target died too quickly, the ability can be reapplied instantly at no cost, and if the issue is that a single ally is killing everyone in sight, the problem lies with that ally, and there wouldn't be a need for mass Energy restoration anyway.

28 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

Link-Pre-mitigated damage along with the DR of WoL can have this open to trinity just letting enemies kill themselves by her just standing there. As trin takes mitigated damage but deals unmitigated damage. Which I understand IS the intention but it's very much open abuse or potential AFK gameplay.

This is a functionality that already exists in the current version of Link.

28 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

Even  the cost of heavy energy drain by linking to a room of enemies is offset by her EV costing no energy at all. Then throw in Zenrik and Energy pizzas energy drain is hardly an issue for this skill even at extremes.

Energy pizzas are a separate problem, but if Trinity is using her EV in such a way that she can afford to use her abilities frequently, she is simply playing well, and deserves to be rewarded for it.

28 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

Blessing-I have no issue with this but the augment is too broken. Self revives need heavy cost, a "free" revive every 30s is too strong. Oberon's is 90s and Nekros costs his entire energy pool, these thing should be treated very carefully with a heavy cost or appropriate cool down. 30s is too short

Oberon's revive can apply to all allies independently, whereas Nekros's revive is on his 1, and has no cooldown, on a frame notorious for consuming very little energy with his standard build. Meanwhile, the augment I'm proposing can only be used on one target, and incurs a 30-second cooldown for everyone. Trinity's revives would therefore be far less frequent and far costlier than Oberon's or Nekros's, particularly since the revive also incurs the energy cost needed to heal the target to full.

[Buzkyl]

29 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

The current passive on Trinity isn't all that useful after The War Within, after which you have a much more reliable way of reviving allies. Also, being able to see allies through walls means you can target them with abilities, which is crucial to the functionality of the 1 and 4 I'm proposing.

Operators revive allies more safely than Trinity however the issue was never with safety, it was of efficiency. Trinity still revives allies faster than Operator. Combined with Blessing+Link rarely is Trinity safety a concern.

Being able to see allies is useful, yes. However there are already means to facilitate this, both by pressing Z or through the minimap which can expanded on the screen for a better reading of everyone. The passive isn't "bad" but comparatively I would call it a downgrade coming from her current interms of usage.

 

29 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

This is a functionality that already exists in the current version of Link.

Link reflects mitigated damage back to the attacker, which is then affected by armor,. However unless I'm reading it wrong the proposed Link would reflect the damage before it's mitigated i.e the difference between reflecting 100 damage and 1000 damage back at allies. On anything other than Grineer this skill would be too strong as enemies damage scale with level allowing them to kill themselves even quicker. Which is definitely going to be abused.

33 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

As mentioned above, I don't think a player should have access to the Energy of a target they're not participating in killing. If the issue is that a single target died too quickly, the ability can be reapplied instantly at no cost, and if the issue is that a single ally is killing everyone in sight, the problem lies with that ally, and there wouldn't be a need for mass Energy restoration anyway.

If Trinity is suppose to be a team support, her skills need to be able to support players both weak and strong. If 1 teammate can keep all the energy for themselves then that's the antithesis of a team based skill. Unless I misread then it too would be possible for an ally to lock Trinity out of regaining energy if they kill the target before she can damage it. The skill should encourage active participation but this iteration punishes those who aren't able to shoot the enemy in time.  It's a step forward to solving EV cheese but a stepback backwards in actual team support.

Your EV should incorporate the current WoL mechanic where the target's health is multiplied so allies have the opportunity to focus fire and all can benefit of it.

 

41 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Energy pizzas are a separate problem, but if Trinity is using her EV in such a way that she can afford to use her abilities frequently, she is simply playing well, and deserves to be rewarded for it.

This was in reference to  your iteration of Link. Link's downside which is the energy cost per link is hardly a "downside" considering she is capable of generating heavy amounts of energy.

47 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Oberon's revive can apply to all allies independently, whereas Nekros's revive is on his 1, and has no cooldown, on a frame notorious for consuming very little energy with his standard build. Meanwhile, the augment I'm proposing can only be used on one target, and incurs a 30-second cooldown for everyone. Trinity's revives would therefore be far less frequent and far costlier than Oberon's or Nekros's, particularly since the revive also incurs the energy cost needed to heal the target to full.

Fair enough.

[Teridax68]

9 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

Operators revive allies more safely than Trinity however the issue was never with safety, it was of efficiency. Trinity still revives allies faster than Operator. Combined with Blessing+Link rarely is Trinity safety a concern.

Blessing + Link takes a little bit of time to set up, though, whereas Operator in Void mode is near-instant and cannot be interrupted by any means. Even with my passive, I find it much more reliable to revive allies in Operator mode than as Trinity.

9 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

Being able to see allies is useful, yes. However there are already means to facilitate this, both by pressing Z or through the minimap which can expanded on the screen for a better reading of everyone. The passive isn't "bad" but comparatively I would call it a downgrade coming from her current interms of usage.

Pressing Z is a staple on Trinity, as is the minimap, but neither let you directly target allies through walls. Again, the purpose of this passive is to facilitate the casting of her other abilities, and to allow her to always have her allies in sight. Trinity does not need to revive allies slightly faster and from farther, particularly since I'm still enabling that option via an augment to Blessing.

9 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

Link reflects mitigated damage back to the attacker, which is then affected by armor,. However unless I'm reading it wrong the proposed Link would reflect the damage before it's mitigated i.e the difference between reflecting 100 damage and 1000 damage back at allies. On anything other than Grineer this skill would be too strong as enemies damage scale with level allowing them to kill themselves even quicker. Which is definitely going to be abused.

I'm not sure what you've read, but both my version of Link and Link as it exists takes the pre-mitigation damage, and reflects it back, which is then mitigated by whichever damage modifiers they have. Thus, Grineer would still resist the incoming damage with armor. It's worth mentioning that even with Abating Link, which can strip the enemy of their entire armor with enough Power Strength, the reflected damage remains quite low, due to the relationship between enemy health and their own damage.

9 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

If Trinity is suppose to be a team support, her skills need to be able to support players both weak and strong. If 1 teammate can keep all the energy for themselves then that's the antithesis of a team based skill. Unless I misread then it too would be possible for an ally to lock Trinity out of regaining energy if they kill the target before she can damage it. The skill should encourage active participation but this iteration punishes those who aren't able to shoot the enemy in time.  It's a step forward to solving EV cheese but a stepback backwards in actual team support.

If one teammate can kill every enemy on the map to a degree that prevents everyone else from killing anyone, then once again, the problem lies with that teammate, not this ability. Even in Elite Sanctuary Onslaught, though, there are still opportunities to mark targets that allies other than the Saryn or Volt can kill, so there will always be opportunities to use this ability to benefit the entire team.

9 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

Your EV should incorporate the current WoL mechanic where the target's health is multiplied so allies have the opportunity to focus fire and all can benefit of it.

... which makes the target harder to kill, an effect that is undesirable by itself and anti-synergistic with Link. Considering how the ability would cost literally no energy and could be applied to any target instantly, if one target dies before everyone could get energy, there'd be no problem to marking another.

9 minutes ago, Buzkyl said:

This was in reference to  your iteration of Link. Link's downside which is the energy cost per link is hardly a "downside" considering she is capable of generating heavy amounts of energy.

I mentioned this already, but the intention of my rework is also to nerf Trinity's energy generation. One single target would not be enough to fill up one's energy bar, so generating energy should never be so quick as to circumvent all of Trinity's other ability costs. If Trinity does manage to cast all of her abilities smoothly in spite of their cost, that would stem from playing well, and would not need to change.

[VertegrezNox]

On 2018-07-09 at 2:35 PM, GreenVajene said:

Since complexity has repeatedly come up, let's look at what WoLing a full party will require. You will have to visually acquire, target, and click the ability upon each ally, and once, away from any, for yourself. You haven't stated that WoL is one-handed, so from what I can tell casting WoL means not using your weapons. In dense maps you will be getting swarmed by enemies; separately casting each WoL independently while getting mobbed in cramped quarters seems like a less-than ideal experience, even before considering how a newer player might feel.

But speaking again of newer players, you suggest that 10 hits can last someone a long time. that is true, if the player is good, or if they have a mobile playstyle. However, that assumes a higher-than-average level of knowledge and skill, which speaks to the point I raised earlier: many of your suggestions seem to assume a very organized and skilled party, which caters well perhaps to clans and the like, but not to the pub groups which make up an enormous fraction of the game.

One of Trinity's best current capacities is to help act as training wheels for new players, and new players don't know how to dodge. If your goal was to minimize the upkeep-management endemic to current Trinity, then recast-per-ten-seconds is going to be your reality, and if you're babysitting more than one new player, then the effort will be multiplied.

In terms of stress-testing the concept again, in a squad of four new-ish players, a Trinity will be constantly chasing after their allies blowing through their 10 second buffs (and who are likely to diverge at completely different distances and ranges on a moment's notice, charging at heavy gunners and bombards) and babysitting their upkeep almost the entire time. After all, the effort of each individual recast occurs during a depletion of time from the last cast, which means by the time you hit all 4 party members the first cast is almost up.

Look, if OP doesn't understand how recasting (4x)WoL each and every 10seconds (while single targeting allies through walls) is less fun than pushing EV (4x)........

Then I have nothing to say here except that if the rework is awful, I can go heal pubs in some other game. Cause I won't be recommending any of my heal friends try Trinity if she's for 'elitists only'. In fact that was why I quit playing WF the first time, some jerks told me she was 2k platinum because "all the good healers already have a trin, and our game doesn't need anymore healers"

This ""rework"" might bea wetdream for a few hxc kids on discord, but I can guarantee a lot less "healers" will be playing this game. I for one respect DE enough not to leave the game if my favorite character gets butchered, but this Wednesday the berfing has really gone to far. 

@OP If you hate Trinity so bad go play Oberon or Harrow, they are pretty good too I don't understand why this isn't in a new character suggestions thread. It's not a rework at all & I'm baffled if this is a troll or just accidental mispost.. OMG your killin me jimmy lol

[VertegrezNox]

I would also like to point out the elephant in the room that OP Repeatedly Suggests that THE #1 Problem with this "rework" is with "other frames, or teammates"..

which says to me you'd change up the entire game to suit your tastes for 1 character that probably only you & 10 others might play.

You don't seem to understand what teamplay is actually like, or perhaps how it is for others outside of your clique. Perhaps it's simply because you haven't developed, or worked on creating multiplayer games for yourself. I'm not mad either this is a sickenly common disorder amongst online gaming communities. Punish the persons who spend their day topping off your health, or god forbid your energy supply. It's not like 1/8 of the frames can already make themselves invincible.. Or mitigate their own power drain.

Like wow, I just cannot believe you aren't newer to this game than I am.. was this your first game where you play healer/support maybe? 

[Teridax68]

8 hours ago, VertegrezNox said:

@OP If you hate Trinity so bad go play Oberon or Harrow, they are pretty good too I don't understand why this isn't in a new character suggestions thread. It's not a rework at all & I'm baffled if this is a troll or just accidental mispost.. OMG your killin me jimmy lol

 

Spoiler

As it so happens, this post has gathered quite a few upvotes, with many others expressing approval of the changes. Meanwhile, your first post trashing my rework has earned nothing but ridicule. As it so happens, you don't seem to understand what this rework is, and that's fine, but the fact remains that I'm proposing to make Trinity easier and more fun to play. I also love Trinity, and if I didn't I wouldn't have spent over half of my entire time in Warframe playing her (I've also played 2400+ hours of Warframe). Meanwhile, you've only accumulated only a tiny fraction of my total playtime. I can understand you'd be protective of a frame you'd love, and that you can disagree with changes based on this, but trying to paint my rework as objectively bad simply because you personally don't like it is another matter, and not really good form on a discussion space. If you do not like this rework or the way others disagree with you, the forums may not be for you.

 

7 hours ago, VertegrezNox said:

I would also like to point out the elephant in the room that OP Repeatedly Suggests that THE #1 Problem with this "rework" is with "other frames, or teammates"..

which says to me you'd change up the entire game to suit your tastes for 1 character that probably only you & 10 others might play.

 

Spoiler

Except the problem of AoE damage frames is brought up by many others in many other threads. It is a known problem in itself, one that warps the game in certain situations. You and others have thus been asking for the entire design of future frames to change so that it may conform to broken levels of player damage, which I think is ridiculous. Sooner or later, this kind of damage will have to get addressed, and when that happens, there would never be any problem with the ability I proposed, as opposed to there only sometimes being a problem if the ability's used improperly in ESO.

 

Quote

You don't seem to understand what teamplay is actually like, or perhaps how it is for others outside of your clique. Perhaps it's simply because you haven't developed, or worked on creating multiplayer games for yourself. I'm not mad either this is a sickenly common disorder amongst online gaming communities. Punish the persons who spend their day topping off your health, or god forbid your energy supply. It's not like 1/8 of the frames can already make themselves invincible.. Or mitigate their own power drain.

Like wow, I just cannot believe you aren't newer to this game than I am.. was this your first game where you play healer/support maybe? 

 

Spoiler

As a matter of fact, I tend to main supports and support classes whenever I play team games, which I started with Team Fortress 2 and the Medic in 2007. I'd say I have a very good concept of what team play is like, easily more so than you, particularly since your attitude on here has been utterly selfish and inconsiderate of others. Were you not actively refusing to consider my rework properly, you would have noticed I baked in many more opportunities for interaction between Trinity and her team, including many interactions that would make doing so easier, and less of a hassle for the Trinity. You can talk all you want about how you think I'm less experienced than you, but the fact remains that I've played a very large multiple of the time you've spent in Warframe. If you want to talk about team play, or game knowledge, know that you are at a very significant disadvantage in both, and that you should perhaps take this into account before throwing out personal accusations with such complete lack of self-awareness.

 

7 hours ago, Azamagon said:

1) Its niched to the border of uselessness. How is that good?

 

Spoiler

Because it still has a use in certain situations and for certain playstyles, even if it isn't your own. This is, in fact, what an augment should be, as augments should allow players to modify their gameplay towards a certain niche by fine-tuning their kit, rather than just provide some blanket buff that may as well be added to the base version.

 

Quote

3) Huh?? Can you stop putting making things up and putting "words in my mouth", please? I never said your EV wouldn't be good in combat situations. I said that it would be too selfishly useful only for the kill-hogging players.

 

Spoiler

... which are only a problem in ESO, since literally every other game mode only has this problem occasionally (and when that happens, everyone's affected already). You can argue semantics all you want, but this is my point, and if you really think Warframe is dominated by "kill-hogging players", then a) that is a problem that needs to be resolved in the first place, and b) you likely aren't playing Warframe, certainly not enough to know what you're talking about.

 

Quote

Also, tell me, how does another player (or even Trin herself) gain energy in your version of EV, by NOT attacking the main target?

 

Spoiler

They don't. That is the point.

 

Quote

EV used to work somewhat similar to how you suggested it btw. It was changed away from that, for a reason...

 

Spoiler

It was changed, sure, but not for that reason. The actual update thread stated in very hypothetical terms that the intent was to rebalance Trin and give her more damage/solo capabilities, while also preserving the damage-based conversion on Well of Life, a mechanic that still persists to this day. You are simply making stuff up.

 

Quote

4) While you need to pre-emptively need to cast Link, it doesn't need to be cast exactly in range of enemies. You can cast it in room 1, and get some use out of it in room 2 and 3. Yours has to be recast in every room. Also, bulletpoint 3 is not as easily achievable in your version. You'd have to know that an enemy is around, not need any target linked, then holdcast, then predict-fire. Not nearly the same.

 

Spoiler

Again, all of these case scenarios require Link to be cast pre-emptively. Once more, that you somehow believe Trinities pre-emptively cast Link for this specific purpose shows just how little of her you play, and how much you're willing to exaggerate for the sake of trying to win an argument.

 

Quote

Also, wait wait wait... you somehow paint this part up so negatively: "At the end of the day, my version of Link can do all of this better, whereas your presumed mode of usage for Link requires Trinity to pause, cast the ability and spend 75 Energy every few seconds for what is a worse Enemy Sense."

All the while your own version looks like this "My oh so awesome ability, which is not clunky at all, requires Trinity to stop and aim at every enemy she ecounters, cast the ability on each and every one of them, drain energy over time while taking the time to do so, while also preventing her from gaining energy via EV"
... is totally less clunky and "superior" huh? Ok, sure. If you say so >_>

 

Spoiler

Except my ability doesn't require Trinity to stop at all or incur a delay, and the drain over time is objectively cheaper if you use it in the same scenarios as the current Link, so the ability would be smoother, not clunkier. If you think aiming at a target is somehow clunky, you may want to start complaining about how guns are unfair for not auto-killing everyone radially. Also, how exactly does this prevent her from gaining energy? Part of the intended gameplay here is to cast Link, then mark a linked target with EV for faster energy returns. Once more, you are talking out of your butt.

 

Quote

I'll give you something though, it does do something amazing: Kill one enemy, then kill them all. Which is totally not AoE and totally not overpowered. Yup, gotcha.

 

Spoiler

Many, many other frames can do this quicker, more cheaply, and to more enemies. If you want to consider this overpowered, be my guest, particularly since this reply just comes out of you trying to simultaneously paint the ability as underpowered for not preserving an extremely niche function no Trinity actually relies on.

 

Quote

5) Wow, hahaha. Nope, you're totally not full of yourself. Not at all.

... dude, get a grip of reality and stop being so extremely high and mighty. Your version is both extremely overpowered when used in brainless mode (holdcast the ability, kill one enemy, with all linked enemies dieing at once), but also extremely clunky when used in your "mainly intended" way (casting the ability on each and every single enemy manually). How deluded are you?

 

Spoiler

I think it is you who needs to get a grip on reality, as you have been continuously throwing out baseless accusations as if they were objective truths, and reacting badly when called out on it, to the point of attacking my character. Not only are you quite obviously in the wrong, you are also jeopardizing your position on these forums with this kind of toxic behavior. I would advise a change of attitude.

 

Quote

Meanwhile, all I did was give to suggest pure QoL to the current ability, while also changing it to become offensive (by making it ONLY a damage-amp, as per your suggestion. Note that my version does NOT share the damage done from one target to the other two ones, unlike your suggestion. That'd actually make it a semi-AoE ability. Although still to a much lesser extent than yours)

 

Spoiler

Except, as I already mentioned, your "pure QoL" suggestions are anything but. They overcomplicate an ability and bend it out of shape by trying to turn it into something it wasn't made for, while demonstrating very little understanding of how the ability is used in practice, or what its purpose is. No thanks.

 

Quote

6) My first proposed suggestion was exactly the same as your idea (target an enemy and (re)cast it). Then I further refined it (to just needing to aim down sights at an enemy). Do you even read?

 

Spoiler

I do, which is why I can say without a doubt that your suggestion is terrible by your very own metrics. If you think aiming is bad, then your ability is worse than mine, by dint of forcing the player to give out more inputs to achieve the same effect. Are you sure you're even aware of what you're proposing?

 

Quote

Besides, how often do you really need to link to a one specific target? In your version, every enemy becomes a "specific" target (since you have to target and cast on each one individually, if you don't just spam the holdcast instead), while the current/my version simply just targets the closest 3 ones. Further, in my version, if you really need to target a specific target, just aim at it. How is that "oh so clunky and messy", when it's lightyears faster than your manual targetting method?? I... really don't get how you reach such a deluded conclusion...

 

Spoiler

Heavy and eximus units are an easy example of a single target worth focusing above others. Once more, playing Warframe should make this obvious. Your version confuses aiming with casting, which would mess up a Trinity's gunplay, while still requiring more inputs to achieve the same effect: you'd need to hold a button to aim down sights in addition to aiming at them, while also casting Link beforehand, defeating the very purpose of trying to simplify my gameplay of aiming at an enemy and marking them instantly. If you do not understand my conclusion, chances are you're not really understanding how my proposed ability works, or how your own version impacts negatively upon Trinity's gameplay.

 

Quote

7) Ok, so this is just lowkey calling me stupid for forgetting a part of your suggestion. Nice, very constructive. (And yes, ofc I'm trying to bring legit critique. Otherwise, why would I say that some things are great, and some things are bad? I'm definitely not here to "just win an arguement", unlike some other people who does creepy stuff like stalking your account such just to find something to fight about, paparazzi-style *coughcough*)

 

Spoiler

At no point I called you stupid, I merely pointed out that you had made a judgment on a part of my post you had not made the effort to read properly, an issue that seems to be recurring in your posts. Despite this glaring mistake, you continue to attack me and my suggestions, which strongly suggests your intentions are less than honorable. Looking up your profile is nowhere near equal to "stalking your account" , or anything as hyperbolic, and can be easily done to check someone's credentials. In this particular case, I wanted to check your level of experience on Trinity, and found that you had virtually none. This doesn't necessarily invalidate your opinion, but it should make you aware that you are trying to talk about a frame you have little to no experience about, to someone who happens to be very experienced at that frame (and I encourage you to "stalk my account" to verify this). Thus, you should try to write your replies with a little more perspective and self-awareness, as your posts have been sorely lacking in both. I am far more experienced at Trinity than you are and likely ever will be, and so I have a far more intimate awareness of how she plays. This is a fact. You do not get to tell me that Trinity plays differently from what I know just because you said so.

 

Quote

Further, something you still haven't seemlingly grasped here; An ability can both be ridiculously powerful, but also extremely clunky, at the same time. (Both which ought to be avoided for a healthier gameplay, mind you) Which is exactly how your Link is:

Clunkyness - Manual targetting, requiring WAY more effort than current Link.
Ridiculous power - Kill one, kill all. Made extremely easy to do with the holdcast. Making her a brainless AoE-killer rivalling Equinox, even.

 

Spoiler

Sure, but you're complaining in terms of power, while also arguing purely off of personal opinion, both of which render your point moot. The fact that you also appear to be ignorant of many existing mechanics in Warframe, including many other abilities capable of much easier AoE killing (e.g. Mag's 2), while also proclaiming Equinox to somehow be the epitome of an AoE damage frame, all point to an understanding of the game that... well, isn't quite congruent to reality. As such, all of your points here are eminently debatable, particularly since I've pointed out several times already how my ablities aren't clunky either (and you don't get to call them clunky simply because they don't conform to your hypothetical model of what you want them to do).

 

Quote

8 ) Haha, no. You link to several enemies, kill one of them immediately, and now all of them are dead. Massive AoE damage, with minimal time spent, and thus also minimal energy drained. So yeah, you couldn't be more wrong here.

 

Spoiler

If Trinity could kill one enemy immediately to begin with, then killing the rest would have taken equally little time, so in this respect the comparatively smaller cost would be fine. Once again, you demonstrate that you do not really know how Trinity plays, even though you think yourself qualified to make statements on how she does to someone far more experienced with her.

 

Quote

If the focus is on the "single-cast power", you shouldn't even HAVE the holdcast version in your revamp at all. But then, lo and behold, you just end up with an extremely clunky version of current Link (made offensive though) which no one would basicly ever use. Good job!

 

Spoiler

I very specifically mentioned how the hold-cast allow for multi-target casting at a much steeper energy cost, as the focus on single-target power (and single-target power, not single cast, as you no doubt intended to say) means her spells are individually powerful, but scale in cost directly with the number of targets selected. It is also strange how you would tell me that "no one would basicly ever use" (sic) this ability, when just a paragraph above you were going on about how it would make Trinity the most egregious room-killer in the world. In general, you've shown a habit of contradicting yourself from paragraph to paragraph, attacking my rework for doing one thing, then attacking it for doing the exact opposite. As such, I'm not quite sure what to do with such feedback, as it is entirely inconsistent.

 

Quote

Also... can you explain to me how I gave Trinity more AoE? HOW? I literally just changed current Link from a Trin-damage-reduction to Link-target-damage-amp. 3 targets being debuffed to take more damage when you attack them individially (no linking damage between them, except for damage suffered by Trin herself, unlike your version, if you missed that... again). How is that more AoE than your heldcast version? Just... how?

 

Spoiler

This is more AoE than what I'm proposing, as you cannot select single targets at a time. By your own description of your ability, this is a fact, so I don't quite see why you would question it. My hold-cast link allows for AoE, but at a steep energy price due to the compounded drain, and merely is a QoL addition to the base functionality. It is clear here that you are unaware of the tradeoffs embedded into the mechanics I'm proposing, and are cherry-picking components to my suggestions in an attempt to draw stilted comparisons. This could have succeeded if it weren't for the fact that I happen to be the one to make those suggestions in the first place, and am thus easily capable of telling when you are trying to misrepresent them.

 

Quote

You say that the focus on your version of Link is the damage amp? Then... just let it do that? Why have the "attack one linked target = hit all linked target"? My version does your intention much better, if you actually cared to understand it instead of just being high and mighty about your "oh so perfect revamp"... Yeesh >_>

 

Spoiler

But I don't consider my revamp to be perfect, and have in fact improved it based on player feedback in this thread, while also acknowledging criticisms. You forget that listening to criticism and agreeing with it are two different things, and that me not agreeing with your own criticism isn't me being "high and mighty", particularly since your "criticism" has less than good intentions, owing to its tone, contents and personal attacks. In this particular case, just because an effect is the focus of an ability does not mean it has to be the only component to an ability. Your version does not even begin to approach my intention here, mainly because it utterly fails to understand how Link or Trinity function, nor does it even try to understand what my intention even is. Do you realize how presumptuous it is to claim to know my intentions better than I do?

 

Quote

9) Yeeeeeah, riiiiight. Cuz holding down the button twice (probably requiring, say, a couple of seconds to register - even ignoring animations, if any (as you say yours should have none)) is a faster move than the game doing automatical linking for you. Sure. ~2 seconds is now faster than computer automation. Ok. If you say so.

 

Spoiler

You are literally just making numbers up, even after I've said exactly how much time the casting effects I suggested would take. If you want to argue with yourself, that's cool, but as it stands I've said exactly how long these casts would take, so you really have no reason to assume any different amount in good faith.

 

Quote

Also, don't forget, since your version would extremely likely end up like this: "Holdcast, kill one enemy to kill em all, repeat", you'd be spending WAY more time with that full-cast animation (maybe, say, every 3 or 4 seconds) compared to my version (Link currently lasts 12 seconds, which I already mentioned needs a buff since that's rather brief, but is even then still 3 or 4 times less frequent animation-casts than your version).

 

Spoiler

Except with Link as it works now, and in the manner you've proposed, you'd be spending more time killing enemies to begin with, and would never have the option to perform anything less than a full animation. Once more, you are making erroneous assumptions based on a complete lack of understanding of Trinity's playstyle.

 

Quote

10) So, you have stooped so low as to check my account. Niiiice. Not creepy at all. Maybe also consider that I just like Ash for his aesthetics? Maybe I used him tons before when his Bladestorm wasn't as clunky? Maybe I use him for other reason (Shuriken with augment? Maybe cuz I love stealth-skills? And so on?). Do you stalk people in real life too? It's not a nice thing, you know?

 

Spoiler

I merely typed out "/profile" and your handle to check your credentials in-game, as literally anyone else can do. The very fact that you'd accuse me of stalking you based on this shows just how unmoored from reality your post here is. Perhaps you may like Ash just for his aesthetics, but the fact remains that he's your most played frame, so even if you no longer like him, he's the frame you have the most experience with. By contrast, you have no meaningful experience with Trinity, and the fact that you're reacting so badly to getting called out on this just goes to show what kind of facade you've been relying on to try to pretend to know her better than I do.

 

Quote

11) Oh for the FLYING LOVE OF BULLS AND...  and just.... ARGH! How tall is that horse??

Instead of just saying "yours is clunkier", say what is clunkier in my version, PLEASE! Also, again, explain to me what is "more AoE" than yours? PLEASE!

 

Spoiler

I explained myself at length already, multiple times, including in this very reply. Seeing how I cannot go to your house and read my posts aloud to you, nor do I have any intention of doing so, I'm going to have to trust you to be capable of reading what I have to say. I know this was difficult to do in the past, but you've got this. The fact remains, though, that my version is smooth and well-placed within the context of Warframe, as explained above, whereas your version is clunky and produces many of the issues I specifically tried to eliminate in this rework, as also explained above. If you cannot understand any of what I've just said, and are frustrated by it, you are free to find someone else to pick fights with.

 

Quote

12) Trying to ignore your high and mighty tone and pointless comparisons; how does your version truly reduce upkeep? Yeah, sure, no duration to it means ONE area of less upkeep, that's true. But now instead you have to keep track of all nearby enemies (if you have the intention of wanting to debuff as many as possible, that is) and your amount of energy. 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

 

Spoiler

Losing an entire layer of upkeep is less upkeep to begin with. The fact that you'd contradict yourself within your very next sentence is... humorous. You also don't have to keep track of nearby enemies, let alone all nearby enemies, and keeping track of energy is both something that already exists on literally any frame, since any frame uses energy, and something Trinity in particular has to watch out for, as she cannot ever allow herself to dip below the cost of EV in the current game. Once more, you are fabricating claims entirely, and so based on complete ignorance of the subject matter you are attempting to discuss.

 

Quote

13) ... ok, I just can't anymore.

I want to have a constructive discussion. But you are making this very difficult for me. If you're gonna reply to me while still making things up, put words in my mouth, belittle me for not playing Trinity 24/7, stalk my profile to find "arguements", make sweeping statements that say nothing instead of actually explaining your counterpoints, then I'm gonna take me and my migraine (as a little hint as to why I've been so passive aggressive and sarcastic) and leave this thread without responding to you.

 

Spoiler

Sure, go ahead and leave. Pretend as you might, you very clearly don't want to have a constructive discussion. You've deliberately ignored information I've given, blown things out of proportion, made up false claims for the sole purpose of trying to win, and attacked my character, going so low as to resort to name-calling. None of this is what people do when they try to have a constructive discussion, and in fact these are the hallmarks of a discussion that is not constructive. The moment I expressed polite disagreement with a small portion of your initial feedback, you stayed here with the visible intention of bashing me, and everything I put forth, despite having initially praised my work. I'm very sorry about your migraine, but it simply does not give you license to behave in any kind of toxic manner, and bringing it up here just makes it look like you're trying to come up with excuses, all while being aware of your own bad attitude. I do not care for your feedback, because your feedback neither does anything constructive nor stems from good faith. If you really think you want to give constructive feedback, you are better off going to another thread, as you have failed to do anything of the sort here. If you react as badly to disagreement as you did here every time, as seems to be the case, then you may simply not be cut out for any sort of discussion space in general. If you want to leave, then all the better, and good riddance.

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Teridax68

[Marcooose]

I'd like to remind everyone to keep all discussions on the Forums on-topic. Please avoid targeting other users on the Forums to avoid warning points in the future.