I'm still confused by the whole point of the gilding system.

[Oreades]

With a new Amp and new Pistol Zaws just over the horizon I continue to look at the gilding system and scratch my head. 

Amps and Zaws where originally pitched as an interesting system where you could craft your own weapon, try it out and if you like it you could "commit" to it by gilding it. 

The thing is you're committed to it the second first assembled it, I mean you apparently superglued the thing together and it is never coming apart, you can't get much more committed than that.

 

I get that it increases the stats but that might as well be a part of the natural progress of getting the gear from 0 to 30. Tho another question that arises from that is, how would you know if you really like the weapon enough to double commit if you're testing it at reduced effectiveness?

If its an issue of Forma, just make them cost Forma out of the gate, it not like there's isn't a swath of Tenno Research weapons that cost Forma that you have zero idea if you are going to like em or not. 

But why the whole level it to 30 twice for the same mastery you get from leveling any other weapon in the game to 30 once?

Edited August 16, 2018 by Oreades

[OvisCaedo]

if you have to level it up twice it's like, twice as much content!

[Cloudyvisage]

It might have been an idea that never got implemented. The swapping of parts, I mean.

I personally like to think of it in a more lore direction, the Zaws just aren't Warframe worthy when they're made, they're effectively high quality sticks and scrap metal that are put together by a good blacksmith, not Tenno-grade.

By Gilding it you're basically imbuing it with something, presumably some energy from the wisps or Hok just goes maximum effort and mastercrafts it for us at that point, again, using the energy of the required wisps. Now you have a weapon that is Tenno-grade as it's a stick or scrap imbued with something supernatural. Much more in-line with what a Tenno would want to use.

[LSG501]

IMO, it's basically came about to make it seem PoE had a large amount of content.  It might have originally been intended as a way to swap out parts before gilding (even seemed that way in devstreams imo) but ended up being a grind thing instead which 'encourages' xp boosters...

[(PSN)NachoZissou]

Add it to the list of things that have no explanation in game but could do with one. Why they feel that being inscrutably cryptic is a solid default I don't know but that seems to be their method. 

[shut]

I feel like the Gilding system would make a lot more sense if un-gilded zaws could be broken back down into their components. Like, if you have a level 15 un-gilded zaw, you can break it back down into the Strike + Grip + Link for free (and use the parts to craft a new level 0 zaw); whereas leveling it to 30 and gilding would "lock" the parts in.

I don't think breaking the zaw into its components should be super difficult to implement, so I'm still scratching my head at why it's not a thing.

[Aeon94]

1 minute ago, SortaRandom said:

I feel like the Gilding system would make a lot more sense if un-gilded zaws could be broken back down into their components. Like, if you have a level 15 un-gilded zaw, you can break it back down into the Strike + Grip + Link for free (and use the parts to craft a new level 0 zaw); whereas leveling it to 30 and gilding would "lock" the parts in.

I don't think breaking the zaw into its components should be super difficult to implement, so I'm still scratching my head at why it's not a thing.

That'd be nice tho.

[peterc3]

The system was clearly to get you to make an item, level it, get a boost in stats by gilding it. If you like it, you keep it. If you don't like it, you sell it back for standing. The items are not priced to be semi-permanent parts of your inventory to instantly mix and match and find the "best" one.

9 minutes ago, SortaRandom said:

I don't think breaking the zaw into its components should be super difficult to implement, so I'm still scratching my head at why it's not a thing.

It was never a part of the design. It's an assumption made throughout the development that the pieces weren't going to be broken back up and reconfigured. To redo that would be to undo the entire system, on paper and in code.

[shut]

31 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

It was never a part of the design. It's an assumption made throughout the development that the pieces weren't going to be broken back up and reconfigured. To redo that would be to undo the entire system, on paper and in code.

I get that it's like this by design, but I'm saying that it could be updated to meet the players' expectations a bit more.

Adding a Disassemble ungilded zaw option to Hok wouldn't be "undoing the entire system in code", it would be simply adding a new option. The game already knows what parts your zaws are made out of (including ungilded ones); it should be as simple as coding that option "refund the parts" by destroying the selected item and adding the corresponding parts to your inventory.

Edited August 17, 2018 by SortaRandom

[peterc3]

4 minutes ago, SortaRandom said:

I get that it's like this by design, but I'm saying that it could be updated to meet the players' expectations a bit more.

Adding a Disassemble ungilded zaw option to Hok wouldn't be "undoing the entire system in code", it would be simply adding a new option. The game already knows what parts your zaws are made out of (including ungilded ones); it should be as simple as adding an option to "refund" the parts by destroying the item and adding the corresponding parts to your inventory.

The entire development process was gone through with the Zaws being one and done, no disassembly. Everything from drop chances on resources used to make them, to the resource costs themselves, to the UI, the basics of where they started with the system, all of that was to make the current system.

It is not just a UI element. It is not merely putting one thing somewhere else. Pretending it is simple means you aren't thinking about the game on the whole, about how the Cetus economy is designed.

[Seele]

6 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

The entire development process was gone through with the Zaws being one and done, no disassembly. Everything from drop chances on resources used to make them, to the resource costs themselves, to the UI, the basics of where they started with the system, all of that was to make the current system.

It is not just a UI element. It is not merely putting one thing somewhere else. Pretending it is simple means you aren't thinking about the game on the whole, about how the Cetus economy is designed.

So you know how you can turn in a Zaw for standing with Hok?

What if you took that same thing, but instead of standing, the game gave you

(hold on

wait for it

are you sitting?

okay)

the parts of your Zaw back?

I know DE is a fledgling developer with very little experience and great difficulty getting the littlest things to work right, but I think it's crazy enough to work.

[DreisterDino]

From a player standpoint, this isnt fun at all, and i dont wanna create my own lore around it to make it seem like it makes sense.

 

Indeed, an ungilded zaw pretty much always is trash, i didnt encounter any zaw that was already performing somewhat good when ungilded.

So it isnt there to "test the weapon and see if its worth gilding", you have to gild it anyway to see if its worth something.

For me the most annoying part always was that i cant put an catalyst in it before gilding so it could be at least somewhat decent from the start.

 

I have to add though that i mostly play zaws as melee right now because if you chose the right parts, they are really strong and i like that i can decide for myself if i want to build it for crit or status or attack speed or dmg or whatever. I also would have liked an option to exchange parts because in fact i have build 1 or 2 zaws in exactly the same way besides one part because i had the feeling it could be a little better. That said, im sure they didnt integrate the function to reassambly your zaws because you have to farm the ressources, standing, buy BP's and all that stuff another time, aka you are playing the game and are busy.

[shut]

 

39 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

The entire development process was gone through with the Zaws being one and done, no disassembly. Everything from drop chances on resources used to make them, to the resource costs themselves, to the UI, the basics of where they started with the system, all of that was to make the current system.

It is not just a UI element. It is not merely putting one thing somewhere else. Pretending it is simple means you aren't thinking about the game on the whole, about how the Cetus economy is designed.

Wait, so you're telling me that a functional disassembly system shouldn't be in place because the Cetus economy was "designed to be this way"? You could use that argument against making literally any improvement to the game. "Better not change <crappy system that has room for improvement>, because that would go against its design intent."

Yes, the Cetus economy was designed to be as it currently is. By definition, shockingly. But designs can be changed for the benefit of everyone, and you still haven't clarified exactly what the downsides of this particular change would be.

Edited August 17, 2018 by SortaRandom

[Seele]

1 minute ago, DreisterDino said:

That said, im sure they didnt integrate the function to reassambly your zaws because you have to farm the ressources, standing, buy BP's and all that stuff another time, aka you are playing the game and are busy.

While this is technically true, and plays well into how Warframe traps and keeps its playerbase, it's still quite a commitment on behalf of the player to

-Farm standing

-Spend standing to level up with Ostron and gain access to Hok's services

-Farm more standing

-Buy blueprints

-Farm resources

-Assemble a Zaw

-Play with the Zaw

and then decide that this Zaw configuration they've worked on isn't the right one for them.

Bear in mind that if that Zaw was then summarily disassembled, the player would still only be left with those same Zaw pieces. If they decided they liked the strike and the dangley thing, they would need to build a new grip, or what have you, and the grip they still had would have to find a new home with a new strike and dangley thing.

[peterc3]

12 minutes ago, Seele said:

the parts of your Zaw back?

Technically they could do that. You've ignored any effects that would have to the game, though.

If you're going to support an idea, at least try and make sure DE wouldn't just ignore it by pretending the very real effects this would have on their game aren't important.

Edited August 17, 2018 by peterc3

[DreisterDino]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Seele:

While this is technically true, and plays well into how Warframe traps and keeps its playerbase, it's still quite a commitment on behalf of the player to

-Farm standing

-Spend standing to level up with Ostron and gain access to Hok's services

-Farm more standing

-Buy blueprints

-Farm resources

-Assemble a Zaw

-Play with the Zaw

and then decide that this Zaw configuration they've worked on isn't the right one for them.

Bear in mind that if that Zaw was then summarily disassembled, the player would still only be left with those same Zaw pieces. If they decided they liked the strike and the dangley thing, they would need to build a new grip, or what have you, and the grip they still had would have to find a new home with a new strike and dangley thing.

I dont disagree with you, i just wanted to explainwhy i think they implemented it the way they did 😉

[Seele]

Just now, peterc3 said:

Technically they could do that. You've ignored any effects that would have to the game, though.

If you're going to support an idea, at least try and make sure DE wouldn't just ignore it by pretending the very real effects this would have on their game.

What catastrophic backlash do you anticipate from this exactly? The player would receive the parts they already built back, without earning any mastery XP or getting any other sort of reward. No credits or resources are involved directly in Zaw assembly. It might take standing? It's been a while since I've made a new Zaw. But don't refund the standing then. That would still be less punishing than just trashing the whole thing.

Trust me, from the minute you voiced your ill omens, I looked for a way this could be exploited. But I'm just not seeing it, pal.

[DreisterDino]

vor 1 Minute schrieb peterc3:

Technically they could do that. You've ignored any effects that would have to the game, though.

If you're going to support an idea, at least try and make sure DE wouldn't just ignore it by pretending the very real effects this would have on their game aren't important.

Effects like?

I can see many positive effects, like more players actually having fun trying out many different builds instead of thinking "nah i am not gonna farm this ore again and then go collect standing and do this and this and this just to build another zaw that might be worse than my old one" Besides, i could also imagine that some problems like these "Afk-Bounty-Leechers" and "i-go-mining-while-you-do-the-bounty-leechers" are a direct result of design choices like this, because many people dont want to do this stuff, but they have to.

Dont take it personal, but all comments i see from you are always "no, not gonna happen", dont see anything constructive on your side.

[peterc3]

11 minutes ago, DreisterDino said:

dont see anything constructive on your side

The game works like it does. It was designed that way.

Suggestions that just erase a sink for resources, time or Plat without suggesting something to replace it are not going to be entertained. It's just the nature of the general game.

If you want an idea, then:

If this were to happen, it would take as much standing to blow it apart as it would to gild it.

[shut]

12 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

The game works like it does. It was designed that way.

You're still on that? Literally everything in the game works as it was designed, by definition. If something's not working as designed, it's called a bug.

Abilities being poorly balanced? Designed that way.
Ridiculous hema costs? Designed that way.
Modular weapons not being modular? Designed that way.

Designs can be improved, you know. They're not perfect. Changing a faulty design isn't going to cause some catastrophic failure of the game's economy.

Edited August 17, 2018 by SortaRandom

[Seele]

1 minute ago, peterc3 said:

Suggestions that just erase a sink for resources, time or Plat without suggesting something to replace it are not going to be entertained.

Certainly not as entertained as I am.

If there was even a side-eyed way to cheese something out of this, I would get it, but this is a very minor time saving idea for players playing the way the developers likely intended - through experimentation, rather than first going to Reddit to find out the top meta Zaw construction options. The player who builds a Zaw and then disassembles it is still left with whatever piece(s) caused the Zaw to not be to their liking, and in need of building (a) replacement piece(s).

Imagine if when you claimed a new Warframe from the foundry, you were immediately taken to the Arsenal to customize the look of it. Once you picked your colors, attachments, and syandana, that Warframe was locked in and you couldn't change how it looked. If you got a new syandana later on, well tough cookies kid, you need to go farm a new Nekros Prime.

That's about how ridiculous resisting this idea is. The player gets nothing for it. Sure, the system could be made cruel in order to torture time and resources out of the player, but there's just no need to.

[DreisterDino]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb peterc3:

The game works like it does. It was designed that way.

Suggestions that just erase a sink for resources, time or Plat without suggesting something to replace it are not going to be entertained. It's just the nature of the general game.

If you want an idea, then:

If this were to happen, it would take as much standing to blow it apart as it would to gild it.

Just erased?

ressources: still gonna (re-)invest the forma and or ressources+standing for parts you dont own yet.

time: you need to level the weapon again (and ill repeat myself: i can see players investing more time in zaws and experimenting with them with this change)

plat: didnt spend any plat on anything zaw related, but if this needs to be a plat-sink aswell... yeah i might buy some forma-bundles^^ Probably my most-buyed item from the market anyway.

[peterc3]

23 minutes ago, Seele said:

Imagine if when you claimed a new Warframe from the foundry, you were immediately taken to the Arsenal to customize the look of it. Once you picked your colors, attachments, and syandana, that Warframe was locked in and you couldn't change how it looked. If you got a new syandana later on, well tough cookies kid, you need to go farm a new Nekros Prime.

Really showing me with this not at all similar case. They've said they aren't going to do anything about it and they'd look to change it in the future, IIRC. Perhaps it will get looked at once Fortuna is done.

[Seele]

2 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

Really showing me with this not at all similar case. They've said they aren't going to do anything about it and they'd look to change it in the future, IIRC. Perhaps it will get looked at once Fortuna is done.

I don't think anything in this thread conveyed a level of urgent exigence, but we have to introduce ideas and give them voice for change to come about. The case I presented you is quite similar to how Zaws are handled right now, actually. Obviously farming a new Zaw is not nearly as difficult or taxing as farming a prime Warframe. But it's a bit ridiculous that, as relatively low-stakes as Zaws are, they are very unforgiving to anyone who doesn't start the game reading a guide.

 

[peterc3]

Just now, Seele said:

we have to introduce ideas

It's been a thing since literally the first second people got their hands on Zaws. This idea is not being introduced by this thread.

1 minute ago, Seele said:

The case I presented you is quite similar to how Zaws are handled right now, actually

The things you mentioned were entirely cosmetic. Outside the meme, there's a fair bit more to the game than cosmetics. Now if dark red added 5% Power Strength but took away 2% Power Range and required farming for said color, then sure, your example was nearly the same.