[Inappropriate Design]

19 hours ago, rapt0rman said:

Meanwhile Citrine....

Ah yes, the

[New Kuva and Tenet Weapon Teased for Dev Stream]

Sobek, Grakata, and Dera.

[Audio Interview of DE_Reb about Live Service Games & Warframe, by Planet Money]

7 minutes ago, TARINunit9 said:

Keep in mind this is far ahead of the curve for most love service games, which are funded on a roughly 2%. The so called "whales" (term coined by a CEO) who spend 1k$ per year.

Also keep in mind the actual wording:

Quote

WONG: And that revenue comes from just a few players. In Warframe's case, only about 10% of Warframe's players pay anything at all. In the gaming community, the top spenders are called whales. They sustain this large ongoing production team, which can be expensive. Jason Schreier is a reporter on gaming at Bloomberg News.

It's not "10% of players are whales", it's "10% of players spend any money at all". I'd be really curious to see how that actually breaks down.

• 10% of who? The 60-million registered losers users? Because a lot of that total figure is going to be abandoned accounts who played a little and never continued.
• How much of that 10% are actually whales?
• What percentage of players spend plat? How many players are totally F2P but still engage in premium content like the market?

[Audio Interview of DE_Reb about Live Service Games & Warframe, by Planet Money]

1 hour ago, Aruquae said:

Kowalski, analysis?

Here's the transcript for anyone that just wants to read it:

Quote

In 2012, Rebecca Ford was part of a team that had spent years making a video game. Problem was they couldn't sell it to a games publisher.

REBECCA FORD: We were desperate. We had to make a paycheck for our team that month. And if we didn't have a way to support ourselves, it was all going to collapse.

WAILIN WONG, HOST:

Rebecca is a creative director at the games developer Digital Extremes. And the company was kind of like a band that had spent years toiling away on a beautifully orchestrated album. And now no labels wanted to have them. So Digital Extremes went indie. They self-published this game called Warframe.

WOODS: And with this newfound freedom, they released it in a type of way that was gaining steam in the games industry. Instead of selling a one-off game to purchase, this game would be free to download.

FORD: And if you like it, you can buy some in-game currency. And, you know, we'll update the game as often as we can to make it worth your investment.

WONG: This sort of thing is known as a live service model - a game that's like a living creature. You play online - often for free - and the game gets constantly updated, funded by in-game purchases - that in-game currency.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

WONG: Fortnite is one particularly successful example. Now almost every major game maker is doing it. This is THE INDICATOR FROM PLANET MONEY. I'm Wailin Wong.

WOODS: And I'm Darian Woods. This week at THE INDICATOR, we have a whole series decoding the economics that fuel the video game industry. And to kick it off, this gigantic shift in how games are played - the live service model. We learned why the approach Rebecca took to games has been popping up everywhere and how this has fueled a backlash from players. That's after the break.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

WOODS: To understand what the game Warframe is, we asked Rebecca Ford to explain.

FORD: You're standing at the front of a spaceship. In front of you is Venus - a planet you know, but it looks a little wrong, like maybe you're in the far future. Your character - you can't see his face. They're helmets. They're muscular.

(SOUNDBITE OF KATANA SLICING)

FORD: And then you pull out a katana that is glowing, and you start slicing through robots. And that's Warframe.

WONG: Just like a regular Friday night for me.

WOODS: You and your katana blade.

WONG: (Laughter).

WOODS: I'm slightly scared now, Wailin.

WONG: (Laughter) Oh, you should be. In 2012, when Rebecca's company decided to release Warframe through this relatively new live service model, she was scrambling.

FORD: Someone had to learn really quickly how to self-publish a game with web infrastructure, community infrastructure, support infrastructure. And that was my role at the time.

WONG: That meant servers, round-the-clock chat and ways to accept payments inside the game.

WOODS: Almost like building the plane as it's running, like...

FORD: That is...

WOODS: ...To keep people - yeah.

FORD: ...Exactly what happened. None of us knew what we were doing, but we didn't know what we were doing together. So we all would compensate for someone else's lack of expertise, I'll say.

WONG: And she sought help from players of the game. Rebecca thought that there needed to be a feature for players to give ideas for updates. And this kind of player feedback was critical, especially when dealing with the sensitive issue of money.

WOODS: So in the game, maybe you could pay real dollars for a new sword that gives strange new powers. Or you could buy a special character who controls fire. Rebecca thinks back to this one particular purchase option that backfired.

FORD: A player could spend a dollar, let's say, to double the strength of their character. And then players got really mad.

WOODS: Players didn't like that there was only one way to unlock this better perk. It felt unequal, unsportsmanlike. And so they gave players a way to do the same thing but for free.

WONG: And this ability to change paths is the advantage of a live service model game. You don't need to spend years working on an update and hoping players will like it. You can be constantly tweaking and iterating. This means that Rebecca is in constant dialogue with players.

FORD: For 11 years, once a month, at least, we've sat on the couch doing developer live streams.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

FORD: Hello, hello, hello, and welcome to dev stream 152, or home...

We kind of cracked open a beer and been like, hey, we know we screwed up with this decision, but we're going to change it in the next update. See you next month for more news.

WONG: And while adding features, the company noticed one paid category was taking off - changing your appearance. They added more ways to pay for this. And this is in a way that doesn't affect gameplay at all. It's just what players think looks cool. The term for this is cosmetics.

FORD: We didn't have a lot of cosmetics initially. But when we started adding things like scarves or alternate helmets or a total reskin - so your character that looks like a fire wizard now looks like a phoenix - Those are the types of things that really do impact our ability to be a stable, stable, stable place that can have a payroll department.

WOODS: Pretty scarves or helmets might seem kind of trivial. But for a lot of games, cosmetics are one of the biggest sources of revenue.

WONG: And that revenue comes from just a few players. In Warframe's case, only about 10% of Warframe's players pay anything at all. In the gaming community, the top spenders are called whales. They sustain this large ongoing production team, which can be expensive. Jason Schreier is a reporter on gaming at Bloomberg News.

JASON SCHREIER: We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars to make these games.

WOODS: This is like a blockbuster movie.

SCHREIER: I mean, way, way more expensive than a blockbuster movie when you account for marketing and such. I mean, we're seeing some games that are really taking, I mean, half a billion to make.

WOODS: So that's on the expenses side. And on the revenue side, there is this advantage. Money comes in more consistently, or at least in theory. Warner Bros. Discovery publishes games like Hogwarts Legacy and Mortal Kombat. And this year, its boss said that they want to lean more into live service games because it reduces volatility for the company. That said, they have one title that is doing particularly poorly at the moment. That is Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League.

WONG: And that might speak to a growing fatigue with live service games from gamers, maybe because there's only so many hours in the day to play these ever-evolving games.

SCHREIER: The problem is that each time a game comes out and it's kind of existing on the market forever, it's just more competition that never goes away. And so you get to this point that we're at now where the market is totally oversaturated with these live-service games.

WONG: In fact, Jason sees signs of a consolidation in the industry, with the recent layoffs from companies like Epic Games and Riot Games.

WOODS: Rebecca says criticisms of the live service model are fair, especially when these games haven't been done well by companies simply trying to make money. And she explains it like this. Think about other types of games. You might pay $80, and that's all the company will ever get from you.

FORD: But for a free-to-play game, there is no limit. Like, if I look at my lifetime spend in Warframe, the game I make, I have spent over $1,000 in my own game. (Laughter) So...

WOODS: You don't get, like, a staff discount code?

FORD: No, I really try and deal with it raw. So if you're a business person and if you only care about the bottom line, you're going to try and figure out a way to raise the ceiling on how much a single person can spend on your game. And I believe a lot of gamers can smell when that is happening.

WONG: And the Federal Trade Commission is sniffing out when that monetization becomes outright predatory. In 2022, the FTC accused Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, of tricking users into paying money inside the game. Epic Games agreed to pay $245 million in refunds.

WOODS: So while it can be tempting for a game maker to look at that 90% or so of gamers who might be playing for free and wonder, how could we get them to pay? - you know, this is tough. The lesson seems to be that too much obsession with money can backfire.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

WOODS: We would love to hear your thoughts. Email us at indicator@npr.org. This episode was produced by Corey Bridges, with engineering by Cena Loffredo. It was fact-checked by Sierra Juarez. Kate Concannon edits the show, and THE INDICATOR is a production of NPR.

Tomorrow, as we continue our week-long series on the gaming industry, we'll take a look at accessibility. What for decades was somewhat of an afterthought for major game developers is now an expectation. Tomorrow, our exploration into video game accessibility.

 

[DE Please return Heirloom Mag and Frost Skins]

22 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

is there any other time gated option which costs money that ended up returning?

I mean yeah, Supporter packs have always been exclusive, time-gated, cash-only offerings. And DE just put three of them on the market permanently back in March.

Quote

In-Game Market Additions

Several previously available Supporter Packs are also coming to the in-game Market permanently this month! Pick up the New War Tribute Pack to receive a sleek Ravurex Gunblade Skin, Narmer Color Pallette, Archon Nira Glyph and Archon Nira Sigil. There'll also be an Zariman Tribute Pack and Deimos Tribute Pack for anyone looking to up their Fashion Frame game.

Until then they had never returned, ever. They were exclusive and available for a limited time and you had to get them before they were gone.

There are also for example the Avia Prime armor set and other Twitch Prime/Prime Gaming cosmetics which were

Quote

Available for a limited time only

Some were even "exclusive":

Quote

Free Prime with Twitch Prime is back!

Get Trinity Prime and an Exclusive Prime Syandana

Starting today, get Trinity Prime and the exclusive Spektaka Prime Syandana for free with your Twitch Prime membership.

Twitch Prime/Amazon Prime being paid-for (third party) services. And now anyone can buy them from Varzia at any time. So they're not exclusive anymore. I would imagine the most recent Verv set of cosmetics will go the same way despite being just as exclusive to Prime Gaming members:

Quote

Whether you’re a seasoned collector, a Fashion Framing master or a brand-new Tenno exploring the Origin System for the first time, you won’t want to miss out on the exclusive Prime Gaming Verv Collection.

Etc.

22 minutes ago, Aruquae said:

And that would be considered the prime difference in the Heirlooms and the Deimos support pack, and the prime similarity between that and the Founders' pack. They never specified whether the Deimos pack was going to return, nor did they specify whether it was exclusive or not (or time limited). They specifically did this with the Heirlooms, when they could've easily thrown in the same strat they did with the support packs... it seems a bit odd. You would think if they wanted it to return in the future, they would've worded it like with the support packs. (Which is to say, not outright saying they're exclusive) 

Supporter packs weren't worded to ever return either. They were marketed as "exclusive". Can they really be exclusive if they would later become permanent market additions (for plat no less)? If they were exclusive to cash-only buyers who bought during the original promotion then that exclusivity has certainly changed. And why do the ads say to get them "before they’re gone" if they're just gonna come back later? You'd think if they were going to return in the future, then yes like you say they would've worded it that way. But they didn't, not for Supporter packs which returned anyways nor for Heirlooms. They marked them the same as all of the other exclusives that have inevitably returned anyways.

[Elite Deep Archimedea Broken Loot Table]

It's probably the drop from the Fragmented One since the last stage was an Assassinate. I got a Fortification as well, which is on its drop table.

[DE Please return Heirloom Mag and Frost Skins]

5 hours ago, Aruquae said:

Of course… the same thing happened for Excalibur Prime… in fact, this is the exact same thing. So, if you believe the heirlooms should come back, obviously Excalibur Prime should come back too, right? If not, that’s just hypocrisy/selfishness on your part.

I mean, it should. Let's be honest for a second: the only reason DE gets a pass on Founders having a permanently unobtainable 12,000 extra Mastery and 2 unique gameplay items for the rest of all time is because of the mythos DE has constructed around the Founders program. They "saved the company" and so on and the story has been repeated long enough that the community gives this one thing a pass. But in every single other case ever, all gameplay items return. Primed Chamber, Braton/Lato Vandal, Prime Access, Nightwave Augments, event rewards, Twitch weapons, etc. They always come back. And in many cases, even as recently as a few months ago, previously unobtainable cosmetics eventually return as well. This, despite DE originally advertising this content with the same kinds of "exclusive" "for a limited time" "get them before they’re gone" as Heirlooms. The Deimos Supporter packs being just one example, which used the same kind of language and is now permanently available on the ingame market. The only particular difference with Heirlooms is that DE had an additional FAQ where they spelled that exclusivity out.

Devil's Advocate has to contend with the fact that "exclusives" often aren't actually all that exclusive.

[E/DA implements the challenge of DRG's Deep Dives with none of the joy]

6 hours ago, Stormandreas said:

The freedom of choice does trivialize things, though that is an inherent problem with the games design nowadays rather than just giving players the freedom of choice, a problem that has been festering for years.

It's a bit chicken and egg-y. Either way though the choice to trivialize things can be disrupted by A) reducing the amount players' choices can trivialize things (like by addressing inherent problems with the game design or adding new debuffs and modifiers) or B) by changing how the choice itself is made (like by incentivizing choosing a specific random item). While I don't agree that the former would be catastrophic, it's definitely harder to do than the latter.

6 hours ago, Stormandreas said:

Hell, they could make EDA a "no random loadout" option but then have the modifiers ramped up to 11 with much much higher level enemies and a no bleedout penalty, and use normal DA for the standard random loadout, but less other restrictions.
Have both mods able to earn the same rewards.
NOW we have options. Do we stick to random loadouts and try make it work? Or do we go hardcore mode, take whatever we want, but have to start all over again if we go down just one time?

But does that actually retain an equivalent challenge? Since players can and do regularly play the game at levelcap with no issues when they have an unrestricted loadout, what does "much much higher level enemies" actually mean? Lvl1,000? Lvl9,999? And is my preferred unrestricted loadout going to be capable of doing the same content as your preferred unrestricted loadout? Can modifiers really be ramped up to 11 or can they just be countered and trivialized like they already can be now? I just don't believe that there's any room left to go up when players are free to do whatever they want, not when that freedom is the freedom to ramp everything down to 0 and make everything easy. When we're all randomized you have just as much chance to be randomized to the same level of power I am. It does at least work, side-effects aside.

[DE Please return Heirloom Mag and Frost Skins]

4 hours ago, TARINunit9 said:

Any records of this being litigated in court?

Probably not. Here's a snippet from the EU's advertising law:

Quote

When sellers tell you that a particular offer will only be available for a very limited time, they might be trying to pressure you to buy before taking the time to make an informed choice. It is unfair to claim that an offer is limited in time when that is not in fact the case.

Quote

COMMERCIAL PRACTICES WHICH ARE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED UNFAIR

Misleading commercial practices

7. Falsely stating that a product will only be available for a very limited time, or that it will only be available on particular terms for a very limited time, in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice.

This is the general premise people are suggesting when they talk about "false advertising". Just... Just ignore the part that says these kinds of practices are probably deceptive and are unfair in all circumstances. Ignore that part. It's the idea that "if DE brought the packs back, they would have been lying in their original ad". That part makes sense, right? But the important limitation I've put in bold: when that is not in fact the case. They need to falsely state something for it to be false advertising.

Currently, it is in fact the case that the Heirloom packs are time limited. DE said they would be time limited, and right now they are. There's nothing false about DE's statement that the availability is limited. The only way the claim would not be the case is if DE actually planned all along to bring them back at a later date. DE made a truthful statement that is in fact the case.

The nuance is that the ad only needs to match the current offering. It has to be actively false. Australian advertising law is more clear about this:

Quote

A business that makes a claim about future matters (including predictions or projections) must have reasonable grounds for making the claim at the time of making the claim. The business is responsible for showing that it had reasonable grounds to make the claim.

If a business is is going to make a claim about future matters (like, say, something never being made available again) they must have reasonable grounds for making the claim at the time of making the claim. Does DE have reasonable grounds to claim that these packs aren't going to come back? Yes, if that's what they planned for them at the time they made those claims. Here's some more:

Quote

Businesses shouldn’t:

• make promises they can’t keep, or make predictions without solid evidence

Businesses should:

• give current and correct information
• note important limitations or exemptions
• keep consumers updated if things change. For example, if the business will no longer be able to supply a product within the timeframe provided to the consumer.

Can DE keep the promise to not bring these packs back? Yes. Is that the current and correct information about their availability? Also yes. So they're fine here too.

But what about that last part? Businesses should keep consumers updated if things change. That's because the law understands that ads can change. Prices change. Availability changes. The McRib comes back. It fades away again. This is normal. It happens all the time, and all businesses need to do is keep consumers informed of the current situation so that they aren't actively lying about the current offering.

So if the ad said that the packs were limited and would never come back, and DE fully intends to never bring them back, then the statement is true. No false advertising here.

If DE later abandons their original documented plan and decides to bring them back, then if their ad was not updated and they continued to misrepresent these packs as time limited while they are no longer time limited then this statement would be false. This would be false advertising.

But if DE updates their ads to say that the packs aren't limited anymore to match the new offering, then this statement would be true again. No more false advertising.

You can see this idea in action with, for example, how the Prime Access FAQ was updated to show the new exclusivity:

Quote

2014:

Will the Exclusive items be available in-game after a new pack is available?
No. The Exclusive items in Prime Access are Exclusive to the Prime Access Program. You may see them rotated within the Program but they will not be made available in-game.

Quote

2024:

Will the exclusive items be available in-game after a new pack is available?

No. The Exclusive items in Prime Access are Exclusive to the Prime Access and Prime Vault Programs. You may see them rotated within the Programs but they will not be made available in-game

See? Offer changed, ad was updated, everything is kosher. DE was never sued for adding previously exclusive items to a new program.

But businesses can't just make whatever change they want (though you've agreed in the EULA that they can). If something changes, you might be entitled to some remedy! Would you say that Warframe is a service? It is a Game as a Service, after all. Australian law about changes to services:

Quote

Consumers may have an agreement with a business to provide its services over a period, for example a gym membership, or music lessons. If the business changes the nature of the services during that period – for example, in person guitar lessons replaced with online guitar lessons, or gym memberships replaced with access to online workout plans – consumers may be entitled to a remedy.

Ok, so consumers may be entitled to remedy if a service changes. Makes sense. Go on!

Quote

If the change is a material change to the service the business agreed to provide, then consumers are likely to be entitled to the remedies for major problems with a service. Consumers are unlikely to be entitled to those remedies if the change to the service means that the business is still largely providing the service it originally agreed to.

Oh... Now personally, I'd say that changing one line of text about the availability and not changing any of the plat, skins, color palette, titles, etc. would largely be the service people paid for. But maybe it's still actually a major change? How's that defined?

Quote

A service has a major problem when it:

• has either one serious problem or several smaller problems that would stop someone buying the service if they knew about them beforehand
• can’t be used for its normal purpose, or for a specific purpose that the consumer told the seller about, or doesn’t achieve a specific result that the consumer told the seller about, and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time.

Someone could maybe argue that gloating over the exclusivity of the packs is a normal purpose, I guess? Or maybe that the change of exclusivity is very super serious and they wouldn't have bought the packs if they knew they wouldn't actually get to perpetually hold this unobtanium over others. Though since I don't know how this would be judged (probably by a judge), let's just say that it's a major problem. Now what?

Quote

When a service has a major problem, a consumer can choose to:

• cancel the contract and get a refund. This may not be a full refund, as the consumer needs to pay a reasonable amount for any work done so far and as expected, or
• keep the contract, but pay a lower price that takes the problem into account.

If the consumer has already paid upfront, they have the right to get some money back. How much money will depend on whether some or all of the services provided did not have problems, or whether they were provided at all.

So all this for a partial refund?

And if the change in exclusivity is actually a minor problem, well, "the business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this."

Anything else?

Quote

Businesses that change their services in this way should notify their customers of the upcoming change as soon as possible . Where it is a material change, a business should:

• seek the customer’s consent to continue with the changed service
• cancel the contracts of, and refund any pre-payments made by, those customers who do not consent to continue with the changed service.

Ah, right, inform consumers again, because of course things can change and that's fine. But businesses should still offer a refund if consumers don't like the change. Which, I'm sure we should all be aware, doesn't mean "I get my money back and I get to keep my skins". You'll get your money back, but just like with any refund they're going to take the skins away from you until you buy them again.

Fun read? TL;DR:

If someone living in a country with strong consumer protection laws (read: probably not the US) got really pissy about a change to the exclusivity, they might be entitled to a (probably partial) refund. That's it. And that's really only if DE feels like it, since they could instead point to the EULA where it says they can do whatever they want and that they don't need to get your consent and you won't sue them and if you do still try to take them to court you agreed to settle in arbitration anyways and then all you might "win" is $90 while your lawyer laughs their way to the bank to cash your $1,500 retainer.

[DE Please return Heirloom Mag and Frost Skins]

8 minutes ago, Epsilon_Knight said:

Everything else you mentioned I'd wager was never claimed to be a one-time sale.  Not knowing when/if something will come back is not the same as DE stating it never will.

They didn't spell it out quite as explicitly as Heirlooms, but they were all "exclusive". If you checked the Prime Access FAQ, they were "exclusively available through Prime Access" or whatever the wording was. And then, like magic, DE updated the FAQ and now it says that it's available through both Prime Access and the Vault. It was no longer exclusively available only through Prime Access. They just brought it back. Nothing bad happened, DE was never sued, nothing.

9 minutes ago, Epsilon_Knight said:

Braton and Lato Vandal were never promised to remain exclusive. 

Quote

Open Beta Weekend Exclusive

The BRATON VANDAL available this weekend only

Join in the Open Beta weekend, this weekend and gain access to the exclusive weapon, the BRATON VANDAL, available this weekend only!  Grab it in the in-game market for only 1 credit!

https://www.warframe.com/news/open-beta-weekend-exclusive

Quote

Closed Beta Testers Rewarded For Hard Work!

Exclusive CBT Weapon revealed!

As Closed Beta continues, our tester arsenals grow!

As promised, all Warframe Closed Beta Testers will receive the CBT weapon, “Lato Vandal”.

A true sign of dedication, vigilance, and lethality, this deadlier version of the Lato will only be wielded by those Tenno who have been with Warframe through the thick and thin of Closed Beta.  You have earned it!
Coming to your inventory soon as part of Update 7!

https://www.warframe.com/news/closed-beta-testers-rewarded-hard-work

 

[DE Please return Heirloom Mag and Frost Skins]

24 minutes ago, UnstarPrime said:

• DE promising players that the bundles they weren't around to purchase will be exclusive and time-limited.
• DE promising to kick someone in the nards.

Publik, I have too much respect for you to believe that you actually think these situations are comparable.

You can frame the former as "we promise we'll respect exclusivity", sure, but you can also frame it as "we promise we'll forever exclude everyone who comes after". A promise to exclude people for not being here or - worse - for being too poor during a specific 4 months out of 130+ is bad. Kicking someone in the nards is likewise bad. Both promises are bad - which was my only point.

22 minutes ago, Epsilon_Knight said:

I hear what you're saying, but no amount of this will get DE to bring the anniversary stuff back.

They're true to their word.  They said never.  They committed to missing out on more money down the road (even just by leaving it purchasable at the exorbitant price), and now these things are never coming back.

And I'm not gate keeping something I have.  We'll just have to learn to live without that Special, Super Necessary, INEEDIT INEEDIT Big Boy Badge.

And yet Braton and Lato Vandal came back, items once exclusive to CB players. Early Prime Access cosmetics were once exclusive, too! And yet those came back with the Vault. Not even two months ago some of the cash-only supporter packs came back - to the market for plat no less! Early deluxe skins were once time-limited, and then they were made permanent market cosmetics with the addition of Rhino Palatine. Twitch Prime/Prime Gaming cosmetics were exclusive and some can now be bought at Varzia. It's happened over and over and over again for so many once-exclusive things already - why can't it happen for these?

[DE Please return Heirloom Mag and Frost Skins]

1 hour ago, trst said:

Seriously, if the players who all said they'd "vote with their wallets" actually did exactly that and have continued to not spend a single cent on the game then maybe DE would care.

I'm workin' on it, man. I cancelled my artbook order and haven't spent a dime since. Won't be buying a Tennocon ticket this year either, for the first year ever. But I'm only one guy.

44 minutes ago, UnstarPrime said:

When a company goes back on their word, it's incredibly common to see backlash.  And it seems pretty obvious why: people dislike being lied to.

If someone promises to kick you in the nards, will you like or dislike it when it turns out they were lying? Not all promises are positive.

[E/DA implements the challenge of DRG's Deep Dives with none of the joy]

Nevermind, I'll just quote OP instead:

2 hours ago, Exploderizer said:

You are genuinely being a nuisance in this thread (and from the looks of it, other threads as well) and mostly picking fights instead of contributing meaningfully. Please start your own thread and keep your epic Reddit downvote clapbacks somewhere else.

[Idea: Nemesis Tenno Weapons (spoilers for some new content in text)]

8 minutes ago, VisionAndVoice said:

We still need Infested analog too.

Soon™

Narmer would have been cool too. I saw this lady during TNW and boy was I disappointed she wasn't a nemesis.

Never shows up again :(

[E/DA implements the challenge of DRG's Deep Dives with none of the joy]

1 minute ago, Stormandreas said:

This points to a problem of the game, not the freedom of choice.

Sort of. When the "freedom of choice" in this case is really the "freedom to choose to trivialize the game", players being able to make that choice is itself the problem. You can't have a challenging mode when players are free to choose to not make it a challenge. One of DE's only practical solutions is to incentivize not making that choice.

[Idea: Nemesis Tenno Weapons (spoilers for some new content in text)]

How would converting work? I guess there's nothing that says we can't have a nemesis that we always have to defeat. Maybe it's a deal/no deal kind of thing? Accept the deal and it works for you, reject the deal and you kill it for its weapon?

[E/DA implements the challenge of DRG's Deep Dives with none of the joy]

11 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

How?

By being able to always pick the strongest, most invincible frames paired with the most strongest, most deadly weapons?

How would that not make the mode easier to do? Of course it will make it easier. You get to freely take all of your busted, overpowered gear every week. You know what people do with that freedom already? They play the game at levelcap. Where do you go from there? Levelcap++?

RNG isn't great, but it does reduce the amount that the above happens.

[E/DA implements the challenge of DRG's Deep Dives with none of the joy]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

If EDA was done right it would have avoided RNG gear and instead had more modifiers you need to have active that proxy the bad item pulls.

Which people would have immediately trivialized and turned into paste. Modifiers can be managed and mitigated and made a non-issue. They're not as dangerous as people seem to think they are. Nevermind what would happen if these modifiers were actually buffs!

To keep this on topic for OP, this is what Warframe has that DRG does not: rampant powercreep and imbalance. The gear RNG, forced gear, adaptation, attenuation, immunity, nullification, overguarding, etc. are all DE's attempts at bringing the player down to a baseline where a challenge can be created. DRG doesn't need to do that because the player is already at that baseline. DRG works because it is already balanced. They can afford to make the gameplay "more rewarding" because the gameplay is already rewarding. They can put in little boons like Critical Weakness and not screw up the balance of the game or erode the challenges they want to present. Warframe cannot. That's really all there is to it. Warframe could do the exact same things as DRG if players were consistently powerful and predictable. Until that happens we'll never get a challenge that isn't in some way artificial.

Edit: To illustrate this visually:

DRG is already below the challenge threshold. Ghost Ship can add little buffs and it's still a challenge.

Warframe is already far above the challenge threshold. DE has to debuff the player a significant amount for the challenge to start.

Adding buffs to DA/EDA (or removing RNG) is only going to push the player further to the right, away from the challenge.

[DE Please return Heirloom Mag and Frost Skins]

6 hours ago, Letter13 said:

And the kicker? It was especially ironic since a bunch of them had also been complaining about the Heirloom pack costing real money and wanting the Heirloom pack to be brought back and not made a limited time only bundle.

A bunch? You're painting with a rather broad brush there. Last I checked Voltage was one person, and their opinions were theirs alone.

[E/DA implements the challenge of DRG's Deep Dives with none of the joy]

7 hours ago, _Kit_Kat_Cat_ said:

Then there should be an alternative way to get the same amount of rewards that DA/EDA provides.

In what game does it work like that? lol

Did you get the same amount of Shards for skipping Kahl missions? No.

Do you now get the same amount of Shards for not buying them from Bird-3? No.

Do you get the same number of Arcanes for only doing the first stage of a tricap? No.

Do you get the same kinds of Relics for only going to Rotation A? No.

Do you get the same amount of Credits for only doing low risk Index? No.

Do you get the same amount of Incarnon Adapters for only doing 5 tiers of the Circuit? No.

Do you get the same amount of rare Prime parts for only doing Intact Relics? No.

Do you get a Prodman poster for only staying for 30 minutes? No.

It's like there's a pattern.... 🤔

[E/DA implements the challenge of DRG's Deep Dives with none of the joy]

16 minutes ago, _Kit_Kat_Cat_ said:

The difference between DRG and Warframe is that... DRG is a game about mining ore (simplifying things here).

Warframe and DRG are more similar than you'd think. DRG is just decently balanced, so they can have natural challenges without having to use

16 minutes ago, _Kit_Kat_Cat_ said:

the gear randomizer. To try and weaken the players by making them use gear they do not want to use.

Like, you get it. The alternative in Warframe is for DE to actively balance the game, and just look what happened when they dared to do that with Dante! Poor, poor Dante has a 1,000,000,000 damage cap on Pageflight now, he's ruined.

16 minutes ago, _Kit_Kat_Cat_ said:

The mode tries its best to be "challenging", fails at it real hard... and just becomes and UN-FUN experience in the end. Not hard, not challenging... But a boring and frustrating mess that wastes your time. That's all there is to it.

So don't play it. 🤷‍♀️

Just like in DRG where you don't have to play Deep Dives if you don't like them, you don't have to play DA/EDA if you don't like them in Warframe. You can do your weekly Netracells just like you can do your Weekly Core Hunt for the same kinds of rewards. In both games you get fewer rewards total, but you're doing fewer things. If you want more, do more.

[DE Please return Heirloom Mag and Frost Skins]

21 minutes ago, Letter13 said:

Option 1: Re-release the Heirloom collection despite its status as time limited, and anger all those who purchased it already because their time limited exclusives are no longer exclusive (cue demands for refunds)

... or

Option 2: Maintain the original time-limited exclusivity, don't re-release the Heirloom collection, and anger all those who either missed out on it or are now regretting refusing to get it. 

 

There is no third option that satisfies everyone.

Option 1: make a small number of selfish people platinum big-mad that the peasants and newbies are allowed to touch their Heirloom™ Special Big Boy Badges.

Option 2: make the entire rest of the community angry for the rest of all time.

🤔

Man, there's just no good answer!

[E/DA implements the challenge of DRG's Deep Dives with none of the joy]

There's a pretty important difference, though: DRG is fairly well balanced. It can be made as challenging as it needs to be without jumping through any extra hoops. There can be small penalties like this week's Mactera Plague, Lethal Enemies, and Shield Disruption. Sometimes there are even two penalties! But sometimes there are no penalties, because they're not a requirement for challenge. DRG can just be challenging.

Warframe, on the other hand, is very poorly balanced. It can't be made challenging when players can be invincible and deal bigger damage numbers than the engine can calculate while fighting the highest level enemies spawned at such a high rate that some platforms can't keep up. That's why you only get the full reward if you don't use your most overpowered gear every week. That's why there are no beneficial modifiers. You're already cracked out, and making you even more cracked out isn't going to make the challenge mode more challenging. It'll make it less.

For example:

2 hours ago, Exploderizer said:

The best equivalent to DRG's "Critical Weakness" modifier (do more damage on weak spots) is Warframe's "Sealed Armor" (Enemies take 90% less damage from non-weak point hits). There is little to nothing to incentivize actually enjoying the mode, just to mitigate its mechanics.

Critical Weakness works in DRG because enemies are sturdy and can take a beating, so breaking armor to deal more damage is a skill that can be rewarded. And even with this perk you're still not one-shotting the heavies and they still require your attention and they'll still #*!% you up if you're not careful.

Critical Weakness would not work for Warframe's enemies because you've already stripped the enemies of all of their defenses, piled a dozen negative status effects, hit them for int-max damage, and vaporized the entire room the nanosecond they spawned in. And you weren't even aiming!

[Will the Verv sigil ever come back?]

There's some precedent for old Twitch Prime cosmetics returning via Varzia IIRC, and we just recently got some old supporter pack content added to the market. So maybe. I think chances are better that these cosmetics will return than won't.

[If we're not going to be able to force Skins onto Incarnon'd weapons, what about "Skins" that change the effect an Incarnon form has?]

Quote

If we're not going to be able to force Skins onto Incarnon'd weapons

I think we should just be able to force skins onto Incarnon Genesis weapons... The Gorgon for example was never """""""""fixed""""""""" and still retains its skin in Incarnon form, as it should. It works just fine, it's totally doable. And there's no reason the Incarnon effect can't be overlaid onto other skins besides muh clipping, but I think we can make those sorts of fashion decisions on our own.

As for Narmer effects, I'd love to see this as weapon Ephemera or just as a set of Narmer weapon variants.