Jump to content

NecroPed

PC Member
  • Posts

    1,453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NecroPed

  1. Nah thats totally fair, I do see your point. I just think Warframe is one of few examples where they have a lot of variety that takes away from pushing for any one particular group(even if some are more prevelant, like emphasis of the female form). Please tell me it has a butt slam ability akin to marios ground pound.
  2. Its kinda different but still the same essence of gender specific emphasis, the emphasis just happens to lie in different areas so it can come off that way even when doing it in a seemingly more fair way. I do agree there is some pretty ridiculous inconsistency between male and females in games, but I personally feel like Warframe does it pretty well because I don't believe they're forcing it into designs but just happen to make it in. Like I said in my edit (touched on more before you responded my bad) I have no actual problem with it, I'm just not keen on personally pushing explicitly for it unless its purposeful to the theme or something the artist just happens to want in the design (which still results in critique of whether its appropriate, but my point of reference for that isn't whether or not its doing this but rather if I like the end result).
  3. Isnt that following a similar philosophy to say codpieces though? This is emphasizing the male form, as opposed to emphasizing the female form with thngs like emphasized hips and breasts is it not? And in regards to wisp, I have no problem with the design, and I don't think this is something that necessarily has to be explicitly avoided so I have no problem with it being present in any warframe, but as far as me personally pushing for that I wouldn't push for that in her design if I had a say in it first, at the same time no issue if it makes its way in. But, lets say you design your male sexy frame, I will fully support that in your theme or even just simply because you want it there, because thats your vision and theme you're trying to represent, not mine.
  4. Not necessarily. If you are putting peanuts (predatory tactics) in a lemon tart meant for someone with an allergy (vulnerable to predatory tactics), the person with the allergy doesn't necessarily know they've fallen victim to eating peanuts UNLESS someone elses knowledge of the allergy and ingredients raises that as an issue first (being able to have valid opinions on something you haven't yet partaken in). I know not to give peanuts to someone with a peanut allergy without the need to eat the peanuts first.
  5. I'm not going to say yes/no to this explicitly because I believe every warframe should be built by a freely open concept that the artists develop, now if this happens to fit your needs then great, but I personally don't like pushing for this kind of stuff unless it's something the artist already has in mind (like pushing for the 'broken' warframe) or it ties into the theme of the frame (hildryn being buff).
  6. Far, far, far more generous* Most games with energy systems drastically if not completely limit your ability to play the game, or even progress the game without energy. Warframe still allows you to play almost all of its content, and still be rewarded, with just some things being limited (And some of the limits are healthy for the game), you can essentially progress 24/7 if you have the time, don't get me wrong I have issues with the systems surrounding dailies and caps etc. But Warframe does this far better than any any other company I can think of. Even in the areas where it is limited you often still even get to keep playing the game, just without all the rewards you normally would(and its usually just standing, focus or sortie-like rewards, nothing like limiting resources, the ability to earn and craft gear etc.), while a lot of games energy systems have their core gameplay loop entirely restricted by their energy system.
  7. If someone is able to make the most out of it in their own way, whether its because they have one/both of the frames or they farm parts of it etc., then thats great, but that doesn't take away from the problem that if you are spending money and want to spend more you are being pushed into devaluing your prior purchase and/or requiring excess not needed for the purchase. When it comes to the purchasing, I think the ability to earn the frames can be disregsrded, since it might not even be their preference when they're spending to begin with. As well as still tying into devaluing the purchase because you can substantially increase your costs by having just 1 of the frames and still needing to spend more for the rest, which you have devalued by obtaining part of the bundle you need to buy for best value. As far as I'm concerned it only takes 1 person to potentially be pushed into buying just 1 more regal aya than they need (though you at best require buying 2-3 extra regal aya on top of the 4 needed to complete the purchase) to justify change for this because it is inherently anti consumer as far as I'm concerned. And while addressing the purchasable amounts of regal aya would address it directly, I don't believe that will be an option and thus adding 1 regal aya to this pack, which directly incentivizes falling for the excess regal aya trap would be the next best option (while also sticking to the consistency between purchasable and spendable amounts for any future bundles containing regal aya). Adding 1 regal aya to the current pack shouldn't piss anyone off thats already purchased it, it shouldn't piss off anyone who's thinking about purchasing it but needs to be swayed, and it shouldn't piss people off who don't want the regal aya if they add a pack without the regal aya.
  8. I've never had issues with that too but for all I know it might be limited to avoid that risk as much as possible. As well as having potential extra risks/the inherent risk being from when it is a purchase that can be made through means other than platinum. For example buying through steam and having steam and warframe both requiring some form of work for refunding and deleting goods. I don't think that means that its exempt from issues. Maybe it is just because they want to, but maybe theres more to it than it might seem. I don't know so I can't rule it out, that is all.
  9. Sisters came during the pandemics lockdowns from memory, so resources might have been a bit more tight then. Otherwise I personally feel we may have got the unique animations for sisters.
  10. I have issue with the amount of regal aya because of the purchasable amounts. Sure you can get both frames for 6 regal aya, but thats the ABSOLUTE LOWEST VALUE OF YOUR REGAL AYA, to get the best value out of it you need to buy more (which isn't an inherent problem), AND you need to buy more than is needed for the purchase because you literally cannot buy just 4 regal aya. I think this situatuo can only be resolved in one of two ways. 1. Changing regal aya to allow purchasing of any amount between 1-15. Which I highly doubt will happen at this point. Or 2. Put 1 or 4 extra regal aya in the pack to make the purchasable and spendable amounts consistent so no excess regal aya beyond what is needed for the purchase is required to be purchased to get the best value. This shouldn't come with an increase in cost, and given the platinum increase I feel 1 is the only appropriate amount to avoid them giving far too much for the cost of the pack. The problem I have is that this is pushing people to devaluing that 6 regal aya, or purchasing more than they need because its their only two options.
  11. I agree that most would commit to their purchase. This point of discussion simply stems from someone else suggesting that THE solution is a simple reduction in cost, which it is not, because there are layers to the problems at hand. And so far the value of the pack is the only issue thats been remotely addressed, even if its not a perfect solution(which can be alleviated in other ways).
  12. Several forum posts over the years, some of which referenced DE saying it, though I can't speak of the legitimacy to that claim. I simply wont rule it out. I'm not suggesting that they can't process refunds, but its common practice for digital items tied to an account to not be refundable, so it begs the question of why is that actually the case? Is it possible that data coreuption plays a role? Refunding isn't the inherent issue here, likke I've said if its a simple reduction in price and a refund of the difference I think its simple and would work. I just don't think that solves most of the problems at hand. I'm not saying it is supposed to, but if thats "THE solution" like being suggested it would have to solve those problems as well would it not? Otherwise we need MORE solutions.
  13. I absolutely agree. This is my current suggestion(at least without the removal of timed exclusivity because I don't think they will change it after having committed to it from the start, but if they can change it then I fully support them doing so), my comment was just in regards to a reduction in price and refund being the supposed solution, which does not address the issue that people want to buy the skins without the bloat. Paying less for bloat doesn't solve the bloat being there to begin with.
  14. Because a refund doesn't remove the predatory tactics that are still there regardles of the amount you pay. I am personally in full support of ditching the FOMO entirely but I have no faith in that changing. But that kinda reinforces the point I was trying to make anyway, that a simple reduction in price and refunding it is not THE solution like was being suggested. It is A solution to A problem while there are still many layers being addressed. And I am not sure if the data corruption is an issue, it is just what I have read, and so without knowing for sure I will treat it as a 'it might not be as simple as it seens' situation. And no, there is more to it than just FOMO. The regal aya purchasable amounts not being consistent with spendable amounts, leading to devaluing your purchase or falling for a predatory trap to buy more regal aya than you need foe the purchase.
  15. Read just about any of my comments on these posts and you'll have plenty to go off. Let alone the countless other people talking about FOMO, the packs being bloated with things you don't want (which is a separate issue to inherent value, that you have already acknowledged, which actually requires a different fix than simply reducing the cost) and the predatory traps. It is essentially the same but in the opposite direction, adding contents and reducing prixe are both two different ways of increasing the value per $, if the problem is the inherent value then that literally increases the value without reducing the price, so while it might not be a perfect fix for everyone it is still at least somewhat addressing the issue of the packs value, the inherent problem isn't that no one wants to spend $90-100, for many its the layers of problems surrounding the purchase. I for one am happy to spend $100 on the pack now that the platinum increases the value od the pacl to a point I'm more comfortable with. Though I do understand not wanting to spend that and wanting cheaper accessibility which I completely support. I personally think the solution comes down to two major things since addressing the value of the pack (which I will acknowledge as still a problem for some, disregarding those who purchased it but wouldn't have, were a differnet pack available, in which case refer to my points about potential data corruption issues, so long as those issues do not exist I fully support refunding the difference between the packs and removing the difference in contents from accounts, my issue is not with refunding itself). 1. A pack with just the skins. 2. Increasing the regal aya in the pack to make the purchasable amounts of regal aya consistent with the spendable amounts, so as to not push people to devalue the regal aya in the heirloom pack by not having enough for the best value package, or push people into a trap where they have to buy excess regal aya they don't need for the purchase in order to retain the best value of their regal aya. Now if deleting refunded items lack the data corruption issues that I've read are a possibility and a new pack with just the skins is added than I will add in: 3. Refund the difference between the packs for anyone who wants the skins on their own.
  16. No, it is ONE of the problems and so far the only one thats been remotely addressed. It isn't even an inherent problem to a lot of people. To many its not the actual $ price thats the problem, you are drastically oversimplifying the situation. I am not disputing that, though adding extra platinum to raise the value of the bundle is essentially addressing the same problem you are asking to be addressed with refunds, the value of the pack. Whether its the best outcome or not, so far this is the only problem thats been temotely addressed and refunds don't address what I would consider to be the far bigger problems, the inherent anti consumer and predatory tactics.
  17. If it can result in potential corrupt data then no, it is not THE fix. I am not sure if this is necessarily the case, I am just trying to emphasize that it might not be that simple. Like I said, if its a simple reduction in price then sure it would work, but not only does that not address all the problems at hand, it only addresses the one they've already addressed by adding platinum to increase the value of the pack, whether its what people wanted or not. I'm not going to agree with you or argue that last point.
  18. Yeah, that would have helped alleviate it on a personal level at least, albeit at a pretty big cost, but still pushes other people to avoid new content so its more potentially shifting the problem than necessarily solving it, and I have no problem with an individual choosing to buy those packs and avoid content as a result, and am thankful FOMO isn't a part of it too, which would make it far worse, just feel its a bad way to do things especially for new game content and if they keep going down this direction, I would hope the next step from here isn't a pack deincentivizing new content with FOMO at least. I agree, this feels like a slippery slope that we probably should have caught onto earlier and need to stand up against now more than ever to avoid setting the precedent. I agree it is a bad thing, I'm just not sure things are as simple as just offering refunds. I agree that there should be some rectification, but I was bringing that up to refer to my point about potentially needing to delete things from an account to refund resulting in potential issues like corrupt data (and if this isn't a problem then all the power to them refunding the difference and deleting the goods, otherwise I'm not suggesting this as a solution) Thats my point, I'm trying to say this shouldn't happen because someone was saying it was as simple as just offering partial refunds, but because that doesn't actually solve the main problems it could lead to a situation like that if thats what we consider the solution.
  19. And I feel its worth noting that this type of pack can actually be counter productive to DEs goals. Take for example the voruna pack that came with a unique decoration that is only available in the pack. You had to get voruna and her weapons for a single decoration, which were obtainable from an entirely new game mode. This pack directly deincentivized playing new game content and I think that is bad whether they're still supporting them with money or not because it skews the reasons why people might not be playing a game mode and the suits are going to be looking at statistics like that to judge the updates/contents success. And I get that the idea behind spending for some is to alleviate the need to earn everything, but it should be presented as a complete choice, rather than directly incentivizing disregarding chunks of new game content for a little shiny thing.
  20. I suppose if all they were doing is decreasing the price of the pack then sure thats probably pretty simple and would work (albeit still comes with potential problems, for example generally dealing with the console companies hosting the game), but I think think this is a lot more complex for a few reasons. The $ price isnt the inherent problem for a lot of people so a simple decrease in price that is still accounting for the contents of the package isn't an appropriate fix for a lot of people, it's buying things they don't want and can buy any time just to get the things that they want that most people have a problem with. So for example if they were to introduce a pack with just the skins that makes people feel they bought something they wouldn't have and want a partial refund for the difference they'd surely have to remove things from the account in order to rectify it, leading to my previous point. Either that or allowing partial refunds for the difference between the two packs without taking away the difference in goods, but wouldn't that simply be opening DE up to exploitation by having anyone who bought the package and actually wanted it, able to get a partial refund and keep what they fully intended on buying in the first place, effectively making the difference between two said packs being entirely free for anyone who's already purchased it?
  21. I don't know for sure, but I always thought it was more something along the lines of the risk of file corruption in removing things from peoples accounts.
  22. The tenet Ferrox is bought from Ergo Glast for 40 corrupted holokeys I believe it's possibly animation related. Certain weapons can fit more generalized animations better that can more easily be applied to the sisters, but melee and more unique weapon types might require specific animations that aren't worth it for a single weapon.
  23. Pretty much agree with everything you said but just wanted to touch on this in extension, and while I would think most of the time it is the case this is not necessarily always the case, in the case of farming items that are sold to other players for platinum, the entire purchase is potentially reliant on an entirely free users time investment. In this regard they can be providing an extra player to play with (which definitely doesn't account for more than directly supporting) but then on top of that, the reliance on them for trading can bump this up above a spending players value because they're resulting in multiple players spending to trade with them and if people aren't farming the items to trade to the spenders, the spenders are potentially spending less.
  24. Just because time has been respected in the past does not necessarily mean they continue to respect time investment and I wasn't even accusing DE of anything with that statement, I am simply trying to emphasize that it is not black and white. It is a balancing act, for both free and paid users. I really wish people wouldn't make statements like that because its just absurd to me. Just because you got time out of something does not necessarily mean your time is being respected, I think thats an incredibly shortsighted perspective. If you had to spend 100 times the amount of time anyone would reasonably want to spend to get something they want, their time is not being respected and their time investment is still going to be large. Such a genuinely absurd perspective. Spending too much time to do something is often an indication that time investment is not being respected. Time spent =/= time respected. If someone feels the need to spend more time on the forums than playing the game BECAUSE their time isnt being respected I really dont think thats a "mission accomplished". Yes and I'm not saying people don't love it. I'm not saying people don't play it. I'm not saying people don't spend money. Thats exactly my point, they've had 10 years of success from giving a good balance between paid and free users, but people aren't going to ignore everything because of that. Ruining that now so they never get another 10 year success isn't a good idea, right? Not that I'm saying they're ruining things now, but I don't get why you're even trying to make this point. They're about to release an entirely new game, and if they don't follow the same/similar balancing act it might bite them in the ass. They might not get the same success if they don't consistently respect players time. To put it simply, success is just not as simple as only accounting for paid users.
  25. I'm not saying it's going to be an inherent failure. People often download survivor io because it's a time waster for starters, and sure it might have some issues, but I'm just trying to emphasize that it's not very black and white, and survivor io is actually a good example of that paired up against warframe (more in below paragraph). Survivor io's success is in part because of it's simplicity and accessibility, and I'm confident the more they treat people like that the more that leave. Sure they might be able to keep afloat and get top grossing, but I doubt that game has many long term players that stay around even remotely close to what you'd have in warframe and surely has a very big playercount falloff. Literally every person I know who played it quit, every single one, and it was because their time wasn't respected, the ones who still play similar games found games that do, at least moreso, and stick with them instead. Yeah, and how many people would quit warframe if they were to make that change? Maybe not a game ending amount, but how many times would they want to do something like that to make people leave before they say hey that's enough, we gotta try stop players from leaving? And DE would feel that before the whales ever do too. I'm not saying whales necessarily always care about it, at least in the same regard as a non-whale (but that statement isn't inherently true anyway, I'm a whale and I care about my time being respected), but whales often also need people who are going to be more impacted by disrespecting time investment, a game like survivor io doesn't though so it's an entirely different situation since no one elses time investment impacts whales in survivor io whatsoever (as far as I know unless they've updated it with more content that does), whereas in Warframe other peoples time investment can impact the whales (lack of coop, lack of trading etc.), as well as there being other things that can't be bought and have to be earnt, which a whale is still going to want to feel like their time is being respected, (Especially whales who spend because they don't have a lot of time to play games, they have limited time as it is, paying helps alleviate that, but if their time isn't being respected for things they cannot pay for, whales still aren't going to necessarily be happy) or even the whale having to rely on someone else who farmed the item they're buying with platinum, if the time investment of the free players is disrespected to the point they don't farm the things the whales want to buy from them, then that directly impacts the whales before they themselves have even necessarily spent the money. Depending on the game it can be a lot better or worse too, take a PvP shooter for example, the more players they lose the less likely the whale will stay because the game might get frustrating from longer queue times, or get stale from a lack of different people to play against.
×
×
  • Create New...