DiabolusUrsus
-
Posts
4,707 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DiabolusUrsus
-
-
15 minutes ago, Chipputer said:
I'm only gonna quote this because wall.
So grammatically correct and properly punctuated responses are "walls" now. Ok.
Nevermind the length of your own response.
15 minutes ago, Chipputer said:Nightwave still allowed you to play on your own terms.
Really? Please explain rather than just handwaving what I said with an assertion.
15 minutes ago, Chipputer said:Just like any other thing in the game, though, if you wanted to get the top tier rewards you had to put the time in.
But why does that time need to be spread over the entire season? If I want to play other games for 5 weeks and spend the remaining 5 catching up, why should I not be able to do that?
Obviously, this will be fixed come Season 2, but you are neglecting to explain why that isn't a valid criticism of Season 1.
15 minutes ago, Chipputer said:And I'm sorry but if you're going to get upset at that few hours remark then I have no sympathy for you. A few hours is nothing in comparison to all of the other grinding this game has.
You're continually missing (or evading) the point, which is that there is no reason why time commitment needs to occur on a set schedule. What difference does it make if a player commits to Warframe over each season or puts in the work to catch up at the end? The sum of effort required is the same.
Players are free to approach the game at their own pace and make their own determinations regarding what is/is not too much. Your lack of sympathy does not somehow make your editorializing less BS.
-
2 hours ago, Chipputer said:
If you're taking a break of a week or two then you have nobody to blame but yourself. Point blank. Period. You don't get rewarded for not playing. That's asinine.
That is not what the point was at all. The whole selling point of NW was that it was supposed to let players play the game on their own terms instead of being required to log in and play during a narrow window to get a specific reward.
Players should absolutely be required to actually play to earn their rewards, but there is NO REASON why they should be required to play on a daily/weekly schedule. If a player wants to take a break for a few weeks and then come back to do a longer grinding session to catch up... They should be able to do that.
That's why I originally said that the catch-up mechanic will resolve that particular concern.
2 hours ago, Chipputer said:Not every Elite Weekly required you to do Profit Taker or required you to do things with friends. A good portion of them were tasks like, "kill 1500 enemies."
60 minute survivals, 40 wave defenses, Eidolon Tricap-- these are all things that anyone can participate in with the final one simply requiring the completion of The War Within to get full function of the required system. If your point is simply that you didn't want to do those then that's on you, not DE. If your point is that you didn't have time, they're cutting the requirements in half for most of them for Season 2.And that criticism was obviously aimed at Season 1, not Season 2. The criticism is still valid, and DE has already acknowledged that many of those challenges were excessive.
2 hours ago, Chipputer said:As I've pointed out numerous times-- Aside from the obvious examples of challenges that required flat time input (60 minute survival, etc), Nightwave challenges were literally able to be completed within a few hours every week. This wasn't something that only the best of the best veterans could do. This was something any player who looked at them and planned their loadouts/what missions they were going to run accordingly.
Again, you're missing the point by a mile. The issue - aside from the 60 min type Acts - is not the time required to complete the individual requirements but the regularity and limited availability of those Acts.
NW Season 1 more or less forced players to play the game on DE's schedule instead of the player's, which was precisely what it was supposed to put an end to by replacing Alerts.
2 hours ago, Chipputer said:If a few hours per week is too much then maybe Warframe is too much for you.
GTFO with that toxic empty rhetoric. Who are you to set the standard for what is an appropriate degree of time investment in the game?
Does playing every week somehow make you better than a player who plays every couple of weeks? Why should it matter whether playtime is spread evenly over the entire season or offloaded to the last week if the player ultimately puts in the same amount of grinding work?
Telling people to simply not play because they have different commitments and priorities is pointless.
-
Just now, peterc3 said:
I would argue that you could remove the "always" from that and come out closer to the truth for a lot of people complaining. The system isn't perfect, nothing in the game is. However the backlash to being given acts requiring you to play the game as usual seems telling.
I wasn't talking about that though, and it is deceitful to imply that the players making these points are always the same people.
The complaints I am talking about are those addressing the fact that Acts are limited in supply and can be missed, without any mechanism to make up time even given the will and the means.
There are also plenty of legitimate complaints about Acts forcing players to play in completely arbitrary ways (e.g., Friend/Clanmate requirements, excessive amounts of time, etc.) that really add nothing of value to the game experience.
Those will actually also be alleviated by the catch-up mechanic, because players will have much more freedom to choose which Acts they want to complete later in the season rather than being forced to complete Acts they find tedious due to being behind schedule.
-
1
-
-
A large portion of the complaints focus on "I don't want to always play Warframe."
I only made it to the Captura scene because I was busy with other games when NW started. I'm not particularly concerned about it because I know this season will come back around eventually, but NW in its original form is clearly designed (perhaps not intentionally) to demand serious commitment to Warframe.
The simple addition of the catch-up feature should resolve this completely though. People aren't really complaining that they need to do lots of Acts... They are complaining that they have to do specific Acts on DE's schedule instead of their own... Which is something NW was supposed to free them from.
-
5
-
-
1 minute ago, lnfine said:
Considering the current state of Ember is the result of mindless "no more AoE map nuking".
No she isn't. Ember is the result of unproductive "she needs a nerf, any nerf" vs. "no she doesn't, how dare you suggest nerfing anything" bickering with no actual viable solutions proposed to help with addressing either side's concerns. Both sides had a point:
- Vets really shouldn't be stuck running low-level missions for specific rewards; Warframe is just about zero fun when trivialized into forced leeching.
- Ember fell off way too hard against content that couldn't simply be trivialized with WoF.
However, every discussion leading up to the nerf was an all-or-nothing no-compromise argument and ultimately neither side got what they wanted:
- Ember can still easily trivialize the same missions, even if she sees decreased use because most players just follow the anti-nerf hearsay and switch to any of X other nuke Frames.
- Ember still falls off pretty hard against upper-level content as soon as Armor enters the equation.
As someone who fully supported addressing what Ember did to low-level missions, I also vocally criticize how she was handled when it's brought up in conversation.
27 minutes ago, 844448 said:With recent news about bungie nerfing many things that considered OP for endgame, bringing them to be in line with other gears and how many people complain that there's no endgame or challenging content, I want to ask you guys if you agree to nerfing things in warframe as balancing to make the endgame challenging?
Some things to consider, if you guys agree to nerf OP things in warframe, these are some examples of things that will be gone for good
- No more one-shotting eidolon or other bosses with chroma
- No more AoE map nuking in ESO or other modes with saryn or other map nuking frames
So, to reach optimum damage output, you will need support frames to buff the team or debuff enemies
What do you think? Should we suggest DE to follow bungie in this?
While I believe nerfs are needed, this is one of the absolute worst ways you could have framed this discussion.
- Nerfs are neither unique to Bungie nor applicable to Warframe in the same way they would be to Destiny. Destiny has (to my understanding) a handful of over-performing weapons that are getting tweaked whereas Warframe consists of more overpowered characters/gear than anything else.
- You're going to get people disagreeing simply because they don't like Bungie/Destiny and loathe the notion of anything associated with either.
- You're completely neglecting to mention what players should expect to get out of this. Nobody wants to be nerfed for nothing in return. There is a reason why nerfs would be beneficial to Warframe:
MORE ENGAGING GAMEPLAY AGAINST ENEMIES THAT DON'T CHEAT.
Dunno about the rest of you, but I'm pretty annoyed by every elite/boss-type enemy immediately getting some BS immunity to powers, status procs, and eventually armor-stripping effects like Shattering Impact/Corrosive Projection/etc. The fact of the matter is that these tools are just plain game-breaking so DE finds it more convenient to simply turn them off whenever they actually make a serious difference (y'know, rather than just letting us overkill hapless mooks by 20x instead of 10x).
I would much rather have moderately less-powerful versions of powers/status/armor stripping that work 100% of the time against all enemies as-applicable than have entire portions of my arsenal taken away because they are game-breaking.
With some appropriate nerfs, we could have a Warframe where enemies like Nullifiers and BS gimmicks like "immune to everything but Void damage" are entirely unnecessary.
- Player damage needs to be scaled back as a whole so not everything dies in 0.1s. TTK doesn't have to be slow, but it needs to be slower.
- Powers don't need to be directly nerfed, but energy economy needs to be scaled back. Power-spam is game-breaking overkill; energy is meant to be a limiter to power use and it utterly fails in this capacity as soon as the player acquires a few essential mods.
Neither of those changes have much of anything to do with what Bungie is supposedly doing with Destiny.
-
8
-
I, for one, am sick and tired if DE's approach to fixing fundamental problems being giving players extra stuff to grind for.
You want to make a weaker weapon strong because you like it? Better get to grinding (buying) a Riven for it.
An MR-based upgrade system? That's silly talk; RNG works (pays) better.
You want a slot dedicated to utility mods you wouldn't otherwise use? Better get to grinding an expensive Frame-specific Adapter.
BTW, we added non-utility mods for that slot making the whole point of that slot moot almost immediately.
You want to be able to freely switch between auras instead of polarizing to the meta choices? Better get to grinding a <5% drop requiring 4 days' worth of craft time in materials.
Make all auras 1 polarity? Make stong, useful auras for every polarity? Why would we want to do that?
-
3
-
-
Nightwave only works as a replacement for Alerts if it has the same 24/7 uninterrupted availability as Alerts.
If DE can't realistically support that availability they should stick to low-maintenance alerts, implement a token system, and open a persistent token shop to help alleviate long-term waits for specific loot in the Alert pool.
It's not hard to imagine delays getting longer as DE runs dry on story ideas for these seasons.
-
https://youtu.be/ALSHF1ujR28?t=11
They are definitely making the controls uniform, but that comes with a rework of all the combos as well:
- Standing E = standard combo
- W + E = faster combo with (mostly) unrestricted forward mobility
- RMB + E = Gap closer combo
Even the heavy blade stance they showcased looks fairly fluid and quick-melee like with the W+E combo, so I'd assume lighter weapons would be even less restricted. Still, I'm not super happy with their proposed control scheme. IMO combos should be fully separated from movement-based inputs, because few people are likely to actually USE the standing combo. Enemies die so quickly that you need to constantly be moving between targets...
-
18 hours ago, MemeCataclysm said:
All of these suggestions should allow players to opt-out of them via the settings if they prefer the current system.
No.
Games invariably degrade in quality when the devs opt to keep everything overly-configurable rather than make critical design decisions when it comes to control mechanics (not the same thing as bindings, mind you).
Rather than bloat the game with toggle options, DE needs to address the issues people have with the system without simply rolling things back or making them "optional."
18 hours ago, MemeCataclysm said:Melee Equip: Before I get into my main complaints, please re-enable Holding F to equip melee. People have paid for holster animations, they technically work if "Visible when holstered" is toggled but many players - I included - prefer that off. Besides... slowly equipping melee is cool and more "theatrical" than just instantly attacking.
I'd recommend clarifying that this would be fully cosmetic - if I hadn't skimmed the thread first this would be a hard "no" from me.
Instant-swapping is significantly more streamlined and absolutely essential to bridging the segregation between gunplay and melee.
18 hours ago, MemeCataclysm said:Blocking: The current block system is not ideal, I get that you might have considered removing inputs for blocking to "speed up the game flow" like with the rest of phase 1 but automatic blocking interrupts actions, slows you down and often defeats the purpose. The fact that manual blocking is still possible but only with no weapons tells me you weren't planning on removing manual blocking entirely which makes this change all the more confusing. My biggest complaint about blocking is that for phase 2 you are planning on changing the majority of blocking related mods for a blocking system that many - I included - feel is inferior to what we already had. The blocking changes give me the impression that you didn't know how to make blocking work if RMB was used to instantly aim.
How to fix it: The fix is incredibly simple, change the "Reload" keybinding to "Reload / Toggle Block," when pressed if melee is used this enables a mode where players always block whenever it is possible to do so (without affecting combos), this makes blocking possible without needing RMB and without being awkward and unyieldly to use, almost everyone uses reload. This will also help with speed and flow as they wouldn't be required to hold a button down every time they want to block whenever to avoid taking damage or use a blocking mod. Whenever you automatically switch to melee and block after firing weapons is up to you, if you think that would make blocking too automatic you can make it only take effect after switching to melee, it wouldn't be any more automatic than the current system.
I agree with the complaint but not your proposed fix.
Just restore blocking to RMB, and add a default level of ADS zoom to it and keep auto-swap bound to firing. Some exception behavior:
1. No zoom during glide.
2. Standard zoom with no overlay even for scoped weapons - players can manually switch with F or simply fire the first shot with no overlay.
I disagree that manual blocking is in any way restrictive; just make sure it has no movement penalties and you're golden. Also, please hurry up and implement blocking contributing to the combo meter.
18 hours ago, MemeCataclysm said:Quick Attacks: Quick attacks no longer exist in the current system, this can sometimes be good for instantly entering powerful combos but other times said combos are long, difficult to use or straight up slow movement if not stop it outright, not fitting with the aim of Melee 3.0. Polearm quick attacks used to be amazing, you could become a spinning cyclone of death, attacking at a decent rate without any slowdown. The default non-stance combo for polearms is worse in every possible regard, not only does it not attack as fast, the combo stops you in your tracks twice.
How to fix it: Almost identical to blocking, change "Secondary Attack" to "Secondary Attack / Toggle Quick Attacks", when toggled all melee attacks are quick attacks no matter what inputs you press, letting people either switch between quick and combo attacks to suit their needs or disregard one if the other is far superior.
I have to disagree with this. DE needs to just hurry up and start releasing the updated streamlined/non-restrictive stances they showcased previously.
Unless DE cancelled those without saying anything, there is already a planned solution to the awkward M2 combos; they will all be replaced anyway.
We just need the replacements sooner rather than later.
-
28 minutes ago, Xepthrichros said:
Basically what you do on the forums all the time.
Get a room you two. Made for each other.
Stay salty, my friend.
-
16 hours ago, MirageKnight said:
New / Reworked Abilities
Neuro-slave (Formerly Mind Control): Orders an enemy to fight for and protect Nyx; up to 1 / 2 / 4 / 6 enemies can be Enslaved. Re-casting Neuro-slave on an already Enslaved target will kill it. Enslaved enemies count as Allies and can be affected by healing / buffing abilities. Note: shooting at Enslaved targets will not affect their damage output.
With more time to write, I disagree with 2 things here:
1. Nyx should not be able to simply kill controlled enemies. This just creates a quick 1-2 cast cycle to delete selected targets, which is not what this ability is supposed to do.
2. Controlled targets should not receive healing. I think it would be more appropriate to treat them as fully disposable - used up and then tossed aside, with Nyx simply pulling replacements from the enemy ranks.
Also I think there should be a "Hold 1" input to automatically control the nearest targets within range up to the cap. This lets Nyx pick specific enemies if she wants, but also lets players skip recasting 6 times if they don't particularly care.
16 hours ago, MirageKnight said:Disrupt: Reduces accuracy of incoming fire in a bubble around Nyx, but has energy drain as long as the ability is active. Bubble size affected by range. Amount of fire deflected affected by Strength. Note: While active, Disrupt does NOT impair mobility.
I really wanted to replace Absorb entirely, but couldn't think of a suitable replacement. Thinking about it more, how about:
Synaptic Link
Nyx links minds with controlled enemies, increasing their accuracy/damage/target focus and revealing enemies they can see on the minimap.
16 hours ago, MirageKnight said:Paranoia (formerly Chaos): Nyx creates mass confusion on the battlefield, manipulating any and all enemies into thinking that everything around them is an enemy that must be destroyed. Does NOT affect Enslaved enemies.
Not much to say here except perhaps have affected enemies be more likely to attack controlled enemies (making it less likely that they still choose Tenno targets). This ties into:
16 hours ago, MirageKnight said:Slave-Driver: Neuro-slaved / Paranoia affected enemies attack and move faster, but health drains while the ability is active. Attack and movement speed buffs are affected by Strength mods and the ability can be toggled on or off.
Instead of passive boosts and drain, I think it would be neat to have controlled enemies draw additional aggro, take increased damage, and deal progressively increasing damage in more of a frenzy as their health approaches zero. Throw in some sort of benefit when a controlled enemy dies and you have a Nyx that really emphasizes pitting enemies against each other with some serious results.
16 hours ago, MirageKnight said:Disrupt Augment > Reflect: Deflects weapons fire back at enemies that fire on Nyx.
This would obviously need to change if using my alternate power, but I got nothin right now.
-
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:
And a lot of what I see in the realm of nerfs wants to take Warframe in the tactical direction, rather than the horde direction. This is a massive point, IMO.
Can you not?
Argue that point when people actually raise it instead of trying to sweep all the opposing viewpoints into the same basket. These sweeping generalizations are really annoying because they oftentimes complain about issues that aren't relevant to the actual contents of the suggestions.
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:If enemy scaling isn't dealt with at the same time as some of the proposed nerfs, the nerfs will feel bad, in practice.
Why? Enemy scaling doesn't become obtrusive until well past 100, which is beyond the scope of balanced content anyway.
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:I am not in favor of hammering down the strongest frames/abilities as a "stopgap" measure, a bandaid.
Actually fixing the cause of a problem is not a band-aid. Nerfing overperformers and buffing underperformers is the most efficient and effective approach to balance.
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:(There will always be the next strongest that then become the new targets of the nerf-brigade) Those (ab)usable abilities that get nerfed are making the game fun for those who have them. Taking them away because they're too strong... in a power fantasy horde shooter-looter... without balance changes on the whole, does not equal balancing the game, to me. (In other words, leave them alone, unless you actually care to fix the game's balance overall.
Agreed, actually. DE currently approaches balance waaaaay too slowly. It's no good to adjust overpowered thing A if there are still overpowered things B through E. Fix them all at once.
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:Nerfs, ALONE, will only hurt the game for some people, and make a few people happy that those people can't have that fun anymore.)
This is ignorant and dishonest. First, the only people who are demanding that balance should ONLY use one type of balance change are those who insist that nerfs are evil and must be avoided at all costs. Insisting on ONLY nerfs would be just as destructive and inefficient as ONLY buffs.
And this is NOT about stopping anyone from having fun. It's not some twisted instance of schadenfreude. It's about 3/4 players not getting to have fun because 1 player is soloing the entire mission. That's excessive and unnecessary.
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:Nerfs, alone, are not a good "first step"... they directly make the game worse for the people who were nerfed, without any real compensation (those other balance changes).
If something is overpowered, it is not owed any sort of compensation when it is nerfed. Nerfs should not make anything so bad that it NEEDS compensation to make it better. Nerfs should bring things back to "balanced." Any further and they've gone too far - then a buff is needed.
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:There may be a strong case to nerf some ability in some circumstances, but I've RARELY seen cases where nerfs were good for a game (and I've been playing games for 30+ years) They're USUALLY the result of whining babies who don't want other people to be stronger than they are, and they blame strong abilities/weapons/whatever that they don't have - this is strongly the case in games where PVE and PVP clash interests (like Destiny). I hate PVP with a passion, and I'm so very glad that Warframe doesn't allow PVP to influence PVE balance.
FFS this comes up every time and it never stops being complete BS. These complaints are not "they got more kills" or "they did more damage." The complaints are "they stopped me from being able to play."
The only people being competitive here are the ones clinging to their OP nukes. Because apparently Warframe stops being fun if you only get 300 kills down from 500.
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:*snip because just rambling*
(I do not like nerfs in general. To me, nerf is a bad word.)
This is a poisonous attitude. It's a dogma that has no basis in reality or what is typically practical for game balance.
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:*multiplayer semantics*
That's not Warframe. DE has repeatedly made changes aimed at bringing teams together, even if they have thus far failed to provide serious co-op opportunities.
They added affinity range to bring players into proximity. They added double doors to slow down rushers. They modified Excavation spawns to inhibit players running Excavators independently in entirely separate tiles. The list goes on.
Not all of these changes have been particularly effective, but the intent has been clear and consistent.
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:Some frames are positioned as "crowd control" or "buffers" or "defenders" (not tanks) in comparison to "Damage" frames... but those aspects mainly come into play in objective-based play... like Defense missions, because you're not just trying to kill enemies, you're trying to keep something else alive, keeping enemies from killing something. They all have their ways to deal with hordes. Defenders stop damage to a target. Crowd Controllers stop enemies from moving around, stunning or otherwise incapacitating them. Buffers either buff themselves or their team to levels that make wiping out the hordes easier. Normally buffers are only needed to deal with enemies that are not part of the trash horde, but take more effort to take down (obviously including bosses like Eidolons.) Buffers are in the most precarious place in a game like Warframe, because the game isn't about killing bosses, it's about killing hordes, so they need other utility abilities to make them useful in that respect as well.
This is a really bad argument to make when a good chunk of the complaint focuses on nukers invalidating defenders and supports in objective-based modes. Hydron is a Defense node.
54 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:Anyway, it's time for me to go do my errands and then work, and I probably won't get back to the forums until tomorrow. (I'm not interested in arguing about specific nerfs, just presenting my viewpoint on the whole situation, and reasoning for it. I expect the people who want nerfs won't care, or will pick it apart, and say something about the overall health of the game needs nerfs or somesuch stuff that I don't agree with, anyway, so no point in that whole conversation - I've had that conversation in too many forums about too many games already, it gets tiresome when I already know people won't come to an agreement on this, based on their desired vision for the game.)
Well, when you post a comment to a public forum you are implicitly inviting discussion. Good luck with your errands and at work.
-
3
-
-
25 minutes ago, MirageKnight said:
There's also ESO. 4 out of 5 missions, a Saryn is almost guaranteed to be there.
To be fair, DE implemented really wacky efficiency drain there and it's a pain to keep up without Saryn or an equivalent.
-
11 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:
i didnt say direct control so i dont know where you got that from.
...
2 hours ago, EinheriarJudith said:she doesnt even have full control of the mind because of not being able to send commands to the controlled target.
?
11 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:nyx is not a puppeteer, shes an illusionist imo. his ideas arent bad they just dont fit nyx.
apparently it does. if she had full control of the mind she could send commands to the enemy to defend or attack select targets. that is not what mind control does. the only thing nyx does as seen in her current kit, is sow chaos by blurring the lines of friend and foe.
You're literally nit-picking the definition of puppeteer vs. illusionist rather than the content of the proposals.
OP did not suggest giving Nyx "full control" of anything. You could change the title to "Nyx the Illusionist" and nothing would need to change.
Her 1 is even already called "Mind Control," so I don't get where you're coming from. She is 'controlling' their minds.
Whether she is doing this by projecting hallucinations or some other means, it doesn't matter. The end result is that enemies attack enemies and ignore allies; there is no difference when it comes to the gameplay.
-
58 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:
this is very knit picky. nothing about nyx is a puppeteer. if anything shes closer to an illusionist. she doesnt even have full control of the mind because of not being able to send commands to the controlled target.
Did I miss the part where the suggestion included adding direct control?
58 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:its more like casting an illusion where the target thinks you are a friendly and everyone else is an enemy just like how chaos spawns illusions of nyx.
If anything, this is nit-picking. This makes no practical difference when it comes to gameplay.
-
9 hours ago, EinheriarJudith said:
what i mean is pet class. nyx is not a puppeteer either. puppeteers dont control the mind they control the body. nyx is about sowing chaos. so as i said your suggestion is best left for a new frame.
And if you control the mind, you also control the: ____.
Thought about it a bit more... Instead of deflecting bullets psychically a la Zephyr, Nyx could significantly reduce enemy accuracy. Also might want to specify that the movement restrictions would be lifted.
-
8 hours ago, Xepthrichros said:
And most suggestions I read including yours do not make the combat less simplistic.
It's a process, buddy. We can't have everything all at once. Step 1 is nerfing players a bit so that enemies can actually survive long enough that they don't have to rely on stupid gimmicks like invulnerability, status/ability immunity, or inflated damage reduction to get any screen time.
Step 2 would be improving player engagement with the combat by adding some actual interactivity to SOME (not all, to keep that horde feel) enemies.
QuoteJust make us go slower, against stupid enemies. Enemies which we all know we are gonna win against anyway, it is inevitable, but you all just want to make it slower cos "interactivity". *eyeroll*.
Stop lying.
There is no "slower." A team of 4 can kill just as fast as 1 nuker with ease. Solo can be balanced differently in terms of energy availability, because hey, there aren't 3 other players to think about.
QuoteInstead of actual real endgame modes where you have a risk for failure and even the maximum strength press 4 and guns are not enough, but you need them both to succeed. And that's all I am going to say.
This would be horrible. Seriously, think about it for half a second. If the existing press-4-to-win nukers struggle in such an end-game, everyone else is going to struggle more.
What about solo players? Frames without damage powers?
Your proposed "end-game" equates to jumping through hoops, while failing to ensure every player will actually be ABLE to jump through those hoops depending on their chosen character.
What would a solo Vauban or Zephyr do in your proposed mode where players need a nuke to wipe out the first 50% of health before switching to guns/melee? Are you saying they SHOULDN'T be end-game viable?
QuoteI am not going to bother dissecting you line by line. I know this is pretty much your hobby these days
I respond thoroughly to people because it is respectful to address what they say rather than ignoring the details of their points to focus on just the "gist."
Quotesince you hate the game:
lol, ok.
Quotecounter-arguing via way of pedantic hair-splitting,
What hair-splitting? Do you even know what it means to split hairs? Please give me a direct example of where you think I split hairs. Quote me on it.
If you can't, please stop lying just because you ran out of counter-points.
Quotewherein you know the gist of what people are saying but you refuse to take it as such, and nitpick over minor little things and "refute" them. I am gonna nerf your hobby by giving you less to work with.
The "gist" of your ideas is just as flawed as the details I am addressing, and these are not "minor little things."
The gist of your solution is "add a power-creeped enemy playground for nuke frames to go into where they won't bother anyone else because they can't nuke everything."
That is a useless solution.
- Balancing an end-game mode around the meta forces use of the meta for success, and excludes anything that isn't currently meta. Players put a lot of time and effort to building weapons and characters outside the meta, and half of your argument is that players should be able to enjoy their investments. Therefore, you should want your end-game to be as inclusive as possible of fully-built gear.
- Adding an end-game mode won't actually solve the problem, because end-game players will still have reasons to revisit the earlier game, and will nuke through missions still filled with weak, "boring" enemies. Something needs to be done about that, or player complaints will continue.
- Your solution is effectively the same as nerfing players, which is honestly pretty funny. Why do we need to add a new higher-tier playground at all? Why can't we just rebalance the game around the high-tier playgrounds we already have (Sorties, Arbitrations, ESO, etc.)? Why do we need a NEW one? Why can't we just FIX existing ones? Because subtraction is scary? Really now?
I agree that we need less simplistic enemies to fight, but as I said at the beginning of this post, it's a process. We can't have everything at once.
We have to start somewhere, and players being overpowered is the biggest obstacle preventing the gameplay you CLAIM to want.
-
5
-
On 2019-05-02 at 8:40 AM, (PS4)AyinDygra said:
Do people want true difficulty?
Now that I'm home and off my tiny phone screen, I can dig into this properly.
I agree that not everybody wants difficulty, and I certainly agree that Warframe is big enough to offer both. However, I don't think that it is necessary to segregate easy and challenging content into entirely separate areas of the game. I think the best option would be a small set of difficulty options (normal/hard) and special mutators (think Halo's Skulls) without any additional rewards for using them. This type of "difficulty" should be available but reserved for players who enjoy it for its own sake, not players who just want an excuse for built-in boosters. That isn't to say that harder content shouldn't offer better rewards, but that should only exist within the normal scaling curve of the game as it progresses from "early game" to "end-game." This is the same reason why I do not support things like "scaling rewards" when it comes to endless modes.
If you aren't doing it because you want to, you're doing it wrong.
On 2019-05-02 at 8:40 AM, (PS4)AyinDygra said:Beyond that: Why should it be added?
Because without it, the game can't engage players and it gets boring. As another Halo example, look at Reach's firefight mode.
Yes, it's certainly cathartic to set enemy damage to 25%, player damage to 400%, switch on bottomless clip, and equip players with Fuel Rod Guns/Rocket Launchers, but that feeling lasts for all of 10-20 minutes before it becomes monotonous. This is 90% of the reason players start to burn out on leveling grinds - it's not so much playing the game as going through the motions to delete however many enemies the game says you need to. The other 10% of that is the leveling grind taking too long while playing "normally," but that can be addressed separately from difficulty.
On 2019-05-02 at 8:40 AM, (PS4)AyinDygra said:I think people want to use the full range of their powers, and still not be guaranteed victory. (not being "arbitrarily" limited to reduce their power to add challenge.) This is where Sanctuary Onslaught falls short with penalties for spamming abilities. This is where Arbitrations fall short with the drones negating powers.
It is worth pointing out that on a recent dev stream, that they DO want to balance the game somewhat, and that those balance changes were delayed by Melee 3.0 and the release of competition (they didn't want people to see a year of nerfs while Anthem was being released at the same time.) So balance changes are coming.
Assuming DE wants Warframe to be a game with difficulty (they've said some things and implemented contrary to what they said, recently, to make this an assumption despite what they've said):
Really balancing this game is going to have to happen to really have a lasting impact on its difficulty (to keep both groups happy and not just be a fake difficulty that relies on gimmicks that just make failure more common, like the efficiency meter, ability restrictions, and one-hit kill scaling power levels.) Wiping out hordes effortlessly should/would still be possible to keep the power fantasy (along with the cinematic 'heroic moments' in the new boss battles) and farming efficiency, but there would have to be, in certain content, enemies that survive long enough to engage players and make them employ tactics to defeat (as simple as dodging/defending against damage (or CC'ing them) while dealing enough damage to kill them.) This was likely the original role of the Eximus and special heavy units (Bursa, Scrambus, Bombard, Napalm, Heavy Gunner, Manics, Ancients - Bursas were the bane of my existence for the longest time, until I got a frame capable of CC'ing them so I could get behind them when playing solo, and melee on top of that...).
Agreed with most of this.
It should not be "certain" content that gets this treatment, it should be all content. Warframe needs a universal balancing scheme. Half of our current problem comes from the game trying to juggle far too many things at once - catering somewhat to all types of audiences without offering anything particularly high-quality to any of them. Warframe needs to pick what type of game it wants to be (arcadey horde action a la Dynasty Warriors, or more of a tacti-cool team-focused game) and STICK to that balance vision from beginning to end. Anything outside of the chosen "norm" should be handled through fully optional novelty modifiers.
Enemies which can be slaughtered by the dozen should be mixed in with enemies that can't, and they should each serve discrete functions on the battlefield. Trash enemies should be there to help players combat attrition and fuel their powers. More powerful foes should be there to engage the player's attention, offer opportunities for co-operative efforts, and provide a drip-feed of challenge.
On 2019-05-02 at 8:40 AM, (PS4)AyinDygra said:They've thrown the idea around of a "difficulty" selector for mission nodes (apparently, this was part of the original design, that was since removed), and they currently have "infinite scaling" for enemies in endless missions. The infinite scaling thing is just silly to me. It's like, they wanted to create a soft-cap on how far players could go, but players still manage to keep going by (ab)using certain mechanics present in the game that let players kill even infinitely scaled enemies. I don't see the fun in this, nor the skill, and only difficulty for difficulty's sake. If all the enemies are capable of one-shotting you, I wouldn't find that fun... maybe difficult, but certainly not fun - it's like the opposite of power fantasy... more like run around like a chicken with its head cut off. (that's the realm of spaceship-shooters) In other words, it stops feeling like Warframe at that point, IMO.
I don't know how the difficulty selector will work out yet. It all depends on the scaling they employ (and current scaling is not good). This will likely partially satisfy people who want to start endless nodes at a higher enemy level, "for the challenge" (but also expecting better rewards that they likely won't get...)
All that really needs to come out of this would be the option to bump low-level content up to relevance for end-game players. There are many times where players need to go back to early game areas (GOTL alerts, new content released there, etc.) and all they really need is something that requires a bit more chewing. Mopping up level 5 foes with 3-4 Forma R30 gear just isn't particularly fun.
I definitely agree that infinitely-scaled content is not "fun," because in reality it's not really about fighting enemies. It's about completely stopping enemies from fighting. This equates to beating up inert loot-pinatas rather than "fighting" them, and the threat of instant death if you undo their shackles for a moment does nothing to alleviate that impression.
On 2019-05-02 at 8:40 AM, (PS4)AyinDygra said:One way to add survivability to enemies in an encounter is to give the enemy "stages", that could work like the Infested Boilers that spawn pods that become new enemies (the splitting on-death mechanic seen in several RPGs and goes back as far as the Hydra who would regrow two heads for each cut off). Bosses often employ this tactic, even changing arenas between stages.
This would need to be used very sparingly, because having multi-staged enemies can get very repetitive and very annoying very quickly in a horde setting. Boilers are already an annoyance, IMO. It doesn't add much in the way of challenge or engagement, and really just turns those types of foes into goshdarned bats.
On 2019-05-02 at 8:40 AM, (PS4)AyinDygra said:*snip*
My workday was a bit too long and I am a bit too tired to finish responding to the rest of this in detail, but in general I agree with the thrust of your statements. Just a few things:
- I think CC-capable enemies are fine, but they should be limited to rare mini-boss type encounters, always telegraphed, and always counterable. Most of the frustration from fighting these enemies comes from there being too many of them at once to effectively avoid without blanket CC/nukes (Ancients, Scorpions, etc.) or their powers having no tangible or fair counter-play (Conculysts, Wolf, Tyl Regor, etc.). It's just "they can CC you, too bad."
- Fixed mod values (I assume you mean flat bonuses like +100 damage rather than +165% damage) carry their own problems. They disproportionately benefit weapons with lower stats, meaning that modding simply changes from playing to a weapon's strengths to mitigating its weaknesses. I'm not saying that the current situation is good, but I don't think the new one would be much better. A better solution, IMO, would be overall lower bonuses and diminishing returns for stacked stats. For example, Serration might confer something like +50% at max and stacking it with Heavy Caliber or a Riven might only push it to +70%. Definitely more than you had before, but perhaps not worth an entire slot (numbers as examples only). I also believe that all mods should have Corrupted-style tradeoffs (though not as extreme), which would make mods more about specializing into a playstyle rather than buffing into viability.
- I disagree with leveling weapons to reach max stats. It will only make the leveling grind more onerous and exacerbate the issues we already see with "XP/Loot Caves" like Hydron. I think weapons should be given adequate base stats to function for their progression bracket (MR) with players having the option of grinding further to bump weapons up to top-tier. This could also be based on the player's overall profile level (e.g., max weapon MR rating is 15, and players can "upgrade" weapons to their current profile MR/2. In other words, an MR30 player could upgrade any weapon in the game to perform like a top-tier MR15 weapon). This would, IMO, confer a sizable degree of progression without really shifting the scope of game balance all that much.
-
1
-
*doublepost*
-
19 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:
To begin, I highly dislike this forum's method of quoting only the previous poster, and not including the nested immediately preceding quotes that make the rest make sense...
The post I quoted was not responding directly to any others, so...?
19 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:For one thing, some frames are designed so that they need to kill enemies before the enemies can shoot at them. Glass cannons they're called. That's part of their balance, because if they DON'T wipe the enemies out in a flash, they're dead. (or close to it)
First, glass cannons typically rely on SUPPORTS and TANKS to help alleviate the pressure. A balanced glass cannon doesn't nuke entire maps constantly with trivial ease. A balanced glass cannon needs teammates to let them do what they do safely.
Second, Warframes like Saryn are quite a ways off from "glass cannon" status. Even the ones who don't have decent amounts of base armor can have things like Arcane Guardian at their disposal or otherwise have access to CC, so I don't think this argument would be valid even if it happened to make sense.
19 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:I'd go through point by point, but I think you made a lot of assumptions about what I think, and didn't read the other 2 posts I linked that go into greater detail about the Balancing I consider 'required' to make Warframe challenging, simply lumping me in with some group that you oppose in your head.
I responded based on your sweeping exaggerations of what pro-nerf players actually WANT. Nobody wants guns to be reduced to "pea shooters" or frames to be "hamstrung."
There is a LOT of room between "game-breaking" and "weak." I'm not making any "assumptions" about what you think, unless what you think somehow doesn't match what you actually SAID.
Nobody has suggested that we should make a particular frame/weapon weak, or that we should aim to invalidate player progression.
19 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:The Balancing changes needed would be nerfing enemy scaling as well as the reliance some have on abilities that can kill stupidly scaled enemies. People wouldn't have to resort to (ab)using them if the stupid scaling didn't exist.
This is a non-sequitur, because the topic of discussion is focused on areas of the game where scaling isn't an issue. Players don't "need" to resort to abusing broken abilities when killing level 0-100 enemies. The scaling for those levels isn't actually all that bad. You even recognize that already:
19 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:Clearly the scaling system was meant as more of a "soft cap" on content, telling players to "Stop, just stop. This is getting ridiculous, don't you think? Take a break."... but they just found ways to keep going instead.
Players are not supposed to actually "beat" enemies with such ridiculous scaling anyway. So why should they have access to tools which can? Just take away those tools and scaling becomes a non-issue.
19 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:We may even agree on some of the changes... but a lot of the nerf-happy posters just make me shake my head in disappointment at a lack of seeing the bigger picture, or the other side of the situation. (I mean, the current game makes a lot of people sincerely happy. One of my friends derives great pleasure in what others may consider "overpowered" trouncing of trash enemies.
And a lot of the rabid anti-nerf posters make ME shake MY head in disappointment for their inability to see the bigger picture. But let's not use the extremists as a reference point for opposing views (i.e., let's avoid exaggerated scaremongering, yeah?).
If you're open to reasonable discussion, I certainly am.
For example, I would separate enemies into trash mobs, elites, and minibosses. Trash mobs would never be particularly dangerous to the player and mostly exist to die en-masse while dropping health, ammo, and energy. Elites would have common-ish loot while requiring more than a stiff breeze to kill, and minibosses would supply bits of "challenge" and rarer loot.
This would preserve the horde feel while offering more engaging gameplay.
19 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:(As an aside: Seems to me, affinity range is more an anti-afk-er feature than a "group up real close" and work together feature. (I won't go further on this.)
I'm telling you, it was literally added because of hallway heroes completely ignoring defense objectives and such. It's not a matter of how it "seems" to you, that's why it was added.
19 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:I'm more of a solo player, and I like to melee 99% of the time, and I have very little to lose (power-wise) in these discussions, since I don't use these frames that most would like to see nerfed, anyway. I don't yet have the mods that would even make most of them as deadly as people make them, either. My gameplay has already been "ruined" by melee 2.999998's "smooth transition" between guns and herky-jerky-stupid-combos-with-auto-blocking, and all this talk of making the game even worse, (from my point of view), just makes me... I don't know if angry fits... more like disgusted by what some people want to turn the game into, beyond what's already happened.
Nice to meet you. I am also a 99% solo player, and these changes WOULD affect me because I certainly do use the frames in question and have the applicable mods.
I also hate auto-blocking, and I wish DE would hurry up with releasing the smoother stances.
However, I don't think you actually understand what people are aiming for with regards to these changes, mostly because you're exaggerating consequences at every turn. Asking for Warframes to NOT nuke the map so fast that 3 players are basically leeching is not unreasonable.
19 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:I mean, if all the "challenging content" is "optional content" that doesn't impact the parts I play, fine... but a lot of the changes (not all mentioned in this particular thread) really would make me hate the game. And a lot of the changes would have to impact my gameplay to be implemented, so there's no getting around needing to add my input to the discussion.
I've got nothing to go on, here. I can't follow your thoughts across threads, especially with nonspecific and vague terminology.
I certainly agree that Warframe shouldn't be made "hardcore," but I would prefer to see gameplay that is a little less braindead trivial.
19 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:Really, though, before assuming what I want to see, those 2 posts are a fairly good summation of what I think would work in Warframe's context.
Again, I'm not assuming anything. Everything I said was in response to exaggerations and words you ACTUALLY USED, because I believe you are severely misrepresenting what players are actually asking for.
Nobody wants peashooters.
-
3 hours ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:
This game is a horde shooter-looter. The grind for materials to build new things is the core drive. Leveling that stuff is another grind that is compounded by forma resetting levels back to zero to start over. This keeps players busy in low level content (with constantly reset gear) farming materials for more stuff, reducing the need for endgame (everyone is busy in the early/mid game until they have everything and max mastery rank.)
Players realize the crazy grind needed to get everything they want/need depending on when they started playing. Anything that can speed that grind up is beneficial for players who still need stuff and mastery rank. (Surprise)
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. It's one thing to make a grindy game. However if the grinding experience is so bad that players are driven to completely dismantle the gameplay, you have made a bad game. Something needs to change - in this case I think the grind needs to be rebalanced.
QuoteA warframe built to clear hordes quick should be clearing hordes quick, or they are not doing their job in the group. If you don't get any fun being near this, move on to your own hordes... if they don't exist, ask DE to increase spawn rates.
This is a non-argument. What is quick? Killing hordes at even 50% of the rates we currently have access to would still be "quick" by any reasonable standard.
More importantly, I'm sure everyone wants DPS frames to be GOOD. They are simply extremely overtuned relative to what is actually needed to be VIABLE.
QuoteIf you don't want to miss out on affinity gain by going far from that horde clearer, ask DE to increase affinity gain range. (There is a lot I would change with affinty stuff)
If you want the stuff that drops, run around with vacuum and get it all. (If you want to use pets instead of sentinels, but your pets can't use vacuum like sentinels, ask DE to give pets vacuum... hey, that worked!)
This is completely backwards. Affinity range was added to the game SPECIFICALLY in order to bring teams together and foster actual team play. Your suggestion may as well be removing affinity range entirely, because it's aiming to re-normalize the hallway hero behavior it was originally supposed to counter.
Players should be operating as a TEAM, not 4 solo players who happen to share a lobby.
QuotePeople who want "challenge" and stuff to do with all their fancy toys and max rank need to ask for non-grind endgame challenges that cater to their desires, not nerfing the majority of the game because they are long past its objectives.
No. Nobody here is saying that fully-kitted frames should not blow through low-level content. However, when the highest "balanced" content is L100, players who reach the "end game" should reasonably expect to find some challenge in that end-game. Simply churning out tougher enemies is NOT a viable solution.
Players are already capable of trivializing the game to L9999; the only reason most don't is that it's a test of PATIENCE, not progression or skill.
QuotePeople who finally have those fancy toys and max rank should feel powerful, and that all that work getting that stuff was worth it... not ask for DE to nerf that stuff into the ground because most of the game is "too easy" now.
Who is asking for things to be nerfed into the ground? They should be ignored just as much as the players demanding that nothing be nerfed at all.
Warframes and weapons should not be able to TRIVIALIZE the game. Trivializing the game creates flat, boring gameplay that depends heavily on arbitrary gimmicks most players hate - like invulnerability phases, ability immunity, etc.
QuoteWhere would the sense of progression go if that early stuff is still difficult? I've played games that did this: Destiny and Elder scrolls online. It's not a good feeling, IMO... doesn't play to the power fantasy of space ninjas that Warframe is aiming at either.
See above. This is NOT about making "early" content still be challenging at the end-game. It's about making the existing end-game challenging instead of requiring players to spend 4 hours in endless or limiting them to 1 specific mode to burn out on.
QuoteShould there be challenges? Absolutely, but challenges with everyone using the heights of their power... not hamstrung into weakness with their unique powers stripped and guns made into peashooters. Thanks.
This is just blatant exaggeration. Weapons and Warframes should still be VIABLE, but they are currently far beyond viable. Reining them in a bit doesn't mean making them useless.
57 minutes ago, (PS4)AyinDygra said:The so-called slippery slope / strawman exists as the wolf of saturn six... our warframe abilities don't work on him and most guns are like peashooters, as if they were all nerfed.
And that is precisely WHY we need nerfs! How do you not understand this?
When our powers and weapons are so overpowered that the only way to counter them is to SHUT THEM OFF COMPLETELY, this prevents DE from offering any challenging content whatsoever that actually allows players to use their full kits.
The Wolf is a prime example of how bad things have gotten. Oop, status is too powerful and trivializes the game. Better make him immune. Oop, powers are too powerful and trivialize the game. Better make him immune. Oop, weapons deal 10x too much damage. Better give him crazy damage reduction.
Wouldn't you say having enemies that rely on such ass-pull superpowers invalidates player progression more than any nerf ever could? What good are all these souped-up tools if we can't ever be allowed to USE them for content that matters? Something has to change.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Xepthrichros said:
Hi again. Go read my other posts.
Why? You continually make the same tired arguments while pretending others haven't explained repeatedly why they won't work.
QuoteCan't be bothered to talk to you line for line and whatever. Just replying to say this.
"I have no actual counter-arguments, so *handwaves desperately* yeah, more fallacies and whatever."
QuoteYour proposed energy economy changes which you mention again and again will do nothing to appease nerf callers. Tbh your energy economy argument is BS. Whether someone press 4 every 2 seconds or hits 4 every 20 seconds cos they lack energy after a nerf, nerf callers will still demand it to be nerfed. ESO has a built in cooldown and still people complain.
The built-in cooldown is entirely insignificant, or else nuke frames would not be particularly useful there.
QuoteAlso, energy pizzas and zenurik exists. Inb4 people start asking those to be nerfed - oh wait, Zenurik was already in the discussion for nerfs just cos "meta" data shows it popular. Yeah, good old "nerf the meta" logic. So clever /s.
News flash: nerfing energy recovery tools is part of nerfing energy economy.
QuoteSo. I remain on the position that no nerfs necessary at all, because once you start, you go down the slippery slope of nerfing whatever's next on the list of meta. Get used to the idea of DPS frames, efficiency etc. and move on. Anyway, you probably want the avalanche of nerfs to happen, and are just acting like you will be satisfied with a small change first, just to get that ball going. So I'll lump you in with the rest of them.
Cool story, bro.
- Nobody here is against efficiency, but claiming that nuke frames cannot be nerfed without sacrificing efficiency is a total lie.
- Warframes can fill a useful "DPS" role while still being balanced. Over-performing to the point of making 3 teammates obsolete is completely unnecessary.
- People don't talk about nerfing the meta simply because it's the "meta." They talk about nerfing it because it is obviously completely overpowered to the point if trivializing the game and preventing "actual gameplay." Having a meta is fine, but it shouldn't trivialize the game.
And for the record, I absolutely want an "avalanche of nerfs" to happen. I dunno why you're pretending like this is some hidden agenda. Just like you, I find the combat to be overly-simplistic and rather flat. However, UNLIKE you I recognize the actual cause of this problem and want to see it resolved.
Nerfs are to game balance what vegetables are to the human diet - not everybody likes them, but they are absolutely essential to continued systemic health. Get used to the idea of nerfs, and move on.
EDIT: and before you start piling more BS hyperbole onto what I said, wanting lots of nerfs does NOT mean I want bad/pointless nerfs. I certainly don't want to see another Ember.
-
3
-
34 minutes ago, FrostPrime said:
Completely agree with this. There’s so many interesting places DE could take the game design-wise if they just dialed down the insanity imho. Player and enemy scaling both play a part here, but even if DE addresses that (ideally with a total mod and damage system rework), we’re still left with abilities that can prevent enemies from even being able to engage us in combat, let alone pose a threat.
True, but all they have to do is balance energy economy appropriately to prevent spam. There's no intrinsic problem with shutting off enemy AI until the player is able to do it without interruption.
If the AI is allowed to act MOST of the time and occasionally disabled to relieve pressure that would be fine and actually make for potentially compelling gameplay.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Xepthrichros said:
The only people asking for nerfs are the minority on the forums. Majority of the players are in the game right now, too busy to defend the game from your complaints.
The Forums themselves are a minority, so what's your point? If the majority of players never bother to argue against balance changes or complain about them... Maybe they're not such a terrible thing after all?
8 hours ago, Xepthrichros said:I also want actual gameplay. But fighting brain dead enemies, as you will find on Hydron, for the hundred-millionth time isn't it.
Then you want nerfs, whether you realize it or not. How is DE supposed to create "actual gameplay" when players can instantaneously delete enemies as fast as they spawn and completely disable the AI of anything capable of surviving for longer?
Yet you also hate "gunframe," where abilities can't be used freely. So what exactly is this mythical "actual gameplay" you are talking about?
8 hours ago, Xepthrichros said:I don't go to grinding nodes to expect gameplay. I go there to expect efficiency. And most people do.
Nukers are absolutely unnecessary for efficiency. Hydron to wave 15-20 varies by +/- 1 minute whether there is a nuker on the team or not. 4 players killing waves are easily capable of achieving a kill rate equivalent to a nuker.
Obviously teams full of completely under-equipped players will be slower... But that would be less common if players didn't expect to be carried through an entire mission.
8 hours ago, Xepthrichros said:I don't know what kind of people you run into but in my region, it is common to have host migrations or people leaving at wave 5 whenever the entire team is completely full of freshly forma-ed warframes and gear, or there's no nuker, or there is a "nuker" warframe but turns out to be actually fake, i.e. one of your type of people who is being so-called considerate and therefore not nuking, much to everyone's annoyance, and so there's no hope of high efficiency.
What region are you in? Because my experience in NA doesn't match that at all. Just yesterday I had a match go to 20 with a so-called "fake Saryn" that used Spores to help mop up the remnants of each wave, but otherwise dialed it down so everyone could have some fun (and they did).
I have a lot more confidence that a group will stick together when I see a Sonar Banshee than when I see a Saryn or Mesa, and groups are - again, in my experience - far more likely to disperse due to latency than anything else.
8 hours ago, Xepthrichros said:Ok, "harder" may not be the best word. But it definitely is an exercise in boredom and frustration in the sense that you know you are gonna win, but it's just taking more time, when you know that it doesn't have to, and shouldn't have to, and you are just slaughtering stupid boring enemies. Not actually smart, engaging gameplay that is fresh with each encounter because the enemies are smart, or have slightly randomized movesets, or adapt to player load outs etc. Just the same old clumsy, lumbering Grineer, that sometimes trip and fall over themselves, and act cute by taking cover when it barely delays the inevitable and does nothing to protect them from a grenade-tipped arrow that is fired from a Corpus-designed monstrosity of a bow known as the Lenz. The Corpus also have their own idiosyncrasies but I couldn't be bothered to describe them at this point.
"The game isn't even fun anyway."
Seriously?
And again, you want nerfs whether you realize it or not. Enemies with different movesets? Enemies which respond to player loadouts?
What difference do those make when the enemy survives for less than a second? What difference do those make when the enemy spends the entirety of its existence blinded, frozen, or suspended in the air and unable to use its fancy techniques?
That's right. No difference whatsoever.
Oh, give them ability immunity? Great, now you have "gunframe."
Your suggestions here are completely nonviable and largely ignore the root causes of the issues at hand.
-
2
-
DE: Heres a Baseline for a casual player as far as Nightwave...
in General
Posted
You're dodging the point.
Then you don't understand the argument, because the people who make it to 60 are undoubtedly those who play Warframe regularly and for long periods of time.
They are the ones playing to 100% completion every week, and playing for long enough to make noticeable gains out of fugitives.
Nobody called into question whether or not it was strictly "possible" to reach 30. Nobody claimed that anyone should be given rewards without earning them.
More importantly, nobody has thus far explained why catching up on NW is unreasonable. As I pointed out previously, the simple inclusion of a catch-up mechanic completely resolves the valid FOMO criticisms of Season 1.
No, they are not.
It's fine to snip quotes or ignore talking points, but don't rhetorically misrepresent what my responses are. They are not in any way difficult to parse.
Did I say that players should be able to complete NW by only playing 1 type of content? No.
And if you had said that, I wouldn't have disagreed with it. I'm only talking schedule, not what players actually do in the time they spend playing.
Emphasis mine. Don't misrepresent my position on this issue.
I am not suggesting that players should get equal rewards for less effort. However, I have yet to encounter any rational justification for why effort must be made on a weekly basis as dictated by an automated schedule.
Yes, you are missing the point, because I am perfectly willing to put in the time needed to earn the rewards. I am not saying "give me rewards for less standing/effort."
Why is it unreasonable for me to put in extra time later to make up for time skipped earlier? Why is playing WF a little bit every week superior to playing WF for longer every few weeks? Why do I need to commit to playing Warframe EVERY week for it to count?
If anything, your insistence that your own standard for what is reasonable commitment is common-sense fact is what is asinine here.
What difference does it make if a player finishes NW gradually over 10 weeks or rushes to catch up during the last week? They still need to earn the same amount of standing, i.e., put in the same amount of effort.
Your perspective on what constitutes "extreme flexibility" is entirely subjective and limited to your personal circumstances.
Yes, the existing schedule works for many players. However, it also doesn't work for others. Why are those players less important? What is the problem with more flexibility? DE doesn't seem to see anything wrong with it; they are already making a change to resolve that concern.