(XBOX)Deathstroke52dc
-
Posts
54 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by (XBOX)Deathstroke52dc
-
-
10 minutes ago, CherryPauper said:
My only recommendation to DE is to leave Naramon and Zenurik alone (who am I kidding? They'll mess them up). They should just look at Unairu, Madurai, and Vazarin and make them not trash tier focus schools.
I haven't gotten the opportunity to properly analyze all suggestions, but I agree with you on the topic that reworking the other focus schools shouldshould take priority over reworking Zenurik and Naramon. They currently function quite well, and I find that I actually do not use Naramon for the majority of endgame content. Adequate cc on a team more than makes up for the invisibility perk, especially when the risk of using Naramon is significantly greater when you can be "one-shotted". A single misfire or eximus effect could annihlate you if you get to close. S personally, I feel that Naramon invite risk into "endgame". Whereas the other schools can allow for less risky, more tactical gameplay. The other schools are definitely not up to par as far as their function in lower levels however and on higher levels. I believe they should be modified to be of a higher tier.
-
Could you give an example of the situation in the description? I think I've seen the issue first hand, but to avoid confusion, I need a little more to go on.
-
4 hours ago, PatternistSlave said:
Weapons that are effective on even sortie level content are going to trivialize the starchart and one hit enemies anyway. The weapon that can do level 30 content is going to trivialize level 5 content. What difference does it make if you one hit something or one hit something? You could completely change the game and normalize all levels, but personally I think it's fun to feel real progression and don't find bullet sponges particularly engaging anyway. All the Eximus change sounded like to me was DE taking an interest in making fighting enemies more interesting.
Exactly what I was trying to observe. Thank you for stating it so clearly. And I particularly feel your comment about progression. And also a good way to highlight that the covert lethality issue is "relative". The best we can do is try to incorporate as many perspectives as possible into an idea, to prevent too much conflict; meeting somewhere in the middle.
-
7 hours ago, (Xbox One)Slimm qp ReapeR said:
Bro I understand where you're coming from don't worry. I think all in all what you're trying to say is that endless missions and being rewarded for lasting in those mission types is an avenue that should be ventured as there is a percentage of players who enjoy this type of play style.
I fail to see where this would ruin the game as technically we did kinda have this type of endless runs for rewards in the form of the old void. Oh ya know, where you were rewarded with a primed part for every rotation in an endless type void mission. Both sides that are presently opposing each other in this thread would know that THAT didn't ruin the game. In fact, one could definitively argue that the game has suffered since it has been replaced with the relic system but that's neither here nor there atm. There's no need for opposition in here as both sides can have their cake and eat it too as is we have before.
its all about options imo. Having the OPTION to be able to do either or, is a good thing. It can be done. It was done. It can be done again. If you feel you don't want to do endless then you have the option not to do it for whatever reasons you have. No one asked for lunaro but hey it's here to stay and no one really ever plays that lol. I do not see why there can't be endless type missions that reward you for your efforts in lasting the longest.
i do agree though that the rewards for this should not give players any advantage over other players that would force them to have to play endless to get it if it's not what they want to do. (We've all currently seen how that works *cough* pacifist defect *cough* ignis wraith) So yeah keep it cosmetic be it armor, cloaks, emblems, sigils and trophies as well as bragging rights.
Everyone wins in this scenario, no losers.
Hey:) Thank you so much for your input and support. I would just really enjoy Warframe's capacity for opportunity to expand just a little bit as far as the players that like doing endurance runs are concerned. If you'll allow me, I'd like to use your comment in the future for reference,. It is straight to the point and positive.
If I could spur a scenario where no one lost at all, that would be my goal.
-
33 minutes ago, Momaw said:
It seems necessary to point out again that the "end game" you describe is a player idea, not a DE one. Which seems more likely to you: That they built up the game so that 95% of the equipment and features are not useful past level 100 on purpose? Or that the 5% of equipment and features which work well past level 100 are more powerful than intended?
You seem terrified that DE is going to "kill the end game"....when in reality all they're doing is trying to more clearly define it. There will always be a gun that is the strongest, there will always be a team composition that is the laziest. The only thing that will change is that you will reach the limits of what is possible in a couple of hours, rather than playing an entire day using the same tactics from start to finish and give up in the end because you're too tired. The high score in the recent event was 12000 points, and I guarantee you they didn't stop because the game was getting any more difficult. You want abilities and weapons and tactics that are "level agnostic" so that everything is equally viable... which is an interesting idea, for a different game, that is designed from the ground up to support it. And in that game, there would be some other kind of escalation to make the game more difficult over time.
Fair point. And whichever way DE takes it, I'll still play warframe. And yes, I do believe that it was unintended that the majority of weapons are only efficient up to level 100. But DE is always pressing new content and there are always a plethora of bugs and fixes that follow. Warframe is an ever-evolving game. I'm sure that when they first started up, there was no endgame. That being said, yes, endgame is a player created theme. But there were plenty of other unintended mechanics from the beginning that ended up being utilized in the grand scheme of things. Maybe not as big as infinite scaling, but why see it as an obstacle, something in the way. I see it as opportunity for adventure, exploration, and experimentation. That's the difference. To the people that do endurance runs, there's a satisfaction to leaving a game after reaching your own limit and not just the game's. Even if your limit is boredom, you still get that sense of accomplishment that your capacity to push forward is still growing. And no, I don't want everything to scale equally so that everything is viable in endgame. That WOULD be completely different game. What I wan is just a few modifications and recognition for endgame as a practiced thing.
Really though. Thank you so much for your conversation. It was a pleasure and I know I've learned something.
-
22 minutes ago, NeithanDiniem said:
To extend on this specifically, DE has clearly, repeatedly stated that the game is designed to FORCE you out. Long term endurance runs is not how DE intends players to play the game. That is why they do not cater to that particular game play style. They will not extend upon it because in doing so it ruins the intended gameplay. So really this is an issue of you enjoying something not intended, and DE hasn't been expanding on it. If it is not intended, then players should not get comfortable with it because as practically every hotfix or update shows us, unintended aspects of the game rapidly change. Aspects can evolve as the game evolves as well, and they fall out of the picture and no longer fit with the game direction, bringing about changes and alterations to old-standing content. Players need to pay attention to what DE has repeatedly stated on what is intended and pay attention to where it is going and they will find they will be far less surprised with changes to the game.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. Like all business, the consumer comes first. And therefore, feedback from the consumer drives its modification, to a degree. DE has not stated that endurance runs are an unintended way of playing the game and the way corrosive and armor stripping works is testimony to that. And DE has not made any decision to avoid extending endurance gameplay. And the idea of removing such extended gameplay has no purpose other than to remove opportunity and freedom from the consumers hands. There is no instance in which the presence of endurance runs ruins intended gameplay because it was designed to scale infinitely from square one and it s such a large mechanic of the game. Additionally, DE hasn't been expanding on it simply because a large portion of players do not participate far into it. And for that matter, neither does DE. Which is why I want them to understand where players that do so come from, so tat they might provide room for expansion. There is no ruining of intended gameplay. The only gameplay that can easily be ruined is endgame gameplay because of the limited options that are presented to do it.
And regardless of whether or not people pay attention to DE, they will want change and they will ask for change.
It doesn't seem to me that you have legitimate argument against endurance play, only that you think that it wasn't intended and therefor shouldn't be looked into.
-
10 minutes ago, NeithanDiniem said:
You very prelude to this entire discussion is making endurance runs more viable as a form of endgame for those that enjoy endurance runs, That is extending endgame, intrinsically. You have contradicted yourself. If you alter even a single digit in scaling, you have altered it for the core of the game. If you buff a weapon, you have effectively altered the gameplay experience for everyone because it becomes more powerful than something else and thus becomes something more desirable than another weapon, making the same problem Covert Lethality gives in a highly efficient method of killing enemies.
To your above comment. Sidegrades are not nerfs. A sidegrade is something equally as powerful but different, the exact thing you are calling for. You have again contradicted yourself. You don't even seem to understand the words you are speaking. A sidegrade does absolutely nothing to the stats of other weapons. Its a separate entity. And if something is a sidegrade of one of the endgame viable weapons, you now have more options, the exact thing you are asking for. "Scripted kills" are when you do an action and enemy dies, guaranteed. Covert Lethality is a scripted kill. You use the mod correctly, target dies, guaranteed. Level of enemy, resistances, weapon strength doesn't matter. It dies. This is the exact reason your problem exists, there is nothing more efficient at killing than that for a melee mod. The only way to make it not a problem is to delete it entirely from the game, forcing people to power down back to the weapons and the mods that we have and return to something that enforces options.
Yes, I do prelude a world of endgame, because I rarely do other things at this point, but I do not mean to presume that it is part of my suggestion. I only want the admins and the community to observe their actions in light of those of us that use endgame solutions. It's just a side hope of mine that running endurance will become more diverse and present new horizons. I like the intensity of the endgame environment and I'd like to see it grow. But I do not mean to include it in my suggestion. That's just my mind wandering.
What you mentioned above regarding the buffing of a weapon is true; When you buff something, it becomes more desirable than other items. However, that doesn't mean that it will create a problem. And that is ALSO true of a sidegrade (if you could give me an example of a sidegrade, I would appreciate it). If something is introduced that is equally powerful to a mechanic such as Covert Lethality, it too would be more desirable than other items. That is inevitable and therefore not be considered an issue. The issue is when it becomes desirable because its function is the only one of its kind. But in this case, not only does covert lethality have multiple combos of approach (weapons and frames) but it would be difficult to design a sidegrade that would function similarly, yet be different.
You're assuming that covert Lethality is a problem because it performs scripted kills (and sorry about the earlier contradiction, as I was unsure as to the definition of "script killing"). But is that really a problem? There are limitations to its abilities via Orthogonal parameters such as delivery, range, and applicable weapons.
Anyways. The example is beside the point. Now that I have a better understanding of your what a sidegrade is, I can say that it isn't conflicting with my suggested course of action. So, if it is what I've been led to believe, it seems like a good idea.
-
25 minutes ago, Krion112 said:
In this case, and in all cases, they do. Certain system designs are exclusive to them, and when you force them together, one inevitably overshadows the other. I'll illustrate this in just a moment.
It's literally the core concept of Orthogonal design that its elements don't scale. That's the core reason why these two designs are incompatible; Orthogonal is all behaviors and nuance, whereas linear is all stats and scale.
Let me impart to you why you can't make an Orthogonal game progress linearly: take an Assault Rifle and Sniper. The Assault Rifle deals about 8-10 Damage and is designed to counter the Sniper, per the Orthogonal Balance Matrix (ie, the Assault Rifle can put pressure on and is more flexible than the Sniper). The Sniper deals 200 Damage, and is designed to counter the Shotgun (ie, it far out ranges and out damages the Shotgun).
Say now we put on a linear progression, and with each level, the stats of a weapon is multiplied upwards. At about rank 10, the Assault Rifle can now deal 40-50 Damage, and the Sniper can deal 1000 Damage. Now the Assault Rifle overshadows both the Sniper and the Shotgun.
No matter how high of damage you give the Shotgun or Sniper, they will never scale like the Assault Rifle. And the reason being is they're both single target weapons; no matter how much damage you give them, they will never kill more than one enemy within a short succession. You could put 1 million damage on a Sniper rifle, and a 100 damage Assault Rifle would still be more convenient and more useful because it could more quickly spread that damage across multiple targets in a faster succession.
And, to bring the Shotgun into the equation, eventually you'd make it overshadow the Sniper, as doing enough damage will cause it to overcome its normal range issues.
Doesn't any of that sound familiar? Because Warframe has those issues already. And then, because the Sniper doesn't have a place, no one uses it, and congratulations, the Orthogonal game design has broken, because if the Sniper doesn't have a place, you're not upholding Orthogonal balance. If at any point you call a piece of equipment mastery fodder, you admit that the Orthogonal side is broken, which proves that the two systems don't mesh together.
The linear power scaling effect overshadows the behavioral nuance and role-based nature of the orthogonal design.
So no, you can't use them together. And, I'm sorry, but no; everywhere that Warframe tries to utilize both linear and orthogonal design together is flawed. There's not a single example where combined linear and orthogonal design is actually positive for Warframe as a whole.
Kind of a low blow; like as though I just like gallivanting through the forums looking to crush peoples' ideas.
As my example above illustrates, you can't grow both in options and power. You can only go one or the other, as many of Warframe's flaws already vividly illustrate. It's really not that complicated to understand why.
There are four flaws regarding the example above.
1)One the Orthogonal factors regarding the enemies and friendlies wielding those weapons are not presented a.k.a their durability, resistance, speed, etc, awareness, etc.
2)The rate at which each item scales isn't exactly the same (to HELP account for their differences). They would scale differently based on their traits (not just damage) to an extent that they would function more equally. (Which is easier to accomplish than you might think).
3) Yes, balancing Orthogonal and linear designs is realistically impossible, which is why I didn't EVER suggest that Warframe attempt to take that path. The amount of work that would require something of that scale of difficulty isn't even comprehensible.
4) Player preference in regards to Warframe's "superhero mechanic". Saying thatbecause you are the most powerful being (orthogonally and/or linearly) your interaction with enemies doesn't need to be as even (as opposed to pvp) and player preference might dictate that a person could still use the sniper rifle or shotgun because it's stil effective and they enjoy it more than the assault rifle.
And I'm sorry if I sounded like an a$% when I mentioned feeling attacked. Nothing you've said has been illogical, subjectively biased,or arrogant, so for that I apologize/
-
11 minutes ago, NeithanDiniem said:
The problem is your recognition for endgame for the few would require a change of the core mechanics of the game that would change the way the game is played for everyone. Changing the scaling in the game so endurance runs can go on further is not increasing endgame, it is providing more power to the players. That power is defined in Warframe through the mods, which we are already getting more of to the detriment to the balance of the game. The Devs themselves have already stated that the number of mods in the game are far too many, and that the large number of mods is why making changes to the game balance to be better is so difficult. Making more options is already being done with rebalancing frames to have more inter-skill synergy and more advanced skills, alongside new weapons, Warframes, enemies, tilesets, quests, mechanics, and mission types. These all add to the options you have for playing, options where higher leveled content can happen on, and options for where to play to get more varieties of game content. New quests and mechanics add to the game to flesh out more and more options, as well as add large expansions to the game for content, making more areas that can then become part of the "endgame"
Basically DE is already doing what you are asking for, without destroying the gameplay for all players, and it just isn't happening fast enough for you, or you are not regarding the content they add as endgame enough. The game is going to scale enemies, and they are going to get harder and harder until you are forced out. It is inevitable and impossible to change that without destroying a foundational pillar of the game. The existing high level content that is designed to challenge players people are ripping through like mad, only for a good number of them to complain that it isnt enough. This is no different from any other PvE game, as mentioned above. People are impatient. People are greedy. This will always cause these kinds of issues. It too is unavoidable in video game design. A perfect game does not exist, you cannot please every player 100% because there will always be someone that find some flaw with the game that does not adhere to their personal preferences. That does not mean then that the game should seek out those individual's preferences and enforce them on everyone else.
Lastly, since such a small percentage of the community would be a part of your "endgame" players, DE tailoring changes for them specifically would be making the rest of the game less accessible or less enjoyable for people not in that group. Very few players seek to go for long term endurance runs, so any effort put into making those even more viable would be effort spent on a tiny fraction of the community, instead of spending it on a huge majority of it. Until more people are a part of that group, making changes specific for it would be poor business.
UUUUUUGGGGGHHHH!!!! I said nothing about extending endgame!!!!! AND NO!! No core mechanics would have to be rewoked. The point of all this is to prevent future reworks from removing the few end game options we have left and hope fully adding some more in the future. A very basic example would be to buff a crappy weapon instead of nerfing one that is effective in endgame. No core mechanics changed.
That's not even the point. The end goal of the entire suggestion is simply to give endurance players a little bit less of the short straws. That is all.
-
3 minutes ago, Momaw said:
The fact that Covert Lethality has the exact same effect on enemies is the problem.
You can't have any variation in enemy strength or enemy importance if you can script kill them. The only distinction you can make is "Can I Covert them, or not", and then by necessity the game becomes Rock Paper Scissors with a snarl of weird restrictions. People violently hate the idea of eximus units that you have to shoot the weak points off but they are a DIRECT response to over-powerful players that trivialize every encounter with nonsense like Covert Letahlity. What's the point of even having enemy levels at all, if you're going to do the same thing to kill them regardless if they are level 10 or level 1000? And you immediately make obsolete any weapon that cannot perform script kills because obviously infinite DPS trumps not-infinite DPS. And you close off any possibility of any sidegrades of Covert Lethality that don't provide script kills, because any weapon that isn't as powerful is a novelty.
It's not the only thing that's broken in your idea of "Endurance". But it's an example of one.
See that's the problem. The problems you mention would actully be resolved upon a proper re-balancing of the system to fit the scaling system more efficiently. My idea of reform calls for MORE options. Not just a bunch of variations of covert lethality, if you will. And actually, if you're making the complaint that you don't enjoy the repetitive nature of covert lethality, that is still an opinion and NO something to enough to shut down other opinions with.
In regards to the eximus units with weakpoints, I cannot help but laugh. The idea to make the game more difficult, on that extent, was due to someone probably not unlike yourself. A person who didn't understand endgame territory and felt that they were at a disadvantage because their setup wasn't sufficient. There was another answer to the situation: buff other setups so others could experience better, diverse gameplay. But that didn't happen because no one came from the endgame perspective. And furthermore, the problem still exists. Covertlethality will still do the same thing it always did and the other stuff will still fall short. In fact, the eximus thing doesn't even anything out. It just slows both sides down. The idea was and still is rushed and not well thought out. It affects this issue we're talking about so little that it's almost irrelevant. Even if it was the counter to meta utilities.
Lastly, regarding your second last sentence-_- That's exactly what I'm trying to inspire being fixed. And let's face it: when you say "sidegrade, that just means nerf. What I'm suggesting, is that there be less "novelties" and less nerfing of items to try to even things out. Also, define "script kill". If you mean "consistently kills stuff", then I guess everything should be off limits. The only area that items need to be improved is in their endgame performance.
-
15 minutes ago, LuckyCharm said:
Personally I could comfortably stay in a survival mission for over an hour, most of the time with or without naramon invisibility. And its soooo boring. I don't even have to use meta weapons. I don't have to use meta frames or builds. I've walked in on zephyr with just a melee stick and gone to town killing things, and it only started getting hard when Enemies stopped dropping enough life support to keep going. If life support wasn't a factor i could easily have kept going.
If I was to ask for any changes.. I'd just ask for a planet where the missions actually start from level 100. That way I wouldn't have to wait an hour till they get there. And new players don't necessarily need to be catered too at those levels.. it'd be a late game planet.. if they're not ready to face it then don't let them in there. It's not like sorties let them in if they're below a certain mr and you cant take low level frames in either
That being said, what I'd really like is a training dummy to test my damage on in a controlled environment too since I dont always want to walk into a simulacrum as vauban to test things out.
Lol. I can more or less agree with the level starting enemies at level 100. Those first few minutes are abhorring. And don't worry. I'm not asking for all the content in Warframe to be jumped to "Meta Status". I'm asking for endurance runners to be encouraged to enjoy themselves by the game in an official way so that the next time the devs decide to make a rework, they won't inadvertently make an even tighter meta. That is, to prevent endgame options from being removed. And who knows. Maybe we'll get more in the future.
-
1 hour ago, DrBorris said:
But... why? Why run those high difficulty missions? Rewards? Because once you get the rewards, well, then the reason is gone to play those high level missions (Trials circumvent this partially by having an insane amount of grind until arcane "completion"). The definition of "end-game" is the "end of the game" insinuating you have everything, so placing more rewards is not creating "end-game" but rather just prolonging the time it takes for people to reach "the end of the game"
And this is a problem with ALL PvE games, and is why PvE games are so dependent on raw content (something DE focuses heavily on).
PvP games have it easy, competition. Humans are horrible creatures and love besting each other, so the competitive spirit keeps people playing PvP games. This is why Events are liked so much for a lot of the community, they are not based around just content but also (for the end-game players) have a competitiveness to them that keeps us enthralled. Competition is, in a way, and endless content loop. The problem then becomes for a game like Warframe to make the competition worthwhile, and this means tangible benefits. Not necessarily "content", but something to make the effort feel justified. This can't just be a one-and-done thing though, the endless competitive loop means that those that rise must also be able to fall.
The problem is not what the end-game is, but why we should play it. It does not matter if Warframe has a good or bad end-game if it is not encouraged.
Edit: And dat click-bait title though...
Listen, I'm not suggesting we force the entire population to participate in end game. I'm suggesting we account for those already doing it and give them some recognition. It would be a great change, as then less "endgame" content would become non-viable due to nerfs caused by complaints that are generated by people that don't even play "endgame". The fact of the matter is that endurance runners are not accounted for. We don't receive any observation when a rework is made. And often the rework will cause items to remain relatively the same until the scaling is accounted for. Basically, none of the admins account for late game use when they rework something. I'm trying to make it so that they are. Give endurance runners more options.
-
1 hour ago, UltimateGrr said:
"Endgame" is inherently meaningless. We players will blast trough it far faster than DE can design it. Same thing happens in WoW with raids. New Raid comes out, and 2 weeks later everything from optimal party composition to skill rotation has been calculated and the player base is back to whining about there not being an endgame.
Everything's apparently meaningless then. Just because you personally don't find meaning in playing endgame doesn't mean everyone does or should. In simple terms, "endgame" isn't meaningless because there are people who enjoy it. You are speaking from a perspective tat does not understand endgame, or at least enjoying endgame. This is the reason that this motion never gets pushed. Because people that think they understand decide their opinions outweigh those of the few that DO understand. You may even have played into what I consider "endgame". Maybe you just don't enjoy it. But please. If my suggestion doesn't affect you then your opinion is nothing more than a backless insult.
-
1 hour ago, Momaw said:
Your thoughts are interesting (if grim). Thanks for participating in conversation :)
Lol. I feel like you guys are coming at me just for the fun of shutting me down. What I'm suggesting isn't as big or dramatic as you two would propose. It's a very simple social recognition.
I'd just like to say that progression can reward both options AND power. And it's really not that complicated. And from where the game is right now, a little linear accountablity would still allow for preservation of Orthogonal factors.
Again, in the end it's about pleasing the community. I'm searching for ways to comply to all reasonable parties. What I'm trying to do is put a bigger emphasis on the scaling system so that there are more options for everyone.
-
1 hour ago, PatternistSlave said:
There already are abilities and weapons that can be used for endgame content and most of them don't disturb low level content. Who is forcing you to play efficiently? Who is forcing you to play any way but however you want?
Another perfectly valid point. And well put. A lot of these mechanics I like to employ are being labeled as "broken" and "abusive" simply because they seem to be overkill. When in fact, their abilities are severely underwhelming due to the fact that they don't have greater effectiveness in low levels as in high lvls. For example, Cvert Lethality could be considered broken, since it bypasses armor and provides ridiculous bonus damage, but it has the same effects early game as late game. So if it were nerfed, the only one effected would be the late game player.
-
1 hour ago, Krion112 said:
Unfortunately, they are most certainly incompatible. They overshadow each other.
These designs are mutually exclusive, and trying to expand off a conglomerate of them will only continue to breed more and more issues; there is no room for growth here, there is no potential.
The game is also already predominantly Orthogonal, the only part that is linear is that enemies have levels and we have mandatory mods. The rest of the game is of Orthogonal balance, warped to help compensate for the linear design, but it ultimately doesn't work. Of course it'd take change to fix, but it would be a better design in the long term to commit to one side or the other. But, I only advocate for Orthogonal because most of Warframe, contrary to what you say, is already Orthogonal.
In fact, the theme of Warframe, 'Ninja's play free', and the mantra, 'Play the way you want', are both reflective of Orthogonal designs:
Ninjas were most known for being able to use anything as a weapon, suggesting they knew the strengths and weaknesses of every kind of piece of equipment, which is Orthogonal balance. And the mantra suggests that different play-styles should all have some kind of viability in the game, which different play-styles suggests a game of Orthogonal design, as in a Linear game the only play-style is to grow in power for your particular role.
To commit to either Linear or Orthogonal will take big changes either way, but the way Warframe is going right now, it's obvious you can't have both.
Well, a linear design already goes against and completely disscludes those of us that want our equipment of unique role and purpose to actually be viable throughout the game, instead of depending upon linear upgrades that forego the nuance that makes those pieces of equipment enjoyable in the first place.
No, one audience is going to have to inevitably either deal with it or leave, but the alternative to that is we're going to just continue perpetuating all of these issues further. You will never get a satisfying end-game, equipment balance will always be misguided, and the complaints will continue to persevere over the same issues. There's not a middle ground.
Okay. This is more typing than I had planned lo.
In his case, Orthogonal and Linear design do not overshadow each other to the extent that they are incompatible. Keep in mind, all of this is theoretical. And aside from the fact that Warframe is already operating with varying degrees of success while utilizing both designs I'd like to bring this to your attention:
An Orthogonal design CAN be overlapped with a linear/scaling process, such that both designs expand in their specific directions together. Balancing the Orthogonal components so that they all scale equally, or at an average rate together, regardless of their fall off point, is a in fact a combination of the two things. This would rely, of course that the scaling system applied to all variables. I know that's not going to happen, but it is possible. A series of variables forming an Orthogonal Design can scale if they all scale along the same path and accounting for the different factors that make up those factors. Regardless, varying types of equipment with different purposes already function together in the scaling system. They just aren't on equal heights of the scale. Furthermore, a linear design does not affect the unique roles of equipment in the game. It only changes the length at which it can function. Which I would like to see brought up to a higher capacity, such as Riven mods were intended to do.
Expanding the linear design and implementing proper countermeasures to match Orthogonal factors to the scale would retain those factors unique purposes AND also allow for "endgame" to be more diverse. And just so we're clear, endgame isn't really what it is made out to be. There is no "end" or moment that can be defined as the satisfaction of the game. "endgame" is the process of pushing the boundaries/ And that's the part I and my fellow endurance runners enjoy. It's the run and the numbers that satisfy. Not the results. I jut wn to see those numbers coming from a wider variety of sources is all. And those sources CAN be expanded orthogonality. A little more creativity would be welcome.
The real deciding factor here is the reaction of the general population of Warframe. I don't want to change everything linear at this point. I just want to be able to have more options while I'm stretching the limits.
-
1 hour ago, Momaw said:
Except if you balance the game around infinite scaling and abusive tactics, then give incentives to play that way, you destroy the game for everybody that DOESN'T enjoy playing that way. Warframe can be a beautiful game, stringing together mobility, evasion, guns, and melee, in a ballet of death. But it's already not efficient to actually play the game that way, because AOE spam, invulnerability and hard crowd control is the meta. And you want to push it even further in that direction, to where we literally cannot experience the full game unless we throw out all the stuff that's fun and cool so that we can get on board the shadowstepping EV-sniping sewer-camping train. Or else rework the entire game from the ground up to include infinite scaling in its genes so that all forms of gameplay are equally viable...which is less like changing Warframe and more like building an entirely different game that's similar to Warframe.
Firstly, I would like to point out that I never said that I was asking for a rework to be centered around infinite scaling. I was simply asking for recognition of the situation, so that those that are left out and put at a disadvantage by content changes that don't account for the scaling can have a better experience WITHOUT hindering the experience of other players.
Secondly, the "Meta" you speak of is relative and quite frankly underwhelming. AOE attacks, invulnerability (IF), and cc are literally the basis of the game. The how's and what's may vary, but this game doesn't exist without the three. True, there are frames that exhibit these traits in a more preferable way. But saying these things are the "Meta" is ridiculous because they are building block mechanics of the game. And what exactly is "abusive" about any of it? I see you using that word, but it seems out of context and doesn't really quite register with the items you're describing.
Third of all, YOUR OPINION of what's cool is different than other's opinions. But that doesn't mean you should shut down everyone else because you dislike what they're doing. If your chosen mechanics aren't performing the way you'd like, try to get them reworked instead of trying to get other mechanics, some of which other people like just as much, cut.
And last of all, I'd like to point out that Warframe is already partially built around infinite scaling. The entire game wouldn't require a rework to function properly. Over time, previously created utilities would simply become more effective through comparison and modification.
-
8 minutes ago, Krion112 said:
From where I stand, my understanding is that the problem here is that the community has no way of establishing what is end-game, because Warframe's 'end-game' does not reflect its game-design. The problem is that Warframe is providing Linear-style difficulty in an Orthogonal game. For comparison, in an Orthogonal game, progression rewards more options, and in a Linear game, progression rewards more power.
Examples within or close to Warframe's own genre would be that Payday is an example of a good Orthogonal game, and Borderlands is an example of a good Linear game.
In Payday, players don't really obtain linear, power upgrades; everything features a unique role (ie, a non-overlapping purpose). Likewise, the enemies in Payday also don't feature linear progression; when playing on higher difficulties, enemies start getting replaced with more specialized variants, which are not more generically powerful, but are definitely designed so that they are only vulnerable to their direct counters.
In Borderlands, players do obtain linear upgrades; you find a gun that does what your gun does, but better, coming down to individual stats like getting slightly more magazine, or slightly more damage, which is distinctly advantaged over weaker weapons of the same exact roles. Likewise, enemies in Borderlands scale linearly; they're given levels that determine their stats, like health and damage. You'll fight enemies that fulfill the same role, but higher level ones will be distinctly more powerful.
Warframe tries to do both; we have definitive, mandatory mods required either across all Warframes or all Weapons. Without ample damage modifications, trying to play harder content becomes nearly impossible, yet every weapon is designed in an Orthogonal fashion, as though each one of them is designed to feature a unique purpose. Same for our enemies; their ranks scale their stats in a linear fashion, despite every unit also being designed with Orthogonal balance in mind.
Unfortunately, these two systems are fundamentally incompatible, and Warframe's most commonly complained about balance issues reflect this problem perfectly. The concept of 'mastery fodder', complaints about the infinite scaling, popular/unpopular weapons, calls for constant Warframe redesigns, node 'ghost-towns', and more are all symptoms of these two designs being incompatible.
As such, the only way to properly design end-game at all is to commit to one side or the other; should Warframe commit to being Orthogonal, or should it commit to being Linear? Does the Tenno get more powerful, or is the Tenno provided more options? Once that's settled, it'd be so much easier to set out what end-game is even supposed to be achieving in the first place.
Given most of the elements of the game are balanced around Orthogonal design, my argument would be that the progression should be Orthogonal, as in we gain more options, with our equipment being designed with equal purposefulness, and our enemies getting more specialized in missions of higher difficulty. It would be more about finding the right kind of equipment for the right situation, with some compensation mechanics, such as Sentinels, functioning to help them progress even if they can't or won't specialize.
The argument between Warframe being Orthogonal or Linear is definitely a valid question. Personally, the answer to that question is simple. The underlying and unofficial theme of Warframe is "space ninjas". You a your comrades are the most powerful presence on the map by a long shot. Removing the linear approach would bring a major statistic of the game, on which a lot is established, to nothing. And so the entire game would have to be revised to fit the Orthogonal style of progress. Tell me, regardless of the level at which a player operates, what equipment would he prefer: the highest scaling equipment, or the lowest? The answer is (mostly) obvious. What I'm getting at is that a rework in favor of an Orthogonal path would only leave out those that play to the theme of linear scaling, which, even if we're not talking about endgame, is a majority of the community. The theme is to get more powerful, look cooler, accomplish/build more.
An Orthogonal design goes against that and completely disscludes those of us that want to push even further than just the initial starmap and/or first 100 levels of enemies.
Conclusion: Again, a strictly Orthogonal design would cut things short, instead of allowing mechanics and possibilities to grow. And just to let you know while the base nature of Orthogonal and linear designs are different, they aren't incompatible.
-
39 minutes ago, Momaw said:
The game has no officially designated "end game". As you point out, the overwhelming majority of the game doesn't scale infinitely. Nor should it. At some point the game should become too difficult to continue. You should be forced out by difficulty, not by the size of your bladder or your capacity to stay awake. The endurance of an endurance mode should be your skill as a player, not your physical capacity to sit in the chair and keep pressing buttons. There is no functional difference at all between a level 500 mission and a level 8000 mission; you still die in one hit, weapons become irrelevant in favor of script kills (unless there's a Banshee on macro stacking weak points on top of weak points), and the mission is completely impossible unless you hard-CC enemies constantly or become invulnerable. Frankly, the "end game" as the raging hardcore minority of the community would define it, becomes an exercise in breaking the game, or solving the game, rather than actually interacting with enemies. It becomes a completely different game, one that only a few people want to play, and which is utterly different from Warframe Proper.
The other issue with infinite scaling is that the game doesn't scale infinitely at every point. Warframe is not a game where you unlock the final dungeon and fight the final boss and then just keep doing that while eschewing low level content.... No. Warframe constantly requires us to play missions at a variety of levels to follow events, rare drops, materials, and relics. Which means that in order to prevent lower level content from basically becoming a giant snore-fest using infinitely powerful weapons, you would have to start defining every single attack and weapon and feature as being proportionate to enemies instead of some fixed integer value. It's not impossible to design a game like that, but it would require ripping out the entire core of Warframe, reworking every single weapon, every single ability. All to please the tiny minority of players who enjoy wearing diapers for 10 hour long missions. No thanks.
Players are the ones who arbitrarily decided that "end game" means infinitely scaling. DE never said that. In fact it's fairly clear from the fact that sorties and trials both max out at level 100 that this is kind of the point where they draw the line. That you can go significantly further than this is down to the capabilities of a handful of features and an extremely restrictive play style, and has nothing to do with actually intending the game to be played that way. Try playing level 100 missions without invulnerability mechanics and without hardcore crowd control, and you'll find that even at that point you can die in a fraction of a second.
And the idea of scaling rewards comes up often. This cannot be a thing until the abusive strategies that enable "endurance" missions that are about player's physical performance and knowledge of poorly balanced systems, rather than about actually overcoming an interactive experience, are destroyed.
>> All we need is for the community and the admins to get perspective of the endgame situation. <<
I have a perspective: The endgame should be defined as some point around level 100, and players should be forced out of missions due to increasingly difficult mechanics rather than being able to play the same mission for an entire day using a tiny subset of repetitive tactics designed to remove all possibility of the enemy fighting back.
Okay. I get it. You come from the opposite corner of the situation, but still seem relatively weel informed on endgame content. And the perspective I was referring to and representing was the perspective of those who feel left out because our experience is negatively affected by changes that were desihned to help lower level players. The ones that ENJOY endgame. Also let it be known and assumed that the definition of "endgame" is as follows: the length at which our abilities and our utilities capacity of effectiveness is stretched to their limits. So endgame is a thing. It just changes parameters the more we push it.
Secondly, the only difference between what I want and what you want is that I want to see Warframe get bigger and you want to see it get smaller, more controlled. No way is right or wrong, which is why statements such as "shouldn't" and "abusive" don't really have meaning except when given context.
But here's the deal breaker and the reason I solidly disagree with your perspective and will fight it all the way: your suggestion would dissclude an entire perspective, while my suggestion simply makes room for it.
Let me be very clear. Removing infinite scaling means the people that enjoy it, the people that play soley for it would lose th ere entire reason for playing. Upscaling and accounting for infinite scaling would allow endurance runners to gain AND maintain the standard that others already operate at.
Conclusion: It's fine that you have a different view on your enjoyment of entertainment, but disscluding those that don't share your opinion is just plain wrong.
-
8 minutes ago, PatternistSlave said:
Actually they seem to be working on this somewhat. The John Prodman thing for example. I'd like to see more stuff like that, but hard to say how much of the playerbase ever experiences it and if it's worth the dev time.
Yes, I agree. Things are moving slowly. I only seek to catalyze.
-
Okay. I get it. You come from the opposite corner of the situation, but still seem relatively weel informed on endgame content. And the perspective I was referring to and representing was the perspective of those who feel left out because our experience is negatively affected by changes that were desihned to help lower level players. The ones that ENJOY endgame. Also let it be known and assumed that the definition of "endgame" is as follows: the length at which our abilities and our utilities capacity of effectiveness is stretched to their limits. So endgame is a thing. It just changes parameters the more we push it.
Secondly, the only difference between what I want and what you want is that I want to see Warframe get bigger and you want to see it get smaller, more controlled. No way is right or wrong, which is why statements such as "shouldn't" and "abusive" don't really have meaning except when given context.
But here's the deal breaker and the reason I solidly disagree with your perspective and will fight it all the way: your suggestion would dissclude an entire perspective, while my suggestion simply makes room for it.
Let me be very clear. Removing infinite scaling means the people that enjoy it, the people that play soley for it would lose th ere entire reason for playing. Upscaling and accounting for infinite scaling would allow endurance runners to gain AND maintain the standard that others already operate at.
Conclusion: It's fine that you have a different view on your enjoyment of entertainment, but disscluding those that don't share your opinion is just plain wrong.
-
Lol, I understand what you mean. But you might be surprised to know that once certain levels are reached, there IS a certain level of skill required to survive for the duration that I speak. Regardless, my goal is to catalyze the revision of other utilities into endgame status so that there will be a much lager quantity of ways to "cheese" your way through high level enemies. If such changes are made, there would be too many viable options for there to be a "best way".
Conclusion: Define what you mean by "cheese" (lol).
The video might show you a little of what I mean.
-
I would like to discuss the functionality of endgame perspective in the Warframe community.
The majority of community game-play and official testing is done at levels below what I, and other endurance run players, consider to be analytically sufficient. As a result of this, a lot of fixes, nerfs, reworks, and general content changes are made without context regarding to the infinite enemy scaling design of the game. This comes off as unfair and disappointing to the players that like to explore the range of difficulty, as invaluable mechanics/utilities that stand out in this territory are becoming less and less. Some 80% (percentage is an exemplary figure) of the utilities (including both weapons and warframes) in Warframe are simply NOT viable for later game content. And yet, the few options that are viable are becoming fewer still. Most/All of the major modifications being made to the game are made with the mind to stabilize utilities so that it can be comparable to other utilities. And this would seem logical, except that the game scales infinitely. So why can only a handful of utilities keep up with the scaling of the game? It's simply because not enough players understand, experience, and expressively enjoy "endgame content". And because of that, endurance runners and those of us that enjoy such game-play are often, no, almost always left out of the loop. Changes to the content are made without regards to us, and that frustrates me. Especially when a change is made to something that does NOT directly affect the majority population that doesn't play later levels, but DOES negatively affect the parameters of players who do play later levels. However, I don't think blindly adjusting the content is the solution. All we need is for the community and the admins to get perspective of the endgame situation.
So here is what I would wish and recommend. I do not want to force any major mechanic changes upon the game, nor try to organize everything to the standards of "Endgame" players. Instead, I think it would be beneficial for everyone if "Endgame/Late Game" content were to be officially acknowledged and addressed by the admins and tech groups AND steps be taken to encourage players to participate in endurance runs. For EXAMPLE, extra rewards be given to players reaching higher level mission markers and exclusive rewards/titles to those who hold the highest numbers. I, and others, simply seek a solution in which endurance players AND the scaling mechanics receive some official and involved recognition from the admins and the game itself.
Here's a video with a supporting perspective by PS4 Warframe Endurance Player, LifeOfRio:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ_xmSrbyyo&lc=z13ot3k5ita3hh0n423mw1dryke5t5ton04.1489614555397089
Please comment in any direction Advice, support, and critiques are appreciated.
---------------------------SIDENOTE: Posts worth referring to (In my opinion):--------------------------------
- brokentool writes:
"Very interesting discussion, I just want to say thanks to everyone who took the time to write all these well-argumented opinions (for my benefit). It turned out that today I finished work a bit early and this was a wonderful read while awaiting freedom.
Now, on topic: I can support both sides here. However I strongly believe that they are not mutually exclusive. I do understand where the OP is coming from and I agree that endurance runs should not be actively discouraged. Recent implementations have shown that the devs share this viewpoint, at least somewhat: the Pacifism Defect and John Prodman are good examples; also the attention and response from DE towards that Defense record run a few people did some time before TWW dropped.. I think OP just mused on the fact that there are very few viable methods to achieve these long runs, and it shouldn't really be so. I also saw mentioned above, several times, that you need tocheese these runs and this is exactly where things could be improved - by adding more endurance-viable methods of play (mechanically) and better rewards as incentive.
I also think that such endurance runs should not be (nor are they currently) a goal for everyone. Warframe is uniquely attractive to me because of the freedom of goals and methods to achieve them, thus, "endgame" content is not some shared dream that everyone strives towards. And this is fine and dandy. I do not understand why some hold the idea that this "endgame" will hurt everything else.
In the end, I just want to see this game that I love improve in every possible direction, endgame and otherwise. And I believe it is possible."- Slimm qp ReapeR writes:
"Thank you!! As I've stated in an earlier comment here:
Endgame is what the player makes it which is the beauty about this game. I think that's where the main source of the backlash comes from regarding this post because people think that OP is trying to make endurance runs the ultimate endgame of warframe when in actuality it's just trying suggest endurance play as another OPTION."
- A discussion between Nezha_Rose and myself:
There was alot of confusion in this thread (read all the post) so I understand this: Endurance runners want to have those extra weapons available to them, so they can reach higher goals. For their gear that was designed to eat armor, shield and HP to be obliderated, they want more... or atleast keep what they have. I dig.
However, whats the point of this right now? Rewards? Bragging rights? Or to test your limits?
For let me tell you, you have more on your arsenal than you believe. The point of endurance is to test your limits, with the best gear and the best composition. However what if I told you that isnt the full definition? What if I told you that you can test your limits with just a sniper? How far can you with a Vulkar Wraith, with the best possible setup and solo? I dunno I made it pretty far with a Visican Riven and 6 forma, that baby is my pride and joy.
Endurance isnt about your level with one set, but also all the sets and combinations. To test your limits but not as the best possible time, but the best possible efficiency with as much gear you can have. This community calls it "min/maxing", something I found myself really enjoying. And my god the rivens in this scenario made things much more interesting.
tl;dr? We arent superman, we have limits... but not just one, we have many. And you are trully an endurance runner, you try and discover all of them... and break them. Theres your content, never lost yet never found.
Me: Nezha_Rose, your definition of Pseudo Endgame" is 100% accurate. And you bring up a valid point. What I am concerned about is the following.
While it true that in nature, "Pseudo Endgame" is the stretching and testing of equipment, what happens when equipment becomes less stretchable, less testable? We lose options. We lose freedom, in a way. At the very least SOMETHING is lost. If all the game content were to be downsized and balanced around level 80, sure, the content could still be stretched. But the feeling of stretching it (especially after previously achieving much higher results) for me and others like me, would be lost.
Nezha_Rose said:We arent superman, we have limits...
Me: Of course we have limits. If we didn't, there wouldn't be point to endurance running. I don't want limitless scaling of equipment. When you say "We aren't superman", you highlight that we don indeed have limitations in the game and that without said limitations, nothing would be the same and it probably wouldn't be as fun. MY issue, is the type of limitations that are placed on us.
If we were to be limited to stay within a certain parameter of levels, we would lose a large portion of our freedom to explore.
Yes, we could still explore. But only to a predetermined extent. The point is to ALLOW for "Pseudo Endgame". If our limitations are COMPLETELY determined, we lose our ability to define our own "Endgame"."
- An IMPROVEMENT on my suggestion by discussion with TaylorsContradiction:
While I don't mind bonus and special rewards for staying long, I'm opposed to exclusive rewards. Endurance runs simply come down to how long a person can stay online. Those of us with jobs can't be online for 16 hours straight. I don't think someone should be effectively rewarded with unique things just because they have more free time than others.
ME: And that decision is not one I'm trying to take command of. I don't believe the exclusive rewards should be of a valuable nature. More accessory based than anything. And to put something in fine terms: Yes, the amount of time you are permitted to spend online CAN and DOES limit you, but the rewards I'm suggesting wouldn't have a direct affect to the people receiving or not receiving them. And on a personal note, I barely have time to play more than a couple of hours every other day in my schedule, but because I enjoy doing endurance runs so much, I make time for on special occasion.
But yes, I can see there being a possible issue with exclusive rewards. I agree with you that it probably wouldn't be a desirable scenario. However, I would leave the end decision to those in charge. I will make note of your point on the initial discussion referral area."
- Here is a reply to a comment by Slimm qp ReapeR (while I don't lay claim to take sides over whether or not Naramon is like he says, the rest of what he speaks of is worth viewing):
what you call endgame is sitting in a bubble/behind volt shields(a lot better by the way), having zenistar on the ground for nullifiers and spamming the same ability for x hours
OR
having naramon and melee with a BR/bodycount combo
OR
naramon and abuse gas+stealthmultiplier
OR
simply ivara :D
am i wrong?<since there is no difference between lvl 200 and level 4k on how to beat the game..where is the skill that should be rewarded?
do mot solo without naramon for 3 hours without the above mentioned mechanics..see how that goes :DSlimm qp ReapeR: There's also CC via Nyx and such instead of Volt Shield but DE put that synergy in danger when they added Nullifiers. Much like they removed Bows/Sniper viability for that level range. As it is, you don't need the level of damage Snipers / Bows do outside of endurance runs. Their Damage per shot doesn't catch up to their kill rate until you're facing enemies with massive HP. Much like CC, Bows / Snipers had a place in endurance runs as the "Designated Heavies Killer" while other players focus on AoE and Fodder enemies.
This is another example of my previous post on how DE adds content and makes changes with no regard to scaling.
But there is a difference between lvl 200 and 4k. It's the mods you use and the synergy you use. Your choices matter more and more as enemies scale. For something like Sorties you can just about put on random mods and finish a mission but the higher enemies scale the more that single mod difference matters.
That's why many of us do endurance runs in the first place. We want our choices to matter. The same could hardly be said for the rest of the game.
-Also, no self respecting endurance runner is going to use Naramon. It partially defeats the point of doing them."
- Here is an interesting suggestion by hainscat (and my reply), whom I initially didn't communicate effectively with. I am unsure of the consequences, nut as the suggestion could have relevant effects, it might be worth looking at:
"hainscat said:its ok im aware i generally dont explain things well its a very unfortunate trademark of mine. i have issues fleshing out ideas properly. the conversation originally started out as how to help make later levels more accessible and you commented specifically on how the number of weapons and the arsenal of effective gear dwindles significantly later on. certain weapons just become ineffective, the ancients stop caring about that Dread bow or that Hek shotgun. what i was trying to illustrate was that if they made the reactors and catalysts more readily available made them more common it would expand however only slightly the total weapons viable for late game. right now 30 mod slots on a rifle is pretty small especially when you need to fight high level enemies and the mod capacity is needed to get the damage off to actually make a dent. i can say right now i would rather have a 60 slot attica than a 30 slot attica in my sorties which i do. but taking half the capacity would force me to find weapons with higher base damage to buff up with fewer mods. part of the solution to the late game accessibility COULD be but might not be necessarily fixed if they made the catalysts and reactors more readily available. i brought the finance bit in as part of my argument as to why it would be easy for them to make them a bit easier to get. its not a huge chunk of their income when it comes down to 5$. if theres anything i didnt quite clarify please feel free to tell me ill do my best to explain.
AAAHH. I see I see. Disregard my earlier, probably viewed as derogatory comments. You do indeed have a point. It all depends on, of course how big the chunk out of DE's wallet it would be. But I do agree that by making these items more accessible to the community, at least as far as platinum goes, it could make weapon testing a more common occurrence and therefore encourage more players to see just HOW effective they are. Widen the player bases horizons, so to speak. This could also help deal with some of the complaints that items are "abusive" or "overpowered", when in truth they are matched by other items or don't entail so much drama.
It's a little hard for me to see EXACTLY what the consequences of such a change would be (good or bad), but you definitely have a point. That suggestion could work as it doesn't really affect the mechanics of the game. The next step to this would be determining how it would affect Warframe's financial status and that of DE. So more research should be put into that before we attempt to take action on it. Right now, I will focus on my recognition scheme. But I will definitely look into your suggestion.
Consequently, I will include this post in my referral section."
-
On 1/1/2017 at 11:19 PM, issh0man said:
that's....not the point i'm trying to make? i don't go into missions to stand around idly, i want to be part of the fight too but the synoid makes it difficult and nearly impossible at times.
How long are you in these missions for?
Major Mechanic Ignored?!?! : "Pseudo-Endgame", Encouragement and Discussion
in General
Posted · Edited by (XB1)Deathstroke52dc
Giving thanks.
Alright, I see your point and I think it would be beneficial to clarify. But before I get into answering your inquires, I would like to clarify something about my request/suggestion. My intention is to leave the specifics alone intentionally, as to leave the final decision to those that would be reviewing the change. My goal is simply for endurance runners to be recognized as part of the equation. To be noticed and accounted for as changes are made. I'm trying to prevent the eventual extinction of endurance runs, which is likely (eventually), as there is not a large number of people doing them. If DE would take into account that there are people that enjoy stretching the limits of Warframe, then content change would be less likely to negatively affect our endurance-type gameplay. As a general example (no to confused as the main issue), if something is modified without taking into account anything past level 100, then the results of the change for people playing under level 100s would be affected normally while it usually makes the affected utility/mechanic useless or exponentially less effective. But again, keep in mind that I am not trying to make "endgame" a standard. I'm simply trying to catalyze it's inclusion to the equation. Here are my answers to the marked inquiries you provided:
1) Almost every ability has issues with scaling past level 100. The few that do scale are either not damaged based, deal damage in percent form (proportional to enemy health), ignore/counter armor, or effectively increase all damage dealt by the team (Banshee). This does NOT mean they all require a direct damage boost. An EXEMPLARY system in which abilities scale SIGHTLY AND PROPORTIONALLY with enemy levels would effectively even out abilities, to an extent. The statistics would be up to DE.
NOTE: This would most likely only apply to specific warframe abilities and not weapons. And also take note that I do not suggest this. It is only an example.
2) As far as weapons are concerned, I am most definitely suggesting a rework of all weapons. Only SOME of those that are classified in the ranks of high tiers; Mastery Rank 10+ required weapons. This could be quickly solved by assorted buffs, designed and applied by DE. NOT US. And again be reminded that I am trying to spur the consideration of fixes like this. Not suggesting them. I am only giving examples upon request. I am NOT qualified to make specific decisions.
3) What I look for in Warframe relative to " Pseudo Endgame" (I like that term, by the way. It works well) are three items:
-At least one ability that is an effective means or damaging, controlling, or resisting enemies and enemy progress/functions.
-At least one ability that provides decent synergy with other Warfames. Ex: Effective CC, Buffs (of any sort), or protection.
Note: Keep in mind that these two items MAY overlap; One ability that possesses two of these traits is a viable option.
-This last one is preference: Differentiation from other Warframes, whether it be linearly statistical or orthogonal.
4) The rewards suggestion, THAT I DO RECOMMEND, by the way, is the actual thing I'm getting at. To accomplish that, endurance runners would have to be officially recognized (as the rewards directly, specifically, and officially affect endurance runners). And further into that theme, more people would be properly aware of "pseudo Endgame" and might increase the number of us that play in it. As a result, the portion of people that play in "Pseudo Endgame" would receive more notice, have more say, and hopefully be accounted for more thoroughly through content changes. The two things, the rewards and public recognition, would support each other.
Also, thank you for your detailed questions and relevant inquiries. I am pleased that you seem interested, one way or another.