(PSN)cardinalphoenix
-
Posts
69 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by (PSN)cardinalphoenix
-
-
3 minutes ago, DreisterDino said:
The Sacrifice Quest (Excal Umbra) took them over a year to produce, and at least in my opinion that Quest was a bad joke in terms of storytelling and gameplay.
The so called "Quests" for the other frames we got in the last 2 years (Gara, Revenant for example) also dont deserve that title imo.
I know this sounds really harsh, but when you look at what you do in the Sacrifice Quest and how the Story is presented (you lie in a bed 3 times at least while you can listen to Ballas and play a game in which you can't lose because the AI is either that stupid or forced to let you win no matter how bad you play), i dont think its exaggerated...
Edit: or the presentation of the Story during the Ropalolyst Bossfight...i mean come on DE, who thought it would be a good way to present the story with an animation that takes up 50% of the screen at least - and why is this still not changed although plenty of people explained why this is a horrible idea? 🤨
I'll agree that the Revenant "quest" was horrible, short, and did nothing for any lore at all, and although Gara's quest was a sweet story between Saya, Konzu and Onkko, it didn't really link to everything else and once it was over, it's ignored. I'll also agree that the Ropalolyst fight's lore/story wasn't presented well at all. I liked the taunting, but I agree that the transmissions should NOT have taken up most of the screen at all. That was bad.
However, the way The Sacrifice not only gave emotional weight to Umbra, but explained deeper origins of the Warframes for those who didn't know as much, as well as drip fed lore and suspense through the bed scenes was really well done. Just because this game is mostly speed and action and rampant killing of enemies, doesn't mean that cutscenes can't exist to present story in different ways. The whole Komi thing was meant to give you a false sense of security. You try to win, only for him to pull the rug out from under you.
Story quests SHOULD be different from the pace of the rest of the game.
-
I completely agree with them adding way more quests and character interaction. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that while everyone loves the "wArFrAmE nEeDs cOnTeNt" memes, I think more people who say that should instead say what KIND of content they want specifically. I've told people that and they've responded with "well just go to the forums, plenty of people say what they want." That's not good enough. EVERYONE should say what type of content they want, and I'll give your post a like here because it's specific to wanting quests and character interaction, which is more of the type of content I want as well.
I'm dying for Empyrean and Squad Link, the cooperative aspects to those look really fun and engaging. But yeah, quests and character development, I absolutely want more of both. Even if the characters are just little radio transmissions with some light writing thrown in, it'd be great. I wonder if maybe we wait so long for quests because usually with good Warframe quests, they have unique mechanics to them? They're not just a string of the same old mission types, but unique aspects? I don't know. Shouldn't take a year for that, though, if that's the case.
I am optimistic about the fact that many of the quests with the last couple updates have featured MORE quests becoming replayable. I think some type of weekly (or even daily) harder version of a quest replay for some unique or persistently needed reward, like Kuva or resources or whatever could be great to keep people interested in the story and purpose we've had in this game. Absolutely.
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, (XB1)Dex Xean said:
Eh I think that getting one direct task list to get something might be solution like how destiny 2 sets a grindy farm for certain exotics but at the same time it took me what like 1 month or three weeks to get atlas prime full set of primes releases and that was more of 1 week of actually grinding cuz the past week or so I finally sat down and was like I should probably actually try to farm instead of just causally try every other day for it.
I think that may be what they're experimenting with to get Grendel. Like, the grind for Vitus Essence to buy the Mission Part keys represents the grind, but once you complete the mission, you just get the part outright. At least for new Frames, anyway. Primes probably won't be available like that, but at least if new Frames are, it's something.
1 minute ago, Numerikuu said:Someone didn't stockpile their syndicate medallions... 😉
Did this, and got Atlas Prime, Tekko Prime, and Dethcube Prime all within a couple of days doing Radshares.
I try to do as many syndicate missions for two syndicates just about every day, trying to find as many medallions in each mission as possible. I don't kill myself finding them, but that definitely reduces the grind of each mission, for sure. But yeah, medallions, Relic Packs and rad share, that helps a ton.
-
2 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:
"presents screenshof of official DE material"
"That's just your opinion"
No, it isn't. It's a factual information, based on official actions of the developers.
What's factual is that a player can choose to not perform missions on a node where a Lich has influence, and thus lose a fraction of their rewards. And depending on how much resource or credits they have, and the difference in what they don't get, yes, they MAY want to not engage in the Lich influenced mission, and instead the non-influenced one.
That said...depending on how the Lich node actually works, if they can take that influence away by completing it, or if the Lich himself/herself can appear and be defeated and made stronger before their final stand off, and other factors we don't know, it doesn't seem like an appealing option to NOT do the Lich influenced mission when the option is there. They may steal rewards, but if you don't engage them, they can't be defeated.
-
I think they could make some of the drop rates of the rewards more consistent from relics with what you put into them. Like, making it easier to better focus on what type of rarity you want via the void traces. I'd be completely in support of that. And as far as getting the relics themselves, I've actually found it easier to get them from the open world bounties rather than crossing my fingers on a star chart node where that relic supposedly drops.
But honestly, between trading, bartering, and opening fissures in groups mitigating the RNG, it's acceptable. Far from perfect, but not necessarily bad. Definitely incentivizes matchmaking or focused teaming up to ease the grind, and while I guess that makes it harder for some people, there are at least ways to ease the grind if you want it badly enough.
The RNG with Relics isn't nearly as excruciating as the RNG attached to Rivens, but that's another thread entirely...
-
10 minutes ago, Pizzarugi said:
It'd be amusing if you could turn liches into unwitting piggy banks, begging to be cracked open. 😛
I mean, at current...seems like a strategy. Essentially, taking in less rewards in the short term for a massive payoff in the long term.
I imagine that might be the reason you get "some" of the rewards back, not "all," so that the thing doesn't stay around forever, but I have no idea. It would be cool if the Lich, creating a bigger and bigger empire upon every death, they use your credits and rewards to build that empire, then taking that empire down yields MORE rewards in the end...essentially "interest," 😄
-
16 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:
"ABLOO ABLOO I don't wanna lose muh resources!"
Then don't play the Lich mission. It's 100% optional to engage in those missions.
Also, instead of asking people (or even me) questions, just watch the goddamn prime time.
I think some people are concerned that rare drops like mods could be stolen by the Lich, and then since the devs have said that "some" of your rewards would be returned, as opposed to "all" of it, they would hate to see some rare mod reward they've been farming forever vanish just because a Lich stole it and the rule of the game is that you don't get everything back.
That said, I think even if resources and materials and credits aren't 100% returned, by the time you take the Lich down, you'll get a big glut of reward back when you finally take it down. Especially if you don't have the right Requiem mods yet, they'll just keep accumulating reward before you take them down, so...it's still worth doing, in my opinion.
-
Just now, Skaleek said:
I watch the devstreams for information. When did the prime times start containing more development information than the devstreams?
I think they did this this time due to them saying the update was coming last week, and it didn't, and they wanted to address items that needed more clarification that they didn't want to do a whole devstream for. Not a normal thing.
-
5
-
-
20 minutes ago, Kaotyke said:
Their mistake with Archwing was making it a game mode. What they did in Open Worlds and Atmosphere Archguns was what they should have done from the start.
The major problem at the time was: there was no way to use those weapons and Archwings in normal missions, they were completely separete, different games if you will.
If the changes to ships are what I imagine, then the gamemodes are being scrapped and gone and we will be able to go into Archwing whenever we want during the mission.
We will see.
Yeah, I can agree with that. I'm not entirely sure giving us access to everything in Archwing in every mission was necessarily feasible when it first launched, but you're right, it was very isolated from the rest of the game. And even if it's really cool, a lot of people felt like it didn't have much purpose beyond just "stuff to level."
Same could be said about Railjacks probably, though we'll have to see what major purpose they're given and how grand the scale will be. I don't think the star map or associated mission nodes are going away with Empyrean, nor should it since a lot of people are used to ground-only mission combat. To me, it seems like a new space map overlaid on top of the old, giving rise to new places to visit and engagements to partake in.
Which hopefully link up to the events coming in the New War. After all, they did imply that we'd need these new ships to tackle the larger Sentient threat we'll have to deal with.
-
I think part of the reason more people don't engage with Conclave is due to the rewards attached. Obviously, it has to do partially with combat balancing as well, but at the risk of being controversial, Lunaro is one of the best things about Conclave. It's an actual "game," it's unique to other games' PvP. You say Lunaro being in Conclave is the problem, but where's it supposed to be? Are people just supposed to break out into Lunaro games after a mission? It's supposed to be in Conclave. The problem is, the rewards that are offered from Conclave aren't enough to encourage people to go for it. They're basically just cosmetics, and if you get to the highest rankings, you can purchase base starter Frames. If there were regular events in Conclave that offered Forma, potatoes, even Rivens, people would force themselves through it. Hell, even though plenty of Warframe players scoff at Destiny, their Crucible PvP faction at least offers bounties, XP and PvE usable rewards. There's plenty of things Conclave could offer as purchasable reward sources to get people in there more.
As for Archwing, I think it was a nice idea that didn't have much purpose, that much can be said. But over time, they're trying to give it more purpose. Arch Guns on the ground, flying around open world areas, and now Empyrean featuring ships to fly out of and around. Some have said that Archwing was originally meant as a part of a bigger update like Empyrean, and that seems entirely valid.
I don't know, I think DE has put a lot of little things into Warframe that may not have had much purpose or reason to be there outside of them being neat concepts. But just listening to Steve get excited about it, the Dark Sector game from almost 20 years ago was originally supposed to be Empyrean. DE has been trying to make Empyrean pretty much for as long, and I think they're passionate enough about it to make it live up to the hype.
-
1
-
-
On 2019-10-22 at 3:33 PM, SilentMobius said:
The content can exist for people who want to team without the need to cut people out who do not.
The only argument for raids is the people who only like to do content that pointedly excludes solo players. And those people can take a, figurative, long walk off a short pier IMHO
As I said, I am against forcing teaming and that is central to "raids" to many people. They want the thrill of exclusion.
And that is what it must be, because if it was just the enjoyment of teaming then they wouldn't object to it scalling down and taking much longer for those that don't want to be in a team, because it wouldn't affect them at all. But that's not how it's viewed
And that's toxic
"Push" is fine, (Fissures already do this in spades)
"Give people a reason to want it" is fine
"Let people optimise for speed" is fine (How many people solo Eidolons or Orb Weavers... I do, it's slow)
"Require" is not.
You lock content and rewards behind a glorified popularity contest (and go find youtube videos of older WoW raids like the famous "50 DKP minus" and you'll see) and it gets toxic fast
Remember that this game's primary progress metric is MR so if you lock any weapon/warframe/companion behind unsoloable content you basically lock solo players out of the primary progression of this game. And if you lock important buffs (like the arcanes) it's almost as bad.
Wow, so...raids are innately toxic, innately exclusive, and only for people to feel "elite" because of some "rule" you apparently don't have any affect on, it's a "popularity" contest for people who want the "thrill of exclusion."
The more you say, the more I see a broader profile of a person who has become deathly afraid of interaction, deathly afraid of engaging with human beings, deathly afraid of the toxicity of a few which doesn't, under any circumstance, represent the attitude of the many. You want a game just for YOU. You want a game to play that caters to only YOU. That's made specifically so that YOU can enjoy all the content, and everyone else who wants more variety, more difficulty, more epic engagements...THEY can take a long walk off a pier. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.
And by the way, let's be really clear here...FISSURES are not a "push," they're practically a requirement to team up. Know how I know that? Because for a long time, I did fissures and relics purely solo. I didn't want to join public games, I was afraid of it, I only wanted to do them by myself...and dude, looking back, that was excruciating. I got literally NOWHERE trying to crack open relics and farm prime parts purely on my own. I mean, I'm willing to say here, "yes, it's possible to farm primes by yourself, but it's really stinking hard," but you what? TONS of other Warframe players don't feel like opening relics by themselves or grinding that hard at such a simple activity. And so, they do it in teams, why? Because it's eons more effective. And when something is THAT much more effective, you can pretty much consider it...a "requirement." You can bash your head against relics for days, weeks, and months, and be WAY farther back than someone who just joins public games once in a while and gets parts from other peoples' relics. Wukong Prime has been out since July, I already have him on PS4. Why? Public games. Made it way easier.
Yes, people get annoying in public games. Yes, people troll sometimes. Yes, people get toxic on headsets, or just don't turn their mics off when not talking. Does that mean DE should massively adjust drop rates to appease solo players because "waaaaah, people could get toxic?" DE should hold their game back because of some "rule" that "easier raids aren't raids," but they shouldn't adjust relic drop rates so that solo players can get prime parts easier? Do you advocate for that?
"Killing Eidolons and Orb Mothers solo is slow." Darn tootin. Know why? Because you shouldn't be doing those things solo. 😉 Know why? Because they're supposed to involve people working together to overcome the challenge that's presented to a single player.
In fact, I'm going to make an assumption here. If taking those things down is so slow for you (which by the way, it isn't slow for everyone, plenty of solo players can take them down in minutes), I'm going to assume you either don't have many Rivens, don't have the right ones, or the ones you have aren't good enough to tackle it. You direct me to YouTube to look at WoW videos, have you viewed Eidolon solo guides telling you how take them down in minutes, because with the right gear, the right Warframe, the right mods, whatever, you should be able to do it super fast. But...it's "slow," as you say. We don't know each other, but I'll ask this...are you advocating DE also rework their Riven system to lose a majority of the RNG which excludes players who a) aren't lucky enough to defeat every layer, and/or b) aren't paying premium plat prices to the Riven Mafia?
Because...that sure seems like it "excludes players" from monumental amounts of power, and breeds "toxicity" based on the "popularity contest" of whoever has the best and strongest ones. But here, you're focusing solely on the presumed "toxicity" of raids being a "popularity contest," because there are some people who do that. Right. Despite many people just wanting something big and epic to do in groups because not everyone wants to be alone all the time, making the broad generalization that toxicity is something to be feared is a reason to hold the game back.
Dude, listen, here's the bottom line...I can build a house by myself. Sure. It'll take literally the rest of my life and would be tons easier if I had a team to help me. That's an undeniable fact.
Even if things like raids don't return to Warframe (and they are, the devs have said they are...this post wasn't me suggesting they put them back in...they're coming back at some point, so get ready), playing in groups will ALWAYS and FOREVER be more effective, faster, and easier in many different ways than playing solo. Always. Another undeniable fact. Combining forces and power together will always accomplish more than one person soloing the whole game. Yes, fine, toxic people exist, they always will. Yes, inexperienced or bad players hold things up sometimes, yes. And we shouldn't ignore trying to tackle those things. That doesn't mean a COOP game should change to being a "single-player experience" simply because "toxic people exist." That's faulty logic 100% of the way.
Games SHOULD totally have paths to power for people who don't want to interact, in case you missed that, I do advocate for that. And it'd be great if DE found more ways to do that in Warframe, for people who hate interacting. Easier versions of Raids, as I said, would be one way, and if elitist jerks have a problem with that, THEY can take a long walk off a pier, okay? 🙂 However...there are actually GOOD, non-toxic people who don't relish in the isolation of being a one-man band 24/7/365, who want reasons to team up. That's been me most of my gaming life, and I'm inching my way toward being done with it. I want to be involved, I want to engage with people, I want to find the GOOD people out there who AREN'T toxic (and they do exist, no matter how many times you say the word "toxic", doesn't make those good people less real).
You don't want to be "forced" to team up, but I also don't want to be "forced" to be alone. And making everything in this game soloable simply because some people don't want teaming up to feel required (which in many ways, it is, regardless of raids).
True, I don't think "raids" are necessary for games to succeed or be great, but just as you think DE should be emphasizing solo play, others want more. And just as YOU don't deserve to be excluded, those players don't deserve to be either.
I get it..."requiring" teaming up "excludes people." But no man is an island. And even if raids never come back in Warframe, you'll still have people out there to be jealous of because THEY interact and THEY team up to get more done and THEY work together...and you don't. I'll be honest...this whole argument I've had with you is only inspiring me to find more groups, to talk more on headsets and be a good player and squadmate, and WANT more to do in groups, and WANT to be part of big things, rather than emphasize everything in this game to be easy enough for people to do all by themselves. Like I said...I'm okay if there's a path to it...but it's also okay if people want more than the ease of doing everything alone. It's also okay if people want to be part of a team, if people want to help others, and if people want things to conquer that requires a group. The nice thing about our community, and this game being focused on COOP, is that we're all supposedly on the same team, working toward the same goals.
This game SHOULD have solo missions that you do by yourself and accomplish by yourself, with no one to rush you through. This game SHOULD have encounters that solo players can handle by themselves, that also contribute to a larger "greater good" or "war effort" or whatever, to feel like they're part of a special breed of beings in the universe. But this game SHOULD also have engagements large enough for teams to want to come together and conquer and coordinate to solve. You wanna say the rewards should be tweaked so that maybe certain exclusive things aren't locked behind that teaming up? Fine. Maybe you just get MORE credits or MORE resources or MORE blueprints or whatever when engaging in that, rather than have exclusive things there. Whatever. But the game should have this, just as it should have solo experiences, too.
Oh, and one more thing...the primary progress metric isn't MR. Not when at least one player finished the majority of the game without raising their MR over zero, 😉 But nice try.
Have the last word. The loneliness hovering over this discussion has been exhausting. Have a good day.
-
1 minute ago, trst said:
Also Nightwave isn't perfect but it sure is a Hek of a lot better than Alerts were.
See, I miss the dynamic nature of the old alerts, but...the fact they were so short-sighted, just...do a mission, done...do a mission, done...it was kinda flat. Nightwave may need more added to it, I can get behind that. And it could use a ton of tweaking in terms of rewards. But ultimately, it's a better system.
Plus, we have Invasions, which are basically the same as Alerts were, just with a more narrow reward pool and you have to do three missions instead of just one. I wish they would expand the reward pool for Invasions to include maybe credits, materials, blueprints, whatever else, let's discuss. Invasions, for me, fill that void of having dynamic missions pop up anyways. I don't miss Alerts that much as a result.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Autongnosis said:
Thinking about it that could be a great way to introduce optional difficulty.
Say we get squad link divided into two categories: broadband requests and emergency requests. Broadband is ordinary run of the mill stuff like what was shown at tennocon. Emergency is high risk and difficulty optional task. You can choose to be available for one, the other, both or none. That way you choose the level of play you want. It could also work on a majority system - for pug groups it only activates the one which the majority of players has up.
I like it. All sounds good.
I mean, when we saw Squad Link at Tennocon, Drew was in a squad with Taylor and one other dev, I don't know who. But Drew accepted it on his screen, and everybody ran to the objective. Practically speaking, if you're in a dedicated squad, everyone can communicate and say "yes, we all want to do Squad Link" before the beacon is put up, so that takes care of that. But if you're with randoms, though, there would need to be some kind of vote in-game to see if everyone wants to opt-in together.
That's an interesting point.
-
19 minutes ago, maddragonmaster said:
note i basically stated set the scaling of the enemy according to the 1-100 with 100 being endgame level. also i stated so that weapons, warframes, and what else would be scaled.
Fair point, but...the amount of work to essentially redefine what "Level 1 enemy" and "Level 100 enemy" is feels like infinitely more work, as well as not solving the problem at the core, than say...putting more power in weaker players' hands by making Rivens more available and reworking how they're cycled.
Things would balance out quicker and easier, and you wouldn't need to redefine scaling by calling it "1-100" instead of "1-9999."
-
2 minutes ago, Autongnosis said:
It could theoretically work i guess if the objective is meaningless enough. I guess the starting point would be to have raids actually back in the game xD
At that point tho the question becomes: does linking the raid to squad link for a meaningless enough objective to not actually impede raid progression adds anything to the whole deal?
May have to depend on how difficult the Squad Link objective is. Maybe there will be various tiers of difficulty based on the missions being linked, or it's just linked to the difficulty of the mission you're already in.
Hypothetical...let's say I'm in a Lith Exterminate Fissure, likely really low level, Squad Link says to, I don't know, take out some Eximus across the map. Easy peasy, no problem, likely takes a minute tops. Later on, I'm in an Axi Interception Fissure (this is assuming Squad Links can be activated during Fissures, hopefully they can, that'd make things CRAZY), Squad Link says to intercept the message within, say, 2 minutes in the round to help a Raiding party. That might be tricky with the gear I have on, so I may want to decline or get another Squad Link objective I can handle instead.
So yeah, there's probably going to be some meta'ing going on, but if Warframe is so focused on players choosing the content they want to engage in, that's going to come with the territory. DE will need to offer a variety of different objectives to add, of varying difficulties, not to mention "good" enough rewards (which I hate saying, because I'm not defining "rewards," like people should) to inspire people to engage with it.
So that the raiding party feels like they need help, as well as the helpers having some urgency to push through to feel as if they've done something valuable.
Ultimately, I don't know, though, we need way more info than we have on the feature before we can truly make real predictions about it. It was just an idea wanted to float past the community. I'm appreciating all the feedback.
-
2 minutes ago, SilentMobius said:
forcing people together is always a net negative. Positive relationships flourish in the absense of coersion. People who want to team are the best teammates.
Those who are pro-raid will happily tell you that if you can solo it, it's not a "Raid". I don't make those rules I just have to live with them. I have nothing against large-scale content involving bots or cut down objective combinations when approached with smaller groups or solo.
But "raids" have meaning to people and at least part of that meaning is forcing a group and unique rewards for that group event.
Yes, forcing people together is bad, I agree. The trick is to make people WANT to team up and give them reason to seek it out. Problem is, people will argue around having to team up with people constantly and want to do everything solo and quickly. And not having things like Raids in the game only gives people LESS things to feel like teaming up for. As someone who has spent most of my gaming time playing solo...even I see that as pretty disappointing. I haven't played World of Warcraft for more than a few hours on a trial version. I missed out on the greatest parts of that game, but that's on me. I made the decisions I made with the games I wanted to play, and that's not Blizzard's fault for making an MMO that required teams to work together. That's mine for not wanting to find groups enough. My best friends bugged me to play it with them back in the day, and I turned them down every time. Looking back...I really shouldn't have turned them down.
As for soloing a Raid, I understand the concept there. The "rule," as you put it. However, it just seems to me the more we talk that you're firmly against everything to do with Raids, and that's kind of a shame because this game is losing veteran players steadily lately due to a lack of endgame engagements that would likely require teaming up. Again, I get why that's bad, you made your point crystal clear.
But I'd rather see the game find ways to push me to find groups to WANT to work with, than not give me anything else to do because of how uncomfortable or risky having to team up is.
-
4 minutes ago, Autongnosis said:
Tbh I'd rather have them design a raid that's meant for two separate groups of people, one in empyrean and one on the ground - IE an assault on a grineer fomorian done properly where the ground team infiltrates the insides of the ship while the empyrean team does bombing runs and other objectives outside.
Locking a raid behind the cooperation of randoms will never be a good idea.
Oh I know. I've defended Bungie's decision to not have matchmaking for raids countless times. It's locked me out of doing them, but overall, I'd rather squads be dedicated and prepared...and the activity be daunting enough to WANT to be dedicated and prepared...and honestly search out a group by saying, "hey guys, I'm a noob at raiding, could use a team to see me through it"...than just be stuck with a handful of randoms who don't want to help teach me the ropes.
That said, I see your point, having random people joining via Squad Link. I think the reason it would work, though, is that the objective attached to Squad Link would likely not be as involved as a full raid activity. I'm not opposed to two separate raids interacting, that would be super cool. But in that case, it's two dedicated Raid squads affecting each others' Raids. With the Raid + Squad Link idea, presumably, you'd have one dedicated Raid Squad, and potentially 1-4 people doing a random little thing to help out the Raid Squad. See what I mean?
-
2 minutes ago, maddragonmaster said:
ok lets address the elephant in the room that has been here for years. warframes enemy level scaling has always been the main reason of why players react to positive or negatively to any reworks or chances to any given weapons with some people being quick to call them either over powered or trash.
so my suggestion is ditch the endless level scaling since it is an obvious a mess and a set in enemy level cap of 1-100. and then DE can determine how the enemies armor, health, shields, and damage is determined by this and then set weapons, frames, ect. according to the enemies new scaling.
that way DE can have an easier method of balancing weapons, warframes, archwings, and what ever else they feel like adding.
anyways everyone is free to say my idea is terrible or not. i am just bluntly stating the point whether or not it has been stated before.
as for the difficulty method, i don't really care as long as it not going too much to the point where i feel like i am getting nothing done. as long as there is enough chance of wining if i play right then i am fine. if the difficulty is too aggressive then it is not something i would enjoy.
So...in an attempt to address this respectfully...players are already really upset that the game is far too easy. In part due to things like Rivens and Corrupted Mods. You cap enemy level at 100, the game literally gets no harder at all for those players working on their gear and such, and just stays super easy.
Now...other side of the coin...endless enemy scaling has gotten ridiculous and silly as an endgame activity. People are only doing it because that's where the level 2000, 5000, 9000, however high it goes, are located. Which isn't to say missions should immediately feature level 5000-9000 level enemies, but if you cap enemy level at 100, the only effective way of balancing all players out is to severely nerf the living HECK out most top end players into having literally barely any power at all. Like, I laugh when people whine about a Riven disposition reducing their crit from 100% to 95% on a Riven, like dude, you're still devastating, please stop. But the amount of "balance" that would occur there by capping enemies at level 100 would just be horrific.
Players need more paths to that type of power before they need an enemy level cap. Some nerfs to some mods will take place, sure. It's inevitable. But if players are getting overall more paths to a lot of power, but it's not nearly as bad as just nerfing the bulk of the top end and brushing one's hands off.
-
4 minutes ago, SilentMobius said:
I'll say this again: The thing I object to is "raid activities" (Specifically the part of "Raids" that is forced teaming) not this prospective "team-link"
I have accepted multiple times that team-link is quite likely a net positive. As you said, implimentation is vague but potentially very good.
Raids/Trial are not good, we know how the trials worked and we know what people mean when they said "Raid" that is what I'm objecting to.
To summerize:
- The thing we don't know about: "team-link" is fine.
- The thing we do know about "Raids"/"Trials are not and should not be shuffled in with team-link.
That's fine. We can agree there, for the most part. Trust me, despite our argument here, I know the feeling of rewards and such being exclusive to certain activities that involve teaming up.
I played a ton of Destiny 1 since close to launch, for instance, and although I've heard the Vault of Glass raid was spectacular, I never got to experience it. I'm disappointed that I missed out, but I'm disappointed in myself that I was too scared to look around on Bungie.net and find a group to run me through it, even just for the experience and lore aspects and not for the gear.
Maybe I say this as a guy who just turned 39, is recently divorced and lives by myself now, but I really regret not being more social in gaming over the years. I may be a cripplingly shy introvert, but in regard to games, I can at least feel comfortable once in a while in the fact that we're all engaging in a game we like. If we all have nothing else but that one thing in common, that's one thing more than meeting a random person in a bar and crossing my fingers we have anything at all in common. 🙂
So...I get what you're saying about Raids/Trials, regardless of Squad Link. That said...I'm still eager to see them return. If DE wants to spread the reward pool out a bit and make it so Raiding isn't necessary to receive certain rewards, I'm not opposed to that. But an increasingly angry subset of Warframe players are upset because there isn't any big, gigantic engagements to work toward and conquer with all the gear and power they've built up. Hell, even if those big gigantic engagements have separate solo modes, which are significantly nerfed or changed to accommodate only one person at a time (kinda like how solo Railjack missions will allow NPCs on your ship to man guns and stations, allegedly), that'd still be fine. Your concern is valid about gating people out of content that requires teaming up, it is disappointing.
At the same time, though, a lot of people have wanted massive engagements in Warframe to work toward, and amazingly powerful rewards attached to succeeding in them...and I think their concern is valid as well.
There are ways around it. Hopefully DE will find the best way to make both sides happy.
-
I think one of the reasons they put so much previous stuff into Intermission 2 was because Series 1 (and potentially Intermission 1) didn't have a catchup mechanic. So people who didn't pay attention or didn't hear about it had physically no way at all of getting those items. A friend of mine got back into Warframe within, like, the last few weeks of Series 2, ground out heavily and at almost the last minute, got the Rank 30 reward from it, which he couldn't have done without that catchup mechanic.
That said, I understand having exclusive things, exclusive things should BE exclusive for participating in certain things. Going forward, we now have a catchup mechanic, if people play the game midway through, they still have an ability to reach Rank 30, even if it requires some grinding away to do so. The window for exclusive goodies stays open a little longer as a result. That solves that.
And I definitely think there should be alternative rewards for people who reached Rank 30 in previous Series' so that if we have all this stuff, we'll get other things instead. Heck, maybe even a choice of what we want to put in those Ranks instead, that'd be great. More Kuva, boosters, maybe inventory slots is too much to ask for, but hey, three alternative things we can choose for those Ranks so we have more to work for sounds good to me.
-
1 minute ago, SilentMobius said:
I think you're miunderstanding my objection and we are talking at cross-purposes.
I object to mixing "squad-link" (Which is a new, and potentially good addition to the game if implimented well) with "Raids" (Which many people see as a mix of "Forced teaming content", "Difficult content", "High and exclusive reward generating content" among other things)
My objection is to the forced teaming part, not squad-link.
Fair enough, thank you for clarifying...
But I think you're missing how I've said numerous times that we literally have no idea how "forced" this will be. You keep saying "forced" like this is guaranteed to be hefted onto your shoulders with no escape, and we just have to grin and bear it...yet we have barely any information on how it will be implemented, regardless of my idea to POTENTIALLY include them as additional ways to engage with raid activities.
As I said to others as well...this is opt-in. There's LITERALLY nothing "forced" about the idea at the moment, even with as little as we know currently. You can make the argument it'll be "forced" IF rewards from participation are 100% necessary for crafting or upgrading or whatever. THAT would make it "forced" and THAT would be kinda sucky if there is enough of a collective of people who don't want to be "forced" into engaging with others, even indirectly, if they don't want to.
But...again...we have no idea about that yet. They pitched it out there during the Tennocon demo, and like everything else in this game, they're working out the kinks. Even after it launches...there will most likely be kinks. Par for the course. Even the devs will tell you that.
My entire purpose for this post was basically to say this..."big activities like RAIDS are coming back, as the devs have said. Wouldn't it be nice to make those raids even bigger and more interesting by incorporating more people working toward a similar goal?"
If your issue is with "forced teaming," then that's more of an issue with where rewards come from, and whether or not we can opt-out of joining peoples' games...both of which seem like they're relatively easy issues to tackle, so I'm very confused why you're pushing this idea of it being "forced" when we haven't gotten a single reason to think it's going to be "forced."
-
1 minute ago, (XB1)ShadowBlood89 said:
squad link is optional as they did say you could take out shield without ground team help just would be harder
squad link would work with players in the railjack, an in any mission not just the open world as it would just add a different objective, but that doesnt make it a raid. as squad link a system to allow for additional help in various ways.
those who pick up the squad link call get rewarded with unknown item(s) while the squad link requesting party i dont think they get anythingI know it's optional. It would just be harder without the help. We don't know how much harder yet, though. If it's barely felt, Squad Link may not feel worth it. If it's too hard without Squad Link, it might feel forced. We'll have to wait and see the numbers and implementation.
And I just meant it was similar to a raid, in the simplest sense, not exactly the same. Cooperation, coordination, communication, using different methods and techniques to accomplish a big giant goal. I know taking down a Lich capital ship won't be involved enough to fill the gap left by Trials/Raids, but the bare bones of what raids tend to offer might actually whet peoples' appetites for raids. Hopefully just in time for them reintroduce them. Fingers crossed, 😉
As for what the requesting party "gets"...they get the help. Their mission becomes easier. The helping party gets an actual reward for helping out, but the requesting party gets the reward of their mission being easier. That's the nature of cooperation. 😄
-
1 minute ago, SilentMobius said:
Nothing you mention there actually excludes people from gameplay or rewards. Forced-teaming content does by creating cliques that end up regulating access to the content/rewards.
True on the first part. But like I said...literally everything has cliques. Even if the reward is simply "I have the best fashion frame," with no in-game DE provided reward, there are cliques in games for literally everything. Are we going to assume that MMOs back in the day like Everquest didn't have the exact same thing? They all have that. I'm not saying it's good or okay, just that it's inevitable.
I get what you're saying, that forcing people to play together can feel restricting, but at the same time...while DE are removing Nightwave Acts like "complete XYZ with friends," because apparently playing coop is not something people wanna do in a coop game...more than likely, Squad Link will have some type of balance so that it isn't required, or solo players have a way to acquire things. That said, just because some people want to solo everything and be super Rambo Ninjas, that doesn't mean the game should be held back from including such a feature for those who want to feel like what they're doing has a community wide effect. A lot of times, the experience of this game can feel supremely isolated and lonely and like what we do doesn't really matter. Squad Link seeks to address that with as little invasiveness or direct interaction as possible. Like, I'm out on the Plains or in a Corpus mission, I activate Squad Link, oh good, people need help, lemme go help them...and I don't even need to communicate with them, I just do my thing however I want, and they get a benefit because I helped them all by myself.
Instead of "proxy-PvP," I see it more like "player centric quest/mission generation." In PvP, the experience is unpredictable, because competing against players make it that way. Whereas here, PLAYERS need help, as opposed to, a random NPC saying the same exact thing over and over and we get bored helping them because we've done it a hundred times and the sheen of the illusion wears off. Players will always need help, and the more players there are, the more different players we can aid.
I completely understand your concern that it opens the door for toxicity, these days, just about everything does, as jerks will find any way they can to ruin other peoples' fun. But we should be finding ways around that, rather than risking being too fearful to encourage them to go forward.
I mean, we still don't have enough information to know what the rewards for Squad Link participation will even be yet. For all we know, the rewards will be things you can get elsewhere, and there will be literally no reason to do it outside of getting extra if you feel like it. In that case, it won't be forced at all, and instead, may be ignored by some people. Which, in a way, would be worse.
-
5 minutes ago, Renegade343 said:
Kuva Lich starts stealing your plat.
Haa...that'd be peak villainy.
I vote they only steal your plat if you have over 1 million. Like taxing the top 1%. I only have about 1290, so I'm good. 😉
Abyss of Dagath - Dev Workshop: System Changes and General Quality of Life
in Developer Workshops
Posted
Changes look great to me. One question I wanted to bring up, being a fan of Nightwave, been thinking on it a while...what is the philosophy behind the Bounty Acts needing to be "different?" If a newer player needs to farm ONE particular bounty tier for either a rank up item (like a debt bond, let's say) and they want to tie it in with Nightwave, why can't they just do the same Bounty 3-5 times and have that count? Or if that newbie just wants to do 3-5 lower tier Bounties for the material or endo rewards, why can't they do that. Or...if a higher level player isn't interested in the lower tier Bounties, and they want to do the higher and/or Steel Path ones 3-5 times, why doesn't that count?
If the idea is to get people doing all of the different tiers, or just a broader range of them, why isn't the Act, perhaps "do one of every tier bounty in X area?"
Small nitpick, I guess, but I think allowing people a bit more leeway with doing the bounties they want to do would be better.
Anyway, keep up the good work. Thanks for all the QoL. :-)