Elite weeklies should be extra credit, not requirements for standard completion.

[(NSW)Sk0rp1on]

They might be extra credit. We’ll find out what 60% means eventually. 

[Knoxturnal]

7 hours ago, Deadoon said:

"Everything comes back" Primed chamber? A handful given out since it's original incarnation as a trophy item?  

You really brought up Prime Chamber to use as a comparison.. That's funny. Primed Chamber is a meme. However, my point still stands true, everything worth having, comes back. 99.9999999999999% of all items come back. See: sigils, arcanes, mods, weapons, prime access, vaulted relics, vandals, the list goes on. Be patient, and wait and you'll get your chance.

I don't disagree that maybe some of the rewards could be more accessible for "average" players, or DE could do something to change some things up in regards to Nightwatch. My point is, there are people here on the forums with tears in their eyes because they believe that missing a mission or two is going to cause them to miss rewards. Even if it does, so what? It'll be back, you'll get it then. Not everything in the game has to be easily accessible to all players, all the time. It's nice to have some things that are harder to acquire and that you have to struggle to get. It's a good life lesson for people in general. Almost all things in life that are worth it, have a struggle associated with them. However, once you do get them, you value them more because of the hardship associated in acquiring them.. Again, I'm not saying this needs to be the case with Nightwatch, it just gets so old watching people get so upset over a shiny new toy because they have to spend a couple weeks/months to get it. (Just look at the trail of tears over the wolf hammer for gods sake). 

[breakdafunk]

4 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

My apologies. It really was a silly joke I threw in among other points. I'm a solo player myself. To this day, I've played Warframe either solo or with people I know from outside the game, and the only time I've played with pubbies has been whenever someone accidentally forgot to switch their matchmaking stats.

No harm done.

[SarusMindfury]

hace 21 horas, Deadoon dijo:

7k from dailies, 21k from standards, 15k from elites. Total 43k per week. 28k without elites. 300k to get the standard set of rewards.

They said (more than once) you will need around the 61% of the points so:
a) they are planning on adding more ways to get points
b) giving more than 10 weeks to do it
c) redoing their math

Also i will say that, in 10 weeks, you should be capable of doing some elite quest. Every week you have one who needs to spend more time, might be two, but the past week you have one of killing eximus wich could be done in less than 5 minutes (doing the first or adding the second wave of ESO with a DPS frame).

Anyways, maybe they should add at least one standard quest per week so you can reach 300k in 10 weeks without doing ANY elite. Also you are assuming that "they are not elite anymore" cause you need them to reach the full states of this wave and MAYBE reach the 100% of the wave SHOULD need some effort. Having only quest who are done by mistake transforms the Nightwave from an event-like thing to a box of gifts for loging in and play 10min a day. 

[(PSN)Spider_Enigma]

19 hours ago, Deadoon said:

Then why is it that games have entire special modes for players like that? Runescape has ironman, Poe has literally solo self found, and it has been a classic playstyle for alt accounts in many games. There are even people in warframe which make "solo clans" and such, they interact with the rest of the community but they play by themselves and progress through their effort alone. People solo eidolons, orbs and more.

They are as much a part of the community as you or I, but they are specifically targeted as undesirable by some of the mechanisms in place in nightwave right now. 

if your not interacting with the community, other then the forums to complain about how u cant do part of the game without interacting with the community, then your not part of the community 

single player game communities ext, where they share mods, tactics, help other players with guides, this is not one of those times or places 

people just want to play a free game by them self because they hate interacting with people in an online multiplayer game, we shouldn't be forced to dumb down content for them 

[(XBOX)Erudite Prime]

They're supposed to be challenges. Elite Weeklies are the only ones that actually take a bit of effort, and most of that comes from the difficulty of finding a clanmate or a friend. If you're struggling with them, that needs that you need better guns, better builds, and better mods. Not everything is meant to be done at MR4.

Edited March 8, 2019 by (XB1)Erudite God

[Kontrollo]

16 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

If we're talking about 60-65% of standing, then Steve is flatout wrong. A week offers 43K standing, with 30K standing per week required to hit level 30. You need just shy of 70% of all standing, in other words, not 60-65%. This is significant, because Elite Weeklies constitute just a bit over 35% of all standing, meaning missing just them already deprives you of a shot at level 30. My suspicion is what Steve was actually talking about was the 65% of all standing left after missing all the Elite Weeklies, but I can't be sure because that post is ambiguous. 

You know who Steve is right? It's always funny to see people accusing or at least implying that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. (You're not the first I've seen doing that.)

Also, this sounds kind of confused. You should really read the other posts in this thread, too. I outlined it above, and @Tsukinoki elaborated even further. If you're dead set against doing even a single elite challenge, you can still reach level 30 with the other challenges and through capturing fugitives -- and it's not even that hard.

Also:

• We're 9 days into it and don't know what else they have in store for us which might award more standing. But even if there isn't anything else, occurrences have already been confirmed to increase over time.
• According to Steve it's "ten-ish" weeks. Why is that ~70% you get when you do the calculation with exactly 10 weeks somehow a better number than what one of the lead devs wrote himself?
• And besides: 15k / 43k = 0.349 = 34.9% and not "just a bit over 35%" -- not just to be pedantic, but because it looks like it's necessary around here. 🙄

[tvih]

13 hours ago, (PS4)Spider_Enigma said:

people just want to play a free game by them self because they hate interacting with people in an online multiplayer game, we shouldn't be forced to dumb down content for them 

You honestly think requiring playing with someone on your friend list is "smart" content? It has nothing to do with gameplay, which is what in-game tasks should be about. Adding someone  to your friend list isn't a challenge. But it's entirely pointless when you have to do it just for the sake of completing a task, and will likely never "meet" that player again. Just about everything in this game already favors co-op instead of soloing by a factor of about 4. Which I can deal with even if it is annoying, it is a multiplayer game after all. But there's really no reason to require a "friend" status from participants when actually doing something like this with a group. It only adds tediousness, not challenge. I could have a dozen in-game friends (which I don't) and I'd still find it a silly requirement.

[Steel_Rook]

13 hours ago, (PS4)Spider_Enigma said:

people just want to play a free game by them self because they hate interacting with people in an online multiplayer game, we shouldn't be forced to dumb down content for them 

"We" shouldn't dumb down the game for "them" is some of the most nakedly sectarian language I've seen on these forums yet, even if my time here has been brief. This sort of "us vs. them" mentality always gets under my skin just for the sheer arrogance of it. "This is our game, you don't belong, you're ruining it for us, go away."

 

12 hours ago, (XB1)Erudite God said:

They're supposed to be challenges. Not everything is meant to be done at MR4.

They're supposed to be a replacement for the Alerts system, which was famously devoid of any form of challenges. Liking the new system is fine, as is liking it better than the old system. Pretending like nothing was lost in translation and the new system is not significantly less approachable for some people, on the other hand, is not. You could replace any game system with challenges and make the same argument. "Well, changing the colour of your weapon is supposed to be a challenge, now all of a sudden." Don't mistake personal affinity for a system with objective merits of it.

 

6 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

You know who Steve is right? It's always funny to see people accusing or at least implying that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. (You're not the first I've seen doing that.)

I don't know who Steve is, actually, but I'm assuming he's a developer. And I wasn't saying he's wrong, but rather that his statement is so ambiguous as to be difficult to use. You'll note the predicate of "if" in what you quoted. I don't know what he's referring to exactly and I can't find an interpretation that's close to the fairly broad number range he quoted. What does "65% of challenges" mean?

 

6 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

According to Steve it's "ten-ish" weeks. Why is that ~70% you get when you do the calculation with exactly 10 weeks somehow a better number than what one of the lead devs wrote himself?

While you have a point, you're also going out of your way to interpret vague information in the most favourable way possible. Yeah, let's assume he meant 11 or 12 weeks and not... Like 8 or 9 weeks, even though both are equally "ten-ish." Even ignoring the fact that that sort of vagueness speaks to a system not actually fully developed at the time of introduction, what we've seen so far makes me rather leery of just assuming they have it all figured out and that everything will be fine.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

On 2019-03-06 at 6:54 PM, Deadoon said:

7k from dailies, 21k from standards, 15k from elites. Total 43k per week. 28k without elites. 300k to get the standard set of rewards.

🤔

 

So, what you're saying is that I only need to do 2 elite missions every 5 weeks (less than 1/7 of the total) to maximise my standing if I complete all of the other challenges? 

Or do all of the dailies, and all of elites, and I would still need to do half of the standards? 

Or all of the elites, and not even all of the standard weekly challenge... Less than 3/4 of them, and I can skip the dailies? 

And there's absolutely no possibility of gaining maximum standing without doing the standard weeklies, even if you do all elites and all dailies? 

Yeah the problem clearly isn't the elites. It's that the standard weekly challenges are disproportionately weighted. 

On 2019-03-06 at 6:54 PM, Deadoon said:

In the current system elite rewards are a requirement to for successfully finishing the nightwave reward table, if one considers the 10 week cycle claimed.

A trivial number of them. 4 over the 10 week cycle. Factoring in the possibility of standing from hunting escapees, players may even be able to maximise their standing, claim all rewards without doing those. 

On the other hand the weekly challenges are impossible to escape if you want everything. If you are unable or unwilling to do 2 of them in a given week you will have to complete at least 2 elite missions to pass the 30k standing for that week. 

 

The elites aren't the problem here. The standard weekly challenges are weighted disproportionately. Instead of giving us some of those, I propose we should get a "press 4 for standing" button. That way we can cut right to the chase, and everyone currently complaining will finally be happy. 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 hour ago, Steel_Rook said:

I don't know who Steve is, actually, but I'm assuming he's a developer. 

Hi there. Welcome to Warframe! You must be pretty new around here. Glad to have you with us. 

Has anyone introduced you to the Forum bingo game? It's fun.

[Kontrollo]

2 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

I don't know who Steve is, actually, but I'm assuming he's a developer. And I wasn't saying he's wrong, but rather that his statement is so ambiguous as to be difficult to use. You'll note the predicate of "if" in what you quoted. I don't know what he's referring to exactly and I can't find an interpretation that's close to the fairly broad number range he quoted. What does "65% of challenges" mean?

While you have a point, you're also going out of your way to interpret vague information in the most favourable way possible. Yeah, let's assume he meant 11 or 12 weeks and not... Like 8 or 9 weeks, even though both are equally "ten-ish." Even ignoring the fact that that sort of vagueness speaks to a system not actually fully developed at the time of introduction, what we've seen so far makes me rather leery of just assuming they have it all figured out and that everything will be fine. 

Steve is the creative director of the game. Now let's be honest, how am I supposed to interpret this sentence? "If we're talking about 60-65% of standing, then Steve is flatout wrong." Then you go on to do your own thing, reaching a conclusion of ~70%.

 

Look, the premise of the thread is: "In the current system elite rewards are a requirement to for successfully finishing the nightwave reward table".

By now it should be clear to anyone that it cannot be seriously implied that they are, and even if you ignore that 60-65% statement. Even with exactly 10 weeks, the missing 20k are still achievable with a bit of dedication. Arguing otherwise just makes you look insincere in my view.

 

So the real question here is: Are we trying to have a discussion on the basis of what has officially been written, or are we just inventing/manipulating numbers to fit our narrative?

That is what I wanted to point out here.

 

You can now go on and write:

"I think elite challenges have too much weight."

And that's great! Your opinion, concise in one line, proper feedback. I don't even disagree, because I don't have a strong opinion on what the exact numbers should be here. But let's drop those silly math games, and especially implying one of the lead devs is wrong about he tells us, alright? Take that "60-65% without fugitives" and go from there or don't bring it up.

[Steel_Rook]

22 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Steve is the creative director of the game. Now let's be honest, how am I supposed to interpret this sentence? "If we're talking about 60-65% of standing, then Steve is flatout wrong." Then you go on to do your own thing, reaching a conclusion of ~70%.

The reason I take issue with the "60-65% of challenges" statement is it's a Rorchach test. People keep citing it to mean whatever they want it to mean, and you just misquoted it as saying "standing" instead of "challenges." I don't like arguing over ambiguous data and I try to caution people to read into what they're citing, rather than just assuming it means whatever they want it to mean. I'm still not sure we even agree on what it means right now, to be honest. Have we agreed that he was referring to 60-65% of all STANDING across probably MORE THAN 10 weeks? Are you counting Fugitives and Wolf in there? I mean, text-yell at me all you wan, I still don't have a solid grounding on which we're arguing.

[Kontrollo]

38 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

and you just misquoted it as saying "standing" instead of "challenges."

In fact I didn't, I was quoting the other guy. But if I'm being honest, it is the interpretation that makes most sense to me. Not that it really matters when you look at the numbers, anyway.

 

39 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

I don't like arguing over ambiguous data ...

Which didn't stop you from writing "... Steve is flatout wrong ..."  then presenting your ~70% in the next sentence? 🤔

 

You're only digging yourself in deeper at this point. 😄

[Steel_Rook]

17 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Which didn't stop you from writing "... Steve is flatout wrong ..."  then presenting your ~70% in the next sentence? 🤔

Ignoring my actual arguments in order to nit-pick individual wording that you additionally seem to have failed to understand makes it pretty clear you're picking fights at this point. Guess I misjudged you initially.

[Kontrollo]

1 minute ago, Steel_Rook said:

Ignoring my actual arguments in order to nit-pick individual wording that you additionally seem to have failed to understand makes it pretty clear you're picking fights at this point. Guess I misjudged you initially.

It's pretty clear at this point that you're doing what you're accusing me of doing, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to twist what I've written (and I wouldn't have had to correct you on that -- I was quoting the other guy) or ignored the alternative way to reach the conclusion that elite weeklies are in fact, no necessary, even without basing the argument on that percentage.

But yes of course, now I'm "picking fights" and am "text-yelling" at you. Go on. 🙄

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

3 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

The reason I take issue with the "60-65% of challenges" statement is it's a Rorchach test. People keep citing it to mean whatever they want it to mean, and you just misquoted it as saying "standing" instead of "challenges." I don't like arguing over ambiguous data and I try to caution people to read into what they're citing, rather than just assuming it means whatever they want it to mean.

Then you should stop listening to the people who cry that the sky is falling every chance they get. Use your eyes, ears, and common sense instead of rushing to get to answers based on really weak assumptions and gossip. 

You know that we have 30 ranks, of what appears to be a standard 10k standing per rank. The max standings from challenges exceeded 30k per week in the first week. That suggests that in 10 weeks you can expect to have had enough opportunity to max out your standing and have all of the rewards you need the ranks. 

You will be able to do this in 10 weeks with a minimum of 4 elite challenges. Failing to complete other challenges means that you may need to do more. 

This is all very unambiguous, so you will have absolutely nothing to argue about. 

 

You can also get standing from turning in the convicts. Looking at how things are going at current, I suspect that I may be able to get more than 20k standing from the convicts in 10 weeks, if I make a decision to try for it. Your mileage may vary.

Again this is not ambiguous. It's also exactly in line with what any reasonable human can expect, "if I put in more effort, I will do better". People who have problems because they feel that they are entitled to rewards with no effort on their part, can be disregarded. (Preferably in a way that makes it blatantly clear that they are NOT entitled to anything.) 

 

Failing to complete the minimum of 4 elite missions 30 ranks in 10 weeks, would exclude you from only the top 2 tiers of the standings, if you complete all other challenges, and are unable to earn enough standing from the convicts/Wolf. 

For newer players who can be expected to find Elite challenges difficult, this should not have an impact on their game, as one is cosmetic only, and the other is an item that is useless until they near the end of the main story. 

Again, unambiguous and irrefutable. 

For casual players like myself, I expect that I will not be able to complete all of the challenges. But I will give them a shot if I think that they're worth the effort. I am not currently worried about not completing enough to make the 30 ranks. I am unlikely to ever worry about it. 

 

[(PSN)Spider_Enigma]

17 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Then you should stop listening to the people who cry that the sky is falling every chance they get. Use your eyes, ears, and common sense instead of rushing to get to answers based on really weak assumptions and gossip. 

You know that we have 30 ranks, of what appears to be a standard 10k standing per rank. The max standings from challenges exceeded 30k per week in the first week. That suggests that in 10 weeks you can expect to have had enough opportunity to max out your standing and have all of the rewards you need the ranks. 

You will be able to do this in 10 weeks with a minimum of 4 elite challenges. Failing to complete other challenges means that you may need to do more. 

This is all very unambiguous, so you will have absolutely nothing to argue about. 

 

You can also get standing from turning in the convicts. Looking at how things are going at current, I suspect that I may be able to get more than 20k standing from the convicts in 10 weeks, if I make a decision to try for it. Your mileage may vary.

Again this is not ambiguous. It's also exactly in line with what any reasonable human can expect, "if I put in more effort, I will do better". People who have problems because they feel that they are entitled to rewards with no effort on their part, can be disregarded. (Preferably in a way that makes it blatantly clear that they are NOT entitled to anything.) 

 

Failing to complete the minimum of 4 elite missions 30 ranks in 10 weeks, would exclude you from only the top 2 tiers of the standings, if you complete all other challenges, and are unable to earn enough standing from the convicts/Wolf. 

For newer players who can be expected to find Elite challenges difficult, this should not have an impact on their game, as one is cosmetic only, and the other is an item that is useless until they near the end of the main story. 

Again, unambiguous and irrefutable. 

For casual players like myself, I expect that I will not be able to complete all of the challenges. But I will give them a shot if I think that they're worth the effort. I am not currently worried about not completing enough to make the 30 ranks. I am unlikely to ever worry about it. 

 

and the other thing is, u get 150 standing every time the fugitives show up , having them show up so times 3 times in a single survival will also help cut dont the losses of the elites 

and all of ur points are the same thing i been tyring to say to my clan mates, u can miss 2 full weeks and still get to 30 if u wanted 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

42 minutes ago, (PS4)Spider_Enigma said:

and the other thing is, u get 150 standing every time the fugitives show up , having them show up so times 3 times in a single survival will also help cut dont the losses of the elites 

and all of ur points are the same thing i been tyring to say to my clan mates, u can miss 2 full weeks and still get to 30 if u wanted 

 

18 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

You can also get standing from turning in the convicts. Looking at how things are going at current, I suspect that I may be able to get more than 20k standing from the convicts in 10 weeks, if I make a decision to try for it. Your mileage may vary.

 

 

Yeah, I did mention it. Problem is that some people are pretending that everything is so very difficult, I'm sure that they're going to claim that they can barely make the 10k to complete the second to last rank. It seems that the actual issue is that they either don't want to put any effort into it, or are afraid to do so and then fail. 

So, better to claim that the grapes are sour before tasting them. 

[(PSN)Spider_Enigma]

52 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Yeah, I did mention it. Problem is that some people are pretending that everything is so very difficult, I'm sure that they're going to claim that they can barely make the 10k to complete the second to last rank. It seems that the actual issue is that they either don't want to put any effort into it, or are afraid to do so and then fail. 

So, better to claim that the grapes are sour before tasting them. 

exactly this