I'm bothered by the grammar choice of anybody saying the game is too easy/hard

[sir_deadlock]

The terms "easy" and "hard" are non-descript.

That is to say, they aren't helpful in telling what a player actually wants.

Let's do a quick run-down of trouble shooting:

Player: "This boss mission is too easy."

Devs: Okay, let's solve this. It's too easy, so let's balance the player survival to enemy survival and make it harder.

Player: "This boss takes too long. Not worth the effort."

Devs: Okay, let's solve this. They need more incentive. Let's make some new fashions and stronger attack choices. 

Player: "This boss mission is too easy. Stop wasting time and fix the game."

Devs: MOTHER-...!

What did this player actually mean when they said the boss was too easy? Who knows.

Maybe they wanted more team dynamics.

Maybe they wanted more level immersion and interaction.

Maybe they've been using an exploit that needs to be fixed.

Maybe they want the boss to have a wider range of attack stages.

Maybe they want more puzzles to solve.

Maybe they want more quest stages.

Maybe they... maybe they want the level to be darker so the boss is harder to see.

I don't know, and neither does anybody else.

Please, be conscious about using non-descript terms like "easy" and "hard". They're only helpful in expressing your personal ease of progression.

[Aldain]

4 minutes ago, sir_deadlock said:

Please, be conscious about using non-descript terms like "easy" and "hard". They're only helpful in expressing your personal ease of progression.

Sadly this is like asking the Sun to turn off around these parts.

My personal stance on the Wolf for example though has always been crystal clear, He is a nonthreatening damage sponge who is less threatening than the mobs he spawns with and often takes too much time for the absolute nonsense he tends to drop and a tanky sponge is bad design for anything that invades missions at all levels.

But of course it often just attracts people saying "Use X build he's easy" or "Git gud noob" or whatnot.

While I agree with your statement completely, I also am sad to say that most people won't better articulate their feedback, or feedback about feedback really.

[(XBOX)Tucker D Dawg]

The game is too easy. It is also too hard.

Its not hard to understand that - throw people who have played 5000+ hours, have every mod, arcane, frame, riven what have you into the same missions with people that have played 10 hours, have 1 frame, no mods, and no weapons and this is what you get.

 

[Lost_Cartographer]

The way this community operates is that anything that hinders their cheese and actually offers a challenge is cheap difficulty. 

Anything they can beat where others struggle is fine at best and "too easy" at worst, and those "others" need to "git gud."  $#!%, it's so bad, you can't even talk about the purpose of the lock-down mechanic without someone telling you to, "Git gud, I have no problem with it."  It's legitimately hard to hold a conversation on this forum without someone asserting their superiority in one way or another.

Makes sense to me that what people want when they ask for "challenge" is as nebulous as the concept of endgame, which they don't understand is all around them, it's just finite and they've cheesed the hell out of it already.

[Arcira]

It´s too easy because there are so many abusive options. It´s too hard because most mechanics arn´t avoidable or even fair to play against unless you use those options. Warframe is a balancing disaster to put it mildly.

However it´s already very complex so much so that it becomes difficult to make changes on the run especially if you have people constantly asking for content. But on the other hand far too important to ignore those problems. Difficult situation.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Arcira

[Talonflight]

It boils down to this.

If you play the game as a shooter, it gets hard quickly around the Mars level, that's where you begin to actually require Reactors. Around Jupiter is where you start really requiring Catalysts as well, and most of those were rare pre-Nightwave. 

Problem is, if your playstyle is ability-focused rather than gun-focused, once you get your first reactor the game becomes much, much easier. The next difficulty spike after obtaining Catalysts and Reactors comes around Uranus/Neptune, and it is here that you'll start to search out primed gear/mods with improved stats. Unfortunately, if you've been stacking abilities, once you get a decent build on your Warframe there are too many options that can be abused to either

1. Instantly Delete Enemies.
2. Make yourself immortal.
 

1 hour ago, Arcira said:

It´s too easy because there are so many abusive options. It´s too hard because most mechanics arn´t avoidable or even fair to play against unless you use those options. Warframe is a balancing disaster to put it mildly.

However it´s already very complex so much so that it becomes difficult to make changes on the run especially if you have people constantly asking for content. But on the other hand far too important to ignore those problems. Difficult situation.

Its also of note that by the time you hit Uranus, you've seen every enemy the game as to throw at you (except ONE type of very specific plot-enemy). Nothing new is after that, despite the fact that the story itself doesn't even truly pick up until after Uranus.

This is exacerbated by the players ability to go back to easier levels at will and curbstomp anything with their new, powerful gear. The gap between a newbie and a geared up player is VAST. A newbie might struggle to make it through mars, while a Veteren is cruising easy in six hour Mot survival. 

Enemies start off hard, but utterly fail to keep up with the options presented to players once the player hits Jupiter/Uranus (depending on playstyle), due to scaling and the lack of actual gameplay improvements that the enemy gets. Enemies function EXACTLY the same way at level 100 that they do at level 1: Grineer stand there and shoot, infested run at you, and corpus throw robot minions at you. The gameplay loop of warframe is fun, however, it fails to keep one entertained for extended periods of time once you become used to it; this is why people come up with runs of "six hour survival" etc because by that point the enemies can 1-shot you, and you actually HAVE to engage yourself in the game-play and challenge to avoid death.

Simply put, there is no enemy that can keep up with a highly geared player. Whatsoever. The only reason that the Grineer are even in the running is because of their broken scaling, and even that can be bypassed with specific builds. Multi-Hour survival enemies can 1-shot the player, but their gameplay functions are still far too familiar and far too exploitable.

Also of note is that the community itself seems to push back HARD against any mention of enemy difficulty. There is an EXTREMELY vocal minority with a prevailing attitude of "Warframe is a power fantasy, so I should be able to do whatever I want without trying." Just look at the amount of negative replies to anyone suggesting Arbitration become a truly endgame mode with enemies that start at 100. In my opinion, this community attitude if anything is possibly the most unhealthy thing for Warframe.

DE itself seems to exacerbate that issue with their trend of releasing more and more powerful gear for players, without releasing more and more powerful enemies to use that gear on. They make it even worse by placing large time-sinks on gathering some resources for things, which (obviously) gives people the inclination to search for the "FASTEST WAY POSSIBLE" to farm something. When something comes along that might make that farm require more time or investment, the farmers become angry, because its increasing the amount of work they'll have to do now. Its increasing the amount of time they'll have to spend in possibly boring gameplay loops, because they already have fought the same enemy 100 times before.

[0_The_F00l]

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder,

Difficulty lies in the skill of the experienced. 

A new player just starting may find a certain obstacle difficult to overcome, and due to lacking experience does not know the reason for so and uses the term "hard" and rightly so it is hard at his skill and experience level he know no better,

may not be the case with a bit more  experienced players that says the obstacle is not hard, but takes some tanking skills. 

While a person that has reached a level of skill where he can eliminate lvl 150 heavies with the flick of a wrist or press of a button may just say "easy" as he does not comprehend it requiring any special skills set from his standpoint. 

 

So while I do understand the OP, I am not sure there can be a very definitive way to describe things. Unless he can come up with a gradient to map the experience against skill level and gear used. 

[sir_deadlock]

On 2019-04-26 at 1:07 AM, 0_The_F00l said:

So while I do understand the OP, I am not sure there can be a very definitive way to describe things. Unless he can come up with a gradient to map the experience against skill level and gear used. 

I'm not sure how to translate this, but...

If a person specializes in doing multiplication, if they're faced with a series of division problems, their math skills may find it to be a difficult, but a familiar challenge.

If a person specializes in quadratic equations and is faced with plotting a root mean square, they may find the challenges very familiar and easy to solve.

If a person specializes in addition and subtraction, they may be faced with exponents and parenthesis and find the challenge overwhelming and confusing.

 To a person broadly adept in all of these subjects, it may appear perplexing that anybody could struggle with or find entertaining something as straightforward to understand, such as the words I'm typing right here. r t ndrstnd whts bng sd wtht vwls. In fact, their best chance of finding a suitable challenge may be facing off against another human of similar or higher prowess.

 In that sense, there's nothing inherently wrong or inaccurate with the math problems being presented. They may be somewhat open ended or vague, allowing for multiple combinations of integers and fractions to produce a suitable outcome, but they're functional as formulae.

 If a person wanted a different or more enjoyably lengthy test, it would be helpful for the test giver to hear something like "I specialize in X and would like to see more of that on the next test" or "I found that this section of the word problem could be misunderstood to produce an erroneous result" or even "I thoroughly enjoyed that the practical uses of pi included historic applications in architecture."

 If the objective in giving feedback is to help the test giver design a more enjoyable test (which it always should be, when not adoration or scorn) then a direction of focus should be suggested.

 So instead of saying "this boss was easy" maybe try "this boss was easy because I was hoping the attack designs I saw offered more opportunities for dodging." or "This boss was too hard because I kept running out of time while trying to complete the puzzles." Even if one player's skill gradient doesn't match up to another, at least it opens to a practical area of discussion.

 But an example of the because method going wrong would be "this boss is easy because it sucks." That's kind of a subjective assertion backed up by an ad hominem. Nothing helpful to work with there.

[Chaemyerelis]

This game is more like a giant gear check.

[(PSN)BenHeisennberg]

Enemies are either:

Paper

Bullet sponges

Weak / not a threat

Frustrating instakills

Too short

Too long

Not worth it to farm

"Gating" good drops

Too spammy

Boring

DE can't win really.

 

[(PSN)BenHeisennberg]

1 hour ago, Chaemyerelis said:

This game is more like a giant gear check.

You can beat the Profit Taker without top gear, top gear just trivializes her.

Make her the way she is, she's declared too easy by those of us with good gear.

Match her to our gear, DE is reinforcing the "Chroma meta" and "gating" success in the fight behind a huge grind.

[0_The_F00l]

2 hours ago, sir_deadlock said:

 If the objective in giving feedback is to help the test giver design a more enjoyable test (which it always should be, when not adoration or scorn) then a direction of focus should be suggested.

 So instead of saying "this boss was easy" maybe try "this boss was easy because I was hoping the attack designs I saw offered more opportunities for dodging." or "This boss was too hard because I kept running out of time while trying to complete the puzzles." Even if one player's skill gradient doesn't match up to another, at least it opens to a practical area of discussion.

 But an example of the because method going wrong would be "this boss is easy because it sucks." That's kind of a subjective assertion backed up by an ad hominem. Nothing helpful to work with there.

The first part of your statement is pretty much what I was describing, though you have used relatable arithmetic examples. 

But only those who can articulate it properly will be acknowledged. That is the problem I highlighted,

not everyone can articulate their problems. 

A person can say " I cannot do this because I keep dying," 

He is right according to him but not very descriptive. We can then initiate a logical Q&A to arrive at the root problem. 

He may not even know about the concept of mod leveling, 

So his actual statement was "I keep dying because I was not aware of the modding setup needed" both his statements are right, he simply lacked the knowledge to articulate it.