A review of Warframe after 5000 hours.

[Sloan441]

14 hours ago, Aether.Shift said:

Just to clarify, are you saying the OP is boring, exaggerated, focused on the negative, should quit playing the game, is not worthy of debate, you don't care, and it doesn't affect you in any way?

I don't see you addressing the content of the post here.. just a bunch of generalities. It's a common theme and it's unfortunate.

What I'm saying is he obviously is no longer invested in the game. The reasons aren't really that important. If he no longer enjoys it, it's time to move on. We all hit that point with all games, sooner or later. 

And, no, it doesn't affect me. What I get out of the game is different. I've got more hours in it than he does, but I don't expect it to be my sole source of entertainment. I still enjoy the game for what it is. I don't expect it to totally monopolize my time. There was a time it largely did, but I've "won the game." The key is I still have fun, despite some issues the game has. The OP doesn't sound like he's having fun anymore. 

Generalities are what we're dealing with. Are you having fun? Yes or no. That's what will eventually determine your tenure in the game. There are specific things that do get on my nerves, but I find it relatively easy to look past them to what I do like. The OP seems to be unable to do that. 

[Sa516]

I have 1200hrs, just a nobody gamer. However I found warframe to be one of most amazing game in the development perspective. It's as if DE have no plan at all for any content that already exist before current date. Content Drought can be easily dealt with by reuse/merge the old content, with little lore aspect in it. Such suggestion were all over the place in feedback forum.

But no~~~, instead of look into it, they are too busy doing god knows what in their studio, like create side project of Shawzin, frame fighter, happy zephry...etc. The Dev officially announce CONTENT DROUGHT in Dev Stream, and it's the most pathetic thing ever.

Warfame is amazing regarding how development without any plan manage to get this far, and no I'm not talking about generalize direction, I'm talking about the detail and reuse of those details instead of throwing them out and shout to player: "YOU'LL FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF!", and one wonder why their new player experience is in such bad place.

[Aether.Shift]

1 hour ago, Sloan441 said:

What I'm saying is he obviously is no longer invested in the game. The reasons aren't really that important.

I think making the post in the first place shows his level of investment (and disappointment). The reasons, once identified, can lead to solutions, and solutions are important. DE has been criticized for catering to its new players and if they are looking for solutions, they may be paying attention. Who knows, worth a shot.

 

 

 

[Midas]

6 minutes ago, Aether.Shift said:

I think making the post in the first place shows his level of investment (and disappointment). The reasons, once identified, can lead to solutions, and solutions are important. DE has been criticized for catering to its new players and if they are looking for solutions, they may be paying attention. Who knows, worth a shot.

 

 

 

Check my Kuva Disruption post, it reflects Aether's statement (Directly under Disruption feedback, first post).

[ReaverKane]

3 hours ago, eXotic said:

Thanks 🙂

It's well worth seeing 6 roast posts then finding one good comment that is either constructively critical to my commentary and gives off its own views/experiences or just someone that sees the OP for what it is and gives encouragement, i appreciate it!

This is entirely true, and i will do my best to add a more transparent point of view for newcomers! thank you 🙂

Thanks for the different perspective, if you don't mind, could you tell me which parts you feel are inaccurate so i can have another view on it and possibly correct it? 😄

The beta excuse afaik is only so they can keep changing the game as they see fit,

Hopefully the 'feedback scam' is not an actual thing, it would be worrysome if this were true but i'd like to believe it isn't 🙂

I as well am quite excited to see what the two big uppdates will be due this year (hopefully ;))

https://www.warframe.com/news/atlas-prime-access-coming-soon

- BONUS: 7-Day Mod Drop Chance Booster

First, if you're buying the prime access for that... Well you need therapy, it's not on DE if you can't make choices.
Secondly, the nerf to loot mechanics was months ago, not weeks. And finally how is that boost more egregious than any other?
Will it turn the problematic 1% drop chance mods into 50%? I doubt it.
Basically, the issue is the same as what DE has always had, they have a S#&$ty reward structure, they always had it, and it's actually improved somewhat in some instances. If you just now realized it, well, man, it took you 5000h to realize what most of us learned in 10.

[Steel_Rook]

On 2019-09-28 at 7:23 PM, eXotic said:

The game in it's current state is extremely bad, with a shallow surface level amazing community plagued with a toxic white knighting extremely vocal minority.

Honestly, when post stuff like that then it brings everything else you've said into question. Within the first real point, you've already reached for a broad generalisation in an attempt to dismiss dissenting opinion, used the stupid term "white knight" AND attempted to undermine the opposition. Regardless of what else you have to say - and I disagree with the vast majority of it - that opening statement is intellectually dishonest and you should frankly be ashamed of saying crap like this.

 

Call me a "white knight" if you want, but I'm going to make the loot buff stacking argument AGAIN, because it seems like everyone wants to post their own thread on the subject rather than post in one of the existing ones:

7 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

While the Synergy between Hydroid and Nekros may be old, DE did introduce a number of other loot boosters in the months before the change. It quickly became evident that not only would it be impossible to add new loot boost abilities into the game without completely breaking drop rates and forcing players to play only a single team comp, but that the loot boost abilities already in the game were already doing this. There's a reason I often joke about "Just bring Nekros, Hydroid, Khora and Nidus!" being used as a catch-all solution to poor drop rates on these forums. Completely aside from the new booster, loot boosting abilities stacking together create a status quo which makes reward drop pools impossible to balance. Either you balance around stacked loot abilities and ensure no regular player ever gets ANY rewards, or you balance for regular players and let min/maxers blow through reward activities in a day.

One of the the most fundamental issues with Warframe's balance is a lack of any sort of normalisation. Most weapon builds are garbage, but SOME weapons with SOME builds can deal 200 times their normal damage and trivialise the game entirely. Most Warframes get one-shot at high levels, but SOME Warframes can go AFK and not die into the 100s of enemy levels. The list goes on. Normalising aspects of the game such that the difference between worst and best performance doesn't constitute two entirely unrelated games is a good thing, even if it has to come at the expense of massive nerfs.

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Steel_Rook

[Morthal]

23 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

A wild Toxic Ancient appears!

On a more serious note, all of that criticism is entirely warranted and 100% valid. But! It's all criticism from the point of view of a veteran of six years. A new player won't encounter/notice/care about almost any of that stuff, to them the game will be amazing and beautiful and rich in content. Over time I realized these things aren't really flaws or deficiencies, they're simply a result of the game overstaying its welcome. Every entertainment product under the sun has only so much entertainment value to offer, and it's usually very clear when that is exhausted; a book is only so many pages long, a movie lasts only so many minutes, etc. But with open-ended games like Warframe that can be played indefinitely, no such end point exists. If you don't realize that you've had all the fun the game has to offer, you're going to end up playing it until you're sick to your stomach of it.

That's not how "Games as a Service" work, my friend. 
Investors keep the ship afloat, where they port and for how long is up to the Developer. Either way, looks like DE has no shortage of slaves to row their ship right into the rocks.
 

[Xzorn]

Been playing since March 2013. Also about 5k in-mission hours.

If I had to pick one fundamental flaw at the core of Warframe's design and it's rat's nest development direction it would be that DE has never really known their audience, what they want or how to keep them playing. They admitted part of this themselves by stating "We've tried lots of things but it doesn't improve player retention".

Warframe has a lot of player types and play styles but I feel there's been one resounding thing majority have agreed on and that's we want more challenging content and easier access to that content. The trick to this is not everyone is on the same playing field so the easy solution is to put that difficulty and challenge selection in the hands of players.

Of course everyone wants to feel rewarded and extrinsic rewards are the most responsive method but get the game play right first. Make sure the intrinsic satisfaction of doing something that's truly difficult in the game and then work on proper rewards for those actions. Right now Warframe is just one big speed run that baits players with rewards they otherwise don't really need in a trivial and chore-like approach of repetitive actions. No one likes that.

[Steel_Rook]

3 hours ago, Xzorn said:

Warframe has a lot of player types and play styles but I feel there's been one resounding thing majority have agreed on and that's we want more challenging content and easier access to that content. The trick to this is not everyone is on the same playing field so the easy solution is to put that difficulty and challenge selection in the hands of players.

I'm going to want a source for that. As I've pointed out in the past - this forum is an echo chamber of arguably aberrant players. Yes, "we" here on the forums seem to want "more challenging content" by some ambiguous definition, but I'm not convinced that holds true across the entire playerbase. As a rule of thumb, a minority of the players of any Live Service are actually at the end, waiting for more content. They're the loudest, typically, but not necessarily representative. I'd caution against making generalisations like that, because the natural end point of this practice is precisely what I criticise the OP for - an attempt to disenfranchise dissenting opinion by casting the critics as a minority and not addressing their arguments or concerns.

Considering the amount of backlash that happens every time DE attempt to implement "challenging" content by some definition (Orb Vallis, The Wolf of Wallstreet Six, Nightwave, etc.) and considering how persistently a plurality of players will seek to undermine difficulty in order to reduce the game to rote repetition, I don't think it's safe to make that assumption. Specifically, I don't think it's safe to assume that adding more challenging content will help improve perceptions. It might stem criticism from players like the OP, but as you said - Warframe has a lot of different player types. Perception of the game is a zero-sum game a lot of the time. Changes which stop complaints from one strata all too often generate complaints from another.

I'm with you in general, in that any potential challenge should be entirely optional. My general approach is to over-reward the median and under-reward the extreme low and high ends in comparison. However, a seemingly massive chunk of this game's concurrent playerbase doesn't seem to actually like playing it and stick around solely for the Skinner box of rewards. If a potential new "challenge mode" isn't massively over-rewarded, you're going to get threads like exactly what we saw around Disruption: "Why should I play this if I'm not rewarded for it?"

[Methanoid]

On 2019-09-28 at 8:29 PM, elmetnuter said:

We are in the good old days of World of Warcraft forums where the players that HAVE ENJOYED the game for thousands of hours and finished everything come out to say the game is bad.

YOUR experience DOES NOT compare to mine, nor anybody else.

"I don't recommend the game in it's current state." Do you think we are here to read a steam review?

You are not objective like many others that just don't seem to remember why they have played for so long and enjoyed the game. I am not saying your feelings are not genuine but you are part of very tiny fraction of the player base and your opinion is more biased because of this.

Why can't people move on?

I would imagine once you have as much time in the game as he does then your opinion will suddenly start to mirror his own.

[Methanoid]

On 2019-09-28 at 9:18 PM, OmegaDonut said:

Its funny that wow is brought up because, while i do not have the hours the OP does, and im not 100% burned out yet (getting there), the similarities between wow and warframe are getting eerily similar.  A beloved developer house blowing their goodwill on a lack of updates and constant timeline pushbacks.  A hands off of balancing the game that leads to soul crushing metas.  Veterans leaving the game in droves because catering to the new players and the ultracasuals is all that matters..  Youre kinda right, it is like the wow forums!  All thats missing is a sortie version of LFR and weekly loot chests.  

I myself would rather go full wow for this game and pay a sub if it meant consistent, regular content updates, not unlike wow patches. 

I see this game as being the very best, and very worst, of f2p gaming.  For a f2p game its really well done, looks pretty, and initially a ton of things for a new player to do.  But like most f2p games, it also runs out of content after a while, and the developers are more interested in pushing skins, cosmetics and new characters than actual content that advances the story or provides new challenges.  How can people be surprised the vets are getting burned out and leaving?  

Probably because they are a business, as long as new blood arrives and injects cash then all is well, the older players, who likely have already spent cash and probably wont as much today are not anywhere near as important, its not like their beginning days where they needed to attract a paying audience, they have a large enough paying customer base that they can just cater to the new paying masses and ignore the needs of the older players.

Lets be serious, if older players decide to bow out, it does not matter 1 little bit given the influx of new players, so there is no real need to sort out any long standing problems, by the time any new fans of the game get bored and bow out themselves they are replaced by more new players, nothing is lost, only gains are made.  Then ofc you have the archaic systems in place such as manual trading, specifically left like that to keep the prices of rivens and other items high and inefficient, this only results in better sales of plat, why would they add an auction house to automate things when all that would do is bring in a system that only makes people lower their prices to get quick sales, thus lowering the amounts of plat people buy.

Is any of the things we see bad?  maybe for us as older players wanting to continue playing and not be bored out of our minds, but from a business point of view, its all money in the bank and the very means needed for a F2P game to survive.

[Morthal]

2 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

If a potential new "challenge mode" isn't massively over-rewarded

By comparison alone, if an easier mission mode provides the same useless resources and pointless rewards but requires more effort and time spent...."Why should I play this if I'm not rewarded for it?"
That's how I feel about a majority of the latest "End Game" content. You can even throw in skins of all variety in there, since they add little to gameplay value. *Titania Rework* Soon™?

Edited September 30, 2019 by Morthal

[Cubewano]

13 hours ago, Sloan441 said:

What I'm saying is he obviously is no longer invested in the game. The reasons aren't really that important. If he no longer enjoys it, it's time to move on. We all hit that point with all games, sooner or later. 

And, no, it doesn't affect me. What I get out of the game is different. I've got more hours in it than he does, but I don't expect it to be my sole source of entertainment. I still enjoy the game for what it is. I don't expect it to totally monopolize my time. There was a time it largely did, but I've "won the game." The key is I still have fun, despite some issues the game has. The OP doesn't sound like he's having fun anymore. 

Generalities are what we're dealing with. Are you having fun? Yes or no. That's what will eventually determine your tenure in the game. There are specific things that do get on my nerves, but I find it relatively easy to look past them to what I do like. The OP seems to be unable to do that. 

It's important to the developers whose interest is in primarily keeping people invested in their game. If there is a reason x y or z as to why they left that can be combated it's worth being heard or brought up for the sake of long term growth/success. Just shirking responsibility and viewing all loses as inevitable isn't constructive or helpful to anything. You can disagree about if those issues are worth pursuit overall, or if they impact you personally, but writing them off wholesale for no other reason than they exist is just preaching defeatism. 

I almost have to ask why you are even on the forums, much less the feedback section, with such a stance that so defiantly stands in opposition to the entire purpose of feedback. 

[Xzorn]

4 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

I'm going to want a source for that. As I've pointed out in the past - this forum is an echo chamber of arguably aberrant players. Yes, "we" here on the forums seem to want "more challenging content" by some ambiguous definition, but I'm not convinced that holds true across the entire playerbase. As a rule of thumb, a minority of the players of any Live Service are actually at the end, waiting for more content. They're the loudest, typically, but not necessarily representative. I'd caution against making generalisations like that, because the natural end point of this practice is precisely what I criticise the OP for - an attempt to disenfranchise dissenting opinion by casting the critics as a minority and not addressing their arguments or concerns.

 

That's why I said leave it in the hands of the player.

You example of Orb of Vallis is exactly this. Some players thought it was too hard, some thought it was fine. DE did something right by allowing both options. Players can keep 5 star and let the enemies scale with Elite versions or they can destroy the beacons and keep it simple. Even then they can back out of a 5 star or simply run away. The difficulty is entirely in the hands of the player... Almost. Sadly they cap in level scaling so those of us who wanted just a bit more didn't get it.

Still. Farming Toroids was the most fun I had with Fortuna. That might not be the case for everyone but it's about having the option. At this point in the game's life span I have to wait 3 hours or more to get any resemblance of difficulty. Do you honestly think that's fair? Even the most basic games have Easy, Medium, Hard difficulties.

I'm not sure why you mentioned Wolf. He was just awful design. Not difficult. I made a Trash video about it standing still shooting him while the dumb companion AI is attacking everything but my target.... Anyways yes. Diminishing returns on rewards is how it's done. A soft cap. However it's presented; it's the same concept. When it comes to "Why should I play this?" that's what I mean about improving the game's Intrinsic appeal. I did Solo survivals for years knowing the rewards sucked because I enjoyed it.

I would still do it if it wasn't a 3 hour+ investment of my time. Making and testing builds has always been something I enjoy.

[Velothed]

I agree with many of your points, but disagree with just as many.

On 2019-09-28 at 6:23 PM, eXotic said:

The game in it's current state is extremely bad, with a shallow surface level amazing community plagued with a toxic white knighting extremely vocal minority.
The story is stretched thinly over 100's of hours of grind with gameplay on par of a AAA title plagued with bad game design, willfully ignorant devs (to the people with the most knowladge), a looming increase in Microtransactions with every new update (but the updates keep getting pushed back / delayed or even totally forgotten and unreleased) and a non existant endgame

The term white knight has at this point almost lost all of it's meaning, especially when you label anyone who disagrees with you as a white knight, which you've already done in this thread. It's basically the same now as with sjws and anti-sjws screeching at each other and seeing everyone not agreeing with them as part of the other side.

No, it's not a bad game. It could be a lot better and has some serious problems, but it's nowhere near "extremely bad".

"willfully ignorant devs (to the people with the most knowladge)" again, "I know best what this game needs, because I'm a vet" isn't that the exact elitism you critisize later on?

We vets and people wanting an endgame are sadly the minority, they are well aware what we want, but at the end of the day they are a business. The removal of raids, because of server cost already speaks for itself.

"a looming increase in Microtransactions" apart from the Mod drop booster, which I will address further down, I can't think of anything new that isn't cosmetic.

On 2019-09-28 at 6:23 PM, eXotic said:

You might hear raving reviews about this game from so many people, but they're all surface level reviews..

From players who only play a couple hundred hours max, the vast majority of any player base of any game, while this doesn't paint the whole picture of the product, it's everything that's relevant for the most people that want to try the game. Saying people shouldn't play the game, because after 200h they might reach a point where they don't want to keep playing is frankly asinine.

On 2019-09-28 at 6:23 PM, eXotic said:

- Most people you meet in your missions won't speak to you, we mostly just keep to ourselves, even when somebody does communicate it's mostly just telling you how you're doing stuff wrong and how to play the game by their opinion, you will never be good enough.
- Region chat is pure cancer, filled with elitist, tyrant mods that censor almost any negative/critical opinion about them or the game,
the players are no exception to this.
- Trade chat has been ruined by the Riven market (mods that are basically steroids for your weapons, these mods can go to upwards of 20.000 platinum - warframe's in-game currency (4.300 platinum is 45 Euros with a 75% Off)).
- The forums are a dumpster fire of censorship and hate, most valid criticism can get your post removed and get you muted for hate speech but not before DE (Digital extremes, The developer) white knight fan boys come to attack you and tell you to quit the game because you're trash just spreading hate..
- The good thing about this is that these people are in the minority, sadly this minority is the most vocal part of the community.

We clearly have had very different experiences in mission chat, although "Most people you meet in your missions won't speak to you, we mostly just keep to ourselves" is very true and something new players should know before going in. I kind of like it that way, but I know that many people would like more interaction.

"Region chat is pure cancer" I whole heartedly agree.

"elitist, tyrant mods that censor almost any negative/critical opinion about them or the game" If you attack them personally, I see why they would ban you. Mostly though I hear of people getting banned for slurs or for name-calling and personal insults to mods for banning people for slurs. I generally stay far away from region chat.

Trade chat was always horrible. Riven trading is just stupid, I actually really like Rivens, but anyone selling or buying these things for thousands of plat I don't want to have anything to do with.

"The forums are a dumpster fire of censorship and hate, most valid criticism can get your post removed and get you muted for hate speech but not before DE (Digital extremes, The developer) white knight fan boys come to attack you and tell you to quit the game because you're trash just spreading hate.."

It might help, to better formulate that criticism better, with statements like "willfully ignorant devs" or "elitist, tyrant mods" I see why many people don't want to read what you are writing.

It's also again just putting everyone in one box again.

There are people saying stuff like "quit the game because you're trash just spreading hate..".

And than there are people saying "Hey, it seems like you are seriously burned out on this game, I'd recommend taking a long break, it helped me and is way better for your mental health."

But people react to both of these statements exactly the same, even though they come from two completely different places.

From my point of view, the most vocal minority right now, is the one complaining about the lack of endgame and the idea of the mod drop chance booster.

On 2019-09-28 at 9:24 PM, (PS4)chubbslawson said:

Here's a recent example; they removed a farming tactic to gather resources and mods at an efficient rate under the impression that it was a fix after YEARS of the method being known in the game, a few weeks later, they add MICROTRANSACTIONS in to the game that are locked behind a 200$ (or 45$ if you only buy the accesories) prime access..
The developer has stated that they will add multiple ways of getting(purchasing) these boosters later down the line, but this game is getting increasingly PayToWin/Progress nevertheless

The reason they nerfed the farming, was people stacking those to ludicrous levels, getting double digit amounts of mods from a single silver grove specter, that could than be sold to over players to make huge profits.

They went tabula raza, which they often do in those cases and is a valid criticism you could add to your review. They do tend to overdo it with the nerf hammer.

I personally wasn't really affected by that nerf, as I absolutely hated the loot stacking meta with a specialised group sitting almost afk in one room to collect the most stuff possible, definitely not the way I want to spend my time playing. Doesn't mean howerver, that others should be denied that and I do hope for those players, that it will be buffed again in a limited way (maybe a stacking limit of 2? So Nekros + Hydroid/Khorra?)

The whole mod drop chance booster is really blown out of proportion imo. It's a 7 day booster, that doubles the rate of mods dropping. If they indeed lower the odds of mod drops in the future, that would be absolute bullS#&$ and I'd be right there with you joining the outcry.

It's behind a 45€ paywall, only if you honestly believe anyone would be stupid enough to get that pack because of the drop chance booster.

If they ever add it to the shop (So far, all I heard was Sorties and Nightwave), it would probably be priced the same as the other boosters, now let's see who would even get that.

Players, that need a couple of mods, they haven't gotten yet, like condition overload? Probably be way better of just buying those mods from other players than getting the booster.

Newer players who still need a lot of mods? Might be interesting for them, though they don't usually have access to all the places where it would really be helpful to have it. The might buy it once, but probably never again.

Players who farm mods to sell to other players? Hmm, as I'm not one of them, I don't know how many rare mods they get per week or how much plat they make per week through selling mods. However you'd have to take the cost of the booster into consideration. If it's still profitable then, the question is how long it will be with the rise in supply.

I really don't see that particular booster being a very hot seller.

On 2019-09-28 at 9:24 PM, (PS4)chubbslawson said:

but this game is getting increasingly PayToWin/Progress nevertheless

Pay to progress faster, which it always was. These mods you would get faster aren't even a requirement to progress in the least. If at some point they do add content, that requires things like Condition overload, growing power, etc. to beat, we could have a new discussion. I used to buy affinity boosters quite often back in the day, since then they made unranked mod pool scaling with mr, so I can actually use new equipment without having to level it first and when I want to forma something 5 times in one day, I just do Sanctuary Onslaught. With boosters from sorties/login, I generally buy less and less boosters.

If you want to talk about pay to "progress", let's talk Hema, any other way of getting those mutagen samples, but grinding with both boosters is just painful.

 

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

35 minutes ago, Vethalon said:

We vets and people wanting an endgame are sadly the minority, they are well aware what we want, but at the end of the day they are a business. The removal of raids, because of server cost already speaks for itself.

LOR was removed because it would break not because of servers??? Lor was peer to peer like everything else done in wf.

[000l000]

Le 28/09/2019 à 21:25, Aether.Shift a dit :

Digital Extremes would be wise to discourage white knighting forum hit squads and start paying attention to what they can of the less vocal majority.

This whole forum is a vocal minority.

[Velothed]

1 hour ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

LOR was removed because it would break not because of servers??? Lor was peer to peer like everything else done in wf.

Sorry, only had the phrase "To high maintenance for too few players" in my head and assumed it was server maintenance and raids being on servers, like conclave. My error. But the point still stands. (Although same applies to Conclave, a lot of maintenance but few players, I wonder why that's still around tbh)

[Steel_Rook]

7 hours ago, Xzorn said:

Still. Farming Toroids was the most fun I had with Fortuna. That might not be the case for everyone but it's about having the option. At this point in the game's life span I have to wait 3 hours or more to get any resemblance of difficulty. Do you honestly think that's fair? Even the most basic games have Easy, Medium, Hard difficulties.

The problem is that it kind of ISN'T optional, though. Toroids are required for Garuda, Operator Amp components and Vox Solaris progression (the actual level-up cost). And it's not like I can just fight the Exploiter or Profit-Taker, either - their Toroids aren't useful the existing recipes. And that's just Toroids. Orb Vallis itself WAS our only source of new content for what? A year? Baruk, Garuda, Hyldrin, Atmospheric Archguns, the Egergis, numerous Operator cosmetics and more. Even without 4-star alerts, Orb Vallis enemies are just unnecessarily more powerful than anything anywhere else in the Solar System. They scale far more aggressively, they have far higher stats and they have all of the game's systems - armour, shields, health, control, debuffs, barriers, melee, range, lots of units, tough units, etc. Even the sodding Corrupted don't come with "everything" to this extent, and they're supposed to be a mash-up of all three other factions.

I have nothing against optional difficulty settings, but those HAVE to be optional in the literal sense, not in the "optional if you want to ignore a large chunk of content" sense. I've long been a proponent for tweaking the level ranges of missions on the Star Chart, for instance. Maybe don't let players push missions BELOW their native levels, but I've no issue letting people run missions at +10, +50, +100 levels over their base stats, if not more. As long as the actual mission rewards don't change, then those who want the challenge specifically can have it without also gating rewards that people who DO NOT want a challenge will still want to have. But the problem is - how many would fight level 200 enemies for standard node rewards? Honest question here.

While we're on the subject, I personally feel we should be able to set our team size, as well. I personally prefer the game with lower level enemies but spawn rates equivalent to about 2-3 players on the map. I solo a lot, which means I spend a lot of my time fighting very light spawns. I'm not looking for a challenge myself, so higher-level enemies doesn't make the fight more exciting for me. MORE enemies on the screen does, but I can only get this if I team with other people. So I say let players increase enemy level and enemy numbers if they wish, but leave the node rewards the same.

 

10 hours ago, Morthal said:

By comparison alone, if an easier mission mode provides the same useless resources and pointless rewards but requires more effort and time spent...."Why should I play this if I'm not rewarded for it?" That's how I feel about a majority of the latest "End Game" content. You can even throw in skins of all variety in there, since they add little to gameplay value. *Titania Rework* Soon™?

This right here is the issue with difficulty. I'm not criticising what you said - it does reflect how a lot of people feel, in my experience. While there certainly is an audience for extreme difficulty, the majority of Warframe's audience doesn't seem to be here for the difficulty, but for the rewards. I don't want to speak for you personally, but from what I've seen people tend to look for efficiency - the most rewards gained per unit of time spent, ideally with as little effort spent doing it as one can get away with. And I can't entirely blame people for this. If all you want is the reward and the gameplay you can take or leave (because it's "work" and not fun), then it makes sense to try and minimise the work as far as possible. "Work smart, not hard."

I personally feel that mentality is usually associated with either burnout or bad design, though. I've felt this way before many times. It usually means that I'm burning out on a game and pinning my hopes on some reward to rekindle my interest. After 15 years playing MMOs, I've learned that this simply doesn't work. When a game starts to feel like work, I bail and come back when I just want to play it. Alternately, sometimes games just have crap progression systems. I struggled with Warframe until I got to MR 14 because I REALLY wanted a Supra Vandal. I ended up going to MR 16 "for Rivens" and sat there for months. Getting to MR 14 sucked ass because I was grinding for it, but the game really did open up for me after that point, being able to use all of the items I wanted and having a decent standing cap.

All of this is to say, however, that adding extreme difficulty without adding extreme rewards will see that new mode/mission/setting vastly underused as most people ignore it outright. Adding extreme difficulty WITH extreme rewards, on the other hand, will see a repeat of Arbitrations. While clearly aimed at thrill-seekers and min/maxers, the rewards will turn it into status quo and so push plenty of people who hate the mode into playing it anyway. Expect complaints, criticism and hurt feelings as a result. You can't do proper difficulty without making it "optional," and the only way to make it optional is to vastly under-reward it... In which case most people would opt out. Because the simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of players in any community don't want an overly-difficult game.

 

2 hours ago, Vethalon said:

The term white knight has at this point almost lost all of it's meaning, especially when you label anyone who disagrees with you as a white knight, which you've already done in this thread. It's basically the same now as with sjws and anti-sjws screeching at each other and seeing everyone not agreeing with them as part of the other side. No, it's not a bad game. It could be a lot better and has some serious problems, but it's nowhere near "extremely bad". "willfully ignorant devs (to the people with the most knowladge)" again, "I know best what this game needs, because I'm a vet" isn't that the exact elitism you critisize later on?

Yeah, that attitude is what set me off, personally. It really did read like elitism couched the shield of veteran. "I'm a veteran so I know better than the developers and you other people. And if you disagree, then you're white knights just kissing up to the development team." 15 years ago, I tended to call this a "malicious argument," kids these days seem to call it "toxic," but in either case it's just arguing in bad faith using intellectually dishonest arguments in the process. Maybe the OP meant well, maybe not, but that sort of language is only ever going to spawn a flame war in the long run and has the effect of undermining whatever overall argument there might have been.

[ES-Flinter]

I have "only" 3000 hours, but I also started in 2013.

Imo Warframe is okay (not fine/ good!!!) now. Normally I play less than 10hours per week. This give me the advantage, that I always have something to do. But my problem is the needed time to have fun. Not the rewards. I don't have the time to wait +40 min to stop one hitting every enemy. It would be for people like me much easier and especially much more funnier, if I can directly fight against lv. +150 enemies.  Lack of reward is okay for me, as long as it makes fun. But so how it's like now, it's weather rewarding or funny.

About the so called "white knights". For me they aren't a real problem. I have more a problem with the players who think, that they know the problems of every warframe. Five or even 10 are understandable. But nobody is able to main over 40 different characters and know perfect, what is right or wrong with it.

 

Am 28.9.2019 um 18:23 schrieb eXotic:

willfully ignorant devs (to the people with the most knowladge),

Just to know, how do you want to prove your knowledge? Not even a high Mr. can show, how much ingame knowledge someone has. ^^

[Sloan441]

10 hours ago, Cubewano said:

It's important to the developers whose interest is in primarily keeping people invested in their game. 

That's fine. And that's them. It's not me. They make the game. I play the game, so I have to look at it from my standpoint. The litmus test is "Am I having fun?". If so, then a lot of stuff is excusable. If not, then it's not--and you quit at some point. People seem to lose sight of this. 

10 hours ago, Cubewano said:

I almost have to ask why you are even on the forums, much less the feedback section, with such a stance that so defiantly stands in opposition to the entire purpose of feedback. 

I'm not in opposition to it. I am in opposition to the wild hyperbole and outright BS that gets tossed around on a regular basis. That warframe bingo card was created for a reason and pretty much covers about 75% of what you read that is ostensibly 'feedback'. 

 

[(PSN)thegarada]

I have played the game for a few month. I agree to some points and not to others.

I do agree that end game is.. not so much there. Once you have a weapon with fully decked mods, with at least one frame with fully decked mods, sorties are piece of cake.

Arbitrations can be viewed as another end game, but for the first 20-30 mins (your mileage may vary depending on frame and weapons), are too easy. 

Basically, to get to post level 100 territory, you need to put spend 30-40 mins fighting, what at your current level is basically trash.

I personally have not done Elidonians (cuz I am uninterested in farming boring mats for operator weapons). But as far as I know, they are even easier, as long as you understand the mechanics. 

Then there is ESO, but sadly, it is kind of limited to a few frames. So get you Saryn and spam skill 1 & 4. If you have a team of 4 decently decked frames, with nuking capability, you can easily finish 8 zones (which is all you need).

And grinding.. early in the game the grinding tends to get you doing harder and sometimes more interesting content. But as you get to a level where you can play level ~70-80 content with no risk, everything after to put you at farming borrowing stuff. I have been trying to do the distribution missions. Shrugging through 4 rounds is a pain, even though I find the distribution missions to be okay design wise.

As for scaling, I think that the game stops scaling correctly past level 130-140 (and armor scaling definitely needs to be reduced). I always hear about these level 350. I honestly do not have the patience for playing 4-5 hours in on mission. The game is not designed for that, and the rewards do not scale up anyway. I personally finds these discussions kinda pointless. I think that the game should do a hard stop on scaling around level 170-200, and just balance it up to there. People want to play an endless map for 3 weeks non-stop, so be it. Not like they will get more out of it.

Maybe cuz I am still relatively new, there is fun to be had in playing new frames and long survival missions. Doing NW dailies and weekly. Not much to do beside that.

 

Edited September 30, 2019 by (PS4)thegarada

[Cubewano]

1 hour ago, Sloan441 said:

That's fine. And that's them. It's not me. They make the game. I play the game, so I have to look at it from my standpoint. The litmus test is "Am I having fun?". If so, then a lot of stuff is excusable. If not, then it's not--and you quit at some point. People seem to lose sight of this.

Your standpoint isn't the only one that matters however, and it isn't up to you to just tell people what their opinions are worth, especially as far the developers feel. If you think feedback isn't necessary though I'm again puzzled why you are even on the feedback section of the forums. 

1 hour ago, Sloan441 said:

I'm not in opposition to it. I am in opposition to the wild hyperbole and outright BS that gets tossed around on a regular basis. That warframe bingo card was created for a reason and pretty much covers about 75% of what you read that is ostensibly 'feedback'. 

 

Your entire argument is be satisfied or be gone, that is entirely counter the notion of feedback and providing critiques on things unsatisfying. If the issue is more nuanced then address it as such, and explain your difference in experiences, but just sweeping claims that no critiques matter and that anyone who feels the need to air them should simply go away/move on is not a genuine debate, it is again just defeatism or otherwise just insincerity on the behalf of how you actually feel. 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Cubewano

[Cubewano]

57 minutes ago, (PS4)thegarada said:

As for scaling, I think that the game stops scaling correctly past level 130-140 (and armor scaling definitely needs to be reduced). I always hear about these level 350. I honestly do not have the patience for playing 4-5 hours in on mission. The game is not designed for that, and the rewards do not scale up anyway. I personally finds these discussions kinda pointless. I think that the game should do a hard stop on scaling around level 170-200, and just balance it up to there. People want to play an endless map for 3 weeks non-stop, so be it. Not like they will get more out of it.

Maybe cuz I am still relatively new, there is fun to be had in playing new frames and long survival missions. Doing NW dailies and weekly. Not much to do beside that.

 

Scaling isn't as much as it's built up to be, several years ago it used be something of a contested point before we acquired the vast levels of power we have now than have turned pretty much all enemy scaling into childs play, but now we can really disable any enemy at any levels into infinity with the proper tool and mod selections. See any number of high length duration runs to see how truly meaningless scaling is right now with the busted tools in our arsenal, enemies can be dispersed of well into the quadruple digits without any real difficulty or stress. The fantasy of higher level enemies being difficult again is just nostalgia playing from when people actually still went and experienced that level of content which was many balance changes ago, without the thought of how new balances would play into the experience, which suffice to say it doesn't play into it in a flattering way. 

I do agree there needs to be a cut off for scaling though, in a sense at least, enemies shouldn't stop scaling at a set range but DE should stop balancing us for levels past a certain range, endless missions were never meant to be done forever and one of the pivotal reasons Warframes balance has fallen apart I feel is because DE tried to ignore that and allow us to scale infinitely and with that set fire to most of the games design. There just isn't a reasonable way to design around infinite power potential without severely augmenting gameplay, there just isn't, which is why near all new bosses these days have to be doused in exclusionary mechanics and iframes to avoid instant defeat. If DE could just set a proper power boundary for players, and let everything above that being nonessential/excess territory where you aren't expected to operate or last in then it would open up a lot more room for proper game balancing, and enemy engagement. Having us balanced both for level 40 enemies and level 400 enemies however doesn't work, it just has us melting everything.

[Sloan441]

1 hour ago, Cubewano said:

 

Your entire argument is be satisfied or be gone, that is entirely counter the notion of feedback and providing critiques on things unsatisfying. If the issue is more nuanced then address it as such, and explain your difference in experiences...

In the end, that's what it always comes down to. You either want to play or you do not. 

Feedback is one thing, but a lot of it degenerates into hyperbole and worse. Are you seriously interested in anecdotes about someone else's gameplay experience? Especially when they're exaggerating aspects of it or even trying to make the game something it isn't and was never meant to be? Those sorts of arguments are verging on moving into rhetoric and there'll be no genuine debate at that point, since it'll just be appeals to emotion.