Jump to content

Why we cant have endgame content


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, (PS4)Kakurine2 said:

And there enlies an issue power creep, bullet sponges, etc.

What exactly makes something a challenge per person.  And do they even want it?

No matter how much the npcs are scaled we the players can min/max to cheese it or it just becomes a bullet sponge.

Its a looter hack and slash shooter. Not a mmo with raid tiers.  Its not really an animal designed to have the "end game" stuff i believe you are actually after.

They had raids and pvp relays but they all failed so there where scraped.

Yeah, it's obviously the issue of power creep and non-existent balance, and that's why we can never have any challenge. I'd say changing the way energy system works would allow for some actually challenging content, because a lot of the challenge goes out of the window due to spammable abilities.

 

Trials were actually fun. They weren't challenging(because, again, ability spam), but they required coordination and decent group dynamics. They didn't really fail, they had a dedicated community, they were just pulled because DE broke them with every update. DE also absolutely failed at integrating them into the game(there was basically no way that a new player would be able to tell that Trials existed at all. They weren't even visible on the star chart, and IIRC, the game never even mentioned them to you, or maybe it sent one inbox message at best).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 3 heures, Loza03 a dit :

DE didn't, for quite a long while, which is probably contributing to the increase of cheese. I mean - compare Eidolons to Profit Taker. Eidolons, at worst, have some visual overload, maybe a couple slightly unclear tells? Then PT comes along and has a bunch of her tells be out of clear view if you're close to her, and her homing rockets not having tells at all, and overall is clearly actively avoiding the kind of cheese that worked on Eidolons. Failing miserably at it mind you, but still. Cheese breeds cheese.

Which means either of three things: they don't care about it, don't want to do it or aren't capable of doing it. 

Since they seem to care about this game a whole #*!%ing lot, I'm assuming it's etierh if the other two. 

 

Also yeah, while eidola are a very good basis for a boss fight and are generally designed well enough (the problem with eidola is the kind of drops they make, pushing towards a fast fast fast game play for farming purposes), the orbs, both of them, are some of the worst and most pedantic game design I've ever seen. One can be even won passively for Christ's sake. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 12 heures, Felsagger a dit :

Of course DE can. The question is DE wants it? The ideal horde game, in my opinion, brings in a different bag in every round other than the same games with few Nox in them. The open question remains. Adding different types of enemies that are more strategic and careful in combat, does that throws away the horde game? I'm curious about this question. 

What is warframe exactly? We might all have a personal view on it but the only view that matter is DE's one. 

As I see it, warframe is an hack n slash with a tps view. Bringing more tactical ennemies could turn warframe into a tactical shooter. The problem would be that that kind of end game would suddenly make you play something different than what you played during the whole game. They can make that change for the entire game of course but it would mean to change the identity of warframe. 

And there are few elements, in my opinion, that shows why DE is struggling to make warframe evolve because of that. Why, in every new content, we see missions with a max enemy level around 80-90. Never more. Why don't we have few missions with enemies level starting at 120 or 150? Never. 

They don't want to fall into the D3 build trap. They don't want to see 1 or 2 mandatory builds that 3/4 of the players will use and instantly make every other items in the game useless or obsolete at every new update they release. There would be no possibility for them to release any new frame or weapon. They want to keep this game as accessible as possible for the biggest part of the gears present in the game while being able to release new stuffs that players will have a reason to farm buy and play. 

Still no difficulty slider? It seems to be easy to implement and could give some kind of challenge to some of us but for the reason I gave above, they can't. 

Suddenly, they started to rebalance the entire damage system. It could simply be because they want to keep warframe as it is now, an hack n slash but with the possibility to make higher enemies level and keep some potential challenging content playable for the biggest possible diversity of build. 

You are right. DE can make more interesting enemies, why should it be a problem for them? They just don't want to turn warframe into what it is not supposed to be. 

This is just my interpretation of the situation of course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the biggest issue with endgame is that both a DE issue and a player issue is that you need to rebalance everything. warframe do not have a good baseline and forcing balace around meta gear or god tier rivens is terrible in a game thats all about variety and lots of toys.

and DE have shown that balance isent their strongest side but when they try to balance things theres a part of the community that flips their S#&$ about it.

for example saryn, kuva bramma and the list goes on with frames and weapons that are overpowered. but people dont want them to be nerfed they usually suggest that other things should be brought up instead. but that poses the issue with bigger numbers isent better they usually lead to absurdety and hard to balance around.

 

the explotier is a good idea of how you could do endgame in warframe. it have a level of gear check but the main part of the fight is the mechanics. and i know alot of people dont like that fight but rather have those sorts of fights that makes the player use mechanics and learning bosses and enemies then just bullet sponges or even worse remove and demolish what makes warframe a awesome and cool experience

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Autongnosis said:

Which means either of three things: they don't care about it, don't want to do it or aren't capable of doing it. 

Since they seem to care about this game a whole #*!%ing lot, I'm assuming it's etierh if the other two. 

 

Also yeah, while eidola are a very good basis for a boss fight and are generally designed well enough (the problem with eidola is the kind of drops they make, pushing towards a fast fast fast game play for farming purposes), the orbs, both of them, are some of the worst and most pedantic game design I've ever seen. One can be even won passively for Christ's sake. 

Probably the latter. Whilst it's obviously not the case now, we have to remember that once upon a time, DE was a very small studio, and a lot of what we're dealing with is 'legacy' issues.

I pointed out before that the Plains of Eidolon enemies are very well designed, relatively speaking. You've got troops at all ranges, a variety of approach options and area denial, all playing together into an interesting dance of death, for Warframe standards. And, obviously, nobody really noticed because, well, all the ways we ignore content,  but compare to the relative hodge-podge of earlier enemies. Scorpions, Bombards, all that. A lot of the older enemies are just... kind of badly designed. They're simplistic, don't mesh well together, and some have just... really questionable design for a horde-fighting game. Homing rockets are fine and dandy when you can focus on them, but not when there's half a dozen other things equally trying to shoot you.

But, once upon a time, Warframe WASN'T a horde game. The armour system makes sense for something relatively fast (and therefore cheap) to make to scale when there was just the level 30 range, and there just isn't as much scaling. Even energy is a fine, if a little questionable, when there aren't a dozen ways to restore it en-masse. And it's somewhat telling that a lot of the Warframes that are causing problems are the older ones, ones that have either been left alone for ages with these older abilities designed for more scarce energy, or have been long enough that dramatically overhauling them and tearing down their more problematic abilities in the process will be an issue anyway.

 

Simply put, a lot of Warframes problems are caused by things that have been in the game for ages. Not exclusively, of course, but point stands. And that limits what DE could do without overhauls to these foundational pieces of content, which, let's be real here, is something you only do when things go extremely wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

But as the player and by design warframe has always been “get this gear for x reason” 

i as the player shouldn’t have to remove the mods the devs want me to grind for to create a challenge for myself. The beauty of the game is it’s freedom and choice to mod however you want. It’s not a challenge to play without mods imo I see it more as a restriction. For example people didn’t see the Grendel challenges as hard moreso. They saw them as annoying and teidous because they did what warframe was soo keen against. Restricting a players choice.

Again. How is that the players fault. Mods frames etc change. It’s their job to balance the game accordingly and around the knowledge that things change as well as the meta. 

And im aware of that but again that’s on them. They’ve previously stated that they themselves ignored balance for so long that it became an issue a long time ago. (It was in a devstream I think)  we are just now getting warframe revisited and many balance passes this year mind you. Things that should’ve been thought about or implemented are just now being brought in years later. 

Where did I state or imply that. In many cases any other dev team and any other game is known to balance items in a way that is “mostly” future proof and don’t leave it up to the player to create most of the challenge in game. As in my opinion that’s bad game design. 

Another example of something that players have been asking for.... for years brother. It’s been a topic for a long time now and to be frank until it happens I don’t believe them saying anything about it.

In the long run. Proper balance dosent require the game to have dark souls level of difficulty but more engament and less cheese and Likely less abuse of meta. If more things are in a balanced and useable realm it’s more likely that many many more options are viable. For example if ips was more balanced then it has been for years and slash wasn’t leagues ahead of other ips. You’d see many more slash and impact heavy items and less people asking for more slash heavy options. Because yes while slash would still be great the other contenders are just as good allowing for more variation.

and while I say this I myself am an advocate for optional difficulty. I understand that not everyone wants to do the same level of content I do. But balance is beyond enemy level and in my honest opinion it would take a major revisit to warframe at its core. Something the community doesn’t want and de does not, can not, will not, or simply does not know how to do or want to do right now. 

Fair comment and to be honest I dont necessarily disagree with you, my concern is that what is required here will need a big commitment from DE, there are so many bugs and they seem to keep wanting to introduce new islands all the time.

The ability to play stat chart missions on much higher difficulties will be a good start, but I wonder if that ultimately will be enough, some people want end-game content that is new.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, (PS4)ARC_Paroe said:

1) Enemies must take a "decent amount of time to kill" with a rank 40, 8 forma, exilus adapted, kuva bramma that has a beyond god tier riven.
2) Enemies must deal a "decent amount of damage" so that a 8 forma, exilus adapted,10,000EHP warframe is constantly on the verge of death and therefore "punishes" mistakes so that "skill" is a deciding factor 
3) It must be so long and artificially difficult that completing it is by default a flex on all the casual normies who will only ever be able to leech off of and support a true "good player". 

Or at least thats what i understand from years of perusing the reddit and the main forum. Bullet sponges are simply not good design. Nuclear warheads with low reaction windows are not good design. LOCKING CASUAL PLAYERS OUT OF CONTENT IS NOT GOOD DESIGN. 
Eidelons, for example, require specific weapons outside of already hyper-meta weapons to really do effectively; Before i got my buzlok (6 forma, radiation damage modded, and a crit damage riven for 10.8 crit damage) it took the whole night to kill ONE eidelon, but once i finished my buzlok i was able to clear tridelons solo. If i had been rocking a meta weapon, i would have been able to do it both earlier and without as much trouble.
 

Yeah, that jibes with every demand for "endgame" I've seen in my years here.

There's never a definition of what endgame actually is, except that the enemies need to be one-shotting bullet sponges. Nobody has any idea what the activities will be, what you'll actually do, what the rewards will be, how it will expand on what you've done in Warframe before getting there, how you'll measure "readiness" for endgame, how you'll assemble a group to do it, what kind of group compositions will be needed, what the capstone fights will be...

It's just players demanding higher ammo expenditures during the same S#&$ we already do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

I have no idea what you're talking about, considering that DE in fact has a track record for bending to the playerbase when they get particularly angry, which is in fact how we managed to obtain the latest update to Railjack. The problem isn't with DE punishing us for yelling at them, the problem is that DE doesn't seem to listen until they get yelled at (and even then, they fall back on old habits pretty quickly afterwards).

Well Huston then we have a problem. 

Let me describe the problem. You can't push the cattle all the time. Imagine if you have to do it? Is this cattle ready to do the job? No, it is cattle, it needs instructions to react, respond and address. I can't reduce a set of human beings to cattle. There is a minimum of professionalism required that imply initiatives, research and development. Can you imagine that I have to tell an Architect how many users will be in the building that he is designing? The problem of optimization should be his job. That initiative comes with is labor. I can't yell at him the basics. If that happens then is my mistake for picking up the wrong professional. 

See? 

Quote

This feels more like a you problem than one with the whole playerbase, as it appears you are using your own disenchantment with DE to discourage others from giving feedback of any kind.

We had seven years with the same syndrome. You are free to try, throw your faith in, throw your wishful thinking and your wish list in, then wait in line and at the end get the middle finger or a slow response ten years later. 

Besides the whole forum is feedback. They get it in a daily basis. Are they interested? They placed too much importance on the looting system and left behind the game play mechanics, enemy variety and the extrinsic game play. 

Quote

Not only that, you seem aware that the fault lies with DE, but instead prefer to shift blame towards targets who will actually give you a response, i.e. other players. That's not really a healthy attitude with which to enter discussion.

DE never read these pages, ever. Mods occasionally do. We are here simply running in circles until a consensus of few players arrives. These consensus materialize into formal discussions and then these ideas become proposals. Many of these proposals falls in deaf ears. That is the reality of it. 

The people opt to do the best logical thing that is in their power. When a game can't deliver on something, we simply replace it for other that does it. I have almost all of these games and play them few hours. Rarely I log on to War Frame. Titan Fall 2 is more satisfying with the grinding and the horde mode. 

Quote

Yes, sometimes due to the simple fact that they read the wrong definition on Wiktionary. 🙂

But the definition is there and is based on a consensus. Picking it doesn't make it wrong. Chess is a game and it has 'end game'. We use a global reference for a particular case where the definition applies. If not then there should be modifications, those are consensus that current community doesn't have. People has different opinions about end game. Suffice to read the electronic bulletin board in here. 

Quote

Sure, but that does not invalidate the fact that the playerbase clearly expects some higher standard of quality, and has mobilized to demand it, with positive results.

Positive results are scarce. The player set got accustomed to low standards. Why? They don't know how games operates, how they are designed and how the pipe lining is done. The mechanics of 'fun' are quite complex to describe. People may demand it but we should not arrive to that point when it must be a developer burden. We can't think or do the homework for them. It is their game, if they suck at it, that is their problem to figure what went wrong. 

Since when a developer asks when his game flunks? There are extremely very few that did such a thing. Hello Games, Guerrilla Games, Santa Monica. These achieved greatness because they learned from the customers. War Frame seems to be an accessory game instead of being a full fledged production like Horizon Zero, God of War IV or No Man Sky. War Frame is just a GAAS game. 

Quote

"I don't like these games, therefore I won't even count them in discussion" is a rather silly way of dismissing valid arguments.

No, it is not that I don't like them. DEADsTINY and 76 sucks manure of degree A. I don't even consider these examples by any standards. These are the worst examples in any book. Go pick up better examples. 

Quote

You may not like those games (I certainly don't like Fallout 76 either), and you may choose to believe that a game with a concurrent player count of over 63k (more than Warframe!) is "dead"

Bungie is dead. If DE considers Bungie a competition then I feel so deeply sorry for DE. . 

 

Quote

but the fact remains that these games have delivered different means of endgame that work. The fact that you did not even attempt to debate World of Warcraft on this either is telling.

I consider good game design not that pig's outlet made by the stupidity of Blisstard, sorry Blizzard. 

Quote

The fact that these different games have implemented their endgame differently is itself a positive, not a negative, as it means there are many different avenues Warframe could employ to implement endgame. Railjack isn't one of them, though DE certainly intended to make it endgame for a while.

But it never was. Good build are attainable at sophomore accounts with some effort. A good player can breeze throughout gear checkouts. People misinterpreted as 'endgame'. That is the central discussion in this thread. There is no endgame of ANY KIND in War Frame because the game is a GAAS game. There is no top, there is no max out hardware, there is no serious discrepancies once you attain high end builds. When a player goes over or outgrowth the game, everything begins to feel the same. Why because they do the same actions all the time in the level. It is not Titan Fall 2 where enemies diversify. It is not like Doom Eternal where Hordes are diverse and the levels asks for different mechanics of game play instead of the 'up and down' stupid platform of Hydron. 

This game can't depend on 'end game'. This game must depend on enemy variety and unexpected behavior making the game a surprise wen you enter the same level for the tenth thousand time. It is here that the RNG may work adding an unexpected palette of enemies, liches and special teams. 

Quote

It is interesting that you went on a pointlessly lengthy rant on the irrationality of the playerbase,\

I knew it. He brought the mallet. Smash Hulk, Smash. Wait, are we going to bring in the fork and pitch next? 

Well, your first post where the one who pointed that out. I can safely say that many of these players get used to very low standards. Example, many of us played this game for too long without noticing it. We got used to less. This is why I play many games so there is the possibility of comparison. If War Frame doesn't deliver. I simply hop into the line buss that delivers and provides the job. 

Quote

only to somehow assume perfect rationality of them here. I am myself underlining the fact that the entire notion of bragging rights in Warframe is absurd, particularly one founded upon the confusion between difficult content and unpleasant content, hence why the OP's position is fundamentally wrong. That was, in fact, the entire point of my first post on this thread, which you've apparently responded to without understanding any aspect of it at all.

We all agree 100% on this exact claim you typed out. 

Second, the conversation passed that point. Again, read the thread first. The debate transposed to what is 'end game' and if it is possible of such concept in War Frame. This is the argument over the table. 

Third, opinions are a matter of perception.  

Quote

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition:

Definition of endgame

: the stage of a chess game after major reduction of forces
also : the final stage of some action or process

Notice how the wording is completely different. By contrast, here is the first of the Wiktionary definitions:

(chess) The final stage of a game of chess, when there are few pieces left.

1. Major reduction of forces that implies 'few pieces left'. 

2. The final stage of some action. Pay attention to 'final stage'. 

I play chess in my pass time for more than 10 years. I know why I placed that definition there. 

Quote

Notice the wording matches yours near-verbatim. Not only are you pointlessly lying about the source of the definition you have picked, you also conjure up the notion of "consensus" out of thin air, despite the fact that neither of the above list any sort of process of consensus that led to said definitions. All of this, by the way, does absolutely nothing to detract from the fact that you very clearly applied the wrong definition, using the one for chess rather than the one for video games.

Yes, the snide and the tarnish comes in as a sign of frustration. The definition is in the internet with a reference. Tergiversation of words is not possible because the definition is there it can be accessed by everybody. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endgame

:the stage of a chess game after major reduction of forces also : The final stage of some action or process 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/es/diccionario/ingles/endgame

In chess, endgame refers to the final stage of a game, when only a few pieces are left on the board and one of the players must win soon.

A 12 years old enraged Call of Duty preposterous kid can own you with his eyes closed. But that is not the objective of this conversation. I don't derive fun humiliating you. It is not my policy or the reason of posting on a forum. Be careful not to underestimate the individual that you converse with. I come prepared for a discussion. When you use an accusatory tone on your posts that snake can bite your back, sir. 

Quote

Yes, which makes your attempt to foist pointless conflict on the false assumption that we were in disagreement over this all the more perplexing.

There are about six to seven definitions about endgame in this thread. There is a complete disagreement on what 'endgame' is. Look at the board. 

Quote

Hello, welcome to the discussion on endgame content, content that is specifically aimed towards long-term players. We can talk about earlier content for players if you like, but that is an entirely different discussion to have, and bringing it up here is missing the point rather impressively.

There is no endgame in a GAAS game. We can't speak about it in War Frame. The discussion shifted towards material that can somehow deliver a satisfying experience to seasoned players and new comers alike. 

Quote

Ha ha, no. Definitions aren't some purely subjective matter, there is a clear matter of context at hand, and as it so happens, the definition I picked is exactly the one appropriate for this context, whereas yours visibly isn't.

"I'm right, you are wrong".

Quote

You can choose to ignore reality as you like, but claiming that everything you disagree with is subjective isn't exactly going to magically handwave away the existence of facts that inconvenience you. As it stands, there is clear evidence that many games in ongoing development have managed to successfully implement endgame content, so your refusal to accept that this is even possible is simply wrong.

You are confusing 'end game' with the concept of 'progression'. These are on going games that has no top or roof. The ceiling is always moving up because there is no definite meta. What you refer too is content that appeals the long seasoned players. It is a different idea. 

Quote

I guess if I only picked singleplayer games with finite endpoints as examples (or, in Titanfall 2's example, only its campaign and not its multiplayer)

Titan Fall 2 Frontier was mentioned few times in these conversations. 

Quote

, I too would come to the false conclusion that endgame can only apply to finite games.

The word end game applies to games that has a finite set of assets where there is an upper bound in equipment and utilities. There is a max because there are no additions that increases this bound. Hence it makes sense to speak about end game in a finite game. 

Quote

As it stands, your argument is self-evidently fallacious, precisely because your examples are clearly cherry-picked to include no massively multiplayer games. I cited examples of those, by the way, so you really have no excuse.

"I am right, you are wrong". Three accusations in a row in this post. Sir, you are deeply irked and temperamental, lmao. 

I recommend you not to hammer out the keyboard with your hands, lol. 

Get some Klondike bar and a coffee. 

If there are exceptions and lack of consensus on a definition is because such definition needs a clean discussion. There are game terms that needs a precise definition like the set of the natural numbers, Peano Axioms and so on in mathematics. 

Quote

Why not? As my examples and the associated definition shows, endgame is clearly possible in GAAS, and is in fact commonplace.

'Progression' is not the same as 'endgame'. GAAS games introduces new boundaries and changes making the term 'endgame' irrelevant. There is no end, there is no top, the game doesn't stop. Hence there is no 'prime meta' that tops the assets in the game because DE keeps adding them. 

Quote

Perhaps "endgame" according to your own incorrect definition may never happen, but this other set of content that most normal people typically refer to as "endgame" certainly can.

We detect anger in your post. Palpatine is pleased. 

"Most normal people" I think we have another problem there Huston. 

GAAS had another set of rules where such term doesn't apply. If developer only appeals to the expert players in a GAAS game such content is exclusive towards a certain demography of players in that game. 

Quote

Not really, I am asking you to clarify and substantiate the vague and confusing statements you've made, which you seem unable to do. As it stands, the problem here isn't that you're not right, but that you're not even wrong. Your argument is gibberish, to the point where even you seem unable to explain it.

Your anger is clouding your judgment, my young padawan. ^^

A game that has finite content has a top gear/meta. A game that grow over time can't achieve a top gear/meta. The idea is pretty simple. You agree or disagree with it. 

Quote

 

Putting aside how there is in fact a meta in Warframe (and how that meta really doesn't relate to endgame)

But it does. End game in a video game depends on the meta and gear. 

Quote

... there is in fact a "top". Warframe may be constantly evolving, and so that "top" may shift, but every state of the game will always have a "top".

If it shifts then that is not a top. You can't move boundaries. That boundary is a top or is not. Pretty simple. 

Quote

Even if we define endgame along the very limited lines of content that engages players who have reached this top in the long term, that kind of endgame is possible.

No is not. Why? We have downgrade and upgrades. That alone throws away the idea of 'end game' and 'meta'. 

Quote

Except this isn't diplomacy, this is a debate, and I see no reason why I should humor behavior that itself shows no respect for the discussion or your interlocutor.

We found the problem.

IN A FORUM BOARD WE HAVE TO DIFFERENTIATE A CONVERSATION FROM A DEBATE. In here we are having fun discussing assets of a game and some concepts about game design. You got winded up into it to the point that you come here every day lashing out hate, lol. 

Quote

If you don't want to be criticized for saying dumb things, then perhaps try not to say dumb things when/if you can avoid it.

Am I the one saying 'dumb things'? This is plain comedy my guy. You alone went from Berserk mode to Hulk mode. You alone. ^^

Quote

No, it really isn't. In fact, lack of endgame in a GAAS is what's uncommon, and one of the major reasons why Warframe is struggling with long-term player retention.

Here is the part you do not understand. GAAS game can't accommodate end game content. The content will end up being seen as 'exclusive content' for seasoned players. 

Quote

This sounds like a lovely concept you could write and propose in a separate thread, as I fail to see its relevance in this discussion.

I'm saying why there is an impossibility to apply such concept of 'end game' in a GAAS game. 

Quote

I can agree that the game could do a lot to make itself feel less repetitive... but again, that is neither here nor there with regards to the specific discussion of endgame. At this point, it sounds like you don't even want to discuss endgame at all, so much as something else entirely, which begs the question of what you are trying to achieve in this thread.

 Finally you got the point. Because a GAAS game like War Frame can't attain 'endgame'. Pretty simple. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, (XB1)ALTBOULI said:

The ability to play stat chart missions on much higher difficulties will be a good start, but I wonder if that ultimately will be enough, some people want end-game content that is new.

This is really the root problem, IME with these kinds of desires in these types of games.

Make a challenging, community accepted and approved, fun to repeat end-game mode/missions ... then 'we deserve better rewards to increase our e-peens for doing the more challenging content' ... then 'with these increased rewards, we need end-game content, this is too easy now' ...

Players at scale, IME, don't seem to want to actually realize and acknowledge that at some point, one has done all there is to do in a Live game and that the real end-game is making your own fun, if you really want to play a game after you have 'completed' it.

Even the big players have to literally reconfigure the entire game and leveling systems over time to, in essence, reset the power level repeatedly.

These exact same complaints exist om every Live game forum.

I am all for more options to make content as appealing as possible for the largest number of players ... no game company can, IME, ever satisfy the need for an actually endless hamster wheel for determined gamers ...

The only real end-game, IME, is to play the Stock Market ... unlimited caps, unlimited difficulty ranges, real life consequences - real challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zimzala said:

This is really the root problem, IME with these kinds of desires in these types of games.

Make a challenging, community accepted and approved, fun to repeat end-game mode/missions ... then 'we deserve better rewards to increase our e-peens for doing the more challenging content' ... then 'with these increased rewards, we need end-game content, this is too easy now' ...

Players at scale, IME, don't seem to want to actually realize and acknowledge that at some point, one has done all there is to do in a Live game and that the real end-game is making your own fun, if you really want to play a game after you have 'completed' it.

Even the big players have to literally reconfigure the entire game and leveling systems over time to, in essence, reset the power level repeatedly.

These exact same complaints exist om every Live game forum.

I am all for more options to make content as appealing as possible for the largest number of players ... no game company can, IME, ever satisfy the need for an actually endless hamster wheel for determined gamers ...

The only real end-game, IME, is to play the Stock Market ... unlimited caps, unlimited difficulty ranges, real life consequences - real challenge.

Completely agree. 

On spot. And stuck market never ends because the prices are changing. That could be perceived as 'end game'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

I can agree that the game could do a lot to make itself feel less repetitive... but again, that is neither here nor there with regards to the specific discussion of endgame. At this point, it sounds like you don't even want to discuss endgame at all, so much as something else entirely, which begs the question of what you are trying to achieve in this thread.

I would honestly ignore anything he has to say because he makes up his own things as he goes. There isnt a shred of facts in anything he says, it is just scewed for the sake of his arguments.

Earlier he has called WF both an RTS game aswell as a MOBA. And now he is stuck on the chess definition of endgame. He also fails to realize that the endgame of chess doesnt even mean the narrow thing he wants it too. By his definition chess endgame wouldnt occur until you reach the point of checkmate since that is the move that ends the game. He doesnt realize that chess endgame is really a "lengthy" period that leads up to the inevitable checkmate move. Very similar to other strategy games, even video games such as AoW where at turn X you should in reality be in your endgame phase, which in itself can last for several more turns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

-Snip-

For a bit of historical reference, T3 Void used to be seen as a challenge, and in fact T4 was added by DE as a way to appease players who were complaining about a lack of difficulty. That should say all that needs to be said regarding how much power creep has neutered any prospect of endgame. Trying to give players endgame that they actually see as "rewarding" only leads to yet more cries that DE doesn't give hardcore players "enough".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HexOmega111x said:

What is warframe exactly? We might all have a personal view on it but the only view that matter is DE's one. 

Completely true. However DE has a definite one? 

1 hour ago, HexOmega111x said:

As I see it, warframe is an hack n slash with a tps view. Bringing more tactical ennemies could turn warframe into a tactical shooter. The problem would be that that kind of end game would suddenly make you play something different than what you played during the whole game. They can make that change for the entire game of course but it would mean to change the identity of warframe. 

True again. But War Frame started as a desolated game where 'frame are seen as Ninjas'. Now the game is a pseudo Musou game. 

Let us see the evidence. 

War Frame 2013-01-03 game play. 

Evolution of Warframe 2013 to 2020

Warframe 2020 update 27.4

The conception of the game changed drastically. So the game mechanics have changed and so the enemy behavior. It can get better over time. 

1 hour ago, HexOmega111x said:

And there are few elements, in my opinion, that shows why DE is struggling to make warframe evolve because of that. Why, in every new content, we see missions with a max enemy level around 80-90. Never more. Why don't we have few missions with enemies level starting at 120 or 150? Never. 

True again. 

1 hour ago, HexOmega111x said:

They don't want to fall into the D3 build trap. They don't want to see 1 or 2 mandatory builds that 3/4 of the players will use and instantly make every other items in the game useless or obsolete at every new update they release. There would be no possibility for them to release any new frame or weapon. They want to keep this game as accessible as possible for the biggest part of the gears present in the game while being able to release new stuffs that players will have a reason to farm buy and play. 

 

That alone exclude ANY possibility of 'end game' for this GAAS game. That alone. 

1 hour ago, HexOmega111x said:

Still no difficulty slider? It seems to be easy to implement and could give some kind of challenge to some of us but for the reason I gave above, they can't. 

Suddenly, they started to rebalance the entire damage system. It could simply be because they want to keep warframe as it is now, an hack n slash but with the possibility to make higher enemies level and keep some potential challenging content playable for the biggest possible diversity of build. 

Precisely. 

1 hour ago, HexOmega111x said:

You are right. DE can make more interesting enemies, why should it be a problem for them? They just don't want to turn warframe into what it is not supposed to be. 

This is just my interpretation of the situation of course. 

To be honest. DE doesn't know what War Frame is either, lmao. 

Look at he evolution of the game. It is so wild and exciting. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I would honestly ignore anything he has to say because he makes up his own things as he goes. There isnt a shred of facts in anything he says, it is just scewed for the sake of his arguments.

Yes, because you say so. 

Ervin, are you the game developer? I simply prove my points. But if you know more than the developer, you are welcome to share your infinite wisdom. 

ROFLMMAO. 

8 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Earlier he has called WF both an RTS game aswell as a MOBA.

Because the game have traits and attributes of these genres. 

8 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And now he is stuck on the chess definition of endgame.

Because chess is a game that has a clean example of what 'end game' is. See? 

8 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

He also fails to realize that the endgame of chess doesnt even mean the narrow thing he wants it too.

No? Endgame is the 'final stage'. That is the whole discussion. War Frame doesn't have a 'final stage'. See? 

8 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

By his definition chess endgame wouldnt occur until you reach the point of checkmate since that is the move that ends the game.

The definition says 'final stage'. A check mate is a conclusion done by team white or team black. 

8 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

 

He doesnt realize that chess endgame is really a "lengthy" period that leads up to the inevitable checkmate move.

You have 'miniatures in chess'. You have mates on three moves and mates that are forced up to 30 moves. The length of the process could be different. 

8 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

 

Very similar to other strategy games, even video games such as AoW where at turn X you should in reality be in your endgame phase, which in itself can last for several more turns.

Or conclude in few. 

Hint: Ervin, don't try to troll, please. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Corvid said:

For a bit of historical reference, T3 Void used to be seen as a challenge, and in fact T4 was added by DE as a way to appease players who were complaining about a lack of difficulty. That should say all that needs to be said regarding how much power creep has neutered any prospect of endgame. Trying to give players endgame that they actually see as "rewarding" only leads to yet more cries that DE doesn't give hardcore players "enough".

And the thing so many of the hardcore, end-game wanting players do not want to hear is the most important part - in reality, in every game for which I have ever seen numbers, those that want this type of thing are a very small portion of the overall playerbase, even if they are loud.

Therefore, there is simply very little ROI for any company in trying to appease a small percentage of players ... that will never be pleased ... why would any sane business person try and setup thier company for failure by spending money on an intractable problem no amount of creative code can solve?

This is just one of those emotional topics that never, ever wants to die ... humans want to be endlessly entertained, by thier prefered IP ... I would love for there to be endlessly good Stargate SG-1 episodes and for the Stargate MMO to have not failed, for there to be endless seasons of Firefly, etc. ... these are just dreams and gamers without the experience to understand there are not endless content creation machines focused on thier desires...

"They could just" - Battlecry of the Uninformed

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

And the thing so many of the hardcore, end-game wanting players do not want to hear is the most important part - in reality, in every game for which I have ever seen numbers, those that want this type of thing are a very small portion of the overall playerbase, even if they are loud.

Therefore, there is simply very little ROI for any company in trying to appease a small percentage of players ... that will never be pleased ... why would any sane business person try and setup thier company for failure by spending money on an intractable problem no amount of creative code can solve?

This is just one of those emotional topics that never, ever wants to die ... humans want to be endlessly entertained, by thier prefered IP ... I would love for there to be endlessly good Stargate SG-1 episodes and for the Stargate MMO to have not failed, for there to be endless seasons of Firefly, etc. ... these are just dreams and gamers without the experience to understand there are not endless content creation machines focused on thier desires...

"They could just" - Battlecry of the Uninformed

I'd suggest you check this out if you haven't already:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

And the thing so many of the hardcore, end-game wanting players do not want to hear is the most important part - in reality, in every game for which I have ever seen numbers, those that want this type of thing are a very small portion of the overall playerbase, even if they are loud.

 

Precisely. The better direction is to not focus on any form of 'endgame' in War Frame. Better to enrich the experience with a diverse set of enemies and improve the engagement. 

Quote

Therefore, there is simply very little ROI for any company in trying to appease a small percentage of players ... that will never be pleased ... why would any sane business person try and setup thier company for failure by spending money on an intractable problem no amount of creative code can solve?

On spot again. The goal of the game is to make the game rich in experience to all types of players without exclusive content for just few. 

Quote

This is just one of those emotional topics that never, ever wants to die ... humans want to be endlessly entertained, by their prefered IP ... I would love for there to be endlessly good Stargate SG-1 episodes and for the Stargate MMO to have not failed, for there to be endless seasons of Firefly, etc. ... these are just dreams and gamers without the experience to understand there are not endless content creation machines focused on their desires...

"They could just" - Battlecry of the Uninformed

Pretty much. DE pursuit of 'endgame' could turn the game into the red. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
il y a 58 minutes, Felsagger a dit :

Completely true. However DE has a definite one? 

 

il y a 58 minutes, Felsagger a dit :

To be honest. DE doesn't know what War Frame is either, lmao. 

Well. We can agree that warframe is made of a tons of layers made of a lot of different ideas or influences. And even if it makes warframe difficult to define, I'm pretty sure that even if DE don't know precisely what they want for Warframe, they know at least clearly what they don't want. There are some boundaries inherent to some game style that they don't want to cross. 

Did you have, during your warframe journey, the sensation to play a different game depending on the activity you chose to play? Personally, never. It means to me that warframe have a strong identity, strong enough to let me think that DE knows at least of which based ingredients warframe is made of.

il y a 58 minutes, Felsagger a dit :

The conception of the game changed drastically. So the game mechanics have changed and so the enemy behavior. It can get better over time. 

Indeed. But until what point? The task for DE is much more complicated than we might think. It looks like they are trapped into the consequences of early development stages or decisions. Don't forget that for DE, there was no plan for this game in the long run. They just wanted to make a game that could have last for 2 or 3 years and here we are 7 years later. 

The last few updates is the sign that they are making few steps back to be able to free them from the limits they can not overcome otherwise. 

il y a 58 minutes, Felsagger a dit :

That alone exclude ANY possibility of 'end game' for this GAAS game. That alone. 

That's why we should not talk about end game. If we are serious 2 minutes, we should realize that we are creating our own disappointment by asking for something that can not be done. But it doesn't means that difficulty can not be a thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Vit0Corleone said:

I'd suggest you check this out if you haven't already

I had the time, so I actually watched it.

Nice collection and presentation of opinions on how to trick people into buying and playing a game, TBH, from my POV...just my opinion...

Taking those opinions as viable reasons to invest, or not, in game areas a small protion of the population will see in play, is still, 'sometimes'.

My biggest point of this line of reasoning to talk about though, is "at what cost to the play" is the content "locked away"?

IME, most MMOs used to lock away the 'very best' behind a wall of 'group square dancing rountines' that had to be practiced and perfomed, so that the next dance could be unlocked...some of the rewards could be 'shared' with the 'pleebs' and some could not. Some call this challenging. Lately, MMOs base everything on Time in terms of acquisition and allow real money to accelerate the clock, or try to only offer cosmetic side-grades to avoid P2W. Some call this challenging.

So, in the context of a specific game, the argument, IME, has always boiled down to, 'spend time' to get 'to get the very best', or find a 'square dancing group' to acquire the 'Uber Items of Uberness'.

Personally, I am simply not a fan of square dancing, in the real world or in the virtual world.

So, that leaves Time. For an example, one of my gaming friends back in the day played healers in a game that had little use for them. He had 4 IIRC at max level. Had no clue how to really play them, because all he really did was hang out with us and talk about life in voicechat and follow us around...he also had all of 'the very best' items because we told him what to get or we gave it to him. He just spent Time.

WF, IME, is all about Time, not 'square dancing'. IME, this really, really makes some people who really, really like square dancing upset. I hear good dances are hard to create.

So, from my POV, anything added to WF intended to be aspirational will simply take time to acquire. This will never satisfy the square dancing loving group. 

The other group in WF that I see wanting where the typical MMO uses square dancing are those that want WF, IMO, to be like all the other TPS/FPS shooters, in some way or another, with fewer more challenging enemies, etc. I play this game because I like this game, I play those other games when I want that type of game...that's as easy as I can make that...why make WF bland?

I prefer to play games that have character, that break the molds in some way, that don't work like or feel ike other games. This game, IMO, is a very large sandbox for creating shiny avatars that can delete pixels in many different and fun ways. To me, the game is about this experimentation, these side-grades and the many combinations of power interplay. 

So far, I have seen very little from the players that post, much of anything other than ways to make this game like all the rest, rather than more of what it is...call it Aspirational Armchair Designers if you will...seeing what others can get and wanting it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HexOmega111x said:

 

Well. We can agree that warframe is made of a tons of layers made of a lot of different ideas or influences. And even if it makes warframe difficult to define, I'm pretty sure that even if DE don't know precisely what they want for Warframe, they know at least clearly what they don't want. There are some boundaries inherent to some game style that they don't want to cross. 

They do. A profitable business taking advantage of programmed obsolescence   : P 

As the game per say, they are always busy going places all the time. Sometimes I think that DE should get collaborations with better team developers in certain areas and conclude few corners of the game. 

Quote

Did you have, during your warframe journey, the sensation to play a different game depending on the activity you chose to play? Personally, never. It means to me that warframe have a strong identity, strong enough to let me think that DE knows at least of which based ingredients warframe is made of.

War Frame helped me understand other games. Over Watch, Titan Fall 2, Spider Man, Horizon Zero Dawn, Bloodborne, God of War IV, Batman, Arkham Knight, FEZ among many other. For me War Frame was and still is a 'MEME' GAAS game. Nothing great but nothing bad either. It has the same tone and a good satisfactory parkour system that is hard to find in any other game. The contribution of War Frame is the mobility of the characters. That was for me the best milestone throughout the game. 

Now other games like Doom Eternal borrowed many ideas done in War Frame mobility making the game a new experience. War Frame for me is the accessory companion game not the big meal where there is a definite story, character or objective. I consider it more as a companion of many other franchises that achieved a lot of breakthrough in the Gaming Industry. War Frame benefits from other games drawing few similarities trying to get with the times. 

Quote

Indeed. But until what point? The task for DE is much more complicated than we might think. It looks like they are trapped into the consequences of early development stages or decisions. Don't forget that for DE, there was no plan for this game in the long run. They just wanted to make a game that could have last for 2 or 3 years and here we are 7 years later. 

That is one of the finest observations written in this thread. You described DE brain storming in just one sentence. Their brain storming became a canvas that is profitable with an average constant player base size. 

Quote

The last few updates is the sign that they are making few steps back to be able to free them from the limits they can not overcome otherwise. 

That's why we should not talk about end game. If we are serious 2 minutes, we should realize that we are creating our own disappointment by asking for something that can not be done. But it doesn't means that difficulty can not be a thing. 

Yep, pretty much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

 

So, in the context of a specific game, the argument, IME, has always boiled down to, 'spend time' to get 'to get the very best', or find a 'square dancing group' to acquire the 'Uber Items of Uberness'.

Perfect description of War Frame current state. 

40 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

 

I prefer to play games that have character, that break the molds in some way, that don't work like or feel ike other games. This game, IMO, is a very large sandbox for creating shiny avatars that can delete pixels in many different and fun ways. To me, the game is about this experimentation, these side-grades and the many combinations of power interplay. 

Here is the cruel reality about War Frame. War Frame doesn't have ANY identity whatsoever. 

A game that does that has a name. The Last of Us. That is something that breaks the molds on many genres, don't work like other games or feel like other games. It was considered the game of the decade for a reason. 

40 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

So far, I have seen very little from the players that post, much of anything other than ways to make this game like all the rest, rather than more of what it is...call it Aspirational Armchair Designers if you will...seeing what others can get and wanting it...

But game design is one of the things I don't want to make. I'll probably contribute doing some sort of Architecture for one or two games but never get into that business. 

 

How I solved my problem. Simply I purchased other games that make things better than War Frame. I play those and of course I visit War Frame from time to time. At this point I don't expect anything good or bad from War Frame anymore. I'm just indifferent. I'll invest depending on what DE decides down the road. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I fell in love with DE as a developer because of how accessible they made the game. Accessing any part of the game only requires time investment and nothing else. There were reasons to engage in multiplayer due to orokin vaults, raid and maybe be endless t3 and t4 void runs. On top of that, compared to mob, frames and weapons were nowhere as effective as they are now so someone joining you on your run was always welcome. Nowadays you can solo each and every part of the game due to powercreep. This has effectively killed any reason to engage in multiplayer beyond farming efficiency. Think about that for a second, only reason to play multiplayer in an online-only multiplayer game is for loot efficiency and nothing else. Most used weapons currently are some form of fire-and-forget aoe and most used frames are nukers/dps. Melee used to be almost exclusively spin2win for a long time. This is also true for Railjack - the entirely new game mode that came out 6 months ago. The powercreep has fundamentally changed how players interact with the game. Since 90% of the content is trivial, there are people who want content that is not, that demands either organizing a proper squad as we used to do for raids, where each frame had its own role to play. Mind you, there was never a skill ceiling, there was never skill involved in the game but content didn't feel something you rush under a minute solo.

This is not me being a reactionary wanting things to go back the way it used to be. Everything will face change and it's better to embrace the change in a way that allows growth/refinement/improvement. If this is how the game is going to be for the foreseeable future, then the game will need content that capitalizes on the powercreep. Anything that doesn't respond dynamically to the powercreep will be content that gets rushed in a month and will lose its luster in no time. 

One of the ways I think DE can create such dynamism is through mob diversity - introduce into regular content units from index, rathuum, nightwatch alerts, active bosses, sentient invasions and more aggressively pursuing assassination squads like g3 and zanuka. DE has a plethora of assets they can use and using them to introduce chaos into regular modes could create emergent gameplay. Exisiting game modes can have mounting complications or additional objectives tied to node level. Disruption is one of the funnest gamemodes they introduced with randomly changing complications and it's also a mode that you can take at your own pace and make things difficult by activating more than one conduit at a time. It's a great foundation that could potentially be a launchpad for more complex gameplay. This could in turn, for a period of time, breathe novelty into the game while upping the challenge using existing assets and systems.

Procedurally generated mob complexity, and objective complexity - in a procedurally generated level system. I'm sure there are flaws in this proposal but I think it's a happy medium between unhinged power fantasy and demand for an endgame. This does disrupt the general flow of regular gameplay, so maybe this can be opt-in system through navigation ? There is still the issue of what rewards to offer and I don't think it has to be anything new either - can be scaled up rewards based on objective types.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

Finally you got the point. Because a GAAS game like War Frame can't attain 'endgame'. Pretty simple. 

It clearly can, though, hence why there is a specific definition that applies just for that situation, which you hilariously continue to ignore. At the end of the day, the entirety of your rambling posts boil down to deliberate ignorance of the many, many, many MMOs and similar games out there, some of which even predate Warframe, that have managed to successfully implement endgame. It doesn't matter whether you have a grudge against Bungie, whether you insist upon using chess definitions in a discussion that is ostensibly about video games, or whether you choose to dismiss reality opposed to your opinions as subjective, those are the facts. Similarly, accusing me of being hateful or the like simply because I disagree with you and am not impressed by your attempts at self-aggrandization itself reflects pretty clearly on who is truly being spiteful here. By your own admission, you don't want to discuss this thread's core topic of discussion, and so because you apparently do not believe in the topic's very existence, so once again: why are you here? What do you have to add to this discussion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

It clearly can

DE: Hold my beer. 

Seven years without a clear definition of what 'endgame' is. They tried but their business market gets in the middle. Games depends on one sale, the copy. War Frame depends on multiple sales, only profitable project of the developer. 

5 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

, though, hence why there is a specific definition that applies just for that situation, which you hilariously continue to ignore. At the end of the day, the entirety of your rambling posts boil down to deliberate ignorance of the many, many, many MMOs and similar games out there,

GAAS game models can't achieve a maximum top because that is not how the market work for such games. 

"So, in the context of a specific game, the argument, IME, has always boiled down to, 'spend time' to get 'to get the very best', or find a 'square dancing group' to acquire the 'Uber Items of Uberness'."

That can't be considered 'end game at all'. That is more of aspiration gaming. 

5 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

some of which even predate Warframe, that have managed to successfully implement endgame. It doesn't matter whether you have a grudge against Bungie

But is a fact. Bungie sucks duodenum hard, the key people left that team. More over DEADsTINY < My little Pony<..........<F'Roblox< Minecraft <.........< War Frame. 

^^

5 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

, whether you insist upon using chess definitions in a discussion that is ostensibly about video games, or whether you choose to dismiss reality opposed to your opinions as subjective, those are the facts.

Isn't all opinions subjective? 

5 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Similarly, accusing me of being hateful or the like simply because I disagree with you

Well, you insulted me for about five times in just one post, lmao. Sorry I forgot to bring you the Tea. 

5 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

and am not impressed by your attempts at self-aggrandization

I'm simply having fun writing few letters on the board. I don't need to be constipated or vitriolic while I type my opinions, see? ^^

5 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

itself reflects pretty clearly on who is truly being spiteful here.

Well, I don't have to get 'serious' about the discussion of a game. Seems you do. 

5 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

By your own admission, you don't want to discuss this thread's core topic of discussion, and so because you apparently do not believe in the topic's very existence, so once again: why are you here? What do you have to add to this discussion?

The discussion is happening. People are conversing peacefully. War Frame can't have 'endgame' because the game is not conceived with that in mind. It's an attribute that the 'square dancers' wants to define. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...