Jump to content

Why we cant have endgame content


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, PatternistSlave said:

I meant to themselves.

They already do, but I assume you mean in the same game.  John Prodman might be a good example.  How many really fight him?  Did it justify the dev time?  Eidolons kindof fill that role, but they didn't stop you all from constantly asking for "endgame" and fostered a rather toxic environment.  Surely you've seen the chat asking for 100+ captures.  And eidolons aren't even all that difficult.

Those are actually pretty decent example of challenging content, except they are challenging only at some point in time while you're still progressing.

The issue is that for players that have done it all, there's no challenge to aspire for, and when we get a glimpse of it, it quickly gets nerfed down.

I really enjoyed working my way out to be able to fight Eidolons at the time. It wasn't easy.

I remember first booting into the plains and seeing that big monster Teralyst. He looked awesome, scary.. I tried to kill him with my skana ( or whatever weapon I was using at the time ). You can guess what happened.

I later went back to the plains and saw him again. There were 2 guys there battling the beast. They were working as a team, coordinating attacks and managed to kill him. I was at awe. I saw that and thought to myself, I want to be able to do that. From that point I aspired to become an efficient Eidolon hunter. I wasn't even sure if I would be able to do it, but I wanted to at least try.

I worked my way out to do it. It took weeks if not months. Practicing, building my amp, my focus tree, getting experience and building my Eidolon hunting player skills, chasing gear etc. Eventually I was able to solo all the way to hydrolist. It felt awesome. I felt accomplished. The game challenged me, I met that challenge and it felt awesome.

People saying that Eidolons are easy, are thinking from a perspective of a player that already has that skill level, that already knows what to do and has the equipment and skill set to do it.

I never got that same feeling again for ages. Until Railjack released.

( sorry for the story telling, I just thought it was an interesting example of something we once had, and that currently is a mirage )

 

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

Enough of the playerbase for DE to have made serious efforts to implement endgame over the last few years.

What makes a developer push the knobs is the vast majority of players with a consensus. When a developer sees a dismal, a decrease and a lowering in income then they move. Up to now the game should show fatigue. I'm going technical with this, if churn is not balanced between acquisitions techniques and retention the diminishing returns hits the fan. if the size of player remains constant because the rate of new players is greater than the rate of those who abandon then DE will not be forced to implement changes. 

If their income they have in micro transactions alone don't tell them to move they will not move and execute. What you point out is something called dissatisfaction and disappointment. When the customer enters in a process of demands then such actions triggers, somehow, proposals. The dialogue of the proponent and the deponent begins reaching places with a definite consensus. 

You are supposing that such majority exists when you are abiding for your needs to stay in the game that are not the same reasons to stay in the game for the rest. I am a veteran who spent seven years in this game culling up awareness of a multi layered game mechanics. When a developer tries to go places without success such developer is always probing the waters. He is not going to commit effort if he is not totally convinced that such decision is going to be productive. 

The question goes like this: If previous decisions are counterproductive how do I reach for techniques that defines a clear vision of what 'endgame' should be over the years? First question is endgame and progression the same thing? Second question, if endgame shifts shall I call it end game in the first place? Third question, how do I measure, my population of people interested in endgame instead of confusing it with a stick and carrot system? 

See?  

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Outgrow the game... how? What systems make players outgrow the game?

Max out the number of mods, skill trees, comprehension of game mechanics for exploits, cheating glitches that happens due to lack of robustness in the code, experience knowing how the mind of Steve works, comprehension how a developer think in a GAAS game. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Because playing the Grendel missions should teach you that the game can't really offer a challenge even when it does strip players of all mods. This is a problem that affects not just the possibility of endgame, but the game as a whole.

I used that as an example. I can simply strip my mods out of the weapons and frames trying to rely only on skill. I'm pushing myself to the limit with a constraint that I decided. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Just look at your behavior on this thread, where you claim false authority over this game and say that it shouldn't even attempt endgame just because you say so

I'm not pinning the possibility of the existence endgame in any game. I'm basing my findings on history and throughout the revisions. Remember that I have everything and I went throughout every phase of the game. Of course is not what I said. I depend on the information recollected by statistics, the behavior of the game and the attempts previously made by the developers. 

Who say so? The game. The game suffered lots of changes leaving and scrapping ideas for a reason. The path DE takes tells you something about this behavior. What I say is irrelevant. What I see in the game is not. There are patterns collected by history. I simply read those. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

invalidate the opinion of people who don't agree with you in wanting endgame

I don't decide that. If I agree or disagree is inconsequential. The issue is that such concept is not plausible for War Frame, because if you don't have the elements established first then the search for such concept is a chase of a chimera and probably a myth. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

, and dismiss them as some irrelevant minority when they've already gotten to DE.

Because they are. The number of seasoned players is less than the number of new players. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

You're acting in a very entitled manner that doesn't allow for plurality of opinion or constructive discussion, is the issue.

False. If that where the case then this thread would be closed. The discussion is constructive.  However when we say claims like "the vast majority" such claims should be followed by raw data. Otherwise we resume the conversation to your opinion and your interest, which is fine, but then such discussion resumes just to one comment. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Do you have any data to back this up?

Pick any clan and see the list of people with low ranks versus the people who are high ranks. The ratio is obvious. Second see how much a seasoned players logs on versus a new player who logs on. Third suffice to see the behavior of DE on their releases and to whom they direct such decisions. 

When Raids are factored out, that says you something. When exclusive material only accessible to few is suddenly distributed that says you something. The clam that you want to challenge is this one "The market is more profitable with new players than seasoned or experienced players. " DE moves shows us that their focus of interest are the new players. Every decision taken hints us that direction. 

I would love to see statistics and numbers showing us how micro transactions behaves in correlation to mastery rank. No company will show us this. My source of information is history. True processes of endgame where thrown out like dark sectors and solar rails. That was a type conquest mode that depicts the possibility of endgame. It was dispatched for other reasons. One of those was the limiting capabilities of the studio for the sustainability. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Not only do I disagree heavily with this, as there are many stories of players heavily investing money in the game only once they've committed to it

You are free to disagree. Wrestle it if you want. Look at the current history. Your perception of the problem is not the reality of the events. You desire to have 'endgame'. You don't know about the rest of the users in this game. The only raw data we have are the decisions made by DE. Right now they are NOT interested in endgame at all. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

, I think endgame is in fact relevant to new players, as the promise of endgame is typically a selling point for MMOs. Promising players that they'll still have something to do even after going through the main questline, grind, etc. helps guarantee players that their commitment will be rewarded, something Warframe doesn't do the best job of right now.

In your dreams. 

1. New players are not aware of meta and the shifting of meta. 

2. New players are not aware of passives and actives. 

3. New players are not aware of the damage system and the ability of doing endurance runs. 

4. New players can't formulate a clear definition of what this is end game should be because they are in a learning curve of the game mechanics. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Yes, precisely. At the end of the day, once that farming is completed there's nothing to really do, and even you're feeling the lack of purpose. It is this precise lack of purpose that I am pointing out is something that could and likely should be addressed with some kind of durable endgame content.

Yes, that is the problem that even the DE is trying to figure out but they missed it for seven years. However the game survived throughout micro transactions lacking 'endgame content'. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

It's not, though. The game has long-standing problems in delivering challenge, but those are problems the developers have been trying to address. Even if there hasn't been much success in the ways of delivering endgame in the past, there is nonetheless a strong intent on the developers' part to do so, and to give us a challenge in general. If your goal is to try to stop DE from working on endgame content, that ship has sailed a long, long time ago.

They can try it. I'm not going to hold them back. But that ship is running in circles. The reason is very simple. The indecision is their market. If the game defines a true purpose then it ends. There will be one particular meta for everything. One particular solution for each task and a set of strategies that maximize gains on farming. 

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Why not?

The game is submerged on a design process that focus on progression. Such focus happens in intrinsic game play, looting, time games, gear check gates, grind walls. This is how the game produces money. If end game happens it works against those strategies. Simple as that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor einer Stunde schrieb PatternistSlave:

Pretty much yeah.  They had to take perma death out of arbitrations for example.

They already removed it (last summer or even earlier). If you die your alias can revive you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vit0Corleone said:

I want to be challenged, I want difficulty to be there available if I'm in the mood for that.

With our current power and balance, how tho? How can you make challenge and difficulty without resorting to cheap tricks other games use?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ES-Flinter said:

They already removed it (last summer or even earlier). If you die your alias can revive you.

Its possible yes, but requires those allies to actually want to revive you, by deliberately picking up red Index points that drop from the Arbiter Drones on death as long as one player is dead. This actually encourages teamwork versus the previous version of punishing teamwork and rewarding cut-throat everything for number one play; at least as long as you have allies that want to penalize themselves (The red index points behave like points in Index and lower your maximum life, energy, and shields while held).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 844448 said:

With our current power and balance, how tho? How can you make challenge and difficulty without resorting to cheap tricks other games use?

I'm not sure what you mean with "cheap tricks"

 

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

I'm not sure what you mean with "cheap tricks"

 

- Massive/multiple hp bar

- Invincibility phase/invincible until you do something

- Do one thing wrong and all team member dies

- Area damage spam, usually combined with heavy/fatal damage

- Teleport fest

- Heavy DR with immunity to status (like the wolf)

The list goes on

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 844448 said:

- Massive/multiple hp bar

- Invincibility phase/invincible until you do something

- Do one thing wrong and all team member dies

- Area damage spam, usually combined with heavy/fatal damage

- Teleport fest

- Heavy DR with immunity to status (like the wolf)

The list goes on

Some of those "cheap tricks" are what Eidolons do.

I assume you didn't enjoy Eidolons then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vit0Corleone said:

I later went back to the plains and saw him again. There were 2 guys there battling the beast. They were working as a team, coordinating attacks and managed to kill him. I was at awe. I saw that and thought to myself, I want to be able to do that. From that point I aspired to become an efficient Eidolon hunter. I wasn't even sure if I would be able to do it, but I wanted to at least try.

I worked my way out to do it. It took weeks if not months. Practicing, building my amp, my focus tree, getting experience and building my Eidolon hunting player skills, chasing gear etc. Eventually I was able to solo all the way to hydrolist. It felt awesome. I felt accomplished. The game challenged me, I met that challenge and it felt awesome.

People saying that Eidolons are easy, are thinking from a perspective of a player that already has that skill level, that already knows what to do and has the equipment and skill set to do it.

I never got that same feeling again for ages. Until Railjack released.

Yeah the important part of eidolons imo was how they enticed new players.  At the end of the day it didn't really matter how difficult they were (we all thought they were incredibly easy even on release.).  DE shouldn't be chasing a pipe dream of "endgame", but make content with the potential of drawing players in.  The Wolf I thought was interesting in that regard.  To take the eidolon example into railjack.  Were the plains all the difficult?  Railjack didn't need to be.  Maybe a boss fight that takes a little more coordination would work though.  The sentient ship spawning randomly was a cool idea, but didn't have any substance and was locked away in the Veil.

13 minutes ago, ES-Flinter said:

They already removed it (last summer or even earlier). If you die your alias can revive you.

Yeah I know.  That was the point.  No, players are not all that down for dying in Warframe.

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

Yes! If those are the things that people find enjoyable or feel the need to do in this specific game when they've reached a certain point then that is the endgame. WF doesnt have a traditional setup. As I said, what WF doesn't have is an actual endgame, as in a mode that prepares you for further content releases in a tierd way. It does still have endgame, but it is more up to each and every player what that is.

Then end game for a War Frame player is subjective. 

In other words the term doesn't have a strict definition for a War Frame player. If that is the case then the term is not a design choice, mechanically driven or thematically inseparable. The problem was solve and therefore there is no purpose to continue discussing it since DE already solved the problem according to you. 

Endgame has four structures. It can be incidental, a design choice, mechanically driven or thematically inseparable. A particular author calls this game precipice, Matt Pavlovich.

Endgame approach may happen by direct control, the parameter of time, direct control or no control. In your selection.

http://www.gamesprecipice.com/endings/

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Progression is not mutually exclusive. Endgame can and mostly has progression. Look at all the classic MMORPG types, endgame and progression goes hand in hand. You progress through the endgame and when you are done there you are ready for the next comming piece of content that is targeted for endgame ready players.

False. 

Progression is an increment and endgame is a maximum. If the maximum shifts then you can't call it endgame. You need a different name such as threshold or milestone. This is basic logic. A set is empty or a set has elements. There is no middle ground here. 

You are inventing a new theory. The current theory in the gaming industry distinguish both terms, Progression and endgame. 

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Solar Rails is one type of endgame. Just as frontiers was one type of endgame in DaoC. You did that mode to advance your PvP "rank" while also taking over keeps in order to gain access to Darkness Falls. Then there were the Trials of Atlantis which brought endgame with gear progression through PvE. Just as battlegrounds and arenas are endgame activities in WoW, but so are raids and in all of them you progress while you do the endgame activities. So no, endgame doesnt have to be fixed, especially not in a "sandbox" progression game. Teamwork is also not needed for endgame, you can have plenty of solo content that is endgame.

Here is another logic break on the use of concepts. You have a purpose with gear progression. What is that purpose? A gear check gate and a reward. People wrongly confused the 'inciting incident' with 'end game'. Is it endgame or gear progression? Not both. In other words you get a reward in an exclusive activity that only seasoned players can do because they have the gear to do it. 

What you suggest is a Fraytag's Pyramid where there are gradually increasing inciting incidents. You can't be at the peak of the Fraytag's Pyramid while you climb. Your diagram will look like a multi peak averagely increasing graph without a climax. 

Endgame happens near the climax of the Fraytag's pyramid. We have few variables here. When an activity is high demanding that is clearly a gear check gate. In order for the activity be attractive it must sell a reward or perform a 'stick and carrot' on the player. 

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

WF has no real endgame mode no. But the example you quoted was not related to WF, it was related to how other games do it and where the line separates pure leveling/progression content from endgame content in such a game. In WoW for instance a raider mostly prepared himself for the higher tier raids by raiding lower tier raids. But in most cases you could skip the lower tier raids and just do newer dungeons for entry tier worthy gear for the latest raid. That turned the previous "tier 1" raid into not being actual endgame anymore since it was no longer needed to start doing endgame, since you could get the same power from dungeon gear, or in some cases even from quests depending how far the game had advanced.

True.  

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Liches are technically endgame given the rewards and the "sandbox" nature of WF progression. I do however not prefer to call them that since for most players they were released too late in our progression to ever be an actual challenge. So they are more endgame in the sense of us setting our own goals. For newer players they may actually feel as real endgame since they are a bump in difficulty with exclusive items to chase and their own system tied to it. For me they are more as if Molten Core was released during late Burning Crusade but still had the vanilla levels but with useful items as rewards. Most people are way too over geared for it and only do it for the weapons really, so doesnt fill the need that an actual endgame mode would. And again, progression and endgame go together in most every case.

True. Your reasoning made you pose the problem. War Frame is a game that gives false perceptions of 'endgame'. People sees it from their 'frame of reference' depending where they are placed throughout the progression of the game. But there is no 'definite' structure that defines endgame. 

An endgame mode is required in order to clearly state engage the problem. Planet Side 2 has the ongoing perpetual map where three factions battle for resources. In War Frame such activity was destined to be more interesting because you had Clans with alliances battling out for resources farming and better drop chance tables in the solar rails. The conquest will become the ongoing action with a very particular reward for those who dominates a significant part of the star chart. 

DE realized that such idea requires an industrial capability they don't have. They had to simulate such activity with Liches where these 'bosses' spreads out their dominance as a 'simulated clan'. Liches are assets that happened in Solar Rail but never had the chance to see the light of day. 

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

It really depends on how Duviri and the rest are designed and what they reward. And why did you suddenly start to differentiate between endgame and content? Content is everything we can play, including endgame.

Content FOR endgame. I personally consider that content such as story, enemy behavior, enemy variety, single player quests for items, extrinsic level design contributes more to the concreteness of a plausible endgame. 

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Endgame is always relative and subjective, It doesn't have strict definitions because it comes down first and foremost what the game in question is. As I said earlier, endgame in a game such as AoW3 starts after a certain turn mostly, it follows the chess definition of the term more since it isnt about actual content to do. It refers to when you should start focusing on winning. In WoW however endgame can both be the latest raids, PvP or like when they introduced archeology you had a new type of endgame that wasnt at all related to any combat. It still had exclusive rewards while being a fairly trivial mode. But it was something you could focus on when you were done with most other things, similar to how endgame exsists in WF. Endgame in D3 starts the moment you enter a season in adventure mode, since you'll grind bounties or rifts so you'll have keys and mats to put together gear or grind when you hit max level. But the game only has one actual endgame mode which is grifts or well nrifts too since you need keys for grifts. So several games can have different states and types of endgame, both in goals set up by the players aswell as concrete endgame modes designed with a specific intent by the devs.

Then "Houston, we've had a problem"

i13-1.jpg

If the term doesn't have a strict definition, according to you, then we can't even speak about it. 

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

And yes, DE could skip doing anything about it given the do-what-you-feel-like nature of WF. But they also need to consider that many of us are actual classic MMO heads since back in the 90's and want an actual concrete endgame mode when we say we want endgame. Something that actually tests our current power while also preparing us for future releases of further increased difficulty, progression and power.

Make a decision. If the term is relative and subjective then there is no need to place a mode for such relative term. However IF YOU want a game structure that stress test skill, gear check the player and deliver extrinsic game play then you have the burden of defining such term. 

You have to make the compromise of defining the term if you want to design or demand a game mode. 

 

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

Some of those "cheap tricks" are what Eidolons do.

I assume you didn't enjoy Eidolons then?

Because our power is so strong to the point of having madlads one hit killing hydrolyst so DE have to resort to that.

Do I enjoy it? I don't have any objection but for those who keep saying they want difficulty and challenge, is that what you really want as difficulty and challenge?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PatternistSlave said:

Yeah the important part of eidolons imo was how they enticed new players.  At the end of the day it didn't really matter how difficult they were (we all thought they were incredibly easy even on release.)

Maybe easy for players that already have a solid player skill set and gear to go with it. Not at all easy for the average or new player, especially not at that time, and that is a good thing - you can't have aspirational content without challenge, that completely defeats its purpose

And even for vets, it meant learning something new, experimenting, trial and error, figuring out what works best, essentially beating the challenge. The first Eidolon hunts ( that Is saw on Youtube videos), IIRC, took like half an hour. Just for a Teralyst and with full squads of vets having awesome fun beating a new challenge.

This is where Railjack marked a difference. It introduced a completely new "game inside the game", where everyone regardless of their rank, player skill and experience, starts from scratch. It's not that it is too hard, the same way, as you put it, as Eidolons are not hard. It's only hard when you're starting from zero.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 844448 said:

Because our power is so strong to the point of having madlads one hit killing hydrolyst so DE have to resort to that.

This is a wrong assessment. We are talking about introducing new "challenging" content, not about old content.

I recommend checking out old videos of players hunting down Eidolons at the time of release. There was no "one shot", Teralyst alone took like half an hour.

Of course, eventually they becomes easy, as we grow in power, as meta is established, as people learn new player skill sets and get experienced at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, PatternistSlave said:

DE shouldn't be chasing a pipe dream of "endgame", but make content with the potential of drawing players in

Forgot to comment on this.

I would probably agree with you on this point, but of course depending on how you go about defining "end game".

That is why I tend to stay away from that definition, because it means different things to different people.

I prefer using the term "aspirational content". Something a player aspires at being able to tackle, which naturally implies some level of challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Loza03 said:

A limb-based system where enemies or certain enemies need to be disabled before killing them is too slow of a process, and it makes combat overly repetitive. In DOOM Eternal, which does use a similar system, it's not required to kill them - it's beneficial, yes, but it's just one element.

I'm glad you mention this. There are two ways for doing this. A limb system that sequence the termination of the enemy or a limb system that disable certain weapons or abilities of the enemy. Sorry I forgot to develop this. The player can simply go for the kill but that poses a risk. The enemy has the full capability to deliver punishment. The player can evade it but if he gets hit, the damage is substantial or in some occasions lethal. 

Quote

And at the end of the day, having powers simply not work on some enemies has been tried. It hasn't worked.

Because scrubs whine. As cruel it may sound, that is the issue. 

Quote

 

One, this is classic power creep. Ever heard of Warstorm? It was your traditional collectible card game, but profitable enough to be acquired by Zynga. They did very much this exact thing - an expansion which basically had 'protection to every card made before this set'. And if you want to go play Warstorm to see how well that worked out for it, you can't, the game shut down shortly thereafter. This is because players were invested in their collection - invested in what they did before. Doing this basically invalidates 7 years of Warframe content, because all future content needs these new weapons and Warframes, so why would you keep it. I mean, with Warstorm, Old cards still worked on other old sets... but let's be real, if you wanted to keep up, you had to realise your collection was worthless. And for many people, that meant quitting, because their collection was part of the reason why people stuck around. Now, granted, this isn't a 1:1 comparison - Warstorm had a significant PvP component as well as PvE, and that hurried the process of course since Pay-to-win was introduced, but at the end of the day, Warframe is also about your collection of items.

Sorry but I had to instigate such response. 

Now we arrive to the main issue. If we want to perpetually keep the seven years of hardware because we value hoarding then it is more difficult to find an enemy that holds relevant throughout the whole tool set. We have to accommodate enemies by downgrading certain tools in the Kit. 

Second problem, you are selling a wider toolbox with fewer problems to solve with hit. The bigger the toolbox the greater the variations to solve problems. The situation here is that there is almost no difference between problems. The game needs problems that put the toolkit to a test. Hoarding is not endgame. Sorry.  

If we are going to motivate interest in the game we need to make the game relevant. Otherwise the game will suck duodenum at some point. Enemy variations, level design, enemy A.I, better looking enemy, animations of the enemy are ingredients for the extrinsic in endgame. The engagement quality matters and is key foundations for a successful game design. 

If Warframe is about collection then this is a game for the anthropologist not the video game player. 

Quote

Enemies are obstacles that the player overcomes. You don't design the player character to overcome certain obstacles, you design the obstacles for the player.

 

But that is exactly what Digital Extremes did. They designed first the player and then the obstacles. Exactly that is the problem. DE never dedicated time to FULLY develop the enemies. They are busy over player downgrades accommodating a cheap obstacle, a dumb enemy. They are weaseling out the problem like this for the past five years. 

Designing good enemies is a tough job. Looks like DE is a bit allergic to it. 

Quote

The idea that you design the enemies, and then build all the other core systems around them is... ludicrous.

War Frame is not starting from zero. 

Quote

That's like designing a cathedral before even checking where you're going to be building it.

To call a building a cathedral I need to design first the conditions that such building most have in order to be called a Cathedral. Placing this Cathedral is what is called implementation or site analysis. Site analysis impacts structure, morphology and space. But it DOESN'T redefines TIPOLOGY. 

Quote

The enemies are a problem, yes. But they are only part of the overall issue, which has been an arms race between cheap enemy design and cheesy ability design. Right now, the players have won that race - we have abilities and systems that allow us to far outclass even basic game design. We have 'win' buttons, plain and simple, and we have absolutely no backstop on using them. Instead of just making enemies that are arbitrarily immune to them (which, again, we have in some cases), we need to go back to these abilities and the systems for using them and redesign them so the abilities themselves are good - once the players are within a reasonable bound of game design, we can then start making enemies that are fun and interesting for these newly rebalanced players to fight.

Enemies on itself should be interesting. DE had spent nothing on them other than their behavior and basic old 3d models that dates back almost seven years. Enemies needs a redefinition in terms of aesthetics, 3d model level of detail, animation among other things. A game is memorable for the foes it battles. Not for the player who wins or have success. Good enemies makes the game memorable instead of the palindrome we have now. 

The arm race now should close even. The model of power fantasy game can't sustain relevant forever. If enemies doesn't pose a threat then this is just the following game: 

This is the music that I use to play War Frame sometimes. 

You don't know how much I laugh playing War Frame while I listen to Fantasy Zone first level Soundtrack. :3

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 844448 said:

Because our power is so strong to the point of having madlads one hit killing hydrolyst so DE have to resort to that.

Do I enjoy it? I don't have any objection but for those who keep saying they want difficulty and challenge, is that what you really want as difficulty and challenge?

Due to DE mentioning how they want to balance things (revised being a sort of first major step for this idea), depending on how big the earthquake is, and how much of an impact it has, determines what abilities are used by enemies.

For example: Starchart is EZ street, power fantasy 101 - other game modes (endless with the ability to scale) like Arbitrations, ESO, etc could be isolated 'testing grounds' to see if a challenging system could be implemented (or be well-received). Taking one that very few (if any) still play is a great way of doing this. 

Star Wars The Force Unleashed I & II is the only game I've played where the protagonist is a powerhouse and yet there are enemy types that are immune to certain skills/abilities, but it doesn't feel cheap, because they're vulnerable to at least one or two other skills. In the 2nd game there are acolytes that are completely immune to force abilities, yet are vulnerable to lightsaber attacks, some enemies require combos of both saber+force attacks to open them up to normal abilities.  This isn't complicated or in-depth but shows that even powerhouse OP demi-god characters can have challenge, and enemies can be designed in such a way to change the flow of battle or be used as weapons themselves.

Prototype (I haven't played, but seen Whitelight's video on it on youtube explaining it in great detail.  Prototype I & II are great examples of a powerhouse that meets enemies that can give them a challenge or change the flow of gameplay enough to make you have to think on your feet. There are already areas of Warframe that new players simply won't play, and older more experienced/geared players too, even if they're overgeared for it (like eidolons, ESO, Arbitrations what have you). I personally like disruption, but have seen many here who don't like it, to each their own.

 

The overall point being is this. If DE is truly honest and wants to balance warframe, depending on how they do so, can open up new ways of giving enemies abilities (determining what those abilities are) which open different doors on difficulty. Currently, because of how unchecked our power is very few things can 'challenge us' that aren't completely immune to it or one shot us. And again, you don't need to strip power to add challenge (like grendel missions).  Simply observing how other games have done it and look at that through the 'lens of warframe' is a great way of gleaning information.  Bottom line it can be done.

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

If their income they have in micro transactions alone don't tell them to move they will not move and execute.

Putting aside the fact that only responding when your bottom line starts to get hit is already too late, this is nonetheless the approach DE has taken... and it's given them the incentive to try to implement endgame. They are already beyond the questions you are asking here.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

cheating glitches that happens due to lack of robustness in the code

Such as? If you see a player do that, that's an exploit and can get you banned. As for the rest, I fail to see how that constitutes outgrowing the game, particularly stuff like understanding Steve's vision or the like.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

I used that as an example. I can simply strip my mods out of the weapons and frames trying to rely only on skill. I'm pushing myself to the limit with a constraint that I decided. 

One that does not generate much additional challenge, is the point being made.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

I'm not pinning the possibility of the existence endgame in any game. I'm basing my findings on history and throughout the revisions.

Yes, your own revision of history is correct, as your opinion of endgame is entirely conditional on historical revisionism. How else can you justify claiming to follow examples when there are plenty of examples cited already of MMOs with endgame?

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

I don't decide that. 

Then stop deciding it. You are the one saying people shouldn't even try to ask for endgame.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

Because they are. The number of seasoned players is less than the number of new players. 

Putting aside the false dichotomy of pitting new versus veteran players, you are visibly wrong, given that even the developers are catering to this group you are dismissing. What is sad about this whole affair is that not even the developers are on your side, let alone the playerbase. You could certainly go against the grain and say you personally don't see the value in endgame, as others have done, but to deny why it's being discussed in the first place is to fundamentally refuse to understand the topic of discussion you are engaging with.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

False. If that where the case then this thread would be closed.

You wish this thread were closed purely because of your actions. As it stands, you have been called out on your behavior repeatedly, not just by me, but by other posters as well.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

I would love to see statistics and numbers showing us how micro transactions behaves in correlation to mastery rank. No company will show us this. 

Okay, so you do not in fact have any data to back up your claim, and simply made it up on the spot. Good to know.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

You are free to disagree. Wrestle it if you want. Look at the current history. 

I am basing myself on history, is the point. You can see games advertise their endgame when selling it. World of Warcraft, for example, heavily advertizes the existence of its endgame and even promises level boosts to get there quickly. Claiming that you are basing yourself on history will not magically convince the people you are talking to when said "history" is pointedly missing.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

In your dreams. 

1. New players are not aware of meta and the shifting of meta. 

Endgame is not about shifting in the meta, and I'm confused as to how you even managed to conflate the two. New players are absolutely interested in knowing their commitment will be rewarded in the long term via consistent high-end activities, something none of your attempts at refutation even remotely touch upon.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

However the game survived throughout micro transactions lacking 'endgame content'. 

It has, but has also declined over time, and it is clear that its original development and sales model will not sustain it forever without having to evolve. The playerbase put up with a lot of missing or broken features for a long time under the expectation of receiving them later on, and while that has largely been rewarded with a game that now has much more content and much better gameplay, that doesn't mean we should stop now.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

They can try it. I'm not going to hold them back.

Then why try? Because that describes the entirety of your copious posting on this thread. Despite your claim here, you clearly are trying to make yourself heard to change a direction that has already been set long before you pitched in.

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

The game is submerged on a design process that focus on progression. Such focus happens in intrinsic game play, looting, time games, gear check gates, grind walls. This is how the game produces money. If end game happens it works against those strategies. Simple as that.  

... why does it work against those strategies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PatternistSlave said:

How many like to admit they're a casual gamer?  But fair enough.  I'll be more honest.  None of you actually want challenge.  You're all full of it.  If you wanted difficulty you wouldn't be playing Warframe.  Or any PvE game for that matter. 

 

BINGO

 

This comment right here ends the conversation on those who seek challenge in Warframe.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is boring not just because its too easy, but because you dont even have to *play* it.

 

and this is just one example of many

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 38 Minuten schrieb Felsagger:

BINGO

 

This comment right here ends the conversation on those who seek challenge in Warframe.  

Its Not GIF

vor 10 Minuten schrieb Monolake:

The game is boring not just because its too easy, but because you dont even have to *play* it.

 

and this is just one example of many

Playing the game while not playing it. Sound like a mobile game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

I'm glad you mention this. There are two ways for doing this. A limb system that sequence the termination of the enemy or a limb system that disable certain weapons or abilities of the enemy. Sorry I forgot to develop this. The player can simply go for the kill but that poses a risk. The enemy has the full capability to deliver punishment. The player can evade it but if he gets hit, the damage is substantial or in some occasions lethal. 

Ok, better. However - this is already in the game. Sentients use this system. And nobody cares about it, evidenced especially since we just had an event where we fought hundreds of Sentients, and we both entirely forgot that this mechanic is in the game already, in this form.

30 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Because scrubs whine. As cruel it may sound, that is the issue. 

No, because it cuts out part of the game and is hostile to a significant chunk of the characters. Some characters are casters, they rely on their abilities.

Whilst those abilities should be more limited, and not a simple win button, putting a blanket 'not affected by' is just going to cut into build variety.

31 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Sorry but I had to instigate such response. 

Now we arrive to the main issue. If we want to perpetually keep the seven years of hardware because we value hoarding then it is more difficult to find an enemy that holds relevant throughout the whole tool set. We have to accommodate enemies by downgrading certain tools in the Kit. 

Second problem, you are selling a wider toolbox with fewer problems to solve with hit. The bigger the toolbox the greater the variations to solve problems. The situation here is that there is almost no difference between problems. The game needs problems that put the toolkit to a test. Hoarding is not endgame. Sorry.  

If we are going to motivate interest in the game we need to make the game relevant. Otherwise the game will suck duodenum at some point. Enemy variations, level design, enemy A.I, better looking enemy, animations of the enemy are ingredients for the extrinsic in endgame. The engagement quality matters and is key foundations for a successful game design. 

If Warframe is about collection then this is a game for the anthropologist not the video game player. 

ALSO about the collection.

Very important operative word there.

ALSO.

This is an action/RPG hybrid. A looter/shooter. This is not Halo, it won't ever be Halo, and Halo would not survive in the same Warframe has despite it's incredibly strong gameplay loop because only a tiny fraction of any given community will ever dedicate thousands of hours to the Intrinsic loop for a PvE game. PvP, maybe a greater proportion.

In other words, the loot grind, and the collection is what keeps the casual gamer coming back for more. The Extrinsic reward is the trail of breadcrumbs to get people to engage in the intrinsic reward of the rest of the game, and it's the reason why somebody stays there.

I don't disagree that Warframe's gameplay is lacking, but we cannot forget that Warframe is not purely an action game, and it doesn't purely attract action players. The action is what attracted me, and likely you, yes, but we can't do something that completely runs counter to half of the game's core design to focus on another, because that's going to alienate an even larger part of the audience.

48 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

But that is exactly what Digital Extremes did. They designed first the player and then the obstacles. Exactly that is the problem. DE never dedicated time to FULLY develop the enemies. They are busy over player downgrades accommodating a cheap obstacle, a dumb enemy. They are weaseling out the problem like this for the past five years. 

Designing good enemies is a tough job. Looks like DE is a bit allergic to it. 

This logic is saying that the top of this building was never finished, so the next building we should make should start from the top. Yes, DE's enemy design is lacking. That doesn't mean that there's not stuff that needs to be fixed first.

Besides, as I said in a different post, a lot of the enemies that are in the majority of the game were designed very near the start. Seriously, compare the Plains of Eidolon enemy design to Starchart Grineer. Wider spaces makes Grappling hooks way less of an issue (since you have more options to properly space), there's a lot more variety, and that variety makes for a much more cohesive gameplay experience... provided you don't nuke them into a red pace first.

54 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

War Frame is not starting from zero. 

The foundations are faulty, so in some ways it might as well be.

55 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

To call a building a cathedral I need to design first the conditions that such building most have in order to be called a Cathedral. Placing this Cathedral is what is called implementation or site analysis. Site analysis impacts structure, morphology and space. But it DOESN'T redefines TIPOLOGY. 

In other words, a cathedral built on sandy loose soil and one built on bedrock, whilst they both are cathedrals, they will have a different structure, shape and size. In other words, wildly different buildings.

58 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Enemies on itself should be interesting. DE had spent nothing on them other than their behavior and basic old 3d models that dates back almost seven years. Enemies needs a redefinition in terms of aesthetics, 3d model level of detail, animation among other things. A game is memorable for the foes it battles. Not for the player who wins or have success. Good enemies makes the game memorable instead of the palindrome we have now. 

I don't disagree! In fact, I share this philosophy. But my point is, that the abilities we have limit the foes we fight to the point of redundancy.

DE have tried to make more interesting enemies. Eidolons, the Wolf, the Raknoids - hell, I even recently played a level 100 version of Vey Hek, and once he got in his bird mode and I didn't immediately delete him (because, y'know, level 100 boss fight) I was surprised to learn he has some pretty damn fine enemy design - an interesting, but fair healing mechanic, a ton of mobility without it being an unpredictable floating mess like the godawful first phase.

And yet none of us notice this. And there is a reason why. The foundations of damage, energy and more are all busted, and that's not only preventing DE from making more interesting enemies, it's preventing us from noticing what little good stuff is already there.

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

Putting aside the fact that only responding when your bottom line starts to get hit is already too late, this is nonetheless the approach DE has taken... and it's given them the incentive to try to implement endgame. They are already beyond the questions you are asking here.

Then the question you suggest is where we are now?

We don't have endgame in this game. This is the current status. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Such as? If you see a player do that, that's an exploit and can get you banned. As for the rest, I fail to see how that constitutes outgrowing the game, particularly stuff like understanding Steve's vision or the like.

The irony is that DE provided the tools in the first place. When this happens is because DE's fault not the player. If the player modify the code, or intellectual property, then of course that is clean fault. People found ways to do certain things outsmarting the developers or putting them to work harder. 

If you fail to see how other considerations constitute outgrowing the game then that is your problem. I can't do much for you. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Yes, your own revision of history is correct, as your opinion of endgame is entirely conditional on historical revisionism. How else can you justify claiming to follow examples when there are plenty of examples cited already of MMOs with endgame?

First problem with this claim. War Frame is NOT a massive multi player online. War Frame has attributes from MMO games but is NOT an MMO. The concept of 'endgame' applied to this game is different from the concept of endgame applied to an MMO. Be careful when you choose terms. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warframe

The classification of Warframe is Action RPG. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

MMO game definition. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Then stop deciding it. You are the one saying people shouldn't even try to ask for endgame.

That's my decision, not yours. 

Why should people ask for 'endgame' when this game doesn't pose a challenge at all. Let us be honest here. If you want a true challenge you would not be here playing War Frame at all or playing a PVE game. If you truly want a challenge then battle against other humans under the same set of conditions. 

Simple. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Putting aside the false dichotomy of pitting new versus veteran players

That vision was thrown away long time ago in this thread. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

you are visibly wrong, given that even the developers are catering to this group you are dismissing.

Because you say so. Well, that is relativity. 

The latest Developers move where towards a vast majority of players that ARE NOT seasoned players. Events are there. You judge them. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

What is sad about this whole affair is that not even the developers are on your side, let alone the playerbase.

I'm not asking any side at all. Look the current status of the game. There is NO endgame, at all. Yes developer tried with Solar Rails and Raids. Where are those now? Buried. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

You could certainly go against the grain and say you personally don't see the value in endgame, as others have done, but to deny why it's being discussed in the first place is to fundamentally refuse to understand the topic of discussion you are engaging with.

The actions of DE are there on the last four releases. They are not investing any energy on endgame at all. Raids closed, Solar Rails closed, downgrade of requirements for accessibility. The evidence defiled already. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

You wish this thread were closed purely because of your actions. As it stands, you have been called out on your behavior repeatedly, not just by me, but by other posters as well.

The topic, and look what the topic is, the need of 'endgame' on Warframe. I will continue conversing about this subject alone. If you feel challenged or outnumbered that business runs on you. My behavior are fine so we can pull off 200 more pages if you are willing to continue. ^^

War Frame can't have a definite game precipitation because DE had not defined one clear road. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Okay, so you do not in fact have any data to back up your claim, and simply made it up on the spot. Good to know.

The evidence are the actions taken recently by DE. Those where mentioned before. Closure of Raids, Closure of Solar Rails, Closure of permanent Leader boards, Termination of exclusivity on rare items like Primed Chamber, availability of Arcanes and depreciation, low requirements for Rail Jack. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

I am basing myself on history, is the point. You can see games advertise their endgame when selling it. World of Warcraft, for example, heavily advertizes the existence of its endgame and even promises level boosts to get there quickly. Claiming that you are basing yourself on history will not magically convince the people you are talking to when said "history" is pointedly missing.

That is what all human beings should do. 

World of Warcraft operates under different market rules than War Frame. Why? These are different games in content, context, game design, game approach and number of player at any given time. The fact that a player can do almost everything solo questions even more that hypothesis. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Endgame is not about shifting in the meta, and I'm confused as to how you even managed to conflate the two. New players are absolutely interested in knowing their commitment will be rewarded in the long term via consistent high-end activities, something none of your attempts at refutation even remotely touch upon.

You can't even follow your own discussions. 

False, new players are not aware of the game extensions at all. Are they even aware about synergy between War Frames? Are they aware about red critical numbers or procs? Are they aware about builds in an early stage of progress when they don't even know what endo is? Do they know what are actives and passives? 

New players are not interested in endgame because they are not aware of the game mechanics. They don't even know that such thing exist. Those who are interested are the seasoned players. 

Don't try to think for them pretending they have an interest in endgame. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

It has, but has also declined over time, and it is clear that its original development and sales model will not sustain it forever without having to evolve. The playerbase put up with a lot of missing or broken features for a long time under the expectation of receiving them later on, and while that has largely been rewarded with a game that now has much more content and much better gameplay, that doesn't mean we should stop now.

The agenda of DE is Rail Jack now and debugging the mess they had for the past two years. Believe me they have a lot of work to put up with. The agenda of 'endgame', if any, will be postponed for a very long time. Current agenda are Rail Jack, New corpus tile set, Liches and single player quests like Duviri's Paradox. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Then why try? Because that describes the entirety of your copious posting on this thread.

My posts will not change the elliptic trajectory of Earth and the decisions of DE. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm simply conversing. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Despite your claim here, you clearly are trying to make yourself heard to change a direction that has already been set long before you pitched in.

I don't change any direction here. You are free to think anything you want, so do I about the idea of 'endgame'. That decision is on DE's hands. They have the first and last word. In forums we converse about beliefs, opinions and perception about the game despite if they are wrong or right. 

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

... why does it work against those strategies?

Profitability. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

Ok, better. However - this is already in the game. Sentients use this system. And nobody cares about it, evidenced especially since we just had an event where we fought hundreds of Sentients, and we both entirely forgot that this mechanic is in the game already, in this form.

You don't know how much I love to snipe those parts in them. I snipe too the nullifier droid bobble a lot on Corpus Lanka crews and Corpus Opticor crews, yes I've seen few with Opticor ^^. . 

:3

28 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

No, because it cuts out part of the game and is hostile to a significant chunk of the characters. Some characters are casters, they rely on their abilities.

Whilst those abilities should be more limited, and not a simple win button, putting a blanket 'not affected by' is just going to cut into build variety.

ALSO about the collection.

I'm a caster. I thought of that because I use Trinity too much. If enemies are impervious to these casts then Trinity is dead. 

Yes, that holds validity. 

28 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

Very important operative word there.

ALSO.

This is an action/RPG hybrid. A looter/shooter. This is not Halo, it won't ever be Halo, and Halo would not survive in the same Warframe has despite it's incredibly strong gameplay loop because only a tiny fraction of any given community will ever dedicate thousands of hours to the Intrinsic loop for a PvE game. PvP, maybe a greater proportion.

In other words, the loot grind, and the collection is what keeps the casual gamer coming back for more. The Extrinsic reward is the trail of breadcrumbs to get people to engage in the intrinsic reward of the rest of the game, and it's the reason why somebody stays there.

True but....

The quality of the journey matters. Those are the levels, enemies, enemy types, enemy behavior, animations, enemy AI and level transformability. 

28 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

I don't disagree that Warframe's gameplay is lacking, but we cannot forget that Warframe is not purely an action game, and it doesn't purely attract action players. The action is what attracted me, and likely you, yes, but we can't do something that completely runs counter to half of the game's core design to focus on another, because that's going to alienate an even larger part of the audience.

That is one of the constraints why this game progress so slow. 

My approach only impacts the game play, enemies, level design and engagement mechanics. That reverberates on builds, mods, Rivens, selection of Pokemons, sorry frames and selection of load outs. 

28 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

This logic is saying that the top of this building was never finished, so the next building we should make should start from the top. Yes, DE's enemy design is lacking. That doesn't mean that there's not stuff that needs to be fixed first.

True. 

28 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

Besides, as I said in a different post, a lot of the enemies that are in the majority of the game were designed very near the start. Seriously, compare the Plains of Eidolon enemy design to Starchart Grineer. Wider spaces makes Grappling hooks way less of an issue (since you have more options to properly space), there's a lot more variety, and that variety makes for a much more cohesive gameplay experience... provided you don't nuke them into a red pace first.

That's exactly my point. Literally. The enemies needs work, somehow. 

28 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

The foundations are faulty, so in some ways it might as well be.

In other words, a cathedral built on sandy loose soil and one built on bedrock, whilst they both are cathedrals, they will have a different structure, shape and size. In other words, wildly different buildings.

Building topology of curtain walls, cladding and selection of materials of course differs due to foundations capacity. But again the Tipology of Cathedral remains. Program of the building defines the tipology. 

28 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

I don't disagree! In fact, I share this philosophy. But my point is, that the abilities we have limit the foes we fight to the point of redundancy.

That is exactly the problem we have to solve. DE is immersed in many of these problems to the point that they opt to ignore them. 

28 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

DE have tried to make more interesting enemies. Eidolons, the Wolf, the Raknoids - hell, I even recently played a level 100 version of Vey Hek, and once he got in his bird mode and I didn't immediately delete him (because, y'know, level 100 boss fight) I was surprised to learn he has some pretty damn fine enemy design - an interesting, but fair healing mechanic, a ton of mobility without it being an unpredictable floating mess like the godawful first phase.

I never wanted to mention Hek because HE was part of what I call outstanding design. There should be more enemies like him instead of one. Imagine a set of Hek power armor variations or an army of two or three with good weapons. This doesn't have to happen in every stage, just in few stages where Hek armor appears as common modified enemies. 

Railjack and Liches are the future of this game. If Liches becomes enemies that appear frequently in two or three pairs in special missions I would be very happy. DE will win if they make more extrinsic the grinding parts of this game. 

28 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

And yet none of us notice this. And there is a reason why. The foundations of damage, energy and more are all busted, and that's not only preventing DE from making more interesting enemies, it's preventing us from noticing what little good stuff is already there.

But I carefully see every aspect of the game. I've been here noticing good DE decisions too. The game will get better with the years. However the game at least must provide some extrinsic game play more often if they want to pour quality in it. 

That's why I play other games. I've logged on to warframe this week just once for one hour doing a scarlet spear farm for Arcane Barrier. 

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

We don't have endgame in this game. This is the current status. 

Precisely. Welcome to the point.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

The irony is that DE provided the tools in the first place. When this happens is because DE's fault not the player.

Really not how exploits work, my dude.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

If you fail to see how other considerations constitute outgrowing the game then that is your problem. I can't do much for you. 

You could at least try explaining yourself? Given that people cannot magically divine your thoughts, you will need to justify points that may be unclear or that may not immediately follow logically from one another.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

War Frame has attributes from MMO games but is NOT an MMO. 

MMOs can also be action RPGs, by the way, but I'm more interested here in knowing which part of this arbitrary distinction you are drawing is relevant to why the concept of endgame cannot apply to Warframe in particular.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

That's my decision, not yours. 

But it's not your decision either, is the point. You are contradicting yourself from one post to another here.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

That vision was thrown away long time ago in this thread. 

Then why are you bringing it back up here?

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Because you say so. Well, that is relativity. 

That's not actually relativity.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

The latest Developers move where towards a vast majority of players that ARE NOT seasoned players. Events are there. You judge them. 

So because DE released one update that doesn't exclusively cater towards veterans (and given the nature of Railjack, it does in fact cater to them still)... they never did or will? Explain how that makes sense.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

I'm not asking any side at all. Look the current status of the game. There is NO endgame, at all. Yes developer tried with Solar Rails and Raids. Where are those now? Buried. 

Because they weren't good. This is coming across more as still being hung up on long-dead gaming features than making any sort of concrete statement on DE's current intent to implement endgame, which is visible through their unsuccessful attempts.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

The actions of DE are there on the last four releases. They are not investing any energy on endgame at all. Raids closed, Solar Rails closed, downgrade of requirements for accessibility. The evidence defiled already. 

Putting aside how Trials and Solar Rails were shut down way longer than four updates ago... Kuva Liches and Railjack were in fact an attempt at giving high-end players something to sink their teeth into. At this point, I'm curious which game you're even referencing, given that you're clearly not talking about Warframe.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

If you feel challenged or outnumbered that business runs on you. 

Given the circumstances and the comment you are responding to, this is projection at its most transparent. Even you know you've been called out on your behavior, and are alone in fighting a war that was lost before you even started.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

War Frame can't have a definite game precipitation because DE had not defined one clear road. 

It can, DE just need to find a formula that works. As it stands, they are at the very least committed to delivering endgame in some form, so pushing against that will get you nowhere.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

The evidence are the actions taken recently by DE. Those where mentioned before. Closure of Raids, Closure of Solar Rails, Closure of permanent Leader boards, Termination of exclusivity on rare items like Primed Chamber, availability of Arcanes and depreciation, low requirements for Rail Jack. 

Primed Chamber was not endgame, though, and both Arcanes and Railjack were criticized for being unrewarding and excessively grindy. You are very clearly illustrating the point I brought up in my first post on this thread, in that you are conflating challenge with tedium, and setting that as the sole defining factor of endgame. Once more, it seems the only reason you're convinced that endgame cannot possibly exist, or that DE is somehow moving against it when they've done the opposite, is that you don't seem to quite know what endgame even is, or should be.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

That is what all human beings should do. 

Good, so start doing it.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

World of Warcraft operates under different market rules than War Frame. Why? These are different games in content, context, game design, game approach and number of player at any given time. The fact that a player can do almost everything solo questions even more that hypothesis. 

That's very nice, now please point out how any of those factors are relevant to the question of endgame.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

You can't even follow your own discussions. 

... which discussions? Where did I discuss endgame as a function of metagaming? It seems you are the one who is confused as to which person you're arguing against, and once again projecting your own insecurities.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

False, new players are not aware of the game extensions at all. Are they even aware about synergy between War Frames? Are they aware about red critical numbers or procs? Are they aware about builds in an early stage of progress when they don't even know what endo is? Do they know what are actives and passives? 

New players are not interested in endgame because they are not aware of the game mechanics. They don't even know that such thing exist. Those who are interested are the seasoned players. 

Okay, but as said already, the nitty-gritty of the game's mechanics are now what appeal to new players in search of games with endgame. New players want games with endgame so that they feel like they have something to do that rewards the time investment they'd be about to put into said game. It's that simple.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Don't try to think for them pretending they have an interest in endgame. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. 

How about you don't try to speak for players you clearly know nothing about and do not care for. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

The agenda of 'endgame', if any, will be postponed for a very long time.

Interesting, I didn't know you worked at DE. Tell me, where did you get this detailed information on their production pipeline?

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

My posts will not change the elliptic trajectory of Earth and the decisions of DE. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm simply conversing. 

You clearly aren't, though, as you seem to be under the impression that spouting random nonsense will magically make it reality. Why else would you speak on DE's behalf as to what their priorities are when you clearly aren't very much in touch with their work?

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

I don't change any direction here.

You're right on that matter, though you certainly don't seem to want to be. Why else would you be trying to deny the very existence of endgame in video games?

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Profitability. 

That does not make what you said make any more sense. Care to explain yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...