Jump to content

Why we cant have endgame content


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

The concept is fascinating. Full team work and almost a snippet of what Rail Jack is in just a scrolling shooter. This is an amazing idea of developers designing a game with fun in mind. It's hard tho, so be careful of not throwing the controller or breaking the keyboard. Try the game out. It's quite similar in a way. : P. 

With a full group playing and using voice chat, it definitely feels like a FTL style game. The hardest thing seems to be getting people to understand and cooperate for the shared goals.

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

Anyway, is there anyone who willing to explain why OP have such an unreasonable thinking? Why fixing railjack is connected to 'removing endgame content'? Despite both of them have no actual connections.

Maybe he got influenced by the media that made 'sound arguments'. 

Maybe he had a personal bad experience with Rail Jack. 

Maybe he thought that rail jack was aimed at 'veterans' or long seasoned players. 

Maybe he was unaware that Rail Jack is just a bridge between missions giving, or shall I say, trying a continuous 'transition' between the ground pace, Arch Wing combat and galleon combat. 

 

Anyway, I can't think for him. : P, He must converse about it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HoustonDragon said:

With a full group playing and using voice chat, it definitely feels like a FTL style game. The hardest thing seems to be getting people to understand and cooperate for the shared goals.

DE can't really commit to co-op content, every time they try they get push back.

Everything in Warframe can be done solo, and there's a reason for that.

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

With a full group playing and using voice chat, it definitely feels like a FTL style game. The hardest thing seems to be getting people to understand and cooperate for the shared goals.

Well, I think DE achieved a goal with Rail Jack. At least the thing gives the opportunity to social interactions that are out of a competition setting. I think this community should be more talkative during their games and comment how people feel about the game outside the standard talk of Rivens, Weapons and stats. 

Socialization should be an option, of course, but is not required. However having it seems fruitful for the game and the community. Besides, War frame IS a social game. That was one of the biggest successes about it. 

Edited by Felsagger
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Highlord83 said:

Oh, please. Get off your high horse and go outside. It wasn't a handful of players saying Railjack was screwed, it was the majority of playing and giving feedback. You pathetic gitguds and your epeen swinging are not the target audience, and never were.

I dont think there is any high horse to get off. He is right, the game mode was already in a good spot since it had actual progression between the proximas and you noticed a great difference between a geared out RJ and a T2 RJ when playing Veil. Now that progression is pointless. You could already clear Veil with dojo equipment fairly well without being a stellar player, you could do it even better with full saturns T2 items. There are no gitguds or any epeen swinging since what is being discussed isnt wether or not content should stay difficulty and challenging or getting nerfed into "casual" content. It is about why content that was already managable by the majority of those playing it was nerfed into oblivion.

Now it is an extreme faceroll solo and this is before we've even had command intrinsics introduced to the game. Group play is even more trivial now, a part of RJ that never needed to be tuned to begin with and certainly not in need of a massive nerf.

The only thing I dont agree with is that it is endgame, which it isnt since it is an isolated mode. Veil may be RJ endgame, but RJ is not endgame by itself since it optional with no further standard progression. The rest of his post rings true since he brings up fundamental issues with WF and its design decisions, which is overnerfing. We've seen it in practically every new piece of content released. Things that could have instead been tuned the other way to make it more challenging and endgame worthy are instead nerfed to be accessible to everyone no matter their point of progression. That is not healthy for a game, certain things must be out of bounds until you hit a certain point, otherwise everything will just be the same.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DroopingPuppy said:

Go ahead.

I followed that thread when it first came out.

Bugs aside and the fact that DE released it completely broken and went on vacations, there's a mix of everything, from "best thing ever" to "worst thing ever". Ofc, being the people who hated it usually the more vocal, as it normally happens. I mean, just check the first page of the thread.

In any case, making assumptions about what millions of players like or don't, based on the forums is a bit naive.

The only thing I've seen so far that depicted feedback from a large enough sample of the player base was some survey they did, which actually leaned more towards positive rather than negativity IIRC:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feedbacks are generally leaned toward negative, because of its nature.

If you like something, you don't need for display your satisfaction. But if you don't like it, then you will have the urge to argue about that. That's why most feedbacks are negative, and it is only natural, rather than a proof of 'players are getting negative'.

Actually, if most feedbacks are positive, then it is something gone horribly wrong in the most case. It only means the public opinion is just dead, unless the component is a perfect masterpiece without any single flaw, but you know it never happens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

That is not healthy for a game, certain things must be out of bounds until you hit a certain point, otherwise everything will just be the same.

ROFL, I was saying that long time ago.

 

The sense of progression somehow should be kept. The game should not feel the same in terms of progression. We should have some difficulty gates in addition to these time gates.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DroopingPuppy said:

Go ahead.

Nothing in that feedback thread indicates any need of the massive nerf that has happened. If RJ was as difficult as the nerf implies, I for instance should have logically failed far more RJ missions than I did since 90% of my runs were made in pugs, either with me as a captain or as a crewman. And out of the missions I've ran I've failed maybe 5 and those werent because it was too hard or overtuned, it was because the host came in with a non upgraded RJ to skip wait times for either the anomaly or trying to get weapon BPs.

Sure you may say it is just my experience and I cant equate the masses, but that isnt true since it is based on full group pug runs the reach well into the hundreds with even more players than missions as part of the ample size. So it very much reflects the avarage nature of RJ and the difficulty of it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DroopingPuppy said:

Feedbacks are generally leaned toward negative, because of its nature.

If you like something, you don't need for display your satisfaction. But if you don't like it, then you will have the urge to argue about that. That's why most feedbacks are negative, and it is only natural, rather than a proof of 'players are getting negative'.

Actually, if most feedbacks are positive, then it is something gone horribly wrong in the most case. It only means the public opinion is just dead, unless the component is a perfect masterpiece without any single flaw, but you know it never happens.

If feedback is done from a positive point of view then it throws out improvement and innovation out of the window. The worst thing that a designer could hear is 'good job'. That is utterly destructive and negative in every way. Makes the developer rest in their laurels forever without striving for other solutions or takes on the same problem. Even if the problem where solved satisfactory, that never happens of course, there should be other edges ready for sharpening. 

Good solutions get better with time. Great solutions are rare and universal solutions are just figments of our imagination. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

ROFL, I was saying that long time ago.

 

The sense of progression somehow should be kept. The game should not feel the same in terms of progression. We should have some difficulty gates in addition to these time gates.  

DE will sadly never get it. I really wish that they'd introduce a difficulty slider to the game, one that not only raises the level of mobs, but one that does introduce new mechanics and parameters for the missions and mobs. Like making mobs generally more durable but giving them all visible weakspots instead for a more skill based gameplay where landing on 10 mobs with your crashdown melee attack or putting a bramma arrow between them wont just insta gib them. Something that takes the meta into other regions, something that penalizes the mindless AoE frames and weapons while enforcing more accurate gunplay. Though they'd need to work out how melee would interact in such a case when it comes to hitting weakspots.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As somebody who complained about the Railjack ground enemies (not the fighters), let me give my reasoning.

 

They were out of proportion with the rest of the game. This arbitrarily limited weapon types and actively restricted the kind of gameplay many, such as @Felsagger want (including myself). Consider - do any of the games that have such tight core loops have one small sect of the enemy have substantially greater health than the rest of them? As in, regular mooks have healthbars heavies have in the rest of the game, and the big guys have full-on raid boss health bars? How do you make it so that there's a fair, tight gameplay loop with times to kill that enables good mechanics when the amount of EHP you're balancing all that around vary wildly from group to group and you have to balance the same items and weapons with all of them?

When Halo CE introduces the Flood, does every Flood infection form have the amount of health an Elite has, with Elite Combat forms taking several dozen times the amount of firepower as even the highest-level regular Elite?

No.

And thus, the nerf for the ground troops was justified. It's the same reason I've continued to give feedback that the Corpus are not yet durable enough. They're still out of proportion with regular Grineer, and should be brought on par with them. Only once everything is on a level playing field can any kind of more advanced mechanics take the fore.

 

Fighters? Different matter, especially for the Crewships.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, akrid45 said:

Warframe community logic: if it doesn't die in 1-3 seconds, it's a bullet sponge 

I thought people were being to harsh with DE over railjack, even said as much. However when easy content gets made easier, because a bunch of people whine. I  get a little aggravated. I didn't feel anything was a bullet sponge, prior to the revisit. I just want to know who is actually to blame this time DE, or the people that complained it was difficult, resulting in it being made trivial.

As a side note prior to the difficulty nerf it all still died in under 3 seconds. The only way railjack could be easier now, would be if you start a mission and it loads directly to mission end screen, and shows the rewards. 🥱 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nichivo said:

I thought people were being to harsh with DE over railjack, even said as much. However when easy content gets made easier, because a bunch of people whine. I  get a little aggravated. I didn't feel anything was a bullet sponge, prior to the revisit. I just want to know who is actually to blame this time DE, or the people that complained it was difficult, resulting in it being made trivial.

As a side note prior to the difficulty nerf it all still died in under 3 seconds. The only way railjack could be easier now, would be if you start a mission and it loads directly to mission end screen, and shows the rewards. 🥱 

Let me add another option there, that I think is often missed:

A lot of people simply do not like to play an arcady space pew pew space shooter type of game play.

Those people, however, do like their MR and want to milk the intrinsics, so they feel obligated to play it ( this before Scarlet Spear ofc ).

When you start from an inherit bias of "this is not for me I don't really like it", but yet you feel you have to do it anyway, you want it to be as fast and easy as possible so that you can be done with it.

To add to that, several warframe partners and content creators fit the profile I just described above, and they have a community megaphone to work with. Some of them are straight forward enough to be clear when communicating to their views, but some are not. Whereas one will say "it's not my cup of tea", others will say "it's trash".

This then gains life by itself, as it spreads from content creator, to their communities, viewers and their own circles.

This has a name, it's called mob/herd mentality, and is typical of people that aren't willing or able to put some effort into assessing something so they can form their own opinion, and therefore adopt the opinion of others:

5E4SDPd.jpg

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

As somebody who complained about the Railjack ground enemies (not the fighters), let me give my reasoning.

 

They were out of proportion with the rest of the game. This arbitrarily limited weapon types and actively restricted the kind of gameplay many, such as @Felsagger want (including myself). Consider - do any of the games that have such tight core loops have one small sect of the enemy have substantially greater health than the rest of them? As in, regular mooks have healthbars heavies have in the rest of the game, and the big guys have full-on raid boss health bars? How do you make it so that there's a fair, tight gameplay loop with times to kill that enables good mechanics when the amount of EHP you're balancing all that around vary wildly from group to group and you have to balance the same items and weapons with all of them?

When Halo CE introduces the Flood, does every Flood infection form have the amount of health an Elite has, with Elite Combat forms taking several dozen times the amount of firepower as even the highest-level regular Elite?

No.

And thus, the nerf for the ground troops was justified. It's the same reason I've continued to give feedback that the Corpus are not yet durable enough. They're still out of proportion with regular Grineer, and should be brought on par with them. Only once everything is on a level playing field can any kind of more advanced mechanics take the fore.

 

Fighters? Different matter, especially for the Crewships.

Makes sense. 

Maybe the problem was already solved. And I think it is. The level of engagement gets a different flavor when you have a disparity in strength in the attacking forces excluding the crew ships. If you have different threatening levels on the enemy you are forced to prioritize. 

Or if you have two types of crew ships and the same time where one of them has shields then your first target will be the shielded one. She is more capable of doing harm than the other one that can be taken out with the beam cannon. 

The volley of these tiers should place different foes at different shields, health and armor. Heavy armored enemies are not that dangerous but can sustain damage. High priority targets are those that can produce high damage but take less than the heavy armored enemies. 

 

 

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

DE will sadly never get it. I really wish that they'd introduce a difficulty slider to the game, one that not only raises the level of mobs, but one that does introduce new mechanics and parameters for the missions and mobs. Like making mobs generally more durable but giving them all visible weakspots instead for a more skill based gameplay where landing on 10 mobs with your crashdown melee attack or putting a bramma arrow between them wont just insta gib them. Something that takes the meta into other regions, something that penalizes the mindless AoE frames and weapons while enforcing more accurate gunplay. Though they'd need to work out how melee would interact in such a case when it comes to hitting weakspots.

If intrinsic game (player plays because is fun) play and extrinsic game play (player plays because he wants x item) are balanced, wish is almost impossible how do we deal with the problem of difficulty gate and the time gating.

Cheesing everything with a buffed Bramma that went through the scrutiny of a god rolled riven would be the worst outcome that such game could have. By no means this could be considered intrinsic gaming at all or the true 'end game' for it. 

Here is the tough decision. If we ditch out 'end game' for the sake of 'progression'. How do we deal with the problem of interest and novelty? Would it be addressed adding new enemy types to existing missions? Would we have a greater number of these enemies increasing the crowds in each level? How do we go from here? 

Somehow the game must penalize certain frames. It has to. There should be valleys and crests in the difficulty, otherwise the game will go back to the palindrome syndrome. 

Edited by Felsagger
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Felsagger said:

Makes sense. 

Maybe the problem was already solved. And I think it is. The level of engagement gets a different flavor when you have a disparity in strength in the attacking forces excluding the crew ships. If you have different threatening levels on the enemy you are forced to prioritize. 

Or if you have two types of crew ships and the same time where one of them has shields then your first target will be the shielded one. She is more capable of doing harm than the other one that can be taken out with the beam cannon. 

The volley of these tiers should place different foes at different shields, health and armor. Heavy armored enemies are not that dangerous but can sustain damage. High priority targets are those that can produce high damage but take less than the heavy armored enemies. 

 

 

Oh, yes, I'm not denying that more powerful individual enemies is a bad thing. Far from it. I mean in disparate sub faction i.e. regular Grineer vs Empyrean Grineer. This was most clear in the Derelicts, where you fight regular Infested compared to Empyrean Grineer - going from a disproportionately tanky faction to a disproportionately squishy one.

I liked crewships before because they were decently tanky compared to fighters. Taking them out was a bit of a process. I wouldn't mind the fighter change nearly as much if they had stayed the same, because they're otherwise an excellent example. Skold Crewships, in fact, are almost what you describe - two steps. Give the Skolds different armaments, and you're somewhat golden.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

something that penalizes the mindless AoE frames and weapons while enforcing more accurate gunplay.

I'm not sure it's necessarily a case of penalising as much restricting.

For example, I'd rework Volt's passive to affect his abilities - being a secondary resource that powers them up, and is consumed by it. Killing enemies the 'old fashioned' way, especially via headshots, running around, generally playing the game builds charge you expend to buff his powers. Speed and Shield get bonuses, whilst the damage of his Shock and Discharge are dependent on it. Shock releases 25% of the charge, whereas Discharge, well, discharges all of it you've built up and briefly prevents him from getting more. The Nuke, now, is much less spammable, as without rebuilding his charge, it's toothless.

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

Let me add another option there, that I think is often missed:

A lot of people simply do not like to play an arcady space pew pew space shooter type of game play.

Those people, however, do like their MR and want to milk the intrinsics, so they feel obligated to play it ( this before Scarlet Spear ofc ).

When you start from an inherit bias of "this is not for me I don't really like it", but yet you feel you have to do it anyway, you want it to be as fast and easy as possible so that you can be done with it.

To add to that, several warframe partners and content creators fit the profile I just described above, and they have a community megaphone to work with. Some of them are straight forward enough to be clear when communicating to their views, but some are not. Whereas one will say "it's not my cup of tea", others will say "it's trash".

This then gains life by itself, as it spreads from content creator, to their communities, viewers and their own circles.

This has a name, it's called mob/herd mentality, and is typical of people that aren't willing or able to put some effort into assessing something so they can form their own opinion, and therefore adopt the opinion of others:

5E4SDPd.jpg

 

Some people really don't care for the state of the game and you're overthinking why that is. Why is this something that always needs an ulterior motive to some folks on these forums and lengthy validation beyond that. Simply calling people sheep is the easy way out and really not particularly respectful to an opposing point of view different from your own. The same attitude could be said of anyone regardless of their point of view. Stop being lame, you're just making "tenno" look bad.

Edited by ikkabotz
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ikkabotz said:

You're overthinking that some people really don't care for the state of the game. Why is this something that always needs an ulterior motive to some folks on these forums and lengthy validation beyond that. Simply calling people sheep is the easy way out. 

Not calling people sheep, just pointing out that this mob/herd mentality is indeed a thing. It's not something I came up with.

Sorry if that meme was offensive in anyway, that wasn't intended. I find it funny myself.. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Vit0Corleone said:

Not calling people sheep, just pointing out that this mob/herd mentality is indeed a thing. It's not something I came up with.

Sorry if that meme was offensive in anyway, that wasn't intended. I find it funny myself.. 

I'm not offended, I just get tired of people making about a million different narratives around a point from someone in a feedback forum spinning it into they don't know how to think for themselves when really things are more simple and genuine than that.

Edited by ikkabotz
Link to post
Share on other sites
il y a une heure, Felsagger a dit :

Here is the tough decision. If we ditch out 'end game' for the sake of 'progression'. How do we deal with the problem of interest and novelty? Would it be addressed adding new enemy types to existing missions? Would we have a greater number of these enemies increasing the crowds in each level? How do we go from here? 

The big plan for rj is the squad link. From there, possibilities might be endless. But DE can not focus too much on rj content as they do for regular warframe content because rj is not warframe but just a part of it. So I don't expect rj to have regular new content. If we can have what was shown at tennocon, it will already be a big achievement for DE.

I personnaly don't think that rj must be challenging to have a reason to exist. They have a lot of content they can simply make available via rj. Just one exemple, let us open relics in rj missions. A lot of players might chose to run rj missions to open relics just for a change. 

And when squad link is introduced, they can extand the experience. Activate squad link during relics mission will allow both squads to be able to chose a reward from the 8 relics. It could come at a cost, in order to be able to pick a reward from the other team's relics you must pay X credits or any other ressource. It could give a new purpose to the enormous amount of creds or ressources a lot of players have. 

And they can use most of the current content and loot tables to turn rj into an alternative to get what you are looking for. The difficulty might never be a thing but it doesn't mean that there is no other way to give rj a better spot in the game. We are all running low level missions for standing, relics, ressources,... Difficulty is indeed not the only thing we want in warframe. 

Edited by HexOmega111x
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ikkabotz said:

I'm not offended, I just get tired of people making about a million different narratives around a point from someone in a feedback forum giving feedback spinning it into they don't know how to think for themselves.

This community is split on two mindsets. Those who want a challenge for the grind they put the work into. Others just don't. DE gives in to the majority who doesn't. Cause the facts are newer and more casual players earn DE more money. Dumbing down frames and features because Billy is slower and louder about his complains. 

If you want a challenge, play ANY thing else. Because DE never will have the need to. "Hardcore" players don't matter. This thread is just a waste as I seen this topic go up time and time again. 

 

Edited by moostar95
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2020-05-03 at 3:34 AM, SpicyDinosaur said:

I have to agree with this even though I'm not fond of seeing "casuals" used as a pejorative. 

Yeah. I think in this discussion we should steer away from stigmatizing "casuals". It isn't wrong to be a casual player, and casual players as a whole are not causing the problem which OP describes. The same games can appeal to a casual and hardcore audience at the same time: just look at Smash Bros.

The issue is people who want to play a game casually are at the same time demanding they have every (or nearly every) reward in the game be within their reach, or saying it's unfair that they can't have everything if they only play casually. This kind of entitlement, when indulged by the devs, is counterproductive to the game achieving greater depth or intensity. Changes to Arbitrations (you can die a whole lot now and it's fine as long as a couple people carry you) are a prime example of why we can't have a grueling gamemode that's only for the hardcore. Players are upset that their casual gameplay essentially walls them out of hardcore challenges, and the devs want to make players happy.

Casual players are fine. As long as they accept that playing casually means there are levels of the game and tiers of new stuff they can't acquire without delving into the hardcore, we're all good, and we can have that grueling "endgame". Casuals are not the problem, entitled and demanding casuals though, might be an issue.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...