Pablo acknowledges why better AI alone will not be enough for good difficulty in WF: We need to be nerfed first

[LSG501]

Just now, Xaero said:

Thank you for proving my point. Conversation ended.

finally... I don't have to keep reading your posts hoping for some decent replies...

[Aldain]

1 minute ago, LSG501 said:

Not everyone has the issue with AoE, so while it might affect those that don't like said frames it wouldn't be affecting those that do enjoy the frames or have no issue with them.

While I will concede that neither of us can prove each others value statements as while everyone doesn't have an issue with AoE that doesn't mean that many people don't have an issue with AoE either, that also doesn't make the cautionary tale of matchmaking getting broken in half by the opt out system untrue.

It doesn't even need to be the nuke frames, what about people saying "I never want to see an Excalibur again?" despite his higher popularity not being related to power? What if people's opt-outs get so complex that matchmaking won't find anything with any speed or efficiency? There are too many variables for an opt out to account for, some people might eliminate 50% of the Warframe list, 90% of players might just say "I hate Limbo" and anyone who plays Limbo will never find a match.

It is too complex a problem for that many players to use the opt out, there is no way to calculate what the actual impact will be in the long haul.

[(PSN)Elvenbane]

14 minutes ago, Madway7 said:

I played during that time too and I found the revive system frustrating and scummy (since you could buy revives)

Yes, I'm not suggesting this was good or that it's something I miss. One friend I started with (chose Loki) quit because of it; another, the Warlord of our clan, was too chicken to do more than 5 waves of defense and didn't stick around very long either. Was just trying to provide a time frame for when I started.

17 minutes ago, Madway7 said:

I know you only mention the operator here, which I would assume you would want nerfed along the lines of, can no longer be used to revive allies or that void mode didnt make them invis or put them in what's essentially limbo's rift.

Just one of many glaring issues I see. Infinite energy, heals everything, can lock-down enemies, immune to damage, lol. Focus farming is a pita and people will sure be peeved if the doperator is nerfed, but DE sure as heck wasn't thinking about challenge and balance when they added this dreck.

Not really worth discussing what might be changed, the time to put on the big boy pants and make tough decisions has long passed.

[Xaero]

10 minutes ago, (XB1)EternalDrk Mako said:

not just take cover , but also deploy shields and other tactical gear they already posess

grineer have shield holders and barricades they deploy

corpus have nulls and other technology barriers/nullification they can use

simply stating they need to cover dosnt fix the problem, they are cannon fodder, but tactile behavior and immersion is non existent as it is.

Not saying enemy AI can't or shouldn't be improved. It's just (as Pablo mentioned) pointless with the current state of our AoE capabilities.

10 minutes ago, (XB1)EternalDrk Mako said:

restricting aoe is just a way to nerf the player, but if the enemies can deploy battle tactics and even basic defensive tactics thats pointless as we dont need to have weaker players

That's also a nerf to the player, just an indirect one. Some people will still be angry and they will start complaining.

We have a good recent example with Limbo and Scarlet Spear: DE didn't touch Limbo but instead made Sentients adapt to his time stop. There were a lot of complaints about Limbo being nerfed.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Xaero

[Aldain]

1 minute ago, Xaero said:

There were a lot of complaints about Limbo being nerfed.

Don't remind me...that was such a mess.

[LSG501]

8 minutes ago, Aldain said:

While I will concede that neither of us can prove each others value statements as while everyone doesn't have an issue with AoE that doesn't mean that many people don't have an issue with AoE either, that also doesn't make the cautionary tale of matchmaking getting broken in half by the opt out system untrue.

It doesn't even need to be the nuke frames, what about people saying "I never want to see an Excalibur again?" despite his higher popularity not being related to power? What if people's opt-outs get so complex that matchmaking won't find anything with any speed or efficiency? There are too many variables for an opt out to account for, some people might eliminate 50% of the Warframe list, 90% of players might just say "I hate Limbo" and anyone who plays Limbo will never find a match.

It is too complex a problem for that many players to use the opt out, there is no way to calculate what the actual impact will be in the long haul.

While I'll admit it might seem complex at first glance, especially with the general lack of explanations given in game by DE but if DE were to spend some time on explaining things it 'could' be a solution for the issue of AoE.  There's nothing to say they have to include all frames etc in the list....if nothing else it could give DE a numerically based insight into what frames players don't enjoy playing with etc. 

Now yes you might get some outliers, like limbo, but DE will also have other statistics to pull from as well such as how often players are using a particular frame, what type of mission it was 'blocked in' etc.  

It also depends on how deep the controls go, do you just do an overall block or do you do mission type blocking... some frames might be 'meta' for some mission types but are pretty poor in other types of mission.

Edited May 19, 2020 by LSG501

[Felsagger]

5 minutes ago, (XB1)EternalDrk Mako said:

 

 

science. 

 

 

Now this is how you discuss military accuracy.

 

The problem that we have to study is how some War Frame changes these basic rules and conditions. Area of Effect, Kill Zone and Target Behavior. Another discussion are the classical pursuit curves and environment traversing or the marsh. 

War Frames will have the upper hand because they have a superior technology if we speak in terms of the lore of this game. An equal rule of engagement is impossible in this game. Enemies will always be in a disadvantage. Their only counter are the numbers and the level increase. 

The Lich approach was the first attempt where War Frames engage enemies with similar powers such as mobility, impact and shields. The rules of the engagements are going to change. 

The other problem this game have is the lack of friendly fire. War Frames should damage each other when powers are used. Weapons should damage other players when they are fired. However that sword can cut back because of trolls and immature players. Having such option creates a new level of sophistication where strategies are obligatory and organization fundamental for the success of any mission. 

Military tactics should be extremely intensive on the Grineer. They MUST HAVE military accuracy, artillery, special teams, more vehicles and capable weapons. 

[(XBOX)EternalDrk Mako]

6 minutes ago, Xaero said:

Not saying enemy AI can't or shouldn't be improved. It's just (as Pablo mentioned) pointless with the current state of our AoE capabilities.

That's also a nerf to the player, just an indirect one. Some people will still be angry and they will start complaining.

We have a good recent example with Limbo and Scarlet Spear: DE didn't touch Limbo but instead made Sentients adapt to his time stop. There were a lot of complaints about Limbo being nerfed.

im not angry to nerfs as long as the system to implement makes sense and adds function and immersion, fun

as i deal with ai in a real way irl, i have to disagree as any basic ai can aimbot and kill players fairly easily , its usually the game designers who heavily  restrict and lower the behavior to make it seem more realistic as ai can understand its game variable and can know player location at all times . pretty much they can cheese kill players easily 

now that SS related topic started with them nerfing khora instead of doing the latter setup as with limbo  makes sense as the adaption of sentients is known and lore friendly

unless its void energy they can pretty much adapt to it lore wise 

[Aldain]

3 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

While I'll admit it might seem complex at first glance, especially with the general lack of explanations given in game by DE, if DE were to spend some time on explaining it, it 'could' be a solution for the issue of AoE, there's nothing to say they have to include all frames etc in the list....if nothing else it could give DE a numerically based insight into what frames players don't enjoy playing with etc.  Now yes you might get some outliers, like limbo, but DE will also have other statistics to pull from as well such as how often players are using a particular frame etc. 

Wouldn't giving DE metrics of frames people avoid only lead to them considering removing the things making people exclude them in the first place?

Also if Limbo becomes an outlier who can't get into a public game that just creates a new problem for Limbo players who would then demand the system that bars them from entering is removed.

Exclusion only brushes the issue under a rug, it doesn't solve the innate problem dividing the playerbase.

[Loza03]

1 minute ago, Felsagger said:

 

Now we can have a formal discussion. 

 

 

We have to focus on the viability and design within the game parameters. The game design of the characters neutralize any military accuracy of the hordes due to crowd control, absence of damage or area of effect. 

There are two schools of thoughts on how we should tackle the problem. We can downgrade frames in order to improve enemy's damage or we can increase enemy damage, shields, armor and health at higher levels. 

The third choice consist on doing nothing on the aspects of balance but on an increase on difficulty. If we speak about difficulty then we have the idea of incident oriented gaming. Missions parameters may increase stress testing hardware, mobility and decision making. This choice shows modifications on the missions requisites. 

Balance is impossible to attain due to the fact of constant addition of new ingredients, for this case, items such as weapons, war frames and modifiers. GAAS F2P markets depends on intrinsic game play over extrinsic game play for economic solvency. New items endorsed while old items due to popularity are downgraded dispersing the users while they create a fictitious need for those who mini/max or power creep. 

Balancing and difficulty are the main 'amphetamine' of game design. An equilibrium in these defines the health and operability of the game structure. War Frame is an ill posed creature with stratified issues of Synergy (passives/actives), modifiers (card patches), skill trees (tenno schools) and actuators (War frames abilities and weapons). The imbrication of these systems creates almost mental paralysis when we try to embark ideas on difficulty and balancing.   

What solutions are viable? Short term solutions are the inclusion of higher enemy level on missions where the player has the option to choose from instead of waiting 2 hours for high level enemies. A long term solution is the complexity on mission tasks, objectives and combination of mission types. These two solutions doesn't deal with the problems of downgrades/ upgrades and global solutions that trivialize game content. 

 

 

You're right, now we're talking.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here - in fact, I've come to some of these conclusions myself. The core conceit of the 'original' discussion, at least as I understand it, is the question of whether at our current level, we're in a position to take that third approach. That the current power level is negatively impacting the intrinsic gameplay by virtue of it being too effective.

For example - Limbo, when fighting against Grineer or Infested, pretty much solves defense-related scenarios on his own. More complex mission tasks or objectives do still have an effect (for example, Interception with its multiple points), but to a much more restricted degree. Limbo, inevitably, restricts the complexity of defence-based mission types because he's just that effective at it. Other Crowd Control frames do this as well, but to variable extents. Likewise, Nukes restrict complexity for modes which involve getting kills, and invisibility or immortal frames negate 'standard' combat encounters which could be used to spice other gamemodes.

[(XBOX)EternalDrk Mako]

1 minute ago, Felsagger said:

 

Now this is how you discuss military accuracy.

 

The problem that we have to study is how some War Frame changes these basic rules and conditions. Area of Effect, Kill Zone and Target Behavior. Another discussion are the classical pursuit curves and environment traversing or the marsh. 

War Frames will have the upper hand because they have a superior technology if we speak in terms of the lore of this game. An equal rule of engagement is impossible in this game. Enemies will always be in a disadvantage. Their only counter are the numbers and the level increase. 

The Lich approach was the first attempt where War Frames engage enemies with similar powers such as mobility, impact and shields. The rules of the engagements are going to change. 

The other problem this game have is the lack of friendly fire. War Frames should damage each other when powers are used. Weapons should damage other players when they are fired. However that sword can cut back because of trolls and immature players. Having such option creates a new level of sophistication where strategies are obligatory and organization fundamental for the success of any mission. 

Military tactics should be extremely intensive on the Grineer. They MUST HAVE military accuracy, artillery, special teams, more vehicles and capable weapons. 

grineer , sentient and corpus should both be very well versed in military combat 

and as you state warframes provide a new angle aka the superhuman 1 person army , but even then most militarys respond with new technology , weapons to adapt similar how the corpus have nullifiers and the grineer have kuva related soldiers , they have the means to counter us, but seem intent on mass fodder route which si a waste of man power and resources 

[LSG501]

8 minutes ago, Aldain said:

Wouldn't giving DE metrics of frames people avoid only lead to them considering removing the things making people exclude them in the first place?

and

Exclusion only brushes the issue under a rug, it doesn't solve the innate problem dividing the playerbase.

While I personally see no reason to change AoE, a lot of the back and forth in this thread is ultimately down to personal opinion rather than hard numbers.... giving DE hard numbers would solve that issue and if a majority of in game players feel a particular frame (and even weapons) is so annoying that it needs to be blocked then it is something that DE can then take some time on and give a rework to.

Quote

Also if Limbo becomes an outlier who can't get into a public game that just creates a new problem for Limbo players who would then demand the system that bars them from entering is removed.

Personally with the current limbo I don't think it would be an outlier in all honesty, it has a role that it fits into pretty well, and I can't say I see limbo 'that much' now scarlet spear has ended...  although it depends on any further changes because of another 'scarlet spear'.  Having said that I can see limbo 'xp leeches' being blocked but that's another issue altogether.. but then I suppose DE can ask us to give or pick a reason for blocking the frame.

I'm not saying a blocking system is perfect, but it's far better than arbitrarily changing AoE based on opinions in a forum post etc.

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by LSG501

[DOOMPATRIOT]

Warframe's core is broken, we all know that, and I think DE just realized that fact now, even if they nerfed all damage by 99%, we would still be gods among ants anyway.

My advice would be for DE to start making another game, trying to build on top of a broken core isn't gonna work (and it is not working), it just breaks even more and leaves the gameplay even less engaging...

Edited May 19, 2020 by DOOMPATRIOT

[Aldain]

2 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

While I personally see no reason to change AoE, a lot of the back and forth in this thread is ultimately down to personal opinion rather than hard numbers.... giving DE hard numbers would solve that issue and if a majority of in game players feel a particular frame (and even weapons) is so annoying that it needs to be blocked then it is something that DE can then take some time on and give a rework to.

I guess I can agree with that, but people would still complain even if it was backed up by empirical "We don't want this" data, and honestly the end result would likely be the same.

3 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

I'm not saying a blocking system is perfect, but it's far better than arbitrarily changing AoE based on opinions in a forum post etc.

To be fair introducing a blocking system based on opinions isn't drastically different, but it would at least be a bit better an illustrator...assuming it was made/used right, which I have infinitely low faith in the playerbase or DE using/designing one correctly.

[Felsagger]

Squad behavior. 

This should not be taken literal but the formations, team movement and team reaction may give an idea. We have to reason in terms of team structures instead of independent unit behavior when we speak about Grineer and of course Corpus. 

 

 

Horde behavior is more appropriate for the infested but we will talk about that later if needed. Balance and difficulty issues should be viable without impacting a large number of War Frames or items. If we tell developers that such solutions are viable we are inviting them for more marketing through downgrades and upgrades. We should throw in solutions that doesn't affect War Frames that much. 

[Rakosta_Kai]

1 hour ago, Loza03 said:

I think, with this, we can confirm that difficulty and balance is, in fact, a significant issue within the community. Not necessarily the most major in most people's eyes, but nevertheless, it's of major concern. Let's continue discussion with this in mind - 'It's not a big problem in the eyes of the community' or 'the community at large will complain' do not seem to be arguments that reflect the evidence that we have. Likewise, arguments to the effect of people not wanting any difficulty being the minority also aren't valid, as that portion of the community appears to be around the same size.

With all due respect we are talking about an informal poll that managed to garner just under 30k respondants for a game that has maintained on average 48k (per steam) concurrent players this year?!?!?

With no disrespect to your results as you are clearly only taking from what you see...That survey smells fishy.

1 hour ago, Loza03 said:

Whilst not perfect, it's only looking at it's own relatively small slice of the community, yadda yadda, if nothing else it should serve as at least an indication of the proportions we're looking at here.

According to the data you posted it's not the minority of the community...It's the majority of the active community instead.

...That isn't even remotely possible.

1 hour ago, Jarriaga said:

This is true only if you happen to believe that vocal players are higher in numbers than those who go with the flow and don't mind changes that much. Historically, that is not true.

It's the reason why they are called a vocal minority. They make a lot of noise. One of them makes more noise than 500 people. But he's still one. 

DE just don't want to face that. Even if it's a minority, mainly because they tend to be not only loud, but organized. They know where to put the pressure. They know how to make it hurt. They know how push it to the front of Reddit. And at the end it becomes a PR nightmare.

This feels like the more likely cause of the numerical disparity in play.

[LSG501]

10 minutes ago, Aldain said:

I guess I can agree with that, but people would still complain even if it was backed up by empirical "We don't want this" data, and honestly the end result would likely be the same.

To be fair introducing a blocking system based on opinions isn't drastically different, but it would at least be a bit better an illustrator...assuming it was made/used right, which I have infinitely low faith in the playerbase or DE using/designing one correctly.

Oh there will be complaints no matter what.. you can see it in this thread already so any changes would have the same resulting 'conflict' of opinions.

In some respects they could get every player to do a survey (give them a decent free gift so they're more likely to do it - bribery seems to work well in warfame) asking things like which frame don't you like to be in missions with and why, maybe include a 0-10 ranking too... what frame do you enjoy playing and why...

Basically in an ideal world DE would actually get some proper numerical player feedback before making changes because while I'm not in favour of changing AoE, I'm also not against reworks... I just don't want reworks that turn a 'good frame' into 'mr fodder' like has happened in the past, even more so if we've invested time and forma into it. 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by LSG501

[(XBOX)ShonOfDawn]

47 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

No... I could summarise your post quite nicely thanks.... and like I said it really does boil down to what I've written, if you can't see that I feel pity for you.

At this point, I really think you couldn't, if that's the answer you gave me. You did not address me giving you actual evidence of people valuing difficulty. You did not address uncontrolled AoE being disruptive for engaging gameplay. You did not elaborate on your disagreement on progress being a form of accomplishment, and on accomplishment being the foundation of a gaming experience. You did not attempt to prove in any way that Gara or Gauss are in the "upper echelon" of AoE frames. You did not explain how AoE supposedly is the reason why people play warframe. There's quite a few things you've missed, so you should probably recheck your definition of summary.

There's nothing shameful in admitting you ran out of things to say and that you are wrong. After all, we argue to better ourselves and our opinions in the pursuit of truth, it happens to be on the mistaken part sometimes. What is shameful however, is adamantly refusing to listen to reason when good argumentations have been provided, sheltering yourself in a husk of willful ignorance and keeping a comical attitude of smugness and superiority.

Edited May 19, 2020 by (XB1)ShonFr0st

[LSG501]

1 minute ago, (XB1)ShonFr0st said:

At this point, I really think you couldn't, if that's the answer you gave me. You did not address me giving you actual evidence of people valuing difficulty. You did not address uncontrolled AoE being disruptive for engaging gameplay. You did not elaborate on your disagreement on progress being a form of accomplishment, and on accomplishment being the foundation of a gaming experience. You did not attempt to prove in any way that Gara or Gauss are in the "upper echelon" of AoE frames. You did not explain how AoE supposedly is the reason way people play warframe. There's quite a few things you've missed, so you should probably recheck your definition of summary.

There's nothing shameful in admitting you ran out of things to say and that you are wrong. After all, we argue to better ourselves and our opinions in the pursuit of truth, it happens to be on the mistaken part sometimes. What is shameful however, is adamantly refusing to listen to reason when good argumentations have been provided, sheltering yourself in a husk of willful ignorance and keeping a comical attitude of smugness and superiority.

I haven't run out of anything to say...  my reply was as intended, because that's how it read.  It's also funny how you comment about me ignoring other opinions etc because from my perspective you're doing the exact same thing...

I don't need to prove anything in relation to gara or gauss considering I said 'arguably' meaning other people will have differing views on them and that's fine. 

I said I was ignoring the superfluous bits like accomplishment (although I did quickly respond to it so you didn't think I'd ignored it).... We could spend all day arguing on just 'accomplishment' in warframe but as I said that wasn't the topic of the thread so figured I'd not diverge from the main topic at hand.

[(PSN)thegarada]

23 hours ago, fatpig84 said:

And when is the last time people use a real CC frame ?
Last check Scarlet spear was Limbo and he got nerfed in a few days. 

Bottom line pure CC frames are already extremely unpopular frames to use.
They have the same frail tendencies of  some "DPS / nuke" frames (plenty of nukers like Gara are not fragile at all), but CC frames also don't deal a lot of damage.

Heck Gara, Khora and Octavia overlap so hard that they outright replace most CC frames in their role (nyx / vauban / Limbo etc) while retaining very high TTK.
So if Khora can't use her 2 or 4 due to some arbitrary restrictions like yours, she will use her 1 and instant delete the mobs for over a million damage.

Then people say then extend it to all abilities. Hey but we have nullifiers already for that. 
So this solution is nothing new.

As for adding more AOE effects, do we want to propose more AOEs with possible knock downs ?
Warframe is a horde shooter, an enemy that deals AOE even if in a cone is going to cause huge problems for many players.
Add on CC immunity and endgame difficulty levels, you have a recipe for huge complaints.

Or the hardcore simply calmly one shot it with their min max builds while the other 90% complain.

Ya, no one runs Limbo or Mag... Khora is a CC frame as well. And As you mentioned Gara and Octavia. 

There is a reason why things like arbitration drones and nullifiers exist. So no one brings one frame to CC the entire map. Saying it is not an existing issue is just false.. Why do you think DE made the Scarlet Spear change to Limbo?

Also, where did I suggest more AOE knock backs? 

"Warframe is a horde shooter, an enemy that deals AOE even if in a cone is going to cause huge problems for many players," so players should be treated as the #*!%ing idiots. Cool...

[SneakyErvin]

2 hours ago, LSG501 said:

You say about ignoring walls... well essentially that is what happened with the WoF rework, we gained a line of sight ability that targets x enemies and hits them if it sees them (assuming no LoS issues).  Now it might have changed a little on exterminate but on defence etc it's literally the same just with more button presses... you sit in one spot, you press 4, you wait for the enemy to be hit, rinse, repeat and arguably it scales higher now due to the fire status rework.  Mind you I can literally count the number of times I've seen an ember since the rework on one hand.... players have just changed to the next fastest option for low level missions. 

That doesnt mean that LoS isnt a good move, it just means that defense maps need a massive rework, which they've needed for a long time. They are simple and barebones maps. It also means the mobs need tweaking, which would have a point to it after AoE's are no longer being able to go through walls and instagib everything 50m+ away. Higher speed on enemies along with other things would counter a camping playstyle.

Introduce shock grenades that some units will use before going in, a grenade that renders WF abilities unusable for X seconds. That way camping in a spot wont be so easy. Nullification grenades would be another thing, to counter abilities that lead to mindless gameplay, like Mesmer Skin, Iron Skin and other things. Things that may spice up the game and make us react to different dangers depending on which frame we use.

[Felsagger]

32 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

You're right, now we're talking.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here - in fact, I've come to some of these conclusions myself. The core conceit of the 'original' discussion, at least as I understand it, is the question of whether at our current level, we're in a position to take that third approach. That the current power level is negatively impacting the intrinsic game play by virtue of it being too effective.

For example - Limbo, when fighting against Grineer or Infested, pretty much solves defense-related scenarios on his own. More complex mission tasks or objectives do still have an effect (for example, Interception with its multiple points), but to a much more restricted degree. Limbo, inevitably, restricts the complexity of defence-based mission types because he's just that effective at it. Other Crowd Control frames do this as well, but to variable extents. Likewise, Nukes restrict complexity for modes which involve getting kills, and invisibility or immortal frames negate 'standard' combat encounters which could be used to spice other gamemodes.

 

Now this is highly accurate. 

 

The fundamental problem is the interaction of two military mindsets due to a difference in technology. The set of rules on engagements will be different. We should not be the ones pulling counter measureless on them, they are. The set of rules for War Frames paints a completely different battlefield than those with lower technologies or tool set kits. 

War Frames are juggernauts that move fast, has an increased area of effect and sometimes they get invulnerability for long spans of times with regeneration. No enemy A.I.wil be able to counter War Frames with only military accuracy. It needs much more. Grineer behaves like units instead of squad teams. Squad teams focus dps or damage per second more accurate. However that requires 'target painting'. Grineer should mark targets so a vast majority of squads focus their attention on them. 

The distance of engagement is the other problem. War Frames are vulnerable at long distance while at short distances they go melee. The A.I, in this case Grineer, should get weapons that helps them safeguard distance such as energy shields, armor shield, typical shields and weapons that punish War Frames that goes near like powerful shot guns. 

Enemies needs more than one weapon. They need two or three depending on the unit. The enemy needs load outs such as grenades, smoke grenades, sticky bombs, and the normal weapon types. Grineer needs a military organization that defines enemy types. This does not affect the War Frame, Mods, Weapons or Tenno. 

Limbo is a War Frame that requires enemy coordination. He is way ahead of any form of military weaponry and accuracy. His technology makes him a foe impossible to take down unless the enemy finds way to shut down temporary his powers or abilities. This is why target painting is important. "We have a Limbo in the field" "requesting void null devices".

 

 

[(PSN)Touha9]

7 hours ago, (XB1)ShonFr0st said:

Most people here just want to nerf outliers that are undoubtably gamebreaking (Saryn, Limbo, Mesa, Equinox...) in order to make the game less of a "press a button and everything dies or stops in place", with maybe a rework to how AoE damage works to at least require LoS. The proposals are meant to give the devs a platform to build meaningful encounters, not the usual stompfest in which nothing can harm you except grind requirements and burnout. No one is asking to remove fun or introduce souls-like levels of difficulty, just the bare minimum to give people a sense of accomplishment in combat, which is what constitutes fun for a lot of players. 

So well and concisely put....  This is exactly how I feel as well.  In general, we are talking about some modest adjustments to just a few Frames abilities and/or how AoE works.  If you combine a little of this with a little added complexity of mission types and enemy behavior/ability, I think you would have a winning balance that would NOT require huge, wholesale major changes to the game and NOT involve major nerfs or enemy buffs.  The game will never be balanced nor should it be as we all want the power fantasy.  But, as Steve at DE has talked about---the key for Warframe's future health is more "intrinsic" rewards in playing.....the gameplay itself is just a joy to play and satisfying with a sense of accomplishment.  Grind, which there will always be, is less of an issue if the game is just continually enjoyable and rewarding to simply play.  

[LSG501]

23 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

That doesnt mean that LoS isnt a good move, it just means that defense maps need a massive rework, which they've needed for a long time. They are simple and barebones maps. It also means the mobs need tweaking, which would have a point to it after AoE's are no longer being able to go through walls and instagib everything 50m+ away. Higher speed on enemies along with other things would counter a camping playstyle.

Introduce shock grenades that some units will use before going in, a grenade that renders WF abilities unusable for X seconds. That way camping in a spot wont be so easy. Nullification grenades would be another thing, to counter abilities that lead to mindless gameplay, like Mesmer Skin, Iron Skin and other things. Things that may spice up the game and make us react to different dangers depending on which frame we use.

Can you honestly say that you could see DE going to this extreme of a change to the enemy mechanics, I can't because with literally every other thing they've 'changed' after we've complained they've done the bare minimum to make it look as though they've listened while ultimately not actually changing much. 

IO on Jupiter basically had the changes (IO was even redesigned to limit mesa usage) you've mentioned done to the map in the rework, you could argue that Earth has them as well and can you honestly say you enjoy those maps... at the very least you ideally want a speed nova to speed up the rate the enemies get to you.  I literally haven't done IO since about a week after the rework, and it's not down to no mesa, it's just too long winded now, and well earth isn't really high enough level in the first place.

And they'd also need to fix the issues with LoS too, it is not 100% reliable.

I don't mind the idea of grineer getting a 'nullifier' of sorts, as long as it's easy to see/kill etc like corpus/ancient, maybe even make them immune to our abilities so they can get in closer to throw said grenade and cancel out our abilities etc... Maybe even go down the corpus comba/scrambus route or to make even more simple, just have the enemies from demolysts from disruption turn up in normal missions (prioritising AoE frames), with their explosion cancelling out abilities for say 30 seconds.

Edited May 19, 2020 by LSG501

[Felsagger]

52 minutes ago, Padre_Akais said:

With all due respect we are talking about an informal poll that managed to garner just under 30k respondants for a game that has maintained on average 48k (per steam) concurrent players this year?!?!?

With no disrespect to your results as you are clearly only taking from what you see...That survey smells fishy.

According to the data you posted it's not the minority of the community...It's the majority of the active community instead.

...That isn't even remotely possible.

This feels like the more likely cause of the numerical disparity in play.

Fine, lets get into a more accurate discussion. 

We don't have correlation tables, raw data, analysis of distributions or any other information that allows us establish concrete solutions. We are limited to a guess game where the conjectures are established by prior DE behavior on certain problems, issues or situations. 

We can't proof accuracy of information and much less see if the information was generated in a veritable way. Verification of truth is a luxury we don't have since the stream of data is tight lipped and hermetic. These tables is a portion where we can 'theorize' or shall I say 'fantasize' claims. 

The survey of course can be manipulated and altered with other purposes. We don't know them, only DE knows if they are speaking truth or not. We arrive to a controversial issue that generates lots of pointless discussions such as conspiratorial theories. Those are useless for us. Besides which company in this planet displays accurate data of their micro transactions, player distributions, player uses, player surveys and excel pivot tables of such results. Do we have these? No. 

Our only stance resumes to a wish list, an activity inflating a thread and only demands that are based on speculation and personal opinion. Our resources as customers are limited and hampered. We can't detect the illness of this creature called War Frame. However we do know the symptoms because we experience them in a daily basis. 

 

Our verbatim is based only on symptomatology and prognosis. This is why I don't judge his genuine attempt. I know you are not doing it. However he tried to elevate the conversation. Since he has a genuine interest in the conversation, I want him to enter this level of abstraction and sophistication.