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

[SneakyErvin]

23 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

 

First you need to play Over Watch. Do that first. You will know. 

I get this odd feeling you are swedish cos you love to Sär Skriva, alot when it makes no sense. But you are right, I havent played Over Watch, so it may have a different setup, or be a completely different game than Overwatch.

[Rakosta_Kai]

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

But I wouldnt be able to not use it, since it would be passively forced on me by being grouped with people that decide to look for a more specific group. So that could mean even if I dont care about using the system I'd still be prone to it if I get thrown into such a group, which could potentially make me end up in a non-full group or sit and wait for longer than I want.

That is why it should be a seperate new public queue. If that wouldnt be a thing the bolded part would apply to the new system aswell and in the end solve nothing, it would just shift this "issues" you claim already exsists.

Sure you would... You would simply not limit your public matchmaking options.

If you are using a frame that people are uncomfortable playing around or are a toxic player then it would hamper your playing options of course.

...I don't see that as a negative because it means the possible options don't want to play with you anyway.

That forces DE to figure out why players are uncomfortable with a frame or limits your from exposing toxic behavior in missions.

Changes to the frame would help create mission harmony.

Toxic players become accountable for being so.

Both are positives.

[Felsagger]

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

I get this odd feeling you are swedish cos you love to Sär Skriva, alot when it makes no sense. But you are right, I havent played Over Watch, so it may have a different setup, or be a completely different game than Overwatch.

It makes perfect sense. '

First, play the games, then argue about them. 

[Felsagger]

5 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

To be fair, the anti-the challenge is also a minority. In fact, according to the survey, the two groups are almost exactly the same size.

Balance and difficult content did seem to generally have support from the community, albeit not as the main point of content.

Agree. 

Yes. This game will gain a greater benefit if some challenges are increased. I do support some challenge that stress test skill and gear. I would love to see the return and remake of the Raids. Or at least bring back the Dark Sectors again. 

[(XBOX)ShonOfDawn]

5 minutes ago, Padre_Akais said:

Sure you would... You would simply not limit your public matchmaking options.

You seem not to get the point, even if you didn't limit your matchmaking options, and even if you played a likable frame, if a single other player joins your group and has matchmaking restrictions on, those restrictions also passively carry over to you, because them, and by extension you, won't be matched with the frames that guy banned. There's no way to opt out.

[SneakyErvin]

1 minute ago, Padre_Akais said:

Sure you would... You would simply not limit your public matchmaking options.

If you are using a frame that people are uncomfortable playing around or are a toxic player then it would hamper your playing options of course.

...I don't see that as a negative because it means the possible options don't want to play with you anyway.

That forces DE to figure out why players are uncomfortable with a frame or limits your from exposing toxic behavior in missions.

Changes to the frame would help create mission harmony.

Toxic players become accountable for being so.

Both are positives.

How? If I use the same queue I'd end up in groups with those that limit their options even if I dont. Say 2 people are restricting 5 different frames each and I restrict none. I play one of the frames they dont blacklist so I end up in their group. This means I may have wait time added because of their restricted matchmaking choices even though I sit with zero restrictions. This isnt about people not wanting to play with me, this is about me ending up in groups where people dont wanna play with X number of frames, forcing me to be part of that system aswell, even if I do not care to use it.

So tell me, how can I avoid the system if it doesnt have a seperate queue just for those that "opt in"?

[SneakyErvin]

8 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

It makes perfect sense. '

First, play the games, then argue about them. 

Typing Over Watch makes sense? What is over the watch? Is the game about a shelf, a lamp, possibly a cloth covering the watch? Or is it about some duded hanging out during their watch?

"You want some coffee Joe?"

"Sure, but lets take it over watch!"

[DeMonkey]

1 hour ago, (PS4)OmegaSlayer said:

Then go play Dark Souls

Go play clicker heroes.

1 hour ago, (PS4)OmegaSlayer said:

You have to realize that the people who wants "teh challenge" (me included somehow) is a minority

Doesn't that twitter graph say otherwise? If not, please provide some evidence to support the fact that people wanting engaging gameplay are "teh minority", and also why that's even a factor in the first place.

[SneakyErvin]

2 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Doesn't that twitter graph say otherwise? If not, please provide some evidence to support the fact that people wanting engaging gameplay are "teh minority", and also why that's even a factor in the first place.

I think it does say otherwise, which would be kinda obvious since it is also one of those things DE bring up constantly in their streams, adressing that they are aware "challenge" is one of the most demanded things by the playerbase. I think we that want it is very much a majority, I doubt DE would bring it up as often as they do otherwise, nor would they try and solve it (yeah right what a solution) by introducing hard and ultra hard mode soon.

[Rakosta_Kai]

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

This means I may have wait time added because of their restricted matchmaking choices even though I sit with zero restrictions.

Actually it doesn't because you would have a larger pool of players to pull against than you do currently.

The goal isn't to encourage pug players to continue pugging with you but by expanding the list of available pugs by tapping into the solo player contingent.

As to the rest? That speaks to your frame choice or you as a player.

Regardless, it's important to remember that those other players are willing to risk longer potential play-times to avoid playing with you.

The other option is the currently 'sensible' option of choosing not to play with anyone at all by going solo which is, by and large, what happens when people don't want to be exposed to certain playstyles anyway.

Put simply, your wait-time for a pug stands a better chance of going down simply by virtue of the fact that more people will choose to pug with limited matchmaking than it would with no matchmaking. 

Of course, if you are a consistently crappy, selfish, and inconsiderate player then every group you enter can reduce the number of potential players who run pugs with you regardless.

....But it won't impact the rest of us by making those players feel like they would rather solo to keep from encountering you again.

[Rakosta_Kai]

9 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Typing Over Watch makes sense? What is over the watch? Is the game about a shelf, a lamp, possibly a cloth covering the watch? Or is it about some duded hanging out during their watch?

"You want some coffee Joe?"

"Sure, but lets take it over watch!"

[Felsagger]

Challenging content is something that the vast majority wants. I still find interesting the Exploiter Orb and the Profit taker battles. They are enjoyable. Some of these fights could get better. I still run these.   

[Rakosta_Kai]

1 minute ago, Felsagger said:

Challenging content is something that the vast majority wants. I still find interesting the Exploiter Orb and the Profit taker battles. They are enjoyable. Some of these fights could get better. I still run these.   

You don't know what the vast majority wants because the vast majority haven't told you.

Feel free to speculate for yourself but don't co-sign on everyone else's behalf.

...ain't nobody buying cars right now.

[DestroyerF5]

il y a 9 minutes, Felsagger a dit :

Para ser honesto, Limbo es uno de los mayores problemas del juego si sugerimos la ruta del equilibrio y la dificultad. 

 

Prefiero simplemente sacarlo del juego o degradarlo por completo. 

Eso es casi nulo nunca DE pensaria en sacar un warframe del juego nisiquiera sacarian a garuda que es una de las menos usadas, y limbo? que es uno de los mas usados si no el mas a parte de mesa rhino y excalibur umbra no amigo eso DE no lo tomaria ni en cuenta, lo que yo digo que hagan es hacernos op, que n no nerfeen si no que nos hagan mas op de lo que somos, por ejemplo vann a añadir las kachtmun primarias y cuando hagan eso las otras armas primarias van a desaparecer porque todos querran usar las kachtmun primarias, y eso es un gran problema, mi   la solucion desde mi punto de vista es que añadan los riven para todas las armas y ya esta asi no dejaran de usar las armas primarias actuales.

[Felsagger]

6 minutes ago, Padre_Akais said:

You don't know what the vast majority wants because the vast majority haven't told you.

Feel free to speculate for yourself but don't co-sign on everyone else's behalf.

...ain't nobody buying cars right now.

We have the polls that Loza03 provided. 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Felsagger

[SneakyErvin]

Just now, Padre_Akais said:

Actually it doesn't because you would have a larger pool of players to pull against than you do currently.

The goal isn't to encourage pug players to continue pugging with you but by expanding the list of available pugs by tapping into the solo player contingent.

As to the rest? That speaks to your frame choice or you as a player.

Regardless, it's important to remember that those other players are willing to risk longer potential play-times to avoid playing with you.

The other option is the currently 'sensible' option of choosing not to play with anyone at all by going solo which is, by and large, what happens when people don't want to be exposed to certain playstyles anyway.

Put simply, your wait-time for a pug stands a better chance of going down simply by virtue of the fact that more people will choose to pug with limited matchmaking than it would with no matchmaking. 

Of course, if you are a consistently crappy, selfish, and inconsiderate player then every group you enter can reduce the number of potential players who run pugs with you regardless.

....But it won't impact the rest of us by making those players feel like they would rather solo to keep from encountering you again.

Do you have any numbers whatsoever to back up such statements? At high levels it would be the opposite for me from personal experience. Currently there is instant access to the high level nodes worth running for someone far down the progression path, this includes lich missions, kuva fissures and everything else pretty much. How would that improve for me if those people start using a more selective matchmaker option? Do I magically get the people from lower nodes suddenly flocking to my high level nodes or does player 2 grow animosity towards player 3 and his frames of choice, forcing me into a longer queue when I end up with either of the two?

Again, this isnt about if they avoid me or not. Please get the point. That in itself is a seperate issue of the system.

So I wont benefit from it, so I want an option to opt out of it. I mean, if the system is as great as you claim you shouldnt have a problem by having it in a seperate queue that doesnt interfear with us that dont wanna use it. Or is it not good enough, so you need to piggyback on us that doesnt care who we really end up with, at the cost of our time?

[Loza03]

So, interesting point. The new Hysteria Augment which dropped just now causes it to have 15 second activation (albeit far more powerful) and a 15 second cooldown?

This is interesting. Could possibly be an experiment. Time will tell.

[Felsagger]

1 minute ago, Loza03 said:

So, interesting point. The new Hysteria Augment which dropped just now causes it to have 15 second activation (albeit far more powerful) and a 15 second cooldown?

This is interesting. Could possibly be an experiment. Time will tell.

Hysterical Assault has a cooldown?  

[(PSN)CodyXSavageX]

This is not to nerf us but to introduce to elements of gameplay that challenge us. Enemies exist to check us. Certain enemies exist to check certain roles.

If there are no grineer enemies that check for cc then cc frames have no challenge and can infinitely stall uncontested with no need for tanking or dps. Which is why cc frames should be punished heavily for losing their cc on enemies with quick retaliation by the enemy onto you and the objective

If there are no enemies that check for damage then everything is killed too quickly for tanking or cc to matter. Which is why it’s fine to nuke a lvl 3 earth exterminate but there should be more risk being to having no defensive kit in a lvl 200 mission as dps alone should no longer count as survivability and higher ehp enemies take your hits and hit back.

If there are no enemies that check for tanks than nothing will kill the tank and will stall without a need for dps and cc. Which is why there’s a timer in survivals and tankbusting enemies should exist to force tanks into exhausting their resources and exposing their vulnerabilities

 

[Loza03]

2 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Hysterical Assault has a cooldown?  

"New Augment which dropped just now"

 

[ranks21]

3 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

Pointing out that the gameplay represented in the trailer and the actual gameplay in the game today are completely at odds with one another is not nitpicking, I was neither fussy nor pedantic. I was sincerely stating, for the sake of correction, that you are wrong.

Saying that the gameplay is similar because you can hypothetically do those things still is however nitpicking. 

Either you're living in some sort of fairy land, or you haven't played the game in a very long time. What you just listed above, those things that can happen, don't actually happen.

Besides the past 3 years or so of Warframe? Not sure.

You're the one that held the trailer up and said "this is what I signed up for".

Congratulations, you signed up for something that doesn't exist anymore.

dude youre saying and doing much about nothing = lipstick on a pig, still a pig.

nothing has changed in the game only rearranged for the same outcome. you used to press 1 button and kill everything then and now what has changed??? absolutely nothing. only that with some frames you now use an additional button or ability to make that 1 button kill ability acceptable in doing what it has always done "kill the enemy"

POE, Fortuna etc haven't changed the core gameplay>> killing the enemies in the very same ways of the past. adding mining, fishing, and a zoo collection (cats and dogs included) isn't that engaging either. << there's your fairy land.

new guns and old ones still performs the same way now as they did back then. old guns still feels mediocre (soma, braton) and newer ones still feels op(bramma etc)

the trailer I posted shows and proves the game hasn't moved or evolved to even that substandard fluent gameplay nor cohesiveness between it's players.

congrats to you if the game seems or is more than it's very core which is killing hordes of enemies and being a time sink with it's farming.

ps: sorry if I deflate that ballon.

Edited May 20, 2020 by ranks21

[Felsagger]

Valkyr - Hysteria - Enraged
Damage increased by 200%, Critical Chance increased by 200%. Hysteria lasts for 15s, and receives a matching cooldown.

 

That's interesting. Would be interesting to give Limbo cooldown abilities too. 

 

Thanks Loza03 for the information. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Felsagger

[AuroraSonicBoom]

It's a common sense thing I've been advocating for years. Whatever you do, whether you buff enemies or nerf players, to improve the gameplay the first thing that needs to happen is enemies being able to live longer. That doesn't mean they should to more damage as well, since that'd just turn everything back into a 2 shot experience you have to bullet jump spam through again. You still need to do that now, and being required to do so to survive high level content is another problem that ends up feeding back into the main issue.

Simply put, nerfing players in general is a lot better to improve combat than to buff every single enemy, since a lot more combat systems connect to enemy stats than to player stats. Both changes result in the same outcome, just with one being way less of a headache for the devs, and the other protecting the feelings of some players. To me its clear what the better alternative is, and what can be sacrificed.

[(XBOX)COA Altair]

Well yeah anyone who knows a bit about this game knows how piss easy it is because the frame abilities are broken.  Killing enemies will always be super easy with optimized builds on the likes of saryn and such.  

[Felsagger]

25 minutes ago, AuroraSonicBoom said:

It's a common sense thing I've been advocating for years. Whatever you do, whether you buff enemies or nerf players, to improve the gameplay the first thing that needs to happen is enemies being able to live longer. That doesn't mean they should to more damage as well, since that'd just turn everything back into a 2 shot experience you have to bullet jump spam through again. You still need to do that now, and being required to do so to survive high level content is another problem that ends up feeding back into the main issue.

Simply put, nerfing players in general is a lot better to improve combat than to buff every single enemy, since a lot more combat systems connect to enemy stats than to player stats. Both changes result in the same outcome, just with one being way less of a headache for the devs, and the other protecting the feelings of some players. To me its clear what the better alternative is, and what can be sacrificed.

Should be a middle point between a downgrade of certain frames and an upgrade on a variety of enemies. 

Designing engaging enemies is way harder. Titan Fall 2 provided a good set of enemies. Doom Eternal has a good tier of enemies that challenges the player constantly. Yes we can downgrade the player to the ground but the game will continue with the same issues. Enemy types are boring to no end. A better designed set of enemies makes a great difference. Enemies with initiative, enemies with more aggressiveness and better weapon for the enemy adds more depth to the game. 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Felsagger