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

[Aadi880]

1 hour ago, (XB1)DOMPATRIOT said:

What do you mean by "another"?

Don't ask.

The community moderators like Letter13 already has more than enough work for them. xD

[SneakyErvin]

3 hours ago, Felsagger said:

I can't disagree there. We are on the same page over those frames. 

I have many games and I study them among many other things. Sorry but the A.I. is a central topic in game design, computer science, logic, machine learning and many other research fields. Video game design includes A.I. everywhere. Even NPCs are going to be more handful as time passes by. Technology is improving on those fields. 

Your comment throws away A.I. design. I can't think about any respectable game designer that thinks the way you are thinking. It's a risky business to only press hard on the player side. If the outcome is a mixture of solutions then I'm all in. I read what you wrote but is not enough. DE has fundamental issues that goes with the kernel of the game. A.I. is unattended. Your solution is fair but it postpone the architecture of the game. The main architecture is the A.I. It will work of course if you remove the outlier frames however if you do nothing for the A.I. you will return to a game structure that is boring since your game is a grinder. A.I. helps with the grind making it interesting. 

The game infrastructure requires time. If the game environment is weak then the experience on the long run will be weak. 

But here is the thing you do not understand. You need to really test the A.I. first and then make the call outs for the frames. It's not the other way around as you suggest. 

An engineer must build the bridge first and then make the adjustments. It can discard the whole bridge or modify it. But the test should be made with all the variables in site. If we discard the A.I. then we make decisions over an A.I. that was crippled. It is very simple to understand. 

The problem is that you don't have a point to begin with. War Frames will be tested when a good AI and enemies where implemented then you start making decisions around the outcome when all your variables are set first. 

Good game designers work with the A.I. Example. Naughty Dog. This game should work with the A.I. If you think that balancing solves the problem then stick around more time. You will see that people will start talking how boring the game is. It's not one solution or many solutions. It is the ORDER of the solutions. 

We arent talking about a new game here though, so starting with the A.I before fixing the rest is not the way to go. If this was a new game I would agree with you, but it isnt. So they need to fix the game first in order to know what they need from the A.I that currently isnt available. When you start out in WF the A.I is enough and the game actually poses somewhat of a challenge, bosses are actually bosses and mobs covering behind inflatable walls are actually noticable in their behavior. So from a very basic standpoint the A.I in WF is more than enough since it also has enough durability to rely on in the assets that it controls. But the further we advance, the less of hope the A.I has since it is limited behind the regulations of a specific asset.

And we are also talking about a horde slaughter arpg here, A.I has never been one of the strongpoints in such games because they just dont have much of an opportunity to do much. Or do you seriously think D2, D3, TL2, Grim Dawn, PoE, Marvel Heroes or any other arpg out there with a horde focus has a noticable A.I? What you want or imagine seems to be WF turning into a more tactical looter shooter in the veins of Destiny 2 or Borderlands, that just isnt the type of game that WF is. This isnt about facing a handful of mobs at the time, it is about facing several times that number at a time.

If you study games as you claim you must know the vast difference between WF and several of the games you compare the A.I to. You asking for a great A.I that can do something worthwhile in a horde shooter is like the people asking for/expecting "trinity" quality raids in WF. It just wont happen since it isnt that type of game where it works.

[Felsagger]

17 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

We arent talking about a new game here though, so starting with the A.I before fixing the rest is not the way to go.

 

Wrong again.

How many games you have designed? None. Do you know more than Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, Santa Monica, From Soft?

Every developer that roams this planet considers the implementation of the full A.I. in the game to know the deterministic behavior of the players. 

Without concrete results you don't know where exactly how your implementation of the solution will begin. 

17 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

If this was a new game I would agree with you, but it isnt.

 

Investments on the A.I. are productive on the long run because it deals directly with the health of the game and the quality of the engagement. 

How many downgrades we had before scarlet spear? How many downgrades we had up to this point with all the War Frames? You don't have even a quarter of the time that I have in this game. You don't know that such problem where almost from the start? The mobs are clueless of the surroundings, they are dumb, they stay still waiting for shots, even without pulling any CC or nuke the enemy stands there waiting to be dispatched. 

 

Let me ask you this again. Do you play War Frame? Here let me help you. 

War Frame A.I. 2013. 

 

War Frame A.I. 2014

War Frame A.I. 2015

War Frame A.I. 2017

This explains the importance of A.I. in game design. 

 

17 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

 

So they need to fix the game first in order to know what they need from the A.I that currently isnt available. When you start out in WF the A.I is enough and the game actually poses somewhat of a challenge, bosses are actually bosses and mobs covering behind inflatable walls are actually noticable in their behavior. So from a very basic standpoint the A.I in WF is more than enough since it also has enough durability to rely on in the assets that it controls. But the further we advance, the less of hope the A.I has since it is limited behind the regulations of a specific asset.

 

Good A.I. is progressive, learns, adapt, adopt and engage according to the players potential. Good A.I. is aware of the surroundings and interact with the surroundings. Good games study the tier of players or the player where the A.I. changes his behavior. Good A.I. consider aggressiveness, works in groups and sneak the player with unexpected tactics or traps. Grineer armies have a lot of techniques for this.  

17 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And we are also talking about a horde slaughter arpg here, A.I has never been one of the strongpoints in such games because they just dont have much of an opportunity to do much. Or do you seriously think D2, D3, TL2, Grim Dawn, PoE, Marvel Heroes or any other arpg out there with a horde focus has a noticable A.I? What you want or imagine seems to be WF turning into a more tactical looter shooter in the veins of Destiny 2 or Borderlands, that just isnt the type of game that WF is. This isnt about facing a handful of mobs at the time, it is about facing several times that number at a time.

War Frame will continue to behave like War Frame. Tactical behavior of the enemy pushes us to think our strategies. The game will not change if the A.I. is smarter. The player must think because the A.I. has capabilities. The A.I. can be defeated few times with the same strategy but if such strategy is pulled off more than two or three times, the A.I. will alter his behavior adding more enemies, unexpected boss fights, aggressive enemies with better weapons or simply bring in heavier Units. 

This game disconnects the sense of risk and the sense of being under siege. This game throws away danger and the risks of being in enemy territory. Their tool kit is way too limited and somehow it feels incidental. The enemies don't gives the player a memorable fight other than just being fodder to satisfy the placebo of the player. This type of game doesn't requires any skill at all other than moving the frame while pulling off any ability that damages the enemy. 

 

17 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

If you study games as you claim you must know the vast difference between WF and several of the games you compare the A.I to. You asking for a great A.I that can do something worthwhile in a horde shooter is like the people asking for/expecting "trinity" quality raids in WF. It just wont happen since it isnt that type of game where it works.

Of course I know the difference because I play them. You don't. 

This is what you have right now in War Frame. 

The point is very simple, the A.I. in War frame is dumb. Leaving the A.I. as it is postpone the problem of retention. This is why we are discussing such topics in here because the game is breaking apart. The kernel of the game needs attention. What is that kernel? The A.I., level design, lore, single player missions and content. If the A.I. is aware of us and the level features, believe me the game would be way much better other than being sponges or just target practice. 

 

 

[Xaero]

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

What you want or imagine seems to be WF turning into a more tactical looter shooter in the veins of Destiny 2 or Borderlands, that just isnt the type of game that WF is. This isnt about facing a handful of mobs at the time, it is about facing several times that number at a time.

DE could always toughen enemies up and reduce their numbers. We already have it in Plains of Eidolon, Orb Vallis and Railjack. The game doesn't feel less Warframe because of it.

[Felsagger]

2 hours ago, Xaero said:

DE could always toughen enemies up and reduce their numbers. We already have it in Plains of Eidolon, Orb Vallis and Railjack. The game doesn't feel less Warframe because of it.

Indeed. 

The game will not turn into something different. The engagements will be more memorable than slapping uninteresting numb musou  braindead mobs. Even in Hydron Nox are noticed and attended accordingly as priority targets due to the high dps damage. Glass enemies are attended first because they pack a punch. If in any set of enemies there is no priority, preservation, position or preference the game becomes flat. The player execute the same winning habit instead of thinking quick decisions against the roster of enemies. 

Tier of enemies can come up with opticor vandals, for example volleys of five of them. There could be heavy corpus with Grattlers and two heavy ospreys backing them up. Yes all these enemies can be taken with seven forma's power creep frames but if the player is not careful he/she can get a heavy shake or bite the dust for not being aware of these enemies. War Frame will forever be War Frame. I don't want to change the game structure of it or the ingredients that makes the game unique. My purpose is the quality throughout the core game play or the kernel of the game.

Certain units should happen more often instead of waiting an hour for their appearance. More Napalm heavy troops, rocket troops together and lots of heavies working as a military instead of waiting death row when the spawn algorithm throws them in to fight us. 

[SneakyErvin]

14 hours ago, Felsagger said:

-snip-

All of this is still about what DE should have done in the beginning. None of it will matter as a first step now. Fix the rest of the things, then worry about an A.I.

How hard is it for you to understand the simple point of them having to start in the correct order of things. I dont disagree with you about WF needing a new A.I. You are just too hung up on it as the solution. They need to start in the right end. Slapping on a better A.I will not increase our tactical approach as the game currently plays. Your videos are also old and two of them just show bugs that happen from time to time. When I started in 2017, not only was the density on early missions higher, the enemies actually did pose a threat when you had basic items. Alot has changed over the years.

8 hours ago, Xaero said:

DE could always toughen enemies up and reduce their numbers. We already have it in Plains of Eidolon, Orb Vallis and Railjack. The game doesn't feel less Warframe because of it.

Oh indeed they could but with that several other things would also need to be reworked to fit in a less dense system. Like modes relying on killing, ammo economy, energy economy, health economy and everything else connected to high density encounters would have to change. Everything they change that would effect current systems would build up more and more things they need to alter aswell. PoE works since it has a different setup, you can run out of ammo in the zone but you also have actual ammo depots out there to scavenge. Orb Valis is only lower on density if you keep the alert level down, if you actually farm out there the density will be high and comparable to other parts of the game based on the actual level. Railjack is just... empty on the ground objectives. The galleon for instance is just a running/bullet jump simulator until you hit up the "boss". Sure I guess that makes it feel the same as the rest of warframe when it comes to assassination missions, or sabotage if we look at crewships and the other ground objectives. 

[SneakyErvin]

6 hours ago, Felsagger said:

Even in Hydron Nox are noticed and attended accordingly as priority targets due to the high dps damage. Glass enemies are attended first because they pack a punch.

Uhm lol what?

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

All of this is still about what DE should have done in the beginning. None of it will matter as a first step now. Fix the rest of the things, then worry about an A.I.

 

But you do not understand the following: 

 

THERE IS NO A.I. at standard satisfactory level in the game. The problem was not properly attended for the last seven years. In DE's house you have lot of 3d animators, 3d modelers, designers and few game developers. 

 

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

How hard is it for you to understand the simple point of them having to start in the correct order of things. I dont disagree with you about WF needing a new A.I. You are just too hung up on it as the solution.

Wrong again. 

 

1. Improve A.I. to satisfactory levels for replay value. Military accuracy, level awareness, flock or swarm reaction.

2. Add a load out for certain enemies with three weapons. Add heavy troops with capable mid range and long range weapons. Add artillery troops with more frequency. 

3. Restrict, restrain or temperate the War Frame outliers in the repertoire. Balancing could happen on decrease in radius of AoE and cool downs for temporary invincibility. 

4. Increase size in level design and emphasize vertical over horizontal in certain levels making the player use the whole parkour tool kit. Remove some bounding box barriers on the levels that restrict War Frame movement. Stop holding the hand of players if a War Frame falls. Let players explore. 

5. Add a third heavy weapon on War Frames. Build full sets on a weapon release. (Arch Wing heavy, heavy, primary, secondary and melee).

6.Non scripted unpredictable boss encounters when the enemy calls for them. For example Vay Hek Power armor troops with similar models, use of robotic troops in the grineer, more drone support and deployment of special teams when Grineer calls them. Make threat be a threat not just the voice of Lotus saying it. 

7. Unexpected new enemies when the battle prolongs more than half hour. 

8. Faster casting speed and almost simultaneous casting on War Frames in mid hair and in land. Controlled melee weapon combos that requires more than just the push of one key. Expand the Add more controlled movements to the parkour tool kit. 

9. Stop using the old magical cave spawning. Let enemies respawn by believable insertion points, coil teleport, insertion by other means using carriers instead of mage magic spawns. 

10. Use temporary nullification of War frame powers on certain levels as part of the lore. Could be a game mode or some tier sortie or any raid. 

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

They need to start in the right end. Slapping on a better A.I will not increase our tactical approach as the game currently plays. Your videos are also old and two of them just show bugs that happen from time to time. When I started in 2017, not only was the density on early missions higher, the enemies actually did pose a threat when you had basic items. Alot has changed over the years.

Wrong again. 

The list of videos demonstrated the persistence of the problem during all those years. Today we still have the same issue.  

 

 

 

[Chicken-Biryani]

The people devoting days worth of effort in making responses in this thread actually need to find something to play... Forums is not endgame you know! 

[Zimzala]

This thread has become comedy gold at this point.

It's like watching Pee Wee Herman - "I know you are, but what am I?"

Who's not suprised none of the people in this thread with so many supposed incredible ideas have been offered jobs at DE?

I would love, love to be a fly on the wall in a conference room with some of the posters here as they pitch these 'ideas'  to actual business and technical leads...

Not to mention the tone with which they have been delivered, acting as if DE knows nothing and has not been successful, etc., wins any real friends.

It really is like watching 1st year psych students try and tell everyone how to think, IMO, beacuse they took a class on that.

[Felsagger]

 

"As if DE knows nothing and has not been successful"

Why people are leaving the game? 

What are the current results? We have sonic the hedgehog pockemons lapping boring courses while they spam abilities against dumb A.I. Yes, DE knows better. 

 

[(XBOX)ShonOfDawn]

14 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

This thread has become comedy gold at this point.

Some posts have definitely gone off the rails, but the general consensus is still that outliers need to be toned down, gameplay made more interesting with specific interactions with units and spiced up mission objectives. It's not that idealistic nor that hard to actualize, and in a sense yes, DE is acting oblivious to the issue because they are way too scared to give this game a proper direction, as that would inevitably mean losing some players, while trying, unsuccessfully, to please everyone.

Some posters are being... comically overzealous, let's say, but there are still concrete ideas in the background.

[Zimzala]

5 minutes ago, (XB1)ShonFr0st said:

Some posts have definitely gone off the rails, but the general consensus is still that outliers need to be toned down, gameplay made more interesting with specific interactions with units and spiced up mission objectives. It's not that idealistic nor that hard to actualize, and in a sense yes, DE is acting oblivious to the issue because they are way too scared to give this game a proper direction, as that would inevitably mean losing some players, while trying, unsuccessfully, to please everyone.

Some posters are being... comically overzealous, let's say, but there are still concrete ideas in the background.

And I think that outlook toward DE is simply wrong.

Just because they don't acknowledge and directly address these things the way rabid forum users desire, does not mean they are 'oblivious'.

PS: In fact, IMO, the whole idea that a company that has been this successful is oblivious and scared comes from, IMO, an over abundance of Ego on the part of the poster. It's hilarious that someone can think so much of thier own air to call a successful game company these things with a straight face. They have created a very successful product in the marketplace, lets see something from the people that just sit back and call them silly things.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Zimzala
PS

[SneakyErvin]

38 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Wrong again. 

The list of videos demonstrated the persistence of the problem during all those years. Today we still have the same issue.  

They really didnt. They showed a few bugs that happen very rarely.

I'm also curious what part of the "Loki mission" would have been any different with better A.I? It was just a showcase of the lowest possible levels of enemies in the game i.e level 2 mobs. That same A.I but at a higher and more balanced level is actually quite decent (for this type of game) the first time you play through the star chart. It all just falls flat on its face when we get the power to not having to fight it. There are situations higher up aswell where if it werent for the powers/innate survivability and insane movement we have at out disposal, we'd actually have a chance at dying to the enemy horde. Our powers simply negate that risk unless we lose attention for a long period of time. We just have too much damage or too much total lockdown of enemy mobs, and several frames have so much survivability they could hand it out like candy.

And if we take the Loki mission shown as an example, it would have possibly made an impact on that level if instead of seeking out the frame the enemies would have hunkered down. But at a high level it wouldnt have mattered at all what A.I there is since the Loki would have just pressed 4 and the enemy would have no weapons within 50+ meters. Or if he didnt feel like cheesing it that way he would have stealthed and shot or chopped them all to death in their "smart" choice of cover or in their "smart" little formation setup. Kinda uh like it is now.

How would DE ever know at which point their A.I would be smart enough when we have these options to completely negate and cheese it? How would they know when they finaly reach the point where the A.I can counter cetain cheese if it would also be balance versus frames that cannot bring the cheese? There are 40+ different base variables in the frames, with several extra variable combinations within each base variable to balance an A.I towards, this because we can make multitudes of different builds. Everything else needs to come closer together at first so they have a foundation regarding where the avarage performance is at.

I'm also still waiting for an answer regarding what horde ARPG/shooter out there actually has a smart A.I or one where you have the time to notice the intelligence of it. You dodged the question earlier when several examples were brought up. I guess you have little knoweldge about the games brought up or the genre in general.

[Felsagger]

29 minutes ago, (XB1)ShonFr0st said:

The general consensus is still that outliers need to be toned down, gameplay made more interesting with specific interactions with units and spiced up mission objectives. It's not that idealistic nor that hard to actualize, and in a sense yes, DE is acting oblivious to the issue because they are way too scared to give this game a proper direction, as that would inevitably mean losing some players, while trying, unsuccessfully, to please everyone.

 

Exactly this. 

This is exactly the subject of discussion. DE is afraid of taking decisions. Being politically correct is one of the wrong policies in game design. They need to commit. Players will commit to that style and level of interactivity. DE should not be afraid beating players hard in the game. DE should not be afraid of adding depth to the enemy repertoire, a repertoire that needs a lot of love and attention. DE should not be afraid losing few players because the game got a bit tougher. 

[Felsagger]

 

32 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

PS: In fact, IMO, the whole idea that a company that has been this successful is oblivious and scared comes from, IMO, an over abundance of Ego on the part of the poster. It's hilarious that someone can think so much of thier own air to call a successful game company these things with a straight face. They have created a very successful product in the marketplace, lets see something from the people that just sit back and call them silly things.

 

If DE is this successful then why we have these conversations going on?

 

 

Lord, forgive me because I still want and believe in the idea of a better game for the community. Please lord, forgive me. 

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

1 hour ago, Zimzala said:

And I think that outlook toward DE is simply wrong.

Just because they don't acknowledge and directly address these things the way rabid forum users desire, does not mean they are 'oblivious'.

PS: In fact, IMO, the whole idea that a company that has been this successful is oblivious and scared comes from, IMO, an over abundance of Ego on the part of the poster. It's hilarious that someone can think so much of thier own air to call a successful game company these things with a straight face. They have created a very successful product in the marketplace, lets see something from the people that just sit back and call them silly things.

You mention success. Speaking of which you did not mention that they are making less money in the last quarter report we saw Concurrent players are more then a complete fraction of the millions of registered losers. And press amongs most of your partners aren’t in a good light right now. Warframe is just coasting along at the moment. For years players have been asking for multiple fixes and revisions just for them to implement them after players leave from two to three failed updates. Players have been asking for more challenging content and they implement hard mode which is a step forward but don’t mention anything other then higher level enemies atm which dosent fix the issue. It’s alot more I can note. But I don’t expect much from someone who loves to take things out of proportion and assume someone’s wording as an attack on you

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by (PS4)sweatshawp

[SneakyErvin]

14 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

 

 

If DE is this successful then why we have these conversations going on?

 

 

Lord, forgive me because I still want and believe in the idea of a better game for the community. Please lord, forgive me. 

Because the two arent always related. A game can be doing great and still lack things or need overhauls/changes. Even with the past shakey updates Warframe has been doing great for the past 7 months with quite impressive retention. That doesnt mean it cant improve.

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

Because the two arent always related. A game can be doing great and still lack things or need overhauls/changes. Even with the past shakey updates Warframe has been doing great for the past 7 months with quite impressive retention. That doesnt mean it cant improve.

While I do agree retention is slightly better a rule of thumb is take into account the number of registered players vs active. Reguardless of ftp it shouldn’t be this low and that’s the scary part .

no I’m not said warframe is in a terrible spot but it’s still in a very very bad spot. Poe I think was the last time it peaked at 150k with that being said and the success over the years that should’ve happened we should be seeing around that give or take some numbers. 

[SneakyErvin]

7 minutes ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

You mention success. Speaking of which you did not mention that they are making less money this quarter. 

The figures were for 2019, there have been nothing indicated for the quarter.

2019 had around 12% less revenue compared to 2018, but it still had around a 12% higher revenue than 2017. 2019 did however have a large sum of active players more than 2018. Which is odd since 2019 was a year of smaller releases, revamps and system changes.

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

1 hour ago, Nehra96 said:

The people devoting days worth of effort in making responses in this thread actually need to find something to play... Forums is not endgame you know! 

I’m playing bdo and shadows of morridor along with kingdom come deliverance 

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

The figures were for 2019, there have been nothing indicated for the quarter.

2019 had around 12% less revenue compared to 2018, but it still had around a 12% higher revenue than 2017. 2019 did however have a large sum of active players more than 2018. Which is odd since 2019 was a year of smaller releases, revamps and system changes.

From logic at least from two new open works being introduce and all content sighing 2017-2019 we should have seen a revenue increase of at least 30%-40% however  i do apologize I’ll fix my thread post updating what I said. It’s still very sad to see

[SneakyErvin]

8 minutes ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

From logic at least from two new open works being introduce and all content sighing 2017-2019 we should have seen a revenue increase of at least 30%-40% however  i do apologize I’ll fix my thread post updating what I said. It’s still very sad to see

They need to hit a cap at some point, things cannot just keep growing. I think 2018 have reached that cap and we'll see something around that point for coming years. Leyou also did indicate that they saw a direct trend in loss tied to new "similar" AAA releases under 2019 aswell as large drops in console activity due to the upcoming next gen consoles (not really sure what the reasoning was behind that though). Though I expect it is a bunch of the people that are unsure if purchases etc. made on PS4/xbone will carry over to next gen consoles. Dont ask me why they are unsure since it seems pretty obvious that it will. Others are also planning to switch consoles, so that part is also understandable as a root to the decline in spending on current gen consoles.

[Zimzala]

32 minutes ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

You mention success. Speaking of which you did not mention that they are making less money in the last quarter report we saw Concurrent players are more then a complete fraction of the millions of registered losers. And press amongs most of your partners aren’t in a good light right now. Warframe is just coasting along at the moment. For years players have been asking for multiple fixes and revisions just for them to implement them after players leave from two to three failed updates. Players have been asking for more challenging content and they implement hard mode which is a step forward but don’t mention anything other then higher level enemies atm which dosent fix the issue. It’s alot more I can note. But I don’t expect much from someone who loves to take things out of proportion and assume someone’s wording as an attack on you

I assume no such attacks on me, I know this is a public forum and to take anything typed here personally is folly.

You are trying to inflate the fact that since the company has not done as well in the last fiscal reporting, the company is not successful, which is laughable.

Companies ride the profit waves up and down, things change.

If DW shutdown WF tomorrow, it would still have been a successful business enterprise.

Just because there are players that vocally advocate for things to be changed, does not make those players right, it just makes them consumers the product no longer pleases.

No product can please everyone.

All realy good products with which I have interacted have ups and downs financially and have have ups and downs with consumer 'hype'.

So, trying to say the company is oblivious and scared to act is false and full of Ego/Bravado/Etc. on the part of gamers who are just mad the world will not obey, IME.

WF 'just coasting along' is a successful, profitable venture and to think the people running it don't see where it can improve and are not trying to improve it is just silly.

Just because they will not ask 'how high?' when a few consumers who are no longer enjoying the product tell them to 'jump', does not make the company incompetent, it just means a few consumers cannot handle thier own internal emotional turmoil long enough to realize the game is not made just for them.

Trying to say a business has or is failing when it's made millions is just silly, even when the window for the product to be viable closes - this is like business 101 stuff. Plenty of very successful businesses shut down when the marketplace not longer needs thier product and that does not mean those businesses failed.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Zimzala
speeling

[SneakyErvin]

32 minutes ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

While I do agree retention is slightly better a rule of thumb is take into account the number of registered players vs active. Reguardless of ftp it shouldn’t be this low and that’s the scary part .

no I’m not said warframe is in a terrible spot but it’s still in a very very bad spot. Poe I think was the last time it peaked at 150k with that being said and the success over the years that should’ve happened we should be seeing around that give or take some numbers. 

I'm curious to what you refer to as "this low"? It is 7 years old and still pulls rediculously good numbers for a game.