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

[Felsagger]

45 minutes ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

You mention success. Speaking of which you did not mention that they are making less money this quarter. Concurrent players are more then a complete fraction of the millions of registered losers. And press among 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 doesnt fix the issue. It’s a lot 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

 

True. 

 

War Frame right now is a boring uninteresting game that feels flat. It caters no skilled players and depends on RNG, XP walls and gear checks. It lacks substance and interest because there is no focus of attention on  game quality. The game is submerged in a sea of the sameness. 

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

6 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

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. 

Out of the millions of registered players I’d assume the peak would be over at least 200k actively at minimum.  But then you take into account the new player experience and ftp aspect when still dosent excuse it low player count in comparison 

[ReaverKane]

Well, Nullifier mechanics, for example, put the lie on Pablo's argument.
If the issue is CC, then just make AI that reacts in different ways to CC, and that have counters. Maybe enemies that can't be damaged while ccd, or that take Frost's ice and are strengthened. You don't have to nerf the players to make the ai better.

You have to make the Ai not be a single mostly uniform drone army.

Like each faction has a ton of different units, but 90% of them have no differentiation of note. Except for Bombards, Heavy Gunners or Noxes, you hardly ever tell one grineer enemy from the next.

Of course you can't make all enemies a boss if you're throwing dozens of them at us per second. And a simple solution to this would be to give resistances to status effects and cc effects that scale with enemy lvl.

Also, that's kind of another thing that can be done. The lich system could be changed so that liches or similar enemies show up at certain wave numbers, or after you kill x amount of enemies. Those enemies could have randomized resistances to status and cc effects. As well as high damage.

Pablo, for as a lovely guy as he is, he's not infallible, and as such his opinions aren't gospel.
For starters he's kinda not the best at his job (IMO). His reworks have been hit or miss (mostly miss in the last year), and i mean his original job was UI design... And lets be real, Warframe doesn't have the best UI in the world, and a lot of recent changes have been to the worse, not the best. I'm not saying he's incompetent, but, he's not perfect either, and i never really got the hype about the man. He seems nice, but most of the devs do as well.

 

[Zimzala]

 

1 minute ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

Out of the millions of registered players I’d assume the peak would be over at least 200k actively at minimum.  But then you take into account the new player experience and ftp aspect when still dosent excuse it low player count in comparison 

So, since it does not reach your expectations, it's 'low'...uh-huh...are you a market analyst? financial forecaster? company accountant?

Do you have even one data point to back this number up somehow?

Can you even prove the numbers you are using about players is accurate when, AFAIK, the only thing we have are Steam charts?

[SneakyErvin]

2 minutes ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

Out of the millions of registered players I’d assume the peak would be over at least 200k actively at minimum.  But then you take into account the new player experience and ftp aspect when still dosent excuse it low player count in comparison 

And you base those ideas on what exactly? What makes WF such a special case of expectations? 

[Felsagger]

11 minutes ago, ReaverKane said:

Well, Nullifier mechanics, for example, put the lie on Pablo's argument.
If the issue is CC, then just make AI that reacts in different ways to CC, and that have counters. Maybe enemies that can't be damaged while ccd, or that take Frost's ice and are strengthened. You don't have to nerf the players to make the ai better.

You have to make the Ai not be a single mostly uniform drone army.

 

How dare you speak common sense around here? How dare you?

 

Quote

Like each faction has a ton of different units, but 90% of them have no differentiation of note. Except for Bombards, Heavy Gunners or Noxes, you hardly ever tell one grineer enemy from the next.

Of course you can't make all enemies a boss if you're throwing dozens of them at us per second. And a simple solution to this would be to give resistances to status effects and cc effects that scale with enemy lvl.

Also, that's kind of another thing that can be done. The lich system could be changed so that liches or similar enemies show up at certain wave numbers, or after you kill x amount of enemies. Those enemies could have randomized resistances to status and cc effects. As well as high damage.

Pablo, for as a lovely guy as he is, he's not infallible, and as such his opinions aren't gospel.

For starters he's kinda not the best at his job (IMO). His reworks have been hit or miss (mostly miss in the last year), and i mean his original job was UI design... And lets be real, Warframe doesn't have the best UI in the world, and a lot of recent changes have been to the worse, not the best. I'm not saying he's incompetent, but, he's not perfect either, and i never really got the hype about the man. He seems nice, but most of the devs do as well.

 

 

Some honest concrete words. This individual sees things clearly. 

Those are good ideas that improves the health of the game. We are struggling for a better game not the mediocrity we have now. We barely can call it a game anymore  Imagine when the Last of Us 2, Cyberpunk 77 and Tsushima hit the floor running. Many of us will leave War Frame in a hiatus for more than seven months if not a year. The PS5 will be around the corner too. 

If DE doesn't press their knobs hard they will get a first heavy slap in their finances. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Felsagger

[SneakyErvin]

5 minutes ago, ReaverKane said:

Well, Nullifier mechanics, for example, put the lie on Pablo's argument.
If the issue is CC, then just make AI that reacts in different ways to CC, and that have counters. Maybe enemies that can't be damaged while ccd, or that take Frost's ice and are strengthened. You don't have to nerf the players to make the ai better.

That would really just result in taking the usualy "sponge" design and altering how it works because that is all the mobs would turn into, sponges or more invulnerability phases that people already hate. It also wouldnt change the A.I it would just change the asset that the A.I operates, it wouldnt make it smarter or more interesting. We also used to have the whole strengthened thing on things that were frozen, petrified or glasses, since those mobs couldnt be effected by statuses. That pigeon holed Frost into having to stack strength if he wanted to use avalanche in order to not be a hindrance to his group.

[Felsagger]

If you have better idea than many of us then why you don't solve the problem? 

[ReaverKane]

11 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

That would really just result in taking the usualy "sponge" design and altering how it works because that is all the mobs would turn into, sponges or more invulnerability phases that people already hate. It also wouldnt change the A.I it would just change the asset that the A.I operates, it wouldnt make it smarter or more interesting. We also used to have the whole strengthened thing on things that were frozen, petrified or glasses, since those mobs couldnt be effected by statuses. That pigeon holed Frost into having to stack strength if he wanted to use avalanche in order to not be a hindrance to his group.

You dont' need to make AI smarter to make the game harder. Some of the harder games out there don't operate with any fancy AI. You don't need to, you need to apply the right pressure on the right spots.
And no, it wouldn't turn them to sponges. It would give SOME enemies advantage vs SOME forms of CC and damage, which would mean, solo players would have to be on their game, and team players would have to diversify their builds to counter every contigent.

This game will never be Dark Souls, and it's not meant to be dark souls, what we need is to make sure that there's no "one-size fits all" solution, like all the press 4 to win frames.
And that can be achieved with differentiated resistances on enemies.

The problem with the game is that DE has always been stuffing their eggs all in the same basket, which creates pain points and singled-out enemies.
I mean, just giving some enemies the same kind of CC resistance that the Demolishers/Demolysts have. Or even better, make one enemy type that is normally squishy or comparable to say a Butcher, then make it so that, when it would be slowed he's sped up instead, and gains a 60% damage boost, or something.

Now pepper a few around all maps, and you'll have a enemy that will complicate things when you're spamming slow with nova.

Now get a enemy that has a similar thing when on fire, another that gains a ton of armor when frozen or chilled, etc. And you'll have a army where you can't have a single approach to them. And you don't need to make them have more EHP in general, just vs specific situations, which is enough to negate the drone game play.
Those little things at higher enemy levels will be enough to make the game more challenging by a lot.

 

9 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

If you have better idea than many of us then why you don't solve the problem? 

That's a Juvenile argument with an easy answer. Because we don't work for DE, and as such don't have any say in it? Which is why we're posting our ideas here? Where they can be read and used as feedback?

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by ReaverKane

[(XBOX)ShonOfDawn]

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.

Regarding success:

You are mistaken if you think that being a successful company means making good products. EA is successful, despite their atrocious, yearly excuses of a game. The call of duty franchise is successful, despite falling in the exact same category of publishing laughable, barebones periodic releases. Being successful relies on appearances and appealing to the lowest common denominator. It also doesn't make their product immune to criticism.

Regarding being scared:

Oh, they truly are. They are so scared of community outrage, that we have had 3 rushed mainline updates in a row, each one prematurely released only in hope to quell discontent for the previous one, and to keep up with an overambitious schedule. Want an example of a firm, confident company? Just look at CD Projekt Red, and their willingness to postpone the release of their incredibly hyped Cyberpunk, in order to make sure it comes out true to people's expectations. Also, I would suggest watching Scott's and Pablo's interview with Shy, in addition to the devstreams in which DE presented Warframe Revised and the one that announced Catchmoon's nerf. In all these, their uneasiness around nerfing or making changes that could be perceived as unpleasant from even the smallest portion of the community is simply palpable. DE knows what can be healthy for the game, but they lack a coherent vision to act on it, focusing instead of expanding content just for the sake of having shiny new things to attract hoarders. This is fine as long as marketing, pr and hyping can keep an influx of new players that is higher than the constant hemorrhage of experienced ones, hence the tendency to rush content, but they cannot keep it up forever. It's simply unsustainable.

It doesn't require a genius of game design to understand that player mechanics capable of shutting down gameplay and enemy design with a single button, rampant imbalances that force strict metas, and an overall lack of engaging combat stemming from the aforementioned issues are simply unhealthy for a game. It's not arrogance, it's common sense that comes from genuine care for a product.

[Zimzala]

9 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

If you have better idea than many of us then why you don't solve the problem? 

Because we are players and consumers of the product, we do not work for DE, we could not possibly have all the data and info DE does to make the game better.

It's just that simple.

As much as you seem to think, from my POV and your posts, that you are somehow going 'always ging to be there' to name and shame DE eternally, it does not give you any more power over the developement of the game than it does any of the rest of us.

Like you, we are all just consumers of the product, not devlopers of that product.

Having worked on a complex software product for a couple decades that happened to have someone like you hounding us, I can certainly say truthfully that even though the person still claims to this day he is reponsble for making the software better from his ideas, not a single thing he brought to us would ever fly, he had no clue, even though he thought he was CEO of the world...we continue to let him think this way, he brings us business.

Unlike some people I do not have an over-inflated sense of my power, ideas, and standing in the world, I know I am just another consumer.

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

24 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

 

So, since it does not reach your expectations, it's 'low'...uh-huh...are you a market analyst? financial forecaster? company accountant?

Do you have even one data point to back this number up somehow?

Can you even prove the numbers you are using about players is accurate when, AFAIK, the only thing we have are Steam charts?

Where did I mention it not meeting my expectations or being disappointed in such. When you have ~three million players and around 60k peak that’s abysmal. To which I did even factor in the lifespan of the game the new player experience and much more. 

I’ve also stated that adding up all platforms in total across all platforms still dosent meet half of potential peak assuming concurrent players are more or less the same across all platforms based off of steam charts and the standalone launcher warframe is around ~300-400k around all platforms 

thats around ~.1 to .2 of accounts active at the moment . And  that’s assuming switch pulls near 60k active players. As well as the standalone launcher pulling at least 3/4ths of steams numbers.

also I know a fair bit about the market and finances without going into to much detail about what I do because scroll through forums and work on indie games 

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

29 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And you base those ideas on what exactly? What makes WF such a special case of expectations? 

No ftp title or anyone gets an excuse not by me the parent companies or investors. Where did I make a special case of expectations for said game

[ReaverKane]

3 minutes ago, (XB1)ShonFr0st said:

Regarding success:

You are mistaken if you think that being a successful company means making good products. EA is successful, despite their atrocious, yearly excuses of a game. The call of duty franchise is successful, despite falling in the exact same category of publishing laughable, barebones periodic releases. Being successful relies on appearances and appealing to the lowest common denominator. It also doesn't make their product immune to criticism.

Regarding being scared:

Oh, they truly are. They are so scared of community outrage, that we have had 3 rushed mainline updates in a row, each one prematurely released only in hope to quell discontent for the previous one, and to keep up with an overambitious schedule. Want an example of a firm, confident company? Just look at CD Projekt Red, and their willingness to postpone the release of their incredibly hyped Cyberpunk, in order to make sure it comes out true to people's expectations. Also, I would suggest watching Scott's and Pablo's interview with Shy, in addition to the devstreams in which DE presented Warframe Revised and the one that announced Catchmoon's nerf. In all these, their uneasiness around nerfing or making changes that could be perceived as unpleasant from even the smallest portion of the community is simply palpable. DE knows what can be healthy for the game, but they lack a coherent vision to act on it, focusing instead of expanding content just for the sake of having shiny new things to attract hoarders. This is fine as long as marketing, pr and hyping can keep an influx of new players that is higher than the constant hemorrhage of experienced ones, hence the tendency to rush content, but they cannot keep it up forever. It's simply unsustainable.

It doesn't require a genius of game design to understand that player mechanics capable of shutting down gameplay and enemy design with a single button, rampant imbalances that force strict metas, and an overall lack of engaging combat stemming from the aforementioned issues are simply unhealthy for a game. It's not arrogance, it's common sense that comes from genuine care for a product.

True, but i'd like to say two things about this:
1) There's more than one way to do things. You can nerf the power level, which is an unsustainable practice, for several reasons, first, it has a cascading effect throughout the game, and probably force even stricter metas on stuff like ESO, and endurance modes, second because power creep is inevitable, and the nerf approach would just keep downgrading the game.
The other way, is something like what they tried to do with Noxes, Heavy Grineers, and the various nullifying mobs. Which kinda work. The problem is that again, they're a single pain point in an otherwise uniform mass, and as such more or less easily dealt with. Now if you spread the "nullifying" throughout several mobs vs specific powers or damage types, then you have a more varied level of threat that requires player response.

2) DE created a ecosystem that promotes casual play for years. It has been slowly becoming their niche. Removing Raids was a last drop in a bucket that removed the desire for harder content and the need to push things further. So yeah, they have to be judicious about how they change things, because like it or not, their livelihood depends on how many people play the game at once. And like you said the lowest common denominator is determinant into making a game successful.
I do think that their current approach is a positive one, creating niche play that rewards (hopefully) players for engaging in harder content. And with time, i'm pretty sure they can provide it. Because now they have a separate mode that they can balance differently, they can eventually release "hard mode" enemies which have the aforementioned stratified resiliencies and better response to the player's actions.

What Pablo kinda said was that enemies lack tools to handle the players' power, and the best intelligence in the world can't stop a nuclear explosion with a squirt gun. But his approach is just nerf the players, i posit that there's a better, more flexible way of doing it, which is to give enemies more tools.
Is that harder for them to implement, oh, most definitely. Is it probably the better way. Well i think so.
 

[Zimzala]

6 minutes ago, (XB1)ShonFr0st said:

Regarding success:

You are mistaken if you think that being a successful company means making good products. EA is successful, despite their atrocious, yearly excuses of a game. The call of duty franchise is successful, despite falling in the exact same category of publishing laughable, barebones periodic releases. Being successful relies on appearances and appealing to the lowest common denominator. It also doesn't make their product immune to criticism.

Regarding being scared:

Oh, they truly are. They are so scared of community outrage, that we have had 3 rushed mainline updates in a row, each one prematurely released only in hope to quell discontent for the previous one, and to keep up with an overambitious schedule. Want an example of a firm, confident company? Just look at CD Projekt Red, and their willingness to postpone the release of their incredibly hyped Cyberpunk, in order to make sure it comes out true to people's expectations. Also, I would suggest watching Scott's and Pablo's interview with Shy, in addition to the devstreams in which DE presented Warframe Revised and the one that announced Catchmoon's nerf. In all these, their uneasiness around nerfing or making changes that could be perceived as unpleasant from even the smallest portion of the community is simply palpable. DE knows what can be healthy for the game, but they lack a coherent vision to act on it, focusing instead of expanding content just for the sake of having shiny new things to attract hoarders. This is fine as long as marketing, pr and hyping can keep an influx of new players that is higher than the constant hemorrhage of experienced ones, hence the tendency to rush content, but they cannot keep it up forever. It's simply unsustainable.

It doesn't require a genius of game design to understand that player mechanics capable of shutting down gameplay and enemy design with a single button, rampant imbalances that force strict metas, and an overall lack of engaging combat stemming from the aforementioned issues are simply unhealthy for a game. It's not arrogance, it's common sense that comes from genuine care for a product.

I never mentioned good products, I specifically refered to what you brought up, bussiness success in the marketplace.

You are IMO coming at this with a chip on your shoulder, that DE has to prove something, etc., where I simply see a group of creative people trying to make something they like and are inspired to do, attacked by rabid gamers who are never satisfied that think balance passes are the equivilent of murder and IME have never actually created anything of worth, yet think they have the position to tell others what they are doing wrong.

The design aspects of the game, those liked and disliked, are known by DE, even as the topic of this thread shows, along with the direct feedback given by employees, even when they are camera shy - how many programing geeks do you know that would comfortable in front of a camera, knowing no mater what they say, they will get attacked, if not vilified, even apparently over the very camera shyness I expect many players have?

To take any of that data and in turn try and say the company is not doing these things and is not aware of these things and that it will fail in the marketplace due to a bad year, or to insinuate that having a bad year makes it unseccessful, is just silly.

The compnay is successful, the game is successful, regardless of if there are consumers that have tired of the product and/or if the product is currently not at the plce the company or the players want it to be.

As long as the game is overall profitable, it's a success. With the reputation the game has, it's a success. 

If the game evolves into something that some current players dislike, yet remains profitable in the long term, it's a success.

Just because some of the developers don't like to be on camera, just because they make mistakes, even huge mistakes in guessing the marketplace if they do, does not mean the game is not successful, it has already achieved that, regardless of where it goes from here.

IMO, having this many critics, frankly, means they are doing it right.

[Felsagger]

19 minutes ago, ReaverKane said:

You dont' need to make AI smarter to make the game harder. Some of the harder games out there don't operate with any fancy AI. You don't need to, you need to apply the right pressure on the right spots.
And no, it wouldn't turn them to sponges. It would give SOME enemies advantage vs SOME forms of CC and damage, which would mean, solo players would have to be on their game, and team players would have to diversify their builds to counter every contingent.

This game will never be Dark Souls, and it's not meant to be dark souls, what we need is to make sure that there's no "one-size fits all" solution, like all the press 4 to win frames.
And that can be achieved with differentiated resistances on enemies.

The problem with the game is that DE has always been stuffing their eggs all in the same basket, which creates pain points and singled-out enemies.
I mean, just giving some enemies the same kind of CC resistance that the Demolishers/Demolysts have. Or even better, make one enemy type that is normally squishy or comparable to say a Butcher, then make it so that, when it would be slowed he's sped up instead, and gains a 60% damage boost, or something.

Now pepper a few around all maps, and you'll have a enemy that will complicate things when you're spamming slow with nova.

Now get a enemy that has a similar thing when on fire, another that gains a ton of armor when frozen or chilled, etc. And you'll have a army where you can't have a single approach to them. And you don't need to make them have more EHP in general, just vs specific situations, which is enough to negate the drone game play.
Those little things at higher enemy levels will be enough to make the game more challenging by a lot.

I agree with this approach. At least is something to work with. 

19 minutes ago, ReaverKane said:

 

That's a Juvenile argument with an easy answer. Because we don't work for DE, and as such don't have any say in it? Which is why we're posting our ideas here? Where they can be read and used as feedback?

 

It's not even an argument. It is a sarcasm. 

 

We are trying to make the game better because there are lots of issues with the current state, Issues that can potentially harm the game to a point of no return. 

[Zimzala]

13 minutes ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

Where did I mention it not meeting my expectations or being disappointed in such. When you have ~three million players and around 60k peak that’s abysmal. To which I did even factor in the lifespan of the game the new player experience and much more. 

I’ve also stated that adding up all platforms in total across all platforms still dosent meet half of potential peak assuming concurrent players are more or less the same across all platforms based off of steam charts and the standalone launcher warframe is around ~300-400k around all platforms 

thats around ~.1 to .2 of accounts active at the moment . And  that’s assuming switch pulls near 60k active players. As well as the standalone launcher pulling at least 3/4ths of steams numbers.

also I know a fair bit about the market and finances without going into to much detail about what I do because scroll through forums and work on indie games 

You are specifically trying to say if game X has Y number of buyers, then it should have Z number of concurrent players.

That's what you implied, twice now, with nothing to back it, at all.

Where is your math to back this up is what I want to know...a market analysis, anything, because otherwise, it's just your opinion, man.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Zimzala
speeling

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

1 minute ago, Zimzala said:

You are specifically trying to say if game X has Y number of buyers, then it should have Z number of concurrent players.

That's what you implied, twice now, with nothing to back it, at all.

Where is you math to back this up is what I want to know...a market analysism anything, because otherwise, it's just your opinion, man.

  X game is warframe so I’m not comparing any other title we are talking about warframe 

y IS warframes players 

which ties in with z. I’m not talking about any other game but warframe not comparing or looking at another titles numbers for answers. Which your trying to imply I am doing .

You also ask if I am a market analyst yet when I display an ounce of knowledge on the subject you dismiss it as something we already know it is an opinion. But may I ask if you don’t care about this opinion or discussion why engage  in such? 

[Felsagger]

15 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

Because we are players and consumers of the product, we do not work for DE, we could not possibly have all the data and info DE does to make the game better.

True. 

15 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

It's just that simple.

But there is a reduction of players happening due the decline of DE's game quality. In June 5 Sony will unveil their games shifting the attention to next generation games. People are going to wait anxiously for games like Cyberpunk 77, Ghost of Tsushima, TLoU2 and the PS5. 

 

15 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

As much as you seem to think, from my POV and your posts, that you are somehow going 'always ging to be there' to name and shame DE eternally, it does not give you any more power over the developement of the game than it does any of the rest of us.

 

I don't want any power on DE's decisions. My decisions are very simple. If the game continues sucking this hard, I move toward other games. Simple as that. You already said it. We are players and our behavior dictates the triumph or loss of these companies. 

 

15 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

Like you, we are all just consumers of the product, not devlopers of that product.

True. 

Then rule of thumb applies "if the game sucks ass much, we move towards another game that does it better"

15 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

Having worked on a complex software product for a couple decades that happened to have someone like you hounding us, I can certainly say truthfully that even though the person still claims to this day he is reponsble for making the software better from his ideas, not a single thing he brought to us would ever fly, he had no clue, even though he thought he was CEO of the world...we continue to let him think this way, he brings us business.

I don't have to be that person. This is what is going to happen. At some point a better product will emerge and history will continue with or without such person. Some games ideas are meant to stay few years, other endures decades. If it is a matter of preferences on the performance you don't have to worry about. I am not the one pointing out these critiques. What I write here is a general consensus of many posts that I read right here on the forums. I'm not the only one who feels this way, son. 

 

15 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

Unlike some people I do not have an over-inflated sense of my power, ideas, and standing in the world, I know I am just another consumer.

If I can produce and contribute, I'll continue doing so. You mind you own business, I'll mind mine. 

 

Simple. 

[Zimzala]

2 minutes ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

  X game is warframe so I’m not comparing any other title we are talking about warframe 

y IS warframes players 

which ties in with z. I’m not talking about any other game but warframe not comparing or looking at another titles numbers for answers. Which your trying to imply I am doing .

You also ask if I am a market analyst yet when I display an ounce of knowledge on the subject you dismiss it as something we already know it is an opinion. But may I ask if you don’t care about this opinion or discussion why engage  in such? 

OK, so talking about WF, with your industry 'indie' game knowledge.

Where is the formula, article, white paper, industry paper, anyhing at all to back up your numbers, that imply there should be a certain percentage of concurrent players to the nunber of sales?

Because, even with industry knowledge, one has to show ones work, you cannot just go to a CEO and say numbers are 'low' with no data to back that up, at all...

So, what method did you use, with your industry knowledge, to come up with why you think this number is low?

In the absence of any form of industry, market, or other data references, it renders your 'too low' as nothing more than an opinion, presented as fact, in an effort to demean the success of the company, IMO.

 

As for my reasons? I detest people spouting things as fact with no evidence, call it a pet peeve, especially when used to try and make tech people look or feel bad. 🙂 

[Zimzala]

3 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

If I can produce and contribute, I'll continue doing so. You mind you own business, I'll mind mine. 

Simple. 

If you minded your own business, you would not be telling DE how to run WF. 🙂 

[Felsagger]

19 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

If you minded your own business, you would not be telling DE how to run WF. 🙂 

 

We are the customer. If we pay, invest time and endorse the product then we are going to EXPECT or at least ask for minimum quality standards.

 

Or is not? 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Felsagger

[(XBOX)ShonOfDawn]

17 minutes ago, ReaverKane said:

1) There's more than one way to do things. You can nerf the power level, which is an unsustainable practice, for several reasons, first, it has a cascading effect throughout the game, and probably force even stricter metas on stuff like ESO, and endurance modes, second because power creep is inevitable, and the nerf approach would just keep downgrading the game.
The other way, is something like what they tried to do with Noxes, Heavy Grineers, and the various nullifying mobs. Which kinda work. The problem is that again, they're a single pain point in an otherwise uniform mass, and as such more or less easily dealt with. Now if you spread the "nullifying" throughout several mobs vs specific powers or damage types, then you have a more varied level of threat that requires player response.

I fully share your second point, but I don't completely agree with this one. I'd argue that nerfing leads to a more compressed power gap, thus smoothening the prominence of certain gear, widening the meta. Players want to be as powerful as possible: if there are tools vastly more effective than everything else, those will be the ones exclusively used by the try hard crew; if they are brought in line, making them closer to other options, then those options become more viable, and might be chosen because of simple preference. Power creep is admittedly hard to wrap one's head around. The direct way to counter it is through gear retirement, but that's totally unfeasible in Warframe. It could be possible to just release side grades and more specialized weapons, that would be interesting because of some novel mechanic they bring. After all, Warframes as pieces of equipment have followed this logic since the beginning. It's definitely harder to transpose that concept into weaponry, as they have less room for unique mechanics and are released more frequently, but still it can be done.

 Improved enemy design is absolutely mandatory, and a great way to promote variety and engagement, however it is just one half of the process. The other half, is making sure the player can't just ignore enemy mechanics. One way to do it is, as you said, by making enemies resistant to certain abilities, but in my opinion arbitrary resistances are hard to convey effectively, and as a result feel cheap most of the time. It's arguably far easier and more consistent in terms of gameplay to just rework the outliers, so that their abilities are still useful but less gamebreaking, and yet giving the player the certainty that they will work when used, while still giving enemies options for counterplay.

[ReaverKane]

1 minute ago, (XB1)ShonFr0st said:

I fully share your second point, but I don't completely agree with this one. I'd argue that nerfing leads to a more compressed power gap, thus smoothening the prominence of certain gear, widening the meta. Players want to be as powerful as possible: if there are tools vastly more effective than everything else, those will be the ones exclusively used by the try hard crew; if they are brought in line, making them closer to other options, then those options become more viable, and might be chosen because of simple preference. Power creep is admittedly hard to wrap one's head around. The direct way to counter it is through gear retirement, but that's totally unfeasible in Warframe. It could be possible to just release side grades and more specialized weapons, that would be interesting because of some novel mechanic they bring. After all, Warframes as pieces of equipment have followed this logic since the beginning. It's definitely harder to transpose that concept into weaponry, as they have less room for unique mechanics and are released more frequently, but still it can be done.

 Improved enemy design is absolutely mandatory, and a great way to promote variety and engagement, however it is just one half of the process. The other half, is making sure the player can't just ignore enemy mechanics. One way to do it is, as you said, by making enemies resistant to certain abilities, but in my opinion arbitrary resistances are hard to convey effectively, and as a result feel cheap most of the time. It's arguably far easier and more consistent in terms of gameplay to just rework the outliers, so that their abilities are still useful but less gamebreaking, and yet giving the player the certainty that they will work when used, while still giving enemies options for counterplay.

Again, instead of just reducing the power of "good" weapons, they can improve the power of bad weapons. Like through reworks or decent augments.

I wasn't referring to the power gap between weapons or warframes in my previous points, just the difficulty gaps.

But the same logic applies.

Instead of bringing the weaker stuff down, you can create utility in the old ones even without changing the stats (thus increasing power creep).

But that's the thing, in a game that's continuously developing power creep is inevitable, which is why nerfs hardly ever work, since inevitably the status quo is returned by a further release. And as such mechanical implementations are always more permanent than just nerfing stats.

Especially on Warframe, where there's a lot of disparity between levels and even game modes.
Like for example, you can easily clear maps with banshee at lower levels with a single 4, but anything over lvl 50 she's pretty much useless in that department.

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

46 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

OK, so talking about WF, with your industry 'indie' game knowledge.

Where is the formula, article, white paper, industry paper, anyhing at all to back up your numbers, that imply there should be a certain percentage of concurrent players to the nunber of sales?

Because, even with industry knowledge, one has to show ones work, you cannot just go to a CEO and say numbers are 'low' with no data to back that up, at all...

So, what method did you use, with your industry knowledge, to come up with why you think this number is low?

In the absence of any form of industry, market, or other data references, it renders your 'too low' as nothing more than an opinion, presented as fact, in an effort to demean the success of the company, IMO.

 

As for my reasons? I detest people spouting things as fact with no evidence, call it a pet peeve, especially when used to try and make tech people look or feel bad. 🙂 

Where did I state it as a fact however?

non the less I gave you the numbers and y’all reasoning behind such based off the steam numbers which can be used as a rough estimate for the rest of the playerbase.

and you continue to dismiss the fact I took the numbers you mentioned. The steam charts and provided my reasoning so and you still try to ignore what I stated.

i also again presented such in the above paragraph.

 

Also where did I make or tell people to feel bad. You’re again trying to turn something into far from what it is