Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hello D.E.,

Good day, we finally got a hard mode. However, please can you return the shield and armour values of the enemies in hard mode, to the original high level. Their shields and armour were sufficient.

Additionally, please improve the enemies as stated below:

1. Improve their shields and armour, as I requested above.

2. Improve their attack speed.

3. Improve their A.I. so that they will be better attackers. 

4. Reduce their inattentiveness. So many times they are not paying attention to the warframes.

5. Improve their accuracy.

 

The difficulty that is really needed in Warframe, is just far better A.I. for the enemies. If points 2 to 4 above were implemented, maybe we would not even need a hard mode.

1. Profit Taker mission was softened.

2. Railjack enemies were softened.

3. Hard Mode was softened. 

 

Please do not let Steel Path become:  

Weak Path = Steel Path
Soft Path = Steel Path
Limp Path = Steel Path
 

 

Edited by (PS4)Iron4EverRooster
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So many of these posts yet this isnt even out yet, just wait it out and see how it is then go about making feedback. And if this hard mode is still easy then tehy can always make another tier of difficulty

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sick of hard vs casual conversations.  I want to see user data and FACTS about what types of players there are in the game.   Who is the majority and who is the minority??  Why waste time adjusting the game towards the minority?? Spend all that time improving the game for how the majority enjoy playing it.  

Its very easy to see how to design a game if you just look at the data.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, You're aware that 'Improve the AI' is, in fact, a tremendously difficult thing? And that doing so would have questionable effect given the propensity we have to completely disable/ignore the AI for long periods of time, even without nuking strategies?

 

22 minutes ago, (PS4)AbBaNdOn_ said:

Im sick of hard vs casual conversations.  I want to see user data and FACTS about what types of players there are in the game.   Who is the majority and who is the minority??  Why waste time adjusting the game towards the minority?? Spend all that time improving the game for how the majority enjoy playing it.  

Its very easy to see how to design a game if you just look at the data.

 

They did, in fact, gather that relevant information! Steve put out a survey near the end of last year. Here are the results, relative to the 'challenge/difficulty' debate.

KZAuVI6.jpg

Both lack of and too much difficulty are what everyone stated as most negatively impacted their Warframe experience. This question is somewhat limited, of course, since it doesn't really address, say, second-most, but we'll need more data for that.

HdgxJ6Q.jpg

This indicates that the majority of the player base is at least neutral towards gear balance, and the majority have it as a major value.

OwSd1rI.jpg

And from this, we see that the majority, no matter what way you slice it, do want at least some content to be difficult.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Um... didn't someone do the sums based on the changes and the total ehp on the revised enemies is actually higher than the ones the OP is asking for...

 

Surveys as shown above are only representative of the people that answered the survey and usually the ones answering them are more interested in changing things so you could argue they have a bias towards those being more vocal about changes.

Besides we all know how much DE takes notice of surveys... it says 40+% find the grind/repetitive nature of the game as a negative yet even though they keep saying they want to 'reduce the grind' we just keep getting more grind....reptetive such as most things they've added of late and steel path having ANOTHER unique (ie found nowhere else) resource, with an unknown drop rate percentage and only from eximus (last I checked) units, that we need to farm....

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

Surveys as shown above are only representative of the people that answered the survey and usually the ones answering them are more interested in changing things so you could argue they have a bias towards those being more vocal about changes.

Besides we all know how much DE takes notice of surveys... it says 40+% find the grind/repetitive nature of the game as a negative yet even though they keep saying they want to 'reduce the grind' we just keep getting more grind....reptetive such as most things they've added of late and steel path having ANOTHER unique (ie found nowhere else) resource, with an unknown drop rate percentage and only from eximus (last I checked) units, that we need to farm....

Whilst I may myself suck at stats, survey's have been a pretty important part of my college degree, and it's still a pretty impressive amount. It was about 40-50% of the steam playerbase at the time it was recorded, and even assuming that the total playerbase is a few times larger than that still, those results are still a pretty good 4-5% of the total population. That's pretty bloody good, all things considered. Especially when you take into account that they also have metrics available to them.

As for the grind point - I would like to point out Scarlet Spear which, yes, was grindy, but was also at least trying to be less repetitive than previous events (at least you had two things to do! Compare that to Thermia, Plague Star, Hostile Mergers) and was also substantially less grindy than the other source of Arcanes, Eidolons. We also can't forget the vocal minority that pours out of the woodwork whenever DE does reduce grind levels, either bemoaning that they have nothing to do, or that DE 'isn't respecting their time'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Loza, your comments are reasonable. 

My Thoughts:

The changes are in respect to how their programs are written. When they were doing the changes for Hard Mode, more than likely they parameterized, encapsulated, or stored the objects (small portions of the program) in memory. Those storage objects can be manipulated at runtime. Definitely, they will have constraints, however, things like run speed, sprint speed, or idle mode are more than likely able to be manipulated at run time. 

The runtime manipulations make it possible to (as you would have guessed), pass 2 or 3 as an integer value to one of the objects. With some proper testing, the reaction time or run speed of an enemy can be changed.

We can ignore the type of object, to prevent going in to long discussions about generics, collections, classes, arrays, and others.

Writing a simple game in Java, WebGL Unreal, C#, Unity, C++ or other languages, would be a day or up to three. A better program one month, a very good game could take three years or less (even one year, depending on resources).

In essence, with more effort or more time or even more resources, they could have done a better job.

DE made that choice but they could have made a better choice.

 

Edited by (PS4)Iron4EverRooster
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
vor 8 Minuten schrieb Loza03:

two things

Which were the same really tho except one group had to shoot a bulletsponge but both protected those scanner/antennas, standing around mostly in a mob def while Railjack was just a taxi.

So no, not really much variety still. What is more annoyign in my eyes is how eather CC adn Support is dead or overused like Limbo nerf, i knwo it isa horde shooter but i wish more less things like capture and spy to be more important so not only killing is the most rewarding thing.

Edited by Marine027
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marine027 said:

Which were the same really tho except one group had to shoot a bulletsponge but both protected those scanner/antennas, standing around mostly in a mob def while Railjack was just a taxi.

Hey, I never said they succeeded in making it less repetitive. The actual moment-to-moment gameplay absolutely failed to follow through on that, but the attempt was there nonetheless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Loza03 said:

Whilst I may myself suck at stats, survey's have been a pretty important part of my college degree, and it's still a pretty impressive amount. It was about 40-50% of the steam playerbase at the time it was recorded, and even assuming that the total playerbase is a few times larger than that still, those results are still a pretty good 4-5% of the total population. That's pretty bloody good, all things considered. Especially when you take into account that they also have metrics available to them.

But this is my point, if we go on the numbers DE puts out there's something like 40million (could be more) logins (yeah I know it's not likely all are active).  If you mean the same as I assume for population, then 4-5% is not a good representation of the playerbase as a whole imo so like I said above the results DE got just give a good representation of the people who answered the questionnaire and while it can show there is a clear group that does want xyz, that doesn't necessarily mean the entire playerbase agrees with the ones that answered the questionnaire.  Those happy with something will often as not bother with reviews/surveys etc, essentially if there 'nothing wrong' they don't see a need to leave feedback, it's why you often see a far higher number of negative reviews than positive ones etc.

 

Quote

As for the grind point - I would like to point out Scarlet Spear which, yes, was grindy, but was also at least trying to be less repetitive than previous events (at least you had two things to do! Compare that to Thermia, Plague Star, Hostile Mergers) and was also substantially less grindy than the other source of Arcanes, Eidolons. We also can't forget the vocal minority that pours out of the woodwork whenever DE does reduce grind levels, either bemoaning that they have nothing to do, or that DE 'isn't respecting their time'.

Not sure how you can say scarlet spear wasn't repetitive grind, yes it had 2 missions to pick from but it was literally doing the same thing over and over.  While I agree it was 'better' than eidolons, it still doesn't change the fact it was incredibly grindy and repetitive in it's own right, especially on release before the buff to rewards.   It could have been made so much better, at least on the land version, by just having more than one map to do, or even a harder level that paid out more.

I didn't think thermia was 'that bad' it was kind of worthwhile, plague star was ok the first time, then DE kind of nerfed all the fun stuff and I can't even remember hostile mergers off the top of my head which says a lot lol..oh it was the disruption intro...yeah not a fan of that mission so likely did just enough to get the rewards.

Railjack intrinsics had to have it's grind reduced because, outside of 'abusing' the xp mechanic, the grind was excessively slow.  Resources were just too hard to come buy (to be fair resources are even harder to get now due to the lack of 'glow' in game at the mo) as well which didn't really help when from a subjective stand point the amount of variation in maps and mission type was far too low, especially for how long we'd waited for it.. it was also ANOTHER content island with it's own resources which (outside of mining ones) couldn't be found elsewhere..

I'm not adverse to 'grind' as long as it isn't repetitive and is fairly balanced in relation to it's purpose (I don't have an issue with hema research costs for example, I can understand solo clans complaining but not full or larger ones but then I see this as a 'group project') but DE currently seem to be trying to mask the lack of 'new replayable content' with larger grinds and small drop chances etc. 

I'm waiting to see how stupidly low this new resource drop will be, or how high the cost will be (there's two ways to make grind), to 'encourage' us to play these harder maps for the armour....

Edited by LSG501
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

But this is my point, if we go on the numbers DE puts out there's something like 40million (could be more) logins (yeah I know it's not likely all are active).  If you mean the same as I assume for population, then 4-5% is not a good representation of the playerbase as a whole imo so like I said above the results DE got just give a good representation of the people who answered the questionnaire and while it can show there is a clear group that does want xyz, that doesn't necessarily mean the entire playerbase agrees with the ones that answered the questionnaire.  Those happy with something will often as not bother with reviews/surveys etc, essentially if there 'nothing wrong' they don't see a need to leave feedback, it's why you often see a far higher number of negative reviews than positive ones etc.

You would be surprised what data can be derived from less than 1% - or even 0.1%- of a population, especially when, again, you have hard metrics. It's all about whether or not it's a representative sample. And whilst the fact you had to be actively following the twitter to notice will definitely throw that off somewhat, you need to bear in mind that the people who want change are just as varied as the people who don't. Even in that survey, it shows definite contention. Whilst there's definitely going to be more people who are unhappy, there's no reason to believe that why they're unhappy will all be the same, so it should still be a representative sample. As for how many people are satisfied? Well, that can be determined by player counts - it's reasonable to suggest that people aren't satisfied if they're leaving the game, and January 2020 saw the lowest steam player count since September 2017. Assuming a similar situation across platforms, that's a pretty good indication the silent majority aren't pleased either.

40 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

Not sure how you can say scarlet spear wasn't repetitive grind, yes it had 2 missions to pick from but it was literally doing the same thing over and over.  While I agree it was 'better' than eidolons, it still doesn't change the fact it was incredibly grindy and repetitive in it's own right, especially on release before the buff to rewards.   It could have been made so much better, at least on the land version, by just having more than one map to do, or even a harder level that paid out more.

I didn't think thermia was 'that bad' it was kind of worthwhile, plague star was ok the first time, then DE kind of nerfed all the fun stuff and I can't even remember hostile mergers off the top of my head which says a lot lol..oh it was the disruption intro...yeah not a fan of that mission so likely did just enough to get the rewards.

It was grindy, but that largely came down to the fact that the two missions available weren't experientially different enough to make the whole 'multiple mission types to progress' idea actually work - as I said in another post. Nevertheless, the attempt was made.

43 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

I didn't think thermia was 'that bad' it was kind of worthwhile, plague star was ok the first time, then DE kind of nerfed all the fun stuff and I can't even remember hostile mergers off the top of my head which says a lot lol..oh it was the disruption intro...yeah not a fan of that mission so likely did just enough to get the rewards.

Railjack intrinsics had to have it's grind reduced because, outside of 'abusing' the xp mechanic, the grind was excessively slow.  Resources were just too hard to come buy (to be fair resources are even harder to get now due to the lack of 'glow' in game at the mo) as well which didn't really help when from a subjective stand point the amount of variation in maps and mission type was far too low, especially for how long we'd waited for it.. it was also ANOTHER content island with it's own resources which (outside of mining ones) couldn't be found elsewhere..

All these originally came out before the survey, and Scarlet Spear was trying (poorly) to reduce grind as well as the railjack grind reduction after the survey as well, so I'm not sure it's entirely fair to judge that DE hasn't listened to it based on these events.

45 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

I'm not adverse to 'grind' as long as it isn't repetitive and is fairly balanced in relation to it's purpose (I don't have an issue with hema research costs for example, I can understand solo clans complaining but not full or larger ones but then I see this as a 'group project') but DE currently seem to be trying to mask the lack of 'new replayable content' with larger grinds and small drop chances etc. 

It's a bit of a necessary evil though and a delicate situation - as I've said before, whenever DE has toned back grind (such as rewarding Frames from quests) people have started voicing that they've run out of things to do - i.e. things to chase, i.e. things to grind for.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Players are reacting to DE's current Steel Path implementation because they are waited so long for Warframe to become more engaging, and DE's only answer for our lack of engagement with the game is bullet sponges. We wanted more fun, and expected enemies to adopt new options within general gameplay or missions to come with new conditions to sufficiently challenge us in a fun way. Boosting EHP on top of level scaling isn't fun because the gameplay did not significantly change enough--all of our options work the same and strategies stay the same, but for most builds enemies won't die so quickly. If you want to experience what Steel Path is now just remove all the strength mods from your warframe and damage mods from your weapons, it wouldn't feel very different.

Arbitrations and unlocking Grendel through his Modless condition felt very different from normal gameplay. Playing Lich Territory missions feel a bit different because thralls have a couple abilities on them. Previous events tried to introduce fun by introducing scenarios or enemies that made us play differently. Gate Crasher reduced our mod strength, Scarlet Spear added new sentient enemies and put them at the forefront, Rathuum tried to replace swarms of weaklings with a few unique field boss enemies that would attempt to match players in power. This stuff was more fun than general gameplay.

For many of us, players were waiting to feel passionate about the game, and when DE couldn't give us that satisfaction we already dreamed of a hard mode coming to bring fun to the game however it would--through adding obstacles, reducing our power, making some condition that made us behave differently, anything. The Steel Path is hardly that, we're just expected to do the same thing we do in sorties, though maybe these enemies will be slightly more durable. Arguably, even sorties and nightmare missions were more fun because the condition isn't the same each mission.

So I did what any concerned player would do: I crowd sourced player feedback in my own thread in an attempt to tell DE what players find fun and engaging. I'll always support options that get us to play differently, but bullet sponges just feel like taking the same gameplay and trying to stretch it out as if it was a scarce supply during a famine. For many of us, Warframe felt crucially lacking to the degree that players felt starved for fun. DE has been missing its goals to hold player activity because players chased their fun somewhere else. The statistics from DE that Loza03 posted show players are tired of grind. Grind is repetition. We're tired of slogging through content that feels the same.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Loza03 said:

You would be surprised what data can be derived from less than 1% - or even 0.1%- of a population, especially when, again, you have hard metrics. It's all about whether or not it's a representative sample. And whilst the fact you had to be actively following the twitter to notice will definitely throw that off somewhat, you need to bear in mind that the people who want change are just as varied as the people who don't. Even in that survey, it shows definite contention. Whilst there's definitely going to be more people who are unhappy, there's no reason to believe that why they're unhappy will all be the same, so it should still be a representative sample. As for how many people are satisfied? Well, that can be determined by player counts - it's reasonable to suggest that people aren't satisfied if they're leaving the game, and January 2020 saw the lowest steam player count since September 2017. Assuming a similar situation across platforms, that's a pretty good indication the silent majority aren't pleased either.

If I remember the survery the questions were quite specific in their area of questioning and what answers you could give so while yes you can gain important information from a survey even with a small sampling it it is only really useful if the information isn't being guided by the answers that you can give to the questions.

As to the numbers dropping... I think it's a far bigger issue than just 'difficulty' that is putting players off the game at the moment.  Railjack is/was a flop, liches aren't fun and apart from the most basic changes DE hasn't really done anything to rectify the issues that we keep bringing up over things like liches and railjack (which is even more buggy than release right now)... as usual it's just been brushed under the carpet after some new shiny stuff has been released (not all of us fall for this approach DE). 

If I'm being completely honest I don't think the game is going to fix these issues without a major overhaul of the way the game is being led.  We all know that the majority of decision makers at DE don't play the game outside of their in house sand boxed testing and to put it bluntly imo you can't really improve a game without playing it yourself and seeing the problems. 

 

8 hours ago, Loza03 said:

It was grindy, but that largely came down to the fact that the two missions available weren't experientially different enough to make the whole 'multiple mission types to progress' idea actually work - as I said in another post. Nevertheless, the attempt was made.

It wasn't exactly hard to see it was going to be grindy and repetitive is you actually play the game.... people like variation, even if it's just a different map, and DE decided (supposedly for 'testing') that they were only going to give 1 map on each.

 

8 hours ago, Loza03 said:

All these originally came out before the survey, and Scarlet Spear was trying (poorly) to reduce grind as well as the railjack grind reduction after the survey as well, so I'm not sure it's entirely fair to judge that DE hasn't listened to it based on these events.

They've been saying they want to reduce the grind well before the survey....

 

8 hours ago, Loza03 said:

It's a bit of a necessary evil though and a delicate situation - as I've said before, whenever DE has toned back grind (such as rewarding Frames from quests) people have started voicing that they've run out of things to do - i.e. things to chase, i.e. things to grind for.

As I said it's a balance.... take protea, that wasn't 'too bad' and easily accessible although I do wish they'd altered the drop rates a little on things here and there (I'm still missing the t3 captura).  Then you have things like Baruuk, while I personally had no issue as I'd already levelled up the syndicates, there were other people who weren't happy because they hadn't done the syndicates (choice, new etc) and due to the way levelling is done they could only progress at the daily limit... some didn't like that.

The thing with 'things to do' also goes to one of the other issues players have with the game... replayable content which is fun to do more than a few times.  If something was done and a simple solution is just offering up an alternative reward (example: a choice of a warframe part or say kuva if you have it) people might be more interested in doing a mission more often but the simple fact is that DE has basically designed the game around lots of little islands which doesn't encourage replayability. 

Actually writing this just gave me a thought... isn't hard mode just giving us the same rewards as on normal maps so we'll likely be getting useless warframe parts... the least they could do is swap out the warframe part rewards for something more useful like kuva or that new resource.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

If I remember the survery the questions were quite specific in their area of questioning and what answers you could give so while yes you can gain important information from a survey even with a small sampling it it is only really useful if the information isn't being guided by the answers that you can give to the questions.

Vague and general questions have plenty of their own drawbacks. Especially when we bear in mind that DE doesn't need to ask about 'what content do you play the most' - since they have flat numbers for what content is played. 

Plus those questions do not seem to be all that leading.

14 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

As to the numbers dropping... I think it's a far bigger issue than just 'difficulty' that is putting players off the game at the moment.  Railjack is/was a flop, liches aren't fun and apart from the most basic changes DE hasn't really done anything to rectify the issues that we keep bringing up over things like liches and railjack (which is even more buggy than release right now)... as usual it's just been brushed under the carpet after some new shiny stuff has been released (not all of us fall for this approach DE). 

Numbers were dropping well before Liches and Railjack. If anything, the state of their release could be attributed to trying to counter the falling counts, not the other way round.

14 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

They've been saying they want to reduce the grind well before the survey....

And the counter-feedback of content drought and 'wasted investment' has also been said well before.

Quote

As I said it's a balance.... take protea, that wasn't 'too bad' and easily accessible although I do wish they'd altered the drop rates a little on things here and there (I'm still missing the t3 captura).  Then you have things like Baruuk, while I personally had no issue as I'd already levelled up the syndicates, there were other people who weren't happy because they hadn't done the syndicates (choice, new etc) and due to the way levelling is done they could only progress at the daily limit... some didn't like that.

The thing with 'things to do' also goes to one of the other issues players have with the game... replayable content which is fun to do more than a few times.  If something was done and a simple solution is just offering up an alternative reward (example: a choice of a warframe part or say kuva if you have it) people might be more interested in doing a mission more often but the simple fact is that DE has basically designed the game around lots of little islands which doesn't encourage replayability. 

Actually writing this just gave me a thought... isn't hard mode just giving us the same rewards as on normal maps so we'll likely be getting useless warframe parts... the least they could do is swap out the warframe part rewards for something more useful like kuva or that new resource.

All of these things have received major pushback from the community, believe it or not.

Replayable content, especially, requires variety, unpredictability, and some degree challenge. Things that would be needed to add to the base game (not hard mode) mind you, and I don't think I need to tell you how much resistance there is to that idea

Edited by Loza03
Unfinished post.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

Replayable content, especially, requires variety, unpredictability, and some degree challenge. Things that would be needed to add to the base game (not hard mode) mind you, and I don't think I need to tell you how much resistance there is to that idea

Consider the following: some players here have been watching since Warframe closed beta or closely after. Problems of the game being trivial happened fairly early, some time after the initial introduction of the mod system, but especially after corrupted mods were released. Warframe lost its sense of balance so it lost its challenge, and lots of rushed and imbalanced content later the game has dug itself into a hole. The developers try to fix this issue but the community sometimes pushes back against the best or possibly only solution, so forward and onward into the darkness development continued.

Hard mode is such a big deal to tired veteran players because they know DE will not want to add or alter base game since the community significantly pushes back against attempts to change base game. To many old players present, a hard mode is a way to revise gameplay without altering base gameplay because players would accept a new path but will not accept significant changes to the old path if it disturbs them too much. The Steel Path should not replace the base game, but the base game has been observed over the years to hardly change. A new path could mean a significantly new direction.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Loza03 said:

OP, You're aware that 'Improve the AI' is, in fact, a tremendously difficult thing? And that doing so would have questionable effect given the propensity we have to completely disable/ignore the AI for long periods of time, even without nuking strategies?

 

They did, in fact, gather that relevant information! Steve put out a survey near the end of last year. Here are the results, relative to the 'challenge/difficulty' debate.

KZAuVI6.jpg

Both lack of and too much difficulty are what everyone stated as most negatively impacted their Warframe experience. This question is somewhat limited, of course, since it doesn't really address, say, second-most, but we'll need more data for that.

Pardon me for asking but are you color blind? Too much difficulty doesn't even have a percentage listed on that pie chart. Repetition/grind and technical/software bugs top that pie chart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nichivo said:

Pardon me for asking but are you color blind? Too much difficulty doesn't even have a percentage listed on that pie chart. Repetition/grind and technical/software bugs top that pie chart.

Huh, so it doesn't... my mistake. I'm not colour blind,  but that doesn't mean I'm immune to other mistakes.

Nevertheless, I'm hardly upset about being wrong in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MechaKnight said:

Consider the following: some players here have been watching since Warframe closed beta or closely after. Problems of the game being trivial happened fairly early, some time after the initial introduction of the mod system, but especially after corrupted mods were released. Warframe lost its sense of balance so it lost its challenge, and lots of rushed and imbalanced content later the game has dug itself into a hole. The developers try to fix this issue but the community sometimes pushes back against the best or possibly only solution, so forward and onward into the darkness development continued.

I've been hanging around here for long enough to be well aware for people's disinterest in having the game they play actually be good.

7 minutes ago, MechaKnight said:

Hard mode is such a big deal to tired veteran players because they know DE will not want to add or alter base game since the community significantly pushes back against attempts to change base game. To many old players present, a hard mode is a way to revise gameplay without altering base gameplay because players would accept a new path but will not accept significant changes to the old path if it disturbs them too much. The Steel Path should not replace the base game, but the base game has been observed over the years to hardly change. A new path could mean a significantly new direction.

The steel path is still ultimately a side mode. Dramatically modifying the game on a side mode is, honestly, a fools errand, and clearly not what DE themselves stated that Steel Path's purpose was.

It'd be like balancing Devil May Cry around Heaven or Hell mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

It'd be like balancing Devil May Cry around Heaven or Hell mode.

I know it sounds crazy but it feels like the game is at that point. It's not like players will let DE unleash a rework heavy with nerfs to many player options, and unlikely DE even has one planned--we all remember how Vivergate went. DE may be looking to let things simply be as they are if they feel balanced on the Steel Path's higher levels and enhanced EHP stats, but may revise things that seem too strong on this path. If this is the case, Warframe would be balanced around the Steel Path. We'll have to see.

Edited by MechaKnight
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Loza03 said:

Numbers were dropping well before Liches and Railjack. If anything, the state of their release could be attributed to trying to counter the falling counts, not the other way round.

Most of the lost numbers before were due to 'lack of content' but remember liches (nemesis system originally iirc) and railjack were supposed to be the next 'big thing' and the reason for the lack of content... they were taking longer than anticipated and lets be fair most of us gave them a pass on the delays.  When it does come along however, after an incredibly long wait, not only did it come out nowhere near like it was originally intended but also severely lacking in it's own right....ultimately it didn't feel like it was '2 years' worth of work. You can't blame people for leaving after such a big 'let down' compared to what they were promised.

There's no other way to put this, and as harsh as this sounds, the only people that managed to screw those up were DE because the only people that had any input or access to it were the decision makers and the people working on them.  As much as I'm sure the people leading the game are great people and all that but I've got to be honest, I kind of feel they might need someone new to lead the game direction with a bit more of a focus on the current game rather than 'what else can we add this time' approach that we seem to have currently. 

Games like fortnite, cod, wow etc (albeit different game genres) are hugely popular even years after their release and imo part of that is because they're focusing on the 'core' game and don't feel the need to keep adding in something 'new' to the game with each update. 

Edited by LSG501
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LSG501 said:

Most of the lost numbers before were due to 'lack of content' but remember liches (nemesis system originally iirc) and railjack were supposed to be the next 'big thing' and the reason for the lack of content... they were taking longer than anticipated and lets be fair most of us gave them a pass on the delays.  When it does come along however, after an incredibly long wait, not only did it come out nowhere near like it was originally intended but also severely lacking in it's own right....ultimately it didn't feel like it was '2 years' worth of work.

Yeah. 2019 was damage control for Fortuna being unable to fill 2018's content drought, no matter how good it was. That's pretty much what I said.

2 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

There's no other way to put this, and as harsh as this sounds, the only people that managed to screw those up were DE because the only people that had any input or access to it were the decision makers and the people working on them.  As much as I'm sure the people leading the game are great people and all that but I've got to be honest, I kind of feel they might need someone new to lead the game direction with a bit more of a focus on the current game rather than 'what else can we add this time' approach that we seem to have currently. 

DE's management is probably in question yes, that much I do have to agree with.

4 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

Games like fortnite, cod, wow etc (albeit different game genres) are hugely popular even years after their release and imo part of that is because they're focusing on the 'core' game and don't feel the need to keep adding in something 'new' to the game with each update. 

Now I don't know about WoW, but IIRC, wasn't CoD heavily criticised for its own feature bloat? I feel like that's a questionable example.

And Fortnite - well, Fortnite is probably the worst game you could cite as 'sticking to its core gameplay' considering that its core gameplay is a Co-op, PvE base building survival game. Yeah. Battle Royale was meant to be a side mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LSG501 said:

Games like fortnite, cod, wow etc (albeit different game genres) are hugely popular even years after their release and imo part of that is because they're focusing on the 'core' game and don't feel the need to keep adding in something 'new' to the game with each update. 

 

50 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

And Fortnite - well, Fortnite is probably the worst game you could cite as 'sticking to its core gameplay' considering that its core gameplay is a Co-op, PvE base building survival game. Yeah. Battle Royale was meant to be a side mode.

This isn't the exact right place, but lets say the PvE core of Fortnite officially died. Look it up.

I agree with the sentiments overall but perhaps the given game examples aren't appropriate. The short story of it is players aren't happy enough with Warframe's current direction. Some of them think Steel Path is fine, some think it should try to cover for what is perceived to be lacking. The thread is for Steel Path (hard mode) so lets try to stick with it.

I agree with the initial sentiment that enemies need to feel sufficiently more capable of performing dangerous actions against the player than merely being bullet sponges. I do in fact also want to be satisfied with Steel Path so an amount of challenge is welcome. I understand DE didn't want Steel Path to be anything majorly different but I think that's a lost opportunity to make some excellent fun. I understand it is true it would be better to influence the core instead of a side mode but at this point I'm so desperate to see the game give the right feel to gameplay I'd take it anywhere in-game ASAP. I understand DE should probably just rework a bunch of stuff instead of pad Steel Path to cover for all the imbalance at the game's core that's making the game feel so unsatisfying, but Warframe is in such dire need of triage to reinvigorate the game I don't even care if Steel Path is a band-aid approach to giving satisfying gameplay despite the imbalance. I just want to see Warframe be fun.

Edited by MechaKnight
Typo fix.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Loza03 said:

snip

 

12 minutes ago, MechaKnight said:

snip

I picked 'popular and well known' games and even stated that they're different genre's so.... I'm not going to say they're perfect examples but they served their purpose on the point.

To be fair to Fortnite it is basically focusing on it's core users by focusing on PvP and lets be honest most people play it for PvP... you could see parallels with conclave versus PvE in warframe albeit the other way round.

Last I checked and from what I can find CoD bloat is referencing the overall size of the install and to be fair A LOT of games suffer from that including warframe (we've currently got 2 rendering techniques included in the install for example) and I'd hate to see how much left over code there is from past events and even raids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...