Jump to content

Forma will cripple warframe


DogeManX
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, (PSN)Spider_Enigma said:

the problem is, its impossible to complete everything in less then 2 years without buying forma, unless u never upgrade a single weapon because catalysts also exist and are robbing half of your capacity

maxing out every weapon in the game without spending a lot of money would take 7.5 years

there are 689 weapons as per google, and assuming u need 4 forma each

Please tell me, in all honesty: Who is actually going to go through and max every single weapon in the game?
That is a serious question because it proves how utterly absurd your point is.

 

Who seriously goes "Well I have the MK1-Paris, better put 4 forma in it so I can have a 'complete' build!  Then I can do the exact same thing with the normal Paris and then all over again for the Paris Prime!"
And that holds true for the vast majority of weapons in the game.
I doubt many people are going "Oh yeah the Kraken, better put in 4 forma....and the bronco as well!" and so on and so on and so on.

 

This is just taking the issue to such a stupid extreme that its utterly ridiculous and does absolutely nothing to further your point.
Sure, it would take 7.5 year to build 4 forma per weapon....but I doubt that there is actually anyone in the game that has gone through and ever done it or ever seriously considered doing it.

No one is seriously coming to warframe and going "I need to forma everything at least 4 times!!!!!" and if they are then its on them if it takes them 7.5 years or a lot of plat to do it because that is a completely self imposed challenge that not even the hardcore 100% completionists are aiming for.
Most people in the game are going to forma maybe 30ish weapons to max (if even that).
If you consider the vast majority of players the time it takes to craft forma and move on is not a problem at all.  And the game devs should be considering the vast majority, not the less than 1% of 1% of people who decide to forma every weapon in the game 4 times.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tsukinoki said:

Please tell me, in all honesty: Who is actually going to go through and max every single weapon in the game?
That is a serious question because it proves how utterly absurd your point is.

 

Who seriously goes "Well I have the MK1-Paris, better put 4 forma in it so I can have a 'complete' build!  Then I can do the exact same thing with the normal Paris and then all over again for the Paris Prime!"
And that holds true for the vast majority of weapons in the game.
I doubt many people are going "Oh yeah the Kraken, better put in 4 forma....and the bronco as well!" and so on and so on and so on.

 

This is just taking the issue to such a stupid extreme that its utterly ridiculous and does absolutely nothing to further your point.
Sure, it would take 7.5 year to build 4 forma per weapon....but I doubt that there is actually anyone in the game that has gone through and ever done it or ever seriously considered doing it.

No one is seriously coming to warframe and going "I need to forma everything at least 4 times!!!!!" and if they are then its on them if it takes them 7.5 years or a lot of plat to do it because that is a completely self imposed challenge that not even the hardcore 100% completionists are aiming for.
Most people in the game are going to forma maybe 30ish weapons to max (if even that).
If you consider the vast majority of players the time it takes to craft forma and move on is not a problem at all.  And the game devs should be considering the vast majority, not the less than 1% of 1% of people who decide to forma every weapon in the game 4 times.

the point isnt that u should or shouldn't

its that u cant even if u wanted to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Krankbert:

Of course it is. It's also not the same thing as "people respect the game less because it's free", so would you kindly stop pretending that that is what I disagreed with.

Then it would be very nice of you, if you could explain what you were disagreeing with, because I read your post as 'Forma system is bad and people defend it because the game is free'.

Which I disagree with, because the system is at worst a minor inconvenience and a method of gaining money that is relatively consistent for the devs.

I however agree in so far, that 'the game is free' is not an excuse for unfixed bugs or similar issues. It might however be an explanation for why these issues are not prioritized.

And things do loose their perceived value, if they are offered for free. When the services I provided in my second job were made available for free by my country, people started to treat me and my coworkers like S#&$. We suddenly were no longer respected experts but some idiots because people no longer directly saw what amount of money went into our training, materials and work. 

And if people valued the work behind the game you wouldn't have so many threads and comments on this forum where people are implying that if their ideas and wishes are not followed, the game will die.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 20 Minuten schrieb Sinekanter:

Then it would be very nice of you, if you could explain what you were disagreeing with, because I read your post as 'Forma system is bad and people defend it because the game is free'.

My comment was a response to another comment and contained a quote. I don't know why anyone would honestly assume that my comment wasn't in response to that but about something else entirely. This is moot anyway, because apparently you clearly understood my comment, you just chose to respond as if you didn't.

"The game has to make money somehow" isn't a counterargument to "this game design is bad". It's an explanation for why the game system is the way it is despite being obviously terrible, but the profit motive of a Chinese conglomerate doesn't magically make it fun for the players. At least the fun I have with a game system doesn't depend at all on whether or not it also enables some big corporation to make money, but hey, maybe that's just me.

vor 20 Minuten schrieb Sinekanter:

And things do loose their perceived value, if they are offered for free. When the services I provided in my second job were made available for free by my country, people started to treat me and my coworkers like S#&$. We suddenly were no longer respected experts but some idiots because people no longer directly saw what amount of money went into our training, materials and work. 

And if people valued the work behind the game you wouldn't have so many threads and comments on this forum where people are implying that if their ideas and wishes are not followed, the game will die.

This line of reasoning only makes sense if you intend to argue that people wouldn't complain about Forma crafting and the amount of forma required if the game wasn't free. Is that seriously what you intend to argue?

Edited by Krankbert
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, (PSN)Spider_Enigma said:

the point isnt that u should or shouldn't

its that u cant even if u wanted to

And?
I mean seriously, and so what?

 

There is a ton of things that you can't do in Warframe even if you wanted to do it.
For example you can't potato every weapon in the game in less than 2 years without spending plat, even if you wanted to.

 

There are a ton of things you can't do quickly without spending plat, even if you wanted to.
This is just one of them, and its a rather small one.

 

You're missing a very important thing that you have to consider:
Who is being impacted by this to a huge degree, and impacted enough that it actually matters?
And if your only fallback is to make it so ridiculously extreme to actually make it seem like an issue....is there really an issue to begin with for the vast majority of players?

Sure you can't build 4 forma for every weapon in the game in less than 2 years.....and so what?  Who does that impact?  And if it impacts no one does it even matter at all?

There is no point in going "Look at this ridiculous scenario!  It's impossible to do without spending money!!!!", instead you actually have to look at how most players interact with the system and see if there is a problem there.

Sure, there are problems for every single game and every single system if you take them to the utter ridiculous extreme....but that doesn't mean that they are problems that need addressed if no one is ever actually going to encounter them.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 1 Minute schrieb Krankbert:

My comment was a response to another comment and contained a quote. I don't know why anyone would honestly assume that my comment wasn't in response to that but about something else entirely.

Because we are in a thread about a gameplay design choice and you went on about how people defend gameplay design choices with 'the game is free'. So it seemed logical to me that you were talking about the thing the thread is about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 8 Minuten schrieb Sinekanter:

Because we are in a thread about a gameplay design choice and you went on about how people defend gameplay design choices with 'the game is free'. So it seemed logical to me that you were talking about the thing the thread is about.

Well, you responded with "but the poor Chinese megacorp needs to make money somehow", and I'm trying to come up with a worse defense for a design choice from a player perspective, and I honestly can't.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Krankbert:

Well, you responded with "but the poor Chinese megacorp needs to make money somehow", and I'm trying to come up with a worse defense for a design choice from a player perspective, and I honestly can't.

I didn't. I pointed out that the game has to make money, because otherwise it will be dropped by the 'evil chinese megacorp' like a hot potato at some point. But I see what you are trying to do here with this kind of rethoric.

So what really is your issue? Me saying that the game needs to have consistent ways of trying to convince the player to spend money on it or that I said that people don't value the game as much and complain about minor inconveniences because it is free?

Because whenever I respond to one of these issue and explain my standpoint you switch it around and talk about the other thing instead of arguing my points. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ZeroX4 said:

Look back in my day we hand no internetz u bought a game and in 90% of cases it was crap cause u didnt have any way of knowing is it good or bad if it was new

Today we have so many sources of getting to know if game will be good or bad or if it is after release that there is no excuse to buy bad game

Same with tutorials
You have no idea how many times i was stuck in RPG until someone wrote walkthrough to it

Today games should have tutorials but we have so many ways of learning about them how to do X stuff where spawn X monsters
That i feel there is no excuse for us to even demand proper info ingame 

I wish we had tutorials and all but on other hand when i launch some MMORPG and i see game forcing me into tutorial wasting my time on stuff i could figure out on my own
Im kinda happy we dont have that in warframe

So idk if its so bad

That is true. My friend is playing the Final Fantasy remasters (apparently they're good). But to 100% the game (doable because its a linear rpg), he needs to read a guide and run around doing unintuitive things to get all the items he needs. While the games are good, you can't deny its a bit frustrating to have to loop around the entire game because of something you missed 3 levels back.

Frankly, it's really hard to find a balance between a nice system that doesn't hold your hand over every little thing versus a system that just has no introduction to anything. If I were to come up with a good example of a tutorial, it would be something like how Sevagoth was introduced. During the acid trip sequence when you were playing sevagoth's shadow with the button prompts, it gave ample time to explore the abilities of the frame while also being a fun little tutorial. If we got some of those (say an eidolon quest for the first time you do eidolons where it guides you through how to kill it), I'd say that warframe would still be better. 

Education really does go a long way. DE should really lean on its community created resources (wiki, market, semlar, etc...) and promote it further in game. I think that would make the experience a lot better without being too much work for devs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

Please tell me, in all honesty: Who is actually going to go through and max every single weapon in the game?
That is a serious question because it proves how utterly absurd your point is.

 

Who seriously goes "Well I have the MK1-Paris, better put 4 forma in it so I can have a 'complete' build!  Then I can do the exact same thing with the normal Paris and then all over again for the Paris Prime!"
And that holds true for the vast majority of weapons in the game.
I doubt many people are going "Oh yeah the Kraken, better put in 4 forma....and the bronco as well!" and so on and so on and so on.

 

This is just taking the issue to such a stupid extreme that its utterly ridiculous and does absolutely nothing to further your point.
Sure, it would take 7.5 year to build 4 forma per weapon....but I doubt that there is actually anyone in the game that has gone through and ever done it or ever seriously considered doing it.

No one is seriously coming to warframe and going "I need to forma everything at least 4 times!!!!!" and if they are then its on them if it takes them 7.5 years or a lot of plat to do it because that is a completely self imposed challenge that not even the hardcore 100% completionists are aiming for.
Most people in the game are going to forma maybe 30ish weapons to max (if even that).
If you consider the vast majority of players the time it takes to craft forma and move on is not a problem at all.  And the game devs should be considering the vast majority, not the less than 1% of 1% of people who decide to forma every weapon in the game 4 times.

I think this thread got quite a bit away from the original point.

I didn't want forma to basically be given away like candy, rather, I'd like to see something where the rate of obtaining forma is streamlined like shorter crafting times, making uncommon forma drop built, or running events like plague star more often or on a more consistent schedule (Plague star is pretty irregular with its timing). In reality, it wouldn't drastically shift forma into a place where it oversaturates your inventory, but it'll also give a lot of players a bit of a boost. I don't think that getting enough forma to forma every weapon 4 times is a realistic idea. I'm more aiming at a situation where you have a weapon that's sitting at 4 forma and you're debating whether you should use the forma on the weapon again to fit one more mod on it or to forma another weapon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2021-08-25 at 5:41 PM, (PSN)JustJoshinEnt said:

1. How is it "obnoxious" to have an EXTREMELY cheap material (Forma) be offered for very little plat (35 for 3 built), when you ALSO give it away all the time (there are 9 in this Nightwave alone), offer ways to get it to drop (certain puzzles), make FREE blueprints to build endless amounts of them, AND even allow players to freely trade your PREMIUM currency such that they can bypass paying you any money whatsoever with just a few minutes' work in Trade?

2. Forma having existed for a long while doesn't mean that they need to be changed.  There's nothing broken about them. See point 1.

3. DE gave us a GIFT in making free, pre-built forma available as a reward in PS.  They are under NO obligation to do so again, just as they were under no obligation to do so the first time.   This is an issue of entitlement and lookin' a gift-horse in the mouth.

1) it takes 23 hours to craft one forma. I dont think its a stretch to say that equals 1 forma per day for most people.

Between the tenet and kuva weapons that is 155 forma, if im not mistaken. If im not mistaken that would require about 51 forma bundles. Or about 1800 plat.

Im sorry i feel like thats excessive. Why do weapons suddenly need 5 forma to get all mastery? How does the player benefit from that? Isnt it just arbitrary grind? Why not make it 10? Or make all weapons need five forma? 

 

2) whats existed for a long time, is weapons not requiring even 1 forma to get all the mastery out of them. THAT wasnt broken. 

 

3) you seem awfully bothered by my opinion for some reason. 

 

They can say F it and shut down the game completely if they want to, but saying things like "but muh entitlement" doesnt mean criticism is automatically invalid.

 

PS has been around several times and given forma each time. 

 

THAT aint broke. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 13 Stunden schrieb Sinekanter:

I didn't. I pointed out that the game has to make money, because otherwise it will be dropped by the 'evil chinese megacorp' like a hot potato at some point. But I see what you are trying to do here with this kind of rethoric.

So what really is your issue? Me saying that the game needs to have consistent ways of trying to convince the player to spend money on it or that I said that people don't value the game as much and complain about minor inconveniences because it is free?

Because whenever I respond to one of these issue and explain my standpoint you switch it around and talk about the other thing instead of arguing my points. 

My point is that the business model doesn’t factor into what is and isn’t good game design or fun, so trying to deflect criticism of bad systems by pointing to the business model doesn’t make sense.
Trying to frame said criticism as „disrespect“ and happening only because of the „lower perceived value“ as if people wouldn’t criticise the same thing in a pay-to-play game is just outright dishonest. That’s so outlandish that I not only disagree with it, I don’t even believe that you believe it yourself.

This has been my point from the beginning, I never switched around, you just don’t have a response to it because of how obviously wrong you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Krankbert:

My point is that the business model doesn’t factor into what is and isn’t good game design or fun, so trying to deflect criticism of bad systems by pointing to the business model doesn’t make sense.
Trying to frame said criticism as „disrespect“ and happening only because of the „lower perceived value“ as if people wouldn’t criticise the same thing in a pay-to-play game is just outright dishonest. That’s so outlandish that I not only disagree with it, I don’t even believe that you believe it yourself.

This has been my point from the beginning, I never switched around, you just don’t have a response to it because of how obviously wrong you are.

The difference is, that people are in the right to complain about having to pay more in a pay to play game, or being inconvenienced in an attempt to squeeze more money out of them. These complaints come from a point of 'I have given you money, I want my service'. 

Here it comes from a point of 'I haven't given you any money, have the option to not pay money and instead wait and I am still going to complain about the service, because it does not cater to my specific goal I have set myself, which was not intended by the game in the first place' and why? Because they are inconvenienced by a timer.

And yes, I see that as disrespect. Asking for more and more free stuff when you are already getting pretty much everything for free is, at least where I am from, absolutely disrespectful.

And for me claiming that it has something to do with the game being free, you can literally look at my previous posts, where I explain it, even with a real life example. Which is what I meant by saying you switch around a lot. Not that you change your stance, but that you never directly respond to any point I bring up, but instead ignore  it, focus on something else you or I have written and add some petty passive-aggressive comment to it, or claim that I have said something I haven't. Like your previous post, where you claimed that I was concerned about a 'chinese megacorp', when I clearly wasn't, in an attempt to discredit me. Which is a point you are also completely ignoring now, as if it had not happened.

You can tell me I am wrong as often as you like, I don't care, no matter how 'obvious' it is to you, apparently. I have no reason to lie about my opinion and yes, I believe in it. 

And if you are interested in having a discussion on my stance, you can PM me. This is slowly turning into a personal quarrel and I don't want to bother others with that. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DogeManX said:

Education really does go a long way. DE should really lean on its community created resources (wiki, market, semlar, etc...) and promote it further in game. I think that would make the experience a lot better without being too much work for devs.

The problem with that is it would open DE up to a WHOLE lot of liability/legal issues.

They do not OWN or EMPLOY any of those community-created websites/apps.  Therefore, they cannot control what content is featured, what ads are played, etc.

IF they ENDORSE those apps/sites, and the content suddenly takes a turn for the worse, DE is then partially on the line for anything bad their players are exposed to through those apps by way of endorsement.  Yes, they can argue "Well, we had a disclaimer..." but it creates bad press and expense court appearances that slow things down and hurt their PR. 

It's really just better to leave it as-is, or for DE to create their own versions of said resources... which I've no doubt they're working on in due time.  Can't build Rome in a day.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DogeManX said:

I think this thread got quite a bit away from the original point.

I didn't want forma to basically be given away like candy, rather, I'd like to see something where the rate of obtaining forma is streamlined like shorter crafting times, making uncommon forma drop built, or running events like plague star more often or on a more consistent schedule (Plague star is pretty irregular with its timing). In reality, it wouldn't drastically shift forma into a place where it oversaturates your inventory, but it'll also give a lot of players a bit of a boost. I don't think that getting enough forma to forma every weapon 4 times is a realistic idea. I'm more aiming at a situation where you have a weapon that's sitting at 4 forma and you're debating whether you should use the forma on the weapon again to fit one more mod on it or to forma another weapon. 

What?  Do you have any idea how much forma one can gain from Plague Star?  Easily over 100+.  I've friends who've put in the time and gotten over 140.

That's almost HALF A YEAR'S worth of built forma ALONG WITH whatever blueprints they already had access to.  That's a HEAVY hit to incentive to purchase Forma for some time.

Just looking at recent design choices of Tenet/Kuva/Necramechs... you can see that DE's objective is to provide more ways to SINK resources, not pool them. 

I understand what you "want" to see, but I'm sorry...it's just completely out of touch with the reality of a business model like DE's.

 

Edited by (PSN)JustJoshinEnt
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ZeroX4 said:

Look back in my day we hand no internetz u bought a game and in 90% of cases it was crap cause u didnt have any way of knowing is it good or bad if it was new

In all honesty I picked up more good games back then than I do now. Since back then the games were finished when released, they werent backed up and hyped by fake reviews or fanboi content creators pre-release. They also werent released with a "we can patch that issue down the road" mindset. And if the game was for some reason bad I could just go and return it without questions asked up to 30 days later, since back then that was a consumer right and we didnt have the digital bullS#&$ alterations to that right.

I'm so very hesitant to pick up buy to play games these days because out of the latest 15 or so purchases I've been burnt around 10 times. And most of those games that were good were older titles, and the closer we get to current time releases, the worse they've been. On the flip side though is that the F2P games I've played have actually all been solid and enjoyable, with only Path of Exile that was hard to stick with, but that was mostly due to their design choices around a very up close camera for that "old school" feel and being based on seasons.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, DogeManX said:

But... I don't expect DE to hand a bunch of forma out for free. I don't expect them to either. I just would like them to do something about either crafting times or making uncommon forma drop pre-built forma. I'm not asking for a huge bump up but rather something small but meaningful.

About monetization, I already mentioned above that an increase in forma would possibly lead to an increase on slot purchases which may be more profitable for DE. Forma can be earned through f2p methods but slots are limited to certain events or as devstream rewards (rarely). 

Da Vinci doesn't "owe" anyone a better Mona Lisa because nobody really pays for it. However, DE actually owes it to people who play their game to make a better game because we pay for their game. Even people who are f2p have an impact on plat sales because of the market. You can't expect an artist to make a perfect painting if the artist does it for fun or themselves. But if someone is paying an artist, that artist will usually go to the client and ask for their specifications. Obviously DE still needs to make money, but saying that they owe nothing to us to make a better game is just wrong. 

You've literally mentioned shortening it to 6 hours.  That's about A QUARTER of the time it currently takes.  I'd call cutting 75% of something off a "huge bump".

Your speculation about how it would or wouldn't affect their bottom line has no basis in any facts or data.  You've presented nothing to back your case, only your opinion... and opinions =/= facts.   If something were MORE profitable AND more "fun" (which is extremely subjective), DE would be doing it already... because that's how business works.

 

18 hours ago, DogeManX said:

And this goes back to my original point. I didn't say that DE should hand out unlimited forma for free, but it's definitely going to boost player interest if a 23 hour timer between forma isn't slammed in their faces. While they might lose a bit of money in forma sales, they'd make it up through player retention and slot sales. 

Again, this is just your opinion.  Show the facts/data that backs your argument.  Show comparative data showcasing retention rates based on forma usage, build timers, plat purchases, etc.  If you can't, then your speculation is moot.  You've made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

 

18 hours ago, Krankbert said:

I agree that we wouldn't be having this discussion if the game weren't free. Not because being free means that the game loses value to customers, but because people who are defending every single terrible game design choice with "BuT iT's FrEe" would never tolerate the same things in a pay-to-play title. The critics would still be the same, but the disingenious thought-terminating cliché that passes for a counterargument around here would be gone.

It's not defending a terrible game design choice. YOU'RE the ones calling it that.  The fact that it's free means they've asked NOTHING FROM YOU, and given you the FULL GAME and ALL DLC, past, present, AND future, for FREE... and they have small inconveniences that you can bypass FOR FREE with time, or for a VERY small plat purchase. (35 plat isn't even $3 USD, and that's assuming you PAY for it and don't just trade.)

If you paid $60+ for the game and the game STILL demanded MORE money (like so many do... I'm lookin' at you every-bandai-namco-game), just to play the content you PAID for to the fullest... that WOULD be an objectively different situation.  But this ain't that.


If I gave you a FREE slice of pizza and it was juuust "okay", 5/10, you'd either eat it or toss it and move on.  

If you PAID ME for the pizza, and it still sucked, that'd be a different story...  because now you're out the money AND you got a shoddy product.

I'd also argue Warframe is NOT a "shoddy product", either.  It's a F2P game, arguably one of the best on that business model, and it's survived over 8+ years, has put out a TON of content over those years, and continues to grow.  Games with "terrible design" don't survive that long, and THRIVE, even.  May not be YOUR cup of tea, but clearly it's good enough for plenty of people.

 

18 hours ago, DogeManX said:

But you really can't get the gist of some weapons with only 30 capacity. There are so many new mods now that have high capacity requirements. Putting serration (14) and crit mods (18) already puts you well beyond 30 and unless the weapon provides a ton of innate v polarities, then that's about all you'd run. I think you're kidding yourself if you think you can determine how good or bad a weapon is with more than half the mods missing.

You absolutely CAN.  I've almost 2300 hours in just in-mission time in the game, and I've sorted through almost every weapon it has to offer.  I can tell the "feel" of the weapon right away... the rest is just basic MATHS.  But, I do believe SneakyErvin said it best:

17 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You can easily get a feel for them if you have experience with the game, which should be what you have if you are at the point where you start investing in forma seriously. At that point you can look at the stats and determine how the gun will perfom more or less while getting a feel for possible special mechanics and the recoil/handling of it. 

It is good that people need to consider a weapon before spending forma on it, it leads to less people running around with bad weapons they think are good just because they spent 8 forma or something equally stupid on them.

 

16 hours ago, Sinekanter said:

Then it would be very nice of you, if you could explain what you were disagreeing with, because I read your post as 'Forma system is bad and people defend it because the game is free'.

Which I disagree with, because the system is at worst a minor inconvenience and a method of gaining money that is relatively consistent for the devs.

I however agree in so far, that 'the game is free' is not an excuse for unfixed bugs or similar issues. It might however be an explanation for why these issues are not prioritized.

Thank. You.  

16 hours ago, Krankbert said:

My comment was a response to another comment and contained a quote. I don't know why anyone would honestly assume that my comment wasn't in response to that but about something else entirely. This is moot anyway, because apparently you clearly understood my comment, you just chose to respond as if you didn't.

"The game has to make money somehow" isn't a counterargument to "this game design is bad". It's an explanation for why the game system is the way it is despite being obviously terrible, but the profit motive of a Chinese conglomerate doesn't magically make it fun for the players. At least the fun I have with a game system doesn't depend at all on whether or not it also enables some big corporation to make money, but hey, maybe that's just me.

This line of reasoning only makes sense if you intend to argue that people wouldn't complain about Forma crafting and the amount of forma required if the game wasn't free. Is that seriously what you intend to argue?

1. That's a crappy and dishonest misrepresentation of DE's team, and you KNOW it.  They have a parent company, yes... All companies do.  That doesn't make them some big evil baddie..   As for whether the game is "fun for all the players"... it's CLEARLY fun enough that it's lasted 8+ years on a completely FREE to play model.   YOU may not like it, but that's fine..  not everyone on Earth has to.  Just enough to keep the lights on.  And they are.

Also, that's not at ALL what they other Tenno was arguing.  "Building Forma", and monetizing time-gates wouldn't need to be a THING if the game COST MONEY UPFRONT.  But since it doesn't, it needs to recoup expenses in other ways... like time-gating to create pressure to make purchases.  It's not complicated.

 

6 hours ago, (XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA said:

1) it takes 23 hours to craft one forma. I dont think its a stretch to say that equals 1 forma per day for most people.

Between the tenet and kuva weapons that is 155 forma, if im not mistaken. If im not mistaken that would require about 51 forma bundles. Or about 1800 plat.

Im sorry i feel like thats excessive. Why do weapons suddenly need 5 forma to get all mastery? How does the player benefit from that? Isnt it just arbitrary grind? Why not make it 10? Or make all weapons need five forma? 

 

2) whats existed for a long time, is weapons not requiring even 1 forma to get all the mastery out of them. THAT wasnt broken. 

 

3) you seem awfully bothered by my opinion for some reason. 

 

They can say F it and shut down the game completely if they want to, but saying things like "but muh entitlement" doesnt mean criticism is automatically invalid.

 

PS has been around several times and given forma each time. 

 

THAT aint broke. 

 

And so we cycle back to Page 1, pretty much...  This circular arguing is getting us nowhere and, quite honestly, it's exhausting... and annoying.

NOBODY SAID you had to max rank all Tenet/Kuva weapons.  NO ONE.  Not even DE.  You can squeeze a measly extra 1000 xp out of 'em if you do.  The Tenet/Kuva system isn't for new players, in any case... it's for people who have more resources than they know what to do with to have something to dump 'em in to.  Same as the Helminth.  

I, personally, have only ever fully forma'd Tenet/Kuva weapons I either LIKED, or was bored and wanted to push my mastery a bit.  I'm almost MR30... and I still have PLENTY of other stuff to master ahead of Tenet/Kuva weapons that'll get me there.  

You act like it's impossible to ignore Tenet/Kuva weapons at 5 forma, but it's not.  MR30 was possible well before these systems were even fully realized. There's no need to squeeze the MR out of 'em unless you WANT to,, and then it's a YOU thing.  

And as time goes on, there's even LESS reason to fully Forma these weapons...as MR30 will become EASIER AND EASIER to attain with more weapons/primes released.

Also, PS is coming back AND bringing forma... so what's the issue?  You're not making any sense.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2021-08-23 at 2:36 AM, DogeManX said:

...

 

I think the grind per update is scaled towards accomdating the hardcore grinders.

If Player One plays 18 hours a day for 4 months, how much grind do we need to add before the next update is - probably - ready, is the math on it.

 

So you can blame other people for being responsible for accepting bad decisions in video games overall and in general.

At the same time you can't both make it casual and hardcore, so it make sense corporations go where the money is, which is to say at least it isn't personal, insulting as it may feel having to re-grind weapons for 5 forma and so on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

In all honesty I picked up more good games back then than I do now. Since back then the games were finished when released, they werent backed up and hyped by fake reviews or fanboi content creators pre-release. They also werent released with a "we can patch that issue down the road" mindset. And if the game was for some reason bad I could just go and return it without questions asked up to 30 days later, since back then that was a consumer right and we didnt have the digital bullS#&$ alterations to that right.

I'm so very hesitant to pick up buy to play games these days because out of the latest 15 or so purchases I've been burnt around 10 times. And most of those games that were good were older titles, and the closer we get to current time releases, the worse they've been. On the flip side though is that the F2P games I've played have actually all been solid and enjoyable, with only Path of Exile that was hard to stick with, but that was mostly due to their design choices around a very up close camera for that "old school" feel and being based on seasons.

 

You are missing the point
I do agree what we had in the good old times is far more better than what we have now and no 1 can deny that
But thats the case of "we grew up in a different standard" like look on funny videos back when youtube was starting to crawl and now where most of them are some fake pranks with fake laugh fake audience pretending to be very funny when in fact they are not

Point is back then if you did not know something you were excused because you didnt know fire burns until you put your hand into it

Today even as you said we watch fake hyped gameplay video we can easily tell if game is good or bad even if someone is pretending its awesome while its not

I for example am from Poland i am proud with Witcher being world wide title now but i am unhappy with CD Project Red
There was so many red flags on that cyberpunk release everyone with half a brain could avoid any disappointment or just wait for others to be their cannon fodder

So in the end even if you have tutorial video explaining everything you see all the clues some ppl wont avoid being simply stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Sinekanter:

The difference is, that people are in the right to complain about having to pay more in a pay to play game, or being inconvenienced in an attempt to squeeze more money out of them. These complaints come from a point of 'I have given you money, I want my service'. 

Here it comes from a point of 'I haven't given you any money, have the option to not pay money and instead wait and I am still going to complain about the service, because it does not cater to my specific goal I have set myself, which was not intended by the game in the first place' and why? Because they are inconvenienced by a timer.

And yes, I see that as disrespect. Asking for more and more free stuff when you are already getting pretty much everything for free is, at least where I am from, absolutely disrespectful.

DE is owned by a Chinese conglomerate who bought DE from another Chinese company who got into video games because they thought there was more money in video games than in farming chicken. This isn’t some indie game that some guy made in his basement who is gifting it to the world out of the goodness of his heart. This game is free for exactly one reason - because a free-to-play business model makes them more money. You don’t get brownie points for doing what makes you the most money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ZeroX4 said:

But thats the case of "we grew up in a different standard" 

I think it is more that we grew up in a time where the technological options of today simply werent there for the developers to exploit. You couldnt patch games back then, so things had to be complete or money would be lost due to returns. The funny part though is that F2P games are better at bringing quality products, but I guess it comes down to the same idea because people dont need to spend to test it, so if they dont like what they try there will be no money coming from those players.

Which is why I really liked what People Can Fly did with Outriders. They gave us a free demo to test before buying it. And the game was a complete game aswell just as they said. Now sure, some people expected something else from it, but that is on them since they hadnt listened to the developers talking about their intent with the game. It is just that pile of people that think live service is interchangable with terms such as arpg, looter shooter or similar. So they sit there and yell "where's the content updates!?" and so on.

2 hours ago, Krankbert said:

DE is owned by a Chinese conglomerate who bought DE from another Chinese company...

Neither of those two things are actually true.

Tencent is no longer a Chinese conglomerate, it hasnt been for the last 10 years or so. It is mainly owned by pretty much the rest of the world. Majority shares rests with a south african company atm. Those shares sit at 33% or so of the total. Leyou was also not chinese, it was Hong Kong based, which is quite different from mainland china.

And technically DE is an indie company, since what they've done is make use of investors and holding companies. Which is vastly different from being controlled by a publisher. It is just another option instead of chasing investors over and over or hitting up banks. No indie company is actually indie, since everyone needs funding in some way. I guess the exception would be CD-Projekt that have their own financial branch with banking and so on aswell.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I think it is more that we grew up in a time where the technological options of today simply werent there for the developers to exploit. You couldnt patch games back then, so things had to be complete or money would be lost due to returns. The funny part though is that F2P games are better at bringing quality products, but I guess it comes down to the same idea because people dont need to spend to test it, so if they dont like what they try there will be no money coming from those players.

Which is why I really liked what People Can Fly did with Outriders. They gave us a free demo to test before buying it. And the game was a complete game aswell just as they said. Now sure, some people expected something else from it, but that is on them since they hadnt listened to the developers talking about their intent with the game. It is just that pile of people that think live service is interchangable with terms such as arpg, looter shooter or similar. So they sit there and yell "where's the content updates!?" and so on.

Im old enough to remember when ALL PC and playstation games came 1st as demos/trail versions and that was how you decide if you care to buy it or not

Now most games looks like games from google play
Awesome trailer awesome graphic awesome crap shown and when you try it turns ot it is worse than most browser games

I think we went wrong way with allowing devs to make idiots out of us so easily

But today we have internetz we are able to check how game looks how game play and we can just show our middle finger before shoving our $$$ into any game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Krankbert said:

Well, you responded with "but the poor Chinese megacorp needs to make money somehow", and I'm trying to come up with a worse defense for a design choice from a player perspective, and I honestly can't.

Lol. Right!! Forma dropping built would have zero impact on thier money making strategies. Because if it did they are having bigger problems.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...