Fissure missions bring together players with different capabilities but their gameplay doesn't really support it.

[NezuHimeSama]

I'm not going to dig through the entire topic, but the opening post is what I'm responding to.

[schilds]

Just now, NezuHimeSama said:

I'm not going to dig through the entire topic, but the opening post is what I'm responding to.

I can't find the thing you quoted anywhere in my post.

[NezuHimeSama]

It's not a direct quote, but a response to the general tone and ideas in the opening post.

[schilds]

3 minutes ago, NezuHimeSama said:

It's not a direct quote, but a response to the general tone and ideas in the opening post.

Then you've missed the point (in the thread title, of all places), and because you didn't read the rest of the thread, later clarifications.

[NezuHimeSama]

I think you've missed that it doesn't really matter, and the suggestions would make the game worse.

[schilds]

4 minutes ago, NezuHimeSama said:

I think you've missed that it doesn't really matter, and the suggestions would make the game worse.

If it doesn't matter that you're not responding to something I said, then maybe you should go to another thread and respond to something that someone else didn't say?

[NezuHimeSama]

I am responding to an entire opening post you made.

[schilds]

8 minutes ago, NezuHimeSama said:

I am responding to an entire opening post you made.

Your paraphrase of what you *thought* I said makes it clear that while you might be responding to my *post*, you are not responding to its *contents* or *meaning*. A difference of interpretation which you claim "doesn't matter", in which case there's no reason why you shouldn't pick *any* other thread in this forum and share your random thoughts there.

[NezuHimeSama]

seems like I'm responding closely enough to strike a nerve.

the discussed aspect of fissures doesn't need fixing, and the suggested fixes would make the game worse.

[schilds]

Just now, NezuHimeSama said:

seems like I'm responding closely enough to strike a nerve.

Of course you'll interpret it how you want.

 

Just now, NezuHimeSama said:

the discussed aspect of fissures

You don't even *know* what that aspect is, and according to you it doesn't matter!

[NezuHimeSama]

"Fissure missions bring together players with different capabilities but their gameplay doesn't really support it."

That aspect.

Maybe you're the one who doesn't get it?

[schilds]

2 minutes ago, NezuHimeSama said:

"Fissure missions bring together players with different capabilities but their gameplay doesn't really support it."

That aspect.

Maybe you're the one who doesn't get it?

Nice to see that you finally read the title, but you didn't even respond to that. You responded to (in your words) something about "unique challenges for every level of player".

[NezuHimeSama]

Which was what the opening post was about.

It's funny, but fissures actually addressed this right off the bat, and then rolled it back because it sucked.

[schilds]

Early fissures did *not* address either my point, or your incorrect paraphrase of my opening post.

The issue was not as obvious early on (though you still had Ember, Simulor, Tonkor, etc) because:

• There wasn't such a large gap in power between old and new players.
• DE viewed too much aoe (either from weapons or abilities, cc or damage) as problematic¹ and attempted to address it (Tonkor, Simulor, etc).
• People who wanted lots of energy weren't pubbing, they had to form squads for it (e.g. with a Trin - Arcane Energize was locked behind Jordas Verdict).

In other words, a whole lot of other (not unrelated) factors reduced the severity of the issue in fissures.

Perhaps you could argue that the old void key system addressed it, because their design meant it was more efficient to stay in missions as long as possible, they required pre-made groups, and the frames/weapons available as well as the energy economy of the time meant that attaining high efficiency required assigning roles (energy, buff, dps, cc, etc) in a squad. I'm not saying I miss the old void key system, there were certainly many disadvantages to it.

 

1. They've now embraced it along with a more free energy economy. I don't think these are necessarily problems, but it means that old game modes designed back then need to be reconsidered (especially in those parts of the game that funnel players of different capabilities together).

[NezuHimeSama]

Were you not there for fissures early on?

It was a waitframe mission where everyone was important because you needed people to carry reactant back to the fissure. A secondary objective that is the same regardless of gear power.

[schilds]

45 minutes ago, NezuHimeSama said:

It was a waitframe mission where everyone was important because you needed people to carry reactant back to the fissure. A secondary objective that is the same regardless of gear power.

There is a large continuum between "nothing to do" and "actively engaged". Transporting reactant is well toward the "nothing to do" side of things.

As for why "it sucked", that could come down to lots of things. One only has to look at responses to the Zariman bounty objectives to see that people like some of them and not others. Just the fact of having some kind of secondary objective does automatically mean "it sucks".

In any case, secondary objectives are an *example* of something DE could try in order to make sure everyone is actively engaged, and *not the main point*. You have ignored the title as well as the opening and closing paragraphs, and based your entire response around a couple of my dot point suggestions that you personally did not like. Fair enough, some of them were made to suit my preferences. However, they're not the point.

The point is that Warframe has few in-mission mechanisms (whatever they may be) to address issues that arise from players of vastly different capabilities playing together in the same squad, and this is particularly problematic in game modes (e.g. fissures) that are designed to funnel most of the playerbase together. It has also become more problematic over time as the level of power available to players, and hence the gap between old and new players, has increased.

[NezuHimeSama]

it's something that's been tackled in the past in many ways, and none of them worked. Remember when loadouts had a rating, and various missions required it to be within a certain range?

I'd rather DE make the game better than make it worse.

 

[schilds]

1 hour ago, NezuHimeSama said:

I'd rather DE make the game better than make it worse.

I think you'll find everyone would rather that.

1 hour ago, NezuHimeSama said:

it's something that's been tackled in the past in many ways, and none of them worked. Remember when loadouts had a rating, and various missions required it to be within a certain range?

I was around for early fissures (and keys before that) but wasn't around for that system, though I did catch the vestiges of that system (conclave rating?) in the UI and had some guesses regarding its purpose. Regardless, just because some of the things they tried didn't work, doesn't mean all things they could try won't work. It doesn't even mean the things they did try were in the wrong direction, it could be how they were implemented.

 

Specificlally regarding secondary objectives, some of the secondary obejctives on the Zariman do work, and some of them don't. People also seem to like dormant void angels. In comparison to reactant, the angels are optional and an additional challenge on top of the usual mission activities. Reactant, on the other hand, assuming it even served as "something to do", was merely busy work for players who weren't killing things, inbetween regular mission activities. The former is a step up. The latter is a step down. Having another player go off and fight some optional enemy (leaving you to handle the regular ones) is one thing, being relegated to gopher because someone else is doing all the killing is another.

Similarly, in Railjack people like being pilot, on the guns, or on the away team, but most people don't want to hang around the whole mission repairing things and crafting ammo.

What I gather from objections in this thread is that a decent solution would maintain mission pacing, not be mere busywork, engage players in the kind of activites they expect from Warframe, and not overly complicate things. Maybe there are some other criteria for this to work, but those seem to be the main ones.

[NezuHimeSama]

But if you just have strong enemies for beef players to fight, you then need a beef player in every mission to do that secondary objective. It doesn't solve the problem the topic is talking about, it just creates another problem.

Void angels work because they just scale to the mission, like any in-mission boss, rather than targeting player level or trying to work around the gap in player gear.

[schilds]

6 minutes ago, NezuHimeSama said:

But if you just have strong enemies for beef players to fight, you then need a beef player in every mission to do that secondary objective. It doesn't solve the problem the topic is talking about, it just creates another problem.

No it doesn't. Why do the newer players have to do the optional secondary objective? People can totally leave the void angel alone if they don't think they can handle it.

 

6 minutes ago, NezuHimeSama said:

Void angels work because they just scale to the mission, like any in-mission boss, rather than targeting player level or trying to work around the gap in player gear.

Right. They *work*. Previously you said secondary objectives *do not work*. Make up your mind.

There are *reasons* they work, and whatever they are, DE can take a look at those and perhaps ensure those reasons are a part of new layers in older game modes outside of the Zariman.

[NezuHimeSama]

I said shoehorning secondary objectives in to missions to try and bridge the power gap between players doesn't work, and explained why.

What you're suggesting doesn't even tackle what you made this topic about in the first place.

[schilds]

12 minutes ago, NezuHimeSama said:

I said shoehorning secondary objectives in to missions to try and bridge the power gap between players doesn't work, and explained why.

What "explanation"? You brought up reactant in early fissures, which are an *example* of something that didn't work. At no point did you string together an *explanation* of why nothing will work.

Quote

What you're suggesting doesn't even tackle what you made this topic about in the first place.

I occasionally take in gear that I'm levelling into Zariman missions. I typically ignore angels and just focus on the objective, while other players (if I'm pubbing) will go off and do them. Even if they are not a full solution, they at least partially tackle it.

[NezuHimeSama]

The angels are scaled to the mission, though. They don't do anything about differing gear levels.

I explained immediately before that post.

[schilds]

28 minutes ago, NezuHimeSama said:

The angels are scaled to the mission, though. They don't do anything about differing gear levels.

Why are you so hung up on scaling and doing something directly about differing gear levels. That's not the main point.

The main point (which you can read in the title, first paragraph and last paragraph of opening comment in this thread) is ensuring all players are engaged in a fun activity. That doesn't necessarily mean scaling anything. Scaling (of some sort) was merely one of many suggestions. In fact, the problem sometimes occurs between players of the same level, due to differences in weapon/gear choice and playstyle.

 

Anyway, here's your so-called "explanation" (annotations in bold are mine):

1 hour ago, NezuHimeSama said:

[1] But if you just have strong enemies for beef players to fight, you then need a beef player in every mission to do that secondary objective. [2] It doesn't solve the problem the topic is talking about, it just creates another problem.

[3] Void angels work because they just scale to the mission, like any in-mission boss, rather than targeting player level or trying to work around the gap in player gear.

The first sentence [1] is incorrect. The secondary objective can and should be *optional* (e.g. void angels). If you go back and read the dot points, you will see that the suggestions are for "player specific" and "optional" objectives, i.e. ones that do not hang up the whole group's progress on one person.

Since [1] is incorrect, that leaves the second sentence [2] as merely an unsupported statement (and in any case, it *is* also possible that a mechanism solves one problem while creating another). An unsupported statement by itself is not an explanation. I would expect a "because" or maybe an "if this, then that" or something along those lines.

The third (and last) sentence [3] tells us why void angels work (in some way, for argument's sake) but it doesn't tell us why they do not address the issue raised as the central point of this thread. It can't us such a thing because from my experience, void angels *do* at least partially address the issue of players *not having anything fun to do* because of a gap in gear. The person with advanced gear optionally handles the angel (of course they can just ignore it too) while the person with regular gear continues working at the normal objective.

[NezuHimeSama]

Being "optional" doesn't really change much. And without scaling, it's not "a fun activity for every player to do".

It really just sounds like you're astroturfing even longer waitframe.