Take a hit DE

[Surbusken]

You kind of have to remain loyal to the apologists though, right?

If they had been, say defending railjack or whatever month in month out, you'd be throwing them under the bus, coming out later and admitting everything.

You'd be clowning your most loyal defenders if you think about it.

The apologist narrative, how everything is perfect kind of paints them into a corner. You can't say any less than the apologist narrative.

 

Then it's also, what would that even look like? What happens after, players start asking for refunds or compensation?

As long as you just stay silent, there is always going to be someone who didn't think it was a mistake, that's still better than no one.

 

The complaining never stops, no matter what you do, might as well ignore it... lol.

And, if you start giving in, you'd only be rewarding people for complaining and create more complainers. Hopefully a lot of complainers give up when you ignore them.

 

[-Moctezuma-]

4 hours ago, Traumtulpe said:

Honestly I feel like whenever something isn't received well (so... quite frequently) it's somebody elses fault.

For example nerfs - apparently the players irrationally dislike them, when they are in truth making the game better. No, DE, first of all your nerfs (for the most part) lack any semblance of balance, so they cannot make the game better - only hide problems. And second the issue is that your game demands a lot of time - players will OBVIOUSLY resent having their time investment invalidated. And don't even pretend nerfing a weapon by 50% doesn't invalidate the time spent on it - when the second best option is still at 99%.

Sometimes people cite a fear of backlash or even threats as something that holds innovation, and the game as a whole, back. This is nonsense, the backlash is caused by mistakes on your end - to fix this, you don't demand people stop complaining, you DO BETTER next time. And you disregard unhealthy individuals, which anybody in the world has to do.

I've heard you saying how brilliant your A.I. is, it's just the players fault for shutting it off. Weird how the game spawns an endless zombie horde for me then, almost literally under the sole of my warframes foot. Also turning the A.I. off is a reaction to unavoidable, untelegraphed, instant damage, from unpredictable directions, in quantities to instantly kill the player (you can still die instantly through shield gating, because of a bug that I've reported like a year or two ago).

You'll never fix any problem if you keep blaming your players for your mistakes.

Armpit developer telling experienced devs that they are doing stuff wrong

[vanaukas]

Not gonna read 12 pages of discussion, but it was a "hint" or a "hit" in the title?

[RichardKam]

20分钟前 , vanaukas 说:

Not gonna read 12 pages of discussion, but it was a "hint" or a "hit" in the title?

Does not matter anymore. The negative review bomb that was heavily skewed in one particular language that may not accurately reflect player demographic, has ended.

Show is over. Let's move on shall we?

[Uhkretor]

1 hour ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

Can someone post the Picard

One Picard coming up...

Spoiler

[RichardKam]

I think OP is in the wrong game forum because there is no change in k. Bramma/Zarr weapon stat except ammo changes. Where is the nerf?

 

[vanaukas]

30 minutes ago, RichardKam said:

Does not matter anymore. The negative review bomb that was heavily skewed in one particular language that may not accurately reflect player demographic, has ended.

Show is over. Let's move on shall we?

I have no idea that was a still a thing lmao

[Marvelous_A]

With your logic we'd still be stuck with Coptering and Tonkor/Simulor meta. Just some food for thought.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

29 minutes ago, Uhkretor said:

One Picard coming up...

  Reveal hidden contents

Thank you sir, you always brighten my days haha.

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

1 hour ago, vanaukas said:

Not gonna read 12 pages of discussion, but it was a "hint" or a "hit" in the title?

 

OP wants DE to take a hit from the bong. Expand their minds, and give us the Warframe experience we deserve in 2023.

Kavats and Kubrows living together under the same roof, Rivers of Kuva boiling, Eidolons in the Plains wearing sexy skirts, all 3 Fortuna Orbs merging to become the MegazOrb. Basically, DE needs to get really really high, and for 12 pages, people argue the ethics and merits of drug fuelled game development. 

[Traumtulpe]

10 hours ago, (XBOX)Ampathetiic said:

Refuting the point that nerfs lack balance is perfectly

I like bringing this example up, because it should be obvious enough to everybody:

When the Primary Tombfinger was released, ALL players built one specific configuration because it was obviously the best. DE's response was to literally nerf it by 50%, while at the same time making an entirely different configuration the obviously best (and in fact better than the nerfed one ever was).

There was no balance in this nerf. None at all. From no angle and no perspective. All they did was delete players time investment.

7 hours ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

You seem to be also missing the point. A private business reserves the right to do whatever they want with their property. When you buy the rights and company from DE then come back.

Sorry, but your comments are getting extraordinary low quality again. I asked DE to stop making excuses, nothing more. Please don't keep quoting me while you respond to the voices in your head.

10 hours ago, Uhkretor said:

You could show the participants proof of those alleged excuses. Throwing clay to the ceiling and hoping that it'll stick isn't exactly going to work well.

Like the stream on Brozimes channel where Pablo essentially says the A.I. isn't actually bad, they are taking cover and such, it's just that we shut them off that's the issue? That developing the A.I. is a waste of time because we shut it off?

[Amerikanovich]

I agree, I like the idea of changing the spawn mechanics to sometimes spawn single very strong enemies (like a necramech) that require team coordination and high single target damage, so finally abilities like mesas ballistic battery can see some use.

Forcing people to use single target damage against hordes is just not effective or fun. There's a reason why AoE became meta, because that's just what the game requires the way it works right now.

If you see a problem, don't Nerf the solution and expect it to go away, that's not how it works.

[Ethorin]

1 hour ago, Amerikanovich said:

mesas ballistic battery

Ballistic Battery is a flat damage amount that is miniscule. Ballistic Battery seeing use would require that a boss designed that ONLY takes damage from stuff like that, and everyone would just use Volt instead.

[Grommile]

1 hour ago, Traumtulpe said:

Like the stream on Brozimes channel where Pablo essentially says the A.I. isn't actually bad, they are taking cover and such, it's just that we shut them off that's the issue?

It is pretty difficult to justify big investment in AI for rank-and-file enemies when Tornado exists, yes.

[Genitive]

1 hour ago, Traumtulpe said:

Like the stream on Brozimes channel where Pablo essentially says the A.I. isn't actually bad, they are taking cover and such, it's just that we shut them off that's the issue? That developing the A.I. is a waste of time because we shut it off?

Yes, from their perspective it most likely is. They probably don't want to invest time and resources into advanced AI because we would hardly interact with it, or even notice it. For it to make sense, they would have to either nerf our CC abilities, or make enemies resistant. Would you like that?

[vanaukas]

7 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

 

OP wants DE to take a hit from the bong. Expand their minds, and give us the Warframe experience we deserve in 2023.

Kavats and Kubrows living together under the same roof, Rivers of Kuva boiling, Eidolons in the Plains wearing sexy skirts, all 3 Fortuna Orbs merging to become the MegazOrb. Basically, DE needs to get really really high, and for 12 pages, people argue the ethics and merits of drug fuelled game development. 

Noooo, you did the joke I wanted to execute! 😭

[(PSN)Vexx757]

14 hours ago, Minion135 said:

It's why even Ash had his Blade Storm change forever ago

That`s not the reason, it was changes (nerfed) coz ppl were complaining that Ash was taking ppl`s kills and could not take his kills (And more things) but now bs is so slow that other ppl can take his kills now, his bs can`t even kill lvl 6 enemies in a team. The marking mechanic is bad and this is one of the reasons why I'm pushing Ash to get a revisit.

[PR1D3]

Ah. Now remember why tend to stay out of the forums.

[Minion135]

It really was the reason why. They did it to stop AFK gameplay, plain and simple. They said as much in the stream(s) where they discussed the changes to Blade Storm.

[Minion135]

18 minutes ago, (PSN)Vexx757 said:

That`s not the reason, it was changes (nerfed) coz ppl were complaining that Ash was taking ppl`s kills and could not take his kills (And more things) but now bs is so slow that other ppl can take his kills now, his bs can`t even kill lvl 6 enemies in a team. The marking mechanic is bad and this is one of the reasons why I'm pushing Ash to get a revisit.

It really was the reason why. They did it to stop AFK gameplay, plain and simple. They said as much in the stream(s) where they discussed the changes to Blade Storm.

Edit: I always forget we can't delete messages, and I forgot to quote on the previous lol

[(PSN)Vexx757]

2 minutes ago, Minion135 said:

It really was the reason why. They did it to stop AFK gameplay, plain and simple. They said as much in the stream(s) where they discussed the changes to Blade Storm.

Edit: I always forget we can't delete messages, and I forgot to quote on the previous lol

Either way Ash needs a revisit, he has issues ppl don`t know about even stats show this and I`m going to push for it.

[Minion135]

3 minutes ago, (PSN)Vexx757 said:

Either way Ash needs a revisit, he has issues ppl don`t know about even stats show this and I`m going to push for it.

I agree, I would like to see a re-work for him. 🙂 I still enjoy using him, but he certainly doesn't feel like he's in a good spot to me right now.

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, YouDontCB_87 said:

"Oh no I can't answer your question, so let's avoid it further, and make him sounds like he's salty"

 

I suppose the abnormalities in WF you refers to is gains and loses during updates while players comes back and go, we all know about this. Yet this is a short time specific over each and every updates. I'm talking about average player count drop by years, not drop by just update itself. What I wanna warn/remind was to pay attention to the numbers that drop over years, who cares about player gains and loses each updates when it's a proven fact. Who's the one oversimplifying now?

You're saying that warframe took 5 years from 2013 to 2018 increasing in active player count, and then decided take another 4 years from 2018 - 2022 just to move back to the number in 2017? Isn't player count drop over years an issue?

Meanwhile, I'm saying it's dropping since year 2018, where did you get the reference of I'm saying it will be plummeting steep to the 2013 numbers? Are you trying to strawman me or something?

I tend to see what happening in recent years which the number drop, while you're focusing on the initial 5 years where the player counts were only increasing to it's peak.

Your whole argument is just as strong as this game start with 2 players and peak has 10, now it has 5, so its an improvement, which we should ignore the fact that the average player count is dropping over years because the number is still higher than the average player count 2013.

No, the abnormality is stated in the post you quoted. The abnormality is WF increasing over 5 years, a massive increase at that. Other games tend to just drop from the date of release and onward when speaking of concurrent numbers (obviously not total since a game can only increase). It dropping after 2018 back to 2017 numbers isnt bad, since it still drops back to a point that would have been a steep increase even if the concurrent numbers never reached those of 2018. It would have still been a game with an abnormal trend i.e increasing from 2013-2017 at that point.

It has nothing to do with normal drops between updates, it has to do with how WF has gained and dropped players in contrast to normal gaming trends.

And your graph is also very very odd since it doesnt make it seem like you quite understand what Steam shows. You've just lumped up all numbers for a whole year without understanding that what Steam shows is concurrent numbers, which means number of players at any point in time. That is not the same as total avarage players over a year, that is simply number of players at any point of the day. To arrive to an avarage of total players over a year and month or even day you'd need to take that avarage and multiply it with an unknown factor based on the hours of a day, since not all of the players shown in those numbers play 24/7 throughout a day. You need to arrive at an avarage of how many times during a day that the shown number is replaced.

Example. When I played Black Desert people went up in arms over a "total players" number of 100k that some youtuber had arrived to. This was later approached by the devs that explained that what he had seen was the concurrent number i.e the avarage number of players playing at any point of the day. The total number passing through the game each day was 20x higher i.e 2 million per day. And the latest info we have regarding WF and number of unique players per month was somewhere around 4 million back in 2019. Which was part of an annual Leyou report at the time.

[(XBOX)Ampathetiic]

5 hours ago, Traumtulpe said:

When the Primary Tombfinger was released, ALL players built one specific configuration because it was obviously the best. DE's response was to literally nerf it by 50%, while at the same time making an entirely different configuration the obviously best (and in fact better than the nerfed one ever was).

There was no balance in this nerf. None at all. From no angle and no perspective. All they did was delete players time investment.

The only specific Tombfinger change I was able to find was a minor charge speed nerf to certain grips, combined with a slight damage buff to other grips (or rather, making the damage penalties of certain grips less severe). This change was actually based on player feedback, and it even says so in the patch notes. Furthermore, this change just made more grips viable, while lowering the power of the other grips that previously dominated: One power level was lowered, and another raised to meet it, resulting in closer power levels overall; that seems like the epitome of balance to me.

[YouDontCB_87]

48 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

To arrive to an avarage of total players over a year and month or even day you'd need to take that avarage and multiply it with an unknown factor based on the hours of a day, since not all of the players shown in those numbers play 24/7 throughout a day

First of all, if you don't even know how to calculate without valid argument, to prove I'm wrong or guide/lead me to improve my calculation, how do you know I'm calculated it wrong.

48 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

You've just lumped up all numbers for a whole year without understanding that what Steam shows is concurrent numbers, which means number of players at any point in time. That is not the same as total avarage players over a year, that is simply number of players at any point of the day.

Second, without knowing how I'm actually calculating it, you just accused that I'm simply "lumped up all numbers for a whole year without understanding that what Steam shows is concurrent numbers". This only prove your ignorance.

I'm taking the calculation of Average Players by month; average players by month means it's has been summing up every day's players then divided by how many days within that month.

By summing up 12 months of Average Players by Year (2022 only up to 9 months), then divided further by 12 months (2022 divided by 9) and we get Yearly Average Players data, that's how math works.

48 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Example. When I played Black Desert people went up in arms over a "total players" number of 100k that some youtuber had arrived to. This was later approached by the devs that explained that what he had seen was the concurrent number i.e the avarage number of players playing at any point of the day. The total number passing through the game each day was 20x higher i.e 2 million per day. And the latest info we have regarding WF and number of unique players per month was somewhere around 4 million back in 2019. Which was part of an annual Leyou report at the time.

Lastly, don't you see that average players dropping means overall players playing within that year was become lesser and lesser, what make you think that when overall players playing the game is less there could still be more unique players at the first place? *up to this point do you even know what is average and how its being counted?

By saying unique player count, mean it's including player only playing 1 hour throughout the whole year, so this method sounds valid to you?

Hence, if the overall AVERAGE players is less, means there is NO WAY that you can get more numbers out of it. Simple math, Clear?