This game needs actual endgame content.

[DrBorris]

5 hours ago, Voltage said:

This isn't exactly true. While perfect efficiency would mean everyone executes performance without communication, you need to get to that point first which requires all that communication. There were also several objectives that no matter how good you were, you had to let your team know (either through text, voice, or waypoints) that you completed a step and the mission can proceed. Eidolons had this same dynamic early on.

You are correct though in the rest of what you said. The game is in a totally different era now than it was then. The "solo game with optional coop" used to be something to describe some of the game, but that some has turned into a majority.

I liked(ish) the old raids, but it wasn't an "era" of the game. For the first 3/4 of Raid's existence I was part of the "I don't think I'm capable of doing this" group (even though the minimum bar for entry was in the dirt), it was only at the tail end that I engaged with them. For that 3/4 of time Raids had no effect on the game for me, they didn't define how the vast majority of players played. To say that "solo game with optional coop" described some of the game is a very liberal use of the word "some".

Scarlet Spear is the only time I can think of that the game really went beyond that. Other events absolutely encouraged a group to go hard, but the meta for those always was "hit the minimum bar in a pub group". Scarlet Spear was that again for most people, I read a bit more into it than most and enjoyed it for metagame reasons. If anything I convinced myself to like a bad event.

The state of the game for most people was the same as it is now, mindlessly kill things to get lots of loot. Never have your builds properly tested, Rhino solves all. If anything build-craft is more important now than ever with Steel Path.

 

3 hours ago, Skoomaseller said:

now I wasn't around for ScSp, but weren't the poor connectivity issues dragging down the quality of the event?

or like are you saying that coupled with people just not finding the operation itself fun

There were lots of things that brought Scarlet Spear down. At best I would consider it an interesting proof of concept. But even the concept itself wasn't largely agreed to be good, most people not only disliked the implementation but also disliked the concept. I'm in the minority, I have my own thoughts based on what I enjoy and those things don't align with what most Warframe players like. Unlike some of the posts here I can grasp my opinions not being infallible and can understand that different perspectives can have equal value.

Edited June 17, 2023 by DrBorris

[Felsagger]

4 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

I think it's not so much a "don't know how" and more of a "isn't worth going all the way".

With all honesty, they don't know. They had ten years trying and failing. I think DE needs to hire or associate with other developers that knows how to design boss fights and better AI. Even Chat GTP can help DE develop better AI. I've seen lots of papers seeing the evolution of AI in video games. 

I think DE should accept the fact that they don't know how to do some things but they do know how to do others. The studio must be honest with themselves and admit what are their strong and weaknesses. Only then they could focus better their human resources. 

DE are not good at AI, Intrinsic game play, character development. They are not good at coding and maintenance either. They must fortify those weaknesses if they really want to stay in the business. DE are good at sound design, art design, 3D modeling, writing and animation. DE is in a 50/50 average. They must commit and improve otherwise players will jump ship. It's happening right now. Soon there will be a lot of great games that players will have access to. We will see AC6, an update of 70 Gb Cyberpunk 77 and of course Spider Man 2, a game (Gameplay trailer) that got more than 10 million views in two weeks. 

4 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

They can make good content

But they ARE NOT doing it for a span of ten years. How do we really know if they are capable? 

4 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

, even content that offers some challenge, but there's so much in the game that undermines everything they do that any piece of content is ultimately going to fall apart no matter what.

Exactly. They brought this outcome on themselves. 

4 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

A lot of work needs to be done and a lot of hard decisions need to be made to untangle that so content can really succeed, and taking that risk PROBABLY isn't worth it financially.

If they keep thinking this way the game WILL PROBABLY die. Count on it. They need to take risks,, they need to make hard decisions, and they need to work hard. This is why Guerrilla Games, Insomniac Games, Kojima Productions, Santa Monica Studio, Sucker Punch and From Software Succeeded. 

Do you know who took risks all the way? The 3 developers who developed Battlebit Remastered. They are now on the top ten on steam. 

What does that tells you? 

4 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

So we get cheap and easy attempts, like attenuation or gear RNG that tries to skirt around the issue.

Completely agree. 

[Felsagger]

4 hours ago, Grommile said:

......In a pure PvE online game (like, say, Warframe), if people can't solo, then you tend to run out of new players.

If a player can do this then such MATERIAL IS NOT considered endgame, BY DEFINITION. 

The PURPOSE OF PLAYING a COOPERATIVE game is that players CAN'T make solo the missions BY DEFINITION. 

If new players want to join they have to GET GOOD like in every other MF game out there. 

Players these days are way too PAMPERED. 

If new players get good then they will stay in the game because they earned something such as SKILL. They will value SKILL. What type of skill? Survivability, quick thinking, decision making, aim accuracy, psychomotor reaction time, team coordination. Player will value Plan, strategy and tactics. Players will value POSITION, PRESERVATION, PRIORITY and PREFERENCE more. 

 

[(NSW)Greybones]

-deleted-

Edited June 17, 2023 by (NSW)Greybones

[Felsagger]

Just now, (NSW)Greybones said:

-deleted-

Oh, come on. Let me see that. :P

[Surbusken]

The main thing for me is the negativity that comes with it. People going to start raging, flaming and pointing the finger.

One of the best parts of warframe is how anyone can show up for anything and it's all good.

 

The difficulty setting or the challenge is staying sane while grinding.

[(NSW)Greybones]

2 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Oh, come on. Let me see that. :P

My quotes keep messing up and disappearing when I go to post and it looks like I’m asking a random question to no-one in particular, so I need to re-post 😑. The mobile interface is not ideal for this

7 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

If a player can do this then such MATERIAL IS NOT considered endgame, BY DEFINITION. 

The PURPOSE OF PLAYING a COOPERATIVE game is that players CAN'T make solo the missions BY DEFINITION. 

If new players want to join they have to GET GOOD like in every other MF game out there. 

Players these days are way too PAMPERED. 

If new players get good then they will stay in the game because they earned something such as SKILL. They will value SKILL. What type of skill? Survivability, quick thinking, decision making, aim accuracy, psychomotor reaction time, team coordination. Player will value Plan, strategy and tactics. Players will value POSITION, PRESERVATION, PRIORITY and PREFERENCE more. 

 

Out of curiosity, what is it that you’re looking for when chasing maximum levels of power? It’s not often that games with a progression element don’t then reward players with ever more powerful stuff that actually starts to undermines the requirement for skill

[Felsagger]

19 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Out of curiosity, what is it that you’re looking for when chasing maximum levels of power? It’s not often that games with a progression element don’t then reward players with ever more powerful stuff that actually starts to undermines the requirement for skill

That's a good question. 

I seek maximum level on my abilities and when my abilities fails. This is the point of FATIGUE. The point of FATIGUE is the maximum level of power when something tops my maximum abilities and forces me develop new skills. Power is WITHIN ME. I call this the intrinsic ability. If I depend on external things that maximize my powers then that is an extrinsic ability. 

Continuing the discussion of the topic: 

I DEFINE end game as the moment when the game asks me to improve my strategy of psychomotor aim accuracy, psychomotor aim switching, speed switching between items for almost instant delivery. I define this END GAME as the moment when the mechanical ability of my brain deliver faster input responses to the problems the game proposes. In MIT this is studied thoroughly. A good source is the MIT encyclopedia of cognitive science. This gives you a fair idea of what is going on mechanically in your cortex, muscles and memory. 

But this will make the subject way too complex. Let us focus on the simple case of mini/maxing or optimization. I consider that games should INSTIGATE an ENDGAME on optimization as the science of efficiency, efficacy and effectiveness. All of these three words ARE NOT the same. This is a responsible way, IN MY OPINION of course, to motivate endgame responsibly, if there is any to talk about. 

1. Not every developer is forced to do this. 

2. It can be an emergent tendency that happens with speedrunners in the community. 

3. Games should invite the beginner, sophomore and challenge the expert if retention is beneficial for such developer in particular. 

Yes, endgame is very subjective, fuzzy and ambiguous but throughout time the concept evolved some notions and intuitive guides on the game industry. We know one classical endgame strategy, optimization. There are many more such as endurance and of course perseverance. Each one of them may produce encyclopedic work. But more or less, people are having a notion of what it is. Sadly that novelty was present between 2014 to 2017. All of the sudden such policy was abandoned because retention of old players was less relevant than the acquisition of new players. DE needs profits.

 

If DE finds that FUN and ENDGAME gets in the middle of their financial gains, THEY WILL DISCARD IT. 

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Felsagger

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 minute ago, Felsagger said:

That's a good question. 

I seek maximum level on my abilities and when my abilities fails. This is the point of FATIGUE. The point of FATIGUE, when something tops your maximum abilities and force you develop new skills is when I get maximum level of power. Power is WITHIN ME. I call this the intrinsic ability. If I depend on external things that maximize my powers then that is an extrinsic ability. 

Continuing the discussion of the topic: 

I DEFINE end game as the moment when the game asks me to improve my strategy of psychomotor aim accuracy, psychomotor aim switching, speed switching between items for almost instant delivery. I define this END GAME as the moment when the mechanical ability of my brain deliver faster input responses to the problems the game proposes. In MIT this is studied thoroughly. A good source is the MIT encyclopedia of cognitive science. This gives you a fair idea of what is going on mechanically in your cortex, muscles and memory. 

But this will make the subject way too complex. Let us focus on the simple case of mini/maxing or optimization. I consider that games should INSTIGATE an ENDGAME on optimization as the science of efficiency, efficacy and effectiveness. All of these three words ARE NOT the same. This is a responsible way, IN MY OPINION of course, to motivate endgame responsibly, if there is any to talk about. 

1. Not every developer is forced to do this. 

2. It can be an emergent tendency that happens with speedrunners in the community. 

3. Games should invite the beginner, sophomore and challenge the expert if retention is beneficial for such developer in particular. 

Yes, endgame is very subjective, fuzzy and ambiguous but throughout time the concept evolved some notions and intuitive guides on the game industry. We know one classical endgame strategy, optimization. There are many more such as endurance and of course perseverance. Each one of them may produce encyclopedic work. But more or less, people are having a notion of what it is. Sadly that novelty was present between 2014 to 2017. All of the sudden such policy was abandoned because retention of old players was less relevant than the acquisition of new players. DE needs profits.

 

If DE finds that FUN and ENDGAME gets in the middle of their financial gains, THEY WILL DISCARD IT. 

 

Hm. It’s not like Warframe can’t test everything you’re talking about, and how a player builds is only part of the equation; there’s still the loadout and mission to be considered before player skill comes into play. Aiming, positioning, enemy prioritisation, all that comes to the front when sufficient amounts of damage and survival are identified for the missions designed to facilitate build variety by enabling us to not be locked into a few ways to build, and then it’s up to the player to take a build the rest of the way and can take said build/loadout to more places and into higher-level content the better they play and more they know how the game works.

Usually when I see players min-maxing, I’m not expecting them to want anything other than a brokenly-easy fight or game. I min-max at times and in other games, and while under that mentality I’m never thinking “I have sufficient power for what I want to do”; usually I’m pushing it as far as I can go, beyond the point of reason and what any game developer would design for, working glitches and bugs and clearly un-intentional interactions into the mix to the point that expectations for what a developer will address becomes unreasonable if I wanted the result of my min-maxing to still fit within the game

[--TL--Gecko]

I honesty dont understand what you trying to say without that big drama.... xD

So the headline is "This game needs actual endgame...", then you immediately start with Arca plasmor Hate, which shouldnt trigger you at all btw. and between all that Arca Plasmor hate you ask for rewards, that worths reaching level cap without playing for hours. :'D

What exactly do you want from the Devs now? ^^
A new mode, starting with level-cap, a big nerf for arca plasmor or better rewards and speaking about the rewards: what exactly do you want? :'D Legendary cores each 5 mins, umbral mods or whatever? :D

Much neurotic critizing but not a single clear plan or suggestion. :X
I guess they're open for ideas but you didnt really give one.

I honestly dont see much Arca Plasmor Users but idk, maybe there are much but I never noticed them yet... I truely dont care how other people play that game. xD
If I wanna test my S#&$, then I go into Circulus SP starting with lv180 and then I sit there for an hour and do my thing like recently with Citrine to make spin2win-status-procing-build ( procs from citrine with archon conti & 3 procs from a special ogris build, focused only on procing) with condi & tatsu + riven. Worked well and made fun for me. ^_^
idk if it would for Lv9999 but I dont feel single a need to do that honestly. :X

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Hm. It’s not like Warframe can’t test everything you’re talking about, and how a player builds is only part of the equation; there’s still the loadout and mission to be considered before player skill comes into play. Aiming, positioning, enemy prioritisation, all that comes to the front when sufficient amounts of damage and survival are identified for the missions designed to facilitate build variety by enabling us to not be locked into a few ways to build, and then it’s up to the player to take a build the rest of the way and can take said build/loadout to more places and into higher-level content the better they play and more they know how the game works.

This may sound harsh but it must be said.

Sorry but warframe can't test even few of the things I previously mentioned to satisfactory levels. 

Warframe IS NOT a good game and it will never be. 

Warframe is an average game that serves the purpose of catering casuals. 

I understand what can be expected form DE and what can't. This makes me understand better the game and take it for what it is. 

If I want challenge and quality, this is NOT it. If want an accessory game, this is it. It's a coffee table free game for fridays. 

That is it. 

[(NSW)Greybones]

12 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

This may sound harsh but it must be said.

Sorry but warframe can't test even few of the things I previously mentioned to satisfactory levels. 

Warframe IS NOT a good game and it will never be. 

Warframe is an average game that serves the purpose of catering casuals. 

I understand what can be expected form DE and what can't. This makes me understand better the game and take it for what it is. 

If I want challenge and quality, this is NOT it. If want an accessory game, this is it. It's a coffee table free game for fridays. 

That is it. 

I can assure you that if you stop focusing on a few of the most meta optimal builds and wanting to break the game (while simultaneously wanting the game to be… unbroken, somehow) and start working with the notion that we only need X amounts of damage and survival for a mission (which frees up mod slots and build opportunities) and stop taking higher-level builds lower where you’re rocking redundant amounts of damage and survival instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to equip other mods or whatever, the game plays very much like any third person shooter with enemy diversity, on-the-fly gameplay decision making, and risk/reward. Plus it rewards more ways to play and is perpetually rewarding us, and breaking the game is merely one option in how to play

You have to be willing to actually play the game though, which as a sandbox build-crafting game that tasks the player with deciding how they want to play and what they want out of it, isn’t a bizarre concept; Warframe doesn’t force you to play a certain way or hold your hand, it just gives us the gear, the ways to modify how it works and what it can do, and various missions to take the result to

[PublikDomain]

5 hours ago, Felsagger said:

But they ARE NOT doing it for a span of ten years. How do we really know if they are capable? 

But they are? The recent updates have been really solid, from around TNW onward. There are bugs and design problems here and there, yeah, but for how they feel as a whole package? Compared to some of the older launches like PoE? TNW was really good, AotZ was really good, Duviri has been really good. They're pulling off big quests, big new mechanics, beautiful new tilesets and landscapes, some boss fights with mechanics beyond "shoot sponge until dead", good voiceacting, etc. As a complete package they feel cohesive for once, and (as long as you don't push it) you can get some really good gameplay out of them. Like Void Cascade and Conjunction Survival. I can roll face and be bored if I use my strongest gear, but if I step back and use Yareli and my Gorgon I'm finding some good mechanical enjoyment out of them. This content is just barely hard enough that it's starting to poke at me and make me pay attention. It's the same kind of feelings I got from early Eidolon Hunts and from Raids. Edit: now obviously I shouldn't need to step back and use weaker gear just to have an enjoyable challenge, but what I'm getting at is that the enjoyable challenge is in there. It exists. I've seent it!

Of course, you're also allowed to unga-bunga and turn all of this content into paste and make it a boring and uninteresting cookie-clicker game. That's really where things like endgame fall apart. DE can make good endgame. They can make good content. But it doesn't matter how good it is when it gets undermined by the game's shaky foundations.

Edited June 18, 2023 by PublikDomain

[schilds]

It needs a couple more layers of gameplay both within missions and outside.

Railjack and had some potential to do that, but instead of building on or working with existing missions, it ended up being a vertical slice of gameplay within its own missions and on its own starchart.

Liches also had the potential to do it, but the lich gameplay loop is just an extended exterminate. One long run of knocking off thralls/hounds in mission, and red/blue clouds on the starchart. Would be nice with a little more tactical/strategic gameplay on the starchart, where playing a mission is how you make a "move".

They should also probably rethink how Steel Path works with mission modifiers like fissures. They don't really need to separate/split them into their own instances like they do on the regular starchart. Just have them all modify the same base mission, and allow stacked modifiers within the same instances. Add more modifiers than just fissures from the regular starchar to SP: siphons, arbitrations, syndicates, etc.

More optional activities/modifiers like on the Zariman (angels, lohk surges), retro-fitted into older mission types. Not those specific ones, but ones that make sense lore-wise for other planets. They do have the Granum void on the (not so new anymore) corpus ship tileset, but that requires going off into a separate space for a short time, can't be done simultaneous to the rest of the mission unless in a squad, and has no effect/modifier on the rest of the mission.

Edited June 18, 2023 by schilds

[Qriist]

10 hours ago, Felsagger said:

The video game industry attracts a lot of morons and stupid individuals. The video game industry affects negatively the production of talented individuals. Yes this is a case by case argument that requires further analysis. In general the amount of next level dog feces on a bowl published by AAA developers is just staggering. The industry of cinematography became horse excrement. Star Wars, Predator, Halo series, MCU Franchise, Games of Thrones, Lord of the Rings series could be considered VHS dissected horse excrement up to E.T. levels. The same applies to video games such as 343i Halo Infinite and the abysmal launches of Cyberpunk 77 and Battlefield 2042. 

Stupid and morons ruins everything. These uncountable sets of lowlives destroys entire industries. Kathleen Kennedy and Bonnie Ross did irreparable damage to great franchises. Dumbass jackasses with lots of money ruins great works. These two in particular threw billions of dollars to waste. Even now there are rumors where Disney is selling these franchises because they are not making money. What happened? Stupid people took decisions. That's what happened. People forgot that writers matters. People forgot that generations of professors, intellectuals and specialists gave their lives for their crafts. 

This frustrated rant born from watching one's most loved passions be twisted into near-unrecognizable mockeries of themselves, kinda like sitting down for dinner with serial killers wearing the faces of your closest friends...

This is why gatekeeping is a good thing.

 

On another note:

19 hours ago, RichardKam said:

The only endgame is fashion frame.

On 2023-06-08 at 8:35 PM, Qriist said:

I don't care about making my murder machine look pretty.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Qriist

[Felsagger]

3 hours ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

IYou have to be willing to actually play the game though, which as a sandbox build-crafting game that tasks the player with deciding how they want to play and what they want out of it, isn’t a bizarre concept; Warframe doesn’t force you to play a certain way or hold your hand, it just gives us the gear, the ways to modify how it works and what it can do, and various missions to take the result to

I played the game as an aim trainer and a sandbox build game. This is what Warframe is good for. 

For boss battles, enemy AI military accuracy, challenging fights, survivability, great graphics and level of detail, intrinsic gameplay, Warframe IS NOT good for it

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

DE can make good endgame. They can make good content.  

No they can't. They don't know how. The last ten years is enough proof. 

Of course DE may produce good content but all of them end up being AVERAGE. That's how it is. It's not a bad thing. For many players being average is satisfactory. 

Warframe is an average GAAS F2P game that is good for a matinee fridays for few hours. That is it. (The game is free anyway, you take it or leave it)

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 minute ago, Felsagger said:

I played the game as an aim trainer and a sandbox build game. This is what Warframe is good for. 

For boss battles, enemy AI military accuracy, challenging fights, survivability, great graphics and level of detail, intrinsic gameplay, Warframe IS NOT good for it

I don’t know what you’re considering good intrinsic gameplay, but I’m no stranger to shooters. Sci-fi shooters are absolutely my jam; Unreal/Unreal tournament, Titanfall, Quake. Name a shooter and I’ll have either played it or am willing to give it a solid go, and Warframe successfully scratches not only my shooter itch, but also my perpetual extrinsic reward itch, and it does it with so many different ways to build and play that it makes me feel like trying to scrape out alternative approaches to the same repeated missions in Destiny is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I’ll not deny that some bosses can do with an update, but my standards are definitely not aligned with what your typical Warframe player wants and some bosses are actually closer to that standard than one might think; I was just fighting Tyl Regor recently and was thinking “He’s so close to being someone I’d like to go toe-to-toe against in pure melee, he just needs some minor refinements”, and when I was fighting Alad V and Zanuka it feels proper good. Players may like the flashy and bombastic Ropalolyst fight because it forces them to engage with invulnerability mechanics when they’re bored of the game not forcing them to play, but it’s so limited in ways to approach the same fight that I dislike it, cool as it looks.

I’m no stranger to the various ways that game designers design shooters; how accurate enemies are and how often they’re programmed to miss, projectile versus hit-scan, how strongly enemies know where the player is and how they navigate the level to deal with the player. Spawn rates and enemy composition and TTK versus damage enemies do; these are all complex things, and while every game had its stupid AI moments (I’m no stranger to exploiting enemy AI to my own ends), Warframe’s enemies have enough behind their design and implementation that I’m sometimes left feeling like I just fought a round in Doom Eternal. There’s always room for improvement, but I’m not convinced you aren’t inventing a standard that’s either impossible to achieve or extremely unfun to play because you think you can handle something like human-level AI opponents when game designers go out of their way to limit what the AI can and will do to a player

[(NSW)Greybones]

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

enemy AI military accuracy

What is AI military accuracy?

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

What is AI military accuracy?

Completion of tasks in a very organized and exact way. 

Flanking, level awareness, team behavior of troops, aim accuracy, initiative. 

[Felsagger]

2 hours ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

I don’t know what you’re considering good intrinsic gameplay, but I’m no stranger to shooters. Sci-fi shooters are absolutely my jam; Unreal/Unreal tournament, Titanfall 2,....

Example: 

Gameplay based on intrinsics. 

[RafMatador22]

On 6/17/2023 at 3:27 AM, (PSN)Hopper_Orouk said:

This community will never be satisfied.

This is the big fact! in fact, I don't see anyone satisfied anywhere on the internet lately, I just hear dissatisfaction wherever I go.

[Zekkii]

Steel Path is a great example of what happens to challenging content.

First of all it's ultimately not that hard to beat with the tools we have.  Every time DE tries to nerf any of those tools, a huge portion of the community gets incredibly upset and complain across many different media platforms.  In extreme cases DE has even been review bombed.  Conversely, buffs are rarely met with criticism.  While it might make sense from a game design perspective to address some imbalances for the health of the game, it doesn't make sense from a business perspective.  The casual players will always outnumber the dedicated hardcore players.  As a result, DE uses nerfs very sparingly, and struggles to make content difficult enough to be challenging for the strongest combinations of our abilities.

Even though it might not be as challenging as a hardcore player desires, it's still largely inaccessible to casual players.  To solve this DE either nerfs the difficulty, or they introduce new forms of power creep.  Taking Steel Path as an example, we got Galvanized Mods and Gun Arcanes to address this.  This makes the content trivial for hardcore players, and gives casual players something to drive engagement and ultimately overcome Steel Path as well.

And finally there's the regular content schedule.  To drive player content and player retention, DE introduces regular power creep into updates.  Even after Steel Path is 'solved' for casual players, they introduced Incarnon weapons to make Angels of the Zariman compelling, Archon shards to make Veilbreaker compelling, and Incarnon Adapters to make Duviri compelling.  All to drive players retention, which ultimately leads to spending.

Now we're at the point where despite introducing a game mode specifically to make the game harder, the game is arguably much easier than prior to its release.  However, the game's lifespan has been increased because in order to get to that point you need to play it for hundreds if not thousands more hours.  But it doesn't end there, power creep eventually stops being compelling when it serves no purpose.

That's when we go back to step one, Tungsten path.  Or perhaps it's the Steel Path Circuit.  The point being that content will get more challenging to further compel players to play the game.  To give players a reason to get that new update's form of powercreep.  It might seem like the difficult content is to challenge you, the hardcore player, but it's not.  You can already beat it with ease.  It's just easier to lose you as a player than the casual playerbase, who is more of a driving force.

[(PSN)Joylesstuna]

10 hours ago, Surbusken said:

The main thing for me is the negativity that comes with it. People going to start raging, flaming and pointing the finger.

One of the best parts of warframe is how anyone can show up for anything and it's all good.

 

The difficulty setting or the challenge is staying sane while grinding.

As much as you are right, it's only natural for some of us to want more challenging content. One part of Warframe is pushing damage and abilities as far as we can go but there is very, very few ways to test these setups.

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Completion of tasks in a very organized and exact way. 

Flanking, level awareness, team behavior of troops, aim accuracy, initiative. 

I… feel like you’re trying to distil complex mechanics that hinge on player capability as much as enemy capability and the resulting interaction between a variety of systems into some buzzwords or something. All of that sounds like things that already exists in Warframe to various degrees and have been considered and applied where it was decided to be applied. Flanking: Check, you’re going to get shot up from multiple directions if you stand around. Team behaviour: Check, enemies will gather under an Arctic Eximus shield or Shield Ospreys will hang around friends or enemies will hide behind the Shieldbearer. Aim, Accuracy: Check, basic gameplay concepts that range from aiming projectile-based weapons and missing because we dodged or hit-scan getting an accuracy penalty to their guaranteed-hit while they’re shooting at a mobile target. Initiative: I dunno, enemies jump into the fight, so Check, I guess

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Example: 

Gameplay based on intrinsics. 

This is a 25 minute video and you want me to pull a specific concept out of it. I’m going to need to know what I’m looking for