Circuit steel path failure sucks

[(XBOX)Snivy con]

I was playing the circuit steel path with the new hydroid rework and go to like stage 7 with him in 2 hours then lost on a defense mission and go nothing. I would deeply appreciate it if I could AT LEAST keep the leveling progress because I only failed 1 defense mission out of however many other missions I SUCCEEDED in. Now I'm sitting here REALLY ANGRY because one defense objective with level 4000 enemies goes down SO FAST and I can only do SO MUCH to keep them at bay. I feel like I should have SOMETHING for my HARD WORK THAT I PUT INTO THIS SPENDING THE ONLY TIME I HAVE BEFORE I HAVE TO GO TO WORK ON OVERTIME 2 HOURS EARLIER THAN USUAL. 

[Hobie-wan]

If only there had been some warning that the next level was a defense and some way to exit if you weren't sure you could handle it.

You took a gamble on staying really long in and endless mission and games without a fail state aren't actually games. Warframe has a pretty low risk of failure most of the time, but now you know you should probably bow out next time before a defense mission with enemies gets that high.

[Pakaku]

I mean, that's how pretty much every mission type works asides from Sanctuary Onslaught. If you fail, you forfeit the rewards

[(PSN)EntityPendragon]

3 hours ago, (XBOX)Snivy con said:

I was playing the circuit steel path with the new hydroid rework and go to like stage 7 with him in 2 hours then lost on a defense mission and go nothing. I would deeply appreciate it if I could AT LEAST keep the leveling progress because I only failed 1 defense mission out of however many other missions I SUCCEEDED in. Now I'm sitting here REALLY ANGRY because one defense objective with level 4000 enemies goes down SO FAST and I can only do SO MUCH to keep them at bay. I feel like I should have SOMETHING for my HARD WORK THAT I PUT INTO THIS SPENDING THE ONLY TIME I HAVE BEFORE I HAVE TO GO TO WORK ON OVERTIME 2 HOURS EARLIER THAN USUAL. 

Reward with no risk is how you get the most boring gameplay in history in a game about resources, parts and blueprints. Not to mention you are in control of whether you risk failure with what you got or not so it is on you (plus the fact that you can see what mission type is next.) 

Also, you do not loose everything, you at the very least keep the leveling made in game just not the bonus from end result unless it is different for Duviri (There is that visual bug that happens commonly in Duviri that doesn't let you see the xp you are getting for your chosen gear in mission progress.)

[Nekomian]

54 minutes ago, (PSN)EntityPendragon said:

Reward with no risk is how you get the most boring gameplay in history in a game about resources, parts and blueprints. Not to mention you are in control of whether you risk failure with what you got or not so it is on you (plus the fact that you can see what mission type is next.) 

While the OP is understandably frustrated and heated about this, it's also fairly justified and I've seen this sentiment on forums a lot. The game requires constant online access and some mission types already regularly sync progress (namely open world ones), but legacy missions simply don't; I don't think adding artificial risk of losing your progress makes the gameplay "less boring", but rather more annoying, limited, and sporadic. Why try and risk your build if the excavators or defense objective is going to get 3-shot, or go for longer if you live in an area that has intermittent power outages or connectivity issues? The rewards do not even scale according to difficulty (65 mins into a survival and it can give a 3,000 credit cache), so it feels less of a "risk vs reward" and more of hoping the game does not screw you out of your gameplay time investment you've just put into it.

Basically every other online game I've played, even ones that require regular farming and have the same F2P-style model, regularly save and sync rewards to servers. With mobile coming soon too, I can imagine people are going to be pretty frustrated if their phone dies, or their connection is randomly cut, or any other number of events (i.e. phone call that suspends the game) suddenly makes them lose all their rewards in a mission. It would be nice if the game would sync mission progress every 5 mins or 5 waves for endless (or in the event of Circuit, every round) to better respect players' time.

Maybe it's just me (or maybe this is a hot take), but it feels a bit silly to suddenly take away items they earned from an already RNG-based system solely for the fact of "more challenge" - if I played 30 mins and earned those rewards they should not be at risk of being taken away. Maybe they could put better rewards behind more challenging content instead, that way failing it means you don't get said rewards instead of the player feeling like their entire mission is invalidated from either a bug, technical issue, or "skill issue".

[taiiat]

3 hours ago, Hobie-wan said:

If only there had been some warning that the next level was a defense and some way to exit if you weren't sure you could handle it.

ez, remove Defense

_{i'm only partially kidding}

[(PSN)EntityPendragon]

20 minutes ago, Naroxas44 said:

While the OP is understandably frustrated and heated about this, it's also fairly justified and I've seen this sentiment on forums a lot. The game requires constant online access and some mission types already regularly sync progress (namely open world ones), but legacy missions simply don't; I don't think adding artificial risk of losing your progress makes the gameplay "less boring", but rather more annoying, limited, and sporadic. Why try and risk your build if the excavators or defense objective is going to get 3-shot, or go for longer if you live in an area that has intermittent power outages or connectivity issues? The rewards do not even scale according to difficulty (65 mins into a survival and it can give a 3,000 credit cache), so it feels less of a "risk vs reward" and more of hoping the game does not screw you out of your gameplay time investment you've just put into it.

Basically every other online game I've played, even ones that require regular farming and have the same F2P-style model, regularly save and sync rewards to servers. With mobile coming soon too, I can imagine people are going to be pretty frustrated if their phone dies, or their connection is randomly cut, or any other number of events (i.e. phone call that suspends the game) suddenly makes them lose all their rewards in a mission. It would be nice if the game would sync mission progress every 5 mins or 5 waves for endless (or in the event of Circuit, every round) to better respect players' time.

Maybe it's just me (or maybe this is a hot take), but it feels a bit silly to suddenly take away items they earned from an already RNG-based system solely for the fact of "more challenge" - if I played 30 mins and earned those rewards they should not be at risk of being taken away. Maybe they could put better rewards behind more challenging content instead, that way failing it means you don't get said rewards instead of the player feeling like their entire mission is invalidated from either a bug, technical issue, or "skill issue"

Feel good with something like this. This would partially fix and make host migration errors so much more bearable.

Maybe I am just grasping for something that more incorporates risk.

[(PSN)IdoThea]

2 hours ago, Pakaku said:

I mean, that's how pretty much every mission type works asides from Sanctuary Onslaught. If you fail, you forfeit the rewards

Arbitrations also let's you keep rotation rewards and vitus essence if you fail mission. You only lose resources you gathered.

[Tsukinoki]

So you want to take a mode that already has a really low chance of failure (only one mission type out of five has a realistic chance of failure most of time, maybe two if you don't get any good damage decrees) and just remove the chance/penalty completely?

At that point what's different than a button that just gives you the points automatically without you having to do anything?

 

You're told what mission type comes next.
You know what level they are roughly going to be.
You should be able to know if you can handle that or not and whether you should back out or not.
You're the one who took the risk and bet it all and failed.

[(XBOX)Snivy con]

On 10/23/2023 at 9:27 PM, (PSN)EntityPendragon said:

Reward with no risk is how you get the most boring gameplay in history in a game about resources, parts and blueprints. Not to mention you are in control of whether you risk failure with what you got or not so it is on you (plus the fact that you can see what mission type is next.) 

Also, you do not loose everything, you at the very least keep the leveling made in game just not the bonus from end result unless it is different for Duviri (There is that visual bug that happens commonly in Duviri that doesn't let you see the xp you are getting for your chosen gear in mission progress.)

Yay i made 300000 affinity and lost all my intrinsic, all my progress in the circuit ranks, all my loot acquired in game, bonus affinity, and anything else. But at least i have my 300000 affinity.

also also I actually did not know whether or not I would keep the rewards I got or not from the previous successes for each level of the circuit. I was blindly running through thinking "eh why not this is fun" until I lost everything. 

[(XBOX)Snivy con]

On 10/23/2023 at 10:49 PM, Naroxas44 said:

While the OP is understandably frustrated and heated about this, it's also fairly justified and I've seen this sentiment on forums a lot. The game requires constant online access and some mission types already regularly sync progress (namely open world ones), but legacy missions simply don't; I don't think adding artificial risk of losing your progress makes the gameplay "less boring", but rather more annoying, limited, and sporadic. Why try and risk your build if the excavators or defense objective is going to get 3-shot, or go for longer if you live in an area that has intermittent power outages or connectivity issues? The rewards do not even scale according to difficulty (65 mins into a survival and it can give a 3,000 credit cache), so it feels less of a "risk vs reward" and more of hoping the game does not screw you out of your gameplay time investment you've just put into it.

Basically every other online game I've played, even ones that require regular farming and have the same F2P-style model, regularly save and sync rewards to servers. With mobile coming soon too, I can imagine people are going to be pretty frustrated if their phone dies, or their connection is randomly cut, or any other number of events (i.e. phone call that suspends the game) suddenly makes them lose all their rewards in a mission. It would be nice if the game would sync mission progress every 5 mins or 5 waves for endless (or in the event of Circuit, every round) to better respect players' time.

Maybe it's just me (or maybe this is a hot take), but it feels a bit silly to suddenly take away items they earned from an already RNG-based system solely for the fact of "more challenge" - if I played 30 mins and earned those rewards they should not be at risk of being taken away. Maybe they could put better rewards behind more challenging content instead, that way failing it means you don't get said rewards instead of the player feeling like their entire mission is invalidated from either a bug, technical issue, or "skill issue".

Yeah I mean I just want the rewards that I won. At least half of everything. Because out of everything I won, getting to wave 3 on a defense mission loses everything. It's quite silly to just be like "You deserve it lol". I'm a really good player, I feel cheated out of rewards because the game doesn't scale everything with enemy levels. I don't know why people on the forums immediately disagree as if the rewards that I lost personally affect them if I managed to get them even if I lost. If this mode wants to be a roguelite or whatever then losing is a part of the mode. You should still have fun when you fail because hey you made it so far, here's your reward for getting here. I do not deserve a middle finger to the face because I got to enemy level 5000 on a defense mission :/

[(XBOX)Snivy con]

23 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

So you want to take a mode that already has a really low chance of failure (only one mission type out of five has a realistic chance of failure most of time, maybe two if you don't get any good damage decrees) and just remove the chance/penalty completely?

At that point what's different than a button that just gives you the points automatically without you having to do anything?

 

You're told what mission type comes next.
You know what level they are roughly going to be.
You should be able to know if you can handle that or not and whether you should back out or not.
You're the one who took the risk and bet it all and failed.

aw yeah i cant wait to play my favorite casino game warframe

[Steel_Rook]

On 2023-10-24 at 2:30 AM, Hobie-wan said:

You took a gamble on staying really long in and endless mission and games without a fail state aren't actually games. Warframe has a pretty low risk of failure most of the time, but now you know you should probably bow out next time before a defense mission with enemies gets that high.

Games without a failure state absolutely are games. The Curse of Monkey Island has no failure state, not even in the old Sierra Game style of dying from doing stupid things. The player can never actually fail, just fail to proceed. Not to mention - failure states are entirely besides the point. The OP isn't asking for the Defence objective to be removed (like I would). They're asking for the rewards they've already earned to not be taken away. The failure state remains, just the consequences for failure are lessened. Plenty of games work exactly like this. Darktide, for instance, will give partial mission rewards on failure, depending on how far players got.

Actually, let me make a bold statement - I don't believe that gambling has any place in video games, in any form. I'm not talking about randomness - that's an entirely separate subject. I'm talking about mechanics which ask the player to invest (currency, items, time, etc.) and risk not getting rewards for it. Losing progress does not make an activity more exciting or more rewarding. It just makes it more frustrating to fail, leading to players adopting more conservative and frankly more boring playstyles. In my opinion, action games work best when the player is encouraged to take risks and push their boundaries. Game design which punishes this leads to a very 9-to-5 mentality of doing the bare minimum and leaving at any sign of risk.

 

On 2023-10-24 at 2:20 PM, Tsukinoki said:

So you want to take a mode that already has a really low chance of failure (only one mission type out of five has a realistic chance of failure most of time, maybe two if you don't get any good damage decrees) and just remove the chance/penalty completely? At that point what's different than a button that just gives you the points automatically without you having to do anything?

This is just a slippery slope fallacy. There's a world of difference between removing penalty for failure and removing... the game. This much should be plain to see. Especially since - as I said above - what's being "removed" in the OP's suggestion isn't the "chance" for failure, but just the "penalty" for it. You can't really equate those because they have fundamentally different effects. Chance for failure affects gameplay directly. Penalty for failure affects only the psychology of the player. These are not the same thing.

Warframe's infinite missions already have pretty hard checks on player progress. Enemies grow more powerful until players simply no longer have the stats to keep going. Eventually, they either fail or bail. Removing the penalty of failure only serves to encourage players to keep trying and go even higher, which in my opinion makes for a more engaging experience. Adding significant penalty for failure does the opposite - it encourages players to be conservative and leave before the game actually gets fun. That's when the chance for failure increases significantly, and failure has a compounding penalty the higher one goes.

Gambling with one's rewards is what one does in a casino. It should not be an intrinsic part of video games.

[Hobie-wan]

9 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

Games without a failure state absolutely are games. The Curse of Monkey Island has no failure state, not even in the old Sierra Game style of dying from doing stupid things.

Failure to proceed where you might give up and not complete the game is absolutely a failure state.

9 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

The player can never actually fail, just fail to proceed.

You even typed it yourself. Failing to proceed is a failure.

Or one could argue that they're not games, just stories where you have control whether things proceed or halt. It's like the argument over games that get called "walking simulators". Is Dear Esther a game? I don't know. It's an experience for sure, but opinions vary wildly on whether it is worthwhile or even a game depending on whom you ask.

[Steel_Rook]

32 minutes ago, Hobie-wan said:

Failure to proceed where you might give up and not complete the game is absolutely a failure state.

I agree, but that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion topic. As you saw later in the post, I specified that the issue isn't failure, but rather loss of progress. Incidentally, that's also not a thing in the Curse of Monkey Island, but we digress. I'm personally fine with "a failure to progress" as a failure state. I'm fine with games which don't allow me to "fail forward". What I don't see the point of is shunting me backwards and requiring me to re-earn progression I've already earned. And yes - clearing multiple stages of a mission and then not getting that progress is losing progress I've earned, at least as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to talk about "What is a game? A miserable little pile of secrets!" then that's fair. I wouldn't be opposed. This just doesn't seem like the best place for it.