Does Anyone Miss Events That We Could Actually Lose?

[-Upgreid-]

Hi Tenno,

 

   I was looking through my badges when I realized that back in U9 there were events we could actually lose- Operation Sling-Stone, Operation Arid Fear, and in U10, the Gradivus Dilemma.

   

 These events had higher stakes than just items- If we had lost Sling-Stone, we would have gotten lower drops. If we had failed Arid Fear, and we would have had to wait longer to unlock Phobos and perhaps lost access to the Twin Gremlins and Miter, and in Gradivus, if the opposite side won, you lost a slot, a potato, and some resources building a weapon. 

 

 To this end, I have a series of questions for players: Do you think this makes events more compelling if it's possible to lose? Did events lose urgency with the Cicero Crisis, where it wasn't possible to fail? Does it add to the sense of unity within the community to unite for a common goal, rather than personal gain? Or is it better to do these events on your own, without being hindered by other players? Furthermore, if the trend had continued and we got higher Eximus spawns in Corpus maps under the 'failure' scenario, would you be more enthusiastic to complete the Avalanche Offensive event?

 

 If anyone from DE answers in this thread, it would be great to have some enlightenment as to why they reverted to the Pre-U9 model for events, which one they preferred personally, and the advantages and disadvantages of both from a Developer's standpoint.

 

 I'd like to see input from veteran players regarding how events have changed over the last year, while newer players talk about what it would be like to have events that you can fail. Of course, no one is restricted to either discussion, but that's what I thought would suit both groups more, and are my suggestions to spark debate and discussion.

 

 Finally, respect other Tenno if you post. Back yourself up with valid points, and if you wish to give an opinion, please be civil. GIFs are fine, humor is fine, but if someone makes a mistake, simply correct them and do not laugh at them for it. Mockery has no place in debate or discussion. Represent our community well!

   

      -UpgradeInProgress

Edited August 16, 2014 by UpgradeInProgress

[Feallike]

I actually sorta miss them. :p

 

The AladV event with the infested should probably be loseable.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Feallike

[PeanutMonster]

I thought we lost the one which unlocked Phobos and DE gave it us anyway.

[Zhoyzu]

no. back then i wasnt burned out. 

 

i wouldnt even attempt to grind an event now

[-Upgreid-]

I thought we lost the one which unlocked Phobos and DE gave it us anyway.

No, we won it too quickly. DE had to scramble to release the rewards. We reached 100% for all 3 phases in as many days.

[DarknightK]

Having a Risk/Reward system in events would make them definitely much more interesting.

 

Although unlike the Gradivus Dilemma, it shouldn't be that players get the short end of the stick, but rather the community as a whole.

 

 

Grineer win? Grineer should have had multiple invasions on Corpus planets directly following the event.

Corpus win? Corpus units are higher leveled in specific planets for a week or 2.

 

 

Slingstone had the threat of halving resources, or something similar, temporarily.

Imo, Sling-stone was probably the most invigorating event, both because the corruptors were pretty easy to acquire, and entering the Fomorians was likewise easily do-able. Not much RNG to get in the way.

[Kartumterek]

dont make posts like this to this crowd... remember they want everyone to get a statue

[CedarDpg]

They could make the events interesting by scaling the "punishments" upwards for failure by the higher the rank/total mastery you have or whatever.

[GaleRoar]

You forgot Grineer Informers, which we nearly did lose. The punishment was for stronger Grineer enemies, IIRC.

[-Upgreid-]

You forgot Grineer Informers, which we nearly did lose. The punishment was for stronger Grineer enemies, IIRC.

I forgot about that, mostly because I wasn't around for the event; I started playing shortly afterward and made an account for myself during Double Affinity weekend.

[jennibear]

it would be cool if only the outcome of losing would be stronger enemies ect. but losing a slot or something like that would suck

[Kethus]

They didn't really lose a slot, they just didn't gain one. Also, I can see veteran players lose on purpose to have higher level enemies.

[LeoAtKnight]

Doesn't matter to me. I don't have the drive to over-grind an event to make sure we don't fail.

That being said, I would prefer events the way they are now. Set a goal, let me reach it, then I can stop. I'll help my friends if they still haven't finished it, but I sure as hek ain't gonna waste my time frantically spamming an event cause DE decided to over-estimate how much the community would grind it out (not that they had in the past. Tbh I believe they UNDERestimated).

 

Of course, punishment for failing an event is a cool concept, but very few are willing to just accept this punishment that's been thrown on them because they people around them didn't grind enough. It's better to have individual punishment (not getting the rewards) than to punish the entire community (not getting weapons/pushed back content).

That's how I see it anyways.

[Arabaxus]

Doesn't matter to me. I don't have the drive to over-grind an event to make sure we don't fail.

That being said, I would prefer events the way they are now. Set a goal, let me reach it, then I can stop. I'll help my friends if they still haven't finished it, but I sure as hek ain't gonna waste my time frantically spamming an event cause DE decided to over-estimate how much the community would grind it out (not that they had in the past. Tbh I believe they UNDERestimated).

 

Of course, punishment for failing an event is a cool concept, but very few are willing to just accept this punishment that's been thrown on them because they people around them didn't grind enough. It's better to have individual punishment (not getting the rewards) than to punish the entire community (not getting weapons/pushed back content).

That's how I see it anyways.

 

Pretty much this. Playing too much WF burns me out, especially if the motivation isn't something like me to get a Prime part but rather a "do this or suffer consequences" kind of motivation.

[fatpig84]

The informer one was pretty close, but because it is SUCH A PAIN in the rear to solo farm those jammers.

[Trajhenkhetlive]

Having a Risk/Reward system in events would make them definitely much more interesting.

 

Although unlike the Gradivus Dilemma, it shouldn't be that players get the short end of the stick, but rather the community as a whole.

 

 

Grineer win? Grineer should have had multiple invasions on Corpus planets directly following the event.

Corpus win? Corpus units are higher leveled in specific planets for a week or 2.

 

 

Slingstone had the threat of halving resources, or something similar, temporarily.

Imo, Sling-stone was probably the most invigorating event, both because the corruptors were pretty easy to acquire, and entering the Fomorians was likewise easily do-able. Not much RNG to get in the way.

 

I like the idea. I think maybe instead of a mission of failure/success we should have more "grey" outcomes. Both sides offer new weapons and gear, but whatever side you help will be like a vote for that side. If enough of the playerbase helps that side, that side gains a difficulty boost. DE would have to watch the balance and make sure the faction dosen't get too nuts with benefits but I think that's awesome. Kind of gives me the feeling of being a Tenno that is fighting for balance.

 

We could even have speacial stalkers that attack players that helped a certain faction during an event. That would be kind of cool.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Trajhenkhetlive

[Sebastianx]

We need something even harder than Arid fear or Gradivus...bigger stakes, of which DE will actually take into account if we succeed or not. It would be awesome if Warframe will be the first online game where it's possible to lose an event and the devs will actually punish us (but at a later date we'll still get the chance to get said reward from event, even tho the Lore has already been written and it WILL stay like that according to the outcome of the event)

[HalcyonH66]

I'm a newer player having started seriously around when the cierzo crisis ended. I have found that all of the events seem to be rather easy and or just require grinding (see breeding grounds, where you just do the mission 20 times or so). One thing I feel this does in a positive way is make me play more with the community as having randoms in a squad isn't a huge detriment but if there were any sort of serious stakes on the line I wouldn't dare play that mission in a pub. I'd immediately assemble the a team of me friends with their best stuff and only do it wih them. I don't feel there's a perfect balance that can be achieved. It would probs just be best if they did some of each type of event.

[grillv20]

Pretty sure none of the events were ever "lost" so we dont even know if they for able to be failed in the first place.

[Omnimorph]

I'm a newer player having started seriously around when the cierzo crisis ended. I have found that all of the events seem to be rather easy and or just require grinding (see breeding grounds, where you just do the mission 20 times or so). One thing I feel this does in a positive way is make me play more with the community as having randoms in a squad isn't a huge detriment but if there were any sort of serious stakes on the line I wouldn't dare play that mission in a pub. I'd immediately assemble the a team of me friends with their best stuff and only do it wih them. I don't feel there's a perfect balance that can be achieved. It would probs just be best if they did some of each type of event.

 

This.  I think the devs are always having to balance kinetic fun for beginners, where the penalties for losing as you're finding your feet in the game aren't so great, and any random PUG can more or less complete a thing (so there's no nerdrage and tears), on the one hand, against the need for vets and people who enjoy a challenge to have something challenging.

 

The meaning of "fun" in a "game" to some people means something competitive and challenging, whereas to other people it means something you do to goof off and relax.  Never the twain shall meet.  Yet developers, in order to get as many people playing their game as possible (and not just to make a profit, but even just to survive as a company) have to appeal to both crowds.  This is one of the biggest sources of contention between people in games and forums, and it's really an irresolvable problem, only compromise (that fully pleases neither "side") is possible.

 

However, from the devs points of view, they're probably more keen to retain competitive/achievement-oriented players, since players who play competitively or for achievement do tend to stick around in a game longer, whereas players who have a light-hearted approach to games are more likely to get bored with a game more quickly and move on.  Why?  Because it simply is a fact that if you aren't challenged by something it gets boring more quickly.  However, from the light-hearted player's point of view there's a whole galaxy of games they can play, and boringness (in their terms) is always the cue to move on.

[Agullimux]

Assist corpus and lose, Have lvl 80 g3 team withouth drops chase you with 25% chance to drop on your mission. All 4 losing players playing together, 100%. Also alad v is not happy about you being incompetent ,lets put zanuka hunt you every mission for two weeks, maybe that will teach you!

Edited August 17, 2014 by Agullimux

[Trajhenkhetlive]

I was thinking about this a bit more and DE doesn't neccesairly have to give out the enemy buff to the entire userbase for a conflict the playerbase weighed in on. Maybe only those who participated will be on the receiving end of any negative effects that occur from helping a faction. That way newer players aren't getting tagged by buffed out enemy units. But if you want that awesome gear your going to have to weigh in on solar system conflicts. In events that affect the entire playerbase the results could be much less dire like merely opening up a new set of stages in one part of the solar system or the other, or a new stage type as opposed to another. It would be cool since the playerbase weighs in on what happens in the solar system.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Trajhenkhetlive