Proposed Starchart Changes [Megathread]

[(PSN)ElZilcho]

I don't know if it's been the same on PC because I don't monitor the alerts there, but over here we've been getting an unusually high number of alerts for void keys, and I've started to notice a trend. These key alerts like to change mission type. I haven't gathered data, but I feel like it's been happening more often.

 

Tinfoil hat time. DE is using these more desirable alerts to see how people react to selecting a node and getting a random mission type, much like one of the ideas I've seen for the New RNG Chart. We know they can manipulate them.

 

Let me drop a subtle hint on you, DE. IT F#*$&ING SUCKS. Mission type listed: Deception. Oh, okay, I'll equip stealthy stuff. I like trying to get through these undetected. Actual mission type: Mobile defense, a mode that is literally impossible to complete stealthily. I brought the right tool for the job, but the job changed without warning. Hurts solo players, hurts anyone that doesn't just stick to all-rounder gear. Not fun at all.

[vaugahn]

Tinfoil hat time. DE is using these more desirable alerts to see how people react to selecting a node and getting a random mission type, much like one of the ideas I've seen for the New RNG Chart. We know they can manipulate them.

 

That's a known bug, it's been around for ages.

[(PSN)ElZilcho]

That's a known bug, it's been around for ages.

 

Sure, but it's been much more frequent lately, and we do know that they can tweak alerts however they like. That is, unless you're suggeting that Gift of the Lotus that was 100% propaganda drones was an amazing coincidence of RNG when I ran it, then twice more when I ran it with clanmates (because w/e I just do alerts with them for fun). No. We know they can,and, if I had to test how much people would dislike getting random mission types, that's exactly how I would do it.

 

The message stands, be it through intentional manipulation or bug: random missions aren't fun.

[x_Soulframe_x]

Its just so funny to see everybody ripping out each others throats over this.  Hee hee :3

 

 

Good lord! from what I've read it sounds like DE is trying to turn Warframe into Las Vegas... Have they been talking to the CEO of Konami or something lately... How is eliminating Player Choice and making the missions themselves a grind, in which you already grind in, a good thing for the game overall?... It is completely and utterly illogical from any standpoint you see it... This is about as bad as when Valve and Bethesda decided to start charging money for Skyrim mods, The backlash for the first day alone was atrocious... the scandal was so bad that it ended up lasting only 4 days. I really hope that this gets changed and further looked at even before they attempt to implement it. If they do implement it then we can definitely start calling this game RNGframe... or WarRNG.

I agree. :3

[Rexlars]

This thread has the potential to be one of the longer Megathreads we've had, keep it up. smh

Edited May 23, 2015 by Rexlars

[x_Soulframe_x]

There has been significant evidence of what DE has planned through the Devstream which in all fairness has some major cries for concern. That being said, I usually won't start complaining until it gets so bad that the game isn't playable and that I want to toss my computer out the window. Until it happens, we can speculate, but the forums are meant to cry. So, it's something.

I can barley play the game without it crashing every 10 seconds, but I'm still playing. Don't mean to be rude, but it will probably take a lot more than extra RNG to prevent people who really like the game from playing the game. But I agree with the ending of your statement.

[x_Soulframe_x]

When you have a clear pattern of self-destructive behavior caused by repeating a poor choice, you remove the choice. You can call it fascist or evil or bring it to all the hyperbole you want, like they're choosing your bride for you or something, but it's just a game.

 

Everything DE has ever put in has IMMEDIATELY been "farmed" and "grinded" over and over to the point of burn out by the overwhelming majority of players. We need a new system other than choosing nodes or we'll be a grind game forever because you mutts will grind it.

 

Remember when Melee 2.0 came out and you mutts called it ZOMGGRINDWALL OMGWTFDE!? but now no one talks about it? What changes was simply the focus. Rare mods aren't bad for the game, cool maps and modes aren't bad for the game, enemies like the butcher aren't bad for the game. It's just that ability to over-focus, to tunnel vision on one thing, that had Cambria crawling with Nekros' using all slash weapons 24/7 until the next update whining about grinding. That is what we need to cut out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine what NEW CHOICES we could have if everyone was playing on just 20 nodes? Intentional hosting? Settings like melee-only or conclave ranges? Group joining settings so we could look for other well equipped players, or look for noobs to help? Stricter / better connection matchmaking? Dark Souls Covenant style Syndicate effects? The sky is the limit because you can promise population now, and in the future if population declines.

 

The point of the game is not to be a "grind game" or a "farm game". That is a community assertion. Every day people come to the boards and make complaint threads about how 275/300 nodes are a ghost town and they can't find anyone. Every day people claim they want grouping improvements. Every day people complain about trolls. Every day people suggest awesome new ideas for tweaks and adjustments, many that would not appeal to everyone and would require presenting players with a new choice.

 

Making THAT game better at the expense of the grind/farm game is an easy, easy choice.

You're one to talk . Then again since you are so "superior" to the rest of the player base calling everyone else mutts. You probably grinded your way up to Silver Tiger, everything requires some shape or form of grind in a game. Adding rotating nodes only increases the amount of grind. Please have some basic respect for the rest of the player base, you too have also gone on a grind at least once when playing warframe, and don't act like the rest of the warframe community is below you just for wanting to have an item badly. 

[VKhaun]

You're one to talk . Then again since you are so "superior" to the rest of the player base calling everyone else mutts. You probably grinded your way up to Silver Tiger, everything requires some shape or form of grind in a game. Adding rotating nodes only increases the amount of grind. Please have some basic respect for the rest of the player base, you too have also gone on a grind at least once when playing warframe, and don't act like the rest of the warframe community is below you just for wanting to have an item badly. 

 

You're diluting the term grind to the point it's meaningless to imply some ambiguity that you can exploit to make a fake argument. I won't be baited into that. I will reply without using the term and leave the choice to you to derail to semantics or be constructive.

 

 

 

The Player

Reward driven play. Get reward -> Fun / Happy / Yaaaayness. It is the nature of the gamer to seek rewards as quickly and efficiently as possible. Finding a way to get them and succeeding makes them feel good and gives them their sense of progression.

The mouse wants the cheese. Because cheese. <3

 

The Developer

Enjoyable gameplay. It's the nature of a good developer to try and make a game that is fun to play in the long term. This means, first, that core gameplay must be fun and, second, players have rewards at the end of that fun gameplay for them to seek as quickly and efficiently as possible through game mechanics.

The maze needs to be fun, interactive, thought-provoking and eventually lead to cheese proportional to it's length and difficulty.

 

Static Nodes With Static Rewards

When one node is the quickest and most efficient way to get a reward players naturally go there. Eventually players burn out or master that node and playing it is mindless at best, unpleasant at worst. This puts the player and developer at cross purposes, as developers creating new content get ignored unless they sabotage existing nodes or continuously put bigger and better rewards on new nodes.

"Why do I have to walk through this maze again to get my cheese?" "Just give me my cheese!"

 

Ever-Changing Nodes With Ever-Changing Rewards

Players can log on every day and seek rewards as quickly and efficiently as possible, over new and different terrain and through new and different means. This puts the player and developer on the same page. The dev can work to make more interesting content and the player will naturally cross all of that content at various times trying to get the rewards they want.

The mouse must find his way through a new and interesting maze each day, to get his cheese. All is right with the world.

 

 

 

 

 

(Plus all the other benefits. Like going around the problem of finding places for all the new rewards to drop as fast as they're making mods and weapons. Lore or storytelling. Codensing players so grouping can be more selective for things like melee-only and optimal match making... etc etc.

 

Overall it is definitely a better system even before any of the grind/farm "choice" discussion comes into play. In fact, the only reason grind/farm comes into it, is because I'm right and people on the grind/farm downward spiral are focusing on their TTC instead of if the game is fun and healthy or not.)

Edited May 23, 2015 by VKhaun

[Urlan]

Vkhaun, I think I fundamentally disagree with both your cynical approach to describing your fellow players, and how you think reducing nodes would have a beneficial effect on the game health; but I like your use of bolding, it speaks to me. Reducing nodes doesn't force the players to interact nor does it increase the reward to action novelty or ratio that your referencing with your reference of the players being lab mice.

 

The only thing that would force interaction or bypass 'ghost towns' would be forcing players to accept other players doing those nodes into their cells. I asked it before, but would you be willing to have random players forced into your match versus letting them in by inviting them? Would you actually enjoy say having me in your team without having any say over it? I don't think you would. This is what we are looking at right now, a reduction in choice and variety. One does not get more variety by reducing the options versus making the options more desirable to choose.

[ThePresident777]

If developers are so interested in enjoyable game play then why does DE punish everybody with lesser rep gain if they play anything but Draco?  Practically every reward or loot item in this game has it's optimal acquisition tied to one particular form of game play via a node.  What's more, DE attacks any popular game play with resource/loot nerfs and puts the better loot/rewards in the less popular game play.  That is not fun.  It's a grind.  And, it's an oppositional attitude towards the players.

Edited May 24, 2015 by ThePresident777

[vaugahn]

If developers are so interested in enjoyable game play then why does DE punish everybody with lesser rep gain if they play anything but Draco?  Practically every reward or loot item in this game has it's optimal acquisition tied to one particular form of game play via a node.  What's more, DE attacks any popular game play with resource/loot nerfs and puts the better loot/rewards in the less popular game play.  That is not fun.  It's a grind.  And, it's an oppositional attitude towards the players.

 

That's a very good question.

 

Let's think about that for a second: what happened when DE tried to get people out of Draco by buffing Syndicate dailies? What happened when they tried to get people off the pod they were camping? What happened when they spread rewards out?

 

"Outrage" would be a correct answer to all those questions. 

 

We love our un-fun grind. Any hint of change will send us into a spiral of hate. You're asking the right questions, but you've got it all backwards.

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

Static Nodes With Static Rewards

When one node is the quickest and most efficient way to get a reward players naturally go there. Eventually players burn out or master that node and playing it is mindless at best, unpleasant at worst. This puts the player and developer at cross purposes, as developers creating new content get ignored unless they sabotage existing nodes or continuously put bigger and better rewards on new nodes.

"Why do I have to walk through this maze again to get my cheese?" "Just give me my cheese!"

 

Ever-Changing Nodes With Ever-Changing Rewards

Players can log on every day and seek rewards as quickly and efficiently as possible, over new and different terrain and through new and different means. This puts the player and developer on the same page. The dev can work to make more interesting content and the player will naturally cross all of that content at various times trying to get the rewards they want.

The mouse must find his way through a new and interesting maze each day, to get his cheese. All is right with the world.

  

(Plus all the other benefits. Like going around the problem of finding places for all the new rewards to drop as fast as they're making mods and weapons. Lore or storytelling. Codensing players so grouping can be more selective for things like melee-only and optimal match making... etc etc.

 

Overall it is definitely a better system even before any of the grind/farm "choice" discussion comes into play. In fact, the only reason grind/farm comes into it, is because I'm right and people on the grind/farm downward spiral are focusing on their TTC instead of if the game is fun and healthy or not.)

I disagree on a fundamental level. I'm not too worried about the rewards; DE has to know that if they mess that up as bad as people here think, they're going to deliver a heavy blow to their playerbase and reputation.

The problem is that, as soon as you separate rewards from the equation, (hence the strikethrough) player count is the only benefit. Other than that, you've taken a system where players can choose what they enjoy when they feel like enjoying it, and condensed it into a situation where players must play from a limited selection at any one time and must hope they enjoy what they play.

With a static mission structure, players can go to missions they want to for fun. This doesn't happen in a changing mission structure, as instead it only considers those who are fixated on rewards to the point of causing burnout.

If a game needs to have cheese, if the gameplay itself is not the cheese, it doesn't matter how the rewards are hidden or scrambled or walled, because the problem is at a much more fundamental level.

[S.T.M.P.D]

If developers are so interested in enjoyable game play then why does DE punish everybody with lesser rep gain if they play anything but Draco?  Practically every reward or loot item in this game has it's optimal acquisition tied to one particular form of game play via a node.  What's more, DE attacks any popular game play with resource/loot nerfs and puts the better loot/rewards in the less popular game play.  That is not fun.  It's a grind.  And, it's an oppositional attitude towards the players.

They've been making a series of mistakes, and I guess now they're trying to fix those mistakes, you know? Let the man with the loot cave go just as fast as the man who does quests, etc.

And I cannot stress this enough: We know quite literally jack squat. Everyone's been throwing around this text snippet involving "reduction of player choice" like it's the word of an internet god when it's only from AM-Bunny's devstream overview. You want reliable info? Check Steve's starchart 3.0 manifesto. Check Adam's actual, official overview. Check the latest Prime Time when Rebecca said that next devstream they're gonna be as transparent as humanly possible on this whole issue BECAUSE we've been making our point heard. The only thing that seems certain to me is that something's changing, and we don't really know the details, and the details we sorta know might very well have been scrapped.

[VKhaun]

I disagree on a fundamental level. I'm not too worried about the rewards; DE has to know that if they mess that up as bad as people here think, they're going to deliver a heavy blow to their playerbase and reputation.

The problem is that, as soon as you separate rewards from the equation, (hence the strikethrough) player count is the only benefit. Other than that, you've taken a system where players can choose what they enjoy when they feel like enjoying it, and condensed it into a situation where players must play from a limited selection at any one time and must hope they enjoy what they play.

With a static mission structure, players can go to missions they want to for fun. This doesn't happen in a changing mission structure, as instead it only considers those who are fixated on rewards to the point of causing burnout.

If a game needs to have cheese, if the gameplay itself is not the cheese, it doesn't matter how the rewards are hidden or scrambled or walled, because the problem is at a much more fundamental level.

 

But none of that reflects reality. The nodes that are blown up are blown up because of rewards. The few people who want to game for fun find only ghost towns and matchmaking problems.

 

I disagree with you about the cheese, but that's a long long conversation about game design that Warframe is just way beyond at this point. We are obviously a game where cheese is important, and I say that as the guy with 7,000 posts against grind and for gameplay.

Edited May 24, 2015 by VKhaun

[ThePresident777]

Syndicate Dailies stack with misson rep, so it's not an either or situation.  To max rep, one does Draco and syndicate dailies.

 

But, why does Draco have to have the best rep and affinity rate in the game?  Why can't all of Ceres, Neptune, Pluto, and Eris have the best rep and affinity rate in the game?

 

If one wants reliable info about this issue, one goes to

where one will see exactly what DE is proposing:  random nodes and crafted keyed missions.  In other words, Alerts, Derelicts, and Trials, what we have now.  DE's official overview of their Devstream says something entirely different from what they said on the Devstream, and it was written after this thread reached ~50 pages.  The Star Chart 3.0 Manifesto has nothing to do with the player choosing what they want to do.  It's all about DE telling the player what they will play on each day.

 

We already have random and crafted missons.  If they are such great problem solvers, then how can the empty nodes be a problem?

Edited May 24, 2015 by ThePresident777

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

But none of that reflects reality. No one goes to nodes for fun. The nodes that are blown up are blown up because of rewards and the few people who want to game for fun find only ghost towns and matchmaking problems. I'm the poster boy for gameplay, utility, variety and playing for fun, but even I still go for fun AND efficient, where back in the day I played almost nothing but Grineer mobile defense and today play mostly Grineer survival.

But there are more than enough rewards to be balanced over a condensed star chart, rather than the current rotating proposal. But just as with balancing weapons and mods, DE hasn't done a good job with missions. That's why my point matters; if DE fixed rewards to either balance them over missions, or make them irrespective of missions, people would play the missions they enjoy regardless. But as long as that doesn't happen, people are going to be forced into reward-oriented gameplay and will severely have the choice for playing for fun limited.

As someone who has everything I need and plays for fun, and as someone who only started playing looking for fun, I can't see what the suggested chart offers me. I don't need rewards as I have more than enough to handle anything with a variety of playstyles. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you do as well. So then why isn't fun a factor? There are deeper issues if "no one goes to nodes for fun" that no amount of reward shuffling would fix.

[KT-7514]

I'm going to throw in my two cents here again, now I am an active roleplayer to an extent, just look at my name its kind of obvious, and one of my biggest problems in warframe has been a real lack of immersion, yeah yeah I get some people don't care about immersion, but I do, so I like the idea of having more context behind the missions we run, also lets bloody face it, 95% of the missions in warframe are untouched, which isn't a good thing. I understand the player bases concerns, I get it I share those concerns, but lets face it, we don't know hardly anything about how this system works aside from some quotes that can be interperted in many ways. Not even mentioning the fact that they were made in a very off-the-cuff casual environment, can we all just calm down and actually see the system in action before we all start screaming "IT'S THE END OF DE AND WARFRAME!!!!!!!!"

[ThePresident777]

We can already see the system in action:  alerts, derelicts, trials.  There it is, random and crafted missions.  Are the ghost nodes stopping anyone from playing alerts, derelicts, or trials?  No.  Ghost nodes are a red herring.

[SolaireTheSunWalker]

you're title is "PROPOSED STARCHART CHANGES [MEGATHREAD]"  but you didn't give any "change ideas" you just bashed the whole idea 
 

[(PSN)obsidiancurse]

They've been making a series of mistakes, and I guess now they're trying to fix those mistakes, you know? Let the man with the loot cave go just as fast as the man who does quests, etc.

And I cannot stress this enough: We know quite literally jack squat. Everyone's been throwing around this text snippet involving "reduction of player choice" like it's the word of an internet god when it's only from AM-Bunny's devstream overview. You want reliable info? Check Steve's starchart 3.0 manifesto. Check Adam's actual, official overview. Check the latest Prime Time when Rebecca said that next devstream they're gonna be as transparent as humanly possible on this whole issue BECAUSE we've been making our point heard. The only thing that seems certain to me is that something's changing, and we don't really know the details, and the details we sorta know might very well have been scrapped.

The thread isn't based on just the over view though, some of us watched the dev stream. We heard heard Steve say he was going to remove player choice, we heard hm (and I think Scott?) admit the players were not going to like it, we heard them admit that Rebecca got angry when she was told of these changes, we saw them act shifty and try to deflect Rebecca's questions.

The Star chart manifesto is with all due respect basically hogwash and could have just been written after the fact as some sort of justification. There is certainly nothing in it that's warrants gutting the current star chart. All this dynamic living solar system idea is already happening via alerts, invasions and quests etc. just improve those, there is absolutely no way that this has to be an either/or situation.

As others have already pointed out, Adams response was written well after the fact, once the protests were in full swing.

If they are now reconsidering their plans, then that means threads like this are justified/needed. Fair play to them for listening, despite everything, they are still some of the best devs out there and well done the community for expressing our views, both those for and against.

[VKhaun]

you're title is "PROPOSED STARCHART CHANGES [MEGATHREAD]"  but you didn't give any "change ideas" you just bashed the whole idea

 

When people defend it, they're being optimistic it's going to be done well and used to it's potential. Others rightly fear that, like any major change, it might be done poorly. Reading through all these pages of both views will hopefully help give them ideas about how to go about that. Hit as many +'s as possible and dodge as many -'s as possible.

[ThePresident777]

Don't want a S#&amp;&#036; sandwich, no matter how well it's done.

[kyonsan]

im done i have 25 weapons left and got my stuff so im ready :3

Edited May 25, 2015 by kyonsan

[Urlan]

you're title is "PROPOSED STARCHART CHANGES [MEGATHREAD]"  but you didn't give any "change ideas" you just bashed the whole idea 

 

 

I am afraid the Title issue is two points, one the topic is about 'The Proposed Starchart Chages', and two, the topic title was changed to that by the moderators as this better covers the topic of the thread than a more vague title. The topic isn't users' proposed fixes to the idea, its about users' reactions and feelings about the subject. Though of course, many of the posts do give ideas for either improving the idea or avoiding it and its fallout entirely. So 'bashing the idea', while a condescending and sometime demeaning term for negative feedback; is an appropriate type of post in this thread. One response that may be thought to be unproductive here would be insulting others for sharing their opinion about the change to the starchart intended for update 17.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Urlan

[Hotshot0507]

That sounds like a step backward.

 

How is it a step backwards? It's simpler and quicker to get a game going.

 

My goal is to play the game, not look at the UI to get me into a game.

 

The problem withe the starchart is its too slow and clunky.... And it can be very hard to find a quick game.