Camping -- How To Get Players To Stop Being Cub Scouts And Go Be Space Ninjas

[Inez]

Wrong again.  If we can be objective about anything, Warframe's ideal gameplay of run & gun is objectively better game design than people sitting in a virtual sewer for 2 hours doing nothing but shooting in the same direction and pressing '3' ('4' for Loki) every 2 seconds.

 

Objectively, the majority of Warframe players like camping.  The whole reason we have threads like this is because a disgruntled minority is pushing back against the majority which is fine with camping.

[Fifield]

Objectively, the majority of Warframe players like camping.

 

No, objectively, you made that up and either have no idea what objectively means or don't care about misusing the word.

Also, it's completely irrelevant what a bunch of disgruntled Warframers want.

If camping didn't exist, you would have nobody clamouring for "Oh plz let us sit in a sewer for 2 hours doing nothing but pressing '3'".  And if you dispute this, I'm going to laugh at you.

[Inez]

You're saying I missued the word 'objectively'?

 

If you were to spend more time playing the game and less trolling the forums, you'd see that the majority of players like camping. Its the whole reason you started this thread. People in your games wanna camp, and rather than leave group or explain that you don't enjoy camping, you come to the forums to vent.

 

Since Viver, I've prolly done a hundred survivals or more. And when someone asks "should we camp?" or "where should we camp?" no one has ever said "camping is objectively worse than running around like I'm on crack" or otherwise disagreed with camping.

 

So are all you anti-camping people just really shy in game? You sure seem hostile and assertive here on the forums.

[Fifield]

Your sampling methods are flawed LOL

 

Nobody doubts that camping is the most efficient way to farm Void Survival Prime Parts.  Nobody doubts that players like to do things efficiently.

What is an absolute certainty though is the following point that you chose to ignore because you know how it destroys your argument:

 

If camping didn't exist, you would have nobody clamouring for "Oh plz let us sit in a sewer for 2 hours doing nothing but pressing '3'".  And if you dispute this, I'm going to laugh at you.

 

[Inez]

I'm willing to bet my sample size is much bigger than your sample size :)

 

People don't clamour for camping because DE thinks camping is wrong. They made this clear long ago. Clamouring for something that someone is opposed to seems kinda pointless. Kinda like asking my hot lesbian friend for sex.

 

In spite of the lack or clamouring, people always camp the hell outta missions that give them good rewards. So obviously, the desire is there.

 

As an experiment go run some random void survivals and survivals on neural sensor or orokin cell planets. Record how many of those groups camp and how many don't. You know the majority of groups are gonna ask you to camp, which is the whole reason you made this thread.

[Phatose]

That logic doesn't pan out.

 

Even if everybody were to camp - and nobody were to ever complain - that in and of itself doesn't demonstrate that even 1 person likes camping, much less all of them.

 

It demonstrates that they choose to camp - but there are far more possibilities for why they would do that then "They like it".

 

For example "They like rewards, and don't like wasting time.  Camping is safe and minimizes the chance of them losing their rewards.  Despite them hating camping, they do it because they hate losing rewards far far more."

[Inez]

So you admit that most people choose to camp, for whatever reason. But you also feel that the choice to camp shouldn't be their choice. Bright, objectively right-thinking people like you have decided that choice should be taken away from them.

 

I like having choices in my video games. I'm just crazy like that.

[Phatose]

So you admit that most people choose to camp, for whatever reason. But you also feel that the choice to camp shouldn't be their choice. Bright, objectively right-thinking people like you have decided that choice should be taken away from them.

 

I like having choices in my video games. I'm just crazy like that.

 

Another piece of flawed logic.  They'll still be free to choose to do whatever.  Making it a less attractive option doesn't take away your choice, it just makes the choice a bit more complicated to make.

[RafaelFuchs]

I like having choices in my video games. I'm just crazy like that.

You monster. Only true humans have free will...

 

Seriously though, can we get a baseline of something? Fact vs opinion. Yes, yes, I know. You learnt about that in middle school, but we need a refresher. Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case. Opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

 

Facts: "Camping" is a common strategy used. DE has done little to actually impact "camping" despite verbally disagreeing with it. 

 

Opinions: How you think the game should be played. What you think is the best way to achieve a goal. 

 

Point is, stop the misuse of words. 

[(PSN)FriendSharkey]

If you want to stop camping then I'd say take a look at those conflict maps where two factions are fighting each other. When the alarm is triggered you'll note an explosive thunder in the background, due to another ship placing rounds into the map you're on.

Now then with that in mind you could take that a little further with Survival Missions by having a timer that rotates randomly through the tile set. Once the timer hits zero, the faction you're fighting starts a purge process. You had best better be out of that section. It locks down and kills everything in there. In a few minutes it'll be safe again to enter. But you never know when the clock might start on that section again, until the Lotus tells you get out fast.

The other option is each individual player must activate that Air Can that's been triggered. It's not shared. Like its re-filling your air tank, rather than leaking into the map.

Edited July 28, 2015 by (PS4)FriendSharkey

[Fifield]

Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.

 

I wouldn't under estimate this forum's capacity to dispute facts LOL.

[(PSN)TreySoFreshh]

I think mini bosses should be more like Vor but with more to offer. Like providing more of tactical strategy and boss exclusive loot.

 

*My idea I just whipped up*: A mini boss that changes the focus of the objective and makes melee only combat, mobs included. He has common boss attacks like a huge hard hitting swing of his sword, allowing the new Parkour to come into play(dodging attacks < seems out the lines of what WF melee action is)

[ecwp1981]

My solution to camping would be remove the life support capsule all together. Create a Life support module which is powered by energy capsules used in excavation. Players have to run around to kill power core carrying enemies and get power to the life support. And if life support module is destroyed, they have to move to the next one.  No more camping.

 

DE can delve on this and develop this further if they want :)

[-dicht.Amducias-]

Wrong again. If we can be objective about anything, Warframe's ideal gameplay of run & gun is objectively better game design than people sitting in a virtual sewer for 2 hours doing nothing but shooting in the same direction and pressing '3' ('4' for Loki) every 2 seconds.

The rest of your comment was equally irrelevant.

We dont need loki to camp

U really seem to not get it.. the game offers the ability to camp so you CAN do it, if u dont want it dont do it but F*** off with trying to dictate ur opinion over other ppl

[-dicht.Amducias-]

No, objectively, you made that up and either have no idea what objectively means or don't care about misusing the word.

Also, it's completely irrelevant what a bunch of disgruntled Warframers want.

If camping didn't exist, you would have nobody clamouring for "Oh plz let us sit in a sewer for 2 hours doing nothing but pressing '3'". And if you dispute this, I'm going to laugh at you.

If it didnt exist u still wouldnt stop crying and search for another thing u dont like and Yes he is right, the majority likes camping at least thats what the chats tell.. and also the ppl who like camping never said something against playing like you do, we dont force you to camp but u would like to force us to follow ur opinions.. thats not what we need here

[TenshuYuusha]

I'd like to throw my two cents here, since I saw the word "objectively" thrown out and unknowingly waxing on the human mind, but I have to ask something crucial for my own understanding.

What do you exactly mean by camping? I'm having a tough time after reading through all the pages of this topic, getting a visual of what OP doesn't like. Are people just standing by extraction 24/7 picking off every enemy? Are people camping by the life support capsules and killing any and all enemies until they need to use the capsule and then move on to the next?

[Fifield]

No, they stand in a sewer, not moving for 2 hours, pressing the same key every 2 seconds.  I'm not even kidding.

There's no need to move because Nekros' Desecrate ability increases the life support drops enough to stay there forever.

It's not a question of how I like to or don't like to play -- because I choose that.  It's a question of good gameplay design.  It's also about getting DE to implement an optimal solution rather than one that might actually hurt players who don't camp.

 

[TenshuYuusha]

No, they stand in a sewer, not moving for 2 hours, pressing the same key every 2 seconds.  I'm not even kidding.

There's no need to move because Nekros' Desecrate ability increases the life support drops enough to stay there forever.

It's not a question of how I like to or don't like to play -- because I choose that.  It's a question of good gameplay design.  It's also about getting DE to implement an optimal solution rather than one that might actually hurt players who don't camp.

If it truly is how you say, then I'd agree, that does sound very boring. It makes already monotonous gameplay even more pronounced. I always play Survival with the latter example I gave (camp by a capsule until it's needed since I very rarely play with someone that uses Nekros, not by choice). The thing you're combatting with here though is seen in just about any game, from Warframe to Street Fighter. We get comfortable with things. Often people will make up excuses like "it's more efficient" but the bottom line is they're just comfortable with a certain aspect of a game and don't want it changed. Your earlier hypothetical scenario of camping not existing would pretty much be a parallel of what's going on in this topic. People would just be comfortable with whatever would have been the "most efficient" and be against someone proposing a change to that.

You might've worded what you're suggesting a tad bad as people are interpreting it as you wanting to dictate how they play by enforcing a cap, which would be considered faulty game design itself. The removal of the life support capsules could work, though that'd take extra work to make all that make sense with what Survival is (even now it barely makes sense for us to distract enemies for such a long time while an unknown is stealing S#&amp;&#036;). An earlier suggestion would work if DE were to ever revamp Survival entirely by making it more akin to The Mercenaries, but I'd add the idea of removing life support and really making it about time, kill combos, random spots on the map that have sudden surges of enemy spawns, and a scoring system that could be played around with as to what you gain from getting a higher score.

[Inez]

How are players that don't camp hurt by DE? If you wanna run around, run around.

 

Since I know you're not gonna answer my question, let me answer it for you: you're hurt because you're no longer sharing affinity with your team. Survival is pretty nice for leveling if people stick together.

 

The obvious solution is to make affinity sharing have infinite range in survivals, just like interceptions. Yet, not one single anti-camping whiner has ever proposed this in these forums. At least not that I've seen, someone feel free to prove me wrong.

 

Why have none of the anti-camping people ever proposed this? I have no idea. I assume most of them are new to Warframe and don't know about affinity sharing, but I could easily be wrong.

[TenshuYuusha]

How are players that don't camp hurt by DE? If you wanna run around, run around.

 

Since I know you're not gonna answer my question, let me answer it for you: you're hurt because you're no longer sharing affinity with your team. Survival is pretty nice for leveling if people stick together.

 

The obvious solution is to make affinity sharing have infinite range in survivals, just like interceptions. Yet, not one single anti-camping whiner has ever proposed this in these forums. At least not that I've seen, someone feel free to prove me wrong.

 

Why have none of the anti-camping people ever proposed this? I have no idea. I assume most of them are new to Warframe and don't know about affinity sharing, but I could easily be wrong.

I would think it's because of... Defense. :v

[Phatose]

How are players that don't camp hurt by DE? If you wanna run around, run around.

 

Since I know you're not gonna answer my question, let me answer it for you: you're hurt because you're no longer sharing affinity with your team. Survival is pretty nice for leveling if people stick together.

 

The obvious solution is to make affinity sharing have infinite range in survivals, just like interceptions. Yet, not one single anti-camping whiner has ever proposed this in these forums. At least not that I've seen, someone feel free to prove me wrong.

 

Why have none of the anti-camping people ever proposed this? I have no idea. I assume most of them are new to Warframe and don't know about affinity sharing, but I could easily be wrong.

 

That's not the problem with camping at all.

 

The problem with camping is that picking a spot with one exit and one entrance that you never have to move from vastly reduces your risk.  Reduced risk is an advantage.  It means you're more efficient.

 

The main disadvantage is the it's incredibly dull.

 

Which leave us all the the choice of "Camp, be more efficient but be bored, or don't camp and be less efficient, but not bored"

 

As a simple rule of game design, gaining extra advantages for willingness to be bored is a pretty terrible 'choice' for your players.

[Fifield]

I think mini bosses should be more like Vor but with more to offer. Like providing more of tactical strategy and boss exclusive loot.

 

That's exactly what I had in mind but the change is enough work for DE as it is.

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

Are you sure we're talking about the same things?  I'm talking specifically about "4 tenno in the end of a tiny little shaft, or all staying so close together they can fit into a snow globe from a frost with no range extenders." 

If you have to defend a pod, which will cause and instant mission fail if destroyed, then you should be close to it. If a bubble is up then it is stupid not to stand inside of it.

 

The mission type is built to promote camping.

[Phatose]

If you have to defend a pod, which will cause and instant mission fail if destroyed, then you should be close to it. If a bubble is up then it is stupid not to stand inside of it.

 

The mission type is built to promote camping.

 

That's not innate to the goal - It's very common in gaming (and military history) to have a defense take place as far away from the item being protected as possible.  Any tower defense game will show that - defending something doesn't require being right on top of it, and it's usually preferable to defend further away if at all possible.

 

it's a consequence of multiple level of design choices, and with a few select changes that can changes drastically.  It's not simply 'defense means camping'.  It's "When you don't have any reason ever consider not being right on top of the target, you won't"

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

That's not innate to the goal - It's very common in gaming (and military history) to have a defense take place as far away from the item being protected as possible.  Any tower defense game will show that - defending something doesn't require being right on top of it, and it's usually preferable to defend further away if at all possible.

 

it's a consequence of multiple level of design choices, and with a few select changes that can changes drastically.  It's not simply 'defense means camping'.  It's "When you don't have any reason ever consider not being right on top of the target, you won't"

This isn't real life or other games.  That would work if you could move the pod or if there were set choke points where you could cut the enemies off from getting to the pod.

 

But as it stands, spreading away from the pod is like asking to fail.  This becomes even more apparent when you start to analyze frame ability uses.  STanding by the pod, especially inside a bubble, is the optimal place to defend from in WF.