A not-so-simple change to disincentivize Draco

[KaeseSchnitte]

On 04/11/2016 at 5:55 AM, DeadlyPeanutt said:

what DE wants is irreverent.  if DE makes bad decisions and nerfs maps and nodes that players find helpful, players will leave and find other games... less money will come in and WF will be abandoned by DE as a consequence of it's own bad decision making. 

imho, players who find creative ways to accomplish goals within the rules of the game should not be punished for their creativity.  and players like you should not try to decide how everyone else plays their game. 

Yeah, DE doesn't get to say where this game is heading, it's not like they're the devs and Warframe is their game or anything like that, right?

[KaeseSchnitte]

On 04/11/2016 at 6:34 AM, (PS4)horridhal said:

You are inherently wrong with your interpretation of the idea as it is being presented.

If my node gets a lower drop/affinity rate, I am at a disadvantage.  The reverse is also true.  As it stands now, there is no loss of affinity or drop rate to incentivizing traveling to other nodes, and their shouldn't be.  That is my contention.  People should be free to play any node they choose and, if that just happens to be Draco, so be it.  It isn't my place to police another person's game, just as it isn't yours.  

You haven't actually offered anything to counter anything I've said so this will be my last time responding to these sorts of comments.  If you care to actually have an intelligent discourse on the topic, by all means.

Your response is completely flawed. Just because Draco is currently the best node doesn't mean that it always should be or that you shouldn't try to improve the game by making it more balanced. If you want to play Draco, then you should be more afraid about Starchart3.0 than about my suggestion. If you want to play the most rewarding mission then you don't have to worry about my suggestion, since there always will be one most rewading mission.

[KaeseSchnitte]

23 hours ago, BlackCoMerc said:

Exactly this. And with us already being forced in the last six months to tolerate the abysmal Sharkwing on Uranus and the RNG puzzle rooms on the Moon in order to obtain certain rewards, being forced into certain missions to level Forma items is a BAD idea. We are being railroaded enough of late; so many choices taken away if we want to be able to obtain certain things.

The last thing we need is more of this.

Soooo... you are against being "forced" into certain missions and thus are defending Draco?

[KaeseSchnitte]

On 04/11/2016 at 6:34 AM, (PS4)horridhal said:

You are inherently wrong with your interpretation of the idea as it is being presented.

If my node gets a lower drop/affinity rate, I am at a disadvantage.  The reverse is also true.  As it stands now, there is no loss of affinity or drop rate to incentivizing traveling to other nodes, and their shouldn't be.  That is my contention.  People should be free to play any node they choose and, if that just happens to be Draco, so be it.  It isn't my place to police another person's game, just as it isn't yours.  

You haven't actually offered anything to counter anything I've said so this will be my last time responding to these sorts of comments.  If you care to actually have an intelligent discourse on the topic, by all means.

If "your node" has a low multiplier, it got or gets played more often than other nodes. As soon the multiplier drops the XP hungry crowd will move on and the multiplier will rise again, even if you continue to play that mission.

[KaeseSchnitte]

17 hours ago, (PS4)L-B-H-100 said:

you do notice that some of the actual award in Draco is mostly objective affinity and team assist affinity.

objective affinity is affinity earned when completing or interacting with an objective (capture towers). team assist affinity is the affinity you earn from being near enemies who a being killed by your teammate.

for example, with these two types of affinity types, affinity goes to all weapons in your current arsenal, while killing affinity will only go to the specified weapon or warframe ability responsible for the kill.

so if you ever wonder why your ash, Valkyr, or Excalibur is not gaining as much affinity for your weapons from their ult spam; its because you are using a specified ability to kill multiple enemies and only receiving affinity for all weapons in your arsenal from other teammates kills and objective participation.

i dont think more enemies should spawn at all, they just need to edit the amount of objective completion affinity for each mission type instead of concentrating on killing more to get more.

The problem is not the objective XP, but the XP gained through kills. If it would be the other way around, other interception missions would be just as popular as Draco.

[KaeseSchnitte]

I find it funny that noone has ever discussed the most integral part of my suggestion.

Should the drop of the multiplier per player playing the mission be static or percental, measured by all missions played or measured by all missions aviable? Should the multiplier growth be static or percental?

The answers to those questions would greatly affect the way my suggestion would affect the mission balance.

[alergiclaprosti]

So, what you say is:

Let's make it harder for uncoordinated players (solo players) to get their farm (which is basically Warframe in a nutshell ), while large clans can farm mastery even better.

 

For this idea I would have given you  "-1" .... but society doesn't allow criticism.

 

What makes Draco the best place to farm affinity is not the type of the mission or the difficulty. The reason, why simply adding another place with equal amount of affinity per second is not the way to go, is "fame".

What do I mean by "fame"? 

When you have to start building a piece of equipment you go to Draco, because every other player that wants to build new equipment goes there,  so, you will have other people to farm with.

Draco is "famous" enough that at any time there will be players to play with.

Edited April 12, 2016 by alergiclaprosti

[KaeseSchnitte]

1 hour ago, alergiclaprosti said:

So, what you say is:

Let's make it harder for uncoordinated players (solo players) to get their farm (which is basically Warframe in a nutshell ), while large clans can farm mastery even better.

 

For this idea I would have given you  "-1" .... but society doesn't allow criticism.

 

What makes Draco the best place to farm affinity is not the type of the mission or the difficulty. The reason why simply adding another place with equal amount of affinity per second is not the way to go is "fame".

What do I mean by "fame"? 

When you have to start building a piece of equipment you go to Draco, because every other player that wants to build new equipment goes there,  so, you will have other people to farm with.

How would it be harder for solo players to farm? The multiplier of each mission would be openly displayed, it would be easy to find populated nodes. And your reasons for the popularity Draco are, if not wrong, at least not all there is to the popularity of Draco.

Edited April 12, 2016 by KaeseSchnitte

[Fifield]

6 hours ago, alergiclaprosti said:

What makes Draco the best place to farm affinity is not the type of the mission or the difficulty.

Depends.  Warframe has this weird mechanism where the fastest way to level anything is to not use it*.

That means you want to be somewhere everyone else is doing the killing.  You have to be in range of course so it helps to be a small map.

Add in Grineer being the highest XP faction and the endless spawn of interception -- and that's why Draco is the loot cave.

*You get more XP for actually using the weapon/frame but only if you get the kill.  Which rules out anything below rank 20 or even 25.   AOE nukers have an advantage ofc.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Fifield

[(PSN)horridhal]

21 minutes ago, Fifield said:

Warframe has this weird mechanism where the fastest way to level anything is to not use it*.

This is wrong.

The fastest way to level a singular item is to amass kills with it.

The fastest way to level several items is to let other people kill in shared affinity range while you have them equipped.

[Fifield]

Can you stop replying to things you haven't read?

25 minutes ago, Fifield said:

*You get more XP for actually using the weapon/frame but only if you get the kill.  Which rules out anything below rank 20 or even 25.   AOE nukers have an advantage ofc.

 Also, your logic is wrong and you're misinforming people about levelling as well.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Fifield

[(PSN)horridhal]

On 4/12/2016 at 11:04 AM, Fifield said:

Can you stop replying to things you haven't read?

 Also, your logic is wrong and you're misinforming people about levelling as well.

Except I'm not wrong.  Getting a kill with a weapon provides it far more affinity than shared affinity from another person.

Shared affinity becomes important when you have more than 1 item to level since the split becomes 25% evenly to all your items off other people's kills.

From just that explanation, anyone clearly sees that using a single weapon you need leveled is more effective than allowing others to kill around you and splitting all the affinity between all your items.

Edited April 13, 2016 by (PS4)horridhal

[(XBOX)Skode]

Add in tougher enemies making it harder to farm, Hyekka Masters have been making life miserable for players grinding it when they're far too fresh to be anywhere near Ceres. Keep same affinity rewards just make them tougher to earn, risk/reward should be hand in hand vs hard carrying randoms who clearly taxi unlocked the place via recruit chat.

[Fifield]

1 hour ago, (PS4)horridhal said:

From just that explanation, anyone clearly sees that using a single weapon you need leveled is more effective than allowing others to kill around you and splitting all the affinity between all your items.

Yes, that 50 damage is so likely to get a kill on Draco LOL

Furthermore, you are still pretending I didn't write what I wrote.  Likewise, that you weren't wrong to call it incorrect.  Here it is again:

1 hour ago, Fifield said:

*You get more XP for actually using the weapon/frame but only if you get the kill.  Which rules out anything below rank 20 or even 25.   AOE nukers have an advantage ofc.

Are you going to pretend I didn't write it a third time, and that I haven't stuck it right under your nose a second time?

1 hour ago, (PS4)horridhal said:

You love pretending others are wrong and, yet, haven't been able to prove any of your comments in this thread thus far.  Awfully telling of the type of person you are.

All you're able to come up with is personal attacks and obvious dishonesty.  As for not being able to prove any of one's comments, that's the worst case of projection I've seen in a long time.

[AsuraKyu]

On 4/2/2016 at 0:34 PM, akira_him said:

too complicated

just revert the excavation changes they did, give us back old kiste, and improve the stealth counter, suddenly a lot of people will get away from Draco

Not even gonna lie I really miss kiste

[(PSN)horridhal]

10 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

If you are concerned that endless missions would be less rewarding since they presumably would get played more than finite ones, then I'd disagree, since both endless and finite mission types would balance each other out. Endless missions would still be rewarding more than playing finite missions for the same time, if you stay in the mission long enough. And that's how it should be. But in all honesty, if making the game as a whole more enjoyable for most of the players, it is ok to upset some by rewarding them less for camping one mission type all the time. And in the end, noone said that all missions of the same type will have equally bad multipliers.

This suggestion, as it has been presented, wouldn't make the game more enjoyable as a whole.  It would simply force people to run nodes based on the % bonus it was being given and avoid nodes based on the same.  For people who don't enjoy certain mission types, which pretty much everyone has at least one type they dislike, they would eventually be forced to run those missions or have their %'s on key factors in the game gimped for no purpose other than to attempt incentivize people to run nodes they don't want to run.

10 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

And my suggestion would make other missions as rewarding as Draco, primarely by diminishing the amount of enemies that spawn, but that's because Draco is an outlier at the moment. If they are not happy with the outcome of my suggestion, they could simply bump the multiplier.

That can be accomplished through means that don't involve interfering with every other node in the game.  Other missions can have changes made to them to make them as appealing as Draco is now with no real negative impact on the game, or its players, as a whole.  In the system presented here, the negative impact is clearly defined as a reduced drop and affinity rate.

10 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

Your response is completely flawed. Just because Draco is currently the best node doesn't mean that it always should be or that you shouldn't try to improve the game by making it more balanced. If you want to play Draco, then you should be more afraid about Starchart3.0 than about my suggestion. If you want to play the most rewarding mission then you don't have to worry about my suggestion, since there always will be one most rewading mission.

As stated in the reply to the previous quote, that can be accomplished without resorting to gimping the node.  Nothing about what you are proposing "balances" the game in any meaningful way.

As for me running Draco, I rarely do it.  That said, I'm not going to try and tell someone else they shouldn't or not to solely because I don't like that the node is popular.  I understand that my enjoyment of the game is my own and completely independent of anyone else's actions.  As I've stated previously it isn't my place, nor yours, to police how other people play the game.  There is no one forcing you to run the Draco mission and it is easily avoidable by playing any of the dozens of other missions possible.

10 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

If "your node" has a low multiplier, it got or gets played more often than other nodes. As soon the multiplier drops the XP hungry crowd will move on and the multiplier will rise again, even if you continue to play that mission.

The issue is that I shouldn't ever be at a disadvantage simply because other people want to run the same node I do.  Me running that node has no effect on your game, nor does your running of another node.

[TalonBlue]

When most of the starchart is devoid of anyone playing it outside the Void, why exactly is Draco to blame?  Food for thought.

[KaeseSchnitte]

5 hours ago, (PS4)horridhal said:

This suggestion, as it has been presented, wouldn't make the game more enjoyable as a whole.  It would simply force people to run nodes based on the % bonus it was being given and avoid nodes based on the same.  For people who don't enjoy certain mission types, which pretty much everyone has at least one type they dislike, they would eventually be forced to run those missions or have their %'s on key factors in the game gimped for no purpose other than to attempt incentivize people to run nodes they don't want to run.

My suggestion doesn't "force" players to play missions any more than the current system "forces" players to play Draco.

What about the people who dislike Interception? With my suggestion, they'd be able to play their favorite mission types while being rewarded more.

Your argument could be just as well used to support my suggestion. In the end it's a question if you want the players to play only Draco or different missions. And I think it's much better when players "are forced to" play different missions once in a while.

Quote

That can be accomplished through means that don't involve interfering with every other node in the game.  Other missions can have changes made to them to make them as appealing as Draco is now with no real negative impact on the game, or its players, as a whole.  In the system presented here, the negative impact is clearly defined as a reduced drop and affinity rate.

My suggestion would give the devs much more leeway instead of trying to balance missions directly. If a mission is slightly more rewarding than other missions, it would get played more often until the multiplier drops. Missions that are not rewarding enough will get played less and thus stack up their multiplier.

And again, what is lost in terms of XP rewards in one mission is compensated by other missions which will stack up their multiplier.

Quote

As stated in the reply to the previous quote, that can be accomplished without resorting to gimping the node.  Nothing about what you are proposing "balances" the game in any meaningful way.

As for me running Draco, I rarely do it.  That said, I'm not going to try and tell someone else they shouldn't or not to solely because I don't like that the node is popular.  I understand that my enjoyment of the game is my own and completely independent of anyone else's actions.  As I've stated previously it isn't my place, nor yours, to police how other people play the game.  There is no one forcing you to run the Draco mission and it is easily avoidable by playing any of the dozens of other missions possible.

As stated in the reply to the previous quote, my suggestion would create a balance that is closer to perfection than any attempt made by the devs would be. The players themselves would balance the game by trying to get the most reward as possible from one mission. My suggestion also allows to quickly influence which node is mos rewarding by simply changing the multplier. So DE would be able to adjust "the meta" to whatever they see fit without tinkering with spawn-algorithms, -locations or the map layout.

Warframe is a multiplayer game. Having a community that is not focussing their entire effort on just a few nodes is essential for the wellbeing of this game.

Quote

The issue is that I shouldn't ever be at a disadvantage simply because other people want to run the same node I do.  Me running that node has no effect on your game, nor does your running of another node.

This is already the case, take invasions for example. Also, I really don't believe that anyone who's playing Warframe is just camping one node and this node alone just because it's the only mission they like. And even if there are such people, they're most likely are a minority and the game should not be geared to minorities.

Most players probably wouldn't mind Draco being gone, as long as there is a worthwhile alternative.

 

[KaeseSchnitte]

1 hour ago, TalonBlue said:

When most of the starchart is devoid of anyone playing it outside the Void, why exactly is Draco to blame?  Food for thought.

The issue that most players are playing void missions for the rewards is not part of my suggestion in any way. But if you have an idea how to integrate a solution to this problem into my suggestion, I'd be happy to hear it.

[(PSN)horridhal]

Just now, KaeseSchnitte said:

My suggestion doesn't "force" players to play missions any more than the current system "forces" players to play Draco.

What about the people who dislike Interception? With my suggestion, they'd be able to play their favorite mission types while being rewarded more.

Sure it does.  Why would anyone go to a gimped node when other nodes are more lucrative in accomplishing what they need?

Explain to me why you deserve to be rewarded more than another player simply because you play a different node?  As it stands now, you aren't at a disadvantage and neither am I.  In your proposed system, one of us always would be.  That serves no purpose other than you hoping it would incentivize players to not play missions they are enjoying.  But, then, if they are enjoying them and it doesn't affect you, why do you seem so adamant about removing that enjoyment?

3 minutes ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

And again, what is lost in terms of XP rewards in one mission is compensated by other missions which will stack up their multiplier.

And, again, why should you be given a benefit or detriment simply because you choose to run a specific node?  You have yet to provide a valid answer to this question and it is a huge part of your entire point.  If you can't provide a valid reason that players should be given detrimental effects, or beneficial ones, over other players other than, "They are running a node I dislike," then you haven't provided a reason to support your suggestion.  Also, again, such compensation requires me to run said node with the beneficial %.  If I don't want to run that node, I don't benefit from it.

7 minutes ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

As stated in the reply to the previous quote, my suggestion would create a balance that is closer to perfection than any attempt made by the devs would be. The players themselves would balance the game by trying to get the most reward as possible from one mission.

In your opinion.  That's the key here.  There is no evidence that your suggestion would balance the game when, in fact, the game is already balanced in terms of providing the same rates of experience and drops regardless of the missions you run barring outliers like Draco.  If those outliers are gone, your entire system then becomes pointlessly detrimental and if, as you say, DE has proclaimed it plans to do away with all the outliers, your system is unnecessary.  Also, I'm not suggesting balance be dictated by the players.  I'm saying that a perfectly fair system regardless of which node you run is a better system than what you've suggested here.  Nothing more and it is also the system we currently have.

11 minutes ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

Warframe is a multiplayer game. Having a community that is not focussing their entire effort on just a few nodes is essential for the wellbeing of this game.

Warframe is a game about choice.  Draco is not the only node with active squads on it (though it does have the most) even now.  Again, no one forces you to run that mission and this entire game can be soloed (aside from Raids obviously) successfully.  In such a case there is no reason to attempt to police another players game solely because they are running a mission you dislike for any reason.  As it is now, the choice to run Draco or not (and not be penalized for either choice) exists naturally within the game.  Your suggestion would remove such natural choice and force players to focus on a % bonus rather than garnering maximum fun out of their game.  I dislike such suggestion as they remove one of the key things I enjoy about the game, freedom of choice.

14 minutes ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

This is already the case, take invasions for example. Also, I really don't believe that anyone who's playing Warframe is just camping one node and this node alone just because it's the only mission they like. And even if there are such people, they're most likely are a minority and the game should not be geared to minorities.

Nothing about me running, or not running, an invasion affects your game other than it affecting the overall amount of time left on the invasion.  You can still run that mission and get the exact same benefits I did from my runs regardless of if I ran it or not.  As for your disbelief, it isn't just one node.  Endless missions are some of the most popular on the star chart and would be among the first sets on each planet to lose their % bonus.  In such a case you've ruined my gameplay, and many others who don't like the non-endless missions.

 

As I said, you still have yet to prove to me that any player should be gimped solely because the only basis you've given for such a suggestion is "I dislike Draco and feel it shouldn't be run as often," which isn't a valid reason to negatively impact another players game by any stretch of the imagination.  Don't run the node if you don't like it, but stop trying to take it from others.

[KaeseSchnitte]

14 minutes ago, (PS4)horridhal said:

Sure it does.  Why would anyone go to a gimped node when other nodes are more lucrative in accomplishing what they need?

Explain to me why you deserve to be rewarded more than another player simply because you play a different node?  As it stands now, you aren't at a disadvantage and neither am I.  In your proposed system, one of us always would be.  That serves no purpose other than you hoping it would incentivize players to not play missions they are enjoying.  But, then, if they are enjoying them and it doesn't affect you, why do you seem so adamant about removing that enjoyment?

Your argumentation makes no sense. Currently, I am at a disadvantage if I play anything but Draco, since Draco is the most rewarding place.

My suggestion would simply move Draco to a different node, it would not change the fact that there will be always one best way to farm.

Quote

And, again, why should you be given a benefit or detriment simply because you choose to run a specific node?  You have yet to provide a valid answer to this question and it is a huge part of your entire point.  If you can't provide a valid reason that players should be given detrimental effects, or beneficial ones, over other players other than, "They are running a node I dislike," then you haven't provided a reason to support your suggestion.  Also, again, such compensation requires me to run said node with the beneficial %.  If I don't want to run that node, I don't benefit from it.

It is already the case that you are being given a benefit or detriment based on which node you play. Right now the benefit or detriment is based on which name the mission has. Draco? Good. Everything else? Bad. My suggestion would replace that with multipliers. High multiplier? Good. Low multiplier? Bad. The advantage of my suggestion is that the multiplier is not tied to one specific mission.

Also, what would you do if DE nerfs Draco and the next most popular mission is the one you hate the most. Do you bite the bullet and play it anyways? Or would you come to the forums and complain about how much you hate the balance? My suggestion would make sure that there not one best mission for now and ever, but many missions that are succeeding each other.

So by your own argument my suggestion would be better than what we have now.

Quote

In your opinion.  That's the key here.  There is no evidence that your suggestion would balance the game when, in fact, the game is already balanced in terms of providing the same rates of experience and drops regardless of the missions you run barring outliers like Draco.  If those outliers are gone, your entire system then becomes pointlessly detrimental and if, as you say, DE has proclaimed it plans to do away with all the outliers, your system is unnecessary.  Also, I'm not suggesting balance be dictated by the players.  I'm saying that a perfectly fair system regardless of which node you run is a better system than what you've suggested here.  Nothing more and it is also the system we currently have.

So you want to tell me that the game is perfectly balanced with the exception of Draco? What about Kiste and the other nodes that have been popular before, before thy were nerfed? Your argumentation makes no sense at all. There will always be one best way to farm. If it's not Draco, it would be another node, until DE decides to nerf that one aswell.

My suggestion would make sure that there is not one node that is the best for all time. My suggestion would incentivize players to seek out the highest multiplier. By design, the highest multiplier wont be on the same mission for long. And that's not my opinion, that's a simple fact.

Quote

Warframe is a game about choice.  Draco is not the only node with active squads on it (though it does have the most) even now.  Again, no one forces you to run that mission and this entire game can be soloed (aside from Raids obviously) successfully.  In such a case there is no reason to attempt to police another players game solely because they are running a mission you dislike for any reason.  As it is now, the choice to run Draco or not (and not be penalized for either choice) exists naturally within the game.  Your suggestion would remove such natural choice and force players to focus on a % bonus rather than garnering maximum fun out of their game.  I dislike such suggestion as they remove one of the key things I enjoy about the game, freedom of choice.

Your argumentation makes no sense again. My suggestion doesn't "force" players to only play the nodes with the highest multiplier, just as the game currently doesn't "force" you to play Draco. But most of the players will play the mission with the highest multiplier, just as most players now are playing Draco. That doesn't stop you from playing any other node you like though. Again, Warframe is a multiplayer game and the devs have said that they don't want the majority of the playerbase to camp one mission.

Quote

Nothing about me running, or not running, an invasion affects your game other than it affecting the overall amount of time left on the invasion.  You can still run that mission and get the exact same benefits I did from my runs regardless of if I ran it or not.  As for your disbelief, it isn't just one node.  Endless missions are some of the most popular on the star chart and would be among the first sets on each planet to lose their % bonus.  In such a case you've ruined my gameplay, and many others who don't like the non-endless missions.

As I said, you still have yet to prove to me that any player should be gimped solely because the only basis you've given for such a suggestion is "I dislike Draco and feel it shouldn't be run as often," which isn't a valid reason to negatively impact another players game by any stretch of the imagination.  Don't run the node if you don't like it, but stop trying to take it from others.

I have said over and over again that it's not my intention of redering certain missiontypes "useless". I have made multiple suggestions of fixing this issue, but it is no secret that endless missions reward by far more than finite ones. My suggestion would certainly have an effect on that, making endless missions less rewarding, while making finite ones more rewarding. But it wouldn't be such extreme that a whole missiontype would be useless. In fact, no missiontype would be, since after a while all mission types would yield the same amount of rewards. And after all, De could simply adjust the multipliers to help out a missiontype that is struggling.

 

The only real negative effect I can foresee that my suggestion would have is that it would incetivize selfish play. If you find a node that is rewarding and noone else knows about it, you'd be tempted to keep it to yourself to have this advantage as long as possible, rather than sharing it.

All your other complains are either "I don't want to be pushed out of my comfort zone and the missions I like", which is a personal opinion you are allowed to have, but ultimately doesn't matter if you are representing a minority or DE decides that your way of playing the game is not the way of playing the game they have envisioned, or your complains make no sense, since you keep saying that the current system has no drawbacks, which is not true.

[KaeseSchnitte]

To be precise: If you don't like my suggestion because you don't want to be gimped if you refuse to move to any other node than the one you like, then I can't help you since my whole suggestion is about making you move and giving you an incentive to move, to play different missions and different mission types.

I can't help you liking other missions more, but I can help the devs to keep the balance flexible and to ensure that all players are not just camping one mission.

You may not like my suggestion, but you can't deny that it would shake up "the meta" and that it would help catching balance outliers like Draco.

Edited April 13, 2016 by KaeseSchnitte

[TalonBlue]

1 hour ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

The issue that most players are playing void missions for the rewards is not part of my suggestion in any way. But if you have an idea how to integrate a solution to this problem into my suggestion, I'd be happy to hear it.

I see missions like Draco as a symptom of what is wrong with Warframe. There has always been the best location for XP gain. This happens in games like this all the time. Where the sole objective of a player is just to level up, without varying ways to do so within the game. Diablo 2, Dungeon Fighter Online, Destiny, Warcraft. There are always the "best place" to level up. Where players herd in those specific areas, when the game devolves into "runs" of the same mission, or area, or quest, or however you define that "run", it's symptom of poor game design. It's a symptom of players who do not want to farm, and I don't blame them. Leveling up isn't fun in this game. It's a chore. It's a tax...of time.

Even if you nerf Draco, somebody eventually will find the next best place. And on, and on it will go. Temporary bandages to cover up poor game design. I get bored so easily in this game. Because I just don't have enough things...I WANT to do. I have no interest unlocking another weapon or warframe again for...whatever-th time it would be. And this why grind will inevitably kill the game. I would to get off the hamster wheel, play this game in actual fun way.

My suggestion, make XP less important in the game. Make it less of the focus of this game. Once you hit 30 on weapon or warframe that should really be it. Period.

[(PSN)horridhal]

52 minutes ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

Currently, I am at a disadvantage if I play anything but Draco, since Draco is the most rewarding place.

It isn't "the most rewarding place," though.  If you go in with a full squad, sure, Draco is good for Affinity.  So are many, many other places.  The only reason Draco is any better than any other node is the map precludes anyone being a hallway hero and provides a full affinity split.  You'd see the same effects on every endless node if Affinity was simply changed from a ranged share to a mapwide share.

52 minutes ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

It is already the case that you are being given a benefit or detriment based on which node you play.

No, it isn't.  You want specific detriments hard coded into the game to further your idea of what you think people should be playing in said game.  I disagree with that stance.  As it stands now, you can run any node you like and have no detrimental effects imposed on your game.  Your suggestion would change that entirely.

32 minutes ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

I can't help you since my whole suggestion is about making you move and giving you an incentive to move,

This is the crux of the argument, why should you be dictating how other players play their game?  Tehir choices within have NO BEARING on your own.  In such a case it isn't really up to you to decide people should be moved.

32 minutes ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

but I can help the devs to keep the balance flexible and to ensure that all players are not just camping one mission.

Nothing you provided in this suggestion balances anything.  It negatively impacts every node in the game to some extent solely on the basis of you trying to fix a singular node.  You want to burn the forest to get rid of one tree and it is a bad way to go about it.

Edited April 13, 2016 by (PS4)horridhal

[(PSN)horridhal]

53 minutes ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

All your other complains are either "I don't want to be pushed out of my comfort zone and the missions I like",

This is a misrepresentation, or misunderstanding, of what I've said.  My entire contention has been that this suggestion negatively impacts the game as a whole because it forces players to play missions based on a % bonus as opposed to playing the missions they want for fun and, should they choose to continue running solely the missions they enjoy, they would be negatively impacted for doing so.

Again, I take issue with such stances because this game is enjoyable for one main reason, choice.  I can choose to do whatever I want without it affecting your game in the slightest.  If I run Draco and mass level my weapons, you've lost absolutely nothing.  You have yet to disprove that statement.

Edit : Also, you don't balance a game based on outliers.  You balance based on the majority of the game and you remove, or tone down, outliers specifically.  The way they always have before.

Edited April 13, 2016 by (PS4)horridhal