A not-so-simple change to disincentivize Draco

[Fifield]

On 07/04/2016 at 1:42 AM, KaeseSchnitte said:

My personal favorite idea would be to have the factions apply different strategies. If the Grineer get pushed back on all fronts, they could focus their efforts on very few missions, lowering the multipliers on all other missions but letting the multiplier of those few missions go through the roof.

The Corpus could "pay they troops more", leading to stronger enemies and doubled drop chances of rare items.

Thinking more about this.

I think it's better for Tenno to balance out the XP ie through your original suggestion, with a large XP buff to keep average affinity high.
Corpus and Infested would get larger XP buffs to make sure they're competitive before the rebalancing starts.
Rebalancing would be done per planet.

PS. What is Infested's motivation?

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Fifield

[alergiclaprosti]

13 hours ago, Fifield said:

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.

The second part of my post was about how Draco has something else, being the best place, and an additional place would make both (Draco and the new one) less effective than Draco alone.

You need people to play with , and Draco being "the" farm cave you will always find them.

Of course you might find those who enter to soak XP with all the equipment, meaning that they deal no damage so they don't give XP to your leveling equipment.

Edited April 13, 2016 by alergiclaprosti

[KaeseSchnitte]

16 hours ago, Fifield said:

Thinking more about this.

I think it's better for Tenno to balance out the XP ie through your original suggestion, with a large XP buff to keep average affinity high.
Corpus and Infested would get larger XP buffs to make sure they're competitive before the rebalancing starts.
Rebalancing would be done per planet.

PS. What is Infested's motivation?

 

But if you'd just take my suggestion without any changes, it would lead to all missions rewarding roughly the same after a while, which would be contradictory to the progression that is needed to keep the players playing.

[Fifield]

Only on the same planet.  I don't see that as a problem but you could make it per 'ring', if Star Map 3.0 is keeping those.

[viamont]

On 12/4/2016 at 3:22 AM, KaeseSchnitte said:

snip

for starters i have seen you have a horrible case of "my argument its flawless" i been reading for a bit now and you simply cant accept your idea has a lot of problems, its FAR from perfect as you claim it to be...now i just want you to answer a simple question wich will make your system an absolute nightmare specially in this game.

Lets pretend for a moment whe are back when the mios was introduced and defiled snapdragon drops only from the Scorpions...do tell me how will your idea improve my chances of geting said stance when EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the game wil lbe farming like a maniac on each available nod wich spawns said enemy? will your system fairly allow me to get it? far from it, the % drop will go as deep as the bottom of the barrel, most grineer missions wil lbe saturated meaning the drop chances and mutipliers will go to hell...how will this be better for me in any way? and this is just talking about a stance...furthermore a rare(gold one), your system its going to create a disguisting inflation on prices as geting said stance will become harder.

Now lets take for example the new mace who just got introduced a bit ago...20K cryotic...do tell me...what do you tink that will happen to all nods who give cryotic on the star chart?...yes i tought so.

Sorry but your idea its plain and simple terrible in to many aspects...forcing people to play other nods "by force" not choice its terrible, takes away the choice of players, it basically its a "whe want you to play this missions now, and now this other ones and if you like it suck it".

You really need to give it a way more serious tought...nerfing its not the answer, instead buffing ALL the other type of missions its the way to go.

Give finitie missions extra loot/affinity bonuses based on challenges, kill X amount of enemys doing this, go trought the missions avoiding detecting "LIFE A FREAKING NINJA", obtain X item to unlock X submission wich will give you X reward.

Also...do you seriously tink that the biggest clans wont abuse your system as much as posible for the higest profit? dark sectors are a big example of what happens when you let players take control of certain things on the game, plenty would just put idiotic taxes to maximise their own gain, what makes you tink many wont just go out of their way to do the same thing wich a system wich will literally drop the X chances to get certain things, its quite ovious greedy people will try to do this to increase their gain specially when it comes to MODS they can activibily abuse to reduce the drop chances by oversaturating sertain nods and make said mods to be harder to get

[Chipputer]

I don't know how, "there will always be a loot cave," is translated to, "the devs have even said that Draco's fate is sealed."

OP, your argument is using a perceived developer opinion to try and bolster it when that opinion isn't what you think it is.

[KaeseSchnitte]

On 13.4.2016 at 4:34 AM, (PS4)horridhal said:

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.

Despite the fact that DE could have done so but they have not, probably for a reason, it would just end up favoring one mission in the end if it's not Draco, it will be another mission until DE decides to nerf that mission.

Quote

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.

I find it funny that you say that my suggestion would be hard-coding something when it's all about variable multipliers.

And yes, I have an idea how people should be playing this game, I think that my idea is better than the current idea. No matter which system, it is always based on an idea and any suggestion ever made is based on an idea that differs from the idea the current system is built on. So alleging me that I have an idea of how this game should be played is stupid, since every suggestion ever made is based on an idea.

And you don't seem to get that my suggestion wouldn't punish you more than the current system for playing how you want. Currently, you either play Draco or you lose out on XP. In my suggestion, you either play the mission with the highest multiplier or you lose out on XP. There is no difference. There is just the one advantage that the most rewarding mission isn't the same all the time.

Quote

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.

My suggestion wouldn't dictate you how to play anymore than the current system does. Your playstyle is already dictated by DE and if they change the game, you will have to adapt. You can't prove my argument wrong by saying that it would dictate people how to play, since every game ever invented dictates players how to play.

Quote

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.

I fail to see how my suggestion would negatively impact all other nodes. You are resorting to absolutes, which have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Either you come up with proper arguments or you just leave it at "I don't like your suggestion and I'm against it to be implemented".

 

[KaeseSchnitte]

On 13.4.2016 at 4:38 AM, (PS4)horridhal said:

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.

This is exactly what my suggestion tries to achieve...

[KaeseSchnitte]

10 hours ago, Chipputer said:

I don't know how, "there will always be a loot cave," is translated to, "the devs have even said that Draco's fate is sealed."

OP, your argument is using a perceived developer opinion to try and bolster it when that opinion isn't what you think it is.

"There will always be lootcaves" means that there will always be one best way to farm one specific item. For XP it is Draco. If Draco is nerfed, the next best mission for XP will become the "lootcave". All players who were previously playing Draco will now play that mission. They wont spread out.

DE wants the players to spread out, they don't want the players to just camp one mission, they don't want the players to burn out on that mission. That is why they are looking to adjust Draco.

The thing is that, as previously mentioned, all players will just migrate to the next best mission and camp that one until DE nerfs that aswell.

So to break this neverending cycle of players finding the best way to get what they want and the devs to nerf that way in order for the players to spread out, just for the players to find the next best way to get said item, you need a system that permanently adjusts the rewards, so there still will be one best way to farm, but it wont be the same mission all the time.

[KaeseSchnitte]

11 hours ago, viamont said:

for starters i have seen you have a horrible case of "my argument its flawless" i been reading for a bit now and you simply cant accept your idea has a lot of problems, its FAR from perfect as you claim it to be...now i just want you to answer a simple question wich will make your system an absolute nightmare specially in this game.

My suggestion isn't flawless, but it's adjustable. That is why I have not yet heared one argument against my suggestion that can't be circumvented or that makes sense.

Quote

Lets pretend for a moment whe are back when the mios was introduced and defiled snapdragon drops only from the Scorpions...do tell me how will your idea improve my chances of geting said stance when EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the game wil lbe farming like a maniac on each available nod wich spawns said enemy? will your system fairly allow me to get it? far from it, the % drop will go as deep as the bottom of the barrel, most grineer missions wil lbe saturated meaning the drop chances and mutipliers will go to hell...how will this be better for me in any way? and this is just talking about a stance...furthermore a rare(gold one), your system its going to create a disguisting inflation on prices as geting said stance will become harder.

Now lets take for example the new mace who just got introduced a bit ago...20K cryotic...do tell me...what do you tink that will happen to all nods who give cryotic on the star chart?...yes i tought so.

Well, you could exclude enemy types that drop specific loot, such as loot that is only aviable on that planet, from being affected by the multiplier. DE could also bolster the multipliers when they release new stuff. Or they could alter the algorithm that is controlling the multipliers in a way that will make sure that all multipliers combined of each faction and each mission that is dropping the same resource is not falling under a certain threshold.

Quote

Sorry but your idea its plain and simple terrible in to many aspects...forcing people to play other nods "by force" not choice its terrible, takes away the choice of players, it basically its a "whe want you to play this missions now, and now this other ones and if you like it suck it".

You really need to give it a way more serious tought...nerfing its not the answer, instead buffing ALL the other type of missions its the way to go.

My suggestion is not about nerfing everything. You really shouldn't listen to much to that one guy who's constantly using flawed arguments.

Again, my suggestion is adjustable. If DE thinks that my in my suggestion the multipliers would go down too fast, they could just change the algorithm to counteract that.

Quote

Give finitie missions extra loot/affinity bonuses based on challenges, kill X amount of enemys doing this, go trought the missions avoiding detecting "LIFE A FREAKING NINJA", obtain X item to unlock X submission wich will give you X reward.

Also...do you seriously tink that the biggest clans wont abuse your system as much as posible for the higest profit? dark sectors are a big example of what happens when you let players take control of certain things on the game, plenty would just put idiotic taxes to maximise their own gain, what makes you tink many wont just go out of their way to do the same thing wich a system wich will literally drop the X chances to get certain things, its quite ovious greedy people will try to do this to increase their gain specially when it comes to MODS they can activibily abuse to reduce the drop chances by oversaturating sertain nods and make said mods to be harder to get

Your suggestion how to balance finite missions could be incorporated into my suggestion, if finite missions still are lacking in terms of reward.

Also, how exactly would a clan abuse my system? They could just play the same mission over and over again, which would make the multiplier for that mission drop, but the multipliers of other missions would rise in the meantime. And the multipliers are not meant to be a secret, everyone can see them, so there is no "hiding information from one another".

[(PSN)horridhal]

1 hour ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

That is why I have not yet heared one argument against my suggestion that can't be circumvented or that makes sense.

There have been several valid ones in this thread.  As he said, you simply refuse to see the merits because they counter your idea.

2 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

This is exactly what my suggestion tries to achieve...

No, it doesn't.  Your suggestion changes the entirety of the star map simply because you dislike Draco.  That isn't a legitimate reason to make a massive change to the entirety of a system.  As I said, you don't balance your game around the fact that Draco exists, you balance it around normal nodes and specifically address the outliers.

2 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

Despite the fact that DE could have done so but they have not, probably for a reason, it would just end up favoring one mission in the end if it's not Draco, it will be another mission until DE decides to nerf that mission.

Nothing you said here negated my point.  The only reason Draco is any better than any other node is the preclusion of hallway heroes.  The suggestion of making affinity a mapwide shared thing would make all endless missions just as rewarding as Draco in terms of affinity (I didn't come up with the idea, btw).  Such a system would not favor any specific node, either, regardless of your belief.

2 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

I find it funny that you say that my suggestion would be hard-coding something when it's all about variable multipliers.

It would involve coding an entirely new system, included the detriments you've suggested that you don't want to admit are actually detrimental.  As I said, the choice exists naturally already, you want to remove it.

2 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

And yes, I have an idea how people should be playing this game, I think that my idea is better than the current idea. No matter which system, it is always based on an idea and any suggestion ever made is based on an idea that differs from the idea the current system is built on. So alleging me that I have an idea of how this game should be played is stupid, since every suggestion ever made is based on an idea.

Your idea isn't better than the current system because, again, your idea removes the choice that the current system provides.  Rather than allopwing players to pick a node based on their personal preference, you want a system that incentivizes picking a node based on a ridiculous multiplier that boosts a node while another multiplier negatively impacts one.  It is an objectively bad idea to try and balance the entire game this way solely to remove one specific outlier you, personally, dislike.

You suggested this idea and are now upset with the feedback you are receiving pointing out the massive errors and dissenting opinions of other players.  Alleging that every single argument saying your idea is bad is completely invalid simply because you can't fathom them being correct points is a ridiculous way to go about presenting feedback.

2 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

And you don't seem to get that my suggestion wouldn't punish you more than the current system for playing how you want. Currently, you either play Draco or you lose out on XP. In my suggestion, you either play the mission with the highest multiplier or you lose out on XP. There is no difference. There is just the one advantage that the most rewarding mission isn't the same all the time.

Again, no, it doesn't.  I am not negatively impacted in terms of specific disadvantages being hard coded into the game and Draco isn't the end-all be-all node you seem to think it is.  Not everyone goes to Draco to farm affinity and it damn sure isn't a prerequisite to being successful in this game.  Again, your idea isn't just going to affect Draco, it will affect every endless mission in the game since those are the most popular nodes.  Such a change would, quite honestly, incentivize me to stop playing this game entirely since my personal freedom of choice would be removed and replaced with a ridiculous system built to combat a single node that has infected every other node in the game.  I shouldn't have to run missions I don't enjoy solely to get the best rates on affinity/whatever and, currently, I don't have to.  You've repeated that one advantage over and over and completely ignored the massive disadvantage of your system.

2 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

My suggestion wouldn't dictate you how to play anymore than the current system does. Your playstyle is already dictated by DE and if they change the game, you will have to adapt. You can't prove my argument wrong by saying that it would dictate people how to play, since every game ever invented dictates players how to play.

Quote

Yes, it would.  I would be forced to run missions that other players aren't running (which are generally not being run for good reason) or be forced to see a reduced affinity and drop rate.  That's an objectively bad system compared to one in which all nodes are simply equal and you can choose any you enjoy without needing to worry about some ridiculous percentage bonus being offered on said node.  And, no, I wouldn't "adapt."  I would outright quit.  I don't play games that force me to do things I don't enjoy doing over and over and, in a game like Warframe where the Grind is real, that's exactly what would happen.

2 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

I fail to see how my suggestion would negatively impact all other nodes. You are resorting to absolutes, which have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Either you come up with proper arguments or you just leave it at "I don't like your suggestion and I'm against it to be implemented".

Your failure to understand how it would impact all the other nodes has no bearing on the actual fact that it would affect all the other nodes in the game.  I am not resorting to anything, I am making comments based on the idea you've presented which you are now trying to push out of your thread entirely because you have no legitimate response to said points, seemingly.  It isn't simply that I don't like your suggestion, it is that I find your suggestion to be a poor system that you want implemented on the basis of one node you, personally, dislike.  I have yet to see you actually provide links proving DE hates all farm nodes because, as I said, they weren't actually against Draco, they simply wanted other missions to be as rewarding.

[KaeseSchnitte]

8 minutes ago, (PS4)horridhal said:

There have been several valid ones in this thread.  As he said, you simply refuse to see the merits because they counter your idea.

Oh, I heard your "arguments" loud and clear. You say that players will be punished. I ask you how they would be punished any more than they are punished now.
You say that my suggestion would force people to play different missions. I ask you how it would force people any more than the current system does.

The simple truth is: It doesn't. You are just not capable of understanding that. It encourages people to not play the same missions over and over again and that is what it's supposed to do.

Quote

No, it doesn't.  Your suggestion changes the entirety of the star map simply because you dislike Draco.  That isn't a legitimate reason to make a massive change to the entirety of a system.  As I said, you don't balance your game around the fact that Draco exists, you balance it around normal nodes and specifically address the outliers.

You are the one saying that I don't like Draco. Not me. If you want me to take you seriously, you should stop making things up.

Quote

Nothing you said here negated my point.  The only reason Draco is any better than any other node is the preclusion of hallway heroes.  The suggestion of making affinity a mapwide shared thing would make all endless missions just as rewarding as Draco in terms of affinity (I didn't come up with the idea, btw).  Such a system would not favor any specific node, either, regardless of your belief.

There is nothing to negate. Your point is just null and void because every suggestion ever is as "guilty" of the accusations you make as my is.

Despite the fact that your suggestion wouldn't work, since it does only affect half of the issues, you don't seem to have much experience in online games, so I'll help you out: Players will always try to maximize their reward. In every online game there is, there will always be the best missions or dungeons, the best warframes or classes, the best skills or rotations. Every single time. So if you just nerf Draco, people will just migrate to the next best thing. My suggestion will make sure that those players, who are always seeking to be as efficient as possible wont just camp the same mission for as long as possible.

Quote

It would involve coding an entirely new system, included the detriments you've suggested that you don't want to admit are actually detrimental.  As I said, the choice exists naturally already, you want to remove it.

The title states "not-so-simple", but I guess you have forgotten that already, as the rest of my suggestion, otherwise you wouldn't spounting such nonsense.

What you are saying are detriments, I am saying are advatages. And if you don't like it, then say so once and move on.

Quote

Your idea isn't better than the current system because, again, your idea removes the choice that the current system provides.  Rather than allopwing players to pick a node based on their personal preference, you want a system that incentivizes picking a node based on a ridiculous multiplier that boosts a node while another multiplier negatively impacts one.  It is an objectively bad idea to try and balance the entire game this way solely to remove one specific outlier you, personally, dislike.

You suggested this idea and are now upset with the feedback you are receiving pointing out the massive errors and dissenting opinions of other players.  Alleging that every single argument saying your idea is bad is completely invalid simply because you can't fathom them being correct points is a ridiculous way to go about presenting feedback.

I have basically answered all you are saying here already, since you are repeating yourself. But again, my suggestion doesn't force anyone to play differently any more than the current system does.You can play on Mercury now and will get less loot than if you would play on higher-level missions. My suggestion works exactly the same, just that it doesn't depend on the mission how much loot you get but on the multiplier the mission has.

You are not pointing out errors, you are making things up. That's why I'm upset. Will my suggestion affect how the players play? Hell yes, that's why I suggested it. Will it affect you negatively? Most likely, since you are so hung up about it. Does this make this suggestion bad for everyone? No!

Whether this suggestion is worthwhile to be implemented or not is not up to you to decide, but up to the devs. You don't like my suggestion, you made that clear plenty of times. But that doesn't automatically make it a bad suggestion.

What you see as "detrimental change" could be a change that makes the gameplay more enjoyable for someone else. But you don't get that because you are not able to segregate between your personal opinion and objective criticism.

Quote

Again, no, it doesn't.  I am not negatively impacted in terms of specific disadvantages being hard coded into the game and Draco isn't the end-all be-all node you seem to think it is.  Not everyone goes to Draco to farm affinity and it damn sure isn't a prerequisite to being successful in this game.  Again, your idea isn't just going to affect Draco, it will affect every endless mission in the game since those are the most popular nodes.  Such a change would, quite honestly, incentivize me to stop playing this game entirely since my personal freedom of choice would be removed and replaced with a ridiculous system built to combat a single node that has infected every other node in the game.  I shouldn't have to run missions I don't enjoy solely to get the best rates on affinity/whatever and, currently, I don't have to.  You've repeated that one advantage over and over and completely ignored the massive disadvantage of your system.

It doesn't remove your free choice. If you honestly think that I wont answer you again. You are either thinking in absolutes or you are trying to make your opinion look like a fact.

But guess what. Life isn't fair and with every decision you make you upset some people. That's how it is. If you think that you can't play endless missions anymore just because the multiplier of that mission might be low, then that's your problem and not a problem of my suggestion.

But hey, I got an awesome idea. If you have the fear that endless missions might have a low multiplier, then make a suggestion to make sure that those missions wont get a low multiplier, that it is still worthwhile to run those missions.

Quote

Yes, it would.  I would be forced to run missions that other players aren't running (which are generally not being run for good reason) or be forced to see a reduced affinity and drop rate.  That's an objectively bad system compared to one in which all nodes are simply equal and you can choose any you enjoy without needing to worry about some ridiculous percentage bonus being offered on said node.  And, no, I wouldn't "adapt."  I would outright quit.  I don't play games that force me to do things I don't enjoy doing over and over and, in a game like Warframe where the Grind is real, that's exactly what would happen.

Your failure to understand how it would impact all the other nodes has no bearing on the actual fact that it would affect all the other nodes in the game.  I am not resorting to anything, I am making comments based on the idea you've presented which you are now trying to push out of your thread entirely because you have no legitimate response to said points, seemingly.  It isn't simply that I don't like your suggestion, it is that I find your suggestion to be a poor system that you want implemented on the basis of one node you, personally, dislike.  I have yet to see you actually provide links proving DE hates all farm nodes because, as I said, they weren't actually against Draco, they simply wanted other missions to be as rewarding.

And I think you have there are objectively good reasons why people are not running other missions? Other than that the reward is just not worth it?

I'd guess that currently 60-80% of all missions in warframe are not being played often, since there is no incentive to do so. My suggestion would give players a reason to play those missions, and if it's at the cost of you quitting, then so be it.

If DE implements this and finite missions are still not being played, then they can easily conclude that those missions are either not fun or not challenging enough. They could also just buff those mission without the fear of overshooting their goal, since the missions would balance out themselves.

If you want to make a suggestion how to alter my system to make sure you can still play the way you want, then go ahead and tell me. But if you keep throwing around your biased "facts", then I don't see a reason to respond to you anymore.

[KaeseSchnitte]

I can tell you exactly what your problem with my suggestion is: You fear that more popular mission-types would have, due to their polpularity, low multipliers across-the-board to balance them out with less popular mission-types. But the less popular mission-types are less fun to play and thus you see a problem that isn't covered by my initial suggestion.

 

There. You don't need any of your biased opinions to formulate a valid concern. Now lets find answers to that concern...

Edited April 14, 2016 by KaeseSchnitte

[(PSN)horridhal]

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

It encourages people to not play the same missions over and over again

Again, explain why this is a bad thing?  As I said, I only enjoy endless missions at this point in my game, I shouldn't be forced out of those missions I enjoy solely because you feel like people should play other mission types.  You have, again, ignored the actual complaint and instead deemed it appropriate to insult my intelligence rather than defending your stance.

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

You are the one saying that I don't like Draco. Not me. If you want me to take you seriously, you should stop making things up.

When taken in context with your thread title and your original post this comment is laughable.  You obviously have a problem with Draco.

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

Your point is just null and void because every suggestion ever is as "guilty" of the accusations you make as my is.

Despite the fact that your suggestion wouldn't work, since it does only affect half of the issues, you don't seem to have much experience in online games, so I'll help you out: Players will always try to maximize their reward. In every online game there is, there will always be the best missions or dungeons, the best warframes or classes, the best skills or rotations. Every single time. So if you just nerf Draco, people will just migrate to the next best thing. My suggestion will make sure that those players, who are always seeking to be as efficient as possible wont just camp the same mission for as long as possible.

No, not really.  You simply don't have a counterpoint to offer to it.

Such a change would drastically reduce the "need" you feel to run Draco since the same affinity gains could then be found on other nodes without the need to actively hamper players who are playing the game.  Nothing about Draco is rewarding aside from Affinity.  It isn't a particularly good node to farm anything but affinity and, I suppose, Orokin cells.  But, even in the case of O cells, better farming spots exist.  The rest of your complaint is solely you railing against meta in this game which I won't address since a meta is always going to exist, even with the system you've presented.

Also, once again, you choose to use an ad-hominem here in an attempt to bolster your argument.

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

The title states "not-so-simple", but I guess you have forgotten that already, as the rest of my suggestion, otherwise you wouldn't spounting such nonsense.

What you are saying are detriments, I am saying are advatages. And if you don't like it, then say so once and move on.

lol.  Your title is misleading for a simple system.  You want percentage based detriments and bonuses added to nodes based on the number of times the node gets run.  I just summed up your entire system in a single sentence.  It isn't as "difficult" to understand as you want to pretend it is.  A lowered percentage of anything on a node is a detriment.  Period.  Even if it is offset by a beneficial percentage boost on another node, it is still detrimentally affecting the first node.  Period.  There is no other way to view it.

As for you telling me to move on, again, you posted this to a public forum.  As long as you continuing trying to defend your stance, I will continue defending mine.  If you don't want to actually discuss the merits of your idea, then don't post it to a public forum.

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

You can play on Mercury now and will get less loot than if you would play on higher-level missions.

This is wholly untrue.  The amount of loot doesn't change, simply the enemy units available and the affinity based on their level.  Lower tier missions don't provide "less" loot.

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

I have basically answered all you are saying here already, since you are repeating yourself. But again, my suggestion doesn't force anyone to play differently any more than the current system does.

You are not pointing out errors, you are making things up. That's why I'm upset. Will my suggestion affect how the players play? Hell yes, that's why I suggested it. Will it affect you negatively? Most likely, since you are so hung up about it. Does this make this suggestion bad for everyone? No!

Whether this suggestion is worthwhile to be implemented or not is not up to you to decide, but up to the devs. You don't like my suggestion, you made that clear plenty of times. But that doesn't automatically make it a bad suggestion.

What you see as "detrimental change" could be a change that makes the gameplay more enjoyable for someone else. But you don't get that because you are not able to segregate between your personal opinion and objective criticism.

The current system doesn't force anything.  The %'s remain constant for every mission and the only thing that changes from node to node is enemy composition and drop tables.  Nothing more, nothing less.  In your suggestion, rather than a completely neutral and impartial system, you'd prefer to hard code %'s in order to incentivize other nodes being run.  In such a case I would be forced to either farm the most efficient node possible or to take a disadvantage on my affinity and drop rate.  That's a bad thing to do in a game like Warframe.  As it stands now, the choice is natural and only influenced by what the person playing wants to do.  In your system the %'s would become the driving force behind the game.

No, I'm not making things up.  Nothing I've said has been different from what you've presented and you are welcome to try and disprove that statement.  I have taken exact quotes from you and replied to them as they were.  You are the one actively fabricating and downplaying things to bolster your failing argument.  Your suggestion would negatively impact my game play within Warframe and, as such, I plan to continue pointing out how and why it would do so.  If you are so hung up on people agreeing with you, don't post your opinions to a public forum.  Good for you doesn't equate to good for a majority.

As you say, it is up to the devs and, should they read this thread, there should be a proper counter argument from people who dislike this idea represented within.  That's what I am providing, a counterargument.  Oh, and the comment about me being unable to separate is, again, laughable when taken in context with your "My idea is perfect and no one should disagree with it," stance.  I'm providing criticism to your idea while you are providing ad-hominem attacks directed at me. 

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

t doesn't remove your free choice. If you honestly think that I wont answer you again. You are either thinking in absolutes or you are trying to make your opinion look like a fact.

Feel free not to respond to me again because that is the entire point.  You ignoring it does your argument no service and shows the obvious inability you have to actually defend your stance.  I don't need to make my opinion look like fact because, in this idea as it has been presented, what I'm saying are factual outcomes.  You want to negatively impact the entirety of the game in one way or another in order to get rid of a single mission outlier and incentivize players to playing missions they don't want to play.  The best way to actually accomplish this is to make those other missions as rewarding, or to change the outlier specifically as opposed to impacting EVERY OTHER NODE.

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

But guess what. Life isn't fair and with every decision you make you upset some people. That's how it is. If you think that you can't play endless missions anymore just because the multiplier of that mission might be low, then that's your problem and not a problem of my suggestion.

But hey, I got an awesome idea. If you have the fear that endless missions might have a low multiplier, then make a suggestion to make sure that those missions wont get a low multiplier, that it is still worthwhile to run those missions.

lol.  So, in your mind, if you have a home that has a single bad plank of wood, you'd rather tear down the entire house as opposed to just taking up the singular plank.  That's an objectively bad way to approach such situations.  And, again, it isn't just my problem with your suggestion as evidenced by other posters in this thread mirroring my comments.

Doing so would negate your change.  Draco is an endless mission, such a change to your system would remove the entire purpose of the idea as you presented it.

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

And I think you have there are objectively good reasons why people are not running other missions? Other than that the reward is just not worth it?

I'd guess that currently 60-80% of all missions in warframe are not being played often, since there is no incentive to do so. My suggestion would give players a reason to play those missions, and if it's at the cost of you quitting, then so be it.

Yes, there are.  They aren't rewarding enough.  Your suggestion doesn't serve to actually change that, it simply ensures that all other missions will be brought down to poor reward levels eventually.  Which would then lead people to be forced into specific missions they don't want to run in order to effectively play the game.  That's a bad change.  There are many, many other suggestions that fix the Draco problem without negatively impacting the rest of the game.  Yours doesn't.

As for your childish response of "So be it," that isn't the way to approach a business, bud.  There are other solutions to the problem that are FAR better and more thought out than this one.

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

If DE implements this and finite missions are still not being played, then they can easily conclude that those missions are either not fun or not challenging enough. They could also just buff those mission without the fear of overshooting their goal, since the missions would balance out themselves.

One doesn't prove the other and, in the process of trying to prove it, they will annihilate the endless missions.  It seems you expect this to be some kind of grand experiment and nobody is going to go for that sort of system.

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

If you want to make a suggestion how to alter my system to make sure you can still play the way you want, then go ahead and tell me. But if you keep throwing around your biased "facts", then I don't see a reason to respond to you anymore.

Simply drop the suggestion and start from scratch.  This system, as you've presented it, isn't good for the game.  It puts players who prefer the more popular nodes at a disadvantage solely because you feel Draco is a problem.  I still haven't seen that link proving your comment that DE has specifically stated they dislike Draco and, seemingly, I'll never get the link or an admission you made it up.  

4 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

There. You don't need any of your biased opinions to formulate a valid concern. Now lets find answeres to that question...

lol.  You call me biased while being unable to admit the merits of the alternate argument.  Simply incredible.

Edited April 14, 2016 by (PS4)horridhal

[KaeseSchnitte]

No. Just because you think it's bad doesn't make it bad. I don't have to reply to your wall of text to tell you that. I wont drop my suggestion and I wont reply to you if you are dead set on using your own opinion as merrit of what should be allowed and what not.

Good day sir.

[viamont]

3 hours ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

My suggestion isn't flawless, but it's adjustable. That is why I have not yet heared one argument against my suggestion that can't be circumvented or that makes sense.

Well, you could exclude enemy types that drop specific loot, such as loot that is only aviable on that planet, from being affected by the multiplier. DE could also bolster the multipliers when they release new stuff. Or they could alter the algorithm that is controlling the multipliers in a way that will make sure that all multipliers combined of each faction and each mission that is dropping the same resource is not falling under a certain threshold.

My suggestion is not about nerfing everything. You really shouldn't listen to much to that one guy who's constantly using flawed arguments.

Again, my suggestion is adjustable. If DE thinks that my in my suggestion the multipliers would go down too fast, they could just change the algorithm to counteract that.

Your suggestion how to balance finite missions could be incorporated into my suggestion, if finite missions still are lacking in terms of reward.

Also, how exactly would a clan abuse my system? They could just play the same mission over and over again, which would make the multiplier for that mission drop, but the multipliers of other missions would rise in the meantime. And the multipliers are not meant to be a secret, everyone can see them, so there is no "hiding information from one another".

I have read plenty of god arguments againts your idea wich you are adamant not to change, they actually make way more sense than yours, but you seem unable or not want to hear them.

Then pretty much you will have to excluse easily half the rooster of enemys on the game wich in turn makes your system pointless...your point its to reduce drop rate chances, resources, affinity etc to prevent people from camping, but by rissing the drop chances you are basically going againts the core of your idea, furthermore your system also reduces the spawn rate of enemys in general so again whats the point?....you do know that certain enemys have higher/lower spawn rate depending on the lvl of the mission and even planets right?, your idea will just overcumber the system by having to compensate the lowered spawn rate while increasing the drop rate while calculating the lowered drop/spawn because of oversaturation of the node...you dont make sense here in any way.

Actually it is....by making so a X node gets nerfed by popular use you "force" people to go to others, not by choice but by "force", simply because said node its already with an X lowered drop/spawn rate, have you ever considered things like neural sensors just to put one example? those things have an abismal drop rate, salad V its somewhat the most eficient way to get them...but wait...your system penalizes continious runs of the same mission...and neural sensors arent succesfull mission rewards...they are enemy rewards...so basically you are lowering the drop rate and punishing people who need the resources just because the are playing the game...ever tought about argon crystals and the void? its exactly the same problem but this one its even worse...lowered drop rates meens harder to get, harder to get means runing more missions...but runing more missions meens less drop chances by your system...and worse those things have a life span...se now the problem?.

The big diference is that my sugestions works with the courent system and improves the missions that need it the most without taking away form the others, i hardly se my idea working with your system as it would be again counter productive, your system takes away, mine gives, but if a finite mission nod its overused my system at best just covers the "nerfs" you have given and just leaves you with a mission it might give you slighly less than it would regularly give or slightly better wich in the end its a lose of time and effort.

I already said it...people can simply spam the hell out of certain nods wich have the best drop rate  thus making X "thing" harder to get, specially if they come from infinite nodes wich generally are the best way to get a specific mode (as it basically gives you inifinite chances to get what you want) yet on finite nods you have a limited amount of chances to get the spawn you need and even in your system you might end having to run mulpiple times the same mission wich in turn nerfs the node...se again? your system just creates a vicious cicle of unedded nerfings...its not a "positive" "flawless" "best" idea there could be...you might belive so but its not.

And im just going to compare your idea with the valkyer nerfers...they demand valkyrs invensibility to go...they clamor how broken and terrible its to the game, yet they fail to se the core of her problem, just like you fail to se the core of the problem with drako and in turn you are unable to se your idea its flawed and will just create more problems than solutions

[KaeseSchnitte]

12 minutes ago, viamont said:

I have read plenty of god arguments againts your idea wich you are adamant not to change, they actually make way more sense than yours, but you seem unable or not want to hear them.

Then pretty much you will have to excluse easily half the rooster of enemys on the game wich in turn makes your system pointless...your point its to reduce drop rate chances, resources, affinity etc to prevent people from camping, but by rissing the drop chances you are basically going againts the core of your idea, furthermore your system also reduces the spawn rate of enemys in general so again whats the point?....you do know that certain enemys have higher/lower spawn rate depending on the lvl of the mission and even planets right?, your idea will just overcumber the system by having to compensate the lowered spawn rate while increasing the drop rate while calculating the lowered drop/spawn because of oversaturation of the node...you dont make sense here in any way.

Actually it is....by making so a X node gets nerfed by popular use you "force" people to go to others, not by choice but by "force", simply because said node its already with an X lowered drop/spawn rate, have you ever considered things like neural sensors just to put one example? those things have an abismal drop rate, salad V its somewhat the most eficient way to get them...but wait...your system penalizes continious runs of the same mission...and neural sensors arent succesfull mission rewards...they are enemy rewards...so basically you are lowering the drop rate and punishing people who need the resources just because the are playing the game...ever tought about argon crystals and the void? its exactly the same problem but this one its even worse...lowered drop rates meens harder to get, harder to get means runing more missions...but runing more missions meens less drop chances by your system...and worse those things have a life span...se now the problem?.

The big diference is that my sugestions works with the courent system and improves the missions that need it the most without taking away form the others, i hardly se my idea working with your system as it would be again counter productive, your system takes away, mine gives, but if a finite mission nod its overused my system at best just covers the "nerfs" you have given and just leaves you with a mission it might give you slighly less than it would regularly give or slightly better wich in the end its a lose of time and effort.

I already said it...people can simply spam the hell out of certain nods wich have the best drop rate  thus making X "thing" harder to get, specially if they come from infinite nodes wich generally are the best way to get a specific mode (as it basically gives you inifinite chances to get what you want) yet on finite nods you have a limited amount of chances to get the spawn you need and even in your system you might end having to run mulpiple times the same mission wich in turn nerfs the node...se again? your system just creates a vicious cicle of unedded nerfings...its not a "positive" "flawless" "best" idea there could be...you might belive so but its not.

And im just going to compare your idea with the valkyer nerfers...they demand valkyrs invensibility to go...they clamor how broken and terrible its to the game, yet they fail to se the core of her problem, just like you fail to se the core of the problem with drako and in turn you are unable to se your idea its flawed and will just create more problems than solutions

All your assumptions are neat. The multiplier in my suggestion does only affect the spawn rates of enemies, not the drop chance. Excluding some enemies from the multiplier means having other enemy units being affected more by the multiplier. But that was a suggestion anyways, so if you don't like, don't take it.

And I haven't heard one good argument. It is a fact that there is a meta, that people are lumping up on certain missions. I have made a suggestion to leviate that meta, if it is deemed harmful. You are only providing subjective, egocentric arguments which hold no value to me or my suggestion.

[BlackCoMerc]

On 4/11/2016 at 10:13 AM, Fifield said:

a) Sharkwing is awesome.

b) You're not forced to do the moon at all.  Those rewards are obtainable elsewhere.  Most of them are powercreep stuff that you don't need period with current endgame.

c) Being compelled to level items on Draco IS a bad idea.  That's why DE and this suggestion seek to change it.

I have debunked these arguments more times than I needed to already. Won't bother doing so again.

[viamont]

3 minutes ago, KaeseSchnitte said:

All your assumptions are neat. The multiplier in my suggestion does only affect the spawn rates of enemies, not the drop chance. Excluding some enemies from the multiplier means having other enemy units being affected more by the multiplier. But that was a suggestion anyways, so if you don't like, don't take it.

And I haven't heard one good argument. It is a fact that there is a meta, that people are lumping up on certain missions. I have made a suggestion to leviate that meta, if it is deemed harmful. You are only providing subjective, egocentric arguments which hold no value to me or my suggestion.

You do understand that by afecting the spawn rate of enemys are   still undirectly reducing the drop rate of stuff right?, less enemys means less drop chances for X thing, you cant more simple than that, if you cant understand it theres little i can make you to do so.

I could say the same about your system, i still need you to prove how your system improves the overal experience of the game when it does the contrary, it takes away choice from players, it takes away from then and forces them to play the  way "YOU" want them to, not the way they want, you can bring all you want the "drako" meta, but until you understand drako its an eficient way to level up stuff and only that theres no point in discusing with you, drako doesnt make the start chart pointles, doesnt give every single drop you need on a single place...IF drako did that i would be all up againts it, yet the best thing you can get there its affinity and orokin cells at best, that aside the money or eben rewards are "meh" at best.

Suit yourself, the only egocentric display here its you, unable to accept people have proven you over and over the flaws of your sytem, how it just creates more harm than help, how it takes away form the players and forces them on things they dont like, keep your little dream as long as you want, i hardly se DE taking your ideas and implementing them as they are harmfull from the core....taking away from players its not the answer, but you seem unable to understand that wich its why i brought the example of valkyr, just like them you are unable to se the very core of your argument its already flawed and directed on the wrong way

[KaeseSchnitte]

So less enemies spawn. And? There are atleast two planets worth of missions that are giving the same resource, if special stuff is released DE can increase the multipliers.

Resources aren't hard to get anyways and even if there should be a shortage of rare resources, you could still use invasions or looting powers, such as Nekros' Desecrate.

You are making mountains out if molehills... again.

Edited April 14, 2016 by KaeseSchnitte

[KaeseSchnitte]

Here is my second take on my multiplier suggestion:

Each mission gets a multiplier that will be set to 1.0 initially.

When a specified percentage of all players or more, lets say atleast 20% for demonstration purposes, are playing the same mission, the multiplier decreases. If a specific percentage or less of all players currently playing are playing a mission, that mission's multiplier will increase.

Regardlessly the popularity, all multipliers should slowly increase over time to incentivize lesser played missions as well.

Multipliers can be affected furthermore by different algorithms.

One algorithm could make sure that there is at least one mission of each mission type that has a positive multiplier.

Another one could make sure that there is atleast a fixed percentage of mission on each planet that is positive.

A third algorithm could implement strategies for each faction to shake up the multipliers and to keep things interesting.

DE could furthermore artificially increase some multipliers to incentive certain missions.

The multiplier could affect enemy spawn rates or the enemy level or both.

Edited April 15, 2016 by KaeseSchnitte