Why is there no high level content in the star chart?

[kgptzac]

3 hours ago, ChuckMaverick said:

...and that's the problem.

Why should players have to wait 1 or 2 hours into a mission to get the challenging content they're after?

This is exactly my sentiment since I began playing this game, and still is now even after I stopped playing.  In short, only sorties and Kuva Flood provide out-of-gate high level enemies for many of us who don't like the idea of lingering for a long time in a mission just to access high level enemies.  Unfortunately, sorties' rewards are only worth doing once per day, and Kuva Flood has a cool down.

[Lost_Cartographer]

There isn't "endgame" content because what constitutes endgame varies from player to player.  I freaking refuse to haul around a tonkor and spam CC abilities, so sorties are a slog because things take entire magazines to drop and kill me with a few lucky shots from blind fire.  Others are more than happy to lock down an entire map abusing power mechanics and bombing things into oblivion with an obviously OP weapon and dare to call it "too easy."

DE isn't doing anyone any favors sticking to this star chart business.  Other horde games like Diablo seem to do just fine with simple difficulty settings like "easy, medium, hard, nightmare, nightmare 2, nightmare 3, etc."  But they're afraid such a function would divide the newbies from the long timers... like that isn't happening already.  If I want to run a hard-level (say, levels 25-35 and full compliment of units) Earth sabotage , why do I have to wait for some event with annoying caveats to pop up on that specific node?

Edited April 4, 2017 by Littleman88
Heh... referenced the wrong game.

[ChuckMaverick]

2 hours ago, (Xbox One)CannyJack said:

I think the question is, is it worth DE's time to do that? Who is the best group to focus their time on: starchart players, or "hard content starts at level 200" players?

I honestly don't know how it balances out, but I'd be surprised if the vast majority of players weren't casual starcharters. 

Adding a 'hardcore' mode to all nodes on the starchart wouldn't require much effort at all...

• Enemy scaling to level 200++ already exists, so starting enemies at those levels is no additional work
• Selecting between multiple missions on the same node via a pop-up menu already exists (nightmare, fissure, invasion, etc.)
• Unlocking new missions through clearing parts of the starchart already exists (nightmare missions)

Even if the population wanting these missions is small compared to the number of 'casual' players, given how trivial it appears it would be to implement, it's surely still worth the small amount of time it would take DE.

One of the questions I always look into for any new game I'm starting is "what's the endgame like?", so even for players who aren't there yet, seeing that the challenging content exists gives them confidence that the game will keep them occupied as they get more experienced.

[Silence00]

The problem is that DE's philosophy is to avoid mindlessly 'adding difficulty.' To date (with maybe the exception of maybe Sentients), they have not developed a means of making the game more challenging without just scaling up enemies. Steve has said on numerous occasions that they want more challenging content without bullet sponges. I understand from the devstreams that their goal is to bring interactive and dynamic enemies that make players step-up their game without solely relying on OP weapons. 

Just my interpretation based on what Steve has stated in devstreams. 

[OniDax]

To those who think "challenging" = Level 100+ enemies, well, I disagree. Level 100+ enemies just means high health + insane damage. That's not challenge; that's just being a bullet sponge. The problem with Warframe is that the entire way you approach the game is just "speed through the map, killing the bad guys in order to get loot". If Warframe is to have challenging gameplay, then that won't come through high level enemies. The gameplay itself has to change. And that doesn't mean grabbing an invisible Loki and running through a high-level Spy while cloaked the whole time.

If DE is serious about adding challenge to the game, which naturally requires players to take the time to plan their gameplay choices, then the gameplay itself has to be one that encourages that kind of thoughtful gameplay. That's never going to happen as long as Warframe is first and foremost a looter. In other words, I believe that DE needs to shift the focus of the game away from being a looter and towards being more of a tactical shooter. Why? Because I think that's the only way Warframe will ever be able to offer challenging gameplay that isn't just dealing with bullet sponge enemies.

Let me go into more detail. I think that the game has to shift in its focus because, while Warframe is a looter, the only point of the game is to acquire rewards. So all gameplay decisions will be made based around getting loot. That's a problem because the focus isn't on the gameplay, just on the reward you get from gameplay. Gameplay then suffers because the only thing that is important is the reward, and players then want to get through missions as quickly as possible to get to the reward. Anything that even looks like it'll slow down that process is blasted by the community. And, with a looter, primary player satisfaction comes from gaining rewards, not from the gameplay itself, because the focus of the game is primarily on the rewards, not on the gameplay.

With a tactical shooter, the focus of the game is on the gameplay and on how you approach your missions. You have to take the time to think about your gameplay choices. You have to plan out your actions. And you constantly have to reassess your plan to accomplish your mission. That's why it's a tactical shooter: you must develop a tactical strategy for playing a specific kind of mission. That's where the challenge comes in. The challenge doesn't come from insane high-health/high-damage enemies. The challenge comes from making a plan, a strategy, that will lead to success. The challenge comes from how you choose to complete your mission, and through dealing with the unintended consequences and side effects of your decisions. And the reward is first and foremost the successful completion of your mission. Additional rewards come from your success or from items that you collect while you play. That's also where the satisfaction comes from. First and foremost, the gameplay is satisfying; the rewards are the icing on the cake.

Warframe being more tactical doesn't involve a radical shift in the game's development. It doesn't require new systems and features. There are really three things it requires, In My Opinion:

1) I think it requires improving the AI and the way they spot players, as well as how they spawn in missions and how they move around the game environment; it also means improving the level design and mission design (particularly making missions more open with more avenues of approach to objectives and enemies). This means having a sort of set configuration in which groups of enemies spawn, and it means having more open spaces so that players can approach enemies while being undetected. It also means having certain conditions in place for when a player becomes detected, particularly one where enemies engage in an escalation of force. So, the longer the enemy is alerted and engaged, the more force the enemy sends in to deal with the player.

Consider an example: With Exterminate missions, the player eliminates a certain amount of enemies, and then there are a few more enemies that the player can take out. With a more tactical approach, you could have a much more dynamic gameplay experience: if you remain undetected, you can take out the enemies and extract. If you are detected, the enemy calls in reinforcements. The level and force of the enemies increase the longer you are detected (i.e. higher level enemies and enemies with more powerful weapons like rocket launchers, mobile mortar tubes, and gunships). While you are detected, the enemy continues sending in reinforcements to replenish their number. And the longer you're detected, the rarer/more specialized the reinforcements. For example, after a while of being detected on a Mercury Exterminate mission, you might be fighting off Nightwatch reinforcements. You can stop the reinforcements by temporarily turning off alarms or by disabling the enemy's communication/alarm system entirely. Or, you can let it continue, and the mission basically becomes an endless, pure survival mission. You are in full control of how challenging the mission is. And, perhaps there are certain rewards from fighting and killing these reinforcements. That might include the drops from those reinforcements as well as bonus rewards for how long you hold off the reinforcements.

Bottom-line: taking a tactical shooter approach to the enemy AI and mission design can result in much more dynamic, challenging, and satisfying gameplay.

2) I believe that making this shift to a more tactical approach also requires tweaking the combat system in the game to include some kind of a cover system; this is also important for improving stealth in the game. I'm not talking about forcing players to stick to walls, but a manual cover system where you have control over whether or not you enter cover. A cover system is useful for peeking around/over objects and quickly hiding from enemies. It's also useful for taking out enemies and then quickly concealing yourself in order to remain undetected. And if we could use our sentinels like unmanned drones, then we could use our sentinels or even kubrows/kavats to look around while we remain undetected (or, if you're a Loki, you could do it yourself, although Loki's invisibility should be more detectable up close to an enemy).

3) I also think this requires a change in the movement system. I'm not talking about a Parkour 3.0 or removing parkour, or anything like that. By movement system, I mean how the player runs, sprints, and walks. It's not a big change, but it'd improve the flow of the game if the movement animations were motion-captured and IK-based. It'd make the movement smoother and more natural, instead of clunky, beneficial for tactical gameplay.

TL;DR: I think high-level content in Warframe is only meaningful if it's challenging, and I think Warframe can only have true challenge if the gameplay becomes more tactical. Because tactics involve strategy and decision-making, and that is challenging. Otherwise, Warframe's "challenge" is just bullet-sponge enemies. I think Warframe can benefit from being more of a loot-based tactical shooter than just a pure looter (where the only goal of the game is to get loot). Yes, it'd slow down the game, but I think slowing down the game is the only way to have more challenging gameplay.

Edited April 3, 2017 by A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n

[Mak_Gohae]

11 hours ago, Ajreil said:

Not counting the Dojo, there are a total of 18 planets in the star chart. The highest level node caps out at level 45.

There isn't exactly a shortage of places for lower level players to enjoy. Why don't we have at least one planet with high level enemies? I'd like to see a planet or two with level 70 enemies.

do nightmare missions.

[ChuckMaverick]

37 minutes ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

Consider an example: With Exterminate missions, the player eliminates a certain amount of enemies, and then there are a few more enemies that the player can take out. With a more tactical approach, you could have a much more dynamic gameplay experience: if you remain undetected, you can take out the enemies and extract. If you are detected, the enemy calls in reinforcements. The level and force of the enemies increase the longer you are detected (i.e. higher level enemies and enemies with more powerful weapons like rocket launchers, mobile mortar tubes, and gunships). While you are detected, the enemy continues sending in reinforcements to replenish their number. And the longer you're detected, the rarer/more specialized the reinforcements. For example, after a while of being detected on a Mercury Exterminate mission, you might be fighting off Nightwatch reinforcements. You can stop the reinforcements by temporarily turning off alarms or by disabling the enemy's communication/alarm system entirely. Or, you can let it continue, and the mission basically becomes an endless, pure survival mission. You are in full control of how challenging the mission is. And, perhaps there are certain rewards from fighting and killing these reinforcements. That might include the drops from those reinforcements as well as bonus rewards for how long you hold off the reinforcements.

While I like the mission concept you're describing, it's no more challenging than the other suggestions in this thread.

You're basically giving the player a choice between stealthily completing the mission (which we can do now), or going loud and attracting higher level enemies (which is what people are calling for and what you specifically said isn't challenging content, i.e. simply higher level enemies).

The 'more powerful weapons' part could be interesting, but as enemies scale up any weapon they wield reaches the point of one-shotting you anyway.

[[DE]Momaw]

The first step isn't adding high level content.

The first step is getting a handle on power creep, nerfing the hell out of invulnerability, invisibility, stuns, sleeps, and script kills, so that the game we already have isn't being completely trivialized.

"Level 250 is the end game".... In what way? Do you define end game as the point where enemies kill you in one shot unless you switch them off? Once you reach the point where players cannot survive interactive combat, then everything is just rinse and repeat.  Covert Lethality doesn't care if the enemy is level 200 or 2000, because it does exactly the same thing in every instance, likewise with enemy actions: If everything the enemy can do kills you instantly then there is no actual difference in gameplay beyond that point.

I am getting sick and disgusted of people complaining about the game being too easy and "We need more end game!" when, in reality, they aren't even playing the game anyway. If the enemy can't move or hit you or even SEE you, how do you expect to be challenged???  The only way to actually force players to play in that instance is to take away powers and focus, and we already know how popular nullifiers are.

You don't need to spend 4 hours on Mot to be challenged.  Just stop using hard-CC, invisibility, invulnerability, and script kills, or whatever it is that's stopping you from getting killed in a fraction of a second in the content we already have.

[Volinus7]

Power[creep] and Enemy design are intertwined, they run like a double stranded DNA, they're band-aid of each other.

They must be fixed together otherwise it'll be endless futile attempts.

[OniDax]

49 minutes ago, ChuckMaverick said:

While I like the mission concept you're describing, it's no more challenging than the other suggestions in this thread.

You're basically giving the player a choice between stealthily completing the mission (which we can do now), or going loud and attracting higher level enemies (which is what people are calling for and what you specifically said isn't challenging content, i.e. simply higher level enemies).

The 'more powerful weapons' part could be interesting, but as enemies scale up any weapon they wield reaches the point of one-shotting you anyway.

It's easy to try to trivialize an argument by reducing it to one or two points based on an example of a larger concept. That Exterminate mission concept was just that: an example. It's more than just punishing the player for not going stealth. It's about how you approach gameplay. It's about how you design your enemies, about how you design the gameplay spaces to facilitate different player choices, and about how the gameplay experience changes based on your actions. You wouldn't understand if you haven't played tactical games. But tactical gameplay is less about the enemies you fight, and more about how you play (what tactics you employ to accomplish your task). The challenge comes not from fighting through a whole lot of strong enemies to complete your mission, but about avoiding a larger fight by making tactical decisions that make accomplishing your task smoother. Your concern isn't with how strong your weapons are to take out some bullet-sponge enemy, but with which enemies you are going to take out and where.

The example I gave was specifically for Exterminate missions. But something like, say, Capture, it'd be different. The current Capture mission has you moving up to a certain distance from the target, and then he's automatically spotted you and starts running away, forcing you into this ground chase where you're running after the target. If this were designed for tactical gameplay, you would remain undetected while you approach the target. This involves you moving around enemy patrol paths and lines-of-sight. And you take out enemies that may spot you, while making sure that their dead bodies won't be spotted by other enemies. If you're detected, your job of capturing the target gets harder; not only does the target start running away from you, but maybe the enemy calls in some reinforcements. So, now, you have to fight through more enemies and chase down the target. And, maybe, instead of dematerializing the target, you have to hold on to the target and physically take him to the extraction point. So, then, the tactics involved don't just include approaching the target while not triggering reinforcements, but also extracting with the target while not triggering reinforcements and not getting the target killed.

The focus isn't on the enemies and how much health they have and how much damage they can do. It's about your gameplay choices and how you complete your objective. And it's about more than just "don't get detected". It's about the actions you take to remain undetected, and that requires a change in how enemy AI is designed, and how tilesets are designed, and how missions are designed, and even how movement is designed. And you managed to miss all of that in my post, and came to the limited, short-sighted conclusion that it's nothing more than a binary choice between stealth and going loud. Again, you wouldn't understand that unless you have played a tactical shooter before (and I don't mean simulators like Arma).

Edited April 3, 2017 by A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n

[OniDax]

40 minutes ago, Momaw said:

The first step isn't adding high level content.

The first step is getting a handle on power creep, nerfing the hell out of invulnerability, invisibility, stuns, sleeps, and script kills, so that the game we already have isn't being completely trivialized.

"Level 250 is the end game".... In what way? Do you define end game as the point where enemies kill you in one shot unless you switch them off? Once you reach the point where players cannot survive interactive combat, then everything is just rinse and repeat.  Covert Lethality doesn't care if the enemy is level 200 or 2000, because it does exactly the same thing in every instance, likewise with enemy actions: If everything the enemy can do kills you instantly then there is no actual difference in gameplay beyond that point.

I am getting sick and disgusted of people complaining about the game being too easy and "We need more end game!" when, in reality, they aren't even playing the game anyway. If the enemy can't move or hit you or even SEE you, how do you expect to be challenged???  The only way to actually force players to play in that instance is to take away powers and focus, and we already know how popular nullifiers are.

You don't need to spend 4 hours on Mot to be challenged.  Just stop using hard-CC, invisibility, invulnerability, and script kills, or whatever it is that's stopping you from getting killed in a fraction of a second in the content we already have.

It also means getting rid of that in enemies as well.

[[DE]Momaw]

11 minutes ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

It also means getting rid of that in enemies as well.

Some enemy abilities are unfair and overpowered, I agree.

But it's difficult to identify which enemies are unfair unless players give up this absurd idea that having the entire map on lockdown is the way the game is supposed to be. The difference between an enemy that does 1 DPS and 1 million DPS is irrelevant if you never give them a chance to attack.

[ganjou234]

5 hours ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

To those who think "challenging" = Level 100+ enemies, well, I disagree. Level 100+ enemies just means high health + insane damage. That's not challenge; that's just being a bullet sponge. The problem with Warframe is that the entire way you approach the game is just "speed through the map, killing the bad guys in order to get loot". If Warframe is to have challenging gameplay, then that won't come through high level enemies. The gameplay itself has to change. And that doesn't mean grabbing an invisible Loki and running through a high-level Spy while cloaked the whole time.

If DE is serious about adding challenge to the game, which naturally requires players to take the time to plan their gameplay choices, then the gameplay itself has to be one that encourages that kind of thoughtful gameplay. That's never going to happen as long as Warframe is first and foremost a looter. In other words, I believe that DE needs to shift the focus of the game away from being a looter and towards being more of a tactical shooter. Why? Because I think that's the only way Warframe will ever be able to offer challenging gameplay that isn't just dealing with bullet sponge enemies.

Let me go into more detail. I think that the game has to shift in its focus because, while Warframe is a looter, the only point of the game is to acquire rewards. So all gameplay decisions will be made based around getting loot. That's a problem because the focus isn't on the gameplay, just on the reward you get from gameplay. Gameplay then suffers because the only thing that is important is the reward, and players then want to get through missions as quickly as possible to get to the reward. Anything that even looks like it'll slow down that process is blasted by the community. And, with a looter, primary player satisfaction comes from gaining rewards, not from the gameplay itself, because the focus of the game is primarily on the rewards, not on the gameplay.

With a tactical shooter, the focus of the game is on the gameplay and on how you approach your missions. You have to take the time to think about your gameplay choices. You have to plan out your actions. And you constantly have to reassess your plan to accomplish your mission. That's why it's a tactical shooter: you must develop a tactical strategy for playing a specific kind of mission. That's where the challenge comes in. The challenge doesn't come from insane high-health/high-damage enemies. The challenge comes from making a plan, a strategy, that will lead to success. The challenge comes from how you choose to complete your mission, and through dealing with the unintended consequences and side effects of your decisions. And the reward is first and foremost the successful completion of your mission. Additional rewards come from your success or from items that you collect while you play. That's also where the satisfaction comes from. First and foremost, the gameplay is satisfying; the rewards are the icing on the cake.

Warframe being more tactical doesn't involve a radical shift in the game's development. It doesn't require new systems and features. There are really three things it requires, In My Opinion:

1) I think it requires improving the AI and the way they spot players, as well as how they spawn in missions and how they move around the game environment; it also means improving the level design and mission design (particularly making missions more open with more avenues of approach to objectives and enemies). This means having a sort of set configuration in which groups of enemies spawn, and it means having more open spaces so that players can approach enemies while being undetected. It also means having certain conditions in place for when a player becomes detected, particularly one where enemies engage in an escalation of force. So, the longer the enemy is alerted and engaged, the more force the enemy sends in to deal with the player.

Consider an example: With Exterminate missions, the player eliminates a certain amount of enemies, and then there are a few more enemies that the player can take out. With a more tactical approach, you could have a much more dynamic gameplay experience: if you remain undetected, you can take out the enemies and extract. If you are detected, the enemy calls in reinforcements. The level and force of the enemies increase the longer you are detected (i.e. higher level enemies and enemies with more powerful weapons like rocket launchers, mobile mortar tubes, and gunships). While you are detected, the enemy continues sending in reinforcements to replenish their number. And the longer you're detected, the rarer/more specialized the reinforcements. For example, after a while of being detected on a Mercury Exterminate mission, you might be fighting off Nightwatch reinforcements. You can stop the reinforcements by temporarily turning off alarms or by disabling the enemy's communication/alarm system entirely. Or, you can let it continue, and the mission basically becomes an endless, pure survival mission. You are in full control of how challenging the mission is. And, perhaps there are certain rewards from fighting and killing these reinforcements. That might include the drops from those reinforcements as well as bonus rewards for how long you hold off the reinforcements.

Bottom-line: taking a tactical shooter approach to the enemy AI and mission design can result in much more dynamic, challenging, and satisfying gameplay.

2) I believe that making this shift to a more tactical approach also requires tweaking the combat system in the game to include some kind of a cover system; this is also important for improving stealth in the game. I'm not talking about forcing players to stick to walls, but a manual cover system where you have control over whether or not you enter cover. A cover system is useful for peeking around/over objects and quickly hiding from enemies. It's also useful for taking out enemies and then quickly concealing yourself in order to remain undetected. And if we could use our sentinels like unmanned drones, then we could use our sentinels or even kubrows/kavats to look around while we remain undetected (or, if you're a Loki, you could do it yourself, although Loki's invisibility should be more detectable up close to an enemy).

3) I also think this requires a change in the movement system. I'm not talking about a Parkour 3.0 or removing parkour, or anything like that. By movement system, I mean how the player runs, sprints, and walks. It's not a big change, but it'd improve the flow of the game if the movement animations were motion-captured and IK-based. It'd make the movement smoother and more natural, instead of clunky, beneficial for tactical gameplay.

TL;DR: I think high-level content in Warframe is only meaningful if it's challenging, and I think Warframe can only have true challenge if the gameplay becomes more tactical. Because tactics involve strategy and decision-making, and that is challenging. Otherwise, Warframe's "challenge" is just bullet-sponge enemies. I think Warframe can benefit from being more of a loot-based tactical shooter than just a pure looter (where the only goal of the game is to get loot). Yes, it'd slow down the game, but I think slowing down the game is the only way to have more challenging gameplay.

I agree with every point.

Here is what I would like to see:

• Better enemy AI. 
  • This can be done by looking at horde games that have incorporated loot in it (eg. Left 4 Dead)
  • DE can do this by creating a Director/RTS AI that controls the enemies on a macro scale and reacts to what the player does.
  • Each faction can have its own way(doctrine) of dealing with enemies (eg. Grineer/Corpus/Infested/Corrupted/Sentient Director)
  • Eventually enemies sent to players should have adapted to what the players have been doing for 'x' amount of time.
    • This is inherent to sentients since they already adapt.
    • (Director sees that heavy casualties are due to puncture -> Director sends puncture resistant troops and supporting auxiliaries, eg light troops are accompanied by shield bearing troops.)
    • (Director sees that heavy casualties are due to gas -> Director issues gasmasks troops and supporting auxiliaries.)
    • (Director sees huge casualties coming from stealth kills. -> Director deploys detectors and AOE units)
    • (Director sees that a healer has been keeping the squad alive. -> spawns dedicated assassins to take out the healer or separate the healer)
      • Left 4 Dead example would be the Smoker + Hunter combo that the director uses to isolate players.
• Improve Heavy/mini-boss mechanics.
  • Fodder should be fodder, but when we see 'X' mini-boss/heavy players should put their game face on.
  • Heavies/mini-bosses should have extremely powerful telegraphed attacks/combos. (see better pros and cons)
• Concealment, eg. w, x, y, z players are concealed -> w is revealed/spotted, x/y/z are still concealed. Certain mission types start out as concealed.
  • We already have this implemented partially through the stealth and LOS systems, so all DE needs to do is tweak current systems.
  • Concealment mechanics should allow players to divert aggro to different parts of the map, giving the rescue/spy/capture teams breathing space to execute their mission.
  • DE should check out XCOM2's (Long War) concealment system.
• Challenging terrain/environment. Right now, there is minimal parkour challenge in most maps, not all but most.
  • Also partially implemented. We have certain vents and hidden routes.
  • Other ways to take advantage of terrain other than using it for stealth.
  • Players need additional ways of approaching a challenge/obstacle. 
  • Make it necessary to take advantage of terrain.
  • I like the idea of some partially destructible terrain (I've seen this in some Corpus maps).
• Better pros and cons.
  • Add cons to stealthy approach, add pros to loud approach.
  • Pros in successfully blocking/channel-block a boss/mini-boss attack/combo.
  • Pros to melee weapon blocking & channeling
  • Pros in using weapon combos rather than blindly swinging (melee)
  • Pros to DPS and Burst. (We can see this in the sentient mechanics)
  • Emphasize weapon identities and roles. Why should I carry a smg/LMG/shotgun/sniper/bow/launcher, why should my team have at least one of the said weapon.

I believe that incorporating tactics back into the game should give players a higher sense of difficulty.

[Trissila]

The core problem is that Warframe, fundamentally, cannot be challenging. Every time DE tries to add enemies with challenging mechanics, people complain. And level scaling means nothing, whether the enemies start at level 20 or level 200, because people will just abuse frame power scaling and status procs to reduce enemies to trivial piles of nothing, no matter what the number underneath the healthbar is. A level 200 Heavy Gunner who's armor has been entirely stripped by two shots of a 100% status Tigris is the exact same as a level 20 Heavy Gunner, it just took half a second longer to get to that point. The only difference between an Earth starchart mission and a Sortie mission, for my Trinity, is that on Earth I go EV because I'm lazy, and on Sortie I go Bless because it makes my squad effectively invincible and I just have to shoot an enemy once to get the energy out of it.

[ganjou234]

31 minutes ago, Trissila said:

The core problem is that Warframe, fundamentally, cannot be challenging. Every time DE tries to add enemies with challenging mechanics, people complain. And level scaling means nothing, whether the enemies start at level 20 or level 200, because people will just abuse frame power scaling and status procs to reduce enemies to trivial piles of nothing, no matter what the number underneath the healthbar is. A level 200 Heavy Gunner who's armor has been entirely stripped by two shots of a 100% status Tigris is the exact same as a level 20 Heavy Gunner, it just took half a second longer to get to that point. The only difference between an Earth starchart mission and a Sortie mission, for my Trinity, is that on Earth I go EV because I'm lazy, and on Sortie I go Bless because it makes my squad effectively invincible and I just have to shoot an enemy once to get the energy out of it.

This is why I believe that there should be some sort of adaptation mechanic, just like the sentients.

[(PSN)Akuma_Asura_]

13 hours ago, Momaw said:

The first step isn't adding high level content.

The first step is getting a handle on power creep, nerfing the hell out of invulnerability, invisibility, stuns, sleeps, and script kills, so that the game we already have isn't being completely trivialized.

"Level 250 is the end game".... In what way? Do you define end game as the point where enemies kill you in one shot unless you switch them off? Once you reach the point where players cannot survive interactive combat, then everything is just rinse and repeat.  Covert Lethality doesn't care if the enemy is level 200 or 2000, because it does exactly the same thing in every instance, likewise with enemy actions: If everything the enemy can do kills you instantly then there is no actual difference in gameplay beyond that point.

I am getting sick and disgusted of people complaining about the game being too easy and "We need more end game!" when, in reality, they aren't even playing the game anyway. If the enemy can't move or hit you or even SEE you, how do you expect to be challenged???  The only way to actually force players to play in that instance is to take away powers and focus, and we already know how popular nullifiers are.

You don't need to spend 4 hours on Mot to be challenged.  Just stop using hard-CC, invisibility, invulnerability, and script kills, or whatever it is that's stopping you from getting killed in a fraction of a second in the content we already have.

Exactly why I think PVE is boring . Because even if the enemies are lvl 2000 they're still brain dead . & we're just forced to use the same cheese method 30+ times . I'd rather play conclave 

[ChuckMaverick]

16 minutes ago, (PS4)Akuma_Asura_ said:

Exactly why I think PVE is boring . Because even if the enemies are lvl 2000 they're still brain dead . & we're just forced to use the same cheese method 30+ times . I'd rather play conclave 

Balanced (or even imbalanced as long as it's not too bad) PvP will always be more challenging than PvE, as your opponents actually have brains.

[The_Mustachio]

On 4/3/2017 at 6:04 AM, polarity said:

Because you can be damn sure that within a week of there being a higher level planet on the star chart, there would be complaints about that high-level content being repetitive.

Remember when Bursas were stronger? They actually caused fear in sorties. The got beaten with the nerf hammer, and became less fun.

I would still like to see these types of troops in Grineer and Infested. In that, at the 5 wave/min mark, these strong unit can spawn in and wreak havoc. 

[AlphaTheFinalBalance]

Lol there isn't any need for higher levels when you can go into a nightmare mission that has eximuses for days.

[Sar.K.Asmus]

Because lvl 100+ enemies reduce the playstyle to just two tactics (without you can't survive one shots):

1. CC everything. I MEAN EVERYTHING. If you see a moving red dot on your minimap spam whatever cc ability you have until red dot stops moving or your finger breaks
2. Naramon + whatever crit + slash damage weapon you prefer and break whatever button you have to press for your melee attack (or Ivara + Covert Lethality)

Option 1 is boring.

Option 2 is boring.

And no it isn't hard it's just boring. So who ever tells you " I'm an endgame player in Warframe. I'm only fighting against lvl 300+ enemies." imagine someone sitting for hours in survival and either using Option 1 or Option 2.

[(XBOX)dabkevinhere710]

I find it funny how someone asked for high lvl content at lvl 70. And everyone says that's not a high lvl.

And I agree it's not. But when I say I want a mission to start lvl 200 for end game players I get called an elitist