4 player enemy scaling in solo mode please

[Troll_Logic]

16 hours ago, DatDarkOne said:

Correction, it's an online action/adventure/shooter that has co-op elements.  No where does it ever say that the game is team based or team focused only.  That has been an assumption by the players.  And since there is a solo option/mode, you can't really say it's team focused and disregard the solo aspect.  I mean really outside of Raids, how many of the missions just absolutely have to be done as a team.  

Ok, fair enough.  I suppose that phrase is uttered enough that it starts to creep into everyone's mind as canon.

What bothers me about this is "Players don't really want a challenge."  What players want is "more enemies that can't kill me but my buffed powers & weapons can kill ten times more enemies so I can level faster."

[DatDarkOne]

7 minutes ago, Troll_Logic said:

What bothers me about this is "Players don't really want a challenge."  What players want is "more enemies that can't kill me but my buffed powers & weapons can kill ten times more enemies so I can level faster."

Trust me when I say this has been one of the more mind boggling phenomenons on this forum.  Nerf this, nerf that.  Then two seconds later say, "There is no challenge".  and the opposite happening too.  There is no challenge.  Followed by "Please nerf X enemy".  

This is one of the main reasons I specifically ask for comments by others to find things or problems I might have missed in my original post.  Because regardless of how you try, there will always be someone who will not be happy.  

Edited September 21, 2017 by DatDarkOne

[Troll_Logic]

11 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

Trust me when I say this has been one of the more mind boggling phenomenons on this forum.  Nerf this, nerf that.  Then two seconds later say, "There is no challenge".  and the opposite happening too.  There is no challenge.  Followed by "Please nerf X enemy".  

True dat!  (Hey, that works both ways)

 

Ok, just to be clear...  When I say "player" or "people" I'm not referring to or speaking directly to any one person.  I'm speaking generally.

 

I'm all for a tougher game.  One thing I really, really, really want is a "Super Stalker."  Remember how the stalker would strike fear into players.  I remember when players would run.  I remember when players would quit.  No idea why.  He can't really do anything to you.  But still, players would go screaming.  I want a level 300+ "Super Stalker."  A Super Stalker that would wiped out 4 player teams 75% of the time.  A Super Stalker that would require a four 20+ lvl team with the best weapons to even have a chance against him.  That would be cool.  I remember when the stalker was a challenge.  The team would have to get together.  I'd drop a couple restores of everything and everyone had to make sure they were ready or the Stalker would wipe everyone.  Now, he's a speedbump in a mission.  If that.  G3 aren't any better.  Perhaps a new bounty hunter group?

 

The biggest problem I have with this is people want a benefit (much faster leveling) with no risk.  I don't care how many enemies you put into a level 20 mission.  Unless it it is an infinite number of enemies packed into a 30m radius, any competent player is not going to be killed.  Even if that player is killed, say in wave 8, he's still accumulated 4X the affinity (8X with a booster) so big deal.

 

So here is what I propose.  The 443020 rule for power leveling.

If a player or players want to speed level, then here are the proposed rules.

4X the enemies

4X the level

minimum 30 level

2X the affinity

Affinity resets to 0 if the player dies.

 

So let's say a team wants to speed level.

They have to pick a map at or greater than lvl 30.

4X the enemies will spawn

The enemies will start at 4X the level.  So enemies will start at a 120 level.

Players will accrue affinity at double the rate.

If a player dies, that player's accrued affinity resets to 0 and will begin to accrue again.

 

Now speed leveling isn't a breeze, there is some risk, and if players want a challenge, they'll have one.

 

[WNxMatthew]

On 9/17/2017 at 12:25 PM, DatDarkOne said:

After watching Rebecca's demo in Devstream, can we please have that same 4 player scaling for solo as Rebecca had.  Brozime mentioned this also in a recent video of his and I completely agree.  I'm an experienced solo player and I can handle to extra enemies.  

Do any of you want this to be a thing also?  Should it be a toggle option when selecting missions?  Only in PoE type thing? Please let me know if you think there are any downsides to this suggestion.

Please voice your opinions.  :D

I want this so much. The current spawn rate for solo is really boring. When I saw that Devstream, I was caught off guard by the enemy spawn rate but it still looked like fun.

[DatDarkOne]

4 minutes ago, Troll_Logic said:

So here is what I propose.  The 443020 rule for power leveling.

If a player or players want to speed level, then here are the proposed rules.

4X the enemies

4X the level

minimum 30 level

2X the affinity

Affinity resets to 0 if the player dies.

 

So let's say a team wants to speed level.

They have to pick a map at or greater than lvl 30.

4X the enemies will spawn

The enemies will start at 4X the level.  So enemies will start at a 120 level.

Players will accrue affinity at double the rate.

If a player dies, that player's accrued affinity resets to 0 and will begin to accrue again.

 

Now speed leveling isn't a breeze, there is some risk, and if players want a challenge, they'll have one.

Hehe, that is delightful.  With a nice extra challenge for not dying added to boot.  That would satisfy us challenge nuts while also giving reward for going the extra mile and not just thoughtless playing.  I can even see how it would discourage speed levelers from jumping in random groups to rank up gear.  

[Almagnus1]

Do you have any idea how badly I would abuse this scaling with resource farming?

I'd never need to group up with another group to farm resources ever again.

The idea is bad because it gives us too much incentive to solo, and a F2P game getting solo-ified will destroy it.  Look at Lord of the Rings Online for all the proof you need.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Almagnus1

[Borg1611]

As far as Steve hinting that spawn rates in PoE may scale with MR... that's nice I guess, but giving players the option to set their difficulty is still far superior. Sometimes people want a different level of challenge depending on their mood or what they're after in that play session. Forcing people based on MR to always face challenge level X is silly. Just let them choose. That also wouldn't solve anything in existing content if it's a PoE exclusive mechanic. 

 

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Do you have any idea how badly I would abuse this scaling with resource farming?

I'd never need to group up with another group to farm resources ever again.

The idea is bad because it gives us too much incentive to solo, and a F2P game getting solo-ified will destroy it.  Look at Lord of the Rings Online for all the proof you need.

The idea isn't bad, but your argument against it seems to be.

The idea does not incentive solo play at all, it just makes solo play better. Group play would still be more efficient in terms of resource farming and affinity. That's not even considering how much more efficient things like fissure farming are with 4 players. 

4 player groups with multiple loot frames would still be significantly better at farming resources.

It would certainly allow solo players to have a better resource farming experience than they currently have if you had more mobs, but there would still be incentive and better optimization in groups. 

A lot of people play solo regardless of group incentives. There's no need to punish those people by making them play in a boring ghost town. They aren't ruining the game. 

 

[Almagnus1]

1 hour ago, Borg1611 said:

The idea isn't bad, but your argument against it seems to be.

The idea does not incentive solo play at all, it just makes solo play better. Group play would still be more efficient in terms of resource farming and affinity. That's not even considering how much more efficient things like fissure farming are with 4 players. 

4 player groups with multiple loot frames would still be significantly better at farming resources.

It would certainly allow solo players to have a better resource farming experience than they currently have if you had more mobs, but there would still be incentive and better optimization in groups. 

A lot of people play solo regardless of group incentives. There's no need to punish those people by making them play in a boring ghost town. They aren't ruining the game. 

You absolutely do not want to incentivize solo play in a group game like Warframe because doing so will make the game feel more empty, despite the population.

Catering to the solo population WILL destroy the game.  It's happened in almost every MMO that has tried it because if you do not force people to group up, they will play solo and doing so will cause the game to start to feel more desolate because people need less reasons to group together.  I've seen this and I've lived it, so unless you're trying to debate my experience here.....

Under no circumstances should soloing be made better.

[DatDarkOne]

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:19 PM, Almagnus1 said:

You absolutely do not want to incentivize solo play in a group game like Warframe because doing so will make the game feel more empty, despite the population.

I already addressed the group game thing earlier.  

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:19 PM, Almagnus1 said:

Catering to the solo population WILL destroy the game.  It's happened in almost every MMO that has tried it because if you do not force people to group up, they will play solo and doing so will cause the game to start to feel more desolate because people need less reasons to group together.

I understand what you're saying, but there is a huge hole in your argument.  Warframe is not a MMO.  It wasn't designed to be one or to imitate one.  There is also a flip side to that very argument that you're trying to make.  Every recent game more similar to Warframe than an MMO is that forced multiplayer/Co-op without a single player experience all died horribly after only a few weeks.  Titanfall and Evolve are the two big ones that come to mind.  

So saying that promoting solo will kill the game is about the same as saying co-op with kill the game.  It all depends on the game type.  For a MMO you have to have multiplayer, but for other types it's just not as detriment.  I can tell you right now that If I was forced to play with others and didn't have a solo option, I would have never even bothered with Warframe.  I'm pretty sure there are many others who are like that also.  

edit: and just for reference, my MMO gaming experience goes all the way back to MUDs.  

Edited September 23, 2017 by DatDarkOne
additional info

[Almagnus1]

2 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

I understand what you're saying, but there is a huge whole in your argument.  Warframe is not a MMO.  It wasn't designed to be one or to imitate one.  There is also a flip side to that very argument that you're trying to make.  Every recent game more similar to Warframe than an MMO is that forced multiplayer/Co-op without a single player experience all died horribly after only a few weeks.  Titanfall and Evolve are the two big ones that come to mind.  

Let's see... thousands online with various channels... check.

Instances comprised of parties, check.

Public spaces where massive people can meet up, check.

Economy based around a common currency, check.

Ability to form guilds, check.

Um.... it looks like an MMO, and it plays like an MMO, so maybe it IS an MMO......

[Chipputer]

On 9/17/2017 at 12:25 PM, DatDarkOne said:

Please let me know if you think there are any downsides to this suggestion.

There are none. Scaling the amount of enemies needs to be in the game.

I remember when you could scale the enemy difficulty in Diablo 2 by simply typing a few easy phrases into the chat so you could play solo but the game would think you had multiple players running around. Always set it as high as I could.

[DatDarkOne]

 

 

---

Quote

 

WARFRAME

Developer(s)

Digital Extremes

Genre

Third Person Sci-fi Shooter

 

WARFRAME is a 2013 free-to-play science fiction cooperative third person shooter video game both developed and published by Digital Extremes

 

 

 

Quote

 

Warframe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Warframe
Developer(s)	Digital Extremes
Publisher(s)	Digital Extremes
Director(s)	Steve Sinclair Scott McGregor
Producer(s)	Dave Kudirka Pat Kudirka
Designer(s)	Ben Edney Mitch Gladney Joey Adey
Programmer(s)	James Silvia-Rogers
Artist(s)	Michael Brennan Ron Davey Mat Tremblay
Composer(s)	Keith Power
Engine	Evolution
Platform(s)	Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, Xbox One
Genre(s)	Third-person shooter
Mode(s)	Single-player, multiplayer

Warframe is a free-to-play cooperative third-person shooter video game developed by Digital Extremes for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One. In Warframe, players control members of the Tenno, a race of ancient warriors who have awoken from centuries of cryosleep to find themselves at war with different factions.

 

Please notice the Genre category and game description.  I'm only posting this to show what genre the game is categorized as so there will be no more confusion.  Thank you all for reading.  :D

[Almagnus1]

2 hours ago, DatDarkOne said:

 

 

---

 

 

Please notice the Genre category and game description.  I'm only posting this to show what genre the game is categorized as so there will be no more confusion.  Thank you all for reading.  :D

MMO in the loosest term is just a massive, multiplayer online game.  Something like Age of Empires Online was an MMORTS, just like WoW and FFXIV are MMORPGs, and Warframe is an MMOTPS.

Just because someone says "MMO" doesn't disqualify the game if it isn't WoW-like.... as seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

Oh, and Destiny and Destiny 2 are classified as MMOFPS as seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massively_multiplayer_online_first-person_shooter_games , and as they are both Warframe competitors, that makes Warframe an MMOFPS, despite Wiki not explicitly stating so.

Don't be a smartass if you're wrong dude.

[DatDarkOne]

46 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Don't be a smartass if you're wrong dude.

Not being a smartass at all.  You are the one that seems offended.  I just gave the category of the game that DE themselves recognized and approved on both Warframe wiki and Wikipedia.  Now, please try not to derail my topic anymore please.  I would appreciate it.  Thank you.  

[Almagnus1]

2 hours ago, DatDarkOne said:

Not being a smartass at all.  You are the one that seems offended.  I just gave the category of the game that DE themselves recognized and approved on both Warframe wiki and Wikipedia.  Now, please try not to derail my topic anymore please.  I would appreciate it.  Thank you.  

I'm not derailing a topic if I am strongly suggesting that this idea is pure and utter garbage, and defending my point.

Please don't mischaracterize feedback you don't like as a "derail".

[DatDarkOne]

Borg said it best.

14 hours ago, Borg1611 said:

your argument against it seems to be

I even said previously that I understand what you mean, but the basis of your argument had a little flaw on it.  That discussion on whether that flaw (the genre of the game) is what I disagree with.  Your feedback is welcome and appreciated.  I just don't want a discussion on the genre to get in the way of the actual topic.  

Now do you have a suggestion to add that would alleviate the issue you see?  Any other discussion I would consider to be slightly off topic.   

 

[Almagnus1]

39 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

Borg said it best.

I even said previously that I understand what you mean, but the basis of your argument had a little flaw on it.  That discussion on whether that flaw (the genre of the game) is what I disagree with.  Your feedback is welcome and appreciated.  I just don't want a discussion on the genre to get in the way of the actual topic.  

Now do you have a suggestion to add that would alleviate the issue you see?  Any other discussion I would consider to be slightly off topic.   

 

The only way improving solo play makes any sense for Warframe is if Warframe had an offline mode, which it doesn't.

Instead, you log in to the same world instance where (according to http://steamcharts.com/app/230410 ) over 50k concurrent players logged in - which is, I might add, one of the top 10 most played games on Steam (as seen http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ ) - and that number is probably quite a bit higher as not all PC players play through Steam.

Yes, there are options to go solo, but those options should never be granted the scaling you get when you scale with people because doing so puts Warframe on the slippery slope of soloification which destroys MMOs.  Solo mode should always continue to be what it is - a light practice where you can learn things like Spy missions without risking failure from some random idiot going full derp into a room and failing the challenge.

[DatDarkOne]

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Yes, there are options to go solo, but those options should never be granted the scaling you get when you scale with people because doing so puts Warframe on the slippery slope of soloification which destroys MMOs.  Solo mode should always continue to be what it is - a light practice where you can learn things like Spy missions without risking failure from some random idiot going full derp into a room and failing the challenge.

Now that is the beauty of this game.  That you view it a group game with the option to solo, where I view it as a solo game with the option to call for help using co-op.  :D  

Now, I fully admit that I play and have played solo for almost 2 years and that it heavily influences my views.  This is one of the main reasons I asked for feedback and suggestions.  I thank you for presenting another interesting point of view to consider.  

Good Ol' Troll_Logic presented a fix to my idea that would benefit both solo and group modes/play.  He originally presented it as a way to resolve possible affinity/farming issue.  I'm thinking that it would also possibly resolve long term solo vs group issues as well.  I like it a lot.  Tell me what you think as well.  :D

23 hours ago, Troll_Logic said:

So here is what I propose.  The 443020 rule for power leveling.

If a player or players want to speed level, then here are the proposed rules.

4X the enemies

4X the level

minimum 30 level

2X the affinity

Affinity resets to 0 if the player dies.

 

So let's say a team wants to speed level.

They have to pick a map at or greater than lvl 30.

4X the enemies will spawn

The enemies will start at 4X the level.  So enemies will start at a 120 level.

Players will accrue affinity at double the rate.

If a player dies, that player's accrued affinity resets to 0 and will begin to accrue again.

 

Now speed leveling isn't a breeze, there is some risk, and if players want a challenge, they'll have one.

 

[Almagnus1]

3 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

Now that is the beauty of this game.  That you view it a group game with the option to solo, where I view it as a solo game with the option to call for help using co-op.  :D  

Now, I fully admit that I play and have played solo for almost 2 years and that it heavily influences my views.  This is one of the main reasons I asked for feedback and suggestions.  I thank you for presenting another interesting point of view to consider.  

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that most players are probably not playing solo as they're probably clicking on a mission and queuing in with whoever the server throws at them - at least, that's what experience has shown.  You need those players arguably more so than the soloers because they are populating the game world.

Truthfully, I'm kinda in the middle there, as I often join public groups (click on map node, get thrown in a group) but there are often times that I will solo (especially if I'm going rare resource farming because I like the faff around in a loot finder build), want to go learn a spy mission (as it's easier for me to learn the layout with Loki by myself because I can take my time and learn the geometry), or when I solved the music puzzle to get the Octavia piece, do that solo because I can fraps the organ playing and then play it back to complete the puzzle the first time - which would really frustrate other players due to how slow that is.

3 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

Good Ol' Troll_Logic presented a fix to my idea that would benefit both solo and group modes/play.  He originally presented it as a way to resolve possible affinity/farming issue.  I'm thinking that it would also possibly resolve long term solo vs group issues as well.  I like it a lot.  Tell me what you think as well.  :D

Possibly... but it's a very high risk/high reward thing.  They should also allow for groups to throw themselves at it as well, because what's good for the soloer could be argued to be good for the group as well.  That may be too harsh, and most of the affinity farming I do is on sub-30 frames so with getting through the high teens MR it's useless.

That'd be good for the focus schools farming, though.

[DatDarkOne]

14 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

but it's a very high risk/high reward thing.

And that is the main goal behind my suggestion.  That's where the it needs to be a selectable option to choose.  Troll_Logic just added in a possible reward aspect that can benefit group play also.  But the end goal is offering more challenge in solo mode for those who want more challenge.  

[Almagnus1]

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

And that is the main goal behind my suggestion.  That's where the it needs to be a selectable option to choose.  Troll_Logic just added in a possible reward aspect that can benefit group play also.  But the end goal is offering more challenge in solo mode for those who want more challenge.  

I'm also looking at it going "why limit it to just solo mode?"

If DE is going to go through the work to introduce a new gameplay mode (which is what you're actually suggesting), shouldn't it be accessible to everyone?

Why limit it to only a subset of players?

[-N7-Leonhart]

On 9/17/2017 at 8:25 PM, DatDarkOne said:

After watching Rebecca's demo in Devstream, can we please have that same 4 player scaling for solo as Rebecca had.  Brozime mentioned this also in a recent video of his and I completely agree.  I'm an experienced solo player and I can handle to extra enemies.  

Do any of you want this to be a thing also?  Should it be a toggle option when selecting missions?  Only in PoE type thing? Please let me know if you think there are any downsides to this suggestion.

Please voice your opinions.  :D

Yes, please! Take all of my votes.

On 9/17/2017 at 8:36 PM, Sziklamester said:

With this power we could ask 10x scaling.

Hell, even if the whole room would be filled to the brim with enemies, it would still not be hard enough sometimes.

[Borg1611]

17 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

 You absolutely do not want to incentivize solo play in a group game like Warframe because doing so will make the game feel more empty, despite the population.

Catering to the solo population WILL destroy the game.  It's happened in almost every MMO that has tried it because if you do not force people to group up, they will play solo and doing so will cause the game to start to feel more desolate because people need less reasons to group together.  I've seen this and I've lived it, so unless you're trying to debate my experience here.....

Under no circumstances should soloing be made better.

Once again, improving play for solo players who are playing solo regardless does not damage the game. It does not even "incentivize" solo play.

Say it with me! "Improving solo play for those already playing solo is not the same thing as incentivizing solo play." We are not trying to force people in groups to go solo, we are trying to improve the game for those playing solo. In fact, my suggestions of adding difficulty levels for both solo and group players would just improve the game overall for everyone (which is just an expansion on the OP idea). 

I play solo most of the time. Improving it wouldn't make me play any more or less. I also sometimes play with a friend or in public groups. 

As I already pointed out, even if you had difficulty options or a way of increasing mob spawns solo, group play would still be far more optimal for both affinity and resource farming. There's also a dramatic increase in efficiency when farming fissures in four player groups due to how they work. There is already plenty of incentive to be in a group, some would say too much. Giving solo players more options won't change that and it will not harm the game despite your doomsaying. 

As far as MMO's go, the MMO's that start adding more solo or smaller group content are the ones that look at their statistics and realize it's becoming harder and harder to find groups with their dwindling playerbases. Your analysis is that the games added more solo content and died. That is a flawed analysis. Every MMO that isn't WoW died or failed to maintain a large playerbase for any number or reasons and it wasn't because they didn't have group content. Most of them start trying to copy WoW, including having things like raids. Many games that stop adding new raids or large scale group content do so because HARDLY ANYONE WAS DOING THAT CONTENT. Very few MMOs have a successful raiding scene. Even in WoW, the majority of their playerbase doesn't even participate in raiding. That's why in Legion they tried adding more end-game 5 man content and even added more soloable content (as well as group content that doesn't actually require grouping, IE: invasion points).

Look at warframe. How many people participate in their version of raids (trials)? If I were to take a guess, I'd say less than 10% of active accounts have ever set foot in one. Maybe only 1%? If they released public statistics of how many missions were run solo vs. in private groups vs. public groups I would bet that there are as many if not more solo players playing Warframe than those playing in groups. They certainly aren't a tiny minority of players even if they aren't a majority. That doesn't mean they should incentivize solo play, which is not what the suggestions in this thread do, but it does demonstrate that this game can maintain a decent number of players despite a large number of people playing solo. Improving the solo experience will keep the large number of solo players playing longer. That is in no way shape or form bad for this game. People who play solo some of the time also do not play solo all of the time, so improving their solo experience and increasing their enjoyment of the game keeps them around for when they are playing in a group as well.

46 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that most players are probably not playing solo as they're probably clicking on a mission and queuing in with whoever the server throws at them - at least, that's what experience has shown.  You need those players arguably more so than the soloers because they are populating the game world.

I don't think that's accurate. The vast majority of nodes on the star chart have 0 public groups playing them. Even if you do most of them set as public you'd probably end up soloing them. The only nodes you find with public groups up are fissures and the commonly known farms like hydron (I miss you Draco). 

3 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

The only way improving solo play makes any sense for Warframe is if Warframe had an offline mode, which it doesn't.

 

This isn't logical. Despite the game being "online," many of its players are playing solo. Also, this game is a P2P hosted game, meaning solo players are hosting their own games on their own computers. It's not like we're playing D3 where all games are hosted by Blizzard which may give the developers a desire to encourage its players to play in groups so there are fewer games being hosted at once. Warframe is one of the better "online" games to play solo in because it's P2P hosted. That means when solo you are playing with 0 network latency because you are hosting the game on your own computer. You are only contacting the servers when solo to connect to chat and update the database with what you found. In fact, you can go into a solo mission and unplug your modem and stay in said mission while offline because you are in-fact not depending on some random DE owned and operated server for anything other than the database and chat servers. You have to be online to log in and start a mission, but while in a mission solo you can lose your internet connection without getting disconnected as long as your connection is restored at the time of extraction (it will even wait a long time for your connection to be restored if you extract not realizing you lost your connection). That is why a P2P hosted game like Warframe is great for solo players who may have garbage internet connections. It may technically be an online game, but many of the downsides of online games that solo players would face are actually not problems for Warframe solo players. 

Imagine someone with an unreliable internet connection that couldn't play a Blizzard game because they'd get DCed constantly, or that guy with Satellite internet that can't play other "online" games because he'd have 1k ping. Those people can play Warframe solo with little issue because they are hosting the missions themselves. Thanks to their P2P hosting model, Warframe is a great solo game. They absolutely should think about their large number of solo players and improve the quality of the game for those players.

Also, I don't know why you'd bother pointing out Steam numbers since those numbers include solo players. They don't support your point that improving solo play is somehow a bad idea, which it isn't at all. 

 

[Almagnus1]

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

Once again, improving play for solo players who are playing solo regardless does not damage the game. It does not even "incentivize" solo play.

Why not focus on both groups?

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

Say it with me! "Improving solo play for those already playing solo is not the same thing as incentivizing solo play."

That's BS and you know it.

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

We are not trying to force people in groups to go solo, we are trying to improve the game for those playing solo. In fact, my suggestions of adding difficulty levels for both solo and group players would just improve the game overall for everyone (which is just an expansion on the OP idea). 

And that's to the detriment of Warframe.  Forcing people to group up makes them more social, and it helps build a better community.

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

I play solo most of the time. Improving it wouldn't make me play any more or less. I also sometimes play with a friend or in public groups. 

So why not create the tech that can be used in both solo and group modes?  Why make it solo-only?  That's a huge waste of dev resources IMO.

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

As I already pointed out, even if you had difficulty options or a way of increasing mob spawns solo, group play would still be far more optimal for both affinity and resource farming. There's also a dramatic increase in efficiency when farming fissures in four player groups due to how they work. There is already plenty of incentive to be in a group, some would say too much. Giving solo players more options won't change that and it will not harm the game despite your doomsaying.

I've seen it kill off MMO populations, so I'll continue my "doomsaying" so the same thing doesn't happen to Warframe.

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

As far as MMO's go, the MMO's that start adding more solo or smaller group content are the ones that look at their statistics and realize it's becoming harder and harder to find groups with their dwindling playerbases. Your analysis is that the games added more solo content and died. That is a flawed analysis. Every MMO that isn't WoW died or failed to maintain a large playerbase for any number or reasons and it wasn't because they didn't have group content. Most of them start trying to copy WoW, including having things like raids. Many games that stop adding new raids or large scale group content do so because HARDLY ANYONE WAS DOING THAT CONTENT. Very few MMOs have a successful raiding scene. Even in WoW, the majority of their playerbase doesn't even participate in raiding. That's why in Legion they tried adding more end-game 5 man content and even added more soloable content (as well as group content that doesn't actually require grouping, IE: invasion points).

FFXIV says "HI!"

FFXIV has managed to add in instances with every single update, and due to the way that they have scaling and incentivize group, ALL of them are still relevant at level cap.  FFXIV is still growing too, as they recently passed 10 million players.

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

Look at warframe. How many people participate in their version of raids (trials)? If I were to take a guess, I'd say less than 10% of active accounts have ever set foot in one. Maybe only 1%? If they released public statistics of how many missions were run solo vs. in private groups vs. public groups I would bet that there are as many if not more solo players playing Warframe than those playing in groups. They certainly aren't a tiny minority of players even if they aren't a majority. That doesn't mean they should incentivize solo play, which is not what the suggestions in this thread do, but it does demonstrate that this game can maintain a decent number of players despite a large number of people playing solo. Improving the solo experience will keep the large number of solo players playing longer. That is in no way shape or form bad for this game. People who play solo some of the time also do not play solo all of the time, so improving their solo experience and increasing their enjoyment of the game keeps them around for when they are playing in a group as well.

Let's compare stuff to sorties, assault missions, fissure missions, kuva floods, and other group content that people actually want to run, shall we?

There's no point in running raids because the rest of the content doesn't need arcanes, and no one wants to get blacklisted for joining a raid in an unapproved frame.

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

I don't think that's accurate. The vast majority of nodes on the star chart have 0 public groups playing them. Even if you do most of them set as public you'd probably end up soloing them. The only nodes you find with public groups up are fissures and the commonly known farms like hydron (I miss you Draco). 

The nodes that are active are the ones that are being farmed for stuff, or the ones that have other reasons to be there.

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

This isn't logical. Despite the game being "online," many of its players are playing solo. Also, this game is a P2P hosted game, meaning solo players are hosting their own games on their own computers. It's not like we're playing D3 where all games are hosted by Blizzard which may give the developers a desire to encourage its players to play in groups so there are fewer games being hosted at once. Warframe is one of the better "online" games to play solo in because it's P2P hosted.

Actually, it's functionally identical, despite the difference in hosting.  The advantage to Warframe's way of hosting instances is that it cuts down on server costs at the expense of instance stability - and we all know how bad things can get when you get someone that's 300+ ms ping hosting.

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

That means when solo you are playing with 0 network latency because you are hosting the game on your own computer. You are only contacting the servers when solo to connect to chat and update the database with what you found. In fact, you can go into a solo mission and unplug your modem and stay in said mission while offline because you are in-fact not depending on some random DE owned and operated server for anything other than the database and chat servers. You have to be online to log in and start a mission, but while in a mission solo you can lose your internet connection without getting disconnected as long as your connection is restored at the time of extraction (it will even wait a long time for your connection to be restored if you extract not realizing you lost your connection). That is why a P2P hosted game like Warframe is great for solo players who may have garbage internet connections. It may technically be an online game, but many of the downsides of online games that solo players would face are actually not problems for Warframe solo players. 

You can't play Warframe without logging in.  You can't start a mission without an internet connection.

That's two hallmarks of an online game.

As already mentioned, the P2P hosting is done to cut down Warframe server costs by pushing the processing load onto the clients.

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

Imagine someone with an unreliable internet connection that couldn't play a Blizzard game because they'd get DCed constantly, or that guy with Satellite internet that can't play other "online" games because he'd have 1k ping. Those people can play Warframe solo with little issue because they are hosting the missions themselves. Thanks to their P2P hosting model, Warframe is a great solo game. They absolutely should think about their large number of solo players and improve the quality of the game for those players.

And then they play a public game, and everyone wants to stab themselves in the face.  They're also the extreme minority of players, so stop trying to generalize a trivial (ie: <5%) chunk of the playerbase as a bigger slice of the pie.

21 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

Also, I don't know why you'd bother pointing out Steam numbers since those numbers include solo players. They don't support your point that improving solo play is somehow a bad idea, which it isn't at all. 

I'm pointing out Steam numbers because it proves Warframe is a massive multiplayer online game.  And a VERY successful one at that.

[Borg1611]

34 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Why not focus on both groups?

Quote

My suggestion on page one does benefit both group players and solo players.

34 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

That's BS and you know it.

Quote

No, it's true.

34 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

And that's to the detriment of Warframe.  Forcing people to group up makes them more social, and it helps build a better community.

Quote

Having more fun solo is a detriment to Warframe?

I don't think you understand the game very well if you believe that. This isn't an MMO and even MMO's benefit from an enjoyable solo experience. 

38 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Let's compare stuff to sorties, assault missions, fissure missions, kuva floods, and other group content that people actually want to run, shall we?

There's no point in running raids because the rest of the content doesn't need arcanes, and no one wants to get blacklisted for joining a raid in an unapproved frame.

I don't think you understood any of what I wrote. I'm not sure you even understand the ideas you yourself are writing actually. If you think the vast majority of warframe players are in groups I think you're delusional, but only DE could settle that argument since we have no stats one way or the other. 

Fissure missions likely are done in groups a lot more than solo... because... as I mentioned multiple times already, there's a HUGE incentive to do them in groups. Remember how I covered that there's already huge incentives to group play in this game even if you improved solo play?

Sorties are soloable content. When I actually bothered doing them regularly I soloed them more than I did them in groups once I had an arsenal capable of doing so. 

They are adding arcanes to PoE because they know hardly anybody does trials and there's simply no interest there. That's a point supporting my side or the argument, not yours. PoE may end up being easier or more efficient in a group, but from what we've been shown so far, it's not a strict requirement.

44 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Actually, it's functionally identical, despite the difference in hosting. 

No. It's not functionally identical at all and my explanation of the advantages for solo players clearly shows the functional differences. 

44 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

You can't start a mission without an internet connection.

That's two hallmarks of an online game.

As already mentioned, the P2P hosting is done to cut down Warframe server costs by pushing the processing load onto the clients.

Yes it's an online game that requires an internet connection to login and start a mission. I specifically mention that. It's also an online game where you can go offline in the middle of a solo mission without being disconnected since it's player hosted. This is a huge advantage for solo players and those with poor internet connections and will naturually lead to having a larger solo playerbase than a game that requires a constant uninterrupted connection. 

While P2P hosting from a business perspective is likely mostly about cutting costs, that does not invalidate the advantages it has for solo players, particularly ones with poor internet connections.

46 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

And then they play a public game, and everyone wants to stab themselves in the face.  They're also the extreme minority of players, so stop trying to generalize a trivial (ie: <5%) chunk of the playerbase as a bigger slice of the pie.

Or, they choose to play mostly or exclusively solo because they know their internet sucks. That was the point. 

Who cares how many are in that category? Why are you arguing against improving their play experience? Your belief that it will destroy the game is misguided at best. 

47 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

I'm pointing out Steam numbers because it proves Warframe is a massive multiplayer online game.  And a VERY successful one at that.

It's an online game with a lot of players. Dota2 has a lot more players, it's not an MMO. Many of the players in your statistic may be playing solo.  It is not an MMORPG which is what most people who use MMO for shorthand are referring to when they say MMO. It's closer to an ARPG than an MMO. 

Regardless of its genre or what you want to call it, the numbers don't support your bizarre assertion that improving solo play with harm the game or even kill it.

I really hope you take a step back, look at the fact that you're actually here, in a thread, arguing that improving the play experience of solo players will ruin the game. Seriously think about how ridiculous and absurd your position is and re-think it. You are wrong on every level and your bizarre doomsday fears that improving the solo experience of people already playing solo will somehow ruin the game are unfounded and based on extremely flawed analysis of other games in completely different genres.