4 player enemy scaling in solo mode please

[Almagnus1]

14 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

I don't think you understand the game very well if you believe that.

14 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

I'm not sure you even understand the ideas you yourself are writing actually.

The exact same can be said about you.

14 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

Seriously think about how ridiculous and absurd your position is and re-think it.

You first.

[DatDarkOne]

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Why not focus on both groups?

Because in all honesty, groups already have the benefit of more enemies that my suggestion is seeking.

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

That's BS and you know it.

Those that don't play solo aren't effected by this suggestion in any way or form.  Same as group players are not effected by solo play.

1 hour 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.

The counter to this is that forcing group play would also make many solo players quit altogether.  

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

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.

There is no tech or special mode to create.  It's just adding in an option that is already available in the Dev build.  The same build and demo that sparked the idea in the first place.

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

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

Thing is that Warframe doesn't having more than 4 players sharing the same instance outside of Relays.  Each instance is hosted on a players computer and not a central server.  This is another reason Warframe can't be categorized as a MMO even though it shares some of the MMO features.  So the "Doomsaying" doesn't actually apply to Warframe.  

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

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.

There's no point to running raids because it forces group play, and most of those the do them are toxic to a level that most don't even bother trying to do raids.  If Raid were able to be solo'd, I bet there would be many more players that would try them and even many more that would know what to do in them.  

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

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

My Network Admin friend calls a big BS on this.  He said the differences would fill too many paragraphs to put in this single reply.  I agree with him as I'm a IT consultant myself.  

1 hour 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.

You have absolutely no data what so ever to make that claim.  Sorry, but this is just the truth.  

1 hour 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.

Uhh, this one is just weird.  Nier:Automata is also on Steam.  So does that make it a MMO also.  You also must realize that Steam numbers can't account for all the players of Warframe that don't use Steam.  Players such as myself that use the DE client, Xbox One players, and the PS4 players.  Only DE has the full numbers and stats.  

I'm hoping that I'm not coming off as condescending in this reply.  I'm just trying to answer those questions and pointing out some non relevant things.  

Edited September 22, 2017 by DatDarkOne

[Borg1611]

13 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

You first.

I thought about it and came to the conclusion that my arguments were sound and seem perfectly logical and rational.

I guess I'll just accept that you have blind faith in the idea that warframe will die if you give solo players the ability to increase spawn rates and let you continue believing that. I said all I care to say on that topic. 

---------------------------------

I'll say again that I think difficulty controls actually would benefit both solo and group players. I don't think they should be available to public game since there are already to few people queuing for public games to split them up into more difficulties, but for solo players and private group games being able to change difficulty would be great. They could have the first few difficulties affect spawn rates and then some number of difficulties after that that increase the level of mobs. Something similar to D3's difficulty slider. Or they could just have some settings for spawn rate and then a custom difficulty setting in private games letting you increase the mob levels as high as you can in the simulacrum based on MR. /shrug

[Almagnus1]

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

Because in all honesty, groups already have the benefit of more enemies that my suggestion is seeking.

I mean, what you're suggesting is basically a focus version of the index.

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

Those that don't play solo aren't effected by this suggestion in any way or form.  Same as group players are not effected by solo play.

From my experience, solo players are a minority in game, and a majority on the forums.

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

The counter to this is that forcing group play would also make many solo players quit altogether.  

FFXIV is proof that that fear is a non-issue.

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

There is no tech or special mode to create.  It's just adding in an option that is already available in the Dev build.  The same build and demo that sparked the idea in the first place.

Which would make it necessary for additional UI work because (from experience) dev tools generally aren't robustly tested enough to be handed to the players.

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

Thing is that Warframe doesn't having more than 4 players sharing the same instance outside of Relays.  Each instance is hosted on a players computer and not a central server.  This is another reason Warframe can't be categorized as a MMO even though it shares some of the MMO features.  So the "Doomsaying" doesn't actually apply to Warframe.

Which basically makes each mission in Warframe identical to an instance in an MMO, with the relays equivalent to the zones - essentially a size inversion of what's seen in WoW.

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

There's no point to running raids because it forces group play, and most of those the do them are toxic to a level that most don't even bother trying to do raids.  If Raid were able to be solo'd, I bet there would be many more players that would try them and even many more that would know what to do in them.  

Or maybe there's no point in running raids because the true endgame in Warframe is fashionframe... which is also the same joke in other MMOs like WoW and FFXIV.

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

My Network Admin friend calls a big BS on this.  He said the differences would fill too many paragraphs to put in this single reply.  I agree with him as I'm a IT consultant myself.

Tell him to write it or I'll call in my imaginary super admin hacker friend to tell your network admin friend he's a strawman.

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

You have absolutely no data what so ever to make that claim.  Sorry, but this is just the truth.  

Same to you.

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

Uhh, this one is just weird.  Nier:Automata is also on Steam.  So does that make it a MMO also.  You also must realize that Steam numbers can't account for all the players or Warframe that don't use Steam.  Players such as myself that use the DE client, Xbox One players, and the PS4 players.  Only DE has the full numbers and stats.

Numbers only prove that a lot of people are playing it online.  Warframe has effectively three shards/realms/world - one for PC, Xbox One, and PS4.  That means the 50k+ people are in ONE world instance.  Warframe has a platinum economy (see http://warframe.market/ ).  It has public spaces where a lot of people can gather (go find Baro).  It's got instances (the missions).  It even has player and guild housing (orbiter and dojo respectively).  There's a chat system, and ability to send tells to everyone that's playing.  Gear has levels, and the warframes are basically classes.  If I removed all references to Warframe from this paragraph, and said there was this new game I'm playing, you'd probably think it was some kind of MMO.

Then there's the Destiny and Destiny 2... which are both MMOFPSs as seen in the chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massively_multiplayer_online_first-person_shooter_games#List_of_notable_MMOFPSs .

So unless you're saying Warframe can't compete with the Destiny franchise, I'm stating that it's actually a MMOFPS (well, MMOTPs if we're being technical).

 

[DatDarkOne]

34 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Tell him to write it or I'll call in my imaginary super admin hacker friend to tell your network admin friend he's a strawman.

You do know that full grown adults play Warframe also, right.  These same adult have jobs in different fields, correct.  Ok, then those same people who browse the forums actually have a friend who is also a co-worker who just happens to be the Network Admin in this same workplace sees me responding on a forum.  This Network Admin friend sees what was typed, and said it's not even close to being as simple as that guy is saying it is.  Point of all of this is to say, don't assume that everything someone says is a "strawman".  It's just that I really am an IT consultant that has a friend who really is a Network Admin.  I only responded and quoted this point because I personally don't like being called a liar especially when I'm giving the honest truth.  

Now with that out of the way.

34 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Numbers only prove that a lot of people are playing it online.  Warframe has effectively three shards/realms/world - one for PC, Xbox One, and PS4.  That means the 50k+ people are in ONE world instance.  Warframe has a platinum economy (see http://warframe.market/ ).  It has public spaces where a lot of people can gather (go find Baro).  It's got instances (the missions).  It even has player and guild housing (orbiter and dojo respectively).  There's a chat system, and ability to send tells to everyone that's playing.  Gear has levels, and the warframes are basically classes.  If I removed all references to Warframe from this paragraph, and said there was this new game I'm playing, you'd probably think it was some kind of MMO.

Then there's the Destiny and Destiny 2... which are both MMOFPSs as seen in the chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massively_multiplayer_online_first-person_shooter_games#List_of_notable_MMOFPSs .

So unless you're saying Warframe can't compete with the Destiny franchise, I'm stating that it's actually a MMOFPS (well, MMOTPs if we're being technical).

None of any of that has much if any relevance to the topic of "adding a toggle for increased enemies in solo mode".  Again, I understand your stance and love of the game and it's group aspects.  It's just that my suggestion isn't really going to effect group play in any form now or in the future and that's after considering if DE even decides to look at it.  

I would ask why you feel so threatened by this idea, but you've already given that reason.  I accepted that reason and your opinion.  Why do you keep bringing the same argument back each and every time that doesn't relate to the issue/topic at all.  That is a rhetorical question that doesn't need an answer.  I'm asking that you refrain  from bringing up this MMO issue as it just doesn't in any way or form apply to this topic.  This topic is all about solo mode.  A mode that doesn't effect, hasn't effected, or will effect the other group play modes of the game.  

Edited September 22, 2017 by DatDarkOne
grammar

[Almagnus1]

36 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

You do know that full grown adults play Warframe also, right.  These same adult have jobs in different fields, correct.  Ok, then those same people who browse the forums actually have a friend who is also a co-worker who just happens to be the Network Admin in this same workplace sees me responding on a forum.  This Network Admin friend sees what was typed, and said it's not even close to being as simple as that guy is saying it is.  Point of all of this is to say, don't assume that everything someone says is a "strawman".  It's just that I really am an IT consultant that has a friend who really is a Network Admin.  I only responded and quoted this point because I personally don't like being called a liar especially when I'm giving the honest truth.  

And I could also claim that I'm the CEO of Google.  You're making an appeal to authority (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeals_to_authorities ) by stating you have a Network Admin friend that could filet the argument.... without actually fileting the argument.

36 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

None of any of that has much if any relevance to the topic of "adding a toggle for increased enemies in solo mode".  Again, I understand your stance and love of the game and it's group aspects.  It's just that my suggestion isn't really going to effect group play in any form now or in the future and that's after considering if DE even decides to look at it. 

That exact same argument has been said before the solofication commenced.  And each time, once the MMO started down the slippery slope, soloification increased causing the downward spiral.

36 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

I would ask why you feel so threatened by this idea, but you've already given that reason.

Any idea in a game company requires dev resources to implement.  Game companies are usually fairly lean because they don't have THAT much margin to work with unless they're a freak of a studio like Blizzard, EA, or Ubisoft that can release a title and basically print money.  To create what's effectively a focus version of The Index means that dev resources have to be allocated AWAY from other stuff in order to build, test, and deploy it.

36 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

Why do you keep bringing the same argument back each and every time that doesn't relate to the issue/topic at all.

Because there's no reason why creating a focus version of the Index (which is what you're suggesting with scaling) can't be done for both solo and group players.  That way everyone wins, rather than one group at the expense of another.

36 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

I'm asking that you refrain  from bringing up this MMO issue as it just doesn't in any way or form apply to this topic.

It's relevant because Warframe is an MMO despite how much you try and declare it not to be.  A duck is still a duck even if you call it a banana.

36 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

This topic is all about solo mode.  A mode that doesn't effect, hasn't effected, or will effect the other group play modes of the game.  

Solo mode in Warframe is simply a setting that lets you enter an instance DESIGNED FOR GROUP CONTENT solo.  That's all it is, and all it should be.  There should never be any catering specifically to solo players beyond the quests because that sets Warframe on a slippery slope that has destroyed many MMOs before it.

I will fight this soloification creep with zeal and fervor, because I do not want to see Warframe go down that path to ruin.

[DatDarkOne]

So you are intentionally bringing up non related things to sabotage my topic.  All because of a fear you have of something that may or may not happen of a suggestion that may or may not even get looked at.  Let alone even be considered if it's seen.  You my friend are showing a fine example of why most solo players play solo, to avoid zealots.  I will now refrain from responding to you any more, and hope better discussions that are on topic can continue for everyone else.  

Thank you for your past input, and have a great day.  

[torint_man]

9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

I mean, what you're suggesting is basically a focus version of the index.

That already exists. It's called adaro, sedna, a max range, max efficiency, neutral duration equinox, and a good melee weapon. With a booster, you max your focus in 2 or 3 missions. Takes less than half an hour. 

 

9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Quote

Those that don't play solo aren't effected by this suggestion in any way or form.  Same as group players are not effected by solo play.

From my experience, solo players are a minority in game, and a majority on the forums.

And that refutes his point how? Solo players might be in the minority (might being the operative term here), but they take up a large enough chunk of players that it would be worth making efforts to enhance their experience, namely giving them more enemies to fight. Your statement that they consist of less than 5% of the player base is something I'm going to have to call MASSIVE BS on. What I qualify as a solo player is one who plays solo more often than not. As such, I am a solo player. Your definition of solo player would have to be one who plays exclusively solo to have that 5% statistic to be reasonable.

I would say that at least 90% of players play solo on some regular basis. There's no point in pubing a kuva siphon. Why pub an easy mission? What if I don't care to assemble a group to play that fissure survival? Everyone benefits, including you if you have ever played or considered playing solo.

9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

FFXIV is proof that that fear is a non-issue.

Are you sure about that? FF 14 is a true MMO where everyone is in the same gameplay instance by default, while Warframe is by default disconnected instances of 4 players, making MMO a misnomer. They are hardly similar, as Warframe barely qualifies at best as an MMO.

9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Which would make it necessary for additional UI work because (from experience) dev tools generally aren't robustly tested enough to be handed to the players.

Just because a programmer or two has to spend an day or two implementing a feature doesn't suddenly mean that the feature should be abandoned.

9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Which basically makes each mission in Warframe identical to an instance in an MMO, with the relays equivalent to the zones - essentially a size inversion of what's seen in WoW.

Hardly. You can't do anything in the zones that isn't shopping and whatnot. ALL of the actual gameplay occurs in tiny instances. You could argue that warframe is an MMO in the strictest sense regardless, but making comparisons to other MMOs is fallacious as the only similarity that has been established is the name of one of the genres it falls into. Anyway, the feature that players want is for solo players to get spawn count like that of group players. They won't gain an advantage over group players, as groups have 4 players that can be different frames and output more firepower. Group play won't be magically less worthwhile if solo play becomes more worthwhile.

"Worth" isn't a limited recourse, and there is no "law of conservation of worth" to worry about. Your "doomsaying" relies on the premise that warframe is the same as typical MMOs that are around (Warframe barely qualifies as an MMO), and that making solo play more worthwhile will somehow make players abandon group play (despite the fact solo play won't be better than group play).

9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Numbers only prove that a lot of people are playing it online.  Warframe has effectively three shards/realms/world - one for PC, Xbox One, and PS4.  That means the 50k+ people are in ONE world instance.  Warframe has a platinum economy (see http://warframe.market/ ).  It has public spaces where a lot of people can gather (go find Baro).  It's got instances (the missions).  It even has player and guild housing (orbiter and dojo respectively).  There's a chat system, and ability to send tells to everyone that's playing.  Gear has levels, and the warframes are basically classes.  If I removed all references to Warframe from this paragraph, and said there was this new game I'm playing, you'd probably think it was some kind of MMO.

That's really reaching. Warframe is barely an MMO. It's not an MMO in the colloquial sense, which is what actually matters. The definition google has is so broad and unspecific that it could apply to any multiplayer game: "an online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously". If you try to shoehorn games into a category, the category loses its meaning, so we have to stick with colloquial definitions. Warframe is absolutely not an MMO in the same way FF14 or WoW is. If you try to jam warframe into the MMO category, then try to say that your complaints are valid because of comparisons to other games in that category, then you are being fallacious as far as I'm concerned.  

[Almagnus1]

2 minutes ago, torint_man said:

That already exists. It's called adaro, sedna, a max range, max efficiency, neutral duration equinox, and a good melee weapon. With a booster, you max your focus in 2 or 3 missions. Takes less than half an hour. 

Which actually makes this suggestion all the more meaningless then.

2 minutes ago, torint_man said:

And that refutes his point how? Solo players might be in the minority (might being the operative term here), but they take up a large enough chunk of players that it would be worth making efforts to enhance their experience, namely giving them more enemies to fight. Your statement that they consist of less than 5% of the player base is something I'm going to have to call MASSIVE BS on. What I qualify as a solo player is one who plays solo more often than not. As such, I am a solo player. Your definition of solo player would have to be one who plays exclusively solo to have that 5% statistic to be reasonable.

I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings to be called a minority.

2 minutes ago, torint_man said:

I would say that at least 90% of players play solo on some regular basis. There's no point in pubing a kuva siphon. Why pub an easy mission? What if I don't care to assemble a group to play that fissure survival? Everyone benefits, including you if you have ever played or considered playing solo.

And that's your point of view.  I regularly hop into various missions on the star chart (the exception is if I'm going to be doing a lot of stuff in spy missions because of past experiences).  Most players are good enough that it at least helps increase resource generation so it's normally worth doing so rather than slugging it out alone in private games.  

That and you can (Lotus forbid) actually be social.

2 minutes ago, torint_man said:

Are you sure about that? FF 14 is a true MMO where everyone is in the same gameplay instance by default, while Warframe is by default disconnected instances of 4 players, making MMO a misnomer. They are hardly similar, as Warframe barely qualifies at best as an MMO.

FFXIV and DDO are both instanced MMOs where they don't have an actual open world.  Even the zones in FFXIV are actually a lot closer to what we're going to get in PoE than an open world game.  In those games, the city instances are basically identical to what you see in the relays.

2 minutes ago, torint_man said:

Just because a programmer or two has to spend an day or two implementing a feature doesn't suddenly mean that the feature should be abandoned.

Or maybe it means that there's a lot of other concerns and use cases that the programmer tool doesn't account for which will do all sorts of BadStuff(TM) when the general public gets a hold of it.  The coding isn't the problem - it's the QA time.

2 minutes ago, torint_man said:

Hardly. You can't do anything in the zones that isn't shopping and whatnot. ALL of the actual gameplay occurs in tiny instances. You could argue that warframe is an MMO in the strictest sense regardless, but making comparisons to other MMOs is fallacious as the only similarity that has been established is the name of one of the genres it falls into. Anyway, the feature that players want is for solo players to get spawn count like that of group players. They won't gain an advantage over group players, as groups have 4 players that can be different frames and output more firepower. Group play won't be magically less worthwhile if solo play becomes more worthwhile.

How's that any different from a city zone in a MMORPG?

2 minutes ago, torint_man said:

"Worth" isn't a limited recourse, and there is no "law of conservation of worth" to worry about. Your "doomsaying" relies on the premise that warframe is the same as typical MMOs that are around (Warframe barely qualifies as an MMO), and that making solo play more worthwhile will somehow make players abandon group play (despite the fact solo play won't be better than group play).

... but dev time is the resource that's in contention, and (IMO) it's far better to allocate dev time to stuff that everyone will make use of, and not something only a small segment of the playerbase will use.

2 minutes ago, torint_man said:

That's really reaching. Warframe is barely an MMO. It's not an MMO in the colloquial sense, which is what actually matters. The definition google has is so broad and unspecific that it could apply to any multiplayer game: "an online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously". If you try to shoehorn games into a category, the category loses its meaning, so we have to stick with colloquial definitions. Warframe is absolutely not an MMO in the same way FF14 or WoW is. If you try to jam warframe into the MMO category, then try to say that your complaints are valid because of comparisons to other games in that category, then you are being fallacious as far as I'm concerned.  

There's a difference between MMO and MMORPG, MMORTS, and an MMOFPS and being blind to that distinction only shows how little about gaming you actually know.

[Xaxma]

Why not just buff scaling all across the board and make the 4x group scaling apply solo, and then make it a 16x scaling for a full party?

[DatDarkOne]

6 hours ago, Xaxma said:

Why not just buff scaling all across the board and make the 4x group scaling apply solo, and then make it a 16x scaling for a full party?

That had been suggested earlier.  We were discussing possible ways it could be implemented before the discussion got sidetracked into something else.  :D

[Borg1611]

10 hours ago, Xaxma said:

Why not just buff scaling all across the board and make the 4x group scaling apply solo, and then make it a 16x scaling for a full party?

I think giving people options is better than just just changing the static amount. I think an increase in the set amount would be an improvement, but giving people choices in how many mobs they want to see and even at what level would make the game more fun for both solo and group players. 

If we compare it to an ARPG where you have difficulty settings, sometimes even when you're very geared and capable of the highest difficulty, you may only be in the mood to run around in a lower difficulty. Having a static difficulty or MR scaling difficulty as Steve hinted at on twitter doesn't solve the real problem, which is that people want different levels of difficulty at different times. 

Giving us some kind of controls over spawn numbers and even the ability to increase enemy levels in both solo and group play I think is the best solution to that problem. Since they already have the tech/code to scale enemies (and adjust spawn rates), it doesn't seem like it would even be that hard to implement. It's just a matter of handing over a little control to the players. 

[DatDarkOne]

8 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

Giving us some kind of controls over spawn numbers and even the ability to increase enemy levels in both solo and group play I think is the best solution to that problem. Since they already have the tech/code to scale enemies (and adjust spawn rates), it doesn't seem like it would even be that hard to implement. It's just a matter of handing over a little control to the players. 

^^This.  :D

[blackheartstar_pc]

On 9/22/2017 at 3:20 PM, DatDarkOne said:

If Raid were able to be solo'd, I bet there would be many more players that would try them and even many more that would know what to do in them. 

Truth!

[low1991]

On 9/18/2017 at 1:16 PM, TheGrimCorsair said:

Yes, please. Just disable drops and reduce XP to one quarter (to account for the increased spawns) and fire it off into the wild.

Why...? Because having to grind for xp for forma'd weapon isn't enough, now you want to fight 4x the enemy for the normal decent xp?

I dont understand the reason for the disabled drops... In a squad of 4 "REAL' players, the drops are 4x that of 1 player. 

[DatDarkOne]

5 hours ago, low1991 said:

Why...? Because having to grind for xp for forma'd weapon isn't enough, now you want to fight 4x the enemy for the normal decent xp?

I dont understand the reason for the disabled drops... In a squad of 4 "REAL' players, the drops are 4x that of 1 player. 

The idea is to have increased challenge like what Reb experienced in the demo, but without giving it a way to be abused by players for other other purposes.

Edited September 24, 2017 by DatDarkOne
clarification

[Kalvorax]

18 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

The idea is to have increased challenge like what Reb experienced in the demo, but without giving it a way to be abused by players for other other purposes.

"abused" (to DE anyways)

so on THAT note are they going to do something about 4 player defense missions then? because if that is not abuse then i dont know WHAT is to them....if i want to level something up quickly, then i WILL go to a popular defense mission and do my part while leveling what i need....otherwise I'll go have fun in a 40 minute survival (solo..or with a group if i feel like it) and get a fraction of what i could have gotten in maybe 10 minutes time at a defense or int with a group. Its not the affinity or drops per enemy that is the issue its the rate at which a squad of players can kill the enemies is what makes farming efficient....a solo player will always have a lower efficiency than a squad*....

I for one would want scaling for a challenge in terms of enemy count not ridiculous enemy damage and armor scaling *in the case of grineer or corrupted)

[DatDarkOne]

48 minutes ago, Kalvorax said:

I for one would want scaling for a challenge in terms of enemy count not ridiculous enemy damage and armor scaling *in the case of grineer or corrupted)

And that is my intention with the suggestion.  It's just that others have mentioned the other things that could possibly be effected.  Hence the discussion on possible limits and/or other suggestions for which I requested in my original post.  

I'm not disagreeing with you at all.  Just sometimes you have to bend a little to so everyone can be happy.  :D

[low1991]

1 hour ago, DatDarkOne said:

The idea is to have increased challenge like what Reb experienced in the demo, but without giving it a way to be abused by players for other other purposes.

On bold. DE should nerf all actual 4 player mission to that of 1x xp gain rate. And also disable drop rates too. 

There isn't any much differences between 4 real players and 1-man solo 4x spawn rate. Other than, 3 real players, 3 set of different abilities, lag.

What is abuse anyway...? 

On underline, who wants challenges without rewards scaled to it? At current, there for many methods of having 'increased challenge'. Most if not all are 'self-restrict' challenge. Like, playing with no mod on solo.

A question to you. Will you play a challenge without any drops (rewards) from it? Or xp rate that is equivalent to that of a normal 1x solo mode? Answer it yourself, later ask someone else.

[DatDarkOne]

1 hour ago, low1991 said:

A question to you. Will you play a challenge without any drops (rewards) from it? Or xp rate that is equivalent to that of a normal 1x solo mode? Answer it yourself, later ask someone else.

I will attempt to answer this as honestly as I can.  Yes, I would.  It also seems that I'm not the only one.  Whether that number is few or large is the focus of the viability of the suggestion.  I mean that sometimes you just want to feel really badass in a game.  :D  In some ways this can be seen as one of the core components in Warframe's popularity.  

Of course it should be an option as not everyone will feel this way.  I myself feel that teaming up with others in a group lowers overall challenge from enemies while at the same time creating challenges in another area.  Other challenges such as trying to get everyone on the same page as a true team or have the same goals.  That last challenge is what makes solo mode so attractive in the first place for some.  While others find true enjoyment in being in groups.  

2 hours ago, low1991 said:

What is abuse anyway...?

Now this one is very tricky to answer.  Mostly because of the vastly differing opinions.  But for the point of this topic, I would like to say it is something that isn't intended or foreseen by the Devs.  

I would like to thank you (and others) for those very questions that spark deeper thought.  :D

[-Temp0-]

On 19.09.2017 at 6:44 AM, Troll_Logic said:

Philosophically, I like the idea.

In practice, 99% of the players would use this simply to rank faster.  Now, if you said "A player or team can choose this option to increase difficulty, but will not receive any more affinity than normal." then sure.

Only it makes little sense.

If you're able to hold on your own in an endless mission you 'kinda' deserve that affinity, especially if you're talking misisons that starts from lv ~30 which. In missions like ODS solo you can already rank up a warframe from 0 to 30 in about 45-60 minutes. And if you're alone in most of the cases you won't be able to just spam something to kill all of those without any effort either. So those kind of things will be pretty pointless. The main issue with survivals atm is lack of life support and stupida** ai + spawn patterns which slows them on their way. Also a lack of more or less open maps or at least maps less filled with obstacles and random trash. So what exactly ahving 2-4x more enemies will do? When you can just bring Nekros for life support.

Don't say it will increase difficulty cause it won't.

[Borg1611]

I really don't think limiting affinity for solo players would be remotely necessary.

Remember that leveling a weapon solo requires that you actually kill things with that weapon. You're already at a MASSIVE disadvantage when leveling things solo. In a group like a typical hydron farm, you can literally just leech shared affinity and level weapons without killing a single enemy. In my view there's no logical reason to cut solo player affinity in 1/4th per enemy if you allow 4x the spawns. They already are killing more slowly if leveling a weapon than in a four player group and have to kill things with the weapon they're leveling. Solo leveling will still be less efficient than groups, it will just be less annoying than it is now. 

You also can do things like equinox sleeping + stealth kill farming to level weapons faster, but even that is a lot easier and more efficient with two players. That already has the potential to level much faster than you could in something like a hydron solo, even if you were able to turn spawns up to 4 player levels. 

If they implemented my suggestion and let us both turn up spawn rates and enemy levels, perhaps they would then need to cap affinity at a certain level so people didn't do something like get 150 level enemies and then cheese them with sleep + finishers or something for super fast affinity, but outside of that I don't think there would a significant issue in either drops or affinity that you'd have to limit solo players. They could just make it so affinity stops scaling past level 80 or 100 or whatever (around sortie level). I don't really see speed leveling as a big issue in general anyway. MR farming isn't very compelling or interesting content to begin with. Soon we'll want to be wandering around landscapes, not power leveling mastery fodder in the same maps we've been doing forever. The faster you can level a weapon/frame the better IMO. 

Also, in regards to drops or resource farming, remember that a group can run multiple loot frames and would still farm resources much faster than a solo player with one loot frame, even if they could turn spawn rates up to the level of four players. 

People have made similar suggestions about spawn rate control or difficulty controls for a long time, I'm not sure if DE has ever talked about it in a stream before. I doubt their reasons for not doing it yet are that they're afraid solo players will get affinity faster than they can now (which is still slower than you can in a group). Perhaps they were afraid people would all be doing that one most efficient map with the difficulty turned all the way up? But we already are doing the most efficient maps anyway... Maybe if someone could ask them during a dev stream we could get some insight into why they haven't done this already so we can discuss whatever downsides they may actually be concerned about instead of guessing and arguing about a topic that may not even be a real reason the devs have against doing it. Maybe they love the idea and just haven't gotten around to it yet.

[DatDarkOne]

33 minutes ago, -Temp0- said:

Don't say it will increase difficulty cause it won't.

In some cases it will and in others it won't.  In solo survival, having increased enemies won't be a challenge at all for a Prowl Ivara.  Then again it would be more of a challenge for that very same Prowl Ivara in a Defense mission.  So, the challenge could vary depending on frame and or mission.  :D

7 minutes ago, Borg1611 said:

Also, in regards to drops or resource farming, remember that a group can run multiple loot frames and would still farm resources much faster than a solo player with one loot frame, even if they could turn spawn rates up to the level of four players. 

People have made similar suggestions about spawn rate control or difficulty controls for a long time, I'm not sure if DE has ever talked about it in a stream before. I doubt their reasons for not doing it yet are that they're afraid solo players will get affinity faster than they can now (which is still slower than you can in a group). Perhaps they were afraid people would all be doing that one most efficient map with the difficulty turned all the way up? But we already are doing the most efficient maps anyway... Maybe if someone could ask them during a dev stream we could get some insight into why they haven't done this already so we can discuss whatever downsides they may actually be concerned about instead of guessing and arguing about a topic that may not even be a real reason the devs have against doing it. Maybe they love the idea and just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Those are very interesting points there.  

Edited September 24, 2017 by DatDarkOne

[-Temp0-]

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

In some cases it will and in others it won't.  In solo survival, having increased enemies won't be a challenge at all for a Prowl Ivara.  Then again it would be more of a challenge for that very same Prowl Ivara in a Defense mission.  So, the challenge could vary depending on frame and or mission.  :D

Only there's no reasons for increased spawns in defense.

[DatDarkOne]

3 minutes ago, -Temp0- said:

Only there's no reasons for increased spawns in defense.

There are also no reasons for doing Defense missions solo other than challenge.  Extra challenge is the main goal of my suggestion.  :D

Edit: admittedly only in regards to enemy spawn rates.  

Edited September 24, 2017 by DatDarkOne