so.....how long are we going to ignore cheese mechanics?

[W3zeer]

6 hours ago, Krazzie said:

If you agree with TheBrsrkr. Then I guess you agree that one person should be able to dictate how Everyone should run on a pug run

It is YOU who does that. Because some setups wont let other ppl do ANYTHING.

 

5 hours ago, Krazzie said:

I'd figured you'll say this, even if Player1, doesn't wipe the room.  The other 3 will Control the game.  Therefore you'll always have a Player who is controlling the Game.  So in your case, when is player not controlling the game?  At that point I guess they all just don't do anything, so in a way none of them are controlling the game.  Every time a player deviates, then that player is controlling the game.  It just doesn't make sense.

Your last part is the most important one, because your argument indeed makes no sense. First you alter the axample given to you and fight a strawman. And even at that there is no merit in your argument. Fighting for scraps is not "controlling the game".

 

3 hours ago, Krazzie said:

Controlling = Not Controlling? How much killing = too much killing?  Do I have to keep count how each person kills?  I have to move the same pace of others?  My frame moves twice as fast do I have to downgrade?  As long as people get to kill stuff.  I can just kill everything and leave a few for them to kill that should be fine right? I'm not even spamming or micro-ing my set of skills.  No, because then it'll start effecting you.  Wow, I really, really have to watch what I am are doing.  If I do just a little amount more than you and the other person.  Then that means I am effect you and therefore I am controlling the game.  If you are not doing enough, does that mean you're effecting me? Straw Man

Sorry, but it seems to me you simply don't WANT to understand what is said to you. We're not talking about fine differences but about the case where a team, despite their best effort can't participate in the game, because one of them dictates that they are just scavengers this match, because he effortlessly kills more than 90% of the enemies while rushing to extraction. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be able to switch positions and even try to understand how you way of gaming affects others. Hell, even when I'm playing a maim equinox or WoF-ember, I usually turn that stuff off every now and then, when I see the others don't just want the mission to end as quickly as possible but to shoot stuff (relic missions being the prime example, where you actually have an interesst in getting it done as fast as you can). And that is how you can accuse everyone else of trying to "control the game" while actually it is you and ppl with you mindset who are doing that. And it's sad that you can't even see that. Also, we're not primarily arguing against the players who excessivly abuse those tools they were given. Because this is pointless and more important the wrong place in a feedback forum. What we are providing is our opinion about a game mechanic we hope will be changed in the future. And for that to happen, no philosophical argument about controlling everyone's fun will matter, but only the cold hard numbers which DE has access to. If ppl can't keep themselfs in check, the Devs will do that for them.

[Volinus7]

You cast more than 3 abilities in one minute, red card!!

You've toggled an ability more than 15 seconds without waiting for 30 seconds cooldown, red card!!

Edited October 4, 2017 by Volinus7

[TheBrsrkr]

7 hours ago, Krazzie said:

Reread everyone's and your post again. Slowly.  And see why people disagree with you, and why you get the reply you did.  That is my answer to your answers.

Way to not address any point in favor of snarky comebacks. This is not an answer. 

Here are the questions you didn't answer:

Why do you make the distinction of 3 players playing the game? Why can the 4th player not play as well? 

What is the difference between 3 players "controlling" the game, and 3 players just playing the game? 

Where exactly did I say this? The quote function is right there. 

8 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

Do I have to keep count how each person kills?  I have to move the same pace of others?  My frame moves twice as fast do I have to downgrade?  As long as people get to kill stuff.  I can just kill everything and leave a few for them to kill that should be fine right? I'm not even spamming or micro-ing my set of skills.  No, because then it'll start effecting you.  Wow, I really, really have to watch what I am are doing.  If I do just a little amount more than you and the other person.  Then that means I am effect you and therefore I am controlling the game

Andy final question, which I will repeat until I can get a proper answer, why should one player be allowed to run from room to room, press 1 key, and kill enough enemies to clear a room, while leaving every other style of gameplay to rot because of its efficiency?

[Volinus7]

Quick summary of the discussion in this thread 

"Warframe sucks and doesn't deserve the co-op tag." 

[(PSN)Crixus044]

16 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

While I agree that either we need to be scaled down or they need to scaled up, this doesn't really solve the issue with ability spam.

First off, what happens to all the other content? You'd just take a dump on the entries starchart and the Void, which we are kinda doing already. Next, what about abilities that only really work as spam for starchart content? Ember comes to mind. World on fire isn't that good, but enemies on Uranus are very bad (I think it was Jupiter. DE mixed up all those planets. Next the game is the reward you get. How do you split it? Will it be the same reward for everyone? Will the bigger contributor get more.? Etc. 

Finally, people would still play the low level missions because that's really just who they are. It's what they're used to dong and even if they don't stick with it they'll come back eventually for a when. 

You have to understand that all this content isn't suppose to be constantly repeated.  My idea of a higher level mission WOULD be placed in the star chart anyways, maybe tying it into the Nightmare Mode or a new mode called Transference exclusively for Lens farming. I posted a thread earlier that got a positive response that there should be missions with more intense level scaling. It could be placed primarily for fun, but tying a reward in it would be interesting and would give a place for us endurance runners to test our metal.

Just because an ability does something weird at lower levels doesn't mean that's it's intended design. World on Fire was always more of a CC/Damage ability, since it causes constant fire procs, keeping enemies panicked. If I brought in an equinox and noticed her slash procs constantly killing enemies by simply touching them, I'd think her only use was as a low level killing aura, even though we all know, her ability to store damage to be released makes her one of the best dps frames in game. Same of Ember. She's not there to kill everything on sight, that's just a side effect of her abilities. She's there to soften them up and keep them on fire. Soundquake use to be the ultimate E Prime killing ability, back when farming for credits and syndicate standing was a big thing, but anyone who was around to play the Phoenix Intercept Tactical Alert knows that it's one of the best scaling CC abilities in game. Resonating Quake may be there to kill everything in low-mid levels, but in higher levels, it's still one of the best defensive cc abilities due to it's ability to constantly keep the entire map staggered.

Edited October 4, 2017 by (PS4)Crixus044

[(PSN)Crixus044]

On 9/29/2017 at 1:27 PM, SPARTAN-187.Thanatos said:

*Snip*

I like the idea of enemies scaling based on our gear, but the issue again is balancing these setups. If you remember, there was something in the game called Conclave Rating. It was a measure of your loadout's power and was used in tactical alerts to restrict our abilities and weapon in higher level content. The Legendary Phoenix Intercept had this exact methodology with us fighting level 150s using only a measily 400 conclave rating. It made the mission to this day the hardest thing done in game. Your system is very much like this.

The issue with Conclave rating was that is wasn't always accurate, and some lower conclave rated equipment was actually better than the higher leveled equipment, thus the whole system was a wash. It was intended for use in PvP conclave to allow for fair play across the board.and to have balance between player builds. I found my ways around it though. I use to sit at around 1200 conclave with my favorite loadout, but if I wanted to, I could bump up my conclave rating to 1500, but I'd be using gear that I either didn't like, or was actually worse. Thus, I'd be using my 1200 conclave rating loadouts beating everybody in the conclave, but I couldn't fight the higher leveled players because of the rating restriction. This system was eventually removed and those that remember it are called the old-heads of the game.

I tell you this history lesson for you to understand how balance in this game is such a herculeantask, and putting a rating on everything, given how many variable this game has, will not work

[o.0-]

2 minutes ago, (PS4)Crixus044 said:

Spoiler

 

I like the idea of enemies scaling based on our gear, but the issue again is balancing these setups. If you remember, there was something in the game called Conclave Rating. It was a measure of your loadout's power and was used in tactical alerts to restrict our abilities and weapon in higher level content. The Legendary Phoenix Intercept had this exact methodology with us fighting level 150s using only a measily 400 conclave rating. It made the mission to this day the hardest thing done in game. Your system is very much like this.

The issue with Conclave rating was that is wasn't always accurate, and some lower conclave rated equipment was actually better than the higher leveled equipment, thus the whole system was a wash. It was intended for use in PvP conclave to allow for fair play across the board.and to have balance between player builds. I found my ways around it though. I use to sit at around 1200 conclave with my favorite loadout, but if I wanted to, I could bump up my conclave rating to 1500, but I'd be using gear that I either didn't like, or was actually worse. Thus, I'd be using my 1200 conclave rating loadouts beating everybody in the conclave, but I couldn't fight the higher leveled players because of the rating restriction. This system was eventually removed and those that remember it are called the old-heads of the game.

I tell you this history lesson for you to understand how balance in this game is such a herculeantask, and putting a rating on everything, given how many variable this game has, will not work

 

 

I never said reuse the old Conclave formulas.

Past 5 min or waves in endless, Sortie, Nightmare, Raids, Alerts and specific nodes (Mot, Rathuum arenas, Index, Dark Sectors and so on) would be where increased scaling would exist and provide us the challenges.

From playing Sorties, and hearing about the 4x spawn rate, the devs seem to have more and more tools to eventually build up a floating scale system.

Remember that the core of the idea is to place the squad on a more level playing field to each other and against the content they face as intended by the devs.

What we can see when joining a group is a mix of builds where one player can be highly optimized to tackle say beyond Sortie 3 content, where the others are ranging from leveling a brand new set of gear, to forma'ing gear to a brand new player who still needs to farm for mods endo and so on.

With the idea I propose to explore is that to make mission to mission experience more even, is to modify aspects of the given content to the strongest squad member and then doing the same for the other three players. A part of this is making use of faction damage modifiers, damage caps, and other tweaks to craft the experience the devs intended, regardless of how powerful we can get through mods.

 

So in other words, the numbers are crucial to balancing, with the goal of bringing the intended experience for Warframe to more of the players. I often read on the forums that this is a horde shooter, which is true to an extent, however not necessarily what was intended; and I happen to want this game to be more than that anyway.

I can imagine a squad of players engaging squads of enemies, as we move through the map to complete the objectives, and if an alarm sounds, an elite specialist squad is called in to stop us. So say with fewer enemies spawning, they can individually be stronger and smarter, and as such the devs can then work in more systems. Such as refining the weak points system, improving enemies in general and bring more to the Warframe experience.

 

As for PvP content, I haven't thought about how that should go, since I haven't actually used Conclave much and not since those events for that mode.

[(PSN)Crixus044]

3 minutes ago, SPARTAN-187.Thanatos said:

I never said reuse the old Conclave formulas.

Past 5 min or waves in endless, Sortie, Nightmare, Raids, Alerts and specific nodes (Mot, Rathuum arenas, Index, Dark Sectors and so on) would be where increased scaling would exist and provide us the challenges.

From playing Sorties, and hearing about the 4x spawn rate, the devs seem to have more and more tools to eventually build up a floating scale system.

Remember that the core of the idea is to place the squad on a more level playing field to each other and against the content they face as intended by the devs.

What we can see when joining a group is a mix of builds where one player can be highly optimized to tackle say beyond Sortie 3 content, where the others are ranging from leveling a brand new set of gear, to forma'ing gear to a brand new player who still needs to farm for mods endo and so on.

With the idea I propose to explore is that to make mission to mission experience more even, is to modify aspects of the given content to the strongest squad member and then doing the same for the other three players. A part of this is making use of faction damage modifiers, damage caps, and other tweaks to craft the experience the devs intended, regardless of how powerful we can get through mods.

 

So in other words, the numbers are crucial to balancing, with the goal of bringing the intended experience for Warframe to more of the players. I often read on the forums that this is a horde shooter, which is true to an extent, however not necessarily what was intended; and I happen to want this game to be more than that anyway.

I can imagine a squad of players engaging squads of enemies, as we move through the map to complete the objectives, and if an alarm sounds, an elite specialist squad is called in to stop us. So say with fewer enemies spawning, they can individually be stronger and smarter, and as such the devs can then work in more systems. Such as refining the weak points system, improving enemies in general and bring more to the Warframe experience.

 

As for PvP content, I haven't thought about how that should go, since I haven't actually used Conclave much and not since those events for that mode.

I am fine with the rest of the idea, but what I brought up Conclave rating for was to show that your idea of rating builds cannot be accurately measured. Give me 4 willing participants, and we can set the game record for the longest survival using 4 frames that don't even have a catalyst or a forma on them, NOT USING CHEESY MECHANICS. Now, what this team comp is, I'd rather not tell, but the point is that you can't make a rating on a build no matter what.

[o.0-]

1 minute ago, (PS4)Crixus044 said:

I am fine with the rest of the idea, but what I brought up Conclave rating for was to show that your idea of rating builds cannot be accurately measured. Give me 4 willing participants, and we can set the game record for the longest survival using 4 frames that don't even have a catalyst or a forma on them, NOT USING CHEESY MECHANICS. Now, what this team comp is, I'd rather not tell, but the point is that you can't make a rating on a build no matter what.

Interesting that you want to rate builds. To be honest, rating builds has not crossed my mind.

Again, my primary focus is for working on the base experience first, as to the direct interactions of the various existing systems (weapon damage, ability damage, enemy health, player health, armor, CC interactions and so on).

Not necessarily for how going as long as possible in survival or other endless missions is done or not done. Since as we should see, the scaling mechanisms that we have had so far, have done a decent job in raising the threshold, and should not see too much beyond tweaks here and there.

So to restate, the first step is reinforcing Warframe's foundation and providing the intended experience in non-endless, and for at least a portion of the first five min/waves of endless content, as envisioned by the devs. Then content that is supposed to be tough can be crafted from there and provide players more of a challenge, than how the game can go now.

[(PSN)Crixus044]

29 minutes ago, SPARTAN-187.Thanatos said:

Remember that the core of the idea is to place the squad on a more level playing field to each other and against the content they face as intended by the devs.

What we can see when joining a group is a mix of builds where one player can be highly optimized to tackle say beyond Sortie 3 content, where the others are ranging from leveling a brand new set of gear, to forma'ing gear to a brand new player who still needs to farm for mods endo and so on.

With the idea I propose to explore is that to make mission to mission experience more even, is to modify aspects of the given content to the strongest squad member and then doing the same for the other three players. A part of this is making use of faction damage modifiers, damage caps, and other tweaks to craft the experience the devs intended, regardless of how powerful we can get through mods.

 

 

3 minutes ago, SPARTAN-187.Thanatos said:

Interesting that you want to rate builds. To be honest, rating builds has not crossed my mind.

Again, my primary focus is for working on the base experience first, as to the direct interactions of the various existing systems (weapon damage, ability damage, enemy health, player health, armor, CC interactions and so on).

Not necessarily for how going as long as possible in survival or other endless missions is done or not done. Since as we should see, the scaling mechanisms that we have had so far, have done a decent job in raising the threshold, and should not see too much beyond tweaks here and there.

So to restate, the first step is reinforcing Warframe's foundation and providing the intended experience in non-endless, and for at least a portion of the first five min/waves of endless content, as envisioned by the devs. Then content that is supposed to be tough can be crafted from there and provide players more of a challenge, than how the game can go now.

You're rating builds right here. If I'm seeing this wrong, please forgive me, but from the looks of it, you want to put a cap on players based on their builds compared to everyone else. Can I just say that this idea wouldn't make it out of the oven that is our forum community.

[o.0-]

1 minute ago, (PS4)Crixus044 said:

 

You're rating builds right here. If I'm seeing this wrong, please forgive me, but from the looks of it, you want to put a cap on players based on their builds compared to everyone else. Can I just say that this idea wouldn't make it out of the oven that is our forum community.

 

Ah, I see how the graph can be interpreted. Allow me to go in more detail of what is supposed to be represented. I likely need to think of a better image to express the idea better. So, currently, from the wiki:

The Nox has a damage cap on its entire body, minus its head, which reduces incoming damage by a very large amount. Even when all of its armor is removed, your damage will only be marginally improved (for example the Dread that was doing 79 damage with full armor, does 240 damage with no armor).

So here is one static example of how the idea can be expanded on, so again it is a start, with the main aspect to consider is how the enemy is intended to exist inside the game in relation to the gear we have access to. So we know a Nox's armor is made of Alloy and this is most vulnerable to Radiation so a weapon like the Arca Plasmor would be one of the top options to defeat a Nox.

From here the devs can state that once the Glass Helmet of the Nox is breached, the Plasmor has the ability to kill a Nox with two blasts of the Arca Plasmor.

And so here is where we can see the floating scale, depending on how systems interrelate in the engine, so that a player that has a zero forma, zero potato Arca Plasmor can kill a Nox with a breached Glass Helmet in two Shots, as easily as player with a fully optimized Arca Plasmor (when in the area where the devs intend to first present the Nox as an enemy).

Meaning that in static non-endless missions whenever a Nox is found, we need to breach its Glass Helmet and be capable of dispatching it with two shots of the shotgun.

Then if the Arca Plasmor is optimized with forma and catalyst, the new loadout will be able to continue killing a breached Nox with two shots from the shotgun as it scales in endless missions to a certain point as determined by how the devs want endless to scale.

If the devs want 5 min / 5 wave runs to be the standard, then for example it would be here the scaling of the designed relationship between the shotgun and enemy scale as it currently does in endless and enemies become tougher and tougher until the player decides to Extract.

And the potential with thinking in these terms is that each enemy type can see such relationships crafted, where for example, other tough Grineer Heavies that use Alloy can see such relationships to our Gear. Where Naplams, Bombards can see creative updates like the Nox introduces and keeps them as tough gotta watch out for them enemies.

Furthermore, how enemy damage can relate to players is the next area to consider, and since Tenno are a faction the use of such could apply as well. So building from a static non-endless mission and say 5 min / 5 waves standard, here are some ideas:

The squishiest frames could possibly determine how effective certain attacks could be as a basis. When hit by a Nox or Napalm, could consider say depleting the shields and 2/3rds of the health as the standard with a direct hit as a base experience and scale from there in endless situations. In endless, direct hits eventually scale beyond the mods we have installed, eventually leading us to adapt and eventually extract.

So that way a player that invests in defensive mods in the build would still need to be mindful of a direct hit, but a player that hasn't or can't yet (like a brand new player) isn't out right penalized either, for the intended base experience that the devs want for us.

Then scaling kicks in if we want to see how far we can go in endless and eventually see enemy damage out pace our defensive mods.

I feel that between the use of damage caps, faction damage formulas and a floating scaling system, the devs can better design how enemies relate to the players, and create the intended experience in more areas regardless of how OP some of our gear has gotten.

Boss fights too can feel rewarding and the bosses themselves would be more evenly matched against a cell/squad of Tenno. So with the idea of floating leveling is to create the experience, where for example, instead of a boss dying in seconds when we can damage them, the boss can fight out for a sequence, matching the intended design of the devs regardless of the cell/squads OP gear.

So going with Mesa as another example against say the Sergeant (starting with this one, since he doesn't have special phases and is one of the early bosses), the devs could intend for this boss to handle instead of getting melted in a few seconds, the boss could say resist 45 seconds of Peacemaker fire throughout the boss battle. So Mesa would still be the fastest way to defeat this enemy, but at least we would be seeing more of challenge as the devs intended.

This way a new Mesa that has Peacemaker would anticipate this, and an optimized Mesa would still be able to experience something of a challenge too.

A mix of direct damage reduction and, like rivens faction damage reduction, can be used to scale this for the players going against the Sarge, so that the scaling works evenly between the players from how I currently understand how those calculations work.

Then his damage to us would be the next factor, so using the squishiest frame, a shot from his Lanka could deplete shields and leave us with say 1/4 health left, as he is a boss and has minions around.

I hope this amount of detail clears up the approach I intend with this idea for the base experience for Warframe.

[Krazzie]

11 hours ago, W3zeer said:

Sorry, but it seems to me you simply don't WANT to understand what is said to you. We're not talking about fine differences but about the case where a team, despite their best effort can't participate in the game, because one of them dictates that they are just scavengers this match, because he effortlessly kills more than 90% of the enemies while rushing to extraction. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be able to switch positions and even try to understand how you way of gaming affects others. Hell, even when I'm playing a maim equinox or WoF-ember, I usually turn that stuff off every now and then, when I see the others don't just want the mission to end as quickly as possible but to shoot stuff (relic missions being the prime example, where you actually have an interesst in getting it done as fast as you can). And that is how you can accuse everyone else of trying to "control the game" while actually it is you and ppl with you mindset who are doing that. And it's sad that you can't even see that. Also, we're not primarily arguing against the players who excessivly abuse those tools they were given. Because this is pointless and more important the wrong place in a feedback forum. What we are providing is our opinion about a game mechanic we hope will be changed in the future. And for that to happen, no philosophical argument about controlling everyone's fun will matter, but only the cold hard numbers which DE has access to. If ppl can't keep themselfs in check, the Devs will do that for them.

Yes, it is sad that you people only see one way and not both ways.  There is no right or wrong, in your guys case, as long as you guys deem so, then its right. As I've said before there is a difference in forcing and addressing the issue.  Can't force pugs to bend to your playing style.  It is called public for a reason.

 

6 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

Way to not address any point in favor of snarky comebacks. This is not an answer. 

If you can't answer a question, don't give dumb reply.  If you want people to read your post slowly, and think about what you have said.  I assume you should do the same for the other people.  Read it as a whole and not just by statement to statement.  And I'm sure people are reading your post slowly.  You just don't like the answer you are given.  In your eyes its not answer.

 

6 hours ago, TheBrsrkr said:

Here are the questions you didn't answer:

1.Why do you make the distinction of 3 players playing the game? Why can the 4th player not play as well? 

2.What is the difference between 3 players "controlling" the game, and 3 players just playing the game? 

3.Where exactly did I say this? The quote function is right there. 

4.Andy final question, which I will repeat until I can get a proper answer, why should one player be allowed to run from room to room, press 1 key, and kill enough enemies to clear a room, while leaving every other style of gameplay to rot because of its efficiency?

1.  If these 3 individual don't like this one person playing the way he likes in a public runs.  Then they are forcing this one player to play like them.  Vice versa
2. No difference.  Pug run is still a pug run.  If they play in the game, they're playing the game.
3. I would say the same for you.  What have you said, that you were given that answer.
4. It is his/her given right to do that in a public run.  He/She doesn't need to provide a service when he/she plays in a pug run.  Better yet I'd say he/she is providing that agency you are so found of, just that you don't like that kind agency service. 

Here's my question and it is simple:

What are public/pug runs?

Why determind person or a group to play a certain way in a pugs?

Don't like the service pugs are providing.  Why join them? Why not create a private group to run the way the you or the group likes.

Why does it matter in public runs?

Lastly, what is the difference between forcing and addressing a issue? 

I'll just follow your lead until I get a proper answer.  And if you feel like you did, well end of discussion.  If you still see as not right.  Then you need reevaluate your way of thinking.

 

 

 

Straying way out of topic

 

[(PSN)Crixus044]

15 minutes ago, SPARTAN-187.Thanatos said:

 

Ah, I see how the graph can be interpreted. Allow me to go in more detail of what is supposed to be represented. I likely need to think of a better image to express the idea better. So, currently, from the wiki:

The Nox has a damage cap on its entire body, minus its head, which reduces incoming damage by a very large amount. Even when all of its armor is removed, your damage will only be marginally improved (for example the Dread that was doing 79 damage with full armor, does 240 damage with no armor).

So here is one static example of how the idea can be expanded on, so again it is a start, with the main aspect to consider is how the enemy is intended to exist inside the game in relation to the gear we have access to. So we know a Nox's armor is made of Alloy and this is most vulnerable to Radiation so a weapon like the Arca Plasmor would be one of the top options to defeat a Nox.

From here the devs can state that once the Glass Helmet of the Nox is breached, the Plasmor has the ability to kill a Nox with two blasts of the Arca Plasmor.

And so here is where we can see the floating scale, depending on how systems interrelate in the engine, so that a player that has a zero forma, zero potato Arca Plasmor can kill a Nox with a breached Glass Helmet in two Shots, as easily as player with a fully optimized Arca Plasmor (when in the area where the devs intend to first present the Nox as an enemy).

Meaning that in static non-endless missions whenever a Nox is found, we need to breach its Glass Helmet and be capable of dispatching it with two shots of the shotgun.

Then if the Arca Plasmor is optimized with forma and catalyst, the new loadout will be able to continue killing a breached Nox with two shots from the shotgun as it scales in endless missions to a certain point as determined by how the devs want endless to scale.

If the devs want 5 min / 5 wave runs to be the standard, then for example it would be here the scaling of the designed relationship between the shotgun and enemy scale as it currently does in endless and enemies become tougher and tougher until the player decides to Extract.

And the potential with thinking in these terms is that each enemy type can see such relationships crafted, where for example, other tough Grineer Heavies that use Alloy can see such relationships to our Gear. Where Naplams, Bombards can see creative updates like the Nox introduces and keeps them as tough gotta watch out for them enemies.

Furthermore, how enemy damage can relate to players is the next area to consider, and since Tenno are a faction the use of such could apply as well. So building from a static non-endless mission and say 5 min / 5 waves standard, here are some ideas:

The squishiest frames could possibly determine how effective certain attacks could be as a basis. When hit by a Nox or Napalm, could consider say depleting the shields and 2/3rds of the health as the standard with a direct hit as a base experience and scale from there in endless situations. In endless, direct hits eventually scale beyond the mods we have installed, eventually leading us to adapt and eventually extract.

So that way a player that invests in defensive mods in the build would still need to be mindful of a direct hit, but a player that hasn't or can't yet (like a brand new player) isn't out right penalized either, for the intended base experience that the devs want for us.

Then scaling kicks in if we want to see how far we can go in endless and eventually see enemy damage out pace our defensive mods.

I feel that between the use of damage caps, faction damage formulas and a floating scaling system, the devs can better design how enemies relate to the players, and create the intended experience in more areas regardless of how OP some of our gear has gotten.

Boss fights too can feel rewarding and the bosses themselves would be more evenly matched against a cell/squad of Tenno. So with the idea of floating leveling is to create the experience, where for example, instead of a boss dying in seconds when we can damage them, the boss can fight out for a sequence, matching the intended design of the devs regardless of the cell/squads OP gear.

So going with Mesa as another example against say the Sergeant (starting with this one, since he doesn't have special phases and is one of the early bosses), the devs could intend for this boss to handle instead of getting melted in a few seconds, the boss could say resist 45 seconds of Peacemaker fire throughout the boss battle. So Mesa would still be the fastest way to defeat this enemy, but at least we would be seeing more of challenge as the devs intended.

This way a new Mesa that has Peacemaker would anticipate this, and an optimized Mesa would still be able to experience something of a challenge too.

A mix of direct damage reduction and, like rivens faction damage reduction, can be used to scale this for the players going against the Sarge, so that the scaling works evenly between the players from how I currently understand how those calculations work.

Then his damage to us would be the next factor, so using the squishiest frame, a shot from his Lanka could deplete shields and leave us with say 1/4 health left, as he is a boss and has minions around.

I hope this amount of detail clears up the approach I intend with this idea for the base experience for Warframe.

YEs this actually clears things up for me. Just so you know though, static missions like exterminate are also getting level scaling. I'm gonna be honest here and say that while the concept advocates balance, I am totally against it. What would be the purpose of mods then? And the Arca Plasmor can take down a Nox in two shots, but at what level? And with what build? If you're gonna dictate what a weapon does, then you're going to need a TTK calculator. My friend Summit has been working on something like that, and the variables involved are just too damn complicated, accounting for headshots, status procs, damage fall off, warframe passive abilities, etc. you can't and shouldn't do that. Free floating enemy scaling would work in pvp if we were to use our builds there, but for pve, no can do.

[DatDarkOne]

4 minutes ago, (PS4)Crixus044 said:

My friend Summit has been working on something like that, and the variables involved are just too damn complicated, accounting for headshots, status procs, damage fall off, warframe passive abilities,

I agree with this.  Each time a balance pass idea is raised, I automatically start thinking how my frame of choice is either effected very badly or how that frame can break it.  I also take in how those ideas effect both group play and solo mode.  Most don't seem to realize that the game is way more balanced in it's solo play than it is in group play.  

[(PSN)Crixus044]

Just now, DatDarkOne said:

I agree with this.  Each time a balance pass idea is raised, I automatically start thinking how my frame of choice is either effected very badly or how that frame can break it.  I also take in how those ideas effect both group play and solo mode.  Most don't seem to realize that the game is way more balanced in it's solo play than it is in group play.  

Exactly. It's this exact reason that the idea of balancing the game by how randoms play in a PUG is ridiculous. In solo mode, you're only competing against the enemies for kills. In endgame runs, you're not gonna ever be fighting for kills, because most likely you have a team comp that works in a cognitive way.

[o.0-]

1 minute ago, (PS4)Crixus044 said:

YEs this actually clears things up for me. Just so you know though, static missions like exterminate are also getting level scaling. I'm gonna be honest here and say that while the concept advocates balance, I am totally against it. What would be the purpose of mods then? And the Arca Plasmor can take down a Nox in two shots, but at what level? And with what build? If you're gonna dictate what a weapon does, then you're going to need a TTK calculator. My friend Summit has been working on something like that, and the variables involved are just too damn complicated, accounting for headshots, status procs, damage fall off, warframe passive abilities, etc. you can't and shouldn't do that. Free floating enemy scaling would work in pvp if we were to use our builds there, but for pve, no can do.

The purpose of mods will continue to be for facing tougher content.

And going from world to world can still have minimum thresholds as they do now. So the early worlds would have the most even experiences, then reaching Jupiter and beyond can have higher and higher minimum thresholds as to how we engage the enemy.

And who will dictate how equipment will perform in relation to the enemy will continue to be the devs. I was trying to think of one example to try and explain the idea.

Free floating? Hmm? I wonder if that might be possible? When a squad is made and the countdown starts, as the parameters are getting established, that is when the relationships should get set. (a potential challenge will be when players quit, and how the relationships modify as a result. Depends on how dynamic the existing systems are).

[Rakosta_Kai]

1 hour ago, (PS4)Crixus044 said:

I tell you this history lesson for you to understand how balance in this game is such a herculeantask, and putting a rating on everything, given how many variable this game has, will not work

Yet,  item level and armor ratings are a standard gateway determining the types of content players can tackle in other games.

The actual problem with the conclave rating system you mentioned was that it was shoehorned into PvE with a minimum of iteration and, imo, zero polish.

Done properly, this could resolve all issues immediately provided a baseline and typing system was employed, vetted, and polished.

Those values likely exist here already which would explain all frames aren't equal in their base stat allocations.

Likewise, the typing and value of incomparable skills and conditions is likely already done because we see them in Riven mods.

The other issue with the old system was that it forced players to stay inside the random number requirement which allowed folks to game it due to the system lacking in polish.

 

Here's the thing though...None of it matters.

We see long threads like this one reciting how X or Y needs to be nerfed in their learned opinion.

The end result has consistently been that X or Y either is or isn't nerfed and something else takes it's place regardless.

Nerf herding hasn't slowed Power Creep down an inch.

That's because either:

• We are missing a stabilizing mechanic (or mechanics)
• DE doesn't care
• The opinions used to support the nerf herding are wrong
• Table lamps (...ya never know)

Pick any of the above, as it please you, because none of them are actionable. Make more up if that's your jam.

..Changes nothing.

I don't care if a player uses Maiming Strike or any other of the long list of items players have compiled as the bane of the game's balance.

Vastly more important to me is the sense of group cohesion and consideration present in that group.

I'm more concerned if I am dealing with the type of person that'll take an endgame viable build into a lvl 12 or 112 mission and murder every mob present to fuel their ego...I don't want to run with those folks.

...Because they are "That Guy".

We all know "That Guy"...

• They are the player that brags about carrying groups. They are the player that gets mad when they only do 90% of the damage in the summary
• They are the player(s) that see the Summary Screen as a competition even though they know it's against unwitting and unwilling opponents.
• They are the player(s) that speed run a boss fight and feel inconvenienced when the rest of the squad isn't at the extraction point when they get there...Those ungrateful wretches.

Tigris, Maiming Strike, Slide Attacks, Saryn, Ash, and Kermit the Frog aren't where the list of things that can, could, or will enable this behavior start or stop and "That Guy" will always use those things.

...Because "That Guy" doesn't change. 

Its' "That Guy" that I don't want to play with.

The rest of the crap folks think needs to be changed is irrelevant as long as "That Guy" exists and remains encouraged by their behavior. "That Guy " will always find the next thing and run it into the ground at other folks expense. 

 

 

[DatDarkOne]

3 minutes ago, Padre_Akais said:

The rest of the crap folks think needs to be changed is irrelevant as long as "That Guy" exists and remains encouraged by their behavior. "That Guy " will always find the next thing and run it into the ground at other folks expense. 

This fine Tenno gets it.  :D

[TheBrsrkr]

4 hours ago, Krazzie said:

If you can't answer a question, don't give dumb reply.  If you want people to read your post slowly, and think about what you have said.  I assume you should do the same for the other people.  Read it as a whole and not just by statement to statement.  And I'm sure people are reading your post slowly.  You just don't like the answer you are given.  In your eyes its not answer

I asked you to quote the post where I said that everything needs to be the same and where everyone has to go at the exact same pace. I also pointed out that I said the literal opposite of that. You did not quote me saying that. Is it perhaps because I didn't? No, no, it must be a strawman of some sort. 

 

I'm still waiting  for that quote. 

4 hours ago, Krazzie said:

 

1.  If these 3 individual don't like this one person playing the way he likes in a public runs.  Then they are forcing this one player to play like them.  Vice versa

What do you mean by "like them?" There is no "like them" because they could play in any way they want. They don't all have to play the same way. So your argument is that they're forcing a player to stop preventing them from playing and let them play any way they want? Considering the 4th player can still play the game, this means nothing. The only difference is he has to compete with everyone else like the game was designed to in the first place. I don't really care if you want to break the game. Sucks to be you. Find another way. And I know you're gonna say that I'm a hypocrite for stopping someone from playing how they want, but if playing how you want means that, and I repeat,  everyone else cannot play as they want, they are not the problem. You are. 

 

4 hours ago, Krazzie said:

 

1. No difference.  Pug run is still a pug run.  If they play in the game, they're playing the game.

If there is no difference, you render point number 1 moot. 

 

4 hours ago, Krazzie said:

1. .
2. I would say the same for you.  What have you said, that you were given that answer.

This not only doesn't answer the question, it makes no sense in this context. I asked where the quote is, and you said "I would say the same for you". What does that even mean? And the sentence "What you have said, that you were given that answer" makes no sense however I look at it. What are you trying to tell me here? Maybe it's a typo?

 

4 hours ago, Krazzie said:

1. It is his/her given right to do that in a public run.  He/She doesn't need to provide a service when he/she plays in a pug run.  Better yet I'd say he/she is providing that agency you are so found of, just that you don't like that kind agency service. 

Finally, a straight answer! 

And it's wrong. 

No, you do not have the right to take away the agency of other players. No one has the right to do that. Though it seems you don't understand what agency is in this context. 

Agency means the capacity to act, to exert your influence as you see fit. Agency describes the act of doing what you can with the tools at your disposal. One player exerting their agency to stop the other 3 players from doing the same is not providing agency in any sense. There's no better way to explain this. You are not increasing player agency, you're reducing it. Less can be done. 

4 hours ago, Krazzie said:

1. . 

Here's my question and it is simple:

1.What are public/pug runs?

2.Why determind person or a group to play a certain way in a pugs?

3.Don't like the service pugs are providing.  Why join them? Why not create a private group to run the way the you or the group likes.

4.Why does it matter in public runs?

5.Lastly, what is the difference between forcing and addressing a issue? 

1. A mission open to the public. 

2. Because it is public. Anyone should be able to perform with their properly acclimatized gear, skills and playstyles. Which they can't do when you bullet jump + press # + bullet jump to next room + repeat till extraction. 

3. They're public. They're not yours. They're not mine. Based on a player's skill, gear and style there should be various expected levels of participation. If I want to go melee only, I'll ask for a melee group. If I want to go min max farming, I'll go min max farming. If I want to run a clean spy mission, I'll ask for stealthy frames or whatever. If I want to clear a mission publicly however, somehow you think that I shouldn't be able to do that without someone spamming mass AoE powers through the whole mission. Because it's their way. If neither of us owns the public games, why am I subject to your whims? 

4. Why should it not matter? Public and private games are still games. It doesn't suddenly matter less because you say so. "Don't like it don't use it" only applies to personal choices of little consequence. Don't like shotguns? Don't  use shotguns. Don't like Atlas? Don't use Atlas. The difference here lies in what is controlled by the player and what is not. If I don't like the Simulor, and I don't use the Simulor, but the Simulor allows you to run from room to room killing every enemy in less time than to takes to traverse the room running full tilt , it's no longer a personal issue. If I don't like undertow but someone with a max duration minimum strength Undertow keeps grabbing the last enemy and holding him there forever, it has nothing to do with my  personal choices. It is then a mechanical issue. Mechanical issues don't care what the playstyles are. They are a part of every game that includes the mechanic. This is why I keep stressing that one player should not be able to do this. It is not because of the player, it's because of the mechanic the player is using to do it. 

 

5. The acknowledgement of the issue. If you discuss the parts of the issue that are a problem you can find solutions or compromises can be made. If you don't, the issue gets resolved without your input. In a way you might not like. It'll be too late then. Either way the issue is dealt with, but I'd rather avoid another application of things like nullifiers and Corrupted bombards with no thought in how they affect the meta flow in favor of restricting afk farming. 

4 hours ago, Krazzie said:

I'll just follow your lead until I get a proper answer.  And if you feel like you did, well end of discussion.  If you still see as not right.  Then you need reevaluate your way of thinking

What did he mean by this?

[(PSN)TertulSee]

Certain weapons rely on slide mechanics to be good. Those weapons need to be buffed too (and no, I’m not talking about the Atterax needing a buff). Weapons such as the Orthos Prime rely heavily on the slide attack meta.

Stealth Multipliers aren’t really the main concern in my opinion. What really is the problem is power creep. Weapons are getting much stronger and it’s pretty much outclassing all the old weapons. (I mean, who remembers there’s a normal Scindo?) It seems that weapon balance would take a lot more time and pretty much would never be balanced. I feel like the game itself has lean towards the feeling of being OP and invincible which is why players find grinding to be a bit more bearable. 

As for invisibility, I think it can stay as it is now. Invisibility already has some downfalls with each ability and I feel that with Shadow Step our of the way, it is much more balanced. Ash and Loki are likely to become completely obsolete considering that their main damage output are because of stealth Multipliers. Ash may be able to strip armor and instakill most normal enemies but it’s not practical for Ash to rely on his abilities considering that he doesn’t really have a high energy pool nor the ability to consistently spam his abilities. Loki may have some good utility but he pretty much lacks in every other category. Immortality is pretty much the name of the game and even with this invisibility, they can easily die in a single shot. Plus, this is completely ignoring the super long endless run community. I think the immortality helps diversify the playstyles rather than forcing players to conform to a single frame that survives the best.

Edited October 5, 2017 by (PS4)godlysparta

[Krazzie]

40 minutes ago, TheBrsrkr said:

 

Love to see people contradict them self without even realizing it.  Prove my point even further.  I don't tell people how to play, you do, and therefore I'm the one who is telling people how to play?  If telling people how to play the way they like, is telling them how to play, then okay.  It is ridiculous and funny but I'll take as telling people how to play.

[TheBrsrkr]

6 minutes ago, Krazzie said:

Love to see people contradict them self without even realizing it.  Prove my point even further.  I don't tell people how to play, you do, and therefore I'm the one who is telling people how to play?  If telling people how to play the way they like, is telling them how to play, then okay.  It is ridiculous and funny but I'll take as telling people how to play.

At this point you're not even having a conversation. You're just ranting at me. 

 

It's not easy to type this stuff out, you know. When I put in the effort here and it just dissolves into one liners and deflection with personal attacks and strawman, I feel like we've lost something. 

 

All is well. The posts are there to see, and the forum will decide. DE is always paying attention. Make of that what you will. 

[(PSN)Crixus044]

7 hours ago, Padre_Akais said:

Here's the thing though...None of it matters.

We see long threads like this one reciting how X or Y needs to be nerfed in their learned opinion.

The end result has consistently been that X or Y either is or isn't nerfed and something else takes it's place regardless.

Nerf herding hasn't slowed Power Creep down an inch.

That's because either:

• We are missing a stabilizing mechanic (or mechanics)
• DE doesn't care
• The opinions used to support the nerf herding are wrong
• Table lamps (...ya never know)

Pick any of the above, as it please you, because none of them are actionable. Make more up if that's your jam.

..Changes nothing.

I don't care if a player uses Maiming Strike or any other of the long list of items players have compiled as the bane of the game's balance.

Vastly more important to me is the sense of group cohesion and consideration present in that group.

I'm more concerned if I am dealing with the type of person that'll take an endgame viable build into a lvl 12 or 112 mission and murder every mob present to fuel their ego...I don't want to run with those folks.

...Because they are "That Guy".

We all know "That Guy"...

• They are the player that brags about carrying groups. They are the player that gets mad when they only do 90% of the damage in the summary
• They are the player(s) that see the Summary Screen as a competition even though they know it's against unwitting and unwilling opponents.
• They are the player(s) that speed run a boss fight and feel inconvenienced when the rest of the squad isn't at the extraction point when they get there...Those ungrateful wretches.

Tigris, Maiming Strike, Slide Attacks, Saryn, Ash, and Kermit the Frog aren't where the list of things that can, could, or will enable this behavior start or stop and "That Guy" will always use those things.

...Because "That Guy" doesn't change. 

Its' "That Guy" that I don't want to play with.

The rest of the crap folks think needs to be changed is irrelevant as long as "That Guy" exists and remains encouraged by their behavior. "That Guy " will always find the next thing and run it into the ground at other folks expense. 

 

 

That Guy help me level up my gear whenever I forma it, so I don't have really much issue with him. I always go into a public match assuming everyone is That Guy,, so if I want a different experience, I will get someone else I trust to play with. I'm not disagreeing with you in the slightest. Trust me, I get it, but power creep is a side effect of the community's response to new weapons always being "Why should I use this over my current weapon? This is useless. DE sucks. RIP Warframe/" Usually, "That Guy" would say that lol

 

[(PSN)wildcats1369my]

How  dare you guys talk about balance here in warframe?

I say make frames stronger/cheesier and let the loot rain from the void.

[Soketsu]

No Brsrkr,

as always you only see your own truth, refusing all the other possible views on the subject, that why many people are tired to argue and ignore you in the end.

But you are tenacious, I grant you that.

Back to the topic, as long as warframe will be a grind game to get your stuff, you will have to expect people cheese, find the easier/most efficient way to get what they without spending too much time or real money (for those who buy platinium).

Edited October 5, 2017 by Soketsu