The DExtreme™ Rework

[Vengerz]

This extreme a change isn't needed. Also it's not sufficiently thought through. For example, who's going to spent 40000 endo upgrading a primed mod for an extra 1.5% toxic damage or farm a 2% drop chance mod that is going to give you a measly 0.5% increase over whatever you already had? The effort: reward ratio will be entirely messed up and would be even instead if you went for a lesser power cut than 1/10th. Furthermore Auger Strike would be mandatory on every gun since it doubles or triples your damage in most cases whereas other mods wouldn't do jack squat.

A better approach is just to cap armor at something like 80%-90%, change Augur Secrets to Ability Damage ignores 50% armor and be done with it. The game is mostly fine.

[DiabolusUrsus]

On 4/8/2018 at 11:29 AM, Gandergear said:

It's very hard to see how the entire system i proposed works point by point, just like the actual game all the mechanics have to mesh together so if people only see the "10% mods" but don't also think how that relates to "6000 EHP enemies" they'll only see it as making the game considerably harder.

Agreed, but your proposal is not particularly complex. It shouldn't take much effort to look at the bigger picture. :X

Quote

1. 1/10 is just a spitball, if you mod purely for damage you should have a weapon 50% stronger than the base weapon, I think this is good but I can understand if people want to feel more power progression than that. 5000% though is just ridiculous.

For sure. I'm coming from the perspective that most other games you see deal in small 2-10% bonuses. The larger numbers kinda set Warframe apart, and while I definitely agree that they are too large I would rather see some meaningful drawbacks added to mods like Serration. This would force players to consider which benefits they want and which penalties they can tolerate, and justify the somewhat larger bonuses allowed.

Quote

2. Currently armor exists so it can be stripped with corrosive/shattering impact/CP/mag/etc, I do like the armor threshold system in games like Fallout: New Vegas and it would make sense for a system like this to exist to promote the differences between primary and secondary weapons.

Yep. Part of my motivation for this recommendation is that I want to see Armor/Shields treated as related but separate defenses that can't be outright ignored. As it is now, Armor > Shields. I want to see Armor = Shields, with some differences in how players approach them.

Quote

3. Yeah, having enemies just kind of choosing a random tenno to shoot up just doesn't make sense when nearly every other game on the market has some form of aggro management (even payday 2 has this mechanic)

+1.

Quote

Dunno how to delete this...

[NeithanDiniem]

On 4/7/2018 at 2:53 AM, Gandergear said:

it's called balance

it's called balance

did you even read?

so?

so you didn't read, i see.

so you didn't read still, i see.

so you didn't even read this before posting? 

It's called subjective.

It's called subjective.

You have no idea if this will work. At all. You have no number crunching machine working tests and mock up battles to actually see if it works. You have no playable version to see if players actually feel it is balanced. All you have is what you have written down. It ALWAYS looks better on paper. Until you can physically test it you have no grounds to use "its called balance" as a reply to legitimate criticism.

[(PSN)HAVOCS-Regret]

Thank you for putting all in all this considerable work and thought.  Its a lot to digest, not sure how i feel about all of it.  If they did this, it would be a humongous change which inevitably would upset a lot of people, therefore, probably unlikely to happen.

 I think we can all agree that something needs to be done though, mandatory mods, power creep, poorly scaling enemy armour, lack of end game content, etc, all of which is a problem.

Personaly I would like to see a ‘Veteran Playground’ area introduced, an area where the enemies are very very high and rewards scale accordingly.  This would be a place we could take our super powerful hard earned gear and our advanced tactics.

Edited April 10, 2018 by (PS4)Fairfied

[Gandergear]

11 hours ago, (PS4)Fairfied said:

Thank you for putting all in all this considerable work and thought.  Its a lot to digest, not sure how i feel about all of it.  If they did this, it would be a humongous change which inevitably would upset a lot of people, therefore, probably unlikely to happen.

Tbf this is the same fanbase up in arms about a horizontal rebalance of ember. No one likes things being changed unless it specifically bothers them.

[(PSN)HAVOCS-Regret]

Yea.  Though I wouldn’t call the Ember change a horizontal rebalance, totally a nerf! 😄

They even nerfed her effectiveness for plague star!  Looks the Ember is now competing with Trinity as the most beaten down Warframe in the game! Poor girls, lol.

[Gandergear]

55 minutes ago, (PS4)Fairfied said:

Yea.  Though I wouldn’t call the Ember change a horizontal rebalance, totally a nerf! 😄

They even nerfed her effectiveness for plague star!  Looks the Ember is now competing with Trinity as the most beaten down Warframe in the game! Poor girls, lol.

I was attempting for once to be diplomatic towards DE but youre right, the problem with the ember rework is that the broken enemy scaling makes her ability damage worthless while making her less efficient across the board

[NeithanDiniem]

22 minutes ago, Gandergear said:

I was attempting for once to be diplomatic towards DE but youre right, the problem with the ember rework is that the broken enemy scaling makes her ability damage worthless while making her less efficient across the board

I would agree. The WAY her skills work is perfectly fine, it is how the damage works that is a bigger problem beyond just Ember. They are working on the IPS and elementals to try and find a viable solution. I only hope they keep quiet about it and actually set up a testable version so players can see if it works or not, rather than blowing up because DE dared to say they wanted to touch their slash.

[Gandergear]

11 minutes ago, NeithanDiniem said:

I would agree. The WAY her skills work is perfectly fine, it is how the damage works that is a bigger problem beyond just Ember. They are working on the IPS and elementals to try and find a viable solution. I only hope they keep quiet about it and actually set up a testable version so players can see if it works or not, rather than blowing up because DE dared to say they wanted to touch their slash.

DE has so far refused to make a public test server and instead just puts a dev workshop days before the content releases, ensuring no feedback can actually be analyzed prior to its inevitable buggy release. This is really just a problem with the devs though since nearly any other game DOES use PTS of some form.

Also goes with DEs dishonest use of calling yhe game a beta still, a beta lasting for more than 6 months is pretty pathetic, much less 5 years.

[(PSN)HAVOCS-Regret]

51 minutes ago, Gandergear said:

DE has so far refused to make a public test server and instead just puts a dev workshop days before the content releases, ensuring no feedback can actually be analyzed prior to its inevitable buggy release. This is really just a problem with the devs though since nearly any other game DOES use PTS of some form.

Ya know, i think you are right about that.  Seems like a PTS would be really beneficial for all of us, I wonder why they haven’t implemented that yet? To difficult? To time consuming? Feedback not helpful?

Also have to agree that the dev workshops seem to usually come out to close to release times to give time for feedback to really be considered.

[NeithanDiniem]

3 hours ago, Gandergear said:

Also goes with DEs dishonest use of calling yhe game a beta still, a beta lasting for more than 6 months is pretty pathetic, much less 5 years.

Uh.. No it is not a misuse of the term beta, take it from a game developer (hi). They are using Beta to alert people that they plan on significant changes and additions to the content, and so players should expect these going in. The game is also still incomplete without a full story, and they are adding more to it as time goes on. It is still very much classifiable as a beta. Players have a very specific, and wrong, idea that beta has to end after a certain time, or that a beta cannot have a market system within it. There are dozens of games that offer a lot of content that are/were classified as beta, rightly so, for a long time. Well over that 6 months you mentioned. Its all based on how large the game will be in the end, and DE hasn't set a size in stone yet.

As for PTS, we all are their server. The console releases I would say are the non-test servers in all honesty, because PC helps find and fix issues before it ships to them. WE get the benefit of getting it early in compensation for the bugs. For the testable version of the system, I was thinking more along the limes of a devcode that can be put in on login to put the player into a testable single player environment to check out the changes to the damage system. That way, it doesn't break the existing game/people's builds while still allow people to see how it works first-hand. We have one such devcode to test for memory leaks. Having a similar system with a selection of frames or premade loadouts to test the changes would be a very interesting thing to see. Partners and Founders would be the prime people to allow access to such a devcode at first, as they can make reviews of it for their viewers or post on the forums, and help start the conversation on what is right/wrong about the test. Opening it to everyone a little afterwards or even at the same time would let all players get their own opinions on it to add to the discussion. This would probably be the safer way to go about it than a full-on server, which would require DE to host 2 different versions of the game at the same time, which could be problematic. It would also be best for the testing to be done in a controlled environment compared to the full game, to keep focus on basic or foundational issues firsthand instead of being bogged down with secondhand or thirdhand issues the basics are causing.

[Gandergear]

1 hour ago, NeithanDiniem said:

Uh.. No it is not a misuse of the term beta, take it from a game developer (hi). They are using Beta to alert people that they plan on significant changes and additions to the content, and so players should expect these going in. The game is also still incomplete without a full story, and they are adding more to it as time goes on. It is still very much classifiable as a beta. Players have a very specific, and wrong, idea that beta has to end after a certain time, or that a beta cannot have a market system within it. There are dozens of games that offer a lot of content that are/were classified as beta, rightly so, for a long time. Well over that 6 months you mentioned. Its all based on how large the game will be in the end, and DE hasn't set a size in stone yet.

As for PTS, we all are their server. The console releases I would say are the non-test servers in all honesty, because PC helps find and fix issues before it ships to them. WE get the benefit of getting it early in compensation for the bugs. For the testable version of the system, I was thinking more along the limes of a devcode that can be put in on login to put the player into a testable single player environment to check out the changes to the damage system. That way, it doesn't break the existing game/people's builds while still allow people to see how it works first-hand. We have one such devcode to test for memory leaks. Having a similar system with a selection of frames or premade loadouts to test the changes would be a very interesting thing to see. Partners and Founders would be the prime people to allow access to such a devcode at first, as they can make reviews of it for their viewers or post on the forums, and help start the conversation on what is right/wrong about the test. Opening it to everyone a little afterwards or even at the same time would let all players get their own opinions on it to add to the discussion. This would probably be the safer way to go about it than a full-on server, which would require DE to host 2 different versions of the game at the same time, which could be problematic. It would also be best for the testing to be done in a controlled environment compared to the full game, to keep focus on basic or foundational issues firsthand instead of being bogged down with secondhand or thirdhand issues the basics are causing.

I'm going to still say having an open beta last for 6 months without some planned release date is still pretty pathetic. It shows to your consumer base a serious lack of conviction in your vision (DE is very wishy washy in their design, Oh we don't like you pressing one button to kill everything, which is why our go to ult ability is just that), there's nothing stopping you from doing overhauls and rebalances 'post-release' (if that was the case every competitive game would call itself in perpetual beta). Players DONT LIKE being told we're still in beta for years on end, we want DE to take accountability for bugs that have persisted for months on end, and the 'we're in beta' excuse is really tired from any developer.

Spoiler

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/12/21/war-thunder-released/

https://www.pcgamer.com/mechwarrior-online-release-date-announced-open-beta-infographic-will-terrify-engineers/

Spoiler is two examples of games that LEFT beta but still release content regularly, they chose to take the route of being accountable for their content and bugs with the community understanding that 'new stuff happens'.

Since you're a game developer I'd like to let you know straight up that I do not respect game companies that fall on 'beta' as an excuse for not delivering or communicating with their community. It is a sign of rot, lack of conviction, and leads to the loss of community good will. Beta's are to be treated as a proof of concept, they are NOT something you hide in to deflect problems in the game. PAYDAY 2 added a beta into their fully released game for snipers, they did it right, the BETA was there for players to see a proof of concept, Mechwarrior Online uses a PTS to show proof of concept for new mainline updates. War Thunder has a beta going on right now (from what I read, I don't play it) and it's a fully released game.

Spoiler

Example of BIG ol' honkin content updates post-release. I.e. POE would have been a good idea to say 'we're released now'

MWO Releases a whole new system years after release.

PAYDAY 2

 

 

I mean of course I can only speak as an outsider looking in, but that's how I and plenty of other players feel about this.

[NeithanDiniem]

49 minutes ago, Gandergear said:

I'm going to still say having an open beta last for 6 months without some planned release date is still pretty pathetic. It shows to your consumer base a serious lack of conviction in your vision (DE is very wishy washy in their design, Oh we don't like you pressing one button to kill everything, which is why our go to ult ability is just that), there's nothing stopping you from doing overhauls and rebalances 'post-release' (if that was the case every competitive game would call itself in perpetual beta). Players DONT LIKE being told we're still in beta for years on end, we want DE to take accountability for bugs that have persisted for months on end, and the 'we're in beta' excuse is really tired from any developer.

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/12/21/war-thunder-released/

https://www.pcgamer.com/mechwarrior-online-release-date-announced-open-beta-infographic-will-terrify-engineers/

Spoiler is two examples of games that LEFT beta but still release content regularly, they chose to take the route of being accountable for their content and bugs with the community understanding that 'new stuff happens'.

Since you're a game developer I'd like to let you know straight up that I do not respect game companies that fall on 'beta' as an excuse for not delivering or communicating with their community. It is a sign of rot, lack of conviction, and leads to the loss of community good will. Beta's are to be treated as a proof of concept, they are NOT something you hide in to deflect problems in the game. PAYDAY 2 added a beta into their fully released game for snipers, they did it right, the BETA was there for players to see a proof of concept, Mechwarrior Online uses a PTS to show proof of concept for new mainline updates. War Thunder has a beta going on right now (from what I read, I don't play it) and it's a fully released game.

  Reveal hidden contents

Example of BIG ol' honkin content updates post-release. I.e. POE would have been a good idea to say 'we're released now'

MWO Releases a whole new system years after release.

PAYDAY 2

 

 

I mean of course I can only speak as an outsider looking in, but that's how I and plenty of other players feel about this.

Do tell me where DE has a lack of conviction? I'm fairly sure they have a very firm opinion of where they are taking their game considering just how many times people ask for absurd things and repeatedly get shot down, or how they keep pushing content on people because it plays an important role in their plans, such as Archwing, even though players dislike it. The only times they pull back on something and back up their convictions about it is when they communicate with the players or listen to the player's own communication that the change proposed is not going to fly, as they did with Khora and the IPS changes. However, that is only when the concerns are legitimate, and a significant amount of raised concerns are more often than not complaints that are irrational or unwarranted, such as the hundreds of people complaining or concepting about a hundred different things each day on the forums. Most of those are either completely counter to DE's convictions on where they want their game to go or the changes are unwarranted. I would go so far to say that only a tenth of forum posts about problems or needed changes/additions are actually decent ones, and it just so happens that a good number of them do get into the game or at least into the developer's minds. The delay to some content also relies on them dedicating resources to other projects in the game that they feel would be better suited to come out first, or they have a planned dependency that has to be done first. This can be seen with Umbra's delay in release being dependent on the release of the quest for it, which after they worked on the system it only so far has fit with the Sacrifice. They have delayed other things because they are dedicating work on Venus's open world map and all of the content with it, such as the new buildable guns.

And DE has never, not even once, made the excuse that bugs are okay because its a beta. That has only ever been done by players and it is not something DE supports. Their work to rectify bugs with hotfixes and constant revisions to their engine to improve performance while also improving the look of the game to keep up with the generation shows that. Yes there are bugs that are fundamentally difficult to fix. I know of several games that have unfixable bugs because of limitations of the engine, or difficulty pinpointing what is actually causing the problem. Other times bugs make it in the engine because of a change being pushed with the build that shouldn't. DE is also a small company. The team dedicated to Warframe is smaller than the company I work for even. They do not have the manhours to test content with even a fraction of a percent that releasing the content can provide. Ten thousand players can get more info on a build to the developers that they can use to fix bugs in the span of a single hour than a small sub-team of the company can in a month. Dedicating time in the team of the size they have towards the goal of releasing a bug-free release with as much content that they release in the time span that they do would lead to significantly fewer updates and less content, which is what keeps a free to play game of this game's graphical quality, and monetary requirement to develop, alive with an active playerbase.

And Beta is NOT your proof of concept. That is the Alpha or even pre-alpha. If you are making your Beta be a proof of concept for your entire game then you have utterly failed at planning and game development as a whole. Beta is well beyond a significant investment of time, money, and effort. You use Beta to flesh out the concept you passed through the alpha stage. Do not place the role of Alpha on that of Beta. DE has passed the alpha stage a long time ago, but as you can see from the forums, there is no end to this game in sight yet. There is no completed story to speak of. They are not done with it yet. It does not have a complete experience yet in their eyes. DE does do alpha work, when they show alpha stage content in their devstreams, such as their new corpus spider units that we have seen recently, or the new UI mockups on Twitter. Once that content passes their concept phase and moves into its beta stage, they can flesh it out and add it to the game as a whole. This is no different than games that update content, only they are showing you before the update the alpha and beta versions of the content. Its the same as your Payday 2 and Mechwarrior Online without the servers.

And DE is not rotting. The game is constantly growing and receiving updates that other companies with games this old rarely ever put out in the same time span. Their profit gains show that the game is certainly getting enough funding to continue operations as well as expand the company, as their profits are outclassing even a few AAA game gains. You may also notice that DE is not setting release dates on content and they have begun to slow down on big teasers and reveals in advance of the actual content drop, to avoid players being disappointed when they are unable to release on a not-set-in-stone date said in a stream where one developer states they'd like to have it out by then.

They constantly have devstreams, gameplay streams, forum communications, polls, and surveys to get info from players about topics. What communication are you saying they are failing on, and what are you comparing their supposed lack of communication to? They just recently reached out to the players to provide their input about arcanes for the new buildable weapons from the Venus open map. They post their work on the UI mockups specifically to get feedback about it. I can easily find you dozens of games that have done far worse with all of the things you accused DE of here on the aspect of communication, Bungie being a very easy one to call out right now, EA and Ubisoft others.

"Beta" has been misidentified and blown way beyond what it actually represents in the industry by players who place standards on what they decided the term means. "Beta cant have a market" "Beta cant last past so many months" "Beta means they don't have to fix the bugs" All of these things are very wrong.

Likewise, I am specifically saying it would be great for DE to add a concept for their IPS and damage reworks EXACTLY as how you are describing PAYDAY 2 did for snipers. A separate instance that will not negatively impact the game so players can test it beforehand. This is literally no different than the servers you profess are the solution to all these things, only Im saying that because running 2 servers for all of the matchmaking and all of the generation crunching and all of the pre/post mission work is a serious drain on resources, and it splits the focus of the testers away from the content that needs to be tested, that it be limited to specific test environments specifically set up to test the new mechanics or features. Warframe is a very wide game. There is a lot going on that a player can do, which can all take away the focus on the content that is set up to be tested. This is why games that have betas to expansions tend to also set up environments and campaign tests specific to the mechanic they want tested or limit the experience with the rest of the game to only the new features in a limited environment.

DE is certainly not a perfect company or a company to be revered above all else, but the community certainly has some very poor ideas of what is going on behind the curtains and how things should be operated.

[Xaero]

I mostly agree about depowering our stuff and setting a balance line but I also think it'd be best to completely get rid of enemy levels and instead split them into tiers where most common enemies are gunmeat and rare ones are pretty tough. Difficulty increase would mean shifting the number of enemies of certain tier - the longer you are in mission, the more high-tier enemies you get.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Ksaero

[Xaero]

On 07.04.2018 at 10:12 AM, -Bv-HellfireMaximus said:

In a nutshell u are suggesting to nerf the enemy scaling system to allow players who joined 4 days ago be equally empowered as players with 700 day experience. Depowering everything down to base stats? you want DE to take out the challenging parts of the game?,  reduces the gap between high and low level players? you want DE to make missions easier so that new players feel no thrill to become better and experienced when they encounter a hurdle in front of them and make "rushing" more easier? this is absurd.

I don't think numbers are the only thing that can make a difference. Take conclave as an example. Mods mean nothing, but there's still a huge gap between new and experienced players  defined by effective using of mechanics like movement or making a combo of abilities and weapons.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Ksaero

[Hellfire_Maximus]

3 hours ago, Ksaero said:

I don't think numbers are the only thing that can make a difference. Take conclave as an example.

Numbers do make difference.Numbers make difference when when using limbo.Numbers make difference when a player with no experience keeps running up the infested meteor when told not to multiple times and rage quit when no one revives them.Numbers make difference when players keep going out of shared affinity range to get more kills during a affinity farm and still cant get to level up stuff faster and exit early.Numbers make difference when a player goes far away during Fissure runs and while trying to kill everything in their path forget to collect reactants and leave after the first timeout.Numbers are important when it comes to experience, teamwork and adaptation in a game and also when it comes to make a game challenging, interesting and smart enough to keep its player base happy.If DE were to do what Gandergear suggested they would have done so already and all the players out there would have given positive feedback to this idea(no offence intended).The games scaling systems are fine as they are and they are constantly working on it to make it better,robust and player friendly.

[Gandergear]

1 hour ago, -Bv-HellfireMaximus said:

Numbers do make difference.Numbers make difference when when using limbo.Numbers make difference when a player with no experience keeps running up the infested meteor when told not to multiple times and rage quit when no one revives them.Numbers make difference when players keep going out of shared affinity range to get more kills during a affinity farm and still cant get to level up stuff faster and exit early.Numbers make difference when a player goes far away during Fissure runs and while trying to kill everything in their path forget to collect reactants and leave after the first timeout.Numbers are important when it comes to experience, teamwork and adaptation in a game and also when it comes to make a game challenging, interesting and smart enough to keep its player base happy.If DE were to do what Gandergear suggested they would have done so already and all the players out there would have given positive feedback to this idea(no offence intended).The games scaling systems are fine as they are and they are constantly working on it to make it better,robust and player friendly.

Im not sure i get this post, itd make more sense to say experience stops players from doing what youre saying and numbers literally have nothing to do with it, but if thats the case youre just agreeing with the guy you quoted in kind of a weird way.

[Xaero]

2 hours ago, -Bv-HellfireMaximus said:

Numbers do make difference.Numbers make difference when when using limbo.Numbers make difference when a player with no experience keeps running up the infested meteor when told not to multiple times and rage quit when no one revives them.Numbers make difference when players keep going out of shared affinity range to get more kills during a affinity farm and still cant get to level up stuff faster and exit early.Numbers make difference when a player goes far away during Fissure runs and while trying to kill everything in their path forget to collect reactants and leave after the first timeout.Numbers are important when it comes to experience, teamwork and adaptation in a game and also when it comes to make a game challenging, interesting and smart enough to keep its player base happy.If DE were to do what Gandergear suggested they would have done so already and all the players out there would have given positive feedback to this idea(no offence intended).The games scaling systems are fine as they are and they are constantly working on it to make it better,robust and player friendly.

I specifically quoted the part about new players being equally empowered as experienced ones. While having equal means to do the job, new players will do it worse because they are not as familiar with the game's mechanics as experienced players. To be honest, even some old players are bad at them. IMO the game would be much more interesting if movement meant more for player's survival and difficult enemies required some tactics to be beaten rather then being tougher bullet-sponges.

[Hellfire_Maximus]

1 hour ago, Gandergear said:

If DE were to do what Gandergear suggested they would have done so already and all the players out there would have given positive feedback to this idea(no offence intended).The games scaling systems are fine as they are and they are constantly working on it to make it better,robust and player friendly.

@Gandergearas long as u get this part its all good

[Hellfire_Maximus]

24 minutes ago, Ksaero said:

I specifically quoted the part about new players being equally empowered as experienced ones. While having equal means to do the job, new players will do it worse because they are not as familiar with the game's mechanics as experienced players. To be honest, even some old players are bad at them. IMO the game would be much more interesting if movement meant more for player's survival and difficult enemies required some tactics to be beaten rather then being tougher bullet-sponges.

what i meant in simpler terms is that even if they have the means they always need the experience to exploit the means in order to defeat a enemy.if the enemies become easier to kill new players will lose the interest to learn. DE-powering Mods and making all Mastery players equal in a mission is completely absurd.How are we supposed to make weapons and frames powerful then with hopes and dreams? they probably will need to introduce a skill tree type system in which u can unlock a perk that boosts a certain stat of the weapon or frame which wont be happening.Its like making a school pass out equally knowledgeable as a college attender pass out.games have tougher enemies and bullet sponge enemies like lephantis to test a players survivability skills to stay alive and makes their equipment more powerful to kill faster and stay alive longer.

[Gandergear]

55 minutes ago, -Bv-HellfireMaximus said:

@Gandergearas long as u get this part its all good

I did and appreicate it

32 minutes ago, -Bv-HellfireMaximus said:

what i meant in simpler terms is that even if they have the means they always need the experience to exploit the means in order to defeat a enemy.if the enemies become easier to kill new players will lose the interest to learn. DE-powering Mods and making all Mastery players equal in a mission is completely absurd.How are we supposed to make weapons and frames powerful then with hopes and dreams? they probably will need to introduce a skill tree type system in which u can unlock a perk that boosts a certain stat of the weapon or frame which wont be happening.Its like making a school pass out equally knowledgeable as a college attender pass out.games have tougher enemies and bullet sponge enemies like lephantis to test a players survivability skills to stay alive and makes their equipment more powerful to kill faster and stay alive longer.

The enemies arent meant to be easier, theyre meant to be more fair, any player who doesnt bother to learn the mechanics will still be in a tight spot, but players who use the mechanics will be able to succeed using any loadout, meaning frame choice will begin to be tied for playstyle preference rather than meta requirment.

Currently all a player needs to destroy the star chart is a rhino and an ember, with other options requiring more investment than a new player would be willing or possibly able to put in.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Gandergear

[LordeRicky]

12 hours ago, Gandergear said:

I'm going to still say having an open beta last for 6 months without some planned release date is still pretty pathetic. It shows to your consumer base a serious lack of conviction in your vision (DE is very wishy washy in their design, Oh we don't like you pressing one button to kill everything, which is why our go to ult ability is just that), there's nothing stopping you from doing overhauls and rebalances 'post-release' (if that was the case every competitive game would call itself in perpetual beta). Players DONT LIKE being told we're still in beta for years on end, we want DE to take accountability for bugs that have persisted for months on end, and the 'we're in beta' excuse is really tired from any developer.

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/12/21/war-thunder-released/

https://www.pcgamer.com/mechwarrior-online-release-date-announced-open-beta-infographic-will-terrify-engineers/

Spoiler is two examples of games that LEFT beta but still release content regularly, they chose to take the route of being accountable for their content and bugs with the community understanding that 'new stuff happens'.

Since you're a game developer I'd like to let you know straight up that I do not respect game companies that fall on 'beta' as an excuse for not delivering or communicating with their community. It is a sign of rot, lack of conviction, and leads to the loss of community good will. Beta's are to be treated as a proof of concept, they are NOT something you hide in to deflect problems in the game. PAYDAY 2 added a beta into their fully released game for snipers, they did it right, the BETA was there for players to see a proof of concept, Mechwarrior Online uses a PTS to show proof of concept for new mainline updates. War Thunder has a beta going on right now (from what I read, I don't play it) and it's a fully released game.

  Reveal hidden contents

Example of BIG ol' honkin content updates post-release. I.e. POE would have been a good idea to say 'we're released now'

MWO Releases a whole new system years after release.

PAYDAY 2

 

 

I mean of course I can only speak as an outsider looking in, but that's how I and plenty of other players feel about this.

Not to spark a fire, but how long have you been playing Warframe? How long would it take for you to give the system a GOOD amount of testing with the content presented to you? I see a few issues with Warframe right now but none of them completely break the game, and the vast majority of things that can kill quickly aren't available right as you jump into the game. Have you thought to consider the amount of planning and min-maxing  (not even gonna mention the resources required) that you must do in order to have these "OP" game features? I hate to be the guy that ignores everything you've said, but it seems (and this is my opinion) that you've not gone much deeper in thought past "This isn't optimal for me, I want everything to change."  While I understand the direction you're coming from, accept the fact that every game is indeed unique and even if the developers for whatever reason decided to release an update in 3 minutes that made every Warframe kill everything instantly around them with unlimited range, that would be what they chose and that would be how it was INTENDED. How can you supply this conjecture when you said yourself "I mean of course I can only speak as an outsider looking in, but that's how I and plenty of other players feel about this." Which brings me to my next questions: Why not try to take a look around and experience things a bit more in depth, and where and whom are these "plenty of other players" that feel the same way you do? I write this with no attitude or sarcasm/disrespect/whatever you interpret this to be, but The game is the way it is because of player feedback. This is what the majority wants, with the developers' influences mixed in. It is their game, modeled with our interests at heart. For this to be a Free2Play game I feel it's doing a damn good job.

Edited April 11, 2018 by LordeRicky
Side note: Scaling everything to be 10x less powerful would still be the same inbalance, just with different values

[Hellfire_Maximus]

27 minutes ago, Gandergear said:

Currently all a player needs to destroy the star chart is a rhino and an ember, with other options requiring more investment than a new player would be willing or possibly able to put in.

a player cant destroy the star chart with a rhino and an ember yet but if the enemy DE-buff comes into action they will. Players can only go up to a certain planet with rhino without basic modding knowledge but if the Mod DE-powerment comes comes into action they will destroy the star chart in a breeze

[Hellfire_Maximus]

25 minutes ago, LordeRicky said:

It is their game, modeled with our interests at heart. For this to be a Free2Play game I feel it's doing a damn good job.

exactly!

[Gandergear]

1 hour ago, LordeRicky said:

Not to spark a fire, but how long have you been playing Warframe? How long would it take for you to give the system a GOOD amount of testing with the content presented to you? I see a few issues with Warframe right now but none of them completely break the game, and the vast majority of things that can kill quickly aren't available right as you jump into the game. Have you thought to consider the amount of planning and min-maxing  (not even gonna mention the resources required) that you must do in order to have these "OP" game features? I hate to be the guy that ignores everything you've said, but it seems (and this is my opinion) that you've not gone much deeper in thought past "This isn't optimal for me, I want everything to change."  While I understand the direction you're coming from, accept the fact that every game is indeed unique and even if the developers for whatever reason decided to release an update in 3 minutes that made every Warframe kill everything instantly around them with unlimited range, that would be what they chose and that would be how it was INTENDED. How can you supply this conjecture when you said yourself "I mean of course I can only speak as an outsider looking in, but that's how I and plenty of other players feel about this." Which brings me to my next questions: Why not try to take a look around and experience things a bit more in depth, and where and whom are these "plenty of other players" that feel the same way you do? I write this with no attitude or sarcasm/disrespect/whatever you interpret this to be, but The game is the way it is because of player feedback. This is what the majority wants, with the developers' influences mixed in. It is their game, modeled with our interests at heart. For this to be a Free2Play game I feel it's doing a damn good job.

Im MR25 and have been playing rather consistently over the past 2 years with a brief hiatus after i first played before that.

I made an alt account for raids a few months before their unfortunate demise and did experience the low level side of the game again.

My experience is both that of an OP juggernaut who has completed John Prodman while still being conscious of a new players limited endo supply limiting star chart progression (or rather, had me stick with the free vectis longer).

I do accept that WF is a unique game that is uniquely fun when compared to its competition, but saying me or any part of the community dont have a voice that DE should consider is bullish since whats the point of the feedback forums if the expected outcome is only "i loved this yassss"

The "how other players feel" is exclusively directed at the reliance of beta and compiled by simply googling 'longest game beta' where threads of 'how long will we be in beta' were discussed.

I never said warframe wasnt good, it would be asanine for me to even care about it if it wasnt. But that doesnt mean the game cant improve. I find it VERY disturbing when people interpret feedback as 'its awful change it'. As per describing developers who rely on the beta crutch as lazy, that is a blanket statement that describes how people likeminded to myself view them. Its up to them to change behavior by interacting with feedback posts with why or why not something is done the way it was, to explain why were still in beta, to explain what is the end goal of the game.

What does DE still need to majorly overhaul to justify the game leaving beta? Well I let them know what I thought.