Jump to content

MJ12

Hunter
  • Content Count

    2,180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,266

Recent Profile Visitors

2,604 profile views
  1. Except because of the nature of self-damage in Warframe, it punishes active play and rewards passive play. Far from 'balancing' launchers by discouraging people from using them to AFK farm, self-damage encourages nobrain AFK farming because you're never going to hurt yourself with a launcher if you camp on a crate and shoot into a chokepoint (i.e. the sort of zero-effort spam that enables AFK farming) but if you move aggressively, switch between combat styles, and get stuck into fights, you will risk killing yourself with every shot from a launcher.
  2. I'm going to rant about "risk-reward" and how people keep completely misusing it as a method of balance by trying to shoehorn it into places where it doesn't fit. The fundamental problem that risk-reward is designed to solve is simple: There is a sort of risky style of gameplay which the game designers believe is more fun, or at least is intended to be the primary style of gameplay, that they want to encourage. The game designers believe that exposing you to the failure state or at least the threat of that failure state is important and want you to do it more often. Therefore, the game designers put a reward on deliberately exposing yourself to that risk so you suffer from the risk more. Jake Solomon of XCOM fame wanted players to move and flank aggressively in the first XCOM game, taking suboptimal positions, rather than just hiding behind endless overwatch traps and creeping forward one square at a time. Therefore, he added a reward-Meld-to encourage people to move more aggressively in XCOM and avoid obsessing about risk avoidance, so they would have more fun in the game. Devil May Cry traditionally made it so that melee did lots more damage than guns because the risk the developers wanted players to experience was to be close to enemies and their high-damage attacks, constantly having to pay attention to their animation tells and do stylish moves, so that they would feel challenged and pressured rather than hiding in a corner and plinking at enemies for ten minutes straight to avoid damage. Royal Guard is another DMC example of how good risk-reward design works. Because the devs of DMC want a relatively high damage, agile style of gameplay and don't want you to turtle behind a block until you can do low-risk pokes, Royal Guard provides damage resistance, but if you activate it just as an attack comes in, you negate all damage. Because the devs don't want you to turtle behind blocking forever, they reward you for not doing so. The relatively high damage of enemies in Doom 2016, combined with the glory kill system, are risk-reward gameplay. The devs of Doom 2016 wanted you to stay in the thick of it at all times, rather than try to find the safest possible camping spot and plink at enemies. Therefore, they added Glory Kills to encourage risky behavior. But the thing that all of these risk-reward alterations exist to encourage people to expose themselves to the risk itself. To rephrase it slightly, fundamentally risk-reward is about making it so that when you make a suboptimal decision for the sake of fun instead of ruthlessly engaging in risk aversion, you don't feel stupid about it. The problem with a lot of people invoking "risk-reward" gameplay, like this post, is that people confuse the role of risk-reward and never ask the question about why the risk should be encouraged in the first place. There are good reasons for why XCOM wants you to move forward aggressively and get into bad situations where your soldiers might get badly wounded or die. There are good reasons for DMC wanting you to get into fights where one wrong move can take off a quarter of your health bar. There are good reasons for Doom 2016 to want you to stay within very close range of demons and be taking and dishing out damage all the time. What's the good reason for wanting players in Warframe to blow themselves up all the time?
  3. I am pretty sure that autoblock only interrupts "Whatever else you are trying to do" if it triggers on a stagger/knockdown, at which point you would have been interrupted anyways. I might be wrong, but my anecdotal experience is that the only thing autoblock does is make it so that as long as you're holding a melee weapon and not attacking you take less damage from anyone in front of you.
  4. DE should make it a toggle option in the Gameplay Settings tab. "Force automatic fire on all non-charge weapons." There, you no longer need to play around with third party macros to get automatic fire, increasing accessibility, there's no need to take up a special mod slot for automatic fire, and things work out pretty well for everyone.
  5. Why would they need to reduce explosive weapons' damage by 90% "in trade?" The vast majority of explosive weapons fail to do nearly enough damage to justify their existence, let alone an anti-fun mechanic like self-damage, and the ones who do enough damage to justify their existence generally have anti-self-damage tools integrated into their base mechanics. There's this self-contradictory lie that gets peddled that self-damage is simultaneously: 1. Such a minor concern that anyone barely competent with the game will never ever experience it, and the only way to experience self-damage is if you're so incompetent that you're just shooting your own feet; 2. Self-damage is so core to the balance these weapons that if you remove it all these weapons would instantly become so overpowered nobody would use anything but launchers. This necessarily requires self-damaging to be an extremely common occurrence otherwise the existence of self-damage is irrelevant to balance. But neither of these are true. Self-damage is not core to balancing these weapons, most of which are woefully underpowered in the first place, and self-damage might be a minor concern in terms of the number of instances of self-damage, but every time you self-damage you basically instantly go down, which makes every incident stand out more and frustrate players more. This wouldn't quite work because it means that players will be incentivized to choose frustration (and more power) over fun. It would at least make the frustration non-default, which is something, and it'd be a significant improvement, but it's not actually the best of all possible worlds.
  6. Melee in Warframe seems to be intended to be a fully viable alternative to gunplay, rather than a 'backup' weapon. This isn't completely true in all aspects (sadly you can't kill Eidolons, Orbs, and several bosses via melee) but that seems to be the intent. Moreover, melee damage output in Warframe is relatively lower than in a lot of games where melee is mostly intended as an emergency close-range backup or humiliation move. Ergo, block exists because melee attacks, by forcing you to close distance against enemies, expose you to more damage. Therefore, wielding melee weapons gives you frontal damage reduction so you suffer less harm. Now, block is kind of implemented in a meh form for that (the highest damage and longest-range melee weapons also have the best block stats, while the weakest melee weapons due to their poor multi-target ability have the worst block stats, even if literally punching bullets out of the air is cool as hell) but it seems to me the intention is to make gap-closing using melee weapons much less dangerous-even in a relatively fragile Warframe-compared to say, using soft cover to partially hide behind a corner or a crate and shoot at enemies. Would melee still be viable without the damage reduction? Probably, given that people still used quick melee. But I don't think removing it altogether encourages the ideal sort of aggressive, close-range gameplay DE seems to want and Warframe is best at.
  7. I love the normal excuse for explosive weapons having self-damage is that if they didn't have self-damage people would just 'no-brain' them because self-damage is a critical balancing component for the weapon itself, despite how if self-damage was intended as a critical balancing component it would look nothing like the instant death radius we have. There's a good recent example of what self-damage being treated as an actual balancing component is. Recently, the Doom Eternal team talked about their changes to the rocket launcher in Doom Eternal. They boosted its power and self-damage but reduced its ammo limits and projectile speed to make it a specialist weapon rather than an old mainstay, and added in enemies to hard-counter it. One of those enemies actually aggressively spawned temporary movement and projectile blocking walls in front of you, and the gameplay designer explicitly stated that one of the reasons for this wasn't just to limit player mobility and therefore make them a potential high-priority target, but also to counter high-power weapons like the rocket launcher by creating a self-damage risk. That's right, they added an enemy whose design and effects were very specifically built around causing people with a rocket launcher to self-damage. They could only do this because even with the boosted rocket self-damage, a point-blank rocket miss was only taking off 1/3rd of the player's max health (and you regain health pretty fast with Glory Kills, it's a modern Doom game), and 3 rockets is 25% of a player's entire default max ammo. Furthermore, there are enemies who are extremely easily countered by the rocket launcher's characteristics who can show up around these wall-spawning enemies, and with player mobility it's a valid choice to try to avoid the wall-spawners and try to kill the big rocket-vulnerable guys first. In other words, mistakes are punishing but not instantly fatal, and exposing yourself to that risk is a legitimate gameplay decision. That's actual 'challenging' game design. There is a significant risk, but the punishment for screwing up is tuned in proportion with your exposure to that risk, because the developers realize that 99% of the time, the point of having a risk is to occasionally make players suffer from it, not make the consequences of the risk so bad that players do everything in their power to avoid that from happening. There's also an interesting statement in the same video, where the Doom Eternal devs talk about how the punishment for missing a jump in Doom Eternal is simply being quickspawned on the last bit of solid ground you reached. The reason they did it this way? Because that way, they could make the jumping puzzles in Doom Eternal significantly more complex and difficult, because you have a fun gaming experience, jumping puzzles which you expected players to fail, or harsh punishments for failure, pick two of three. Punishing a player less harshly for failure allows you to make a game's encounters induce failure more often, resulting in more 'good' difficulty. So paradoxically, when people argue to keep (or add in) overly harsh punishments for failure, they're often arguing against providing developers the tools needed to actually create good difficulty.
  8. Anyways on that issue I think the main things for an Atlas rework would be: 1. Make Rumblers faster and more aggressive. Give them a ranged attack to use while closing, and amp their damage up a bit so they're useful as more than distractions. Ideally maybe you should have them also be infinite-duration, like Wukong's clone. 2. Replace Tectonics with something that actually has a purpose. If you asked me to replace Tectonics I'd suggest like, a carryable stone 'riot shield' which blocks frontal damage and damages/ragdolls any enemy you pass close to while giving you stagger immunity. If you want to keep the multimode function of Tectonics, maybe you can press the power use key again while it's active to fire it off like an angry rock shotgun blast, doing damage that increases with the more damage it's blocked. That could synergize with Landslide by working while using Landslide (so enemies who you zoom near get damaged and knocked around). I feel Atlas's niche is basically hard survival + tools that reward you when you're super-aggressive by giving you the survivability to stay stuck in (Rubble heal/armor buffs, Landslide invuln, Petrify's wide-range AOE CC).
  9. I mean right now Atlas is already extremely playable. It's just that his playstyle is basically 'petrify enemies while using landslide to always be punching, taking advantage of the invulnerability period from landslide.' His problem isn't that he's weak-landslide with a good statstick does some real work-or unplayable, but rather that he falls into the low-middle ground of "powerful but one-note/limited/boring" Warframes where they're powerful enough that they aren't a super-high rework priority (and in fact some of these Warframes, like Chroma, are even meta) but have a ton of useless powers and weird cruft (Tectonics and Rumbler) which mean that playing them is super boring.
  10. The implementation of self-damage seems like it's basically "if this weapon shoots explosives it does self-damage" when designing weapons, regardless of whether that self-damage renders the weapon unusable or frustrating, which is why so many weapons have had to have self-damage reduced (Zarr, Kulstar, Tonkor) or even completely removed (Cyanex, Staticor). And I think it's extremely interesting that whenever the topic of self-damage comes up, the people who claim that other players should "git gud" and stop "playing bad" never suggest that the skill ceiling of launchers should be raised. No, it's always about keeping the skill floor to have fun with launchers as high as possible. It's never about "give us tools so we can show off how good we are," it's always about lecturing people who find instant death self-damage radii frustrating about how they're bad at the game. It's a very myopic and self-serving understanding of 'skill' that ignores that 'unforgiving' is not the same as 'difficult' and in fact 'unforgiving' mechanics are often not actually difficult, because the worse you make a certain negative outcome (how unforgiving it is) the easier it must be to avoid (how difficult it is) unless you want to lead to absurd levels of frustration. If you actually, in good faith, wanted avoiding self-damage to be a sign of skill, you would probably want to make self-damage pretty forgiving but also difficult to avoid, so you can put in the necessary practice to avoid it, then show off with how you're firing your Kulstar or Zarr near point-blank and somehow never hitting yourself because you know exactly how the bomblets spawn and how they angle off of impact surfaces or whatever. Yet every self-damager in this thread never considers being able to fire danger close as a possible mark of skill, instead just dismissing it as 'playing dumb.' Which is funny because I think the highest-skill self-damaging weapons I've played with in videogames are the ones which explicitly invite you to fire them at very close range in certain situations and part of the skill is knowing when to use them danger-close because that's something to keep in mind, and makes the decision of whether to shoot or not shoot more complex.
  11. This literally isn't a response or rebuttal to anything I said.
  12. That's not balance. That's just creating a higher skill floor for launchers, by which I mean you're drastically increasing the minimum level of competence necessary to get enjoyment out of the weapon. Generally the goal for videogame balance is to create relatively low skill floors but relatively high skill ceilings so new players can enjoy the game right from the start and players feel like they're meaningfully improving in skill over time. High skill floors are generally bad, because first impressions are super important and even if something with a high skill floor becomes fun and worthwhile over time as you improve, a high skill floor makes for awful first impressions. And right now launchers are basically the worst of all possible worlds-they don't actually have much higher skill ceilings than other weapons and they have much higher skill floors for you to have fun and contribute with them. This is probably why they're actually rarely used weapons as their Riven dispositions reflect. And again, there is literally nothing that the implementation of self-damage in Warframe does that couldn't be done better by removing self-damage entirely and making it so that explosives don't detonate if you would be in the blast radius. The exact same result would occur-you wouldn't be able to fire point-blank. The only change would be that it would feel better for everyone, because the people who are defending self damage now claim that they are never affected by it because they "play good" and therefore nothing changes for them, while the people who find it annoying, frustrating, or offputting will actually have a weapon with handling forgiving enough that they'll be more willing to put in the time to learn how to fire launchers and what their handling characteristics are because, again, the weapon still will be basically useless if you try to fire it point-blank but at least this way the result is that you don't do any damage and have to try again, which is what Warframe can and should expect from you screwing up a shot. Again, even assuming for the sake of argument that being able to point-blank everything would make launchers overpowered (which I don't think is clearly true given how powerful melee weapons are in the game and how melee weapons can easily sweep larger radii than launchers) removing self-damage and having minimum arming distances would actually retain the weapon's 'balance' by keeping the same skill ceiling and the exact same proficiency requirements (because the higher your skill level, the fewer whiffed shots you make and the higher your DPS, so you want to learn the characteristics of the weapon and not miss shots by landing them too close to yourself anyhow) while reducing the skill floor (because whiffed shots won't kill you, but force you to aim again).
  13. This is literally a non sequitur. If you "rarely miscalculate" and therefore self-damage isn't actually a major factor, self-damage is not "balance as well" and in fact is anti-balance because it creates an unnecessarily high learning curve to these weapons and makes them absurdly and inexplicably unforgiving despite how even your example of the "incredibly OP" Nightwatch Napalm Ogris isn't actually OP compared to meta weapons. Again, you can get literally 100% of the 'balancing factor' of self-damage in Warframe by simply making it so that if an explosive weapon would cause self-damage, it fails to detonate instead. This is literally how explosives in real life work. They have minimum arming distances that are calculated so you don't accidentally screw up and blow yourself up. And with that arming distance, players have an incentive to "play good" that does the exact same thing self-damage does, which is "you cannot fire this weapon at point blank." And I mean the exact same thing because the self-damage implementation you are defending is in fact incredibly stupid. Normally, in a game with sane self-damage implementations, self-damage is a relatively reasonable, decaying spectrum that means that firing at close quarters is a spectrum of risk, with a point-blank at your feet shot doing relatively heavy damage, while being winged by your own blast radius does basically nothing. Therefore, self-damage is okay because the game encourages you to make judgment calls. Firing a self-damaging weapon at close range has a cost if you miscalculate, but the cost is proportionate to the actual miscalculation and there's a spectrum of acceptable risk. You will probably be willing to risk more damage if you've got lots of resources, or if you're getting swarmed under by high-damage enemies, or if you're going to end the fight with that shot and can heal up afterwards. But that's not the case in Warframe. The amount of damage self-damage weapons is so out of line with player health that being caught in the blast radius of your own weapon is never desirable because it's instant death. At which point, why are we beating around the bush and pretending like self-damage is actually useful in balancing? Removing it, and simply making weapons fail to detonate if you misjudge the shot gets you the exact same benefit of self-damage's "balancing" by removing the ability of launchers to function at close range and does it in a way which is literally 100% less frustrating and gives you an immediate opportunity to correct your mistake, fitting with Warframe's relatively forgiving nature.
  14. There is very little damage falloff on self-damage weapons, so it's not as if "don't shoot self dmg weapons point blank" or "basically... aim" is actually good or useful advice because the problem has never been firing them point-blank, it's miscalculating ever so slightly, winging yourself with the explosion (almost always an invisible part of the blast radius), and instantly falling down because players deal thousands of times more damage than enemies do and enemies have hundreds of times the health players do. If you want to avoid being downed by self-damage you need to never make a single mistake hundreds or thousands of times in a mission, which is kind of an absurd level of effort to require of weapons that don't bring much to the table. Launchers in Warframe aren't "super op," the only one which people claimed was "super op" actually got effectively changed to make self-damaging with it nearly impossible but shockingly enough isn't dominating the meta again because the reason it was "super op" was because of its absurdly high stats, not because of some lack of self-damage, removing self-damage from launchers wouldn't make them "super op," and they really shouldn't be "super op" to make up for self-damage because frustration isn't actually a good balancing point for power and in fact powerful but frustrating is the worst of all possible game balance worlds because not only are your players now being pushed towards a very small subset of playstyles but they're pissing themselves off while doing it because your overpowered stuff is frustrating. Self damage weapons in Warframe demand a much higher workload than literally every other weapon in the game (no other weapon instantly kills you if you make a single mistake under any circumstance) despite bringing very little to the table. They underperform in usage stats because they bring very little to the table while being inexplicably and unreasonably punishing of even the slightest mistake, especially because the 'punishment' is all but perfectly designed to encourage bad gameplay rather than good gameplay-if you stay still on an elevated position while raining explosives onto a chokepoint you're never going to kill yourself but nobody is going to call mindless turret gameplay good or fun. And that's the fundamental problem here. There's a fundamental mismatch between Warframe, which is a relatively forgiving game, and launchers in Warframe, which make weapons in even unforgiving hardcore shooters look kind and forgiving. Declaring that players should "play good" is not actually a counterpoint to this. Yes, you can "play good." Or we could make launchers as forgiving as other weapons in Warframe, which wouldn't affect the people who "play good," wouldn't ruin weapons balance, and would make the game more fun for everyone who doesn't reach your exalted prowess of never making a mistake ever.
  15. I said that I'm standing in the open while reloading? What? When did I say that? Hell, when did @SaidTheRogue say that they were "just standing in the open well (sic) reloading" and therefore reloading is an issue because they keep dying or whatever you think that they're saying. The closest to that is when they said that it "just doesn't FEEL good to be standing there essentially jacking off, while 14 grineer are shooting at you from various directions. meanwhile, some kid with melee bound to his mouse wheel is zipping back and forth like spiderman blitzing everything with his zaw.. something aint right here." Notice that the OP doesn't say they get killed while reloading? The OP complaint is simple. Reload times are too long. That's literally it. Not that they get killed while reloading, or that the game is bad because you're vulnerable while reloading, or that they don't know how to keep themselves from taking damage while reloading. Just that. Reload times are too long. Period. You've spent post after post trying to drag @SaidTheRogue because you have decided (based on no evidence whatsoever) that they are secretly bad at the game and need your incredibly condescending advice, instead of actually responding to what they said in their actual posts.
×
×
  • Create New...