Jump to content

Teridax68

PC Member
  • Content Count

    1,547
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,319

4 Followers

About Teridax68

  • Rank
    Gold Hunter

Recent Profile Visitors

5,469 profile views
  1. The first examples that come to mind I'd say would be Harrow's Condemn and Inaros's Dessicate, both of which are, as you mentioned, utility moves designed to frequently enable the use of weapons, rather than act as weapons themselves. I think we're mostly on the same page here too: I also believe every frame is an opportunity to explore some frame-specific weapon, especially if it means adding some cool, yet non-essential synergy between that weapon and the frame's kit (e.g. by giving Ember fireballs as a weapon that explode on contact with ignited enemies). I also agree that this would mean toning down existing Exalted Weapons to fit this model, though honestly I think that could be fine, if done right.
  2. A what now? I proposed a system with more than one model of gating for abilities, so unless the name you just invented is meant to describe all of them, I think you've just continued to not understand what was said in the OP.
  3. This is fair, but then can be said for any combo, including Melee 2.0 combos, as their functional purpose is for the player to go through the motions to eventually achieve some result at the combo string's conclusion. In that sense, getting rid of combo strings altogether would solve the issue. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and I do think homogeneity among weapons of the same type is a problem as well, because these weapons come attached with stats. It is wasteful to have multiple weapons act the same way in this manner, because melee weapons need to be released with their own stats and mechanics, all of which end up amounting to nought if the most statistically efficient variant prevails. Thus, if homogeneity within grip types is the intent, one may as well simply have only as many melee weapons as there are grip types, turn all different weapons of the same type into skins, and all unique weapon mechanics into mods. All of these sound excellent. Regardless of our split on individual weapons vs. grip types, the models you are proposing are all good to follow, and fit the weapons they'd apply to. Agreed completely, and this I think applies to guns as well. I do not see any value in arbitrarily defining some weapons as stronger or weaker than others based off some arbitrary progression threshold, and I'd rather make all weapons equally powerful, instead establishing MR weapon tiers based on quirkiness, complexity, and difficulty of use (i.e. start with simpler weapons, then introduce weapons with alt-fires, success conditions such as the Dual Toxocyst's headshot bonus, quirky modes of fire or attack, and so on). So far, MR power tiers have only served to further enforce a meta of optimal weapons versus MR fodder, to the detriment of diversity overall. This I can largely agree with, though I also feel the homogeneity of older guns is still an issue that causes specific weapons to dominate over others on pure stats. Thus, while there's not as much of a problem, there's still a problem nonetheless of weapons that are currently redundant or mutually exclusive to each other's viability. This is fair. I don't think one necessarily has to define every single unique mechanic for every single melee weapon to make the point, but I think we can both agree that some degree of differentiation across melee weapons is needed, whether it be at the level of the grip type or the individual weapon. Agreed completely, though I think the more general point still stands that, unless stances only serve a purely aesthetic function, they are likely to favor certain mechanics over others, which introduces a meta-balancing concern and its own degree of complexity. Indeed. So long as finishers slow us down and make us less able to do what we'd want to do in combat (including stealth combat, which may include quickly killing a nearby enemy after assassinating the first), they will remain undesirable, so the best course of action should be to either streamline them (in which case they may as well be regular attacks), or remove them outright.
  4. What does this even mean? What "responsibility" are we talking about here? Because I'm proposing a model of "responsibility" that does not require Energy costs to gate the usage of our abilities, so again, I don't see how such a trite maxim justifies slapping Energy and Energy costs onto every ability. ... but if an Energy cost is the only thing preventing an ability from being brainless, then the ability is fundamentally brainless, and should change anyway. Again, the problem with what you're suggesting here is that, because Shuriken and Blade Storm both draw from the same resource (i.e. Energy), and both accomplish the same function (i.e. damage), their usage boils down to an efficiency comparison, where the most efficient ability gets used all the time and the other ability not at all. This is, by the way, what is happening now on Ash, so I'm not speaking in hypotheticals. Why? Where? First of all, this is wrong, because several of the models I suggested do come with downsides, but even in the case of free-to-cast abilities that are meant to be frequently used, I specified that they should be held to essentially the same standard as weapon attacks, e.g. gun or melee attacks, which are used frequently, but aren't considered "mindless spam" because there's at least some minimum amount of gameplay tied to them. Have you actually read what I posted? It may not be allowed to home in on enemies with every cast and instantly-kill them each time regardless of level or whatever (the latter which isn't the case either on the current ability), but at the end of the day, Shuriken is basically just a weapon attack anyway (it's in the name, too, which makes this one of the best examples to pick), so even if it were free to use, it could still be made just as powerful as any throwing weapon, and just as meaningful. No, you're not, because you're stretching the definition of "cooldown" to encompass literally any sort of downtime, in complete and deliberate ignorance of how that downtime relates to player agency. Whether your force the player to wait 10 seconds because of a 10-second cooldown, or because of a 100 Energy cost with an unchanging 10 Energy regen per second, the net result is the same, because the amount of player agency is the same. By contrast, when the means of recharging an ability involves actually playing the game in some way, e.g. killing enemies, getting headshots, blocking attacks, etc., the player has agency over that downtime. Moreover, you seem to misunderstand the notion of a "hard cooldown", which is a cooldown affected only by the passage of time, whereas my own model does not, by definition, have hard cooldowns as part of good ability design, because the "cooldowns" I'm proposing have their duration influenced by the player's actions. Except there are dozens, if not hundreds of different actions to be performed in Warframe, which makes for an extremely flexible design model if one can simply pick from such a wide selection, and tailor it to every relevant frame as needed, as opposed to a single, rigid model whose one-size-fits-all model fits virtually no-one. Because many of these actions also tend to be open-ended enough to be triggered in many different ways (e.g. headshots), this adds even more flexibility, especially compared to a model where the only way of generating a resource is to wait, itself an extremely limited and generally undesirable action to perform. I don't really get how you can claim that my model is not flexible in this manner. Bolding portions of my quotes out of context is a rather dishonest tactic to make it look like I'm saying something different from what is being said: if you look at the full quotes you pulled, which you inexplicably left in spite of your attempt to quote mine me, you'll see that the bold part in the first paragraph explains why your proposed system incentivizes people to wait. For sure, because I'm proposing to gate some abilities by limited resources, the player may not always be able to use those abilities to their fullest effect every time, but because I'm tying the uptime of those abilities to actual play, the player has no incentive to wait, and instead is incentivized to go to the next room and keep playing, even if it puts them at risk (because staying back would achieve nothing). Unlike your proposal, my suggested system is expressly designed to incentivize players to keep playing, and not break the flow of combat or traversal just to recharge some resource that may as well replenish instantly in-between fights with the model you've set. Well no, it just means one shouldn't use the ability until that threshold is met. In the case of a nuke with variable range or damage, that threshold can vary based on the enemies the player is facing, or the room they're in, and in general, unless the condition for good use is so niche as to rarely if ever come up, it is in fact good design to design abilities to be good in certain circumstances, but not as good in others. The fact that they complement each other does not make them interchangeable, nor should it lead to that. I'm not "cherry picking" anything here, I'm just pointing out to you the rather obvious fact that weapons are not designed to clear rooms in the same way as some abilities, and that the usefulness of weapons does not preclude the usefulness of abilities. It is your own claim that is not only baseless, but demonstrably wrong, as the existence of cooldowns has in fact caused players to wait when implemented, e.g. with players waiting to use Zenurik in Focus 1.0 to access the Energy regen they wanted to progress through missions, or using it now and staying in the regen zone instead of heading directly towards the mission objective. Cooldowns in Warframe are a bad idea, end of story. But waiting is part of the intended design, because you have designed a system that rewards players for waiting with a more full Energy bar, irrespective of how they mismanage their resources. If this is not your intention, then you have designed your system incompetently, and are better off finding a new one. If your intended design really were to encourage players to play rather than wait, why not go for my model instead? What I'm proposing clearly has an intended design of resource management on some abilities, coupled with encouraging continued gameplay to fuel those effects. ... which presumes that your base system is solid, which it isn't, as evidenced by the problems with our current Energy system right down to its fundamentals. This makes no sense, because the player isn't being asked to deal with every special design at the same time. This is the same as calling our diverse arsenal of frames and weapons "unnecessary complexity" because of all the "special designs" running around. ... why? Also, why is that bad? If the player is incapable of performing a certain action, then I can agree that there's a problem, in that the resource generation condition is too difficult or too niche, but if the player outright refuses to play towards a goal, then obviously they shouldn't achieve that goal. If the player refuses to kill enemies in an Exterminate mission, they will lose, just as they'll lose if they refuse to defend the objective in a Defense mission. Thus, along those same lines, if a player picks up a melee-oriented frame like Excalibur, but refuses to use any melee weapons at all ever, not even Exalted Blade, then it's not anyone else's fault, nor the end of the world, if they don't benefit from increased melee power because of it. But this is simply not true. Let's take a very basic example: Frame X has three abilities that are meant to only be used in very limited supply within a short duration, but after a very short downtime can be used again. However, ability 4 is meant to be used frequently without any short-term limitations, but is meant to eventually run out and recharge slowly, so that the player has to pay attention to each use. Abilities 1, 2, and 3 would need a low Energy pool relative to their costs, but high regen, whereas ability 4 would need a high Energy pool, but low regen. One cannot have both on the same frame, because a frame with high regen would eliminate the long-term consequences of ability 4, whereas a frame with low regen would disable the usage of abilities 1, 2, and 3 for far too long. Thus, your model is not a universal fit, because it does not accommodate frames that use different abilities with different rates of usage, e.g. with long-term vs. short-term limitations. QED. Then why decry the so-called "mindless spam" I'd supposedly bring about by designing certain abilities around no resource costs? But this is simply not the case, as I have clearly shown above with my examples that I have in fact made a serious effort to consider your proposition. The problem is simply that your model is critically flawed, and so in ways that can already be seen in-game or throughout its history. Thus, it may be that the issue here isn't me refusing to imagine how your system could work, but you refusing to acknowledge that you are proposing a model that is patently unsuccessful, and denying the existence of any flaws in spite of the many that were easily pointed out.
  5. I agree, AI in general, both for our companions and for enemies, could stand to bear significant improvements. Our companions especially tend to interact really poorly with scenery, and often get stuck in loops, while also tending to frequently make "wrong" choices, e.g. staying behind and fighting a group of deadly enemies solo. Considering how Wukong's new clone seems to be better at most things than older companions, it may be that DE's done some work on AI, which could be used to improve the rest of the game.
  6. A weapon being tedious to craft does not excuse it being overpowered, and it would be far better if Kitguns were easier to craft, while being more in line with other sidearms. I also dislike how Kitguns are basically just conventional pistols with extra layers of grind added on top of them: ultimately, kitguns (and Zaws, for that matter) contribute little to nothing in the way of unique gameplay, which makes their current dominant state in the meta all the more of a problem (they crowd out quirkier and more interesting alternatives). As such, not only would I like to see Kitguns rebalanced, I'd like to see them and Zaws reworked to have less grinding and more unique gameplay: in the case of Kitguns, I'd rather be able to choose some interesting secondary fire, or even a transformation mechanic that would allow me to swap out Kitgun modules (as the term "modular weapon" would suggest), than have a more conventional pistol with oodles of damage.
  7. If the horde of enemies is made insignificant relative to the boss, why even have the horde in the first place? Bosses with adds tend to have simpler mechanics during the add phases, or just simpler mechanics in general, precisely to avoid having the player focus on more factors than humanly possible. Anecdotal evidence for the Shadow Stalker is a particularly poor argument when the guy is currently as weak as he is, meaning that he can currently be disposed of regardless of mechanics or hordes purely because he's a pushover. The fact remains that one can anticipate his arrival and prepare for it to avoid dealing with hordes of enemies, which is typically what players do. Meanwhile, the Wolf of Saturn Six just pops out at random, with a number of fugitives to boot, and even that much is already enough for players to seriously dislike fighting him. ... while also being attacked from all sides, i.e. like most horde modes, which directional barriers can't really work well against. Ultimately, what you are saying here is that some specific warframes are designed to simply ignore the horde mode aspect of horde mode combat, which begs the question of why one would then need it: what of the frames that can't just ignore the crowds? What purpose does the horde even serve if warframe abilities are designed to hard-counter them? I can agree that DE should stop with the immunities, and I can agree that not everyone would want to avoid horde mode-style combat in Warframe entirely, but then I also think one can have one's cake and eat it too, thanks to factions: the Infested are well-suited for horde mode, but the Corpus by contrast really aren't, as some of their units' gameplay is too complex to work well in large numbers (and, on top of this, the lore says very few Corpus actually fight; they mostly just send proxies to do their dirty work). Meanwhile, the Grineer clearly have some sort of hierarchy, with a mix of cannon fodder and more distinguished elites: your miniboss enemies could thus insert themselves into some (but not all) factions, so that one could select a different mode of combat based on the opposing faction, thus preserving horde mode in some situations, while encouraging different and more tactical gameplay in others. That does mean, however, that these minibosses can't be the cure to poor ability design, as they wouldn't be around all the time. Which I did, except you didn't seem to have read or understood the relevant paragraphs. So... what is your argument here? What is the actual reason not to have gameplay to our power? Because the rather obvious counterargument is that Warframe is a video game that aims to provide some sort of gameplay to the player, therefore its components should be conducive towards that. Okay, so first off, the very fact that you fail to give any specifics while underlining your own insistence on precise examples simply undermines the point you are making, as you're simply expecting me to figure out in your stead how Energy gating could be fixed. As I have directly told you, I am having trouble figuring that out, because I have pointed out fundamental issues with Energy as a system, which you haven't addressed in any way. Thus, your suggestion is at an impasse. Refuted... which points? Presented... which reasons? For someone so insistent upon specifics, you're being awfully vague, particularly as here you're simply telling me that my points are wrong, and that I haven't proven anything, instead of showing me either. Meanwhile, I have in fact been refuting your points, with examples to boot (I cited a specific example above of a demonstrably wrong claim you made), so really, this just comes across as grandstanding more than anything else. So, to disprove the claim that you misunderstood my post... you make up an example that I never challenged as a misunderstanding? What? But this is all blatantly wrong, as you still have to aim in some direction for these weapons to work, even if the aim is generous. There is no reason not to bring weapons in general, because weapons are in fact intended to be an essential part of our arsenal (which does not mean we output power simply from their existence), but there are reasons not to bring certain weapons in particular, including the ones you mentioned, in an environment where there are alternatives with desirable options. Again, you are fiddling with semantics, but on top of that seem to be relying on this strawman that I'm asking for everything to require some fine degree of skill, when really I'm not being that strict. But dodge speed is itself a fairly situational bonus, because dodging is a fairly specific move with a specific purpose (plus increasing dodge speed carries the tradeoff of reducing the time you spend reducing damage). The same can be said for sprinting, charge attacks, and revives, especially since all of these mods are expressly designed with the intent of offering a tradeoff relative to others. They do make you stronger, but their design includes some form of gameplay. By this same ridiculous degree of abstraction, working on Excel sheets non-stop in an office is also its own kind of video game, because "you press buttons", and a game like Dark Souls has the exact same depth and quality of play as YIIK. In fact, watching a movie online is a video game now, because all you do is "press buttons" and admire the results. Your argument here makes zero sense. ... yes, you do want headshots no matter what, but you're not going to be able to headshot with the same ease as just shooting people. You have to aim a little more, or make use of effects that favor headshots, all of which require some sort of gameplay. Functionally, the end result is a damage increase, but it is a damage increase with gameplay attached to it. Once again, you are being far too abstract and reductive in your argumentation here to be able to make any cogent point regarding gameplay being presented to the player, and not just the output of that gameplay. Because... ? Also, where did I say I wanted to eliminate passives? The other time you said this was in response to a suggestion I made for a passive, which makes that insinuation all the weirder. ... which exist precisely because stuff like Loki's invisibility exist. These annoying units exist to force gameplay in an environment where we can otherwise completely eliminate all gameplay for the game, and so with optimal results, which in turn kills actual variety. Don't like Nullifiers? Then accept the fact that you are not entitled to just passively win the game, and that you demanding as much ruins the fun for other players too. This is hilariously wrong, as one could easily verify with even a cursory glance at the forums or Reddit, or even more simply, by playing the game and seeing how frequently some frames and weapons are used over others (DE even posted some data on this a little while back). The hypothetical existence of some people who participate in a playstyle regardless of optimality does not preclude the fact that some playstyles are far more frequently played than others due to how much more effective they are at winning. Warframe is a game that incentivizes players to go for optimal or more efficient builds, which means that if one playstyle is more reliable, more powerful, and easier than the rest, regardless of how fun it actually is, it's going to dominate, which means DE is eventually going to have to step in, as is already about to happen for the Maiming Strike + Blood Rush combo with Melee 3.0. But your argument points out strictly nothing, that's the point. It is completely irrelevant to the matter being discussed, and merely hinges upon a definition of "efficiency" that is clearly not being used here. That is what it means to argue on semantics. But you clearly don't, and are yet again arguing on semantics here: your implicit definition of "variety" is "the playstyle I like exists in Warframe", in complete and deliberate ignorance of the fact that your hyper-efficient, gameplay-devoid playstyle is itself harmful to variety of play, because it dominates over playstyles that are less reliable due to hinging more upon player agency. Thus, you are willing to sacrifice deeper and more diverse combat in Warframe, and thus actual variety, in the defense of one-note playstyles that exclude the rest from viability by their very existence. It's an utterly terrible argument, because there is no incentive to "make a challenge" in Warframe when the game instead incentivizes efficiency. It is a deliberate attempt to dodge the actual point of the matter, which is that Warframe currently cannot offer a real challenge, despite the developers' best attempts, due to how many of our abilities trivialize the game by design (and if there are rewards behind the "challenges" DE give us, you can bet your butt that players are going to use those abilities to win as easily and as reliably as possible). I couldn't agree more! Which is precisely why Warframe should alter its rules of design to benefit integrity of play. Point C being what the game expressly pushes the player to do, by having us collect more weapons, frames and mods, and max them out. Of course there is reason to max things out; it makes you more powerful, which not only makes it easier to get rewards, it also just satisfies the pursuit of more power, which is a common game incentive that is itself ingrained into Warframe's current systems (ranking up frames and weapons makes them more powerful, or more able to be made more powerful). Trying to blame the players for the game's flawed systems and incentives is a poor excuse, and is itself a transparent attempt to deflect the onus of change away from the game itself. Yes, it clearly is bad. Players complain endlessly about the lack of endgame, despite DE's attempts to create one, and both player comments and global play rates indicate that many players eventually get bored and leave due to repetition taking over. The very fact that DE is trying to give us challenges should be an indication that the lack of challenge is in fact having a detrimental effect on the game. This isn't to say that the game should be difficult, it just needs to offer some kind of stimulation, and not devolve into an almost completely passive experience. ... but the game gives them the tools to make the game drastically easier and incentivizes them to do so, so again, why are you blaming the player here? I think you might benefit from reading up on incentives and incentive structures, and how they can make people worse off when improperly set up. Absolutely not, that is literally an argumentum ad populum. It is overused because it is invalid to begin with, and is merely the expression of an echo chamber on the forums (and the forums specifically, rarely if ever on other spaces) that trots it out every time DE even suggests nerfing anything for the sake of improving gameplay, or even when the possibility of a nerf is perceived without confirmation from the devs. Meanwhile, you have an even larger and more consistent number of players asking for Warframe to give them more stimulation and challenge, as well as address frames, weapons, and strategies that kill the fun and variety in the game, so it's not even the most popular argument in the room. ... which can be constantly recast for more health each time, in addition to CC and status immunity, ergo its interaction is eliminated. ... which isn't relevant when the mission objective isn't contingent upon damaging enemies, thereby causing the ability to become a perma-invincibility button, one can preserve even when switching to Operator Mode to activate certain panels. ... which, as with Limbo's Rift, simply lets you waddle through missions while invincible, removing all interaction at the cost of making the mission slightly more boring. The tradeoff here does not actually address the abusive aspect of the ability. ... which can be cast on-demand for constant invincibility and damage. Literally all of these can have 100% uptime. There is no cooldown in-between casts, we generate enough Energy for the costs to not matter. Except casting itself will make you invincible. If the argument you're making is that there's some delay in the cast where the player isn't yet invincible, that simply means that those abilities have 99.999...% uptime instead of literally 100%, which still has the same core problem. This statement: Implicitly relies on the assumption that choice and variety are opposed to gameplay, by framing them as a choice between one set or the other. You therefore very much did presume such a thing. Where? How so? What does this even mean? What good is a choice if it is strictly inferior to another? Oh no, you can, you just don't get to claim a personal stake in a frame you have had no personal involvement in until the tide of player politics in the Warframe community turned towards it. Pretending to know Wukong in-depth and arguing that changing Defy would be the end of the world, when you don't know what you're talking about or actually care about the frame itself, is blatantly dishonest, and does not convey constructive feedback when the intent isn't to actually benefit the frame, so much as just fight some imagined battle against nerfs of any kind. Please explain how this argument even begins to make sense. [citation needed] But also, how exactly does this hypothetical dislike of the new Defy's implementation translate in any way to wanting the old Defy back? Quite unrelated to what? You're trying to justify the existence of playstyles that trivialize the game, and the very fact you're limiting yourself to most of what I just claimed itself implies you'd be okay with some of what I just listed, despite the fact that my suggestion was so obviously meant to be ridiculous. Waiting... how long? Because I can agree that perhaps pausing on some input can constitute interesting gameplay, but calling stuff like build timers "gameplay" is stretching the definition significantly, as those kinds of mechanics exist specifically to inconvenience the player and lock off interaction with the game. Or, alternatively, you're simply choosing to pick yet another argument on semantics here when in an uncomfortable argumentative position, as you clearly haven't been interested in debating based off of some shared understanding of the terms and context we are using. You know what kind of gameplay I'm talking about, you're just trying to substitute some other meaning to it for argument's sake. How is the grind a "challenge"? Which skills does it test? Is it beneficial or enjoyable to the player to test those skills? Once again, your argument here is far too vague and abstract to actually mean anything: what is the variety you are talking about here? Why is this "variety" good? Why does the existence of "challenge" in the form of grinding mean we should exclude any other form of challenge from Warframe? If Warframe is just a game about pressing buttons, why doesn't it just resume itself to a clicker game? ... then pick the frame that requires fewer button presses? I don't see where I ever suggested that every frame should have button-masher kits, nor did I ever quantify difficulty or grinding around frequency of button presses, so your argument here is not only not right, it's not even wrong. Where did I ever suggest to make every frame press buttons at the exact same rate? Variable difficulty sounds good, but I don't see why it is necessary to my suggestion. Why can't my system work without that? But I'm not, though, I'm simply proposing that using abilities shouldn't be a totally passive experience. As mentioned above with the examples of the guns you mentioned, I'm not saying that every ability should be this especially challenging test of skill, I'm just saying that every ability needs to be based on some form of healthy gameplay, which need not be difficult to achieve. You could thus still have very easy frames with the system I'm proposing and, in fact, removing Energy might make them even easier to use. You are, therefore, still continuing to be hyperbolic, in addition to being wrong.
  8. This is a possible risk, though ideally one that wouldn't be too big an issue if cycling through with quick attacks was itself quick and useful enough to get to the move one wanted for a specific situation. If a specific move were so good as to be worth using all the time, that would be a different problem. I think the central problem with Melee 1.0, one that has persisted with current melee, is simply that melee weapons themselves are poorly differentiated, much like older guns: aside from the odd unique mechanic, most melee weapons are differentiated only by variations in stats and damage type distributions. If, by contrast, melee weapons received the same love as guns right now, so that each could use its moves for more varied gameplay (especially if the heavy/charged attacks exist to provide utility of some sort, rather than just more damage), one could avoid the problem of older melee models altogether. This could also work, and I think that one could do either, so you could have melee weapons with crowd-oriented basic attacks and heavy attacks focused on single targets (e.g. whips), and others with the reverse model (e.g. nikanas). I think at that point if the problem is with fishing for individual attacks, then one could simply make all attacks from one combo do the same thing, and all attacks from the other combo do another, with each attack being mostly cosmetic otherwise (which comes down to the ultra-simplified model mentioned above). I think the conceptually simple solution to that could simply be to have each newly-obtained melee weapon also add its appearance as a skin for all weapons of similar dimensions: that way, if you really like the look of one particular weapon, but the gameplay of another of the same type, you could still have the best of both worlds. The fact that we're discussing this for melee weapons, though, and not guns, I think itself underlines just how interchangeable melee weapons are with each other right now. My fear with both of these is that this would limit the range of possible unique mechanics one could give to melee weapons, while not fully addressing the issue of homogeneity tied to having many different weapons do essentially the same thing. Alternate effects can be good, but I think could be done much more easily if they had a dedicated move to work with, as opposed to having to be balanced around a variety of different possible attack patterns (e.g. abusing the Sarpa stance's higher rate of gunfire with the Redeemer Prime's high status chance and shot damage). Agreed fully, one should be able to cancel our attacks as part of our weapon gameplay. In terms of design, though, we shouldn't be making weapons or abilities to provide movement that we can already access, and so any movement should be exceptional in some way, while still being harmonious with our regular traversal. Agreed 100%, immunities have never worked well in Warframe, and routinely lead to frustrating and one-dimensional combat. Agreed. An idea I had regarding dismemberment was that any exceptional amount of overkill damage should gib the victim, regardless of status effect, and especially work on body part hits. Thus, landing that really heavy strike should splatter an enemy, and landing that sniper headshot should consistently pop the victim's head for a high moment. Agreed as well, exaggerating the impact of our last strike, including by giving enemies special death animations without the need for a cutscene, could neatly signal an end to a good fight in cinematic fashion, without forcing us into the role of a passive observer. Those were my thoughts exactly: the moment I heard that finishers would drop extra loot, I a) immediately shuddered at the possible finisher-centric farm strats that would emerge, and b) felt like the new mechanic was basically just bribing players to use a move that is currently undesirable, without actually addressing why that move type doesn't get used (it's slow and takes agency away from the player for a bit). We don't need loot enhancers, nor do we need finishers, and I think trying to force an unnecessary mechanic that nobody wants, and incur significantly more animation work in the process in an already packed Melee 3.0 pipeline, is completely counterproductive.
  9. Profit-Taker is bad design because of all the background noise generated by the horde surrounding it, though. Sure, it's pushed a meta, but beyond that, it's poorly-designed because it throws too many different things at the player for clean gameplay to emerge, owing to having to pay attention to both a boss, and a horde of enemies that are also meant to be a threat. Meanwhile, Shadow Stalker is acceptable in large part because players tend to find a place to fight him one-on-one -- he doesn't just pop up and instantly fight the player alongside a horde of enemies. They've backed out of Damage 3.0 for now, but have overhauled much of the game's tech several times over, the Star Chart, Alerts, the balance of hundreds of weapons, multiple frame kits, Archwing (which they'll do yet again with Empyrean), parkour, and melee, which is still ongoing. I find it ridiculous to claim that it is ever too late to change anything in Warframe when the Warframe we know today is absolutely nothing like the game it was in 2013, and so due to massive systemic revamps (including a previous overhaul to damage).
  10. But in that case, why not simply reduce the cost of the frequently-used ability to 0 Energy? Why does using one ability lots of times have to disable the use of others? Why does this model fit every frame? Because I don't think it does, and I don't think resource management is at the core of literally all our abilities (it certainly isn't for most of them, even). But then you're asking for players to make up for a fundamentally dull and unpleasant system at the cost of their build options. By contrast, seeing which frames need a resource, and giving them their own way of generating that resource, avoids this entirely. Not really, because in an Energy system, using Shuriken means you'll have less Energy to cast Blade Storm, and since both have the same function (i.e. deal damage), might as well save up your Energy for whichever ability is strongest for its Energy cost (which could be either depending on balance). By contrast, if the two were decoupled from each other, and only BS cost Energy (or some other cost), then that would no longer be the case. I mean, I did mention in the thread's very title that I'm proposing to remove Energy from the equation, without always adding something to replace it, so I am in fact suggesting that abilities could be made entirely "free", so long as they were gated appropriately in the ways mentioned above. As such, I absolutely believe you could have a future frame with no Energy, particularly since this already exists with Hildryn. You could also have a frame with both Energy and their own resource, though I still think the core issue is why the frame would need Energy as a gating mechanism in the first place. But we are discussing hard downtimes based on regen, which functionally is not that different from cooldowns. Okay, but my specific point here is that perception is important: if the condition is to perform three jumps rather than wait 3 seconds, and those jumps each take a second to complete, the latter gating will always guarantee less uptime than the first, but the perception would be different, precisely because its condition is in the player's hands. This also presumes a forced downtime after every cast, when the general idea of a payoff is flexible enough that you could design abilities such that players could choose how much of a resource to spend with every cast in order to make for a more powerful effect. But then the next room might be full of enemies, and because you didn't wait, you wouldn't be able to clear it. In the worst case, this might kill you, meaning that waiting would have in fact been the optimal solution. Because of this, there is always an incentive to wait, precisely because models like pure cooldowns or constant regen are based on time elapsed, rather than participation in combat. But abilities aren't weapons or vice versa, and a weapon might not be enough to clear a large room full of enemies, whereas some abilities can. Indeed, which is why I think we should switch to gating that works for that, rather than a system that is altogether too rigid and not all that conducive to frequent casting. The two are not mutually exclusive: one can make a payoff ability accessible anytime, but only useful if one has generated enough of whichever resource it uses. Moreover, my point isn't simply that players want everything to be accessible at all times, but that they want to have control over when to use their abilities, even if they've cast them already recently, which putting resource generation into the hands of the player would achieve. Not every ability needs to be a payoff either. Okay, but what you're saying is that this resource should always be Energy, and that resource generators should always be layered on top of the same core system, when that's what I'm questioning: I don't think every frame works in the same way, so I don't think it makes sense to impose the exact same mode of gating on all of their abilities. I don't think every warframe needs its own payoff mechanic, or therefore its own resource, but when a payoff mechanic does exist, the means of getting to that payoff should involve gameplay. In this respect, simply having time elapse is not gameplay on its own, whether it's via a cooldown or a resource that only regenerates over time. I mean, the name itself is only meant to describe a type of mechanic, but I do think it's indicative here: an asset is some sort of discrete resource you have a limited amount of, which you can use, but not in unlimited supply. The reason I'm suggesting that is in direct response to stuff like Vauban's different tech grenades, where they can be spammed ad infinitum (and you're in fact encouraged to do so), and are thus balanced around that spam, one of the many reasons why his kit feels so weak right now. Octavia solves at least that problem by having her own assets erase previous ones. With Harrow, it's not like you have this asset that you can deploy or redeploy at will, so much as just a buff you can activate. That's true, Discharge does have an actual cooldown, one of the many unnecessary additions to the ability during Volt's rework. However, you are also here focusing too much on the name here, rather than what the name represents: If you want to be super-broad, literally every form of good design is contingent upon some sort of skill: using an asset properly also requires good game knowledge and choosing wisely where to allocate that asset over alternatives; using a modifier well is a matter of playing to its strengths and/or around its tradeoffs; and using a payoff well is all about choosing correctly when to expend the resource one has generated. However, what I specifically mentioned regarding skillshots is that the skill inherent in their proper use is not a matter of making some meaningful choice over play, but instead exercizing some much more basic mechanical skill, e.g. aiming, positioning, or reacting to something. In other words, Covenant depends mostly on tactical skill (i.e. you're choosing when's a good time to cast the ability), whereas a skillshot like Condemn is instead dependent on mechanical skill (the ability is always good to use, you just need to aim it). I think there's a fundamental contradiction between giving up on changing our abilities because "it's too late" and because Warframe "became a horde shooter", and suggesting to remedy this instead by adding an entirely new system of minibosses, complete with an AI overhaul so radical that they'd be able to intelligently counter our moves Ninja Gaiden-style. Profit-Taker I think is good evidence that trying to mix bosses with horde mode-style combat is a recipe for disaster, and beyond that the suggestion is just as complicated, if not even more so than the suggestion to change our abilities. This isn't to say that the idea is fundamentally bad, as I'd actually love some more complex enemies (also I don't believe Warframe is entirely a horde shooter, at least not all the time), it's just that this feels more like rejecting one proposal simply out of personal preference for another, even though the suggestions aren't mutually exclusive either.
  11. This is fair, yeah. The scheme I was mainly thinking about, where my own preference likely stems from, was that in Assassin's Creed, at least in the older games, where holding right-click alternated between low- and high-profile moves (low profile being stealthy, and high-profile being fast/better for combat). I agree that manual control would likely be better than aim assist, particularly as it would also bring melee weapons closer to guns in how one would be able to aim them (and the fact that melee animations are stiff, whereas our gunplay lets us aim in any direction, I think is a difference that need not exist). Depending on the sweeps, and where they take place, I also feel the issue of reduced importance on some attacks could be avoided: if our quick attacks were mainly made up of relatively short-ranged or otherwise small moves, e.g. quick thrusts or forward sweeps, and our heavy/charged attacks allowed us to hit enemies to our sides or even behind us as we attacked our main target, then every move could have a place, especially if vertical swings were better for headshots, or even simply had more damage than other attacks (and in a simplified combo system where each move were its own individual attack, it could likely be fine for each attack to deal its own amount of damage, in addition to having its own motion and other quirks). I think the question here isn't necessarily one of instant inputs (I agree that holding RMB wouldn't make the attacks less responsive), so much as one of having separate movesets based on the angle of one's attacks, and having to alternate between the two based on the target's elevation/head, especially if one could use a single moveset with manual aiming to cover both. To some extent, I can also agree that the system could be streamlined even further: if one reduced melee down to its barest essentials, and stripped both combo-style moves to one quick attack and one heavy attack, with whichever animation work done to make those attacks smoothly transition and adjust based on aim (and with either blocking or holding to differentiate the two), one could likely still have a solid melee combat model. In fact, with that little work needed for any given moveset, this could justify giving each melee weapon its own innate "stance", instead of remaining in the current situation where melee weapons are just empty shells that mostly compare on raw stats and the occasional gimmick. Indeed, there is a key difference here in that my idea of a combo would mostly just be a string of moves with their own effects, and no persistent combo of counter besides just identifying which move is next in the sequence, whereas you're proposing retaining the combo counter to provide rewards. Either one I think could work fine. Agreed completely. There's likely some other post to be made about this, but movement, weapons, and abilities I think are three distinct systems that each accomplish a specific function, and no mechanic within any of those systems should seek to replace the other, or otherwise do something that is already covered well by another system: in this case, while ground slams are okay due to the unique precision repositioning they offer, our melee attacks in general shouldn't move us on their own, at least not in a way that interferes with our regular movement. Indeed. This keeps getting mentioned in discussions like these, but there's this whole dimension of boss-related melee combat that really isn't touched upon at all at the moment in Warframe. It would be awesome for large/flying bosses to react to players climbing them for melee damage in ways that would try to dislodge us, and even more broadly, parkour is used far too little in the design of most boss fights, which could be fixed by making melee consistently viable in every fight. Agreed, and I think "show, don't tell" gets to apply here as well: scripted moves such as finishers can look cool the first few times, but tend to grate afterwards, especially because ultimately they tend to boil down to a generous QTE. By contrast, giving us flexible systems that can create emergent (and awesome situations), such as throwing an enemy into the air and following up with a lethal hit before they hit the ground, or precision-landing directly on top of an enemy from a great height for an instant kill, would be unlikely to get stale, as they'd be the direct product of using our tools to do cool stuff, and show how awesome we are, as opposed to following a prompt to be told the same thing in rigid, cinematic fashion.
  12. I can agree with this in the broad lines, and I think a great deal many warframe abilities, especially 1 abilities, could simply be turned into frame-specific weapons. I don't think that necessarily has to happen to every frequently-cast ability, as some might benefit from a mode of usage that doesn't really fit most weapons, plus some abilities I think are too niche or utility-focused to really qualify as weapons, per se, but if an ability is weapon-like, then I agree it should be a weapon instead. With that said, I also feel turning stuff into exalted/innate weapons is an opportunity open up space for other abilities, whereas those innate weapons could just be part of the arsenal, accessible to the frame only.
  13. But as I pointed out at length, and on several occasions in this thread, simply fixing Energy won't solve every problem with abilities: putting aside how our current model of Energy economy would still not be healthy even if our Energy generation were nerfed, there's still the problem of applying a mode of gating that just doesn't work for every ability, and gets in the way of proper usage. Some abilities need to be gated by a resource so as to avoid being able to clear the room all the time on demand, but some abilities are in fact meant to be used frequently, and aren't supposed to be about managing resources each time. While I can agree that energy regen would be an improvement to the current model, as would be removing most of our Energy generators, I do not believe that would fix Energy as a whole, as per the above. In the end, simply basing everything around Energy regen means you're putting your abilities on some implicit cooldown, or at least a forced waiting period that the player cannot influence. I'd also argue that passive regen is just about the dullest way of implementing a resource generation mechanic, when something as simple as "This warframe generates Energy every time they deal melee damage" (which would work well for a frame like Excalibur, for example) for one frame, "This warframe generates Energy on headshots" (e.g. Mesa or Harrow) and so on could already create far more interesting gameplay. But as mentioned above, and in the OP, the problem cannot simply be boiled down to the Energy economy. Moreover, my suggestions are broad because I'm not offering a One True WayTM of fixing every ability, just some principles one should run by when doing so. Even then, I do cite concrete examples of good and bad abilities, and listed a specific example of one way to change Excalibur's passive below the OP. So if the system is flawed... then the system is flawed? Who could have guessed! /s But honestly, though, I can agree that the implementation of such a system can be flawed, but then literally anything could be flawed, that much is a truism. I could perhaps elaborate on what could qualify as a good method of resource generation, though in the broad lines I think it boils down to a) generating a resource based on some bit of gameplay that is b) sufficiently specific so that the player has to alter their "standard" playstyle to generate it optimally, yet c) general enough, and/or synergistic enough with the frame that the player can generate it consistently in most circumstances. For example, if Excalibur generated a resource from dealing melee damage, as mentioned above, or Zephyr generated a resource while airborne, that'd fit the criteria for healthy resource generation. Which resource is primary and secondary here? I'm proposing to take Energy as a general resource away here, and moreover, I'm suggesting to only make some abilities consume resources, so that even if a frame is empty on that resource, they'd still be able to cast other abilities. I don't really agree with this, because there is a radical difference in player perception depending on the agency they're given: if building towards their next cast is a simple matter of waiting (i.e. a cooldown), players in Warframe don't like that because it feels like they have no agency over the downtime. Waiting is also something players don't really want to do in Warframe, and if the waiting time is too long it risks leading to unhealthy lulls in gameplay, e.g. sitting things out until one can cast again. If, however, the player is told that they can work towards their next cast by playing, not only would it feel like their ability uptime is in their control (even if it might be made very difficult or impossible to reach 100% uptime), it would also mean that their main way of generating more casts would be to continue playing, rather than wait. A few things: I don't think there's any contradiction between these types of abilities, nor are they mutually exclusive. A modifier can also be a skillshot (e.g. "fire this projectile at an enemy to gain a massive burst of speed", or "pay X health to create this localized explosion"), a payoff can be an asset (e.g. by deploying some kind of buff dispenser that costs some resource to generate, where you can only have a limited amount of those dispensers at a time), and so on. You can also have abilities with both good and bad design, e.g. with Harrow's Covenant being a cooldown, but also a modifier. Never at any point did I ever suggest every ability should exclusively be one of the good types at a time. I may have not expressed myself clearly, but I don't think you really understand what I'm trying to say regarding assets or skillshots: Assets are meant to be localized instances of power that you can deploy at will, but can only have a limited number of. Wisp's Reservoirs are an asset, because you can only have up to six of them at a time, and Octavia's Mallet, Resonator, and Amp are assets (and also egg timers), because you can only deploy a limited number of them at a time. Harrow's Covenant is not an asset, because it's not some separate entity you're deploying for a bonus. Similarly, a skillshot is an ability whose gameplay comes from setting it up before or during casting, as opposed to a modifier, which you have around to then subsequently give you bonuses for altering your play: you could technically call Covenant a skillshot because you could block fatal damage in a split-second with the right reactions, but that's not really how it's used most of the time. So in the end, Covenant is a cooldown, and is also a modifier, because it gives you bonus crit chance based on the damage you've soaked up, but it's not an asset or a skillshot, nor is it truly a payoff given our current Energy economy.
  14. ... okay, but I can't be more specific, because any of those things could be enough of a change. You seem to understand what I'm saying here, so I'm not quite understanding why you'd nitpick on the specifics of what is meant to be a very broad proposal. If you really want one specific example, here's how I'd change one of the passives I've mentioned (Excalibur's): Current version: Excalibur gains +10% melee attack speed and +10% melee damage when wielding sword-like weapons. This ability is filler because ultimately there is no gameplay to this: you get some mild DPS boost to some weapons and not others, which translates to no gameplay in-mission (you either have the bonus or you don't, and the bonus doesn't make you play differently). Fixed version: Finisher attacks grant Excalibur +50% melee attack speed and +50% melee damage for 10 seconds. Same bonus, but stronger, because this time it'd be contingent upon actually doing something to unlock it (in this case, by using finishers). This would also synergize with Excalibur's kit, whose Radial Blind sets enemies up for finisher attacks. Fix Energy how? Even if our Energy economy were reined in, there's still the problem of applying one very specific mode of gating across four separate active abilities at a time, as well as how we generate Energy. Nidus's stacks are perhaps one implementation, but yes, in cases where an ability is meant to have a meaningful cost or less than 100% uptime, that's when a resource comes in, which doesn't need to function along the same rigid and overly general rules as Energy. There is a difference between a misunderstanding, and outright failing to acknowledge the contents of what one has just read. You have made a number of demonstrably wrong claims that the fluidity of language does not excuse, nor that can be chalked up to a simple "misunderstanding" (for example, claiming that I "seem to think abilities that can be constantly used are bad" when I explicitly mention a model of good design for frequently used abilities). Ergo, you did not read my post "properly", i.e. by actually reading its contents such that you became aware of them. But weapons aren't "direct benefits", you still have to point and shoot/attack for them to do their job. You can't simply press a button to instantly kill every enemy three rooms across, nor does merely equipping a weapon give you some constant stat increase. Unless there's some actual gameplay to that warframe's abilities, even if they focus exclusively on weapons, there's going to be nothing stopping you from simply spamming those abilities mindlessly, in which case you might as well just convert your entire warframe into a passive stat boost to your weapons. I'm not asking for a trade-off to every ability, either: something as simple as "your headshots deal X% more damage" would already be a healthy effect. How nice of you to mention Loki's Invisibility specifically, because its complete lack of interaction is what made the frame unhealthily strong for a large part of Warframe's lifetime, right up until we got missions full of AoE, invisibility-detecting enemies, and other mechanics that prevented invisible frames from surviving properly. It is a prime example of what goes wrong when you make abilities almost entirely passive, because the end result is an ability that breaks interaction between the player and the environment, in a way movement and weapons do not compensate for in any way. This is all very nice, except when one style of gameplay boils down to simply letting oneself auto-win the game with little more than a few button presses, that playstyle is bound to dominate when it is strong, simply because it's more powerful and reliable. If you really want multiple styles of gameplay to coexist, you'd have to accept massive nerfs to that kind of playstyle anyway, simply so that other playstyles with actual gameplay could have a chance. Except we're not talking about efficiency of one's overall lifestyle, by whichever arbitrary standard you have set, we are evidently talking about efficiency of performance within Warframe. Fluid as language is and all, you're clearly arguing purely on semantics here. "Everyone is stupid because they don't intentionally sabotage themselves to put some challenge into the game" is an utterly asinine argument to make, particularly when you have also explicitly admitted to preferring easymode playstyles that put efficiency over gameplay. Not everyone maximizes efficiency, but Warframe is an efficiency-driven game that pushes the player to max themselves out. There is no incentive to intentionally weaken oneself aside from wanting to set oneself a challenge, and the very fact that you'd have to do so implies that the game itself ultimately does not challenge the player. Fact of the matter is, abusive frames, hyper-optimal builds, and hyper-efficient strategies exist, and many of these are driven by mistakes in balance and design. Blaming the player for not unbreaking the game makes no sense, and is an overused argument on these forums that is pretty much always employed to deflect any suggestion of change to Warframe. Iron Skin, Limbo's Rift, Assimilate, and the new Defy all beg to differ. Some of them do have some mechanic that adds power based on some interaction, but all of these are effects that can be used to make a frame invulnerable with 100% uptime. When talking about less than literal invincibility, Inaros also comes in, as his high stats, coupled with Arcane Grace, make him functionally immortal in the near-totality of the content the game has to offer. Interesting that you'd presume that gameplay would be opposed to choice and variety, when the latter two are themselves contributing factors to good gameplay. When the choice comes between a playstyle that can win the game with no effort, and one that has to make some effort to win the game, it doesn't matter how much more fun the latter playstyle is, the former will dominate, thereby reducing choice and variety overall. Being outright invincible was the core reason Wukong was so boring prior to his rework, and the only people who seemed attached to the old Defy seemed to be those who didn't main him. And by this reasoning, you must also feel entitled to a frame that, with a single ability press, can instantly give you every other warframe, weapon, mod, and collectible item, max them out, put you to Mastery Rank 30, and complete every single quest and event in the game, including ones in the future. Because it exists, and you might want that at a certain moment, therefore variety or something. If your idea of gameplay is to not participate, but instead watch as you are showered in rewards and big numbers, then you may be better served by an idle game. ... but I'm not "making everything active gameplay with a thousand important decisions", that's a complete straw man. You don't make a thousand important decisions when aiming and firing a weapon, so there need not be that much more complication to ability usage, there just needs to be some sort of mechanic behind it, rather than just raw power.
  15. ... or, alternatively, one can simply look at the forums and see that the number of Wukong complaint threads has died out almost completely, with the three remaining threads on the front page discussing him all bringing up reasoned, constructive criticism. Where exactly are people memeing him, or Nezha, or even the more mediocre reworks like Zephyr or Hydroid for being nerfed? ... yes? They need not be perma-stunnable, but if crowd control and damage abilities are made healthy and interactive, why not? Even if that were the case, why not simply remove the ability nullification to the bubble? This is ignoring the fact that anti-gunplay objects already exist for Corpus and Grineer. ... but I'm specifically proposing a set of changes to abilities that would prevent players from simply spamming them with zero interaction. That is literally the reason I started this thread. I'm not working backwards from any conclusion here, I'm simply stating that if abilities were made healthy and interactive on their own, one would not need to shut them down just to make them healthy. It doesn't seem in this respect that you really internalized the point I've been making.
×
×
  • Create New...