Jump to content


PC Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited




Recent Profile Visitors

14,942 profile views
  1. 'Everyone wants it' doesn't mean it's a good thing for the long-term health of the game. Largely because everyone wants the quickest, easiest, least impactful way to this with no problems, hiccups, obstacles and in the straightest line possible. In other words, the most boring way possible. To use a analogy, what people want is to be Bilbo Baggins going to Erebor and finding the one ring along the way. What they don't want is to have to fall into Gollum's pit and have to partake in riddles in the dark, or to need to hide from Smaug. Because these things aren't the 'power fantasy'. If these people wrote the Hobbit, it would go "13 dwarves and a wizard get invited to tea by Bilbo" (Because, after all, we can't have Bilbo be inconvenienced or stressed by the Dwarves barging in if we're maximising protagonist power and agency) "They all decided it'd be quite pleasant to go and reclaim Erebor from Smaug, chiefest and greatest of calamities. So they set out to do just that. On the way, a friendly chap named Gollum offered to give Bilbo a magic ring. Once they got there, Bilbo stabbed Smaug, and then he went home in time for dinner. The end." In other words, what people want is a power fantasy, overcoming incredible odds and great trials. They don't realise, however, that incredible odds and great trials means that they're going to have to have problems on the way, and won't always have a direct solution to the problem.
  2. I don't think the goal is to convert people from the current audience. So nobody here, who already has a comfortable way to play Warframe, is gonna switch, save a handful, or those using cross-save to do maintainance. The goal, almost certainly, is for DE to dip their toes into a new audience.
  3. It's stated in voicelines that the Operator feels all the pain and sensations the Warframe does. Whilst they are using a proxy body and thus aren't in danger of permanent death, I don't think that's much of a comfort when we still feel the sensation of dying.
  4. I wouldn't be shocked if we're talking a November/December window? I'm not betting on it, but we know that DE is trying to avoid making promises too far into the future, and they've gotten a pretty fair shake of it done. But they didn't give any kind of hard release date.
  5. Plus, Ask-a-Cephalon pointed out that the Lotus moved to keep Tenno away from civilian populations wherever possible. In turn, that means that the Corpus the Tenno fight are most likely those that are in a militarised position - weapon traders, those selling directly to the Grineer, or so forth. Chances are a lot of the scavengers that basically 'feed' off areas once a Tenno's done with them are Corpus that are wise enough to not aggravate the Tenno, or who aren't militarised.
  6. I think that they keep the old war in some kind of mystery on purpose. It's something in the distant past and the Tenno pretty explicitly have fragmented memories of it. Sometimes, it's better to not show something, because a player's own imagination of what happened will always be better to them. Also, we're confirmed to be getting some flashbacks in the New War if the Tennocon demonstration is anything to go by. Wouldn't shock me if more than a few took place during the Old War.
  7. I agree with this, more or less. With animation cancelling, sliding and quite frankly, a little bit of forethought and positioning in order to aim attacks, the 'clumsiness' of most attacks (which I think a lot of people attribute to the fixed position and end-lag) doesn't affect the actual practicality of the weapon, and only serves to make the weapon distinct from the rest of the arsenal, which is all very 'practical' from the gamey, maximising DPS perspective. Maybe it's my subjective opinion, but the fact that most every melee weapon has almost no start-up or end-lag to attacks makes them feel extremely samey and weightless, like I'm whipping around a styrofoam copy of a melee weapon. My only real gripe with is that the forwards combo doesn't return to neutral very quickly. Instead, making the Ghoulsaw your classic 'slow swinging and clumsy, but hard hitting' melee weapon seems like a natural fit that makes the weapon stand out from the rest of hte pack.
  8. They've made some steps towards fixing that, but really only with current content, as it were. Compare the Entrati to the Solaris. The Entrati are certainly a 'new' idea, and a new sub-faction of an existing group. However, their existence was not only foreshadowed by Parvos, but they make sense. They're a family of Orokin, Father refers to meeting Ballas once or twice, and they use typical Orokin technology, albeit clearly with a slightly macabre edge to make them stand out. They're not the best exampe of integrating a new group into an existing world, but steps are clearly taken to make them seem like a natural extension The Solaris weren't ever really foreshadowed with how the Corpus worked, they don't really exist in the rest of the setting, they use a substantially different artstyle to other Corpus, and even Little Duck, a character established to have spent a long time in Cetus, had no established relationships outside of Fortuna when she dropped in. Most Fortuna citizens still only exist within Fortuna to this day - same for the Ostrons. This is not dissimilar to how DE had basically no interest in a larger canon storyline for some time, and after they did, made little effort to integrate the old lore into the newer, more established storyline. The classic example being Patient Zero being unlocked after the Second Dream, despite occuring before. DE is honestly pretty bloody good at writing compelling stories and worldbuilding in my opinion, but it's like how they're also pretty bloody good at making a really compelling video game with strong mechanics - they can but they won't update the foundations of that experience to let that work shine.
  9. Being symmetrical isn't inherently bad, and being asymmetric isn't inherently good either. They're both tools in a larger game design toolbox. Being asymmetrical has benefits - it makes encounters more interesting for the most part, and a lot of games use it for that reason. But being symmetrical tends to reward planning and forethought. Damage types being more symmetrical can help to diversify the game, especially if there's a looting aspect. Want the best sniper rifle? There is no 'best' sniper rifle, because different sniper rifles are good against different factions, and so forth. That can be achieved simply by having one sniper deal damage of a different type. You touch on the opposite addage to the one your using - 'given the chance, players will optimise the fun out of your game'. Both are true. Players who don't give a hoot about effectiveness are going to pick subjectively, regardless. Players who want to optimise always will. And then there are those caught in the middle, like me. I want to have a lot of fun playing what I like. I want to look at my vast arsenal, browse through it and wonder 'what weapon should I play today' without a nagging voice in the back of my head saying "if you use that gun you really like, you're going to have a miserable time in 'high level' content." I want to pick up a new weapon and not feel like if I'm wasting my time putting anything other than the same tired old sets of mods on it.
  10. You're right that the factions shouldn't be homogenous and have identical durability. That would also be bad. However, just because that's true doesn't mean that the opposite situation - the two factions being on different orders of magnitude in terms of their durability - doesn't itself pose an issue. The fact of the matter is that going heavy on anti-armour isn't a 'hard mistake' against the Corpus, because compared to the power of the power of the player's arsenal - and that's the problem. Taking a hardcore armour-fighting loadout should be the biggest mistake you can make against Corpus. But it isn't. Viral, Slash, Heat, the Bramma, Crits... the game has been designed around armour for nearly its entire lifespan now. Both getting rid of it, getting past it, or just flat out dealing more damage than it. Everything's up to the standards of dealing with armour, piercing through armour, being able to overpower armour. Let's be real here - you don't need to armour strip or viral-stack the average Scorpion in Grineer missions, do you? At that point, the fact that they're slightly better at killing the player is kind of moot. So what happens when you use stuff like regenerating shields to bring it up to armour? Well, now the game's backpedaled to a distant time when, yes, armour was hard to beat. And the bad thing is that many of the meta weapons are still the best options, because those can typically deal hundreds of thousands of damage per second, but now instead of your off-meta picks taking ages, it takes literally forever because on Steel Path, some enemies can wind up regenerating their entire shields in a couple of seconds if you need to dodge, reload or anything else. As indicated before, taking things to the opposite problem isn't a fix. I am in favour of making armour less durable, yes. But that's not the only thing I'm in favour of. See, the problem is far more complicated then you make it out to be. Armour might be one of the biggest parts of the problem, but it's still only one part. Another part is the fact that the arsenal has had massive boosts in power to deal with it. Warframe's basically been caught in a power creep arms race between the devs and the players for half a decade, and like any arms race, the resolution will only be found through disarming all parties involved.
  11. I dropped this theory initially when it became apparent that Deimos was going in a different direction, but Ballas lived on Mars back in the Orokin days, and Father at least mentions him. It's possible the two families met up once upon a time.
  12. The thing about 'unlimited choices' is that this often means those choices are arbitrary. If everything's good in every situation (or, as armour creates, if there's only one meaningful situation), then either the choice between them is meaningless, or more likely, the small number of choices that are the best for that situation become dominant. As backwards as it seems, sometimes more restrictions means more choices. Of course, it needs to be done well, and as we both agree, Warframe doesn't. You say so, but you don't support it. Chances are, that's just your subjective opinion. Hm. Currently my go-to RPG is DnD, which is pretty difficult to 'just try'. I've heard that Larian Studio's Divinity Original Sin 2 and Baldur's gate 3 are both good games that use this kind of idea a fair bit, but I'm waiting for the latter to fully release before I give it a shot, and I've yet to try out the former. In terms of games that heavily focus on damage types, Pokemon is the obvious contender, but in most cases, damage typing is frequently a background element. There's a reason I originally prioritised discussing armour, since I think that aspect of Warframe is far more impactful on the current situation than Warframe's damage type problem. If you're just interested in games that incorporate RPG elements, then you've very much got pick of the litter, that's all over the place these days.
  13. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts, though? These concepts can be naturally put into place alongside damage modifiers. This is an extremely complex topic, and I'm in support of altering enemy AI and possibly environments You say it homogenises enemies - I would say it has the ability to do the opposite, used properly. Though granted, I don't think Warframe currently does it properly at all. It's somewhat off-topic, if I may? Warframe's damage type system homogenises everything because it's not transparent. In DnD, damage type only matters if it's called out - if a damage type isn't explicitly a vulnerability, resistance or immunity (or some other effect, which is rarer still), they're treated exactly as you suggest - completely neutral. This means that damage-altering effects are always significant. When the DM says "the monster is vulnerable to radiant damage" the Paladin gets their smiting arm ready in a very good mood. But it's still effective near everywhere else too. I would warrant this is the same reason why Pokemon specifies 'it's super effective' every time. Warframe, however, has most every weapon deal at least 3 different damage types, encouraging the addition of one or two more. In other words, instead of looking at an enemy and realising they're going to take extra chunky damage, you need to do mental maths about -25%, +25% then another +75% - wait, this is a heat lich weapon, - 25% again. All of these percentages applied to completely different numbers because the amount of damage you're dealing is. And then you need to think and remember whether or not cloned health damage types matter if the enemy still has armour. Combined with the fact that all of this is moot towards the fact that armour exists, and of course Warframe's damage types are homogenous and dull. It doesn't mean that the concept itself is fundamentally flawed, though.
  14. Warframe already does this. Impact is good against shields, puncture is good against armour, slash is good against flesh. (except armour scaling is a broken system, so in reality, slash is good against everything, impact is useless, and puncture is 'eh') The alternative is scrapping much of the game's existing RPG elements. Besides, the general idea can apply to far more than the Pokemon type-matching rock-paper-scissors approach to matters. As I point out elsewhere, it can also be used in a more general sense to individuate enemies - heavy goons resistant to AoE vs mooks that resist single-target due to the principles of strength in numbers. Headshot multipliers, or lack thereof are another possible avenue. The terms in which I was speaking was 'tweaking the numbers can be used to alter how the weapon performs', creating a need for a multitude of weapons. Ultimately, whilst I respect that this kind of design restricts player expression to some degree, I would argue it also makes what expression that remains more important, as it makes room to specialise with the choices, as opposed to the rather linear power progression that Warframe encourages, where you either sit at the top, or choose to gimp yourself, because entire categories of weapons have no purpose outside of lower levels of play.
  15. The problem isn't 'boo hoo, armour is too hard to kill' here, because that's demonstrably not the case by any stretch of the imagination. The problem is that, because armour scaling is so much more dominant than health and shield scaling, everything is designed around being able to beat armour. As you say, the tools you should use to fight armour work with armour scaling in mind. The problem lies in the fact that once you're done with that, the sheer level of increased power that armour provide dwarfs shield and health scaling unless you seriously inflate their numbers (such as seen on Steel Path Deadlock Corpus, who from my experience, sport shield that constantly regenerate on top of everything else). That means that either the other enemies don't matter, or you're dealing with the same nonsense that damage scaling without the proper tools is without the years of workarounds that have been put in place. On top of that, the real benefit to having multiple damage types is lost - one of the boons of having a damage-type or RPG-style weapon system is that it's a natural way to make some weapons more or less effective in certain scenarios. To use Dungeons and Dragons as an example, a lot of the really hard-hitting spells deal fire damage, like the intentionally-overtuned Fireball. To compensate, fire damage is one of the most widely resisted damage types, especially from later-game threats. In Warframe, armour could have been a natural counterbalance to AoE weapons, it's huge damage resistance dulling their effects and allowing single-target weapons that could bypass it to be useful against armoured heavies. But since armour is so dominant, everything has to have access to armour-fighting tools, or it's not useful. So AoE's need to be just as good at fighting armour, and so they can dominate armoured heavies, and from there, devalue anything that isn't themselves further. That's by no means the only reason AoE is dominant, but it's certainly a one of them. Like I said, it's a case of consistency - of things playing by the same rules. When everything's playing by the same rules, design becomes less of a 'players vs devs' arms race and opens up opportunities for more interesting content of all sorts. One of the simple truths of game design is that the actual numbers are arbitrary. Something having 100 hit points in a world where the average damage output is 100 hit points per attack is in many ways identical to if it had 1 hit point for 1 damage per attack, or 1,000 and 1,000 damage per attack. There's some differences to be sure, including psychologically speaking, but ultimately, what matters is how long something takes to kill under what circumstances. Warframe's problem is that the actual damage vs the hit points is completely out of control and out of proportion with everything. Somethings have 100 hit points, others have 10,000 except not really.
  • Create New...