Jump to content


PC Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steel_Rook

  1. That's certainly what it looks like. I honestly can't blame DE for implementing consistency between weapons, and I'm not even THAT opposed to self-stagger on Operator amps. The problem is that the designs of some Amps (and a few AoE weapons) put the player almost immediately inside their own AoE range. With self-damage that wasn't an issue since the damage was low. Self-stagger doesn't have a "low" version so even a little bit of self-damage triggers a pretty unpleasant stagger. The simple solution is just removing self-stagger from Operator amps. Call it a special-case exception. The slightly more complex solution would be better self-stagger falloff. You could, for instance, trigger self-stagger at a shorter range than the weapon's full AoE range. For instance, the Shraksun could trigger stagger at 4-5 meters out of its 7 meter range. Alternately, you could add a "no stagger" effect which would essentially not stagger the player unless they were close enough or took enough theoretical damage. Same effect as above, but slightly more flexible. I don't know this for a fact, but it seems like DE went with linear falloff for both damage and stagger in AoE weapons. I remember proposing a series of models for parabolic falloff, where damage would remain high for a larger part of the AoE range while stagger would remain close but then spike nearer the centre. A simple quadratic function could accomplish that, but I don't know that anything ever came of it.
  2. Yup, and that's more or less my goal. DE seem to have moved "standard high-level" content to the 80-100 level. Obviously if you go above that then your defences will collapse and the "meta" will shrink significantly, but that's the nature of just boosting numbers above the point of balance. As long as we can keep shields relevant up to about level 100, then I'll be happy. That would be a better solution, yes. That's actually what City of Heroes used to do. If you take damage equal to or greater than your maximum health, that would be reduced to "max health - 1" so you could never be killed from full health. I like your more conservative approach of limiting individual shots to no more than 50% of player max health. Would actually make Overshields worth a crap since those would likely not be accounted for in the max health calculation on account of being dynamic. Certainly better than having a "shield gate" which can be used to gain theoretical immortality. To go back to Payday 2 for a second, something that game did pretty well was the "damage grace period" mechanic. Broadly speaking, you gained a brief period of invulnerability after receiving damage. I propose using a modification that myself and a mod maker came up with to prevent small shots from entirely blocking big shots. After taking damage, the player is immune to further damage for 0.5s. If the player receives damage higher than what triggered the grace period, the difference between the initial hit and the follow-up hit is dealt, but the period is not reset. Basically, this limits the amount of damage the player can take to just the largest source of damage available and makes it harder to be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers. Between one-shot protection and spam protection, I think we may be able to cap enemy damage down to a meaningful level where we're not forced into a "mitigation meta." Or worse, forced into a permanent "glass cannon" meta.
  3. You're not going to see self-stagger reversed, but it may be reasonable to ask for it to be taken off of Operator Amps. Those things suck ass anyway, Operators have no source of status protection and it's just adding insult to injury. The Shraksun Scaffold. That has a 10 meter projectile range, a 7 meter AoE range and a fairly slow projectile, meaning even a brisk walk will put you inside the AoE of your own shots. Few other weapons have such awful design for self-damage.
  4. I guess at this point it's safe to assume that DE don't want to change the Lich generation system. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that someone at the studio deliberately wanted to design a slot machine for reasons unknown. Because that's what Lich generation is - hit that lever until you get the item you're after, no matter how long it takes. Warframe in a nutshell.
  5. So... shields are only necessary when enemies can one-shot us, and aren't necessary when they can't. Well, that just brings me back to my previous point - why not dump the concept of "shields" entirely and leave players with just the gate? Rename it to "damage gate," reset it ever X seconds and you have ostensibly the system we have now. Shields can't be relied on for damage mitigation in high levels. You can maybe argue that for Hyldrin and MAAAYBE for Harrow, but that's about it. You either tank damage to health+armour or your tank damage to shield gate. Shield capacity is too low and shield recharge too slow for the actual shields value to be of any use. As far as I'm concerned, shields absolutely need "that help" in every situation above level 30 or so. Off-topic, but you have an alternative here - flat damage reduction. Tie that damage reduction to base weapon damage (so armour reduces damage before buffs are applied) and you have a system by which Grineer become progressively more resistant to small arms as they level up, while still being susceptible to hard-hitting weapons. It's not a "simple" solution since you'd need some kind of maximum amount of damage reduction (can't have players dealing 0 or 1) and you may need additional accounting for shotguns and sniper rifles and headshots and such, but it's a decent way to handle damage resistance while also giving the Grineer logical strengths and weaknesses beyond "because the game said so." Hence why I argue that both shields and the shield gate ought to be rethought, rather than attempting a "quick fix patch." Warframe is in the situation we find it in right now because DE consistently refuse to implement systemic changes in favour of piling on more special-case exceptions until systems collapse under their own weight. I say bring back the Warframe Revised patches and actually look at core gameplay mechanics again.
  6. Certainly there are other factors, but consider the current state of shields. It doesn't matter what you do with the system, shields themselves cannot be sufficient. They take too long to start recovering and they take too long to recover to full. With the current system as it stands, a player relying on shields for protection has to spend more time camping out of line of sight than actually fighting because the time required to get shields back is prohibitively long. Constant shield recharge means that players will find themselves with entirely depleted shields less often as shields can recover somewhat between instances of damage. Full shield recovery upon shield recovery delay means that players only need to take cover for a few seconds, rather than the 20-30 seconds it would normally take to recover shields to full. None of these things are panacea when enemies exist who can strip shields and health in one shot, of course not. They should, however, help dramatically in most situations besides that one. Crucially, they are a means of using shields themselves as damage mitigation, whereas the shield gate is only tangentially related to shields themselves. You can entirely remove shields from the game, leave just the "gate" on a timer and precious little would change. This is no longer a "shields" system. It is a "damage gate" system. I don't think that's a good direction to go in. OK, fair point :) I did indeed neglect the "passive damage aura" aspect of Warframe. Gara has a similar mechanic, as well. I suppose it is possible to constantly roll around with a damage aura on. There are ways to address this, such as suspending enemy-affecting effects while rolling or just AoE damage auras while rolling, etc. It just feels like - as it stands right now - rolling is almost entirely redundant with sliding except it can't be cancelled and it interrupts animations. I figure stuff like "i-frames" ought to be inherent to rolls, rather than reliant on mods. You don't even have to make it last the entire animation, much less animation time + extra. Could simply tie to the start of the roll's animation and get much of the same effect. Having said that - this depends on Warframe's network protocols, specifically how damage to clients is synced. I don't actually know this. If damage is hard-synced with the host, then a very short invulnerability duration on roll would be hard to use for clients. Because damage arrives "late" for clients, it's entirely possible for them to dodge an attack, only for the host to say "No, you actually got hit by that 2 seconds later than you rolled." If Warframe is closer to Payday, though, that might work. The host pushes instances of damage to clients that it saw them take. Clients, however, can say "No, actually, I'm out of LoS from my perspective. I'm not taking that damage." If that's the case for Warframe, then local players should still be able to dodge just fine. I suspect you were joking, but it is a point worth considering just the same.
  7. That should have said "reduce" rather than "remove." Reduce the need for the Shield Gate. I understand that some kind of one-shot protection ought to be in place. I just figure that both of the ways I proposed would reduce our reliance on said one-shot protection for other things. Crucially, I want to see shields THEMSELVES be made viable, rather than relying on backup systems for when our shields are inevitably one-shot.
  8. Yeah, I expect that would have to happen. I considered adding a "and rebalance weapons where necessary" but that opens me to a can of worms I can't really deal with. If we just yank Bane mods, that'll for sure hurt some people who use them severely so SOMETHING needs to happen. I just hate the kind of design they stand for, is all. Completely agreed. Having to build weapons differently against different factions is one thing. That's a legit bit of design. Doing it through "deal more damage against X faction" mods is just uncreative and lazy. Corpus Shield Gating showed us that core weapon design itself can be used to balance different weapons against different factions. If we want that to be a part of the game, we ought to go in that direction, instead.
  9. Not to be a $&*^, but what "skill or effort" are you talking about? What "skill or effort" do the hacking minigames require? That's a bit like saying that unlocking lockers via Master Thief requires "skill or effort." DE can't be arsed to make Grineer hacks failable, much less implement the Orokin hack that's been in the game since The Sacrifice but never actually shows up on Orokin consoles. Those just use the same-old Corpus hack.
  10. How about a counter-proposal? Get rid of Bane mods entirely and pretend they were never in the game in the first place. Of all the ways to min/max weapons, the "does more damage against a specific faction" mods are the laziest, least compelling one. I already don't see the point to having 13 damage types and a rainbow of resistances, but at least those have some amount of verisimilitude. Bane mods are just so artificial.
  11. There really isn't, though - at least speaking of practical items. The Railjack "amidship" multi-level room has plenty of room for all of our active consoles, which is pretty much all the functionality our Orbiter really has. The Tenno Chair room is huge on the Orbiter, but the same functionality can be had at or around the Reliquary Drive. The Helminth is the only thing that might be hard to fit into the Railjack, as that would require new artwork. It seems like DE's original design intent WAS to replace the Orbiter entirely, but something changed later in development. As of right now, the only issue I can see is the Railjack is a combat space that can't simply be cluttered with eleventy billion cosmetic items since other people will have ton navigate it, too. And also because DE seem to no longer have the stomach for major core systems changes any more.
  12. I make a point of saying this every time this point comes up: you can't. The stated reason - as stated by both Steve Sinclair and Scott McGregor - is that the only way to have decent ground mission combat without tanking the host's performance into unacceptable levels is to suspend the space layer and have only the ground layer active. With both active, only a very small amount of enemy AI critters can be run on the map, which is the compromise that Skirmish missions go with. The result with those missions is that ground missions feel empty and lifeless while enemies are made into ungodly damage sponges to make up for their smaller numbers. Corpus Railjack does the opposite. It's a technical limitation with no way around it. I DO agree that ground instances in Railjack missions should be substantially shorter, however. I feel the same way about most of the game's ground instances, in fact. As much as I like exploring large maps, 90% of every map is just dead space with nothing compelling in it. It's why most people bullet-jump past it. Make the ground instances smaller, maybe add a few of them per mission. Or better yet, break up the Railjack overall mission design into its constituent objectives and procedurally generate missions on the fly ala Bounties. Rather than Railjack missions ALWAYS having a space segment followed by a ground segment, maybe mix them up or give us missions with just one or the other, maybe even multiple of them in a chain with travel in-between. Currently, Railjack is held back by tech. Pretty much everything DE have added to it has been new tech, new things it can do. Yes, there has been SOME new content along with it, but all the systems needed for Railjack just aren't in place yet. Imagine playing Plains of Eidolon missions which always consisted of the same two stages, just in different places. That would get really old really fast. By FAR Railjack's most fundamental, crippling failure and one thing which holds it back the strongest is its original wrongheaded design. For reasons unknown, DE decided to copy the likes of Guns of Icarus, Star Trek: Bridge Crew, Barotrauma, etc., creating a mandatory-team ship designed to be run with a full squad of 4 and no fewer. They even had an energy redirection system where an engineer would have to shift power from shields to guns to engines. They had some kind of "cargo packing" minigame, too. Both of those got entirely scrapped before release. We've since seen a gradual erosion of individual player "roles" aboard the ship, especially with the addition of AI crews. Unfortunately, some aspects of Railjack can't really be tweaked as easily. Its nature as a multi-crew vehicle is still a massive drawback. Don't get me wrong - there does need to be SOMETHING for other people on the team to do, given DE aren't going to let us bring multiple ships with us. Makes sense to have a forward artillery and side guns and objectives that can be handled out of order. However, more amenities are needed for smaller teams, I think, and more control over the crew. The ability to teleport between CONSOLES, rather than just between locations is I think absolutely mandatory. As it stands right now, moving around the ship is cumbersome for exactly the reasons you cite. I also believe that we need the ability to teleport to team-mates from the ship, or at the very least "teleport back" once we've returned to the ship. I personally also believe that our AI crew should consist of 4 people, rather than 3. That is to say - 3 Crew + 1 Lich/Sister. That allows us to have 1 crew per job if we wanted to, as well as keep 1 crew even with a full team. I'd also like to see the crew made a little smarter, as well. Despite what the patch notes say, my pilot still flies away while I'm charging my Forward Artillery and still moves me away from secondary objectives I was interested in. My gunners open fire on everything, causing Crew Ship directional shields to rotate and making them much harder to fight. The crew set to "Engineer" will happily sit there repairing breaches even with Boarders gunning her in the back. Etc. I'd like to see more ability to control my crew, I'd like to be able to tell my pilot where to go, what to follow and sometimes even to stop moving. I'd like to be able to tell my gunners what to shoot at and to maybe stop shooting for a bit. I'd like for my Engineer to fight as long as boarders are around and to be able to tell her what to fix first. I'd also like to be able to rescue "defeated" crew members from some kind of prison Crew Ship, in case they go down. There are a LOT more systems that need to go into Railjack, I think. More crucially, however, is that Railjack simply can't keep relying on having a full team on voice comms in order to work to its full potential.
  13. Apologies for being rude, but this mindset is both destructive to overall game balance and broadly naive. When one weapon is used substantially more than all others, that means it's substantially more powerful than all the others nearly every time. "Simply" buffing all other weapons to match the overperforming one gives you power creep, necessitating increases in enemy stats which brings us right back around to the same situation. The overpowered weapon is less powerful relative to the others, except it took a lot more work to pull off and brought us closer to stats that break core gameplay mechanics. I'm not claiming this the following to be equivalent to the Kuva Nukor but I'm mentioning it for the sake of context: If you gave players a weapon which instantly killed all enemies on the map and completed the mission, that would see by far the highest usage of all weapons. Does that justify buffing all other weapons to also do the same? And before you accuse me of making this up: Division 2 suffered a bug where players could stack damage buffs infinitely, causing them to insta-kill nearly everything including bosses. Some argued that "FINALLY! The game is actually fun! This is how all weapons should be!" That bug was instead fixed. Smart design will aim for a median value of performance. When outliers are identified, they should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. They, not "the everything else."
  14. And never to actually do anything again, either. Remember - rolling interrupts interaction and reload animations and prevents the use of any weapons. I've said this before and I know it's extreme, but I feel Warframe needs a fundamental change to shield mechanics. The current implementation of a long delay followed by slow recovery does not work. Shield Gating is a stopgap to paper over fundamental design flaws. I say either make shield recovery instant after the cooldown, or get rid of the cooldown and let us recover shields constantly. Either would remove the need for the shield gate, whereupon it can be drastically reduced in potency. Pretty much all of Warframe's core gameplay issues trace back to systems bloat and power creep. Rather than going back to formula and redesigning core systems, DE all too often just pile on more feature to them. Sometimes it can help address some of the symptoms, but the core issues persist.
  15. Personally, I feel that video games are long overdue for a key mapping improvement. While I haven't touched in quite a while, I remember MAME having easily the best key customisation systems out there. You could bind the same key to multiple functions, multiple functions to the same key and almost any key combo to a single function. Then there's City of Heroes, which allowed you to bind a key either as a hold or as a toggle. You could bind a key to, for instance, "left+" and that would move you left on keypress then stop moving on key release. Alternately, you could bind it to "left++." That would cause you to start moving left on keypress, then stop moving left on a following keypress. For whatever reason (likely lack of pressure from the player base), video game developers slack off on key customisation. We keep seeing hardbound keys that we can't change (like the screenshot key here), mandatory key combos and blocks on binding the same key to multiple things. Console players often have it worse, either having NO option to customise gamepad buttons at all or only being able to choose between presets. I think it's high time we demanded better because developers aren't going to do it otherwise.
  16. I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I find the whole "progenitor" system to be incredibly dumb thematically. It's a poor attempt by DE to make Liches and Sisters feel more personal to us when the system makes them functionally interchangeable by its mechanics. On the other hand, it's one of the few avenues of actual control we have over a system that's otherwise comprised of compound RNG.
  17. I still say DE should have kept the "hold melee to do heavy attack" binding and worked on fixing their "accidental heavy attack" issue instead of the scorched earth approach they chose. That way, players could launch directly into a heavy attack without having to draw their weapon first. They would also be able to easily use throw attacks with Glaives even if they have a pistol with a secondary attack. Just don't scale the hold delay with weapon attack speed.
  18. Windowed and Borderless Window have worse performance than Dedicated Fullscreen, yes. I don't think the performance is significant, but it is there. Luckily, Warframe can switch between Windowed and Fullscreen via Alt+Enter in real time without destabilising.
  19. Well, if you're not going to go into detail and just assert that I'm wrong based on nothing more than your word, then I see no reason to engage with you further. Especially considering what you say does not match how the game behaves. The fact that you keep insisting that I don't understand Warframe is locally hosted just makes this entire exchange pointless. I see no reason to have a discussion if you're not actually going to contribute anything to it besides "just trust me." So I give you a variety of reasons, then you respond with "there is no reason." OK, guess we're not having this discussion, either. See, across this entire discussion, I've had the distinct feeling that you don't actually know what you're talking about. You post read like one of my students who hasn't studied but is trying to bluff their way through an exam. The terminology is right, you speak confidently, but the actual content makes no sense. You asked if I've unlocked my Operator, then proceed to argue that Operators are never "in the place where combat happens." Did you actually see any of the New War content? Because that shows our Operators in the place where combat happens, fighting actual combat. Your player character is canonically among the group of Operators who initially killed Erra. Not to mention the various Operator-only quests, ala Sacrifice and the Chains of Harrow. Not to mention Eidolon fights which requires the operator physically in the field. And that's ignoring the simple fact that Operators remote-control their Warframes. So far, Excalibur Umbra is the only Warframe seen capable of acting on their own without an Operator in direct control. A possible exception may include the player's Warframe at the end of the Second Dream where they appear to move on their own to stab the Shadow Stalker, but an argument can be made that it's still being controlled. Every ability that a Warframe has is an ability that the Operator must inherent have because they are controlling the Warframes directly. And I know an argument is coming about unique Warframe abilities. While that's fair enough, you can't make the same argument for basic combat and survival mechanics. You can't argue that every Warframe is intrinsically good at melee combat and marksmanship and what to do if the Landing Craft crashes in the jungle. And now I get to ask YOU if you've played the Sacrifice and read Ballas' journals. Warframes are not "machines." They are Infested humans. Excalibur is an infested Dax soldier, as Excalibur Umbra - his progenitor - clearly shows in that story. There are plenty of stories of Warframes acting on their own and exhibiting the personality they had before conversion. The whole reason the Tenno exist is that despite being powerful, Warframes are inherently uncontrollable. Operators are the only ones who can control them, due to the psychic link made possible by their Void powers. Warframes also very much have need of primitive weaponry because primitive weaponry is the only kind which can functionally oppose the Sentients. The whole reason the Orokin were losing the Old War in the first place is because the Sentients turned their technology against them. Only the Warframes using weapons too crude to corrupt were able to make a dent in the war effort. The Warframes themselves are furthermore incorruptible because they are not technological. They are bio-organic. They are also immune to the Infestation because they're already Infested. That's the whole underpinning story conceit of the entire setting. The simple truth is that Operators are direct combatants. They are shown to be combatants now, they are shown to have been combatants during the Old War, the game has an entire Operator combat mechanic. To argue they have no survival or combat (or indeed crafting) skills makes no sense to me. The lore you cite to base your claims on is not consistent with the canon we've been shown in the game itself. I rewrote the previous post because it came across as hostile and I didn't want to spoil the tone of the discussion. You responded by telling me I'm wrong, refusing to explain how I'm wrong and supplying wrong explanations where you supplied any at all. I'm not rewriting this one. If you respond with another "you're wrong and I'm not going to explain" then don't expect a response.
  20. In a majority of missions, those rules are attached to either the map or individual map tiles. A Spy mission doesn't require you to avoid anything until you get to the actual Vault tile. You can raise as many alarms as you want and engage in all of the firefights. That doesn't affect the Spy tile. It's only after you open the Spy vault and initiate that specific mission script that avoiding alarms and cameras and lasers and so on actually matters. The Spy tile is fully independent of the the rest of the mission. You could stick a Spy time inside an Extermination mission and nothing of substance would change. The same goes for Sabotage, Mobile Defence, Hive, Assault, Rescue and many others. The tile is what all of the mission objectives are attached to. Now granted, it's entirely possible that the overall mission needs bespoke scripting to actually operate the tile, meaning that sticking a Spy tile into an Extermination mission may require manually editing the mission script. If that's the case, then that's a limitation of the ground mission tech, not a design consideration. Again - Bounties show us that the tech exists to string objectives together procedurally and even bracket them with a framing device narrative. The only objectives I suspect might not play well with others are the ones with bespoke map requirements or with their own unique escape sequences. Defence, Interception, Infested Salvage, Defection, etc - those may be problematic. Certain other mission objectives may be difficult to mix together, such as for instance Survival and Spy. Spy requires a fairly lengthy time of not fighting enemies while Survival requires fighting enemies quickly and constantly. Then again, DE have done this before, mixing Vampire/Timed Nightmare stipulations with Spy, or mixing Fissures with Spy ensuring that pre-aggroed enemies will continually spawn within the Spy Vault. My point here is to show that mission objectives are not inherent to the "mission" most of the time, but are inherent to just a small piece of it. It's entirely possible to mix-and-match objectives and objective tiles together to procedurally generate mission objectives. Considering how long the typical Railjack mission is, it would benefit from such procedural generation. Without it, content is revealed for what it is - two missions across the entire game. Do you figure we have a choice? Unless you're of the opinion that Railjack should be abandoned as a failed project, it's going to need to rely on new tech to survive. The entire Railjack concept can't keep going like it has. It doesn't have nearly enough content to be sustainable and it's pretty clear by this point that DE don't have the resources to make enough content for it. They've been spinning their wheels for two years and only just about managed to make it viable. If the mode is to have any sort of traction and any sort of effect on the broader game experience, it can't keep trying to fit itself into standard ground mission design. Despite the initial loud feedback, Railjack also can't survive as a pure space fighter. It needs proper integration with ground combat or it's not going to get played. The integration we have now is better than nothing from the perspective of "it works mechanically." However, the format is far too limited to actually be fun to play long-term. DE have done a decent job integrating a plurality of ground missions into the Railjack layer, but the integration is poor. The Railjack segment is always the same and it's not particularly compelling. Warframe doesn't work with monolithic content. DE can't produce enough content fast enough. Their only option is to design procedural systems with which to generate content from component pieces. Trying to create various combinations of Railjack and ground objectives is a fool's errand. Too many combinations, too many nodes, too much work creating redundant bespoke content. Their current approach to creating Railjack content simply does not appear viable given their ability to create it. I don't see another option besides procedural generation.
  21. Consider the actual structure of those "missions," however, and you'll realise they aren't missions. They're tiles. What is a "Spy" mission? It's three unique tiles in a procedurally-generated map. Literally everything aside from those three tiles is generic. What is a Mobile Defence? It's three modified generic tiles in a procedurally-generated map. You could easily have Spy with just a single Spy vault tile. And we do - that's how Invasion Spy missions work. There's no inherent mechanic which makes a mission with 1 Spy tile, 1 Mobile Defence tile and 1 Sabotage tile from existing. These are all mission design pieces which the game just so happens to bundle together for ease of matchmaking and programming. Now, you might argue that some mission types aren't just a tile. You bring up Extermination as an example, and it's good one. That's actually even less "designed" because Extermination is simply an objective draped over a fully procedurally-generated map. There's nothing unique to one Extermination mission relative to another besides the map. The same goes for Survival - it's an objective and a map-wide modifier over a procedurally-generated map. But think about the above again - is there any reason we can't have a map with 1 Sabotage tile, 1 Mobile Defence tile and 1 Exterminate objective? Well, there are a couple of reasons we don't have either of these examples. One is fairly obvious, and that's matchmaking. DE have chosen to handle matchmaking via nodes, so the contents of a node need to be fixed for all players across the game. It's easier, then, to bundle mission objectives together into mission "types" such that players will have access to roughly the same experience everywhere, plus it's easier to matchmake. Bounties solve this issue by offering a list of missions that players can run or queue for before zoning it. The other issue is one I speculate about, but it's "tech." I don't believe DE have the capacity to procedurally generate missions with non-standard objective makeups. Not ground missions, anyway. Their code requires that missions conform to their specs. Bounties, again, solve this issue by allowing designers to procedurally string disparate objectives together without limitation. Railjack further solves this issue by allowing designers to have multiple objectives active simultaneously while still retaining the ability to lock objectives behind each other. Consider a basic Corpus Railjack mission. It starts with two simultaneous objectives - kill ship, destroy nodes. Only when both are complete does the mission advance to the next objective - enter ship, then ground mission. The ground mission itself is still monolithic, however, as DE are reusing their ground mission scripts which - unlike Bounties - don't seem to like deviating from the script. Now imagine being able to mix-and-match all of these objectives. Obviously, space and ground missions have to be segregated, but think of the following: Zone into a Railjack instance, board a ship without combat. On board, do one Spy objective followed by a Mobile Defence objective. Leave, then fight off waves of ships. Once that's done, take out two Points of Interest. Then leave. I suspect you might dislike this for being overly long and complicated, but you have to recognise the merit of how it was put together. I literally pulled a few objectives at random, stuck them together in sequence and gave you the backbone of a mission. If it's too long for your taste, then there's no reason shorter missions can't be created, consisting of just one or two objectives instead of the four I listed. All of this can be done within a single Railjack instance, after which players can "travel" to another Railjack instance and do another procedurally-generated mission without ever leaving the Proxima region. No need for nodes, no need for "space then ground" every time. The freedom to create missions from component parts allows a vast variety of missions. Sure, not all of them will be good, but they will all certainly be a lot more varied. It's true that playing a game long enough will make us familiar with all of the component pieces of procedural generation, but procedural generation makes it easy to just add more pieces. Take Volatile, for instance. That too is just a single tile. With a mission design system which allows the game to just drop in tiles, adding Volatile would have done more than just add four nodes to the game. It would have affected all nodes in the game by throwing more pieces into the procedural generation pile. Add enough pieces and you pass a "critical mass" of variety where pieces start feeling new simply because we haven't seen them in a while. With enough pieces in the mix, every individual piece shows up less frequently and so feels less repetitive. I'm convinced that Railjack has the capacity to do all of the above. Indeed, I believe it already has the capacity to do most of it. What makes it so hard, do you figure? I've played plenty of Bounties and those generally feel pretty well-balanced in terms of simplicity and complexity. Individual problems do exist, but they're usually restricted to individual pieces which can be improved in isolation. Deimos is a good example. The "Protect the Archaeologist" mission used to be absolutely terrible because it was slow and very easy to fail. DE improved it first by adding regenerating shields to the Shield Osprey (this making the secondary objective less volatile) and then streamlining the sample acquisition and transmission process. As much as I dislike Deimos, I thought that more or less fixed the uneven complexity and difficulty of those specific Bounties. Just because a design is difficult to pull off doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Ground missions exist as they do largely because they date back to 2013 and Warframe's original launch. They're a very heavily limited technology, albeit generally a pretty stable one. That design works for them, as Ground missions are typically fairly quick and simple. They don't work nearly as well when more elaborate systems are thrown into the mix, however, because their rigid structure itself starts to become an issue. Take Archwings, for instance. Uranus is an attempt to mix Archwings into ground missions, and it's TERRIBLE. Underwater sections are awful not just due to the slow movement but because the attempt to mix them into the mission seamlessly is not seamless. The idea is solid, but the technology prevents it from being implemented very well. Imagine that instead of floating through tiny claustrophobic coral tunnels, we left the undersea labs entirely and could swim freely in open ocean, able to access other facilities organically. That would be a far better use for the Archwing tech, but that... requires Railjack technology. It requires mixing a proper Archwing layer with a proper Ground layer procedurally, which ground missions just can't do. Sure, ground missions as they are work fine. However, they can't do anything more complex THAN just ground missions. If Archwings, Necramechs, K-drives and especially Railjack are to have a point in the game, though, we need a system that's than JUST ground missions. We need a system which can seamlessly integrate ungrounded flight, large outdoor locations and small indoor locations all within the same map. Railjack's system can do this for the most part, but it's not doing that yet. Right now, Railjack is limited by trying to use the old node-based, ground-based mission system where all objectives are predetermined and the only thing that changes is the map. That's fun for a while, but it gets really old really fast once players recognise that they're doing the same mission every time. I don't for a second doubt that what I'm proposing is going to be easy to implement. However, I feel it has the potential to be dramatically better than what we already have, and that the risk - along with the work - is worth it.
  22. For starters, "go read up on it yourself" is not really providing sources. It's the exact opposite. Secondly, I'm aware of peer-to-peer connections, and what you say seems inconsistent with how they work. Finally, what you're saying is confusingly phrased and roundabout, to the point I'm not sure what your argument even is. The terminology is broadly correct, but the way you're using it feels odd. Let me try and go through the claims to see if we're on the same page. Your initial assertion is not consistent with how the game actually works, so let me explain what I've actually experimented with. If I send an invite as a solo player and my friend accepts, a session is created on the spot. Poor server performance even pops up a "Creating session..." message, same as when accessing Navigation. This isn't because I'm connected to different services of the game, but rather because the game requires a session for everyone to connect to. This is no different from hosting a lobby in any other game, except peer-to-peer connections are established by the game. Accessing Navigation doesn't have anything to do with matchmaking. The session is what handles matchmaking. This is why I, as a solo player, will cancel my mission if I quit Navigation (because it closes the Session) but the same isn't true when on a team (leaving Navigation doesn't close the session). If I invite a player and then switch sessions, be it going into or getting out of Navigation, then the invite isn't "cancelled." I have changed sessions so the original session I sent the invite from no longer exists. This is why the error message is not "invite timed out" but "session not available." The crucial bit here is that the session isn't attached to ME. It's handled and managed by DE's matchmaking server. Warframe isn't fully P2P the way, say, Payday 2 is. Not all of the lobby controls are host-side. DE still have dedicated servers which ultimately manage the lobby, handle item drops and inventory and so on. This is closer to Destiny 2, where the host handles AI but the dedicated server handles mission scripts. In other words, I don't change the status of my own client when starting a Session. I open a lobby into DE's dedicated servers. During a mission, my machine is still responsible for managing AI, mission scripts and P2P communication, but it's still in communication with DE's servers. The reason I'm splitting hairs is this: Every time I jump into Navigation, I'm giving DE's servers traffic. This is fine if I intend to play, because me playing inherently gives them traffic. It is, however, useless if all I want to do is load into a zone, push a button and immediately vacate back to my Orbiter. It might not be a lot of load, but it's SOME load. It's some amount of load for no actual practical reason, beyond "it makes the preview UI easier to manage." Off-topic, but this is objectively false. I have lost progress in Railjack that I had access to within the actual Railjack mission. I've levelled up weapons and seen their level in the Tab menu, only for said level to reset back to where it was before starting the mission when I return to the Orbiter. I have levelled up Warframes, unlocking and using new abilities, only to lose those levels and see the abilities locked once again when returning to my Orbiter. Very recently, a friend of mine spent a lot of time levelling up his Archwing in my Railjack mission. After returning to the Dojo, he quit the team, got a "mission failed" screen and his Archwing reset to its level prior to starting the run. DE claim that no progress was ever lost in Railjack, but I have empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Railjack is still volatile, even right now, though issues of lost progress are rarer. And this is with fully completing missions, as a host, and fully returning to the Dojo. So no excuses there. But see, that's not a source nor an argument. It's your own headcanon. Normally I don't begrudge people for having headcanon, but it's not sufficient to actually make an argument. This is why I'm asking for an actual source - a citation from something canon which confirms, backs up or at the very least directly suggests what you're asserting. What you're giving me is original fiction that's fundamentally not based on anything canon. I don't mean to address preference with preference, but I have more than just "preference" to cite. Let's go point-for-point: There's no reason Operators should have learned anything outside their field of expertise. First of, what are you basing this on? They're people. People learn things outside their profession. Secondly, the field of expertise of an Operator is warfare - specifically low-tech warfare using low-tech weapons that the Sentients can't supplant. They are ostensibly super soldiers, so logically they would be trained as soldiers. They would be trained in wilderness survival, they would be trained in improvised weapons, they would be trained in all of the basic skills a soldier needs. Yes, Warframes are made of people with their own skillset, but their gear is still provided by the Operator and - in cases of emergency - made in the field. To me, that makes logical sense. You doubt that modular weapons are simple. What is this doubt based on? The very idea of "modular" anything is interchangeable parts. A well-designed modular system should make kitbashing easy by providing simple, straightforward attachment and interface points. If modular weapons require a skilled craftsman with unique unattainable skills to put them together, they aren't "modular." They are non-moral items non-standardly modified to fit together in ways they aren't meant to fit. Corpus tech in particular appears to be deliberately modular in design, as the new briefcase weapons demonstrate. Additionally, we already create weapons out of component parts, and I gave an example of this previously. All Prime weapons we build in the Foundry are built out of component pieces that we first manufacture, then assemble directly in the Foundry. And if your argument is that Corpus weapons themselves are somehow uniquely complex and can only be manufactured whole, look at the Snipetron Vandal. The Snipetron is a Corpus weapon. The Vandal version is put together from a Barrel, a Receiver and a Stock. Clearly, Corpus we have the capability to build Corpus weapons from component pieces, so what makes THOSE specific weapons - the kitguns - different? Logically, they should be easier to assemble yet they're the only ones we can't assemble. As to using Infested pieces, this doesn't track, either. We have the capacity to breed entire Infested creatures, we have the capacity to forge entire human beings. I see nothing inherent in a Predecite or Vulpaphyla which doesn't apply to an Infested Charger. Or Excalibur Prime. And this is probably a good point to remind you that we DO end up needing resources to build some silly things. To build an Aklex, I need 2 Lex pistols and 12 hours. I need 12 hours to... do what exactly? Figure out I can hold one in each hand? Unlike the Aklex Prime, this doesn't even require a Link item, despite needing a link to fire two pistols still being silly. There's not a lot of lore to explain why we need to "craft" a dual weapon out of two individual weapon, besides the dual item having a different SKU. You absolutely can write fanfiction for why you think certain game mechanics are the way they are. Sooner or later, however, you need to base it in mechanics, precedent or canon. You need to root it in something objective. So far, I can see nothing objective that explains why we can't put some weapons together even though we can put all of the other ones together, besides technical limitations and cheap programming. As I prefer not having to travel interstellar distances just to have Gauge screw on a silencer to my shotgun, I see no need to justify status quo over proposing changing it.
  23. Sanctuary Onslaught seems to spotload enemies more so than terrain. I get the same slowdown you're talking about in the middle of rounds quite often, usually just before a large number of enemies spawn into the map. It could be loading their graphics, it could be prepping their AI. I'm not sure. Little else in the game seems to have enemies spawning in such large numbers so quickly, so that's my guess. I don't think ESO is procedurally loaded in, however, as the layout of the run is not affected by player action. In Railjack, what map loads next depends on what the player chooses from the Nav console. There's no way to just load all assets for a Railjack run during initial zone load because what's in a run depends entirely on what players do. No so for ESO. That basically behaves like a standard mission map, with tiles connected by teleporters. The reason I don't think ground missions are capable of dynamically spot-loading different map assets and changing on the fly is simple: if that existed, DE would have used it. If they could dynamically reload the map around us, then I expect we'd have seen similar "choices" in mission design before - the ability to stay on the map and do another mission without returning to the Orbiter, the ability to transition from one planet to another, etc. Crucially, Railjack's ability to spotload different maps in place is inherently tied to the Dojo - it's why a Dry Dock is absolutely necessary. None of the game's other missions require a specific shared instance like that. As such, I'm mostly trying to speculate what we could use this tech for moving forward. As it stands right now, DE make very limited use of this tech since all Railjack missions are monolithic. Being able to break them down into pieces and assemble them procedurally would offer tremendous power to the system, I think. I can't really respond to general statements like that, I'm afraid. You seem to have a mind's eye view of both what I'm saying and what you want that I can't really see. Any Railjack objective which invovles more than just combat is going to have ground mission aspects. As far as I can tell, those require an instance reload to change. Even something as simple as switching from Grineer to Corpus enemies would require a zone reload because the Crew Ship interiors of one faction need to be unloaded and those of the other faction loaded in. You could theoretically keep both loaded, but that's a lot of wasted memory on resources which are typically not going to be needed. Thus, if the new mission objective involves quite literally anything other than "spawn more ships," it's going to require an instance reload, which means it's going to require the player to "travel" through the Nav console. Again - we don't actually go anywhere. The modified Dojo instance just changes around us while we're locked within the "Railjack interior" room with the windows obscured. I'm also going to have to disagree. Warframe in general doesn't have "well thought out" missions. It has procedurally generated missions comprised predominantly of randomly-assembled assets. Ground missions are 90% identical because only a few isolated tiles or a few isolated enemies are unique to the mission type, if any at all. As it stands right now, Railjack is substantially more rigidly-designed than ground missions because it only really has two missions. All Grineer Railjack missions are the same - they're all Skirmish, which plays out identical regardless of what Points of Interest spawn. All Corpus Railjack missions are the same because they all have identical space objectives, transitioning to a standard ground mission. This is what makes Railjack feel samey and get old fast. Procedurally generating missions by stacking disparate objectives together is a good way to add variety to the experience. Railjack remains my favourite activity in Warframe, both thematically and gameplay-wise. However, I've ostensibly stopped even looking at my mission objectives by this point because they're always the same no matter what mission I pick.
  • Create New...