Krion112

PC Member
  • Content count

    1,752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,795

4 Followers

About Krion112

Recent Profile Visitors

10,560 profile views
  1. I would want stamina back for both PvE and PvP, But I wouldn't at all want it to affect the same things it used to. I'd limit it to enhanced movement mechanics, like bullet-jumping, possibly rolling, wall-jumping, etc, I don't think it should affect things like sprinting in a game like Warframe.
  2. You're pretty much asking for orthogonal unit differentiation; the concept of every element of the game having equal and unique purpose (ie, that every element fulfills a unique role that does not wholly overlap with other roles), and by having unique purposes, actual counter-play can take affect. The most basic form of Orthogonal balance is Rock-Paper-Scissors. When counter-play exists, every encounter has risk and reward; you're punished for improperly handling the situation, and you're rewarded for defeating the enemy with the correct equipment. It becomes a dance of sorts, with proper and improper moves. In Warframe, we miss out on this because any weapon with enough modding capability can kill any enemy, but weapons that are too specialized (like Snipers, and nuance based weapons like most Corpus and Infestation weapons) fall short because the other weapon types can carry out their own counter-play, but also overlap the counter-play of these specialized weapons. Similarly, 'convenient' crowd-controlling abilities can negate any encounter whatsoever. Just today, I sat through a Nitain Extract Defense Mission because everyone else was spamming energy restores, and blasting everything away with their ultimate abilities, leaving no room for interaction with the enemy. Without that interaction, there's no counter-play, and without counter-play, there's no depth, and it makes the base game-play shallow and unrewarding, which means literally the only way to expand on the game is linearly (ie, adding new content), because then there's no way to properly and fairly exploit the natural depth and variety provided by counter-play. Seriously, in Orthogonal Balance, there's 3 execution types, each with 3 degrees, 5 balance roles, 5 variations of each role, and one of those roles has 5 facets, so you can combine each of those actions with each other for a total of some 1125 roles, which totals to 1125^2 potential counter-play scenarios, and you can then combine and rearrange those scenarios to create practically endless situations to throw against the player. So much more than the 1 measly interaction we have now, which is straight up kill or be killed.
  3. The Opticor is not like the BFG, if I had to compare it to weaponry of other games, I'd say it's more like the Spartan Laser from Halo or the Obelisk of Light from Command & Conquer. It's defensive in that it is more effective at dealing with oncoming enemies than it is trying to attack or hunt, and seems oriented towards precision elimination of high-priority targets and their surrounding allies, but as far as I can tell, it's not intended for mass crowd control. I could go for a slightly larger detection for the beam, as it does seem easy to miss, despite the actual visual for the beam itself clipping with a target, but that's about it. On that note, a weapon like the BFG could be done at some point, the Opticor just already fulfills a certain role.
  4. From where I'm standing, there's no logical reason (however, there could be a technical one, I don't know Warframe's code) to also have this information be present in the game itself. Also, there are other numbers the game doesn't share, and I hope to see those as well. DE does not have a track record of adding something, and then reliably expanding on that something. If they're going to do something right, they're going to have to do it in the first go, because, otherwise, previous cases demonstrate DE is going to forget all about it shortly after its implementation.
  5. All I can say is, as usual, Warframe's game balance problems are the lack of respect for its Orthogonal balance, and if you don't know what that is, either think of games like Doom, Quake, Half-Life, Halo, Team Fortress, Starcraft, Command & Conquer, or google "Orthogonal Unit Differentiation", you'll probable find heavily detailed presentations on the concept. For a short descriptions, its a game-design style centered around the idea that everything is made with equal purpose; Rock-Paper-Scissors is a prime example, as you can never be expected to use Rock to beat Paper. Those games are dictated by an Orthogonal Balance Matrix, which utilizes a sort of taxonomy to determine the counter-play systems at work. Bungie talked about this being the core design behind Halo, with the weapon balance being described as 'Shotgun-Pistol-Sniper'. To change the terminology to universally apply to all game aspects, I like to call it 'Power-Flexibility-Precision'. The other metric of this Matrix are the roles, 'Offense-Defense-Support-Control-Mastery'. Everything in the game is balanced around this in Warframe; the issue with Warframe is the balance is broken by several other systems, including Linear Progression systems like Mandatory Mods and Enemy Scaling, and the incorrect application of an Enhanced Mobility that is wholly designed around gaining momentum, when it should have been a means for achieving more maneuverability. Ultimately, not respecting this core balance leads to the following problems: Node Ghost-Towns, the concept of 'Mastery Fodder', Equipment Favoritism, Lack of Satisfaction from the standard game-play, confusion in trying to balance the game (ie, adding enemies that have questionable counter-play, such as Nullifiers), and many more. You want to achieve game balance, the solution is to remove the Linear systems like scaling progression, and redesign surrounding systems like mods, Focus, and mobility. The game only relies heavily on certain Warframe abilities, because of certain Linear enemy scaling systems. Even you admitted changing one would affect the other; I don't think an energy economy rework is at all viable, not if the way enemies are going to scale is going to change, as you propose. Likewise, Abilities should be satisfactory to use; casually casting them will only continue to detract their value. The typical requests. Make enemies 'smarter', make them work 'together', etc. No, that doesn't make for satisfying game-play, at least not wholly. Let's take Quake; it has an entire system built around the fact that it's enemies don't work well together, in the form of 'Monster Infighting', and it can be an invaluable strategy to use. If Quake didn't have that, it'd definitely be less deep of a game. I mean, yes, you are on the right track, but I don't think your solutions will address the issues in a proper fashion. We need counter-play, the potential for emergent game-play.
  6. Bosses - I believe that in game it is canon every single time we kill a boss: Captain Vor - Revived by the Janus Key; his Corrupted form allows him to appear as pure energy in the Void, but when outside the Void he is no longer in such a state. Vay Hek - Obviously, runs away whenever we get close to killing him. Lech Kril - The Original Lech Kril is already dead, but was cloned into an almost endless battalion worth of Lech Krils, but only one is allowed to be active at a time, for morale; the original consciousness, however, is transferred via Kuva (given the design of his Helmet). Sargas Ruk ; Tyl Regor ; Kela De Thaym - Proximity to abundant Orokin tech allowed them to manufacture reviving systems utilizing an Oro-like system Jackal ; Raptor ; Hyena ; Ambulas - Merely reconstructed after every Tenno encounter. Alad V - Proximity to Warframe tech allowed him to utilize Warframe Oro as a basis for reviving tech. Phorid ; Lephantis ; Golem ; M. Alad V - Maintained personalities in the collective nanite intelligence of the Technocyte, allowing them to be re-manifested whenever the Infestation achieve critical mass.
  7. It seems to me that, mechanically, the Focus Schools are based upon the 5 roles of Orthogonal balance, being Offense (Madurai), Defense (Unairu), Support (Vazarin), Control (Naramon), and Mastery (Zenurik). This is probably why there is no Penjaga or Koneksi, as there's only the 5 roles, with maybe a sixth one being 'non-role' or 'non-counter', but it doesn't seem like DE is interested in using that role. If that's the case, we probably shouldn't have any more focus schools. Even then, as Wrum says, the existing ones should probably be focused on right now to make sure they're doing what they're supposed to before adding any more.
  8. The issue with Warframe's present enemy design is just one facet of a greater issue: Warframe doesn't respect its own Orthogonal balance, and Orthogonal balance is the kind of game mechanics you see in games like Halo, Quake, Half-Life, Team Fortress, Starcraft, and Command & Conquer. It's the concept of the player having more Options, instead of getting more powerful. Conventionally, the prospect of getting both more options and more powerful fails quickly, and it results in many issues for a game, all of which are present in Warframe. You want good enemy design? Warframe's going to have to commit to its Orthogonal design by removing Linear design mechanics. That includes things like the concept of Mandatory Mods and Linear Enemy Scaling. A good example of a game in Warframe's genre that has good Orthogonal balance is Payday; leveling up does not provide arbitrary bonuses, as each weapon, enemy, and ability is designed to be equally purposeful. With Orthogonal design enforced, every enemy, weapon, and ability can be properly made to be balanced, each engagement a dance of counter-play that takes skill, knowledge, and rewards the player with satisfaction for persevering. Make everything equally purposeful, that everything has a set counter-play. This does not mean Warframe would not have Progression, it just means progression unlocks more tools to specialize against particular enemies, while also challenging the player by having them deal with more specialized enemies.
  9. What's end-game in Half-Life? Quake? Descent? Halo? Command & Conquer? Starcraft? The problem is people are asking for Linear end-game, but Warframe is, at least at its core, not a Linear game. The core Design of Warframe is Orthogonal, just like all those other games I just mentioned. In an Orthogonal game, the end is when you have access to countering everything, and the challenge to that is in throwing every type of enemy or opposing counter-play at the player all at once, and expecting them to be able to find the right tool for the right job. In fact, this logic is why the Void's enemies were not unique units, but rather were just picked from existing factions; the player was supposed to be challenged by having the combined strengths of each faction working against them. The flaw there was that the Orthogonal balance was not being upheld, and it was (and still is) too easy to kill everything with convenient weapons and Warframe abilities, mostly the result of certain Linear mechanics. This is why Warframe doesn't, and in fact can't, have end-game right now; it has Linear systems (ie, linear enemy 'levels', mandatory mods, etc) which are overshadowing the Orthogonal core game-play, and these two game-design types are just fundamentally incompatible, as they will inevitably begin overshadowing one another, as we already see with Warframe's design. If players want proper end-game, one way or the other it will require DE to dedicate to one game-design type; either the Tenno becomes more Powerful, or the Tenno gains more Options. Then the end-game can be properly established. Favorably, we should want it to be Orthogonal, because most of its core systems are already Orthogonal, and that the game would end in a similar fashion to the previously mentioned games: mastering the counter-play.
  10. I'm rather surprised... Normally, I've seen you as the type of person to regularly protect DE's decisions (although, not usually blindly, just in a 'benefit of the doubt' sort of way). My issue isn't the repetition; repetition is not negative on its own. The game lacks deepness, it lacks emergent game-play, which is sort of key in Orthogonal games like Warframe. We have a million different ways to do the exact same thing, and systems like Archwing and Conclave are just too separated from standard game-play (Archwing relies wholly on its own equipment, disregards Warframes and your standard Arsenal, while Conclave doesn't allow you to use just about any of the non-Conclave specific mods, and is just entirely separate from the base game). Just take games like TF2, Quake, Halo, Overwatch, Battleborn, Call of Duty, or to go specifically to Warframe's immediate genre, Payday; you see a lot of emergent game-play. Simple rules and systems govern these games; it's the potential in what can happen amidst all those rules that makes those games fun satisfactory. But what can happen in Warframe? As I said, not much; we have a million different ways of doing the exact same thing, again and again. If everything had more purpose, like defined roles and counter-play just like other good Orthogonal games, Warframe's base game-play would be satisfactory.
  11. The issue with snipers is merely reflective of the age old issue: Unsatisfactory Game-play, lack of reward for proper execution, the result of poor game balance. A Sniper in the context of the game today is wholly worthless. You can enjoy this type of weapon, but in Warframe it does not provide proper reward in compensation for the difficulty of using it. Eliminate one Grineer Bombard, or any other target of opportunity, and be swarmed by either more or by the endless horde of Lancers, Troopers, Scorpions, and other peon enemy types. This is only made worse by the fact that other weapons are just as equally capable of eliminating said Bombard, while also being good at eliminating the extremely common type enemies. Want satisfactory Sniper weapons? Automatic weapons and other flexibility mechanics would need to be definitively weaker in regards to Heavy Unit types, regardless of damage types, status effects, or ability effects. By common terminology, Pistols, SMGs, Assault Rifles, PDWs, LMGs, and anything of the like must not be able to reliably deal with heavy targets. I don't want to hear any such nonsense as 'Bullet Sponges'; you should be preparing contingencies for what you may go up against, and you have 7 (not counting Gear slots) different tools to deal with a scenario, plus the accumulated tools of other Tenno in your squad, there's absolutely no excuse for not choosing something to supplement your weaknesses. There's no way to buff Snipers, there's only a way to make them more purposeful, and that way is to make more room. If something can do its job and more, it's not going to be very rewarding to use it. Likewise, fumbling around with the ways in which the game handles its scope and zoom functions is not going to make them better to use.
  12. In my opinion, I see neither 'problem' as being a problem. First , the Non-existent replayability: most players are already only going to play a Quest once, and never again. And even those who are going to play again, they're never going to get that same experience a second time. There's no justifiable reason for why a Quest should be replayable, other than the quite lacking "Why not?". Second, inaccessibility to players who did not experience the Event: There will be other Events to play, and any mechanics unique to previous events should find their way into the base game. Imagine Sabotage does not exist in the game yet, but it suddenly is the central mechanic for an Event. Of course, if enough positive feedback is provided, that mechanic would be included into the base game. From my own experience, I did not get to play the Gradivus Dilemma, but I do get to play Invasions, which are the same mechanic. The only thing I miss out on is the story, but I can still read back, like as though it's history, that the game has made its own backstory. Events don't always have to change the status quo, and when they do it doesn't have to completely change the game. It's just the story element of the game, and there are multiple points of potential conflict that exist in the Warframe universe that can be exploited to quickly and efficiently build a satisfactory persistent world story experience. They wouldn't have to be decided by the players, especially not if it doesn't add to the experience. They could make Events introducing new enemy units, new factions, new mechanics, the like. Likewise, they can just use Events to help gauge the player-base, use them better to keep in touch with the players, and even just throw us a bone every now and then with rare rewards for completing Events. It doesn't need stupendous writing or overly eccentric cinematic acting and effects, and it should offer a satisfying experience of varying degrees. Maybe players who enjoy Lore haven't got much in awhile, so make an Event about some kind treasure hunt, and the whole community has to rally round to decode and decipher cryptic clues and puzzles to find it. Maybe some new players are having trouble getting credits, so the Tenno need to track down a heavily guarded Corpus Treasury Ship, and use Archwing to destroy its escorts to allow Tenno Cells to actually infiltrate the ship and loot it for valuables. Maybe we just need something big to happen, and the Corpus and Grineer go into a full scale war that engulfs the whole Solar System, and it's up to the Tenno to break up the fighting. There's so much potential space for using these Global Objective Events, and it doesn't require hardly the effort it took to make Quests that only tell me a linear plot. But, I digress. DE seems to have their mind set on pursuing a linear narrative with Warframe, and it'd be hard pressed not to say that disappoints me. And I see the linear narrative affecting this community, Warframe's players and developers alike, in a very negative fashion. Who knows, maybe it's different cause, but just from my experience, I felt like the Warframe community was closer to me when we had to share those Events, and I've felt separated due to the Quests lack of shared continuity. I'll probably just have to wait for another game to try this, or do it myself if I can ever obtain the resources.
  13. Generally, I agree with that sentiment, but I just feel this is one of the times immersion can step on the toes of game-play. It's not relevant to the game that I know exactly where it is that the Tenno goes after they complete a mission, what it looks like or why. It just kind of takes up space, improving some peoples' experiences, and harming others. As I said, though, for Relays and the Orbiter, it's mostly just my opinion. Well, see, that's the issue. I should want to go to the Relay for Social reasons. I shouldn't be inconvenienced to do my solo-oriented tasks in a social space, just because DE couldn't give me a justification for going on my own. They just made it needlessly inconvenient to me, because I otherwise wouldn't use it, and that's kind of a terrible reason for that stuff to be Relay exclusive. In a sense, yes. This is a completely untapped deposit of potential in big, persistent world games. Instead of making the entire player-base feel as though they truly are working together, they make it all about the individual player, and it's just a huge waste. I mean, Warframe used to perfectly capture this feeling, and I've noticed that's probably why it used to have such an inviting community, and it explains why it's only become more toxic, as DE has moved away from the 'communal' design. We don't need a whole new System, we could just revitalize Events. Essentially an Event is a semi-long term, global objective that DE used to lay out for us, usually to test new game mechanics and additions. For example, both Survival and Invasions started out as Events. Alongside this, Events also forwarded the global, persistent world story of Warframe. Like Operation Slingstone is a good example of a simple event design: Captain Vor was going to utilize his Fomorian Battleships to force the Corpus to hand over valuable technologies, after the Queens discovered the Corpus were gouging them. To counteract this shift in Power, the Tenno resolved to destroy the Fomorians by sabotaging them. They had to build unique sabotaging devices that they delivered to the cores of the Fomorian ships. It was a global objective, all Tenno worked for, and we had to travel all over the system to complete it. I think any story told in Warframe needs to be told through Events and not Quests. This idea is very difficult to convey, I don't know if you've played through any of the Events. If you don't understand, I'll write up how I would've done Second Dream as an Event instead of a Quest, to show the comparisons. Yes, mechanics like that get incredibly scrambled by Enhanced Mobility, and it makes overcoming the enemy too easy and unsatisfactory. There's no longer the positive sensation of using the right tool to deal with the right enemy when you can just forgo that and use anything you want. It's just too much flexibility.
  14. I can agree, this is more subjective to me. I just simply appreciate game-play more than immersion. However, I also want to point out, since the Orbiter and Relays were added, I feel constantly fatigued; it's immersion at the expense of, I guess, my willingness to play. Originally, the only 'menu' and 'peaceful outside place' was the display of the starchart, with a mesmerizing tone playing with subtle electronic sounds that made it feel like the calm before the storm, with the storm being the destruction to be wrought upon the next node I chose to visit. As far as the Orbiter and Relay are concerned, however, my opinions on them are purely subjective, barring that I think some of the assets of the Relay should be also placed on the Orbiter for the sake of convenience (ie, a Kiosk to access Baro's stuff when he arrives, and proper interfacing with the Syndicates). My arguments against these play into my stance on the game being more indicative of having a persistent world story, rather than the linear one it ended up with. We, the players, represent the population of the Tenno. The game makes great efforts to remind us we are not the only Tenno, yet the Quests do, thus separating our continuities into different timelines. A newb has not yet brought back the Moon, yet I have. In my continuity, I spared the Grineer Queen, but others may not have. This is linear storytelling, and it has broken my immersion in every single MMO I've ever played. They give you a linear story, when they're providing a persistent world. A persistent world story hasn't truly been done yet, but Warframe used to have one. Instead of Quests, we had Events. Events were big campaigns, carried out by all Tenno, and our accumulated actions are what made changes in the continuity of Warframe. Instead of individual players picking whether the Grineer or Corpus won the Gradivus Conflict, the accumulated actions of the Tenno decided that across the board, with the Grineer having won. That's persistent world storytelling. And a persistent world story matches better than a linear one, because after all, the rest of the game is persistent. It reflects the game's design to have a persistent story. This is why I don't like quests: they're a linear story. New Strange happens before Natah, which happens before Second Dream, which happens before War Within, and each of these quests can be played today, even though they're events that have already happened to a player like me. This difference in continuity does not suit Warframe, which is why I feel the Quest and Cinematic Experience are not suitable for this kind of game. Events, Alerts, and Sorties are all better facilities for persistent world storytelling, but Quests are not. Quests are Linear storytelling. If you're still confused, I'm sure my second attempt to explain that will make more sense, as that is the first time I've ever had to talk in depth about narrative mechanics. Parkour 2.0 (Bullet-Jumping, Wall-Hopping, and the general increased ease of mobility compared to Parkour 1.0) breaks game balance (at least, if we're talking Orthogonal balance). The system itself has no issue, but it does cause issue for other systems. Explanation as to why would be extensive; I can give Halo 4 as example of increased mobility having drastic effects on Orthogonal Balance, and we see similar issues in Warframe that game faced with its combat satisfaction. It may be a good movement system, but it doesn't belong in Warframe, and not just because of level design, but because it also affects enemy, weapon, and ability balance in ways that make them unsatisfactory to use, and often creates the mindless game-play we see today. My issue with trials boils down to that I want an alternative. I'm not queuing up to deal with entitled players who want me to play a specific way, and I don't want to be involved in that drama. I just want something that gives the same rewards as Trials, but is only able to be done by a lone Tenno, and would be designed around challenging a single Tenno in a way that is fair for those rewards. Outside of that, I don't know much about trials. I've only played the Law of Retribution twice, and just the toxicity I encountered while playing those almost made me quit Warframe on the spot.
  15. I have to agree, as a player who's been around since the Cicero Crisis and hasn't played since a while after the War Within. My qualms with the game: First, the game doesn't want to decide between Linear and Orthogonal Progression. Linear Progression is the idea of leveling up, getting objectively stronger, you will eventually find a sword that is in every way more powerful than another sword. Most MMO and RPG games feature linear progression. In Warframe's genre, you have Borderlands as a good example of linear progression. Orthogonal Progression is the idea the player will be provided new options, and that they must use those options to counter the correct situation. In professional game-design, I've seen it referred to as Orthogonal Unit Differentiation. Most FPS and RTS games are Orthogonal, such as Halo, Command & Conquer, Quake, etc. In Warframe's genre, you have Payday as a good example of orthogonal progression You cannot have both. I can't stress enough that Warframe is trying to have both, and it's just impossible. You end up using one to completely overshadow the other, and that's where we're at right now. The following issues, all of which present in Warframe, are all the result of this: Player versus Player and/or environment Imbalance, Weapon Favoritism, 'Ghost Towns', issues with enemy and/or player scaling, the idea of 'Content Fodder', constant demand for reworks, and unsatisfactory end-game content. Warframe should be Orthogonal. Most of the base stats and designs suggest an Orthogonal game, and it completely illustrates why DE have been so stagnant on weapon and Warframe balance, because they can't even identify that the linear progression slapped on is what's hurting the Orthogonal balance. Determining which the game should focus one is absolutely necessary, if any proper conclusion is to be drawn on what Warframe end-game should look like, and would solve just about all of the issues the game faces. It'd be a lot of work, but it'd end in a better game. Second, the game has a lot of needless content, most of which does not support the strengths of the original product, rather opting to add in 'modern', 'popular', or 'genre standard' mechanics, likely to draw in players from other audiences, rather than strengthen Warframe's own identity. To list a few: The Relays, the Orbiter, Enhanced Mobility (Mostly only Parkour 2.0, though), Cinematics, Quests, Trials (Raids), etc. [In an Elderly Voice]: Back in my day, we didn't have your fancy ships and useless community spaces. We use to kneel just above the sun, and we could access all of our stuff with just the press of a button. I don't appreciate Quests or the Cinematics presented in some of them. Sure, the cinematics look nice, and the Quests tell interesting stories, but they don't, not even for a second, fit Warframe. Linear story didn't belong in a game like Warframe. We deserved a persistent world story, to match the fact we're playing a persistent world game. Likewise, none of the other mechanics noted have added to my experience. They've been fun, but not satisfactory, and satisfaction is the goal of a game, not fun. Fun, in Warframe, is only one piece of the Satisfaction. Until these issues are ever addressed and properly dealt with, I can't see myself playing Warframe a year from now. I've been patient for almost 4 years, seeing all of these issues on a daily basis, with them hurting my in game experience, and here on the forums where other players have brought up the issues countless times, and my patience is at an end. This. I was about to make the reference to the lack of balance between complexity and depth that Warframe has, and had a similar analogy: Warframe is an ankle deep ocean. It's extremely complex, with no depth.