DrBorris

There have been countless patches addressing clipping, lighting, physics, animations, textures... basically everything about the game's engine (Evolution Engine) has had some form of significant rework since release. Furthermore, did you watch the Tennocon demos? The work on Soulframe looks to be doing wonders for Warframe as the new tile-set we are getting looks like a substantial leap in quality. I understand you have other issues, but to say DE should put effort into the engine without acknowledging the immense amount of development the engine has had is unfair to DE. I can't think of another game that has had such constant and significant improvements in the engine, all the while DE has kept minimum requirements in toaster-tier. In addition, removing clipping isn't without a cost. Complexity of shapes, animations, etcetera would be limited by having to account for no clipping. Personally, I'd much rather have the extreme diversity in equipment and a bit of clipping. I do think there is some work DE should go back and work on though, older textures are aging quite poorly with the rest of the game. Many things got some form of texture rework with PBR (physically based rendering) retextures, but a lot of old content could use a texture clean-up.

Apologies, I assumed "this statement" was referring to my reply as my reply is what Joylesstuna had quoted.

Mid-air slide attacks are that "coptering" thing you've probably heard about. While they no longer add momentum as they did pre-Bullet Jump, they have been part of the game since the beginning. I still use them in movement a bit as they do have some influences on momentum (normally at the very end of a movement chain to kill momentum) and can sometimes be more useful as an aerial melee attack than the basic attacks. They aren't nearly as common or useful as they have been in the past (slide attacks in general are at an all-time low), but they are very much an intentional part of the melee/movement sandbox. Tenet Grigori's mechanic isn't in-air specifically, it is a mechanic tied into heavy slide attacks. The description of Grigori is "Tenet Grigori is a unique Tenet Scythe whose Heavy Slide Attacks launch a short-ranged energy disk. The second attack in a Heavy Attack Combo will also launch an energy disk." As it stands you can launch these launch these projectiles in the air (by doing a heavy slide in the air), but in the patch notes DE said that maneuver was an animation bug. My only point (in this thread) has been that the classification of heavy slide attacks in the air as a bug was unfair. Given the mechanics in game, it is intuitive to think we could do it, the assertion that heavy attacks in the air must always trigger a ground slam is (in my opinion) a greater stretch than a natural combination of existing mechanics.

"and," implying that the first part was part of the decision. If I see a bad argument I'm going to point it out. The whole comment (except for the last 9 words) feels off. Either misrepresenting a heavy slide attack in the air (they never actually say what the "series of specific parkour movements" is), saying that you have to do a thing to do a thing (yes, you must do a heavy attack in the air to do a heavy attack in the air), or the aforementioned "movement animation bug." My issue isn't with the change, I do think it is justified, but I don't like it when it feels as though someone doesn't respect me enough to say it straight. That isn't the clear communication we should expect. I just really, really hate it when someone uses bad arguments regardless of the conclusion. Pick apart the components, and if everything checks out then the conclusion is fair. If the components are bad then figure out what went wrong. It just reinforces those pathways and potentially leads to more BS in the future when S#&$ty logic gets ignored because the correct end point was reached. It also leads to inconsistencies, if heavy slide attacks in the air are a bug then why can we still do them? Is Tenet Grigori being able to do this maneuver unintended? I now have more questions, not less. I'm still salty over when DE said Xoris was nerfed "because it was more powerful" when that wasn't at all the case. It was more convenient, and in that case as well I agreed with the intention to nerf (as it did reduce build variety), but if that was their reason then why the fudge to Riven stat sticks still exist. I'm aware that at the end of the day it doesn't matter. I'm just frustrated. Edit: Correcting it? What was technically wrong about what I said? I get the criticism given, it does come off as disingenuous for me to not bring up the last nine words if my point was about DE's conclusion, but that was never my point. I don't like it when someone misrepresents something to bolster their conclusion. It doesn't matter if their conclusion is otherwise justified, it is a bad habit to get into and is disrespectful to the people you are communicating with. I don't need/want to see an apology, walk-back, or whatever. I just want to see DE not do this (misrepresenting the rationality behind a change) again, ergo my feedback.

The reasoning they provided for this change was that slide heavy attacks in the air are apparently a "movement animation bug." If they just wanted to nerf the interaction, they could've have left it at that. Instead they said that it was because it was a bug. Therefore when critiquing their change I am going to point out the flaws with the rational they provided. While I'm not actually that much against a nerf, Contagion has been a problem-maker for DE since it came out (in that it often ignores/breaks new content), I am not a fan of disingenuous explanations.

The sandbox provided by limitless movement is far more interesting than another game with the exact same movement. I've played enough games where I walk on the ground (sometimes faster), get an occasional double-jump, and if I'm lucky a dash on a cooldown. Basic exploration may be easier, but the limitless movement is just as much an opportunity for tile design as it is a limitation. Gas City has some amazing tiles that take full advantage of our movement, the Secret Laboratories are an in-game counterpoint to your assertion that exploration can't be a thing. And Railjack is a design mess. Difficulty through tedium is boring and annoying (which is what it was before), but what we have now completely whiffs the potential of Railjack as an evolving and interactive tile that integrates the disparate systems of the game. What we have now is basically a giant Archwing, and for some reason people refuse to acknowledge what they actually want is just a good Archwing rework. Please peoples, stop trying to turn the Railjack into an Archwing, we already have power-fantasy space combat with a variety of abilities. Railjack being a "taxi" is actually the point, it is a taxi between all of the core systems of the game in an immersive/dynamic shell.

Some of this discussion is wild. Slide attacks in the air have been a thing since forever. In some ways it is the bedrock that the game's movement system was built off of. Heavy slide attacks are a mechanic that has been acknowledged by DE through Tenet Grigori using them for its special mechanic (heavy slide attack throws the projectile, it's even in the description). Heavy slide attacks are a lesser known mechanic, I didn't know they were a thing before Grigori came out, but given what is available in game the combination of these two things makes sense. I don't know why so many are making this out to be a mysterious "tech" or an exploit. It is just a heavy slide attack while in the air, it does require some finger gymnastics but it's existence is intuitive. DE not explaining how this "animation bug" was done in the patch notes is a bit odd as the components to it are core mechanics. For those that think this is a terrible exploit, what is the reasoning behind that? Why wouldn't you expect a heavy slide attack to work in the air?

yes I know this comment doesn't add much, but there isn't much else to add.

This line makes me think you aren't looking at what "early game content" is and what it represents for the game. Removing the redundancy of broken mods and mk-1 weapons isn't making getting to a Kuva weapon any faster. Removing a speed-bump in a quest isn't making getting your first arcane faster. What removing annoying hiccups is doing is allowing people to enjoy the journey more. Less "traps" that waste your time, more of an emphasis on the great parts. Many players get lost before they play The Second Dream, I'm sure many get lost between that and New War as well. The major steps in the journey, the quests and core power progression, don't seem to be touched. Rather some of the vestigial rough spots are being cleaned up. DE only has so much time and money. They can either... Shorten things that players don't like so they're more likely to stay Leave these pieces content for later when they eventually get around to it (if they do) at the expense of current players. There isn't a magical third option where they "just fix the game." The current reality is players get lost in some parts of the game, it is impossible for DE to address all of these things at once even if they stop making any new content for six months to focus on reworks. Some things are stuck with just those two options, and saying "leave the bad content in" is a mighty hot take. I'd love to see a proper Archwing rework, but that ain't happening anytime soon. They can get to it when they get to it, in the meantime I'd hate to see a new player give up on the game because of poorly tuned content.

Warframe already runs on Switch which is basically a underpowered phone from four years ago. Why not? Some people may be able to enjoy Warframe that weren't be able to before with the added bonus of DE making more money, how is this harming you?

... wat... I'm not sure where you got this from when [DE]Steve was the guy presenting the demo... SoulFrame is being made internally by DE. Steve, Scott, and Geoff are leading the development (with some other new faces that we haven't seen much). Wayfinder is being developed by Airship Syndicate and is published by DE. We don't know how involved DE is with its development, but at the very least we know they are responsible for their servers. And to the point... SoulFrame at Tennocon makes sense. It is made by the same people, and it has extremely close ties to the structure of Warframe. Did you notice how amazing the Warframe demo looked? That is most likely due to the SoulFrame team and the shared engine. It is technically a Warframe convention, but it is just as much a celebration for Digital Extremes. It is a time for the devs as much as it is a time for the community, Tenno being the name is because that is the only game DE had at the time (and it is a lot catchier than DE-con). To those saying that SoulFrame should've gone after... you what? As yall are saying, it was Warframe's convention, ending Warframes's convention on another game is far worse than having it be the pre-show. I do think it would've been better if SoulFrame had its own time-slot, TennoLive was just a demo and a few notes when it is normally a Devstream+. However the schedule was tight and it would've had to overlap with another presentation, so it being a pre-show was a fair compromise in my opinion.

That's the neat part, it really isn't. Most thing are pretty well explained once you have the scattered jumble of pieces all put together, piecing it together is a lot of work but it is mostly there. I find that the hardest part of understanding Warframe lore is dropping your assumptions and head-canon. I know its hard, but trust DE. While the execution has continued to be iffy (not explaining major points like the use of Kuva in TNW, or leaving Eternalism's mechanics to collectable lore in Duviri), the meat behind the story/lore for years has been consistent. For me Kullervo's lore perfectly confirming a bunch of theories and solidifying the Proto-Warframe to Zariman to Tenno-Warframe to Fall timeline installed a great bit of trust in DE's ability to make this whole thing work.

That's a lot of assumptions about an update that is probably the biggest wild-card the game has ever seen. I won't say you're wrong, I have no idea what to expect in terms of gameplay, but it is your choice to assume what it is like that at this point. I don't see the point in being pessimistic about something we know so little about. Also... the next two updates are core Warframe. It's not fair to pant a picture of DE moving away from core Warframe, or continually taking us out of Warframe, when they are continually giving us core Warframe.

I think it is important to note that the next two updates are core-Warframe focused. Also 1999 seems to have full Warframe movement and abilities (to some degree).

I'll be sad to see Mk-1 Braton go. That's been part of the game since the start, and imo it is the best feeling Braton of the bunch.

I'll be honest, I'm still pretty unsure what multiverse theory exactly is. Before some of these Eternalism conversations happened I thought "multiverse" was a general catch-all term, not a specific type of... umm... I don't know what the more broad term even would be. So apologies for using the term multiverse, I was trying to give a broad impression but used a specific term. The concepts I get. Putting them to words another person will understand is hard, and seeing as most discussions about Eternalism quickly turn into semantics I don't think I'm alone. I do think that the implications of Eternalism are fairly clear though, it just takes a lot of shifting through lore and the difficult task of dropping your preconceptions. People see Eternalism, think MCU, then perceive everything in that context. If something doesn't fit it is a plot hole or bad writing. Which then leads them to make even more assumptions, leading to a more warped view, leading to more assumptions, etcetera.

I've thought something similar since Plains of Eidolon where we were first introduced to some of the multiverse shenanigans with the Quills/Unum (yes, Eternalism has been referenced in the game since 2017, DE didn't randomly throw it in). I don't think other Tenno are void manifestations though. Multiple Tenno is canon, all of the Tenno we see aren't the hero of the story in our "universe." All (or at least most) children on the Zariman were saved by our one handshake, but they made that handshake in their universes. They are the MC in their universe and we're just a random... if that makes any sense. Obviously this is all very speculative. But when you consider that DE has been working towards this since at least 2017 I think we should assume that it has been built into everything we've been doing for quite a few years now.

A clear progression from the glorious codpieces the game has had since launch. I think that is the point. They're just kids. Also, where did you get that first statement about Operator tattoos? That would be a bit odd given the somatic links that we put on our Operator's faces. I took the tattoos being a Drifter only thing, where somatics are an Operator only thing, as a way to have a symbolic mirror between the two. Could easily be reading way too into it though.

It is a perspective thing, not an implantation thing. The goal you have when designing a thing matters. Getting caught up in "we have to stop X" is what gives us annoying mechanics, I get that it is corny but it is important that fun is always the goal. But I'd rather not get sucked into semantics BS though so let's just move on from that. You still haven't commented on the approach I proposed to get players to be more engaged. Rather than limit the tools, make it impossible to pick a single "correct" tool through more complex mission types.

But... I wasn't talking about all Forma/slots, I was talking about the very (very) specific use of making/polarizing multiple of a thing. And as you bring up... The casual player isn't doing that... If your concern is the average player, the group that I think we can agree isn't making multiple of an item and repolarizing their gear with every meta shift, this could only be an improvement as it reduces friction. Most likely it would be neutral. The only group where there is some question is if the amount of people who would over-forma their gear for versatility is greater than the loss of people who were willing to make duplicates. We don't know which group is bigger, or even if the size of either group is meaningful enough for DE to notice. I just don't like the annoyingly common take of "but that would make DE less money" that gets thrown around when a topic like this is brought up as if that is some unassailable fact, let alone if it is actually right for a dev to do something only for the money (something DE has a track record of not doing).

Given the examples you gave on ways to add engaging/difficult content, it seems to me like you are taking an adversarial approach to the player when trying to make engaging content. The framing you use to express ideas is in how they can stop players from doing a thing, not in how those things can encourage players to do something engaging. I get that it is semantics, "enemy makes a shield to block a direction" and "encourage the use of positioning to take out enemies" is effectively the same thing, but the frame of reference does matter as the goals are quite different despite the implementation likely being very similar. That isn't to say the "positive" perspective is immune to the "they can just ignore it" problem. Yeah... its an issue, but I think working with that issue is not only possible but also grounds for far more unique content. If you want a game balanced around the relationship of the player and the enemy, there are other games that do that better. Warframe has an incredibly diverse toolbox that if properly utilized could be used to encourage different combat strategies far deeper than a good build and good aim. Which brings me back to my concept for added engagement/difficulty, making it impossible to use a single solution for a mission. Any objective has an answer, we have defense, CC, and DPS locked down. But nothing does it all, even when there is overlap there is nuance between approaches different frames have that makes the more/less suited to a mission type. More complex objectives would force players to use improper tools for the individual parts of a mission. At its most basic, if a mission starts with an exterminate and ends in a defense. You can take a DPS to speed through the exterminate at the cost of a painful defense, vice versa, or go for a more balanced loadout choice. I'm sure you can come up with an answer that trivializes this example, but I hope you can at least get my point. This isn't to say I don't haven opinions on damage. But honestly... what we have is workable. I'm down for a Damage 3.0 as much (probably more) as the next person, but the necessity of one (with the goal of a more engaging game) is overblown. Even status, my personal nemesis, is workable. I hate it... I hate the way status works so much... but that doesn't mean good, meaningful, engaging content can't be made if the right approach is taken.

And this is why I said the goal should be to just make more engaging content. I don't think the goal of any (good) dev is to make a "difficult" game, it is to make an engaging game. Some devs use difficulty as a way to engage players, it is the difficulty of Souls games that makes players engage with all of the game's systems and (hopefully) have fun. Difficulty is just a means, it isn't an end. The oversimplification of the role of difficulty in games is why we get the comically incongruous takes of "bullet sponge bad" and "make enemy number go up." There are other ways to get players to engage with a game, don't hyper-fixate on power and difficulty. What are the things that make Warframe unique and what content could you design that asks players to engage with those systems most. And again, I think base SP sets a extremely balanced bar for the difficulty of the core horde-shooter combat. Obviously it isn't "difficult," but missions, especially ones that people look to for the most engaging content, should be far more than the difficulty of killing a horde of enemies. Some weapon balance is still a bit wonky in SP, but base SP is where the most Warframes are balanced between each other. And honestly even that wonky weapon balance isn't that bad. Yeah, Incarnon Torid does some questionable things, but the amount of viable weapons when built around in this game of acquiring tools to build around is staggering. I have fun with Jackal. Part of that is due to its placement in the Circuit where I can't pick the tool that trivializes the fight, but that brings me back to my original point of making more engaging content by making it more difficult to find a single tool to trivialize a mission. One of my oldest concepts (that is forever trapped in my wip folder) is a Sortie-like mission where you go from phase to phase without going back to your arsenal, forcing you to prepare unoptimized setups for the individual missions in order to fully complete the gambit. It still wouldn't be "difficult" by some standards, but I think (hope) it would be a more engaging piece of content. What I find frustrating is the fixation on difficulty has led to what feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy where people will never be satisfied if the content doesn't fit their vision of "difficult". Rather than engage with new content on its terms in good faith, because it isn't difficult it is bad. Back to Circuit Jackal, so often I see people bring up wanting movement to be more important in "difficult" content. You know what jackal heavily encourages? Movement, it is by far the best implementation of requiring player movement as it feels natural within the fight. But I don't see any of that, I don't see people acknowledging that DE made some good use of something people have begged for, all I see is "I can cheese it, therefore bad" (or "too hard plz nerf"). I could keep gushing about Circuit Jackal. The more I think on it, the more I am starting to think it is my favorite boss fight in the game and maybe even a good boss fight in general (which is big for a Warframe boss). And while I get that "favorite" is just an opinion, the complete lack of acknowledgement for what Jackal objectively does makes me think people quite literally don't see it. They just see a health bar they can kill, they are so caught up in meta-commentary of "difficult" that the gameplay in front of them is pointless, because Circuit jackal doesn't represent what they want it to represent it isn't good.

And I'd argue Saryn lives her best power fantasy in Steel path. Saryn's whole kit is designed around spreading a disease, something you can't do in normal content as everything does too fast. In SP enemies live long enough that your attention to your spreading disease matters, using Toxic Lash as a spreading tool is important and Miasma becomes a far more interesting ability as an augment to spreading/CC than it is as a nuke. Saryn isn't a nuke, she is a debuff DPS. She doesn't walk into a room and kill all the things, she condemns a whole tileset to inevitable death. Some videos showing how she doesn't instantly kill a small group of enemies as fast is completely missing the point of her archetype.

But Void damage gets a 75% bonus vs overguard! /s I'm not exactly sure how to balance it, but I think it would create a lot more organic Operator/Warframe loop if Operators could properly strip Overguard. Put a zero at the end of that percent and see where that gets us. I've never much liked the bullet attractor as it doesn't mesh with what the Operator is supposed to be doing. Operators are there to make your Warframe do Warframe things better. Void Status kinda does that on paper, but it has two issues (imo). The duration isn't long enough for you to make proper use of the status effect after swapping to Warframe. And while this could be fixed by just improving the duration... A bullet attractor isn't a universal buff that is always wanted. When going for headshots or make use of punch through this effect is an active detriment. Void status should be always useful. You always have your Operator equipped, it should always be something you'd want to use. That does mean it'll have to be boring, but I think that's for the best. One of the ideas I've had is for Void status to change an enemy's resistances to +75% to all damage types (for 10 seconds). Yeah, it is just a damage boost, bit it still retains some build-arounds in that it enables using any damage type against anything without getting hit with chunky DR. Bullet attractor on magnetic status though... that has some potential. I am a big proponent for the "break armor with mechanics" meta we are in, but I think this would be pushing armor strips to be a bit too much. Different mechanical interactions is more interesting than having one interaction be the catch-all. Let Operators be the answer to chunky Overguard.

I think the "this makes DE less money" takes are making some pretty hefty assumptions. Those assumptions being that people are regularly enough building multiple frames and/or repeatedly re-polarizing gear for DE to notice the 20p dribbles. I think I can consider myself a pretty hardcore player, but the only time I built multiple of a frame was for Focus farming (5 Banshees) and even then I did it in a way where I didn't need to spend any Forma/Potatoes. Most of the big content creators that come to mind don't even have multiple fully built frames. If anything, I think option one would lead to more plat sales. It would remove the fomo from polarizing out a slot, it would make polarizing a straight upgrade that you could do for giggles without worrying about breaking other builds. If option 1 became a thing I could easily imagine myself putting in 20+ more Forma into things that I wouldn't otherwise.