ysmer

Ideas to change the weapons systems to improve the game

Recommended Posts

Hail Dear tenno Friends, i been playing warframe a few years ago, im from venezuela and basically been into videogames my whole life (not so old myself). the main reason to create  this thread is to collect ideas that can be later put into a feedback trhead with the hope that someday could give focus on changes in the game that will make warframe even more fun.
All of this is the answer to things i  often see in forum, i read the forums since i started to play the game to check another players feedback and know about stuff 
i have some feedback and  ideas to spare, so let me show you what been on my mind.


The Situation about Weapons:


The main problem with weapons:


- Scaling situation
- All purpose weapons making useless others weapons, some weapons like rocket launches and especial weapons cant be used in the game cause are no eficient , but high damage weapons fill all the uses (most of the times). Then we see complains about buff some weapons and nerf others but that is a result of the enemies we have now.

I think weapons should be selected to fit missions, enemies, situations, even be selected considering other peoples in the squad, but right now its mostly about damage and dps, so we mainly see popular weapons being used, sometimes a single weapon fits all kind mission, enemies, situations even we dont care about others people in the squad. To be honest we have 3 main styles of weapons in game most of the times we dont need to change them to finish a mission even some people dont need to change to finish a lots of missions.
we have elemental damage and procs but in the most of the times people dont care about that a powerfull weapon lets you finish mission even without considering enemies (not talking about abilites yet). let me be clear i know some people know about damage about weakness of enemies and using diferent weapons to fit missions and situations but i think this could be improved a lot with some changes and this will make feel even good to have a lot of weapons and select them before missions.


SO, this are some basic ideas that could solve many problems and i think we could get improved later (with your help):


- Pasive or bonus damage in type of weapons..
- Making enemies belong to certain type of enemy ( to interact with pasive or bonus damage of weapons)
- Improve enemies behavior and Interaction (with us and with them).
- Changing how scaling affect enemies and even us
-Improve and change procs 

Examples and thoughts:


griener enemies: we already have light medium and heavy enemies but they often dont change a thing in interactions, they basycally are the same, just more or less hp , damage or elemental resistances.


But if for example butcher that have acording to wikia have 50 hp in level 1 and 17k in 155 could interact with a kind of weapons like shotgun, or automatic weapon. A weapons of this kind are in strategy created to deal with this kind of enemy, cause they are mobile, fast and with low armour


well if the shotgun beside is regular damage also will deal x% of curreth hp with every pellet hit in a target, or a automatic light rifle deal x% of the current hp with every single bullet that hit and enemy. But to others for example like shield lancer (shield is invincible from normal hits in front we should change this) this enemy block shotgun damage and light automatic rifles for a x% but receives a bonus damage from especial weapons like explosive weapons, or especial weapons like lasers.


Ballista for example  should get a bonus damage from melee weapons and have a flat damage bonus of their current hp (that all enemies should have) our beloved heavy gunner (mostly know in high level content  with bullet sponge) should block damage from weapons like shotgun, automatic rifles but to semi automatic weapons like latron should receive more damage, and a lot more with sniper weapons.


Let me show a feasible scenario: you walk into a mobile defense place suddenly you see a enemy squad getting closer to you and your squad, so you see enemy heavy gunner that worryes you cause  his damage, a squad mate just use his sniper rifle and finish that threat but a butcher focus on him so you use you automatic rifle to help your mate cause is hard to him to aim that sniper so close, some armored enemy come together and get bonus defense so the automatic weapon and the sniper are not good but you could use your secondary weapong an armstrung to explode them together.....


this is an example how enemys make you use a kind of weapon, now without changes a simple plasmor arca should kill all of them without worryes too much, this is why we need changes.
Imagine something like this x weapons should deal base damage with mods and plus x% hp of enemy  and also bonus damage of the kind of enemy you hit


this will make  weapons scale with enemys but get benefits with specific enemys. So emptying a rifle on a heavy gunner is not eficient but using a snipers rifle does, but the sniper rifle is not eficient to a shield lancer for example but a especial weapons does and goes on.


Also adding dinamic enemies behavior, , like adding enemy formation,make enemys get distance (in case they needed) enemys changing abilites (like using grenades or blunt or even auras to interact withing them) and  change scaling to afecct less the hp or basic resistances and affect mores the kit of enemies.
How is the interaction with most enemys right now (basically when you are mr 25) all die fast or you die fast simple as that, enemys sometimes run for his dead, or you get one hitted this should end.


So after this ideas and thoughts , you should understand my point, that is to make weapons better to some enemies and bad to others, make all weapon worth having and change scaling to  fit better to all players,all weapons and  all kind of level and missions.
well this are my thoughts and ideas i would like some people give me theirs so we can together improve this and make a good feedback and proposals about weapons (english is not my native language so excuse me if this sound bad or if you can correct me, Im fine with that) 

  • Like 2
  • Woah 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all of those are known issues that are being worked on, but thanks to recent additions like rivens the underlying system that causes those problems can no longer be changed without DE HQ being burned to the ground. but even before that more solutions were dropped just because the work on it would mean any investment into mods and stuff like that would have to become obsolete, which DE for some reason don't want to do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" can no longer be changed without DE HQ being burned to the ground." 

all can be changed see melee 3.0 

maybe de cant change the system deeply but could begin somewhere at least having bonus damage for type of enemies.

you can give ideas ? 

Edited by ysmer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, thanks for updating me on this, but I'm actually kind of glad I stayed out of it. My ideas and yours are very, very different and we probably would have argued ^^

Not bad, but I'll leave you be. I don't really have a contribution to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The core assessment is solid and, in my opinion, accurate: Warframe has a problem with its weapon balancing, which leads to players favoring weapons with top-tier overall damage and treating most of the rest like Mastery fodder. Additionally, its manner of scaling difficulty makes many weapons drop off pretty quickly, particularly if the player doesn't heavily commit to them with Forma, potatoes, etc. Something needs to be done.

With this in mind, I also think the OP proposes some pretty neat ideas. Having different, ideally less viable weapons deal bonus damage that would be consistently good at all enemy levels would give players much more leeway to pick weapons that are typically less "meta". While a meta would then likely develop around those weapons, if done right it could add a valuable safety net, particularly if there a way to dynamically adjust bonuses based on the weapon's play rate (so that less popular weapons could get a bigger bonus). Giving enemies more variability to reflect higher challenge, as well as more interesting AI to exploit could significantly enrich gameplay, provided enemies took a little more time to kill outside of one-shots. While personally I'd advocate very different changes to weapon balancing (all weapons need to be directly equalized imo) and enemy scaling (we shouldn't need enemies or players increasing in raw power), I think the ideas proposed here would nonetheless be tremendously valuable as both a potential alternative set of changes, as well as a quicker and easier, yet still durable fix to a large ongoing balance problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"My ideas and yours are very, very different and we probably would have argued ^^ "

"While personally I'd advocate very different changes to weapon balancing (all weapons need to be directly equalized imo"

but i also want to collect other ideas so maybe we can fusion them or something or add part of it... so ill we be more than happy to read your thoughts

 

Edited by ysmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on weapon balancing is simply that the only way to make all weapons equally viable, or at least bring them closer to that, will be to eventually go about and individually rebalance them. There is no point to picking up a weapon that deals ten or twenty times less damage than the BiS equivalent, and similarly, when a weapon is even twice as effective as the average in most situations, it's obviously going to be overpicked. Because there are such stark differences, and because imo it's generally not that difficult to make weapons more balanced (just buff their damage/crit/status to approximate values on other good weapons), I think doing some more balance work of that kind could have a significant positive impact for not actually all that much individual effort.

Adding to this, though, I think the issue isn't simply that some weapons are too strong or weak, but also that too many weapons are too similar to each other. Many older weapons especially are based on the same generic assault rifle/pistol templates, with none of the cool new mechanics, firing mechanisms or alt fires we've seen in newer items. Melee weapons are in an even worse situation, because most weapons are just stats and a model, with no other unique gameplay of their own (their playstyle is defined by a stance common to all melee weapons of the same class). The harder, but necessary job that DE needs to do if they want more diversity to their current arsenal, is going to be to find ways to make weapons unique beyond just visual aesthetics. The Arca Plasmor, for example, looks phenomenal, but also plays radically differently from other shotguns, thanks to it projecting a wave with innate enemy punch-through. This should be the bar we should set for older weapons, which are already receiving work in having their model updated to modern standards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well agree with you i also want to make all weapons equally viable but... some weapons are simply too cheap and are weapons for begginers example is the mk1 braton, that mk1 braton couldnt be equally viable too a tiberon prime, with my aproach to pasive and bonus damage is a way to make a lot of weapon more viable lets write down some numbers.

this just are examples need to do more precise calculation! (all subjet to change)

automatic rifles: 1% hp pasive damage plus x2 bonus damage to certain enemy.

burst weapons: 3% hp pasive damage (4% if the same enemy)plus x3 bonus damage to certain enemy (4x if the same enemy).

semiaoutomatic rifles: 5% hp  pasive damage plus x5 bonus damage to certain enemy. plus x7.5 bonus damage on enemy headshot or weakspot

Sniper rifles: 10% hp pasive damage plus x2 bonus damage to certain enemy plus x3.5 bonus damage on enemy headshot or weakspot

Especial Aoe weapons (rocket launcher grenades selfdamaging weapons): 25% hp pasive damage  x2 plus bonus damage to certain enemy.

Especial single or little aoe weapons (launching,no self damaging, especial attacks or some weapons): 10% hp pasive damage x3 damage to certain enemy.

Continuos weapons weapons (laser,gas,flame,no self damaging, especial attacks or some weapons), 5% pasive damage plus x4 bonus damage to certain enemy.

Bows: 10% hp pasive damage plus 2.5x bonus damage to certain enemy. charged shot 20% hp pasive damage plus x3 bonus damage to certain enemy.

Crossbows: 6% hp pasive damage plus 2x bonus damage to certain enemy.

to be continued....(this could even be diferent for weapons in the same niche)

See what im doing here? i make my burston prime usefull (now obsolete) my panthera usefull (always been obsolete) i make my ogris good (too hard to use properly on most maps)

this could make a niche for all weapons (we could even go more deep and make subniches) this will make a lot of weapons more viables cause  im agree with you with in this " to make all weapons equally viable, or at least bring them closer to that" but i think a way to do that is to improve (buff) some hard to use or underused weapons and make dificult (nerf) to use good or too strong weapons.

sniper rifles in example have a lot of damage this is good ! but make harder to hit light mobile enemies even make enemys go around you when you are aiming and strong rifles make harder to kill strong enemys but easier to weak enemys.

to this part "but also that too many weapons are too similar to each other. Many older weapons especially are based on the same generic assault rifle/pistol templates, with none of the cool new mechanics, firing mechanisms or alt fires we've seen in newer items." with this i think they should change cadencys, change ammo economy, take the little diferences that are there right now and make it bigger, but i think with the aproach of passive and bonus damage will do the job(or atleast change for better the actual situation).

thank you for your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-11-28 at 2:42 PM, ysmer said:

well agree with you i also want to make all weapons equally viable but... some weapons are simply too cheap and are weapons for begginers example is the mk1 braton, that mk1 braton couldnt be equally viable too a tiberon prime, with my aproach to pasive and bonus damage is a way to make a lot of weapon more viable lets write down some numbers.

Why? Why shouldn't the MK-1 Braton be equally viable to the Tiberon Prime? There seems to be a fundamental contradiction in what many players on the forums seem to want, in that often the same players calling for more balance across weapons are also the same players to state that some weapons need to be stronger than others -- either your arsenal is balanced or it isn't, but you can't have both. Moreover, there seems to be this implicit assumption that cheaper or more easily accessible weapons should be weaker than those obtained later on: why? Why do we need a progression in vertical power, when one could just as well instead make the player's progression start with more general-purpose weapons (the Braton and Lato are about as generic as you can get with guns) and move towards far more specialized and niche items that trade off all-encompassing effectiveness for equivalent advantages in specific situations and playstyles. If the Braton were balanced on the same level as, say, the Opticor, players would still pick the Opticor even if the Braton were to become more popular, because the Opticor plays differently, fulfils a different fantasy, and does things the Braton cannot (and vice versa).

On 2018-11-28 at 2:42 PM, ysmer said:

this just are examples need to do more precise calculation! (all subjet to change)

automatic rifles: 1% hp pasive damage plus x2 bonus damage to certain enemy.

burst weapons: 3% hp pasive damage (4% if the same enemy)plus x3 bonus damage to certain enemy (4x if the same enemy).

semiaoutomatic rifles: 5% hp  pasive damage plus x5 bonus damage to certain enemy. plus x7.5 bonus damage on enemy headshot or weakspot

Sniper rifles: 10% hp pasive damage plus x2 bonus damage to certain enemy plus x3.5 bonus damage on enemy headshot or weakspot

Especial Aoe weapons (rocket launcher grenades selfdamaging weapons): 25% hp pasive damage  x2 plus bonus damage to certain enemy.

Especial single or little aoe weapons (launching,no self damaging, especial attacks or some weapons): 10% hp pasive damage x3 damage to certain enemy.

Continuos weapons weapons (laser,gas,flame,no self damaging, especial attacks or some weapons), 5% pasive damage plus x4 bonus damage to certain enemy.

Bows: 10% hp pasive damage plus 2.5x bonus damage to certain enemy. charged shot 20% hp pasive damage plus x3 bonus damage to certain enemy.

Crossbows: 6% hp pasive damage plus 2x bonus damage to certain enemy.

to be continued....(this could even be diferent for weapons in the same niche)

See what im doing here? i make my burston prime usefull (now obsolete) my panthera usefull (always been obsolete) i make my ogris good (too hard to use properly on most maps)

It is good that these buffs would make weapons useful against certain particular enemies, though even then, the risk is still that there'd be a best weapon for each individual type, i.e. a best bow, a best sniper rifle, and so on. The fundamental issue at hand is that the current problem with weapons is that there's insufficient balancing at the individual weapon, and while these changes could push weapons in the right direction, they also only differentiate them at the weapon class level, so there needs to be work done one level down to give every weapon a chance of standing out.

On 2018-11-28 at 2:42 PM, ysmer said:

this could make a niche for all weapons (we could even go more deep and make subniches) this will make a lot of weapons more viables cause  im agree with you with in this " to make all weapons equally viable, or at least bring them closer to that" but i think a way to do that is to improve (buff) some hard to use or underused weapons and make dificult (nerf) to use good or too strong weapons.

I'd very much like that, and I feel we're in agreement here in that we both want weapons to be buffed or nerfed in order to be equalized.

On 2018-11-28 at 2:42 PM, ysmer said:

to this part "but also that too many weapons are too similar to each other. Many older weapons especially are based on the same generic assault rifle/pistol templates, with none of the cool new mechanics, firing mechanisms or alt fires we've seen in newer items." with this i think they should change cadencys, change ammo economy, take the little diferences that are there right now and make it bigger, but i think with the aproach of passive and bonus damage will do the job(or atleast change for better the actual situation).

This could help, but the problem with purely tweaking base stats is that weapons can be modded to change those same stats, so your differentiating features may end up not differentiating those weapons at all if they get modded to play in the same way. Weapons need some sort of interesting mechanic, even if it's not a new alt fire or something that complicated each time, or at least something they can do that others cannot, if they want to stand out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why? Why shouldn't the MK-1 Braton be equally viable to the Tiberon Prime? " easy to get weapons shouldnt not be equally viable than hard to get weapons, hard to get is what gives value to farm, to grind, and buy and sell ... but i think both should be atleast a lot more viable than is right now but not exactly the same. but with my pasives and bonus aproach still will be a lot better than is right now, just mastery fodder to regular players and just a learning weapon to begginers.

very much like your opinions in general.

a bit tired right now ill write others thought later... well this now, if de make weapons really unique and diferent then wont be as much weapons that exist right now (could be for the best or the worst i dont know).

Edited by ysmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Why? Why shouldn't the MK-1 Braton be equally viable to the Tiberon Prime? There seems to be a fundamental contradiction in what many players on the forums seem to want, in that often the same players calling for more balance across weapons are also the same players to state that some weapons need to be stronger than others --

Because if every weapon is equally viable then the next weapon, there is no reason to every build another weapon again. Why would I waste my time, farming relics, rolling the odds over and over, wasting time for something just as good as I already have? What's the point? People would only bother putting in the time if it was a better weapon, and rewarded the time investment they put into acquiring it. If you don't reward players time, you don't respect players. More time it takes to get a weapon, the better it is, the better the player feels about the time he put in to get said weapon. The more satisfaction they get, when its all forma-ed fully decked out causing a massacre. The game is also built around progression as a whole. It's kinda the point of starting out with a regular warframe/weapon, then later getting the stronger version being the umbra/prime/vandal/wraith/synoid/sancti/ version of said weapon. Kinda why you level up to get stronger.... You know... level progression... Mastery Rank Progression... 

Mk-1 Braton would make most other weapons redundant, if it was equally viable to them. No need to bother getting the Tiberon, Soma, or Bolter Prime if you are simply handed a good option. Your point falls flat on its face, as this game is an MMO where effort put in, makes things stronger. Put effort in to multi-formaing a weapon, and it can get many, many times stronger. Put effort into leveling up a mod, it gets stronger. 

People advocate for weapon buffs, simply from the fact that they enjoy an older weapon that is now outclassed. They still love the weapon, with all the time they invested into it, and don't want it to be irrelevant. This isn't a contradiction. People grow attached and want what they like to be the best. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Because if every weapon is equally viable then the next weapon, there is no reason to every build another weapon again. Why would I waste my time, farming relics, rolling the odds over and over, wasting time for something just as good as I already have? What's the point?

Because new weapons provide new gameplay? I don't quite understand why this argument gets repeated so often when it falls apart completely with only a little bit of further thought: if your argument were true, then players right now would only build the highest MR weapon they can have and nothing else, yet clearly that isn't what happens. Different weapons have different advantages in different situations, and different weapons appeal to different players, who may enjoy more than just one type of weapon. Moreover, MR rating is always a reason to build new weapons, particularly since it's the main driver behind players building strictly inferior weapons now.

Quote

People would only bother putting in the time if it was a better weapon, and rewarded the time investment they put into acquiring it. If you don't reward players time, you don't respect players. More time it takes to get a weapon, the better it is, the better the player feels about the time he put in to get said weapon.

Words cannot begin to describe how horrendous this line of argumentation is. The only way any of this makes sense is if one holds raw power as the only measure of a weapon's worth, which critically misunderstands the very purpose of customization and diversity of weapons. Rewarding a player with a different weapon that is equally powerful to the one their have isn't disrespecting them, it's giving them a new toy to play with that won't render what they have obsolete. Moreover, the idea that players only feel good about a weapon if it's strictly better than the one they have is not only highly subjective, but likely also extremely minoritary, as there are plenty of examples out there of players treasuring weapons that may not be the best, but that have a distinct flavor and identiy (e.g. the Opticor even pre-buffs). If you want to talk about how Warframe doesn't respect its players' time, perhaps you should point to how the game already does this via RNG drop tables that can give the player essentially nothing for hours' worth of grinding, but as it stands the very notion of treating sidegrades as some kind of personal insult I feel is not only irrelevant to the opinions of most players, not to mention irrelevant to the notion of respecting the player's time, but also deeply problematic in its own right.

Quote

The more satisfaction they get, when its all forma-ed fully decked out causing a massacre. The game is also built around progression as a whole. It's kinda the point of starting out with a regular warframe/weapon, then later getting the stronger version being the umbra/prime/vandal/wraith/synoid/sancti/ version of said weapon. Kinda why you level up to get stronger.... You know... level progression... Mastery Rank Progression... 

Except the opposite happens. Past a certain point, when players get powerful enough and get to room blend their way through the Star Chart, the vast majority of the game loses its challenge. Most of the game becomes a light chore, because the player is too powerful to be challenged, and so because their weapons deal too much damage for enemies to be able to properly fight back. Moreover, this also causes most weapons to blend together, because at that point it becomes difficult for any weapon's special ability to shine when the most effective thing around is just a DPS hose. The above argument critically misunderstands what it means to progress in any game, by assuming that the only form of progression is vertical, i.e. based on raw power increases. Progression can also be horizontal, i.e. based on increases in options and diversity, and it is that kind of progression that is the most durable, as it allows the entirety of a large game's content to become much more replayable and entertaining.

Quote

Mk-1 Braton would make most other weapons redundant, if it was equally viable to them. No need to bother getting the Tiberon, Soma, or Bolter Prime if you are simply handed a good option. Your point falls flat on its face, as this game is an MMO where effort put in, makes things stronger. Put effort in to multi-formaing a weapon, and it can get many, many times stronger. Put effort into leveling up a mod, it gets stronger. 

... why? What makes you so sure of this hypothesis? The MK-1 Braton doesn't play like any of those weapons, so why would it supplant them? Why not pick a Soma if one wants to mow down large crowds of enemies, which the MK-1 Braton can't do as well? Ultimately yes, there is a problem in that many of these weapons are too similar to each other, but a) this is something that already exists, so in the absolute worst case there would be no decrease in weapon diversity, and b) this is a problem I have already pointed out in the post you are replying to, and my proposal was to differentiate these weapons better so that they each have a distinct flavor and niche.

Quote

People advocate for weapon buffs, simply from the fact that they enjoy an older weapon that is now outclassed. They still love the weapon, with all the time they invested into it, and don't want it to be irrelevant. This isn't a contradiction. People grow attached and want what they like to be the best. 

And how exactly is this not what I'm suggesting? What you're telling me is that older weapons need to be inferior to newer ones, because according to you power creep is the only way to incentivize players to play more content. What you're also telling me here is that players who love a particular weapon end up being punished for their attachment, because power creep causes that weapon to eventually become obsolete. Effectively, what you are advocating is an environment where players cannot develop any real attachment towards any given weapon, because it'll eventually fall out of favor, and where the game's balance becomes increasingly worse, as power creep widens the spread of power between weapons ever more. By contrast, what I'm pushing for is an environment where the game's balance remains stable, and where players are given the genuine option to pick whichever weapon they'd like, as well as experiment without fear of hamstringing themselves. Honestly, which environment would you personally prefer?

11 hours ago, ysmer said:

"Why? Why shouldn't the MK-1 Braton be equally viable to the Tiberon Prime? " easy to get weapons shouldnt not be equally viable than hard to get weapons, hard to get is what gives value to farm, to grind, and buy and sell ... but i think both should be atleast a lot more viable than is right now but not exactly the same. but with my pasives and bonus aproach still will be a lot better than is right now, just mastery fodder to regular players and just a learning weapon to begginers.

very much like your opinions in general.

... but again, why? What you are implicitly asking for is the very power creep that has created such a rift between weapons that you are now advocating for an entire side system of auto-balancing. In the end, whether you want to say it explicitly or not, you are advocating to equalize the power of weapons, so whether one does it directly via weapon balancing (i.e. my suggestion), or indirectly via an entirely new system that adds blanket stats and bonuses (i.e. your suggestion), the end result would be the same. Because the former would be less complicated than the latter, that is what I'd personally prefer to implement.

Quote

a bit tired right now ill write others thought later... well this now, if de make weapons really unique and diferent then wont be as much weapons that exist right now (could be for the best or the worst i dont know).

... DE isn't going to remove weapons, though, and the guns they release now have at least some sort of unique mechanic. Sure, adding unique effects to older weapons may slow down the release of newer weapons, but at this point players are becoming increasingly sensitive on quality, rather than quantity, as noted by the overall lukewarm response to Fortuna. There is an increasingly larger demand for the game's existing content to be more fun, and that means improving existing weapons instead of releasing dozens upon dozens of clones of the same generic assault rifle template. Overall, there seems to be this undercurrent of apologetics towards DE on the forums, where what was once empathy towards DE has turned into a vocal minority of players actively advocating for a worse and more exploitative game. DE does not need at this point to make us pay more for inferior content, and if they did they would in fact be likely to lose money over it in the long run. We cannot ask DE to make poor design decisions, then act surprised when those decisions come into effect, which is why we need to clearly establish what we want, and what would help DE give Warframe the longevity and positive growth we expect of it.

Edited by Teridax68
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Because new weapons provide new gameplay? I don't quite understand why this argument gets repeated so often when it falls apart completely with only a little bit of further thought: if your argument were true, then players right now would only build the highest MR weapon they can have and nothing else, yet clearly that isn't what happens.

This is a terribly poor argument. You clearly haven't given it any thought. Using the example that was already brought up, Mk-1 Braton vs Tiberon Prime. If all weapons are equally viable, what's the point of having a Mk-1 Braton, Soma, Boltor, or Burston when you have the Tiberon Prime? They all have the same basic gameplay. Nothing changes between how you use assault rifles. You aim, you pull the trigger. The largest difference, is the Tiberon has different firing modes, which would make weapons like the Latron, and the Burston also pointless to use. The game becomes less interesting, as every weapon is supposed to be as viable as the next. 

Meanwhile weapons that are just upgrades of other weapons really don't provide new gameplay. Ignis Wraith is just a stronger Ignis. Boltor Prime, is just a stronger Boltor. 

One aspect of this scenario that completely goes over your head is that since all weapons aren't balanced around each other, that different weapons excel in different missions. Even then, people will choose the weapon they enjoy, over a strong weapon. I like the Tigris Prime personally. But I know people who can't stand reloading after two shots. I class all weapons in three categories. Mobbing weapons (these weapons are great at killing the weaker enemies in a mission really quickly), Boss killer weapons, (Stuff that shoots slowly, but does massive damage. Lanka, Vectis, or Tigris Prime), or utility weapons (Weapons that have a niche use, like the Zenistar) 

The Ignis Wraith (mobbing weapon) can't kill an Eidolon as quickly as a Vectis (Boss killer weapon) can. Yet the Vectis can't kill mobs has fast as the Ignis Wraith can. They aren't balanced around each other, they aren't equally viable. They have different uses, and different scenarios where they shine. This is what promotes people using different weapons. The Tigris Prime doesn't function well at longer range. Plains of Eidolon, and Fortuna you have to be in 30 meters for a chance to hit with the spread. While a Lex Prime, or a Vectis or any sniper can easily take them out. 

Speaking for myself, my current favorite weapon is the Corinth. It isn't as viable as a Tigris Prime, but it doesn't have to be. When I need to use my Tigris, I will. Otherwise, I like the options the Airburst gives me. I can do good damage with the crit based normal fire, and kill groups with the alt fire. That being said, I am eagerly anticipating the Corinth Prime. Hoping for a meager 5% increased crit chance on the primary fire, some increased status chance on the Airburst, and whatever small tweaks they do to the weapon. Faster reload, would be a welcome change, or higher damage would all be welcome. 
 

10 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Words cannot begin to describe how horrendous this line of argumentation is. The only way any of this makes sense is if one holds raw power as the only measure of a weapon's worth, which critically misunderstands the very purpose of customization and diversity of weapons.

Because Raw Power is the total measure of the weapon. However, it's more complicated then that. Raw damage is one portion of its worth, then crit and status factoring into the damage. Yet people can still like weaker weapons. Every person I know who doesn't have a Brakk, wants one. You know why? Cause it's a strong secondary. It might not be the best, but people value what it can do. This point of yours isn't even remotely close to being a good argument. Warframe is akin to an MMO. When a new challenge comes out, new better gear comes out as well. Stronger mods, Stronger weapons, thats why those weapons are locked behind Mastery Rank. To force players to level and try out new things they don't want; to be able to get the weapons they do want later. Currently helping two friends level up mastery rank so they can use the Arca Plasmor, and use a high rank riven. 

If you want to slap people in the face, you reward the time they spent in obtaining a weapon or frame by making it criminally underrated. Remember what happened when people thought the Spira Prime was worse then the normal version? Lower damage, lower crit? You see how many people use a weapon they spent time to get, when it ends up being worse in several regards to the normal version? 

Warframe is a numbers game. Number of enemies killed, number of materials farmed, number of credits received and endo obtained. It just happens to be the most fun math game ever made. People perfect their warframe builds adding in enough power strength to steamroll everything in their path.

Let's do an experiment. You and I. Let's make a weapon locked behind Mastery rank 15 that you craft using 100k, of every common resource, and 100 of every rare resource. (Orokin Cells and the like). You are unable to see the weapons stats until you make it. When you complete the weapon, it turns out to be a re-skin of the Mk-1 Braton, with the stats on it's base damage just swapped out. Let's see how people react to the time and resources spent on it, then see how many people use the weapon other then Mastery Fodder. Surprise nobody will use it, and only half a dozen enraged posts on the forums about it.

Just like nobody uses the Mk-1 Braton. When was the last time you saw a high ranked player use the lower level weapons? I used the Karak myself recently to prove a point.... Used some of the older Assault Rifles when I got tired of using shotguns, and snipers all the time. (But did use the stronger assault rifles.) The weakest weapon I have seen recently, would have been the Lanka for the last time I went Eidolon farming. 

11 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

... why? What makes you so sure of this hypothesis? The MK-1 Braton doesn't play like any of those weapons, so why would it supplant them? Why not pick a Soma if one wants to mow down large crowds of enemies, which the MK-1 Braton can't do as well?

Because both are assault rifles. The actual use and feel of both weapons are similar. You rapidly fire weaker bullets in succession to kill enemies. If both weapons are equally viable, the differences between the two become minute. To make the Soma and the Mk-1 braton equally viable would be to make them similar in terms of damage output. The Mk-1 Braton would need to have a faster reload then the Soma to make up for the Soma's larger magazine, otherwise would be almost identical in performance. The Soma would take much more time to acquire, and people wouldn't bother with it. 

Yet we look at both weapons right now, and it takes 7 Forma to make the Mk-1 Braton have 12k burst dps. https://goo.gl/fMwHnv

It takes the Soma Prime maybe 3 forma to get 32k burst dps. 
 

11 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

 I have already pointed out in the post you are replying to, and my proposal was to differentiate these weapons better so that they each have a distinct flavor and niche.

Those distinctions already exist. Each weapon already has a distinction by what scenarios they are useful in. Boltor Prime with its high status being able to reach 100% is distinct that it can strip armor, or proc viral on enemies. Different then the Soma which is mainly crit and slash based with hunter munitions, or bladed rounds. Are they equally viable? No. Is there a way to make them equally viable? No. Viral Procs will forever be the strongest aspect of any weapon ever. The Boltor being able to scale infinitely more then the Soma just from status chance. If I take the Boltor against a level 9,999 enemy, I'll kill it faster with corrosive procs, or Viral Procs then the Soma can with its crits. 

 

11 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

And how exactly is this not what I'm suggesting? What you're telling me is that older weapons need to be inferior to newer ones, because according to you power creep is the only way to incentivize players to play more content. 

Is exactly what I'm telling you. The drakgoon, and the karak were one of my first weapons. I am very fond of each. I have some 400% accuracy with the Drakgoon, and the Karak just feels good to me. Yet if they were as strong as the other weapons why would I bother spend so much time, going into relic missions, farming and spending voice traces all to get a weapon that was mostly identical to something I had gotten for half the work? I'm not saying that all lower weapons should be buffed. I'm saying the reasoning behind people advocating for buffs is because they do like their old weapons, and frames. They don't want their golden oldies left in the dust. 
 

11 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Effectively, what you are advocating is an environment where players cannot develop any real attachment towards any given weapon, because it'll eventually fall out of favor, and where the game's balance becomes increasingly worse, as power creep widens the spread of power between weapons ever more. By contrast, what I'm pushing for is an environment where the game's balance remains stable, and where players are given the genuine option to pick whichever weapon they'd like, as well as experiment without fear of hamstringing themselves. Honestly, which environment would you personally prefer?

Let me give you another word for stable. Stagnation. If everything is made to be stable, there is no room for growth. A ceiling has been set that caps out the capability of what all weapons can do. The game will quickly get boring, as people collect endlessly similar weapons. 

I prefer a game that can grow. Which has been the literal definition of Warframe ever since its conception. Each and every frame has given the possibility of growing stronger, with Prime and Umbral variants. Mods, and weapons can grow, with new and stronger weapons, and ever increasing effects on guns. 

This is why I'm against narratives like yours. I like it when things grow and become better. You know what else has had Power Creep? Remember when Warframes couldn't bullet jump, and bullet glide? This is another form of growth, just like Power Creep is growth for weapons and gear. 
 

11 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

There is an increasingly larger demand for the game's existing content to be more fun, and that means improving existing weapons instead of releasing dozens upon dozens of clones of the same generic assault rifle template. 

Isn't this the demand to do the exact opposite of what you want? I tell you what, advocate for De to release a line of new assault rifles, that start out at a base of 75-100 damage. 

Make a grineer assault rifle with two barrels that spool up and a large ammo pool. Make it do 75 damage a shot and both barrels fire their bullets at the same time, mostly puncture and have innate punch through, then make a corpus lazer at 80 damage, with each pellet making a small aoe, while doing more damage the hotter it gets, and making it have a reload when it overheats. Make a 75 damage per shot infested rifle, that shoots maggots onto their enemies. The maggots then drain additional damage as they feast on enemies. The maggot that kills an enemy then corrupts the enemy into a tenno faction infested that will fight beside you. 

A guarantee these will become the new Meta Assault rifles, and most people won't complain about them.

 

  • Woah 1
  • Applause 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

This is a terribly poor argument. You clearly haven't given it any thought.

Using this general line of vocabulary immediately after having been called out directly on the quality of your own argumentation is a rather questionable choice, and comes across as petty more than anything else.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Using the example that was already brought up, Mk-1 Braton vs Tiberon Prime. If all weapons are equally viable, what's the point of having a Mk-1 Braton, Soma, Boltor, or Burston when you have the Tiberon Prime? They all have the same basic gameplay.

Not to be too rude, but you've made the exact same argument in your previous post, to which I replied in the following manner: 

12 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

... why? What makes you so sure of this hypothesis? The MK-1 Braton doesn't play like any of those weapons, so why would it supplant them? Why not pick a Soma if one wants to mow down large crowds of enemies, which the MK-1 Braton can't do as well? Ultimately yes, there is a problem in that many of these weapons are too similar to each other, but a) this is something that already exists, so in the absolute worst case there would be no decrease in weapon diversity, and b) this is a problem I have already pointed out in the post you are replying to, and my proposal was to differentiate these weapons better so that they each have a distinct flavor and niche.

Seeing how this responds so directly to your point, I would ask that you actually read my argument this time, so as to not repeat it again. If, by contrast, you choose to repeat yourself again on this same manner, it would only confirm that your intention here would be to argue, rather than participate in an intelligent discussion.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Nothing changes between how you use assault rifles. You aim, you pull the trigger. The largest difference, is the Tiberon has different firing modes, which would make weapons like the Latron, and the Burston also pointless to use. The game becomes less interesting, as every weapon is supposed to be as viable as the next. 

This is a rather silly overgeneralization that could easily be extended to guns, weapons, and videogames. Something as simple as projectile speed is enough to differentiate, say, the Boltor from the Tiberon, and as pointed out above, your criticism of the Tiberon Prime applies to the current game, not my proposed rework. What exactly are you trying to attack here?

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Meanwhile weapons that are just upgrades of other weapons really don't provide new gameplay. Ignis Wraith is just a stronger Ignis. Boltor Prime, is just a stronger Boltor. 

As with the above, this is an example of the current game having problems that make its content more interesting. At the end of the day, a game in which there's both the Ignis and the Ignis Wraith as separate weapons is a game where only one will see play. At worst, a rebalance in which the Ignis would be the more viable of the two would be no different from the current state where the Wraith is the better option, particularly since that particular weapon cannot be obtained by normal means.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

One aspect of this scenario that completely goes over your head is that since all weapons aren't balanced around each other, that different weapons excel in different missions. Even then, people will choose the weapon they enjoy, over a strong weapon. I like the Tigris Prime personally. But I know people who can't stand reloading after two shots. I class all weapons in three categories. Mobbing weapons (these weapons are great at killing the weaker enemies in a mission really quickly), Boss killer weapons, (Stuff that shoots slowly, but does massive damage. Lanka, Vectis, or Tigris Prime), or utility weapons (Weapons that have a niche use, like the Zenistar) 

I'm not sure how this scenario "goes completely over [my] head" when it is the exact scenario I am aiming for. If a player can't stand the duplex auto system of the Tigris, that's absolutely fine, they don't have to commit to it. If they love the weapon so much they want to use it forever, that's also fine. Are you suggesting to coerce players into engaging at length with weapons they dislike?

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

The Ignis Wraith (mobbing weapon) can't kill an Eidolon as quickly as a Vectis (Boss killer weapon) can. Yet the Vectis can't kill mobs has fast as the Ignis Wraith can. They aren't balanced around each other, they aren't equally viable. They have different uses, and different scenarios where they shine. This is what promotes people using different weapons. The Tigris Prime doesn't function well at longer range. Plains of Eidolon, and Fortuna you have to be in 30 meters for a chance to hit with the spread. While a Lex Prime, or a Vectis or any sniper can easily take them out.

It's nice that you've eventually noticed this, but this is also a core element of my previous posts already. The very fact that different classes of weapons stand out from each other means there's already some groundwork laid out to give each individual weapon a proper identity. If you read my posts in this thread, you'll notice that I mentioned several times that there are existing examples of weapons with strong identities that stand out from each other, even among weapons of the same class, and the fact that these weapons often have a following of their own I think is an indication that retroactively fleshing out older weapons could achieve similar benefits.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Speaking for myself, my current favorite weapon is the Corinth. It isn't as viable as a Tigris Prime, but it doesn't have to be. When I need to use my Tigris, I will. Otherwise, I like the options the Airburst gives me. I can do good damage with the crit based normal fire, and kill groups with the alt fire. That being said, I am eagerly anticipating the Corinth Prime. Hoping for a meager 5% increased crit chance on the primary fire, some increased status chance on the Airburst, and whatever small tweaks they do to the weapon. Faster reload, would be a welcome change, or higher damage would all be welcome. 

That's cute, but what happens then if DE releases the Arca Plasmor Vandal or whatever, whose hypothetical stats blow the Corinth Prime's out of the water, and raises higher-end difficulty to match this new degree of power creep? It is difficult to advocate deliberate power creep for the sake of some nonsensical business model and simultaneously express attachment towards any particular item, because those two philosophies are fundamentally incompatible. In a world of endless power creep, the toy you love and cherish will ultimately become obsolete, reduced to a mere product to be consumed and discarded. This is why I think we need to stop expecting DE to sell weapons based on power creep, and should instead hold them to the standard of releasing new items that genuinely bring something new to the table.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Because Raw Power is the total measure of the weapon.

No, it very clearly isn't, as many weapons are currently well-liked due to their utility, functionality, or simply their flavor, while not necessarily having the best DPS on paper.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

However, it's more complicated then that. Raw damage is one portion of its worth, then crit and status factoring into the damage. Yet people can still like weaker weapons. Every person I know who doesn't have a Brakk, wants one. You know why? Cause it's a strong secondary. It might not be the best, but people value what it can do.

So... what exactly is your point here? Your first sentence in this paragraph tries to defend the ridiculous notion that a weapon's worth is defined entirely by its raw power, yet the sentences that immediately follow seem to agree with me that weapons can be valued despite not necessarily being BiS. There seems to be a running theme here where many of your arguments not only directly contradict previous ones you made, but also seem to directly agree with my points, despite appearing to try to lecture me in their tone.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

This point of yours isn't even remotely close to being a good argument. Warframe is akin to an MMO. When a new challenge comes out, new better gear comes out as well. Stronger mods, Stronger weapons, thats why those weapons are locked behind Mastery Rank. To force players to level and try out new things they don't want; to be able to get the weapons they do want later. Currently helping two friends level up mastery rank so they can use the Arca Plasmor, and use a high rank riven. 

But Warframe isn't a classic MMO, and even if it were, that's not an excuse to port a dysfunctional system wholesale. Classic MMOs consistently run into the issue of content shrink, where only a small percentage of their content ends up being used to any significant degree by its playerbase. The reason is simple: most content is so far beneath the player's power level that there is simply no reason to engage in it. In turn, this leads players to reach whichever "endgame" is set at the time, then burn out as they have nothing to do until the next content update. Sound familiar? What's more, while these MMOs can afford to have some content shrink due to how easily they can mass-produce items, Warframe cannot, because every single one of its weapons is individually crafted and given its own visuals, stats, and sounds (including variants). Forcing players to try out bad weapons only works until the Mastery is extracted from them, whereupon there ends up being no reason to try those toys out again. Content becomes unused, and the game feels smaller as a result. This is also why it feels like there's so little for veterans to do in the current state of the game, precisely because so much of it is predicated on the shallow consumerist model you are trying to push. If you really care about Warframe and its longevity, you should perhaps realize that trying to force players to play content they dislike, without any regards for the long-term viability of said content, is not a sustainable business model for a videogame in continuous development.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

If you want to slap people in the face, you reward the time they spent in obtaining a weapon or frame by making it criminally underrated. Remember what happened when people thought the Spira Prime was worse then the normal version? Lower damage, lower crit? You see how many people use a weapon they spent time to get, when it ends up being worse in several regards to the normal version? 

How exactly does one make a weapon or frame "underrated", pray tell? People not understanding how the Spira Prime worked initially was a fluke, particularly since the weapon was already intended to be an upgrade from the get-go as a Prime. There is nothing to be gleaned from your argument here, because your argument doesn't actually say anything.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Warframe is a numbers game. Number of enemies killed, number of materials farmed, number of credits received and endo obtained. It just happens to be the most fun math game ever made. People perfect their warframe builds adding in enough power strength to steamroll everything in their path.

What an interesting game, I should perhaps try it sometime. Meanwhile, perhaps I should introduce you to Warframe, a game about ninjas with magic powers with viscerally fun combat and parkour. For sure, the game has number crunching (or at least the illusion of number crunching, since its theorycrafting elements are fairly shallow in practice), but that number crunching doesn't happen in missions, because missions are where the fun shooty stuff happens. At that stage, the most math-y stuff that goes on is the assessment that a weapon is too weak, or an enemy is too bullet-spongy, for the player to kill opponents in a satisfying enough amount of time. There are plenty of deep, strategically engaging number-crunching RPGs out there, but Warframe ain't one of them.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Let's do an experiment. You and I. Let's make a weapon locked behind Mastery rank 15 that you craft using 100k, of every common resource, and 100 of every rare resource. (Orokin Cells and the like). You are unable to see the weapons stats until you make it. When you complete the weapon, it turns out to be a re-skin of the Mk-1 Braton, with the stats on it's base damage just swapped out. Let's see how people react to the time and resources spent on it, then see how many people use the weapon other then Mastery Fodder. Surprise nobody will use it, and only half a dozen enraged posts on the forums about it.

Actually, we have plenty of weapons like those. Weapons like the Hema or the Sibear are notorious for being both very expensive to craft, and far from top-tier in their power (the Sibear is in fact one of the worst non-Machete melee weapons in the game). Want to know what players complain about? The costs, not the power level. Players don't get frustrated when building the Hema because it's only an okay-ish weapon, they get frustrated because the progression towards it is far too grindy to be enjoyable. How to resolve this? Just don't make random parts of the game so needlessly grindy. It's as simple as that, and there should be no need to power creep weapons and warp the entire game's balance for the sake of a crafting recipe where a developer added in a few too many zeroes.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Just like nobody uses the Mk-1 Braton. When was the last time you saw a high ranked player use the lower level weapons? I used the Karak myself recently to prove a point.... Used some of the older Assault Rifles when I got tired of using shotguns, and snipers all the time. (But did use the stronger assault rifles.) The weakest weapon I have seen recently, would have been the Lanka for the last time I went Eidolon farming. 

I haven't seen high-ranked players use lower-level weapons, precisely because lower-level weapons are substantially weaker than the options at their disposal. This is, in fact the very point I am trying to prove, and set as the basis for my points.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Because both are assault rifles. The actual use and feel of both weapons are similar. You rapidly fire weaker bullets in succession to kill enemies. If both weapons are equally viable, the differences between the two become minute. To make the Soma and the Mk-1 braton equally viable would be to make them similar in terms of damage output. The Mk-1 Braton would need to have a faster reload then the Soma to make up for the Soma's larger magazine, otherwise would be almost identical in performance. The Soma would take much more time to acquire, and people wouldn't bother with it. 

Then make the Soma more different from the Braton, or vice versa. Again, this is something that's been said already in this exchange, so it perplexes me that you appear unaware of the fact.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Yet we look at both weapons right now, and it takes 7 Forma to make the Mk-1 Braton have 12k burst dps. https://goo.gl/fMwHnv

It takes the Soma Prime maybe 3 forma to get 32k burst dps. 

Ah yes, paper DPS, the absolute and unerring answer to the entire worth of any weapon, also known as a completely useless number that has no practical application. This isn't to say that you're entirely wrong here: it doesn't take a genius, much less some math formula in a vacuum, to know that the Soma Prime is a better weapon than the MK-1 Braton. Problem is, that much can be ascertained immediately from simply playing the two weapons. I would perhaps avoid relying on paper DPS to make points in the future, even correct ones, as they will usually discredit your work more than they'll support it, again due to paper DPS being a measure in a vacuum that relies on assumptions that hold no water in-game.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Those distinctions already exist. Each weapon already has a distinction by what scenarios they are useful in. Boltor Prime with its high status being able to reach 100% is distinct that it can strip armor, or proc viral on enemies. Different then the Soma which is mainly crit and slash based with hunter munitions, or bladed rounds. Are they equally viable? No. Is there a way to make them equally viable? No. Viral Procs will forever be the strongest aspect of any weapon ever. The Boltor being able to scale infinitely more then the Soma just from status chance. If I take the Boltor against a level 9,999 enemy, I'll kill it faster with corrosive procs, or Viral Procs then the Soma can with its crits. 
 

Again, this goes back to what's been said above: your argument here directly contradicts the one you just made immediately above: are weapons doomed to be better than one another due to raw power, or can they stand out among each other due to their unique functionality and identity? Also, your argument makes no sense: how exactly is a corrosive or viral proc going to help more than critical Slash procs when the latter can do an order of magnitude more damage, even against level 9999 enemies? I'm not really getting the notion that there's a good understanding of how the game works in these arguments you're making, even though your objections point to some really specific mechanics.  

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Is exactly what I'm telling you. The drakgoon, and the karak were one of my first weapons. I am very fond of each. I have some 400% accuracy with the Drakgoon, and the Karak just feels good to me. Yet if they were as strong as the other weapons why would I bother spend so much time, going into relic missions, farming and spending voice traces all to get a weapon that was mostly identical to something I had gotten for half the work? I'm not saying that all lower weapons should be buffed. I'm saying the reasoning behind people advocating for buffs is because they do like their old weapons, and frames. They don't want their golden oldies left in the dust. 

Not everybody holds onto the same items forever, and for those that do, why exactly are you trying to force them to do otherwise by watering down what they enjoy? Again, you seem to be actively pushing for a model where no player can truly commit to any one item, because that item will inevitably get power-creeped into obsolescence. Not only is this not nearly as good for DE's business as you think (it's in fact rather bad, as noted even now by the perception of their older content), as a design philosophy it's just kinda sad. Do you not feel even a little bit bad that the weapons you love are no longer viable? 

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Let me give you another word for stable. Stagnation. If everything is made to be stable, there is no room for growth. A ceiling has been set that caps out the capability of what all weapons can do. The game will quickly get boring, as people collect endlessly similar weapons. 

This is, once again, an utterly horrendous argument, not least because it completely misunderstands the point it attempts to address. First, just so we're clear, "stable" and "stagnant" are not the same thing, and even if you want to talk about "stagnation", that much is a trait you'd generally want from the overall state of a game's balance, because if a game's balance is jumping all over the place, that game is likely to frustrate a lot of players and lose them if it gets bad enough. Second, I am specifically talking about making the game's balance stable here, nothing more. In this respect, I am not asking for the entire game itself to be stable, or stagnant as you'd call it (where exactly did you even get that idea?), I am merely asking for a solid foundation so that the entire rest of the game can in fact be more dynamic, with players being able to engage with a much broader range of content and still enjoy it. Once again, not everybody is of the mindset that they feel like playing only one weapon they like, and the fact that Warframe is a game notorious for having very few truly dedicated warframe "mains", despite its many dedicated communities for each established frame, goes to show that the most common sort of player is, in fact, a player who naturally tries out new things, even if they may prefer one set of frames, weapons, etc. to others.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I prefer a game that can grow. Which has been the literal definition of Warframe ever since its conception. Each and every frame has given the possibility of growing stronger, with Prime and Umbral variants. Mods, and weapons can grow, with new and stronger weapons, and ever increasing effects on guns. 

Except none of that is growth, it's simply incrementing a number on a hidden spreadsheet. Tell me, what new gameplay exactly does a Prime frame add to its normal variant? What "growth" does it bring to Warframe's gameplay? How exactly does the game grow when one weapon completely supplants another? You may personally confuse power creep with growth, but many more players clearly do not make that association, as a growing complaint among the community has been the dearth of content after one has grinded to the top. If Warframe is to grow, it is going to have to grow durably, i.e. by genuinely adding gameplay, rather than reskins of the same weapon. Thankfully, DE no longer truly does this, because we as a playerbase hold them to a higher standard, and they know that it would harm them if they reverted to pushing out generic content on a treadmill. Warframe is entering its maturation phase, so let's perhaps stop pretending that it needs to behave like it's in 2013.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

This is why I'm against narratives like yours. I like it when things grow and become better. You know what else has had Power Creep? Remember when Warframes couldn't bullet jump, and bullet glide? This is another form of growth, just like Power Creep is growth for weapons and gear. 

This argument, once again, confuses a whole bunch of things together under the very restrictive optics of pure power. Sure, you can think of bullet jumping and aim gliding purely in terms of power increases, but the reality is that both of these features offered new gameplay that enhanced the experience of players, which is why they were worthy additions to the game. By contrast, releasing a rehashed version of an older weapon with slightly bigger numbers does not add new gameplay, and in fact it diminishes the experience of players by rendering older content obsolete, with no relative gain in usable content (there's still only one usable item). Make no mistake, I personally am in favor of many changes that could be counted as "power creep": I think Vacuum needs to be a universal passive effect on all warframes, and I think weapon swapping and ability casting should both be buffed to the level of Speed Holster and Natural Talent respectively, with those two mods being subsequently removed. I would like these changes to happen not because I want to be more powerful, but because those changes would significantly improve quality of play overall by making it smoother. I have absolutely no desire for the game to stagnate, and in fact I too would like it to grow. This is also why I'd oppose your own model of "growth", because the growth you're suggesting doesn't actually grow the game at all, it only fuels an incredibly short-sighted and narrow view of personal progression, in a manner that only diminishes the game over time.

2 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Isn't this the demand to do the exact opposite of what you want? I tell you what, advocate for De to release a line of new assault rifles, that start out at a base of 75-100 damage. 

Make a grineer assault rifle with two barrels that spool up and a large ammo pool. Make it do 75 damage a shot and both barrels fire their bullets at the same time, mostly puncture and have innate punch through, then make a corpus lazer at 80 damage, with each pellet making a small aoe, while doing more damage the hotter it gets, and making it have a reload when it overheats. Make a 75 damage per shot infested rifle, that shoots maggots onto their enemies. The maggots then drain additional damage as they feast on enemies. The maggot that kills an enemy then corrupts the enemy into a tenno faction infested that will fight beside you. 

A guarantee these will become the new Meta Assault rifles, and most people won't complain about them.

Um, sure? If you have ideas you want to share, there's a forum for that, but as it stands I cannot make head nor tail of what this little aside has to do with this discussion. I also fail to see the contradiction in my proposal, since what I have been advocating from the very beginning has been to work on improving the game's current content and enhancing its diversity.

  • Applause 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

This is a rather silly overgeneralization that could easily be extended to guns, weapons, and videogames. Something as simple as projectile speed is enough to differentiate, say, the Boltor from the Tiberon, and as pointed out above, your criticism of the Tiberon Prime applies to the current game, not my proposed rework. What exactly are you trying to attack here?

No. Your comment on assault rifles isn't enough of a difference to differentiate them. When they are functionally the same, the use and feel of each are too similar for a clear distinction. If I see an enemy running towards me, I dispatch them in the exact same way with all the weapons listed above. I would argue that different fire types, (Burst, semi, and automatic) Would make them Feel functionally different. But when you are comparing a generic assault rifle to another, if they are both automatic, (Like the Soma to the Mk-1 Braton) The biggest difference in how they feel is the damage they can put out. The Boltor, Soma, Braton, and Tiberon when its on fully auto feel exactly the same. 

When I use Mag's crush, and Frost's avalanche, They feel the same to me. They have small differences in their abilities, but when more is similar between the two, they feel more alike, then they feel different. They both do the same amount of damage, with different supplemental effects. Costing 100 energy, being an AoE, you can pretend they are a different flavor, and they feel differently, it just isn't the case. This is why your argument fails. 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

As with the above, this is an example of the current game having problems that make its content more interesting. At the end of the day, a game in which there's both the Ignis and the Ignis Wraith as separate weapons is a game where only one will see play. At worst, a rebalance in which the Ignis would be the more viable of the two would be no different from the current state where the Wraith is the better option, particularly since that particular weapon cannot be obtained by normal means.

A constant flaw in your logic is pretty evident here. The Ignis requires Mastery Rank 5, with the Wraith being MR9. The difference between these two is a sense of progression. So if you have two variants of weapons, and both of them are equally viable... what's the point of having a different version that's functionally the same locked away? Having one being an exclusive upgrade from an event, rewards those players who participated in the event. The Wraith version is marginally stronger then the normal version. 2 more base damage, slightly more ammo, slightly more crit, and status. If you didn't have the exclusive variant, You could use the normal version, and it would be only slightly less effective. If you rebalance the Ignis to be as viable as the Wraith... there's no point in having the wraith version to begin with. Are you going to suggest that they share the exact same stats, (doesn't make sense that their damage types would change) that the other just has slower projectile speed then the other? You try to use some insignificant difference to make them feel different, and it's honestly just pointless. I would encourage you to try to tell me how you would make each of these viable, and feel "different". 

You really don't understand how your proposal would make most weapons redundant. Your changes wouldn't make the game feel more interesting, your changes would be a superficial change that makes weapons look more different, and feel the same as something else. 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

I'm not sure how this scenario "goes completely over [my] head" when it is the exact scenario I am aiming for. If a player can't stand the duplex auto system of the Tigris, that's absolutely fine, they don't have to commit to it. If they love the weapon so much they want to use it forever, that's also fine. Are you suggesting to coerce players into engaging at length with weapons they dislike?

This is a blatant contradiction in your argument. The Tigris is probably the strongest weapon in the game to date. People don't use it cause of how it feels. If you want all weapons equally viable, this means two things. You either bring all shotguns up to its level, or nerf the Tigris that it loses its identity. It being Duplex, is offset by its high damage. It is based around having two decimating shots. You can mod it to have punch through to deal with groups of enemies with those two shots. However, why would anyone use the Tigris Prime if other shotguns were just as viable, in the damage category, and status chance? If the Boar Prime had the damage capability of the Tigris, but more shots, nobody would bother with the Tigris? Much larger magazine, and better ability to clear mobs. 

 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

It's nice that you've eventually noticed this, but this is also a core element of my previous posts already. The very fact that different classes of weapons stand out from each other means there's already some groundwork laid out to give each individual weapon a proper identity. If you read my posts in this thread, you'll notice that I mentioned several times that there are existing examples of weapons with strong identities that stand out from each other, even among weapons of the same class, and the fact that these weapons often have a following of their own I think is an indication that retroactively fleshing out older weapons could achieve similar benefits.

This is the opposite of making all weapons equally viable. Having a Tigris not viable in certain missions... makes it not viable. Weapons need to stand out from each other, which you will be completely unable to do with your proposals. I would love for you to try to make weapons distinct from each other, while homogenizing them to all do the same range of dps. 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

That's cute, but what happens then if DE releases the Arca Plasmor Vandal or whatever, whose hypothetical stats blow the Corinth Prime's out of the water, and raises higher-end difficulty to match this new degree of power creep? It is difficult to advocate deliberate power creep for the sake of some nonsensical business model and simultaneously express attachment towards any particular item, because those two philosophies are fundamentally incompatible. In a world of endless power creep, the toy you love and cherish will ultimately become obsolete, reduced to a mere product to be consumed and discarded. This is why I think we need to stop expecting DE to sell weapons based on power creep, and should instead hold them to the standard of releasing new items that genuinely bring something new to the table.

Wouldn't bother me. I like both the Arca Plasmor, and the Corinth. The Arca plasmor already does 60 more damage per shot, but the Corinth has more crit chance, and much more crit damage. Could you interest me in a stronger version of both? Absolutely. Arbitrations, raids, and raid bosses I particularly enjoy. You give me better weapons to take on a bigger challenge. That's how all MMO's works. (See WoW, Final Fantasy 14, DCUO, Destiny, anything where new expansion comes out, max level is increased, and new better gear comes out for the new raids and missions. 
 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

But Warframe isn't a classic MMO, and even if it were, that's not an excuse to port a dysfunctional system wholesale. Classic MMOs consistently run into the issue of content shrink, where only a small percentage of their content ends up being used to any significant degree by its playerbase. 

Warframe isn't a classic MMO. Yet it is one. Remember Warframe's raids? The ones DE removed as only a small percentage of their player base played that content? A smaller percent of player base participate in Eidolons, even fewer ever experience the higher Mastery Rank tests. You literally just defined Warframe. As harder challenges are presented to the players, new stronger gear is offered as a reward. That's how they get you to come back. Arbitrations are this to the letter. +300% to weapons and frames, against the highest level enemies.

If I took a break from Warframe, and let it sit for two years, Would I be still be interested to coming back to it, if the weapons and warframes I used were still considered top tier viable or the best? No. Cause it's not interesting. I have nothing that would call me back that I would want to experience. The level cap of warframe will probably always be 30, with the biggest change probably being mods, or new primes to collect. 

 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

What's more, while these MMOs can afford to have some content shrink due to how easily they can mass-produce items, Warframe cannot, because every single one of its weapons is individually crafted and given its own visuals, stats, and sounds (including variants). Forcing players to try out bad weapons only works until the Mastery is extracted from them, whereupon there ends up being no reason to try those toys out again. Content becomes unused, and the game feels smaller as a result.

Not correct. MMOs still have to model all the new weapons, and armor for each available character model. Small characters, different genders, and the like will all have to have the new gear look differently and be made to fit them appropriately. The weapons and gear will also come with their own stats, and look separate from other gear. If their are multiple races, they will have to make multiple renditions for each one. 

Warframe in the past already had mass produced items, and as the game has grown, they have grown past that. I remember when the Torid looked just like the Ogris. (When both of them were these weird blocky rocket launchers.) They still do reuse content, when they make a variant of a weapon. Making a Sancti Tigris for example is less work then making a new gun altogether. Primes give DE a basis for a warframe, which they equip already existing powers to. 

Warframe can afford a content shrink as it has been affording a content shrink. How many guns are there? How many frames total? How many missions including bounties and raid bosses? How many types of enemies are there, including the variants? Warframe has more then enough content to survive the content shrink. 
 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

No, it very clearly isn't, as many weapons are currently well-liked due to their utility, functionality, or simply their flavor, while not necessarily having the best DPS on paper.

So... what exactly is your point here? Your first sentence in this paragraph tries to defend the ridiculous notion that a weapon's worth is defined entirely by its raw power, yet the sentences that immediately follow seem to agree with me that weapons can be valued despite not necessarily being BiS. There seems to be a running theme here where many of your arguments not only directly contradict previous ones you made, but also seem to directly agree with my points, despite appearing to try to lecture me in their tone.


The weapons people use, don't have to be the strongest. They simply have to be strong enough. Fun is a factor of what people like. People want fun weapons to be stronger, which is why they advocate for those weapons to be buffed, when power creep puts them to shame. My point, is weapon balance is more complicated then how hard weapons hit, and more the total potential that weapon has. The Tigris Prime is more then its base damage. It's also the number of pellets it has, with its high status chance. Each pellet being able to proc Viral, Corrosive, procs, and the numerous slash procs chipping away at an enemy. The most popular weapons, are the weapons that have a mix of everything. Strong, with utility. These weapons are also locked away behind Mastery Rank. Players will have to progress to get these weapons, and will get these weapons sooner then they will get the absolutely strongest weapons. The reason people enjoy these weapons is because they are stronger and more interesting then the starter weapons like the Mk-1 Braton. The utility adding another layer to why the weapon is good then just a gimmick bandaid to try to differentiate the weapon. 

 

 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

How exactly does one make a weapon or frame "underrated", pray tell? People not understanding how the Spira Prime worked initially was a fluke, particularly since the weapon was already intended to be an upgrade from the get-go as a Prime. There is nothing to be gleaned from your argument here, because your argument doesn't actually say anything.

 

 

Seems like you aren't familiar to the state which Spira Prime was introduced. 
maxresdefault.jpg

Notice that it had less raw damage then the normal Spira. Less Crit chance, and marginally higher status chance. It was a downgrade no matter how you looked at it. DE caved to popular opinion, and eventually based the Crit chance to 30%, crit damage to 3x, raised the raw damage, and raised the status chance. 

This was an example of a weapon people farmed that was closer to being equally viable as the version before it. Imagine my surprise when I heard people were upset. 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

For sure, the game has number crunching (or at least the illusion of number crunching, since its theorycrafting elements are fairly shallow in practice), but that number crunching doesn't happen in missions, because missions are where the fun shooty stuff happens. At that stage, the most math-y stuff that goes on is the assessment that a weapon is too weak, or an enemy is too bullet-spongy, for the player to kill opponents in a satisfying enough amount of time. There are plenty of deep, strategically engaging number-crunching RPGs out there, but Warframe ain't one of them.

The term is called Min-Maxing. Seems like you are retreating towards insults to make up for your poor argument... The term comes from when Corrupted mods came out from derelict missions, where people minimized one aspect of their Warframe to boost another stat they valued more on that Warframe's kit say using blind rage. Min-maxing has been made infinitely easier on Warframe ever since they added the ability to let you see how mods effect your Warframes powers. It doesn't happen in missions, it happens before. People make different loadouts with different focuses. Speed Nova, is a good example. (Where you have negative Power Strength to make enemies faster)

Warframe isn't one of them to you. The farther you get into endgame the more frequently do stats become important. (This is why Rivens are valued so much, and sell for so much. Regardless of how badly you would try to ignore this fact.) 
 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

Then make the Soma more different from the Braton, or vice versa. Again, this is something that's been said already in this exchange, so it perplexes me that you appear unaware of the fact.

Ah yes, paper DPS, the absolute and unerring answer to the entire worth of any weapon, also known as a completely useless number that has no practical application. This isn't to say that you're entirely wrong here: it doesn't take a genius, much less some math formula in a vacuum, to know that the Soma Prime is a better weapon than the MK-1 Braton. Problem is, that much can be ascertained immediately from simply playing the two weapons.

Actually.... In this specific scenario. The Mk-1 Braton looks better then the Soma if you don't know that to look for. I have mentored newbies, who look at the Soma's base damage. (Lower the Mk-1) and discredit it because they don't see the crit chance or the crit damage. Also to break your narrative, most times you can't experience a weapon's gimmick till you actually have the weapon made. You don't see certain stats, like the total ammo count till you use the weapon. The Soma starts out weaker, without any mods, then grows to almost 3x stronger. 

Paper Dps matters, cause it represents the total potential weapons have. You should become very knowledgeable on this, as Paper Dps is what you want to balance. To make things equally viable.... it should be very important to you. How you wave it off, is very telling. Adjusting these numbers is how you get to your goal. 
 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

Again, this goes back to what's been said above: your argument here directly contradicts the one you just made immediately above: are weapons doomed to be better than one another due to raw power, or can they stand out among each other due to their unique functionality and identity? Also, your argument makes no sense: how exactly is a corrosive or viral proc going to help more than critical Slash procs when the latter can do an order of magnitude more damage, even against level 9999 enemies? I'm not really getting the notion that there's a good understanding of how the game works in these arguments you're making, even though your objections point to some really specific mechanics. 

Balancing is more then raw power. Crit and Status are to be factored into what makes weapons viable. Tigris Prime is a monster more because of its status chance. I'll give you an example.  Viral cuts the enemies health in half for the duration, and Corrosive permanently reduces armor. a level 9,999 enemy would have massive amount of armor, or health. Armor would make the Soma extremely ineffective, and Viral would reduce the amount of health actually needed to kill the enemy by half. Viral scales to the enemy you hit with it, Slash Procs do not, especially when reduced by armor. 

Your understanding is what's lacking. Viral is one of the strongest ways to deal damage in the game, since it reduces a flat 50% of enemy health. According to the lovely Warframe Wikipedia. 

A certain Sprag 

Would have an effective health of 14,939,126,528,345. A viral proc would cut that in half, making them only need to take 7,469,563,264,172.5 damage to be killed. This is probably the most damage a Viral Proc will ever do. But will do more damage then a slash proc would. A status chance weapon is inherently more viable then a crit weapon. The higher level you go, the more viral does. 

Spoiler alert, That enemy came in a pair. Two enemies at that level. They both died. 
The home stretch.
 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

Not everybody holds onto the same items forever, and for those that do, why exactly are you trying to force them to do otherwise by watering down what they enjoy? Again, you seem to be actively pushing for a model where no player can truly commit to any one item, because that item will inevitably get power-creeped into obsolescence. Not only is this not nearly as good for DE's business as you think (it's in fact rather bad, as noted even now by the perception of their older content), as a design philosophy it's just kinda sad. Do you not feel even a little bit bad that the weapons you love are no longer viable?

Not trying to water down anything. As I'm not advocating for anyone to get a nerf their weapons. Im unclear on how you exactly want to make everything Viable. (Either nerfing weapons around what you consider a balanced weapon, or balancing every weapon around the single most powerful one. 

That being said, those weapons that are power creeped eventually by something else, will never lose their effectiveness on the levels of enemies they were able to kill. (I'm not advocating for nerfs.) If I get a prime version of a warframe, I'm not mad that my original version was improved. A better weapon came out for a stronger enemy. This doesn't bother me at all... As technology constantly replaces older technology. A better, improved car, doesn't detract from the performance my car already has. A better improved weapon doesn't detract from the weapon I already have. (Unless you want my weapon nerfed. Which then I would ask you, Why exact;ty are you trying to force them to do by watering down what they enjoy?
 

 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

This is, once again, an utterly horrendous argument, not least because it completely misunderstands the point it attempts to address. First, just so we're clear, "stable" and "stagnant" are not the same thing, and even if you want to talk about "stagnation", that much is a trait you'd generally want from the overall state of a game's balance, because if a game's balance is jumping all over the place, that game is likely to frustrate a lot of players and lose them if it gets bad enough. 

Stagnation is not a trait I want in a game, about infinitely scaling enemies. If this was a PvP game, I would care for balance. The game is about Warframes that adapt to ever stronger enemies. Even in the Lore, sentients who could nearly adapt to everything, except the power of warframes. You do not want to stagnate the game for a few reasons. If every gun is minor tweaks of the other, in around the same damage capabilities, then the game turns into "My favorite Gimmick." Weapons would soon be more similar to each other, as the only way to make them different is whatever pointless gimmick you think makes it special and better then the other gimmicks. Secondly, it would remove all sense of progression and getting stronger. This has been the whole point of the game. This is why ever increasing, more potent mods and primes are released. Again, Warframe is an MMO. All MMO's have players grow ever stronger till the game ends. Having stronger challenges keeps the game interesting, and limiting weapons, would by extension limit what level of enemies people could handle with their weapons. 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

Except none of that is growth, it's simply incrementing a number on a hidden spreadsheet. Tell me, what new gameplay exactly does a Prime frame add to its normal variant? What "growth" does it bring to Warframe's gameplay?

So if a number gets larger, it's called "growth" Growing older for example is when you simply increment a number on a hidden spreadsheet called a person's age. 
Prime variants, can be much stronger then their original forms depending on their abilities. Chroma Prime grows much stronger then normal Chroma, as he has more armor now. Armor that then scales up with his abilities, to make him vastly more tanky. Weapons like the Tigris grow much stronger when the Tigris Prime comes out, does approximately 50% more damage then the base version, and thus be able to kill much higher level enemies. Other Primes have different gimmicks. Getting energy when you touch a Death orb, or the Piranha Prime and it's unique gimmick. I believe that several other Primes get special gimmicks, like the Cernos Prime. This lets us fight higher level enemies, and grow stronger. 

When I started Warframe, I couldn't handle level 27 enemies. Now, I can regularly fight enemies over level 300. 
 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

Sure, you can think of bullet jumping and aim gliding purely in terms of power increases, but the reality is that both of these features offered new gameplay that enhanced the experience of players, which is why they were worthy additions to the game. 


Hate to break it to you. Bullet Jumping can be pretty generalized, as adding a +1 to a spread sheet. It's a stronger form of something we had before. Something that grew stronger, added the height of which players could jump, and gave us new capabilities. Limiting what weapons can do, restricts capabilities. Telling DE that they can't do things, is also telling them that there are certain worthy additions to the game that they cannot add. This is a terrible position to make on your part. 

 

On 2018-12-02 at 4:01 AM, Teridax68 said:

By contrast, releasing a rehashed version of an older weapon with slightly bigger numbers does not add new gameplay, and in fact it diminishes the experience of players by rendering older content obsolete, with no relative gain in usable content (there's still only one usable item). Make no mistake, I personally am in favor of many changes that could be counted as "power creep": I think Vacuum needs to be a universal passive effect on all warframes, and I think weapon swapping and ability casting should both be buffed to the level of Speed Holster and Natural Talent respectively, with those two mods being subsequently removed.

Except that it does add new gameplay. Old content becoming obsolete, has no impact on the weapons in their current state, in the current situations they are useful in. 
Meanwhile, certain abilities that could be cast faster, would no doubt make other warframes more powerful. Thurible for example would be massively stronger if it was faster, and Garuda's current ultimate (which was made faster) for example. Several Primes have had more then numbers tweaked, but when Sentients come out. Does the Cernos Prime offer more gamplay then the now obsolete version? Yes. Would it be worth it without the damage numbers? No. People would be upset, if they got their old weapons repackaged to them with just a gimmick, and basically a skin. Better weapons that feel and kill better make people feel stronger, and keeps the game fresh. 

I played Destiny, which keeps weapons always feeling balanced to each other. I could be 100 light level over an enemy, and my weapon felt like it did the exact damage no matter what. The only difference I personally ever felt, was if I was using a weapon that was too low level. Felt like I would be doing no damage. So I got bored, as no matter what, enemies had the same time to kill, and it felt like it took forever to kill anything to get loot. 

I quit Destiny, never looked back. (Never bothered with Destiny 2.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

No. Your comment on assault rifles isn't enough of a difference to differentiate them. When they are functionally the same, the use and feel of each are too similar for a clear distinction. If I see an enemy running towards me, I dispatch them in the exact same way with all the weapons listed above. I would argue that different fire types, (Burst, semi, and automatic) Would make them Feel functionally different. But when you are comparing a generic assault rifle to another, if they are both automatic, (Like the Soma to the Mk-1 Braton) The biggest difference in how they feel is the damage they can put out. The Boltor, Soma, Braton, and Tiberon when its on fully auto feel exactly the same. 

You are merely repeating yourself here. Once again, by your same logic, any gun is the same as any other gun, by dint of killing enemies at the press of a button. If the difference I pointed out "isn't enough", then please, by all means, do explain why.

Quote

When I use Mag's crush, and Frost's avalanche, They feel the same to me. They have small differences in their abilities, but when more is similar between the two, they feel more alike, then they feel different. They both do the same amount of damage, with different supplemental effects. Costing 100 energy, being an AoE, you can pretend they are a different flavor, and they feel differently, it just isn't the case. This is why your argument fails. 

So my argument fails... because you personally can't tell the difference between two very different abilities? Alrighty then.

Quote

A constant flaw in your logic is pretty evident here. The Ignis requires Mastery Rank 5, with the Wraith being MR9. The difference between these two is a sense of progression.

... to you. It is also rather silly of you to claim "a sense of progression" with specific regards to the Ignis Wraith, since as has already been mentioned, the Wraith is currently unobtainable unless you're in a clan that participated in a prior event, or are trading with one of its members. It is not a weapon that is unlocked throughout the natural course of progression as with, say, the Opticor. It's flim-flam like this that suggests the "sense of progression" you're trying to present here is, at best, too arbitrarily dependent upon your own preferences to have any general application, and at worst merely a made-up argument for the sake of arguing.

Quote

So if you have two variants of weapons, and both of them are equally viable... what's the point of having a different version that's functionally the same locked away?

That is in fact the exact same question I myself raised previously in this thread. My personal answer is simply that there isn't. There is strictly no reason to release the same weapon more than once, because the end result is that only one of those weapons will be viable. As such, DE should probably reconsider their variants in the future, and instead work on creating content that doesn't render older items obsolete. In the end, though, this question is strictly irrelevant to the balancing I'm proposing, because at the end of the day, it makes no difference which of the two weapon variants is unused if both are the same.

Quote

Having one being an exclusive upgrade from an event, rewards those players who participated in the event. The Wraith version is marginally stronger then the normal version. 2 more base damage, slightly more ammo, slightly more crit, and status. If you didn't have the exclusive variant, You could use the normal version, and it would be only slightly less effective.

And this is good... why? Why exactly is it a good idea to "reward" players with pure increases in power, when doing so lowers the game's challenge?

Quote

If you rebalance the Ignis to be as viable as the Wraith... there's no point in having the wraith version to begin with.

I completely agree.

Quote

Are you going to suggest that they share the exact same stats, (doesn't make sense that their damage types would change) that the other just has slower projectile speed then the other? You try to use some insignificant difference to make them feel different, and it's honestly just pointless. I would encourage you to try to tell me how you would make each of these viable, and feel "different". 

No, actually, I just think we should stop having variants, because variants are ultimately just the same weapon released twice, with some rare exceptions (e.g. the Pyrana Prime). Perhaps the Wraith could be altered to have drastically different functionality relative to the normal Ignis (e.g. the normal Ignis could be purely crit-based and the Wraith purely status-based, or vice versa), but at the end of the day, weapon variants are a relic from a time in Warframe where DE needed to put quantity over quality, and so released weapon reskins as separate weapons from the originals. This is not a system that really has a place in a game where players have come to expect higher quality on each individual piece of content. 

Quote

You really don't understand how your proposal would make most weapons redundant. Your changes wouldn't make the game feel more interesting, your changes would be a superficial change that makes weapons look more different, and feel the same as something else. 

Actually, I acknowledged and responded to this above: in the worst case, for sure there would be some redundant weapons, though even then the difference between the most and least viable weapons would be severely reduced. What you really don't understand, however, is that the redundancy of weapons is a thing that already exists: we already have weapons that are identical to each other, and where one ends up standing out as the best. This is a problem that already exists within the current game, so it is not something my own proposed changes would bring about. If you're so upset at weapons being redundant, then perhaps direct that emotion towards the current state of the game, which has an arsenal full of identical or near-identical weapons (which, by the way, I am suggesting to differentiate, so I am in effect proposing to answer the problem you are pointing out).

Quote

This is a blatant contradiction in your argument. The Tigris is probably the strongest weapon in the game to date. People don't use it cause of how it feels. If you want all weapons equally viable, this means two things. You either bring all shotguns up to its level, or nerf the Tigris that it loses its identity. It being Duplex, is offset by its high damage. It is based around having two decimating shots. You can mod it to have punch through to deal with groups of enemies with those two shots. However, why would anyone use the Tigris Prime if other shotguns were just as viable, in the damage category, and status chance? If the Boar Prime had the damage capability of the Tigris, but more shots, nobody would bother with the Tigris? Much larger magazine, and better ability to clear mobs. 

Because they'd enjoy how it feels? The only "blatant contradiction" here is that you can't seem to reconcile the possibility of the Tigris Prime being picked by some players despite not being the single most powerful weapon in the game. In a hypothetical balanced environment, where the Tigris Prime is on the same power level as other shotguns, there is nothing preventing it from being picked by players who like it. Where exactly then is the contradiction? From the looks of it, you've mostly just gotten yourself into a muddle over which stats would best quantify the weapon's arbitrary power value in your head, which I'm sorry to say is absolutely not my problem.

Quote

This is the opposite of making all weapons equally viable. Having a Tigris not viable in certain missions... makes it not viable. Weapons need to stand out from each other, which you will be completely unable to do with your proposals. I would love for you to try to make weapons distinct from each other, while homogenizing them to all do the same range of dps.

A weapon can be viable without being the best in every situation, and I don't quite see why you'd believe otherwise. The Lanka, for example, is a weapon that sees use because it's excellent at killing Eidolons, even though sniper rifles as a weapon class are generally not very popular outside of Eidolon hunting. It is, therefore, a viable weapon, despite not being viable in certain missions (or at least not BiS). It doesn't seem like you quite grasp the concept of a niche, and your excessive focus on paper DPS I feel is clouding the way you actually look at weapons and their gameplay differences.

Quote

Wouldn't bother me. I like both the Arca Plasmor, and the Corinth. The Arca plasmor already does 60 more damage per shot, but the Corinth has more crit chance, and much more crit damage. Could you interest me in a stronger version of both? Absolutely. Arbitrations, raids, and raid bosses I particularly enjoy.

So you'd abandon your favorite weapon forever just to use another that's flat-out stronger? Alrighty then. I hope you realize not everyone feels this way, nor should they.

Quote

You give me better weapons to take on a bigger challenge. That's how all MMO's works. (See WoW, Final Fantasy 14, DCUO, Destiny, anything where new expansion comes out, max level is increased, and new better gear comes out for the new raids and missions.

And which "bigger challenge" exists in Warframe, pray tell? Arbitrations, Sorties, ESO, and Tridolons, aren't particularly severe gear checks, Raids are gone, and DE hasn't given us missions that start us out with enemies over level 100 for quite some time. Even if such content did exist that required the best gear, why would that be a good thing? What would happen to this content when players eventually get powercreeped enough for it to become trivial? What you don't seem to realize is that you're asking for Warframe to massively reduce the size of its own usable content for the sake of your personal fantasy: you can either have a game where all content is engaging to play, or a power fantasy where you just keep getting stronger, but you can't have both.

Quote

Warframe isn't a classic MMO. Yet it is one.

Um, what? So what is the truth then?

Quote

Remember Warframe's raids? The ones DE removed as only a small percentage of their player base played that content? A smaller percent of player base participate in Eidolons, even fewer ever experience the higher Mastery Rank tests. You literally just defined Warframe. As harder challenges are presented to the players, new stronger gear is offered as a reward. That's how they get you to come back. Arbitrations are this to the letter. +300% to weapons and frames, against the highest level enemies.

And this makes Warframe a classic MMO... how? Difficulty curves are by no means exclusive to MMOs, nor is niche content within a game. I completely fail to see the point you are making here, particularly since it does absolutely nothing to contradict what I've said about Warframe's own content, and how it cannot afford to trivialize it.

Quote

If I took a break from Warframe, and let it sit for two years, Would I be still be interested to coming back to it, if the weapons and warframes I used were still considered top tier viable or the best? No. Cause it's not interesting. I have nothing that would call me back that I would want to experience. The level cap of warframe will probably always be 30, with the biggest change probably being mods, or new primes to collect. 

Sure, except this is nothing but your own opinion. By contrast, many returning players have expressed dismay at the fact that the weapons they loved have been power creeped out of viability, and this in fact is one of the game's causes of burnout. I hope you realize that the bulk of your own argumentation in this thread boils down to just you personally wanting power creep in the game, rather than this being an opinion shared by many more people, let alone the majority of players.

Quote

Not correct. MMOs still have to model all the new weapons, and armor for each available character model. Small characters, different genders, and the like will all have to have the new gear look differently and be made to fit them appropriately. The weapons and gear will also come with their own stats, and look separate from other gear. If their are multiple races, they will have to make multiple renditions for each one. 

Wrong. Those models are frequently reskins, and many of them are simply textures applied to the same baseline format (e.g. tabards). If you genuinely believe that every single weapon, shirt, armor piece, etc. in, say, World of Warcraft is individually hand-crafted with its own model, sound design, and animations, I don't quite know what to tell you, other than to perhaps actually take a look at reality.

Quote

Warframe in the past already had mass produced items, and as the game has grown, they have grown past that. I remember when the Torid looked just like the Ogris. (When both of them were these weird blocky rocket launchers.) They still do reuse content, when they make a variant of a weapon. Making a Sancti Tigris for example is less work then making a new gun altogether. Primes give DE a basis for a warframe, which they equip already existing powers to. 

I don't think we're really in disagreement here. Warframe does have reskins, but those have fallen out of favor as players have demanded better quality of content, and even then, there aren't actually that many reskins relative to the total number of weapons. I'm glad you've finally acknowledged that DE has indeed moved past the need to mass-produce low-quality items, and for that I'd perhaps invite you to reconsider your insistence upon having them release power creeped reskins in the future.

Quote

Warframe can afford a content shrink as it has been affording a content shrink. How many guns are there? How many frames total? How many missions including bounties and raid bosses? How many types of enemies are there, including the variants? Warframe has more then enough content to survive the content shrink. 

As has just been pointed out, no, it can't, because it hasn't. As has been said, many players now are complaining about the dearth of usable content in the game, the content drought, and Fortuna's lack of longevity. If all of the game were fully replayable, nobody would be having an issue, because the actual amount of content in the game is vast. However, because only a small amount of that content gives any incentive to be played, and so because power creep and finite progression have caused all other parts of the game to become trivial, veterans end up with only a tiny amount of repetitive content that could interest them, sometimes none at all. This is why there's been a call for proper endgame content, for weapon rebalancing, and for ways to reinject replayability into existing content. Do you not realize that the agenda you're pushing is what's already causing severe problems with the current game?

Quote

The weapons people use, don't have to be the strongest. They simply have to be strong enough. Fun is a factor of what people like. People want fun weapons to be stronger, which is why they advocate for those weapons to be buffed, when power creep puts them to shame.

This is interesting, because we seem to be converging upon an agreement, despite how what you're saying now conflicts entirely with what you'd been saying immediately before. I completely agree, people want fun weapons to be strong, even if they're not the strongest in the game, hence they don't want them to be power creeped out. This I think is a valid reason for why we shouldn't have power creep at all.

Quote

My point, is weapon balance is more complicated then how hard weapons hit, and more the total potential that weapon has. The Tigris Prime is more then its base damage. It's also the number of pellets it has, with its high status chance. Each pellet being able to proc Viral, Corrosive, procs, and the numerous slash procs chipping away at an enemy. The most popular weapons, are the weapons that have a mix of everything. Strong, with utility. These weapons are also locked away behind Mastery Rank.

So first off, this isn't true, as the most powerful weapons in the game tend to just be damage hoses, and whichever "utility" they have are usually just status effects that only end up adding more damage (which ultimately doesn't make any of these effects very different from crit). Also, why exactly are you bringing up the specifics of what you consider to be a measure of weapon power? Where have I been arguing otherwise? Why is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

Quote

Players will have to progress to get these weapons, and will get these weapons sooner then they will get the absolutely strongest weapons. The reason people enjoy these weapons is because they are stronger and more interesting then the starter weapons like the Mk-1 Braton. The utility adding another layer to why the weapon is good then just a gimmick bandaid to try to differentiate the weapon. 

But this is also not true by your own admission, as you said several times already that players get attached to weapons whose gameplay and flavor they like, irrespective of their power. You are confusing incentive to pick a weapon over another with enjoyment of weapons, a confusion that seems to be at the core of your balancing philosophy here. What I've been pointing out is that there are many enjoyable, distinct weapons that offer no incentive to pick them, because they're simply too weak now to compete with current BiS weapons. Giving players equal incentive to pick them would therefore increase diversity of distinct weapons present in the game. Differentiating weapons that are too similar to each other, and giving players equal incentive to pick them (which doesn't have to just boil down to pure paper DPS calculations, and generally never does), would achieve the same.

Quote

Seems like you aren't familiar to the state which Spira Prime was introduced. 
maxresdefault.jpg

Notice that it had less raw damage then the normal Spira. Less Crit chance, and marginally higher status chance. It was a downgrade no matter how you looked at it. DE caved to popular opinion, and eventually based the Crit chance to 30%, crit damage to 3x, raised the raw damage, and raised the status chance. 

This was an example of a weapon people farmed that was closer to being equally viable as the version before it. Imagine my surprise when I heard people were upset. 

It seems like you were the one unfamiliar with the state Spira Prime was introduced, as noted in your post:

On 2018-12-02 at 2:41 AM, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

If you want to slap people in the face, you reward the time they spent in obtaining a weapon or frame by making it criminally underrated. Remember what happened when people thought the Spira Prime was worse then the normal version? Lower damage, lower crit? You see how many people use a weapon they spent time to get, when it ends up being worse in several regards to the normal version? 

Clearly, you seemed to be under the impression that the controversy surrounding the Spira Prime was a pure matter of perception, to which I responded, and which you are now backtracking upon. In either case, it also doesn't contradict my argument: people expect Primes to be pure upgrades because Primes have been released as pure upgrades for years, so players who don't think they're getting a pure upgrade are having their expectations not met, which is different from players explicitly enjoying power creep in the game. In an environment where new content isn't expected to be a pure upgrade to previous content, such an expectation would not exist, and so neither would the disappointment.

Quote

The term is called Min-Maxing. Seems like you are retreating towards insults to make up for your poor argument...

I'm insulting you... where? If you're getting personally offended because I called theorycrafting in Warframe shallow (or "Min-Maxing", or whatever you'd like to call it), I'm sorry, but that is entirely your own problem.

Quote

The term comes from when Corrupted mods came out from derelict missions, where people minimized one aspect of their Warframe to boost another stat they valued more on that Warframe's kit say using blind rage. Min-maxing has been made infinitely easier on Warframe ever since they added the ability to let you see how mods effect your Warframes powers. It doesn't happen in missions, it happens before. People make different loadouts with different focuses. Speed Nova, is a good example. (Where you have negative Power Strength to make enemies faster)

Sure, but at the end, there is Speed Nova, which follows simple min-maxing rules, and Slowva, which follows other, equally simple min-maxing rules. There aren't literal dozens of theorycraftable builds for Nova that each achieve completely distinct purposes, there are only two, and this can easily describe most other frames in the game, hence why Warframe's min-maxing is shallow. Whether you like it or not, Warframe is not Path of Exile, and that's okay, but the fact that you put so much of your own self-image into a practice commonly regarded as worthless for this game, to the point of taking personal offense when someone else criticizes it (which is, by the way, different from insulting you), indicates some severe issues that have no place in this discussion.

Quote

Warframe isn't one of them to you. The farther you get into endgame the more frequently do stats become important. (This is why Rivens are valued so much, and sell for so much. Regardless of how badly you would try to ignore this fact.) 

I never denied that stats are important on some abstract level, I just don't think there's any depth to how they can be quantified. You bring up Rivens as an example, yet it is common knowledge that for any given weapon there are a certain set of stats that define whether a Riven is optimal or not, which usually includes damage and multishot. I don't see why you're expending so much effort defending a practice in Warframe that is not only shallow and useless, but also completely irrelevant to the topic of weapon rebalancing at a high level of abstraction.

Quote

Actually.... In this specific scenario. The Mk-1 Braton looks better then the Soma if you don't know that to look for. I have mentored newbies, who look at the Soma's base damage. (Lower the Mk-1) and discredit it because they don't see the crit chance or the crit damage.

If they're looking at only one stat and drawing wrong conclusions, that's their own problem. In neither case does paper DPS give any information that cannot be easily gleaned from simply playing either weapon and modding them properly.

Quote

Also to break your narrative, most times you can't experience a weapon's gimmick till you actually have the weapon made. You don't see certain stats, like the total ammo count till you use the weapon. The Soma starts out weaker, without any mods, then grows to almost 3x stronger. 

I'm sorry, whose narrative are you breaking here? My entire point is that paper DPS is an idiotic and excessively reductive measure of a weapon's power, and that play is the only true way to properly experience any weapon, whereas your own point was that paper DPS is the only true way to evaluate any weapon. There seems to be this weird running trend where you're agreeing with me, or at the very least disagreeing completely with a point you made immediately before, yet are still phrasing your agreement as it were a contradiction to what I've said. 

Quote

Paper Dps matters, cause it represents the total potential weapons have. You should become very knowledgeable on this, as Paper Dps is what you want to balance. To make things equally viable.... it should be very important to you. How you wave it off, is very telling. Adjusting these numbers is how you get to your goal. 

Potential what? Does DE even balance on paper DPS? Also, what is the truth here? Does one judge a weapon's worth through play, or through paper DPS?

Quote

Balancing is more then raw power.

Does this not directly contradict your immediate previous statement on paper DPS? I feel like I'm arguing with two people who completely disagree with each other, yet who both frame their disagreement as if it had to do with my own arguments.

Quote

Crit and Status are to be factored into what makes weapons viable. Tigris Prime is a monster more because of its status chance. I'll give you an example.  Viral cuts the enemies health in half for the duration, and Corrosive permanently reduces armor. a level 9,999 enemy would have massive amount of armor, or health. Armor would make the Soma extremely ineffective, and Viral would reduce the amount of health actually needed to kill the enemy by half. Viral scales to the enemy you hit with it, Slash Procs do not, especially when reduced by armor.

Your understanding is what's lacking. Viral is one of the strongest ways to deal damage in the game, since it reduces a flat 50% of enemy health. According to the lovely Warframe Wikipedia.

That's all very nice, but you seem to have forgotten that Hunter Munitions incurs Slash procs on crits, so your entire little lecture on how crit versus status should be worthy of consideration, which I was the first to give to you on this thread, is all for nought. Viral simply incurs double flat damage, by dint of reducing the enemy's health in half, so it can in fact be easily compared to, say, a weapon modded to over 100% crit chance and a 3x crit damage multiplier or more. Corrosive procs similarly also provide a damage increase based on the enemy's armor, so that too can be quantified as a damage multiplier. For all of this pontificating on how status and crit interact with weaponry, the end conclusion here is pretty simple, and its perceived complications are based more upon you not understanding the implications of certain status effects, rather than any real complexity to the systems being analyzed. Furthermore, how exactly does any of this relate to the topic of weapon balancing?

 

Quote

A certain Sprag 

Would have an effective health of 14,939,126,528,345. A viral proc would cut that in half, making them only need to take 7,469,563,264,172.5 damage to be killed. This is probably the most damage a Viral Proc will ever do. But will do more damage then a slash proc would. A status chance weapon is inherently more viable then a crit weapon. The higher level you go, the more viral does. 

Spoiler alert, That enemy came in a pair. Two enemies at that level. They both died. 
The home stretch.

So... you went through all of that trouble to kill a level 9999 enemy with a Viral proccing weapon, and failed to realize the entire time that halving a Grineer's health equated to doubling damage dealt to them? My condolences.

Quote

Not trying to water down anything. As I'm not advocating for anyone to get a nerf their weapons.

But you're advocating for those same weapons to be power creeped out of viability, which amounts to the same thing. Why not come clean about it, in that case?

Quote

Im unclear on how you exactly want to make everything Viable. (Either nerfing weapons around what you consider a balanced weapon, or balancing every weapon around the single most powerful one.

I mean, there are a lot of ways to go about it, but the end goal should simply be an environment in which any weapon can be considered viable for at least some situation at all levels of the game. In many cases, this could probably just mean raising a weapon's damage until it becomes able to do well for itself in higher-level content. To go about it another way, it may also help to remove or rework certain mods that do nothing but add damage: pure damage mods like Serration could probably be nerfed or removed, as with multishot mods, and mods that currently add elemental damage could perhaps convert existing damage to a certain element instead. Additionally, adding more standout mechanics to older weapons, such as new passives or alt fires, could go a long way towards making them worth picking even among weapons of the same class.

Quote

That being said, those weapons that are power creeped eventually by something else, will never lose their effectiveness on the levels of enemies they were able to kill. (I'm not advocating for nerfs.) If I get a prime version of a warframe, I'm not mad that my original version was improved. A better weapon came out for a stronger enemy. This doesn't bother me at all... As technology constantly replaces older technology. A better, improved car, doesn't detract from the performance my car already has. A better improved weapon doesn't detract from the weapon I already have. (Unless you want my weapon nerfed.

Except a car is a consumer product, meant to be used for a limited time until it eventually wears out. Additionally, whether a car is new or old, its core purpose is the same, even if there may be some quality of life improvements, so there is bound to be homogeneity. In-game weapons, by contrast, are digital, and so can last forever: they are not consumer products, they are toys that can provide theoretically infinite value. The same can be said of actual real-life toys as well: the Kardas Dragon megaset from the Lego Bionicle franchise (I'm guessing that's where your handle comes from) isn't meant to be an inferior product to, say, the Axalara t9 set, rather, both are meant to be different toys that can theoretically be built and rebuilt infinitely, and each provide lasting and non-competing enjoyment. The only people who'd discard one for the other each time a new set came about would be the very rich and very easily bored.

Quote

Which then I would ask you, Why exact;ty are you trying to force them to do by watering down what they enjoy?

Uh, what? Force who to do what? What is it that "they" enjoy that am I watering down? Throwing people's arguments back at them verbatim, without any proper context, isn't a very smart move, as it comes across as confused and inattentive to the substance of the debate.

Quote

Stagnation is not a trait I want in a game, about infinitely scaling enemies.

That's good, then, because Warframe is not a game about infinitely scaling enemies. You might be thinking of Diablo 3, which as it so happens is in fact a very stagnant game.

Quote

If this was a PvP game, I would care for balance.

And you wouldn't in a PvE game, because... ? I can agree that balance need not be as tight in a PvE game, but there does need to be some of it, otherwise you get the problems Warframe is experiencing right now.

Quote

The game is about Warframes that adapt to ever stronger enemies.

Where?

Quote

Even in the Lore, sentients who could nearly adapt to everything, except the power of warframes.

How does this relate to the adapability of warframes? How does any of this relate to infinitely increasing stats? Do enemies in the lore scale infinitely?

Quote

You do not want to stagnate the game for a few reasons. If every gun is minor tweaks of the other, in around the same damage capabilities, then the game turns into "My favorite Gimmick." Weapons would soon be more similar to each other, as the only way to make them different is whatever pointless gimmick you think makes it special and better then the other gimmicks.

So differentiating weapons... makes them more similar? Alrighty then.

Quote

Secondly, it would remove all sense of progression and getting stronger. This has been the whole point of the game.

... to you. It is not the point of the game to many more players, and in fact the very notion of getting ever stronger directly contradicts the notion of warframes being insanely strong from the get-go, and us simply going on a journey to find out what we've forgotten about ourselves and the world.

Quote

This is why ever increasing, more potent mods and primes are released.

Didn't you say in this same posts that variants were the direct result of an antiquated business model in which DE released the same weapon multiple times to make money at a lesser development cost? So what is the truth, then?

Quote

Again, Warframe is an MMO. All MMO's have players grow ever stronger till the game ends.

This is a silly argument. Yes, let's call Warframe an MMO, even though it isn't, and thereby make it a clone of every other MMO, because that is somehow the only way things can happen. I don't know if you've noticed, but Warframe's success comes precisely from the fact that it is different from other games, and offers a radically new concept along with a mix of gameplay systems and mechanics that exists nowhere else. If you really want a classic MMO, you are free to play a classic MMO, but as it stands you are insisting upon bending Warframe out of shape, at a time where it is already suffering from problems tied to power creep, just because you personally want power creep in your games, and apparently nobody else's opinion matters.

Quote

Having stronger challenges keeps the game interesting, and limiting weapons, would by extension limit what level of enemies people could handle with their weapons.

I'm sorry, how does power creep raise the challenge again? How exactly is the game any more challenging when enemies have 10k health and I deal 10k DPS, compared to an environment where those same enemies have 1k health and I deal 1k DPS? This is the fundamental problem with power creep: at the end of the day, power creep adds no challenge, no gameplay, no variety, it simply ratchets up the game's numbers to give the illusion of progression, an illusion itself balanced out by a treadmill of enemies who grow to match the player in power, and thereby preserve the status quo. A new challenge would involve giving enemies new mechanics, adding new enemy types, or otherwise generating new content that would present the player with a challenge they haven't experienced before. If nothing else, raising stats on enemies could perhaps add a greater challenge, but only if the player's stats didn't rise to match them. In the meantime, weapons that were fixed at one power level get left behind when the shiny new toys blow them out of the water, like so many Krillins. This is why power creep is not only pointless, but actively detrimental to the enjoyment and longevity of video games. You may perhaps want to gain that permanent +1 on your stats, but you should also take into account the consequences this carries for the entire rest of the game, and as it stands it doesn't seem like actual game quality is something you care about. In this respect, you are perfectly free to feel the way you feel about power creep, but if that is the one thing you seek out of any game you play, Warframe may simply not be the game for you. 

Quote

So if a number gets larger, it's called "growth" Growing older for example is when you simply increment a number on a hidden spreadsheet called a person's age.

So, what you're saying is... you just want to increment numbers? That's your entire idea of enjoyment in a video game? Why not play Cookie Clicker instead, then? As it stands, Warframe is much more than a game of increasing numbers, and most players would not see "growth" in such a depressing manner, much less demand that sort of growth to be central to their entire game experience.

Beyond that, though, if this is really all you want out of a game, I feel there's actually a really easy solution that would make us both happy: suppose the game gets rebalanced in such a way that all weapons become equally viable, one could simply a gear item that would affect the way you, and only you the wielder, would perceive the game: your weapons and frame would never stop ranking up, even after Rank 30, and each rank beyond 30 would increase your damage, as well as your health and shields, by some percentage, with no increases to mod capacity. In addition, though, enemies would also raise their level to match yours, as well as their associated damage and health stats. Thus, you could go around leveling up your weapons and frames to 9999+, and dealing trillions of damage per hit, but enemies would also have trillions of health. The reason this could work even in an environment where other players don't experience this is because, put simply, there'd be no functional change in gameplay: you'd deal double damage to enemies who, against you, would have double health, so you'd be able to increase your power to your heart's content and stay on a treadmill of ever-scaling content. Would such a system appease you?

Quote

Prime variants, can be much stronger then their original forms depending on their abilities. Chroma Prime grows much stronger then normal Chroma, as he has more armor now. Armor that then scales up with his abilities, to make him vastly more tanky. Weapons like the Tigris grow much stronger when the Tigris Prime comes out, does approximately 50% more damage then the base version, and thus be able to kill much higher level enemies. Other Primes have different gimmicks. Getting energy when you touch a Death orb, or the Piranha Prime and it's unique gimmick. I believe that several other Primes get special gimmicks, like the Cernos Prime. This lets us fight higher level enemies, and grow stronger.

Sure, and what does that achieve? Ultimately, "gimmicks" as you mention them can be more accurately described as just different weapons, since the Cernos Prime may as well be an entirely separate bow on its own (and it is), just as the Pyrana Prime can be said to be an entirely distinct pistol. When it comes to pure power boosts, though, what is the net result? You say that it can let you kill much higher level enemies, but in an environment where "higher level enemies" haven't changed in years, the actual result is simply that it makes the game easier. Effectively, what you are asking for is simply to make the game you are playing less difficult, and also less challenging for yourself. If this weren't the case, you wouldn't be focusing so much on the power of your own gear, so much as the level of challenge provided by these "higher level enemies" (and how exactly would these enemies be more challenging than existing enemies?).

Quote

 When I started Warframe, I couldn't handle level 27 enemies. Now, I can regularly fight enemies over level 300. 

Sure, but is there a difference in the combat that plays out? There certainly is in that you're likely taking much more damage (assuming you're not playing a stealth frame), but again, how is dealing 1k damage to a 1k health enemy different from dealing 10k damage to a 10k health enemy, or 1 million damage to an enemy with 1 million health? Where is this new challenge coming from?

Quote

Hate to break it to you. Bullet Jumping can be pretty generalized, as adding a +1 to a spread sheet. It's a stronger form of something we had before. Something that grew stronger, added the height of which players could jump, and gave us new capabilities. Limiting what weapons can do, restricts capabilities. Telling DE that they can't do things, is also telling them that there are certain worthy additions to the game that they cannot add. This is a terrible position to make on your part. 

This is the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've read in a long time. If we were to take your warped logic here, literally anything can be reduced to a +1 on a spreadsheet. By your logic, the birth of a new star in the universe is simply a +1 to the star spreadsheet, and this is somehow enough to describe the phenomenon in its entirety from start to finish.

Less facetiously, though, it is your own position here that is utterly indefensible, and the reasoning here is some of the most wrong-headed I've seen. Bullet-jumping is a mechanic that required new animation work, and that added genuinely new gameplay to the game, which no other mechanic could achieve, not even the double jump. Sure, you can overgeneralize it to such an extent that you can personally make a mental note of it as a +1 in some imaginary spreadsheet (and a +1 in which quantity, pray tell?), but that does not mean that the thing in itself can be accurately reduced to that degree. By contrast, power creep can be reduced to that degree, because it is the pure product of incrementing numbers. Getting +1 to Strength in an RPG is precisely the incrementation of numbers on a spreadsheet, as is re-releasing the same item twice, and bumping up the stats on one of the versions. Trying to pretend that literally everything can be reduced to the same level as power creep does exactly nothing to disprove the fact that power creep is nothing but a cheap and reductive way to create the illusion of novelty and evolution of play, when in reality it offers neither.

Quote

Except that it does add new gameplay. Old content becoming obsolete, has no impact on the weapons in their current state, in the current situations they are useful in.

Again, your argument here is confused: does power creep create new gameplay or does it not? If the only "addition" to gameplay is that it trivializes older content and makes it obsolete, why even have power creep in the first place?

Quote

Meanwhile, certain abilities that could be cast faster, would no doubt make other warframes more powerful. Thurible for example would be massively stronger if it was faster, and Garuda's current ultimate (which was made faster) for example. Several Primes have had more then numbers tweaked, but when Sentients come out.

It could not be more obvious that making something more powerful will make it more powerful, but I'm glad that got noticed. Perhaps what may also come to attention is that speeding up the casting of abilities also has an impact other than pure power?

Quote

Does the Cernos Prime offer more gamplay then the now obsolete version? Yes. Would it be worth it without the damage numbers? No.

... why not?

Quote

People would be upset, if they got their old weapons repackaged to them with just a gimmick, and basically a skin.

... why?

Quote

Better weapons that feel and kill better make people feel stronger, and keeps the game fresh.

... why? You make a lot of claims, and repeat them many times, but none of them so far have been substantiated in any manner.

Quote

I played Destiny, which keeps weapons always feeling balanced to each other. I could be 100 light level over an enemy, and my weapon felt like it did the exact damage no matter what. The only difference I personally ever felt, was if I was using a weapon that was too low level. Felt like I would be doing no damage. So I got bored, as no matter what, enemies had the same time to kill, and it felt like it took forever to kill anything to get loot. 

I quit Destiny, never looked back. (Never bothered with Destiny 2.)

How is this different from Warframe, though? At the end of the day, you have a set of weapons that are all balanced around endgame content, and the rest cannot compete. This exists in both games, so if this is what made you quit Destiny, it's going to make you quit Warframe? Are you sure you're not simply trying to rationalize you sticking to this game?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

... I don't think you quite understand what's being said here. What I pointed out was that you seem to use "no u" quite commonly, particularly with criticisms of your arguments you seem to have taken to offense to.

Nope. I asserted that you haven't thought through the ramifications of your actions. You, tried to throw that back at me, I caught you in your hypocrisy. You then are caught not knowing how potent warframe mechanics are, and how hard it is to balance every weapon in line with one another. 
 

4 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

This is a silly argument. Yes, let's call Warframe an MMO, even though it isn't, and thereby make it a clone of every other MMO, because that is somehow the only way things can happen. I don't know if you've noticed, but Warframe's success comes precisely from the fact that it is different from other games, and offers a radically new concept along with a mix of gameplay systems and mechanics that exists nowhere else. If you really want a classic MMO, you are free to play a classic MMO, but as it stands you are insisting upon bending Warframe out of shape, at a time where it is already suffering from problems tied to power creep, just because you personally want power creep in your games, and apparently nobody else's opinion matters.

So let's really start breaking down your claims. Let's see if you know anything, about anything. What are the common characteristics of an MMO?

  • 1. MMO's usually have instanced, or persistent based worlds. 
     
  • 2. MMO's usually have hub areas. 
     
  • 3. Virtual Player effected Economy. 
     
  • 4. Character Customization. 
     
  • 5. Online play where you can interact with a large number of players. 


#1 Warframe has both instanced, and persistent missions. 
#2 Warframe has several Hub areas. Clan dojos, Relays, Maroo's Bazaar, Cetus, Fortuna, and Iron Wake.
#3 Virtual Player Economy. See trading chat tab for more details. (Yes, Warframe has this.)
#4 Oh my goodness. So much customization. I can customize literally everything. EVERYTHING. My ship, my dogos! Everything. 
#5 Seeing as you can't even play Warframe offline, and is on the top 10 most played games on steam.... This is also accurate. 

Warframe also follows other trends of MMOs. Leveling up your character, multiple classes, (Called Warframes in this case) Gear, consumable items, crafting and gathering, Seasonal Events, and new Expansions. Players who stick with the game grow stronger as time progresses. Either with better getter, higher level cap, and so on. 

The classic definition of an MMO is a game where hundreds or thousands of players play on the same server, can interact with each other and the same objects within the said virtual world. When there are events in Warframe that require tenno to work together to build a relay, or stop a relay from being destroyed, Warframe fits this description to a T. 

So.... when Warframe has every characteristic of an MMO, follows every MMO trend that I can find/think of. How is it not an MMO? 

Warframe is an MMO, third person shooter. You could even classify it as an RPG as you assume the role of the Tenno, Warframe, or more broadly the operator in your ship. 

However, I encourage you to try to use evidence to prove the contrary. You will have to use evidence, rather then saying "No u." The game becomes more, and more of an MMO every day. 

Destiny is classified as an MMORPG. It have level progression, hub areas, instances and persistent missions. I can see no clear difference that would exclude Warframe from also being an MMO. 

Warframe is popular, as nobody ever integrated a third person shooter while being an MMO so well before. Destiny, and The division tried it. They weren't received as well as Warframe was. 

It's ironic to me, that you accuse me of this. 
 

4 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

If you really want a classic MMO, you are free to play a classic MMO, but as it stands you are insisting upon bending Warframe out of shape, at a time where it is already suffering from problems tied to power creep, just because you personally want power creep in your games, and apparently nobody else's opinion matters.

Seems like you are projecting. Infuriated by your losing argument, has downgraded to petty insults, since nobody else but your opinion matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Nope. I asserted that you haven't thought through the ramifications of your actions.

This:

On 2018-12-02 at 9:18 AM, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Hello pot. Let me introduce myself to you. I'm kettle.

Is about as much of a thoughtful statement that I "haven't thought through the ramifications of [my] actions", as flinging poop across the street constitutes a deep commentary on modern society. You posted what you posted, I read what you posted, your post can get quoted on demand, so let's not delude ourselves too hard.

Quote

You, tried to throw that back at me, I caught you in your hypocrisy.

This is a rather interesting case of projection when it was in fact I who called you out on your employment of that same immature tactic. What you are displaying now is but a demonstration of what I'd pointed out earlier. Again, I don't really understand why you'd try to fabricate this imaginary world or engage in he-said-she-said when both our posts are clearly on display for everyone to see.

Quote

You then are caught not knowing how potent warframe mechanics are, and how hard it is to balance every weapon in line with one another. 

... where? Again, I distinctly remember pointing out how you did not seem to understand what it is what you are arguing, so not only is your current claim unfounded here, it is nothing but more regurgitation of criticisms levied against you.

Quote

So let's really start breaking down your claims. Let's see if you know anything, about anything. What are the common characteristics of an MMO?

  • 1. MMO's usually have instanced, or persistent based worlds. 

None of Warframe's "worlds" are persistent, as the near-totality of its content features either randomly-generated tilesets in missions that cease to exist the moment the mission is completed, or static open world levels that also cease to exist once all the players within leave. The most persistent instances that exist are hub zones, and even those come and go as needed.

Quote
  • 2. MMO's usually have hub areas. 

So does Lego Star Wars: The Video Game. Hubs are such a general feature in video games that it's a pretty blatant reach to frame them as a defining characteristic of MMOs.

Quote
  • 3. Virtual Player effected Economy. 

Team Fortress 2 and CS:GO have some of the most famous player-led economies in the world, yet are absolutely not considered MMOs. By contrast, "classic" MMOs like World of Warcraft frequently have such poor control over their economy that they abandon player influence, and instead resort to currency creep to maintain exclusive control over their economy.

Quote
  • 4. Character Customization. 

LOL. Good to know every RPG is apparently now also a MMO, including singleplayer games.

Quote
  • 5. Online play where you can interact with a large number of players. 

Are 4 players "large" now? You seem to be missing the "massively" component to "massively multiplayer online", and under your ambiguous definition, any game with online multiplayer becomes a MMO. As such, your range of criteria completely fails in defining what constitutes a MMO, and beyond that does not even attempt to explain why this would automatically indicate a necessity for Warframe to have the same kind of power creep as other games.

Quote

#1 Warframe has both instanced, and persistent missions. 

... which persistent missions, pray tell?

Quote

#2 Warframe has several Hub areas. Clan dojos, Relays, Maroo's Bazaar, Cetus, Fortuna, and Iron Wake.

Sure.

Quote

#3 Virtual Player Economy. See trading chat tab for more details. (Yes, Warframe has this.)

Completely agreed, Warframe's player economy I'd say is one of its strongest assets.

Quote

#4 Oh my goodness. So much customization. I can customize literally everything. EVERYTHING. My ship, my dogos! Everything. 

Also completely agreed.

Quote

#5 Seeing as you can't even play Warframe offline, and is on the top 10 most played games on steam.... This is also accurate.

Actually, you can in fact play a solo mission offline, even if you can't save your progress until you go back online, but nitpicking aside, I completely agree that Warframe is a multiplayer game. Where I do not agree is that it is a massively multiplayer game in the same sense as any typical MMO, because unlike, say, WoW, Guild Wars, LotR Online, etc., there is no massively multiplayer element. At best, there was simultaneous play for eight players at a time, which does not even begin to approach the vast, heavily populated open worlds of the aforementioned games. Games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Overwatch or any other co-op shooter can accommodate far more players than Warframe, yet those are typically not considered MMOs. If you want to claim that they are in fact massively multiplayer online games by whichever arbitrary standard you've set, then you'll have also implicitly admitted that MMOs do not fit a singular mold, and so have even less reason to ascribe to a rigid template.

Quote

Warframe also follows other trends of MMOs. Leveling up your character, multiple classes, (Called Warframes in this case) Gear, consumable items, crafting and gathering, Seasonal Events, and new Expansions. Players who stick with the game grow stronger as time progresses. Either with better getter, higher level cap, and so on. 

That's true, and once upon a time it also followed upon the Dark Souls trend by giving its players a stamina bar that limited the range of actions they could perform. That changed. They also tried to hop on the Rocket League bandwagon by developing Lunaro. That failed. As such, while many of these features Warframe picked up from other games are certainly great, I don't think that's really an excuse to take them all in uncritically, particularly since there are many trends Warframe doesn't follow: where's the initial sale price? Where are the paid expansions? Where's the monthly subscription payment? Are you sure these are things that would benefit Warframe if they were included?

Quote

The classic definition of an MMO is a game where hundreds or thousands of players play on the same server, can interact with each other and the same objects within the said virtual world. When there are events in Warframe that require tenno to work together to build a relay, or stop a relay from being destroyed, Warframe fits this description to a T. 

Um... no it doesn't? Warframe doesn't allow more than four players to play alongside each other at any given time, and players don't play on the same server, as there's no shared world among them and PvE missions use P2P hosting. Certain events do log common progress from individual players, but at no point are players all put into the same common world in such a way that they can all dynamically interact with each other. This too is a desperate reach.

Quote

So.... when Warframe has every characteristic of an MMO, follows every MMO trend that I can find/think of. How is it not an MMO? 

Except... it doesn't, and isn't? As has been pointed out above, not only are the criteria you have set for defining MMOs so poor that they utterly fail to capture what a MMO is, Warframe does not even fit several of those criteria. I never denied at any point that Warframe is a multiplayer online game; what I was simply pointing out was that it wasn't a massively multiplayer online game, a critical nuance that apparently went completely over your head. Warframe may be a multiplayer game, but it does not play like the likes of World of Warcraft or Guild Wars 2, nor does it need to. Even if it did, as I said literally right after my above quote, that would still not mean it would need to copy other games wholesale and implement power creep. In short, literally nothing that you have just posted even remotely approaches justification for power creep in Warframe.

Quote

Warframe is popular, as nobody ever integrated a third person shooter while being an MMO so well before. Destiny, and The division tried it. They weren't received as well as Warframe was. 

Perfect, so by your own admission, Warframe isn't like any MMO. More to the point, it is precisely the difference between Warframe and MMOs that allowed Warframe to succeed and grow into the game we know and love today. Why then do you want so hard to reduce it to a clone of other games?

Quote

It's ironic to me, that you accuse me of this. 

Why? You are continuing to insist upon power creeping Warframe, for the sole reason now that this is apparently how it needs to be because other, completely different games do so as well. You even abandoned the entire rest of your shoddy argumentation specifically to insist upon this one point. Whether you like it or not, your entire argument here boils down to trying to homogenize Warframe, with respect to other games it deliberately distanced itself from in critical aspects you conveniently failed to notice.

Quote

Seems like you are projecting. Infuriated by your losing argument, has downgraded to petty insults, since nobody else but your opinion matters. 

I insulted you... where? It is interesting that you would speak of projection, because not only are you demonstrating yet again a rather unfortunate tendency to parrot back criticisms I had made of you first, and so in a manner devoid of context or justification, you are also doing a rather poor job of hiding your own frustration, as noted here by you outright throwing epithets in my direction. Unlike you, who have lost so badly on so many needless tangents you had spawned that you decided to drop the near-totality of your pointless arguments (good choice, by the way), I have remained consistent in my principles and the way I have both explained and applied them. Whereas you have danced from point to point and shifted the focus of this argument in an attempt to find solid ground to hold onto, I have answered each and every one of your points methodically, with quotes and examples to boot.

Parroting back to me that I value only my own opinion also falls apart pretty quickly when I have said many times before on this thread that I found several of ysmer's suggestion's interesting and worthy of trying out, despite my preference for different methods of balance. By contrast, your very first post on this thread attacked me and my opinions directly for the simple reason that they differed from your own. As such, not only have you utterly failed to convince anyone here, let alone win the argument, you have failed to contribute positively to this thread at all. You did not even have the common decency to give any comments on ysmer's suggestions, or even respond to them, instead you hijacked their thread just so you could wage your little war against a person who dared to speak negatively of power creep. Think about what you've done here, and tell me if those are the deeds of a winner.

Edited by Teridax68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

Are 4 players "large" now? You seem to be missing the "massively" component to "massively multiplayer online", and under your ambiguous definition, any game with online multiplayer becomes a MMO. 

I see you are putting in your own definition of MMO, instead of using the actual definition for the term. Second Life is considered an MMO. It has no combat, you don't have a set objective, and you just interact with other people. The size of your team, doesn't make a game an MMO. Destiny, Final Fantasy 14, Warframe and DCUO will have you commonly assigned to a team with a maximum of 4 players. This only changes when you are loaded into a raid, where you can play with 8 players. 

Warframe, being massively multiplayer, I can go from random mission to random mission, and never encounter the same players twice. I can go into clans and alliances with massive amount of people inside. Alliances can have upwards to 4,000 players in it. I can participate in duel tournaments against as many people as I like. I can talk, and interact with hundreds of people in Fortuna, or see the crowds encircling Baro. Then I can setup shop in Maroo's bazaar. Sell to hundreds of people, and visit a dozen dojos. 

Seems like you never took part of the rail wars. Where Tenno would fight each other, over who had control of a Dark Sector. Whole Alliances fought over these in anything from direct PvP to void missions where you raced to outperform the other side. Pretty Massive. 

What makes a game, an MMO is interacting with a large number of people in several ways. TF2 isn't an MMO cause I cannot interact with other players other then joining a match. I can't build a clan in game, or a clan base in TF2. I can't build together an Alliance, with thousands of people. I can't invite a player to a trading hub, or goof around in a non mission unless I find a private server for that reason. 

Meanwhile, I can go fishing in Cetus. talk to the newbs. Relax as I gather mats and ask if anyone needs help. Invite a newbie to my clan, take him on a tour. Show him the many different floors, and the different labs to get different weapons. Show him all the intricately built rooms, then trade him some helpful starting mods before sending him on his way. Then if he wants, we can go on missions together. Every available opportunity or interaction that I could think off, has or is available in Warframe. I can even invite people to my ship, and have them critique my decorations. 
 

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

Actually, you can in fact play a solo mission offline, even if you can't save your progress until you go back online, but nitpicking aside,


Like a lot of your information. Inaccurate. Turned off my Wifi for Warframe. Booted the game up, ready to kill enemies for no rewards or progress. 
image0.jpg

Damn. Unable to play unless I connect online. Oh well, this is just like every other MMO, where I have to be connected to actually play. Just like DCUO and basically most MMOs. 
 

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

... which persistent missions, pray tell?


Cetus, and Fortuna. If there are no players, in either, and two players join into Fortuna at the same time, they will be join the same Fortuna map. Which is persistent. Instanced missions are normally peer to peer, connecting to a host. Fortuna and Cetus have you join a persistent channel for that area, and will only open a new channel once it becomes crowded. Completing a mission, and returning back to either, will have me load in and rejoin the channel. How do I know they are persistent? They don't have to be reloaded when the host player leaves Cetus/Fortuna like what can happen to Clan Dojos, or normal instanced missions. 
 

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

Um... no it doesn't? Warframe doesn't allow more than four players to play alongside each other at any given time, and players don't play on the same server,

This is easily proven false. Just go look at chat tab. Scroll down through all those name. Those are everyone who is on the same server as you. You can even switch chat servers by designating which one you want to join. Anyone on the same server is the people you can talk to, find in public missions, or fight against in PvP. If you can invite a player to your team, they are on the same server as you. 
 

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

LOL. Good to know every RPG is apparently now also a MMO, including singleplayer games.

So you either haven't played enough Warframe, or just ignored the several instances of when you, as the Operator are given a choice. A simple, choice granted, but you are aligned with a mortality. This choice either aligns you with light, dark, or puts you in the middle. This changes how scenes are played out for you. Spoilers. Like if you choose to kill the queen, or command Teshin to do so. This is very much akin to Mass Effect, where you have two simple choices. Renegade, or Paragon. Mass Effect is widely considered an RPG. 
 

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

Perfect, so by your own admission, Warframe isn't like any MMO. More to the point,

I see you struggle at reading. "Warframe is popular, as nobody ever integrated a third person shooter while being an MMO so well before." Keywords here. Integrated a third person shooter, while being an MMO. Warframe isn't a clone, I never said that it was. However, it does seem that you want to make Warframe into a Destiny clone. As Destiny has weapons more balanced around each other, that do comparable amounts of damage to each other. 

However, you have failed to give me any evidence apart from your opinion that Warframe ins't an MMO. Warframe acts like an MMO. Every MMO that I know of, has power creep (It's called Progression. Like how Warframe has you Progress in almost every conceivable way possible. Your abilities leveling up, and getting stronger as you progress towards level 30. Operators getting stronger passives, and new better amp parts to progress further in your Eidolon hunts. Better Mining equipment, and fisher gear that Power Creeps the old starting equipment out...) , Every MMO that I know has player hubs, and customization. Not Every MMO has a virtual economy. (Destiny does not, Dcuo does.) Most MMO's have level progression, or some sort of Character Progression. When Warframe fits every characteristic of an MMO, then by definition. It's an MMO. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I see you are putting in your own definition of MMO, instead of using the actual definition for the term. Second Life is considered an MMO. It has no combat, you don't have a set objective, and you just interact with other people. 

I'm sorry, when did I say that combat was an essential component to MMOs? Second Life is indeed massively multiplayer because there are indeed a massive number of players all interacting with each other at the same time. Not only are you continuing to impose your own arbitrary standards of what constitutes an MMO, while parroting back that same criticism I made of your posts, your argument here is a complete red herring.

Quote

The size of your team, doesn't make a game an MMO. Destiny, Final Fantasy 14, Warframe and DCUO will have you commonly assigned to a team with a maximum of 4 players. This only changes when you are loaded into a raid, where you can play with 8 players. 

Except in every single one of these games but Warframe, the 4 or 8-player restriction is for parties in specific instances within the game; there isn't a set limit of how many players can simultaneously exist in the in-game world. The fact that you are flat-out lying at this point, and at the very least heavily warping the truth, shows just how little worth even you see in your own argumentation here.

Quote

Warframe, being massively multiplayer, I can go from random mission to random mission, and never encounter the same players twice.

As can you in Team Fortress 2, CS:GO, Dota...

Quote

I can go into clans and alliances with massive amount of people inside. Alliances can have upwards to 4,000 players in it. I can participate in duel tournaments against as many people as I like. I can talk, and interact with hundreds of people in Fortuna, or see the crowds encircling Baro. Then I can setup shop in Maroo's bazaar. Sell to hundreds of people, and visit a dozen dojos. 

Sure, in limited, instanced hubs, separate from missions, and intentionally made distinct from the main game. Let me know when everyone in those hubs starts fighting in the same instance.

Quote

Seems like you never took part of the rail wars. Where Tenno would fight each other, over who had control of a Dark Sector. Whole Alliances fought over these in anything from direct PvP to void missions where you raced to outperform the other side. Pretty Massive. 

... I'm sorry, do you mean the mechanic that got removed from the game and has ceased to exist for years? If that's the argument you're trying to make, then the firm answer is that it's gone, and DE doesn't want it. How exactly can you make the case that Warframe is a MMO when DE has been removing MMO-like features from it?

Quote

What makes a game, an MMO is interacting with a large number of people in several ways.

My, what a precise, totally not ambiguous definition right there. I guess literally every game on Steam is a MMO now, because I can interact "with a large number of people in several ways" even in singleplayer games, e.g. chat, trade, inspect, etc.

Quote

TF2 isn't an MMO cause I cannot interact with other players other then joining a match. I can't build a clan in game, or a clan base in TF2.

This is precious, because TF2 is known for having some very dedicated clans, clubs, and player groups, who organize sessions and invite players to join them. It appears you do not even understand the games you are arbitrarily separating from your equally arbitrary definition of a MMO.

But let's humor you for just a second: because players cannot interact with each other in TF2 besides joining a match (which is a lie, since there are inbuilt trading and chat functions), TF2 is not a MMO. Similarly, in Warframe, it is impossible to interact with other players "other then (sic) joining a match", outside of the inbuilt trading and chat functions, because literally every session, including hubs, is by your own definition a "match", as noted by your above point. Thus, using nothing but your own reasoning, you just disproved that Warframe is a MMO. If you want to tell me that Warframe is different because it has hubs, newsflash, so does TF2, which has dedicated maps for chat and trading.

Quote

I can't build together an Alliance, with thousands of people. I can't invite a player to a trading hub, or goof around in a non mission unless I find a private server for that reason. 

Did... did you just say you can't trade in TF2? That TF2 doesn't have trading hubs? Have you played TF2?

Quote

Meanwhile, I can go fishing in Cetus. talk to the newbs. Relax as I gather mats and ask if anyone needs help.

Show me where in the hub world of Cetus you can fish. You probably mean the Plains of Eidolon, in which case you cannot, in fact, chat as if you were in Cetus. 

Quote

Invite a newbie to my clan, take him on a tour. Show him the many different floors, and the different labs to get different weapons. Show him all the intricately built rooms, then trade him some helpful starting mods before sending him on his way. Then if he wants, we can go on missions together. Every available opportunity or interaction that I could think off, has or is available in Warframe. I can even invite people to my ship, and have them critique my decorations. 

Every available opportunity... including hundreds to thousands of players simultaneously coexisting in a massive, open world where they all participate in the normal gameplay loop? Just because this somehow escapes your imagination does not prevent this from being a defining trait of MMOs, one you have conveniently been dancing around this whole time.

Quote

Like a lot of your information. Inaccurate. Turned off my Wifi for Warframe. Booted the game up, ready to kill enemies for no rewards or progress. 
image0.jpg

Damn. Unable to play unless I connect online. Oh well, this is just like every other MMO, where I have to be connected to actually play. Just like DCUO and basically most MMOs. 

That is literally just the start menu. Who are you trying to fool? Go on PC, play a mission solo, go offline in the middle, and see for yourself. Lying here isn't really helping your case, particularly since you keep talking about Fortuna as if you played it, which is currently impossible on console (The Fortuna update isn't out yet). Nice try though.

Quote

Cetus, and Fortuna. If there are no players, in either, and two players join into Fortuna at the same time, they will be join the same Fortuna map. Which is persistent. Instanced missions are normally peer to peer, connecting to a host. Fortuna and Cetus have you join a persistent channel for that area, and will only open a new channel once it becomes crowded. Completing a mission, and returning back to either, will have me load in and rejoin the channel. How do I know they are persistent? They don't have to be reloaded when the host player leaves Cetus/Fortuna like what can happen to Clan Dojos, or normal instanced missions. 

All of this is complete bull. First off, neither Cetus nor Fortuna are missions, they're hubs, and they are clearly instanced, as noted by the numbers to the side when there's a large amount of player activity. New instances do appear and disappear depending on player presence, as noted by the recent famous story of Fortuna 69, in which players have been passing the torch to keep the instance from disappearing. At best, everything you just said is so severely mistaken that it demonstrates a lack of the most basic understanding of how Warframe manages its connections and handles its instanced hubs (because the hubs are instanced, not persistent). At worst, your entire paragraph here is a series of easily disproven lies. In both cases, you are trying and failing to reach so hard in such a desperate attempt to win that you have completely distanced yourself from the core point: why does it matter whether or not the hubs in Warframe are persistent? Are you telling me that if Cetus were a persistent hub, that should automatically mean Warframe needs power creep? What even is the logic you're running on here?

Quote

This is easily proven false. Just go look at chat tab. Scroll down through all those name. Those are everyone who is on the same server as you. You can even switch chat servers by designating which one you want to join. Anyone on the same server is the people you can talk to, find in public missions, or fight against in PvP. If you can invite a player to your team, they are on the same server as you. 

You can switch chat servers, but actual play in PvE is P2P. Again, it is sad to see you try to lie here when the facts are so easy to verify.

Quote

So you either haven't played enough Warframe, or just ignored the several instances of when you, as the Operator are given a choice. A simple, choice granted, but you are aligned with a mortality. This choice either aligns you with light, dark, or puts you in the middle. This changes how scenes are played out for you. Spoilers. Like if you choose to kill the queen, or command Teshin to do so. This is very much akin to Mass Effect, where you have two simple choices. Renegade, or Paragon. Mass Effect is widely considered an RPG. 

Okay, I see there's a reading comprehension problem here: I did not deny that Warframe has character customization and RPG elements, and in fact it has much more obvious instances of both than the currently pointless Operator alignment system. My point was that you generalized every game with character customization to also be a MMO, which is ludicrous. The very fact that you point to Mass Effect, the first of which is a purely singleplayer game, should have been enough evidence that not every RPG is a MMO. In fact, MMOs themselves do not have to be RPGs as well, hence why there is the longer term MMORPG to describe those specific kinds of games. You therefore cannot seriously claim that a game is a MMO simply because it has character customization elements.

Quote

I see you struggle at reading. "Warframe is popular, as nobody ever integrated a third person shooter while being an MMO so well before." Keywords here. Integrated a third person shooter, while being an MMO.

Interesting that you would disparage my reading ability, as I in fact very directly addressed your point, in a manner that seems to have exceeded your capacity for reasoning. Let's see if I can make this even simpler: no matter which spin you try to put on this, and even irrespective of whether or not you'd like to call Warframe a MMO, the simple fact that I pointed out is that, by your own admission, Warframe is a popular game because it is different in at least one critical aspect from MMOs. It is therefore utterly pointless to demand that Warframe conform to whichever arbitrary trends you've personally decided are essential to every MMO, because that is precisely not the way Warframe managed to stand out and succeed where so many others have failed.

Quote

Warframe isn't a clone, I never said that it was.

Of course you didn't, that's why you want to make it a clone instead. Again, basic reading comprehension here.

Quote

However, it does seem that you want to make Warframe into a Destiny clone. As Destiny has weapons more balanced around each other, that do comparable amounts of damage to each other. 

So... any game with balanced weaponry is a Destiny clone now? Including games like TF2, which predate Destiny by several years? Interesting reasoning there. This is why you should perhaps take context into account before parroting back my criticism, because when you so consistently fail to do so, well... you embarrass yourself.

Quote

However, you have failed to give me any evidence apart from your opinion that Warframe ins't an MMO.

Yes, let's forget that I wrote this, among much more text (which you replied to, by the way):

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Except... it doesn't, and isn't? As has been pointed out above, not only are the criteria you have set for defining MMOs so poor that they utterly fail to capture what a MMO is, Warframe does not even fit several of those criteria. I never denied at any point that Warframe is a multiplayer online game; what I was simply pointing out was that it wasn't a massively multiplayer online game, a critical nuance that apparently went completely over your head. Warframe may be a multiplayer game, but it does not play like the likes of World of Warcraft or Guild Wars 2, nor does it need to. Even if it did, as I said literally right after my above quote, that would still not mean it would need to copy other games wholesale and implement power creep. In short, literally nothing that you have just posted even remotely approaches justification for power creep in Warframe.

Once again, I utterly fail to see the point of you trying to lie when I can literally repost prior content in this thread, complete with a pointer that can take you directly to where that quote was written. When you make such demonstrably false claims, it just comes across as a desperate attempt to save face in an argument you have clearly lost. It's sad, it doesn't advance discussion, and it doesn't make you look any better, quite the contrary. Your better option would be to simply abandon whichever points you can no longer argue, as you've already done at this point with the near-totality of the conversation that's been had.

Quote

Warframe acts like an MMO. Every MMO that I know of, has power creep (It's called Progression. Like how Warframe has you Progress in almost every conceivable way possible. Your abilities leveling up, and getting stronger as you progress towards level 30. Operators getting stronger passives, and new better amp parts to progress further in your Eidolon hunts. Better Mining equipment, and fisher gear that Power Creeps the old starting equipment out...) ,

It's also rather sad that you would confuse progression with power creep. Just so you know, the two are distinct, and while vertical power progression, i.e. pure increases in power, can be a form of progression, so can horizontal power progression, i.e. increases in available options. In fact, it's even possible to implement progression in a game that involves neither vertical nor horizontal increases in power, as seen in, say, virtually any Super Mario game (which are singleplayer/coop, but nonetheless an example that illustrate the kind of progression I'm talking about).

Quote

Every MMO that I know has player hubs, and customization. Not Every MMO has a virtual economy. (Destiny does not, Dcuo does.) Most MMO's have level progression, or some sort of Character Progression. When Warframe fits every characteristic of an MMO, then by definition. It's an MMO. 

Actually no, it's no a MMO, it's simply a MMO to you. Literally nothing you just said is an objective fact, it is a pure statement of your own opinion, and your own experience, as noted by the framing of your knowledge here around your own self: because you only experienced MMOs with whichever features you just listed, because you cannot imagine games that do not follow this template, despite their existence, and because you are running by the logical fallacy that these features can somehow only exist in MMOs, despite obviously existing elsewhere, you personally believe Warframe is a MMO, which you consider to be an excuse to implement even more power creep, despite the complete lack of a logical link between a game being a MMO and a game needing power creep. If you want to believe all this, that is entirely your prerogative, and nobody can change your mind, but if you want any of this to be taken seriously, you're going to have to do a little better than just argue from your own opinion. As it stands, I'm completely unconvinced, and I don't quite see how your argumentation here could ever convince anyone that isn't you. Who are you trying to convince here? Are you even trying to convince anyone else?

EDIT: Oh, and lest I forget, you still have yet to make even a single reply to ysmer, whose thread you're desecrating, or a comment regarding their proposals, which was the reason they made this thread in the first place. What do you have to say for yourself?

Edited by Teridax68
  • Applause 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

I'm sorry, when did I say that combat was an essential component to MMOs? Second Life is indeed massively multiplayer because there are indeed a massive number of players all interacting with each other at the same time. Not only are you continuing to impose your own arbitrary standards of what constitutes an MMO, while parroting back that same criticism I made of your posts, your argument here is a complete red herring.

Except in every single one of these games but Warframe, the 4 or 8-player restriction is for parties in specific instances within the game; there isn't a set limit of how many players can simultaneously exist in the in-game world. The fact that you are flat-out lying at this point, and at the very least heavily warping the truth, shows just how little worth even you see in your own argumentation here.

 

And with each post, I take you less and less seriously. You're points are completely backwards in every respect. Tell me, what's the player limit in a Warframe Dojo? What's the player limit in instances like Cetus, and Fortuna? What's the limit of players in public, trade chat? The only person here who is inserting their own definition of MMO is you. If Second Life, is considered an MMO, then Warframe fits into that mold. As you can interact with groups of people in any multiplayer hub. 

Again, still looking for evidence, other then your opinion, that Warframe isn't an MMO. I can go into a moon clan, interact with people doing races, duels, take people to Frame fighter. Where's the player limit in this scenario? I can suffer through a Dojo with so many people, that my frame rate is non existent, and my frame looks headless, T-posing trying to load all the players inside. 

You are completely disingenuous, trying to push a narrative, based on your opinion and not on facts. Warframe has every similarity with an MMO, yet you try to write it off, without any supporting arguments. 
 

59 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

That is literally just the start menu. Who are you trying to fool? Go on PC, play a mission solo, go offline in the middle, and see for yourself.

If you had a functioning brain, you would see that I don't have the option to start the game. This is a direct screenshot from the game, and I have to connect online, to play Warframe. I can't load in, I have no other options then to quit, or connect. Honestly suspect you are a troll at this point. As you ignore logic, and proof put directly in front of your face. Speak about lying, all information you say should be fact checked, before anyones trusts the time of day you tell them. 


Warframe is an MMO. Power Creep is an integral part on that, and no matter how you try to push your narrative, it won't go anywhere. Take your agenda, and your failures to twist arguments somewhere else. You aren't fooling anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-11-27 at 1:15 AM, ysmer said:

all can be changed see melee 3.0

where? :crylaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

And with each post, I take you less and less seriously. You're points are completely backwards in every respect. Tell me, what's the player limit in a Warframe Dojo? What's the player limit in instances like Cetus, and Fortuna?

Those are missions now?

5 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

What's the limit of players in public, trade chat?

Chat is apparently now an in-game world as well. Interesting.

5 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

The only person here who is inserting their own definition of MMO is you.

So you literally typing out a checklist of criteria of MMO-ness just didn't happen, then?

5 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

If Second Life, is considered an MMO, then Warframe fits into that mold. As you can interact with groups of people in any multiplayer hub. 

Then by that same token so is TF2, which you explicitly said wasn't a MMO. Merely repeating your wrong assertions doesn't make your assertions any less wrong, it just makes you look desperate.

5 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Again, still looking for evidence, other then your opinion, that Warframe isn't an MMO. I can go into a moon clan, interact with people doing races, duels, take people to Frame fighter. Where's the player limit in this scenario? I can suffer through a Dojo with so many people, that my frame rate is non existent, and my frame looks headless, T-posing trying to load all the players inside. 

You can keep looking then, because evidence has already been posted, which you in fact responded to (or, rather, denied without justification or conspicuously ignored, as is the case here where you yet again dropped virtually all the points in conversation). Considering how your last resort here has been to retreat in some alternate reality where our posts somehow don't exist, even though they're right there on this thread, you can pretend to ask for as much evidence as you like, it's not going to fool anyone, as it is clear you do not in fact care for evidence or facts.

5 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

You are completely disingenuous, trying to push a narrative, based on your opinion and not on facts. Warframe has every similarity with an MMO, yet you try to write it off, without any supporting arguments. 

I see you've lost patience and started throwing direct insults my way. Truly, the mark of someone winning an argument right there. The saddest part is that this, too, is projection: you accuse me of disingenuousness, yet here you are deliberately ignoring evidence, dropping points you have lost (again), and pretending that no such evidence has been given even after you acknowledged its existence prior in the thread. It's pathetic. What's more, it is laughable to accuse me of pushing a narrative when it is you, not me, who is very explicitly trying to push the narrative that Warframe is a MMO (it isn't), and that this somehow justifies power creep, without even bothering to justify such a tremendous logical leap. That's the saddest part: even if you were right, and Warframe were indeed a MMO, that in itself would still not explain or justify a need for power creep. Your entire line of argumentation is not only wrong, it's pointless.

5 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

If you had a functioning brain, you would see that I don't have the option to start the game. This is a direct screenshot from the game, and I have to connect online, to play Warframe. I can't load in, I have no other options then to quit, or connect.

Interesting that you'd insult my intelligence when you appear to have critically misunderstood what I said for a second time. I had told you to start a mission after already being logged in with a connection (and then disconnecting), and even do so on PC if consoles functioned differently, yet for some reason you appear to have interpreted this as booting the game offline from the start, which I stated... where, exactly?

5 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Honestly suspect you are a troll at this point. As you ignore logic, and proof put directly in front of your face. Speak about lying, all information you say should be fact checked, before anyones trusts the time of day you tell them. 

It can and it is, hence why it is so easy to prove you are wrong here. It's these kinds of sad, desperate attempts at lying that have caused you to lose grip on the argument: rather than gracefully admit that you were wrong, even on a single point, you instead resorted to retreating into some imaginary world where you're always right and everyone else is wrong, all while throwing a whole slew of unsavory epithets my way. This isn't what people do when they win an argument, and it's not what mature people do in civil debate. If you want to talk about fact checking, perhaps start with your own statements, so many of which are easily disproven to the point where it is ridiculous that you'd even pretend otherwise (TF2 has no trading? Seriously?).

5 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Warframe is an MMO. Power Creep is an integral part on that, and no matter how you try to push your narrative, it won't go anywhere.

Sure, Jan. Putting aside how Warframe isn't a MMO, and how power creep isn't even an integral part to them (remember how you said Destiny had balanced weapons?), your posts do not even begin to explain why one entails the other, and why any of this is a reason why Warframe should have power creep. This is ultimately why strictly no part of your warped logic here makes any sense, or arrives at any useful conclusion. At the end of the day, you personally like power creep, and that's okay, but it is your attempts to foist your own preferences upon others that has sunk you. To this day, you have failed to convince anyone otherwise, and that is unlikely to ever change.

5 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Take your agenda, and your failures to twist arguments somewhere else. You aren't fooling anyone. 

You first. Unlike you, I actually contributed to this thread, and commented on ysmer's post at their request, offering feedback regarding their suggestions. By contrast, you went in and picked a fight right from the start, without even bothering to even pretend to care about the OP or their work. Not only is it you who have been trying to push a narrative, you have also been the one to enter this thread with an agenda, and the one to twist arguments to suit a rather noxious purpose. You have utterly failed to contribute even an ounce of productive discussion to this thread, and to this day continue to embarrass yourself in your attempts to hijack it for your own ends. Think about what you've done, and try to be honest with yourself this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Those are missions now?


You really need to get your argument straight. Second Life has no missions and is an MMO. Destiny, with its squad size of 4 is also a MMO. Warframe has the capability of both. You can hang out with as many players as you like outside of missions, like Second Life. Talk in region chat with how many players concurrently? Any activity in the game, is soaked to the brim with different ways I can interact with people. Terrible logic on your part, as per the usual. 
 

19 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Chat is apparently now an in-game world as well. Interesting.


Chat is an extension of that said world. Notice how you can pick out any single one of those players and interact with them? Talk, trade, ask to join with missions? It's cause they are connected to over the internet. Almost... almost like every one of them, and you are connected on some sort... of shared server. Weird!
 

19 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

So you literally typing out a checklist of criteria of MMO-ness just didn't happen, then?

So you literally ignoring the definition of an MMO, providing no evidence to support your nonsensical claim didn't just happen then?

Here are some definitions of MMO's for you, that don't come from me. 
 

Spoiler

An MMO, or massively multiplayer online game, is a game that thousands of participants can play simultaneously over the internet. Some MMO games offer voice chat, in which players can wear a headset and talk to other unseen players online. In many games there is a facility for 'chat' windows, so that players can communicate by typing messages into a text field on their computers. MMO games have been shown to be quite addictive to some players who are prepared to spend significant amounts of money paying for add-ons (for example weaponry) that might help them in the game's virtual world. For some games the business model is based on a subscription that allows players access to the game. Others have a "freemium" model, where players can use the basic version of the game for free, but are charged for the add-ons they decide they need.


---Interesting how Warframe has more, and more common characteristics of a MMO. It even has both the freemium model, and add ons. Ever heard of Prime Access? For example weaponry or cosmetics such as Vectis Prime, Tigris Prime, Rubico Prime, Gram Prime, Galatine Prime, and all are superior to the none Prime versions? 
 

Spoiler

A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG, or more commonly, MMO) is an online game with large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, on the same server.[1][not in citation given][unreliable source?] MMOs usually feature a huge, persistent open world, although some games differ. These games can be found for most network-capable platforms, including the personal computer, video game console, or smartphones and other mobile devices.

MMOs can enable players to cooperate and compete with each other on a large scale, and sometimes to interact meaningfully with people around the world. They include a variety of gameplay types, representing many video game genres.


Can Warframe enable players to do any of this? Cooperate on a large scale, like fighting ghouls, killing the Stalker's acolytes, or defending/rebuilding relays. Competing against each other in the gradivus dilemma or the Tubemen of Regor, or any rail war? Not to mention, faction invasions which switch what missions enemies control. 

You're one and only argument, to ever mounting evidence that Warframe isn't an MMO is that you don't have enough players together in a mission, Despite countless other MMO's doing the same thing. 
 

 

19 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Interesting that you'd insult my intelligence when you appear to have critically misunderstood what I said for a second time. I had told you to start a mission after already being logged in with a connection (and then disconnecting), and even do so on PC if consoles functioned differently, yet for some reason you appear to have interpreted this as booting the game offline from the start, which I stated... where, exactly?

#1 It's Interesting that you would ignore the blatant issue of having to log in first. If I cannot log in, which requires an internet connection, how am I supposed to play exactly? Let me repeat myself. Warframe, requires an internet connection to play. As you need to connect, so you can log in, in order for you to be able to play. If you cannot log in, you cannot play -requiring an internet connection.

#2 You are still wrong. (Shocker. I know.) 
 

Spoiler

image0.jpg

Spoiler

image0.jpg

Would you look at that. I failed to connect to the server... So I was logged out. This one server that connects me, to the entirety of the Warframe community. If I was on PC, that means that I wouldn't be able to play with all 59,000 players that were recorded today. https://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Oh, right. Wasn't an MMO a game where a server connected you to a massive host of players? Damn. Your argument catching on fire again. I really should grab some s'mores. 
 

19 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

You can keep looking then, because evidence has already been posted,


Nope. You have no evidence. You have posted no evidence, you pretend your opinion is evidence. With ever mounting evidence to the contrary that you ignore. 

Site information, and evidence apart from your own subjective opinion. When Warframe has more, and more in common with an MMO then what differentiates it from one? Yea. It's an MMO. 

 

Spoiler

WARFRAMELOGIC.jpg


 

Edited by (PS4)UltraKardas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:


You really need to get your argument straight. Second Life has no missions and is an MMO.

Sure, but its entire massively open world is where all the gameplay happens, whereas Cetus and Fortuna... aren't like that. It is interesting that you'd accuse me of not getting "[my] argument straight" when I haven't deviated in what I've been saying here, and the very problem with your own argument is its inconsistency.

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Destiny, with its squad size of 4 is also a MMO.

Same as above. Also, wasn't Destiny to you a chief example of a game with balanced weapons? How then is it a MMO if its weapons aren't based on power creep? Speaking of getting one's argument straight, you've just toppled yours here entirely without even needing my help. Good job, I guess?

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Warframe has the capability of both.

So Warframe has massive open worlds that can have dozens to thousands of players simultaneously engaging in their gameplay loop? Or are you merely suggesting that it could have all this?

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

You can hang out with as many players as you like outside of missions, like Second Life.

I thought Second Life didn't have missions? In which case, what is the "outside of" in Second Life?

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Talk in region chat with how many players concurrently? Any activity in the game, is soaked to the brim with different ways I can interact with people. Terrible logic on your part, as per the usual. 

As per the above: is chat an open world in and of itself now? You can accuse me of terrible logic as much as you like, simply repeating yourself and arguing by assertion, as you have done here, is itself simply a wrong way of arguing, as it has and will get you nowhere.

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Chat is an extension of that said world. Notice how you can pick out any single one of those players and interact with them? Talk, trade, ask to join with missions? It's cause they are connected to over the internet. Almost... almost like every one of them, and you are connected on some sort... of shared server. Weird!

What an interesting reach. Again, by that same token, literally any Steam game is a MMO, simply by dint of having a chat feature, which is apparently now automatically an extension of a massively online multiplayer world by dint of existing. Almost... almost like there's this online net, that interconnects us regardless of the games we play. Weird!

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

So you literally ignoring the definition of an MMO, providing no evidence to support your nonsensical claim didn't just happen then?

Hold on: you literally just accused me of foisting my own definition of a MMO, to which I clearly pointed out that it was you, not me, who was inventing some made-up definition of what constituted a MMO, when I had done no such thing. I don't see how you can try to lie here, and again I don't see why you'd try to resort to he-said-she-said, when all of your posts can be quoted (especially since I already quoted this specific portion in my previous post).

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Here are some definitions of MMO's for you, that don't come from me. 
 

  Reveal hidden contents

An MMO, or massively multiplayer online game, is a game that thousands of participants can play simultaneously over the internet. Some MMO games offer voice chat, in which players can wear a headset and talk to other unseen players online. In many games there is a facility for 'chat' windows, so that players can communicate by typing messages into a text field on their computers. MMO games have been shown to be quite addictive to some players who are prepared to spend significant amounts of money paying for add-ons (for example weaponry) that might help them in the game's virtual world. For some games the business model is based on a subscription that allows players access to the game. Others have a "freemium" model, where players can use the basic version of the game for free, but are charged for the add-ons they decide they need.

Thank you for providing an external definition! From the very first sentence, then, Warframe isn't an MMO, because thousands of players cannot play simultaneously in the same session, as has already been established. You have thus confirmed that my criticisms of your own made-up definition were indeed justified.

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

---Interesting how Warframe has more, and more common characteristics of a MMO. It even has both the freemium model, and add ons. Ever heard of Prime Access? For example weaponry or cosmetics such as Vectis Prime, Tigris Prime, Rubico Prime, Gram Prime, Galatine Prime, and all are superior to the none Prime versions? 

... which add ons? Where exactly is the freemium model standard in MMOs when the article clearly mentions that only some games have it, and when the most common model includes either an upfront price (World of Warcraft) or a subscription fee (World of Warcraft again). Again, it is painfully obvious here that you are grasping at straws, and are acting in deliberate ignorance of the definitions you yourself have given, which itself does nothing but undermine your point.

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG, or more commonly, MMO) is an online game with large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, on the same server.[1][not in citation given][unreliable source?] MMOs usually feature a huge, persistent open world, although some games differ. These games can be found for most network-capable platforms, including the personal computer, video game console, or smartphones and other mobile devices.

MMOs can enable players to cooperate and compete with each other on a large scale, and sometimes to interact meaningfully with people around the world. They include a variety of gameplay types, representing many video game genres.


Can Warframe enable players to do any of this? Cooperate on a large scale, like fighting ghouls, killing the Stalker's acolytes, or defending/rebuilding relays. Competing against each other in the gradivus dilemma or the Tubemen of Regor, or any rail war? Not to mention, faction invasions which switch what missions enemies control. 

I'm sorry, where exactly do these players cooperate again? How about on the same server? As has been pointed out, players do not play on the same server, and they are incapable of direct mass coordination. Again, the definition you used clearly states mass joint play is a core component to any MMO, a feature that is conspicuously missing from Warframe, so you are doing nothing but cherry-pick what you want to get out of these definitions you clearly aren't following.

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

You're one and only argument, to ever mounting evidence that Warframe isn't an MMO is that you don't have enough players together in a mission, Despite countless other MMO's doing the same thing. 

It is the literal core defining factor of a MMO for there to be a massive amount of players engaging in simultaneous multiplayer with each other online. The fact that you believe Warframe and other games that do not satisfy this criterion to be MMOs is your own problem, and a problem strictly of your own invention. Again, had this been an honest debate, you would have seen these definitions, seen how they repeat themselves on this, and admitted that something was lacking, yet here we are, with you claiming Warframe is a MMO because... why? Because it's freemium? Because it's had an update since its initial release? Please.

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

#1 It's Interesting that you would ignore the blatant issue of having to log in first. If I cannot log in, which requires an internet connection, how am I supposed to play exactly? Let me repeat myself. Warframe, requires an internet connection to play. As you need to connect, so you can log in, in order for you to be able to play. If you cannot log in, you cannot play -requiring an internet connection.

I very clearly stated that you could play after going offline, as stated in my initial note here:

On 2018-12-03 at 8:26 PM, Teridax68 said:

Actually, you can in fact play a solo mission offline, even if you can't save your progress until you go back online,

So not only did you decide to try to contradict me on a pointless detail, you have lost the point so badly that you decided to invent another one entirely, just so that you could have a chance at "winning" in some form. It is possible to play a solo mission without an internet connection, and the fact that you implicitly admit to this, and instead have sought to make excuses on how I apparently implied other parts of the game were offline-accessible too (I didn't), shows you know you're wrong on this matter as well.

 

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

#2 You are still wrong. (Shocker. I know.) 

  Reveal hidden contents

image0.jpg

  Reveal hidden contents

image0.jpg

Would you look at that. I failed to connect to the server... So I was logged out. This one server that connects me, to the entirety of the Warframe community. If I was on PC, that means that I wouldn't be able to play with all 59,000 players that were recorded today. https://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Did you... did you just show me a screenshot of yourself failing to log in? Again? How dishonest are you aiming to be in this exchange? Again, as pointed out above, you are free to try going offline while in the middle of a solo mission on PC (for some reason you're still insisting on using a console), and see for yourself. At this point you are shifting the goalposts so far from anything I've said that you've invented problems for you to argue with yourself against.

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Oh, right. Wasn't an MMO a game where a server connected you to a massive host of players? Damn. Your argument catching on fire again. I really should grab some s'mores. 

I don't think you understand how servers work. Connecting to a login server, which virtually any game does now, is significantly different from maintaining a persistent connection to a server that is populating a single in-game instance with thousands of players, something Warframe doesn't and cannot do. But please, continue illustrating Dunning-Kruger syndrome if you so wish.

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Nope. You have no evidence. You have posted no evidence, you pretend your opinion is evidence. With ever mounting evidence to the contrary that you ignore. 

So pointing out that teams in Warframe are limited to 4 isn't evidence now? Or pointing out Warframe's P2P connection? Again, repeating yourself makes you no less wrong on this matter, and the facts I've used to support my argument are so basic and easily verifiable that the mere fact that you seem to be putting them in question raises doubts not only on your intellectual honesty in this argument (there appears to be none), but also on your ability to comprehend basic facts, logic, and merely the optics of attempting to lie on an internet forum, where you can be and have been quoted on demand. At this point, you have been shown several times to have been purely making stuff up, yet here you are, projecting yet again by accusing me of your own shortcomings. Your "evidence" is not only baseless, it does not even make internal logical sense, particularly as you seem to be pushing Destiny as an example of an MMO, while also citing Destiny's lack of power creep as a model to not follow: so what is the truth, then?

4 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Site information, and evidence apart from your own subjective opinion. When Warframe has more, and more in common with an MMO then what differentiates it from one? Yea. It's an MMO. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

WARFRAMELOGIC.jpg

 

Did... did you try to make a meme? Yikes, this is beyond sad. 

Oh, and lest we forget, you still have yet to make even a single comment on ysmer's original post in this thread, and are continuing to hijack it for the sake of picking pointless fights you've lost many posts ago already. This is ultimately why it's easy to debate you: you know you're in the wrong, because there is simply so much to this argument that you are conspicuously ignoring. Had you any honesty or any real desire to engage in civil debate, you'd be giving at least some answer, yet each time I bring up your clearly unhealthy behavior on this thread... silence. You know that you've hijacked this thread, that you've failed to contribute to it positively, and that every single point you have made in your latest reply had already been addressed before you even took to typing it out, which is why every time any of this is brought to your attention, you can't even give an answer. Doing so would be an implicit admission that you'd read my reply, and therefore that you are indeed guilty of what's been mentioned, so you simply decided to address the issue in the absolute most cowardly way possible, that is by pretending it doesn't exist.

This shallow facade belies your entire position and substance in this argument, and the fact that you have literally no answer to this means I can keep unravelling your entire line of lies and shoddy arguments no matter how much effort you put into repeating yourself. You are incapable of giving any substantive answer to any argument, and when you try, the end result is so easy to disprove it raises the question of why you even made the attempt. At the end of the day, Warframe isn't an MMO, and even if it were, there would still be no reason for it to need power creep (this, by the way, is another critical point that seems to have escaped you). Seeing how you have had zero answer to this, and have done nothing but repeat yourself on points that have already been refuted several times already, you're going to have to try a little harder if you want to convince... well, anyone really. Alternatively, you can simply repeat yourself yet again, have every single one of your arguments instantly fall apart yet again, and embarrass yourself just that much more in the process. Your call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now