ysmer

Ideas to change the weapons systems to improve the game

Recommended Posts

Le 26/11/2018 à 18:15, ysmer a dit :

all can be changed see melee 3.0

"where? "

i mean by this that de is going to change melee a lot, i wrote that cause some people say de wouldnt change a thing.

well my ideas dont get much support like i thought they would, i guess the most people just like to use a few weapons, teridax ill apreciate very much your ideas and your support, even your emotion to debate with people, ill surrender with my ideas how you think with your ideas we could make all weapons viable?

ultrakardas this is about weapons and his damage, not about if warframe is mmo or not so you have any ideas about to improve weapons? or you think they are just perfect the way they are right now

Edited by ysmer

Share this post


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

Sure, but its entire massively open world is where all the gameplay happens, whereas Cetus and Fortuna... aren't like that.

You spend the majority of your time teleporting around in Second Life to get to different locations. Cetus and Fortuna, are large enough with their player populace. 
 

17 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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?

Have you ever played Destiny? All the weapons do the same range of damage, when you are above the required gear level. The game has had several expansions, that release new weapons and gear, that have higher levels then the previous content. Using weapons lower then the level of the enemy you are fighting gets you reduced damage. 
The Gjallerhorn (The most famous Destiny weapon) became unused later when it's light level was too low, Good job in making a statement in reference to something you know nothing about. A new DlC came out for Destiny 2, that raised the maximum light level; -Aka Power Creep. 
 

17 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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?

Warframe started out as a bare bones MMO. However, as more and more features get added, (Like Fortuna and Cetus the open world maps) it has completed its transition into a full blown MMO. Proven, by all the dozen of Characteristics of other MMO's it has shown during its growth. You never answered my question. What's the maximum amount of people that can load into a dojo, at the same time to interact out with each other? I can easily have dozens of people in Fortuna or Cetus. Not even close to being difficult. 
 

17 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.

The only definition of MMO, that you use, is your own narrow minded version. I have provided the actual definitions of an MMO to you, citing the variations of an MMO. Not my interpretation of an MMO. You have confined an MMO, multiple times to the smallest tightest definition of an MMO that you try to excuse. Despite multiple games existence as an MMO shattering your Narrative. Destiny for example, brutalizes your definition. Destiny, and Warframe have a lot of common ground, except with a different approach to their games. Destiny is PvP based, Warframe is PvE based. Warframe lets you have more interactions, such as clan dojos, virtual economy, trading, decorating and inviting people over to your ship etc- 

I more then welcome you to try to make an actual distinction between Destiny and Warframe, that would cement Destiny as an MMO, and not Warframe. They have the following in common: Player hubs where players can see each other. Multiple classes, 4 players in normal missions, mods technically, diverse amount of weapons, multiple varying enemy factions, raids/raid bosses, events, Power Creep/expansions, character customization, level progression, and more. 
 

17 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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!

Except that the chat server, is basically a staple in any standard MMO. Chat also lets you play with every single person you see listed. Just like how in WoW, you can interact with any person you see in chat. 

You can talk publicly, or in Relay/dojo/mission/ only chats. Or try your luck in trading tab. Not

 

17 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.

I think you are confusing the term "Simultaneously" with another definition. Do you know how many missions are going on simultaneously? Are you aware how many clans are existing and interacting amongst themselves simultaneously? You do not have to play with every player in the game at the same time. This is impossible, as people will be in different areas, different maps, or different missions with different people. Again- an example of your flawed, narrow minded definition. 

Still waiting on the max amount of players in a clan dojo btw-
 

17 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

... 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).


Add ons, like World of Warcrafts multiple expansions, that people had to pay for as well as their subscription. Other examples? Tera and DCUO that have a free to play option, or a subscription that gives you certain perks. Both have  additional cosmetic add ons, while DCUO has multiple expansions you can pay for to have access to permanently, or you can subscribe to the game, to enjoy all content for as long as you are subscribed. Subscription based MMO's are become less popular every day. World of Tanks, Neverwinter, Guild Wars 2, DCUO, Tera, Warframe, War Thunder, Maple Story to list just a few FREE 2 Play MMO games. 

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.


Cooperate, like when a massive amount of people need to whittle down a Stalker Acolyte's health, or destroy a formorian?. As by the sheer amount of Propaganda that involved the Tubemen of Regor. Where Tenno tried to persuade others into contributing one side instead of the other, so they could get the event weapon they wanted. See how Dark Sectors are owned by a clan? Those players had to cooperate and beat other other clans to control that node. 

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.


Like how hundreds of players are playing witch each other in different groups in Warframe? Like how all of Destiny's player base do the exact same? Or how about Tera where people almost only exclusively play in 4 player squads? All of these are MMOs. 

Guess what? Warframe can simultaneously have players trading with each other, while other people complete missions together, as their friends gather resources in Cetus, and people pop tricks in Fortuna. All the while, thousands of messages typing in chats every minute. This all happening simultaneously. 

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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



And I very clearly corrected you that you are wrong. To play Warframe, you are required to log into the game. To log into the game, you are required to have an internet connection. This is a requirement. Opening up Warframe from a cabin in the woods without internet will not let you play. But let's be real, your arguments are completely factless. Your points are terribly thought out, toxic, and the complete opposite of what has been Warframe's foundation. Yo

If I want to play an MMO, I will always have to log on to the server.  If I want to play Warframe, I will need an internet connection to log on. Warframe requires an Internet connection to play. Yet other games, with online features such as Monster Hunter World, will allow me to play offline without a hitch. I just get a little note, that the network capabilities of Monster Hunter will be disabled. 

Warframe on the other hand, won't even save your game data by your own admission. I can play through Monster Hunter solo, and enjoy the story no problem. Warframe will reset your progress every mission you said? Meaning that no player can actually progress through Warframe offline. 

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

So pointing out that teams in Warframe are limited to 4 isn't evidence now?


Nope. As other MMO's such as Destiny, Tera, and multiple others have instances were teams are limited to 4. What happens when Warframe has its raids re-released? Does it suddenly become a full fledged MMO, when you can suddenly play with more people again? 

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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


You know what would be even more sad? To be as humorless as you are. Must be really sad to not be able to laugh at a simple joke. 

Warframe is a game loaded with memes. My personal favorite meme, is all hail booben. 

vauban_ponders_something_interesting_by_

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.


I don't think you know what MMO means. Massively Multiplayer Online game. I play on console, as that is where my friends play. I am completely unable to play Warframe, as it is an MMO. You admitted to, and destroyed your own argument, that you cannot progress, or complete the game while Offline. See, you have to log on. Connect to the server, then have full access to every other play who has connected to the ONLINE server. Peer 2 Peer is a non argument. Diablo 3 has Peer to Peer. Its an MMO. Diablo is also the closest comparison to Warframe as both games have such a focus on loot, and player progression. 

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.


I addressed his points long ago. Progression needs to exist in this game. Weapons need to be stronger then the other for the sole reason, of incentivizing other players to get them. I have many friends who will stick to a single weapon, and frame; until they find something stronger. They have no interest to switching to another weapon, when they already have one they like. They would be willing to swap, if it made their character more powerful. 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.


I choose to ignore your attempts at picking a fight with me. I explained the reasoning behind how the game functions, you tried to talk down in a condescending manner. You cling on to your dogma. I correct you, debunk every point you try to make and move on. Your logic is weak, flawed, full of holes, and you only have a single argument. Why shouldn't weapons all be equally strong? Why not? Why is Warframe not an MMO? Not Massive enough. You have a single argument each. Only your opinion to back either. Multiple arguments against every angle of your post. 

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

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.


Really then? Give me one other argument for any of your positions. Tell me one other reason why Warframe isn't an MMO other then the repeated trash can of logic you have repeated over and over. I have made the argument that Warframe has multiple aspects of MMO's, has a massive active player base that interacts in dozen of ways, that Warframe follows common gameplay loops of other MMO's, and that like other MMO's, you have to log on, to a server to play. 

Warframe is Multiplayer, as you can play with 59,000 other people on steam. Warframe is online, as you have to be online to log on to play. "Massive" is the only subjective argument your make. It's a weak argument, with enough proof against it, I could go on all day. 

Talk about losing an argument, and a shallow facade. You might as well accept you are a 1 trick pony. 

 
  • Woah 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ysmer said:

well my ideas dont get much support like i thought they would, i guess the most people just like to use a few weapons, teridax ill apreciate very much your ideas and your support, even your emotion to debate with people, ill surrender with my ideas how you think with your ideas we could make all weapons viable?

I do think your ideas could get more support, as the response to them has been positive when it's occurred. As mentioned above, I also do think your idea is brilliant as a short-term solution to help give all weapons more viability, since it offers a blanket system that could easily be applied to all weapons, including new weapons, and could give them at least some degree of effectiveness at all levels.

In the long term, to reiterate, I think the only solution to make all weapons viable is going to be to balance all weapons individually, which has already been done before, but this time along such standards that they genuinely can compete with each other. There are also probably some systemic changes that may need to happen to enemies as well. In bulletpoint form, what I think would help bring all weapons to a consistent level of viability:

  • Balance similar weapons around similar damage levels, so that there aren't stark differences in power: This I think is pretty self-evident, in that if there are two weapons that do mostly the same things, except one is much stronger than the other, obviously that weapon's going to get picked and not the other. We therefore need to balance weapons to be able to deal consistent and competitive amounts of damage relative to each other.
  • Differentiate weapons from each other so that each weapon is unique in some respect: This I think would likely be the most difficult task, because it would involve either finding what makes a weapon unique, and flesh it out more, or inventing a new mechanic altogether, which would entail quite a bit of work on older weapons. This, however, I think would be the only way to justify the existence of all these weapons, because otherwise they just remain clones of each other as is the case now, which also means there ends up being only one weapon worth using. In many cases, this could likely be solved by integrating unique weapon augments directly into the weapon itself.
  • Differentiate enemy distributions so that we're not always fighting a horde: This I think is a change that needs to happen for reasons beyond just weapon balancing, because currently fighting any enemy faction tends to play out like horde mode-type combat. This makes enemy factions too similar to each other, lessening diversity of play, and also causes some specific enemies to mesh really poorly with the current systems: Corpus enemies in particular tend to be more complex, with many units in Orb Vallis demanding the player's attention, for example, but this doesn't work in an environment where the player has to pay attention to many different enemies at a time. With pure respect to weapons, this means that room blenders tend to dominate, whereas weapons intended for single targets tend to suffer. Differentiating these factions so that some offer a small number of tough enemies (e.g. the Corpus), others offer horde mode (e.g. the Infested), and others would offer a blend of weaker and tougher enemies (e.g. the Grineer), would help make different weapons naturally more viable against different factions (snipers could naturally become great anti-Corpus weapons if the faction had fewer units with much greater health).
13 hours ago, ysmer said:

ultrakardas this is about weapons and his damage, not about if warframe is mmo or not so you have any ideas about to improve weapons? or you think they are just perfect the way they are right now

As a reminder to UltraKardas: you still haven't given any proper feedback on this thread or its ideas, and as noted by the above, the original poster has noticed this. Could you perhaps at least try to drop even one sentence? You clearly have the time to write your lengthy screeds, so giving even one small comment on ysmer's ideas shouldn't take that much more of your time.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

You spend the majority of your time teleporting around in Second Life to get to different locations. Cetus and Fortuna, are large enough with their player populace. 

So fast travel is what makes a game a MMO now? You keep reaching far too hard with these kinds of arguments, which not only has completely lost you all credibility, but has also made you lose sight of the point: right now, you seem to be trying to seriously convince me that Cetus and Fortuna, two hubs, are the equivalent of the entire massively multiplayer world of Second Life. Are you aware nobody is ever going to buy this?

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Have you ever played Destiny? All the weapons do the same range of damage, when you are above the required gear level. The game has had several expansions, that release new weapons and gear, that have higher levels then the previous content. Using weapons lower then the level of the enemy you are fighting gets you reduced damage. 
The Gjallerhorn (The most famous Destiny weapon) became unused later when it's light level was too low, Good job in making a statement in reference to something you know nothing about. A new DlC came out for Destiny 2, that raised the maximum light level; -Aka Power Creep. 

So does it or does it not have power creep, then? In one of your previous posts you accused me of wanting to make Warframe a Destiny clone, purely because I wanted to balance weapons relative to each other. It doesn't really seem like you can make your mind up on the subject, or like you even understand what you're trying to argue.

Moreover, you also just gave an excellent reason why Warframe doesn't function like a classic MMO: expansion packs. MMOs like Destiny and World of Warcraft have power creep because they have clearly separated, usually paid expansions that raise the level cap, which also happens to define the player's overall power level. Warframe has no such thing: for starters, MR doesn't strictly define power level, because one does not need to reach maximum MR to maximize one's power: a MR 26 player can and likely will be just as powerful as a MR 20 player, because both have equal access to all the weapons, mods, etc. in the game. Second, Warframe does not have expansion packs, only updates that do not, in fact, attempt to raise the power cap. Warframe's updating process does not deliberately try to power creep the game for the sake of high-level players, and in fact most of its largest recent updates have been geared primarily towards newer players, with Cetus and Fortuna intentionally being made accessible early on to new players. Thus, not only is Warframe not a MMO, its updating process isn't even remotely similar to that of MMOs, and neither needs nor deliberately enforces power creep. QED.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Warframe started out as a bare bones MMO. However, as more and more features get added, (Like Fortuna and Cetus the open world maps) it has completed its transition into a full blown MMO. Proven, by all the dozen of Characteristics of other MMO's it has shown during its growth. You never answered my question. What's the maximum amount of people that can load into a dojo, at the same time to interact out with each other? I can easily have dozens of people in Fortuna or Cetus. Not even close to being difficult. 

The better question is: why is that number relevant? You can easily check for yourself what the technical connection limits are on dojos, the point remains that dojos, as with any hub in Warframe, aren't the large, content-filled open worlds of MMOs, no matter how much you'd like to pretend they are. It doesn't matter if a million people can get together in the same dojo, what matters is whether those million people get to play together in an actual mission (and the very fact that we only have small-scale "missions" where all of the core gameplay is contained is itself proof that Warframe isn't an MMO). It is silly to insist that hubs are somehow the entire core gameplay loop of Warframe, and even sillier to repeat yourself in front of an audience that has remained wholly unconvinced throughout.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

The only definition of MMO, that you use, is your own narrow minded version. I have provided the actual definitions of an MMO to you, citing the variations of an MMO. Not my interpretation of an MMO. You have confined an MMO, multiple times to the smallest tightest definition of an MMO that you try to excuse. Despite multiple games existence as an MMO shattering your Narrative. Destiny for example, brutalizes your definition. Destiny, and Warframe have a lot of common ground, except with a different approach to their games. Destiny is PvP based, Warframe is PvE based. Warframe lets you have more interactions, such as clan dojos, virtual economy, trading, decorating and inviting people over to your ship etc- 

This is all adorable, but as noted in the immediate previous post, I pointed out that Warframe isn't an MMO by the very definitions you used. These definitions, by the way, corroborated mine, which relies on the very simple criterion that a massively multiplayer online game should allow a massive amount of players to engage in its core gameplay in simultaneous multiplayer, which usually implies an online medium. The problem isn't that my definition of an MMO is narrow-minded, it's that you're trying to distort the meaning of an MMO to suit your own ends, stretching it to such a degree that it loses all meaning. Moreover, Destiny "brutalizes" your own definition of an MMO, not mine, as it corresponds to my own definition: as you were so kind to mention, Destiny deliberately balances its weapons at the highest tier so that weapons at the same level don't power creep each other, which directly contradicts your core claim that a MMO needs constant power creep to function. Similarly, you have also been generous enough to shatter your own flimsy narrative without anyone else's help, as you explicitly denied the MMO status of games like TF2 and CS:GO, immediately after producing a bizarre reinterpretation of the definition of an MMO that just so happens to perfectly include those two games. It is obvious you don't know what a MMO is, but more to the point, you don't care, you just want to give yourself the illusion of having made a point, even if that point comes at the cost of destroying everything you've said immediately before. It's not a particularly smart tactic, nor is it an honest one, and it has caused you to lose track of the original agenda you were trying to push: just as a little reminder, why are you trying so hard to finagle the definition of a MMO in a thread on weapon balancing? 

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I more then welcome you to try to make an actual distinction between Destiny and Warframe, that would cement Destiny as an MMO, and not Warframe. They have the following in common: Player hubs where players can see each other. Multiple classes, 4 players in normal missions, mods technically, diverse amount of weapons, multiple varying enemy factions, raids/raid bosses, events, Power Creep/expansions, character customization, level progression, and more. 

I did, see the above. Actual massively multiplayer gameplay, self-contained expansions, different leveling schemes and implications to leveling, different goals to updates, the list goes on. Even the "classes" are different, as there are no such thing as character classes in Warframe, only individual characters, which is closer in design to a MOBA than a MMO.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Except that the chat server, is basically a staple in any standard MMO. Chat also lets you play with every single person you see listed. Just like how in WoW, you can interact with any person you see in chat. 

Chat servers are the staple on virtually anything online, period. As per the above, it is incredibly silly to pretend that the mere existence of a chat function is enough to call a game a MMO, particularly when, once again, such a feature exists in games like TF2 and CS:GO, which you don't consider to be MMOs, and even singleplayer games if they're hosted on an online distribution platform.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

You can talk publicly, or in Relay/dojo/mission/ only chats. Or try your luck in trading tab. Not

... not what? It looks like you were trying to say something here, though from the looks of it, nothing you've said that hasn't been refuted before.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I think you are confusing the term "Simultaneously" with another definition. Do you know how many missions are going on simultaneously? Are you aware how many clans are existing and interacting amongst themselves simultaneously? You do not have to play with every player in the game at the same time. This is impossible, as people will be in different areas, different maps, or different missions with different people. Again- an example of your flawed, narrow minded definition. 

I think you may benefit from perhaps reading beyond just the first few words in a sentence, as the complete version was in face "simultaneously in the same session". For sure, many players can be logged into the same game at the same time, that does not mean they are all playing together simultaneously, because each of them are in different sessions. There aren't hundreds to thousands of players all killing enemies or engaging in whichever other core gameplay function in the same massive level together in Warframe, even though that is one of the most immediately recognizable features of any MMO.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Still waiting on the max amount of players in a clan dojo btw-

Because... ?

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Add ons, like World of Warcrafts multiple expansions, that people had to pay for as well as their subscription. Other examples? Tera and DCUO that have a free to play option, or a subscription that gives you certain perks. Both have  additional cosmetic add ons, while DCUO has multiple expansions you can pay for to have access to permanently, or you can subscribe to the game, to enjoy all content for as long as you are subscribed. Subscription based MMO's are become less popular every day. World of Tanks, Neverwinter, Guild Wars 2, DCUO, Tera, Warframe, War Thunder, Maple Story to list just a few FREE 2 Play MMO games. 

Ah yes, how could anyone forget Warframe's famous paid expansions. 🤣

But seriously, just... no. The claim you are making here is so utterly wrong, so utterly disconnected from reality it's insane, and nobody's willing to humor you out of pity either. Warframe isn't a game that runs on subscriptions, nor does it run on paid expansions, and the only "add ons" it has are microtransactions, which are present in almost every single modern game, including some singleplayer ones. Are you sure it's Warframe you've been playing, and not some other game whose name you've continually misread?

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Cooperate, like when a massive amount of people need to whittle down a Stalker Acolyte's health, or destroy a formorian?. As by the sheer amount of Propaganda that involved the Tubemen of Regor. Where Tenno tried to persuade others into contributing one side instead of the other, so they could get the event weapon they wanted. See how Dark Sectors are owned by a clan? Those players had to cooperate and beat other other clans to control that node. 

Cooperate how? Did these players all meet together and fight alongside each other simultaneously towards a common goal? I don't think so. Sure, the game logged the individual contributions of these players, but it did not put them all together in the same environment when having them push towards that goal. By your same loopy logic, an 80s arcade game is a MMO, because it logs the high scores of different players across different sessions.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Like how hundreds of players are playing witch each other in different groups in Warframe? Like how all of Destiny's player base do the exact same? Or how about Tera where people almost only exclusively play in 4 player squads? All of these are MMOs.

I'm sorry, are they playing with each other, or in different groups? Are they playing together or separately? By definition, you can't have both, and to some extent it's almost impressive that you'd expect everyone else to not see the immediate contradiction here.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Guess what? Warframe can simultaneously have players trading with each other, while other people complete missions together, as their friends gather resources in Cetus, and people pop tricks in Fortuna. All the while, thousands of messages typing in chats every minute. This all happening simultaneously. 

Guess what? So can Team Fortress 2, yet as you yourself said, TF2 is no MMO. What then is the critical differentiating factor here? Again, you seem to be under the impression that any online game, or any multiplayer game, is a MMO, while failing to understand that a game can only be MMO if it is massively multiplayer online. It's right there in the name, in case you missed it.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

And I very clearly corrected you that you are wrong. To play Warframe, you are required to log into the game. To log into the game, you are required to have an internet connection. This is a requirement. Opening up Warframe from a cabin in the woods without internet will not let you play.

Except you didn't, you merely pretended that I said you could somehow enter the game while offline (which I never said), just so that you could have a straw man to pretend to win against. Once again, you are repeating the same argument that was refuted before, while also continuing to pretend like I didn't specifically mention the case where you could log into the game while online (and preferably on PC), go into a mission, go offline mid-mission, and be able to play it just fine all the way to the end, whereupon you'd need to go back online to save your progress. This is easily provable and verifiable, so the fact that you keep trying to deny it is... well, just sad, not to mention rather telling as to your honesty in this argument.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

But let's be real, your arguments are completely factless. Your points are terribly thought out, toxic, and the complete opposite of what has been Warframe's foundation. Yo

Yo right back at you, fam. 😎

(But seriously, though, proofreading is a thing you should try. One unfinished paragraph from time to time might be fine, but two in the same post is kinda embarrassing).

But also, speaking of "factless" (sic) arguments, not only are my arguments, in fact, factual (you can easily see for yourself whether one can continue playing a mission while offline, for example, or whether TF2 has a chat or trading function), it is your own arguments that are baseless. Why is Warframe a MMO? Why do MMOs need power creep? Why does Warframe need power creep? These are questions you have routinely failed to answer, despite the bloated volume of your posts. As evidenced by literally your very same quote here, for all the effort you put into writing quantity into your posts, you have performed exactly zero quality control, leading to posts that are not only terribly thought out, but frequently incoherent to the point of being incomprehensible. Whereas I entered this thread in good will and posted feedback on the OP, which I continue to do, you have done nothing but pile on hostility, vitriol and toxicity into your posts here from the get-go, and to this day have still not made a single post relevant to this thread. Not only are your calls for power creep in direct conflict with Warframe's core structure and needs, your very attitude on here is the polar opposite of what one would ever want or expect from a member of the Warframe community.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

If I want to play an MMO, I will always have to log on to the server.  If I want to play Warframe, I will need an internet connection to log on. Warframe requires an Internet connection to play. Yet other games, with online features such as Monster Hunter World, will allow me to play offline without a hitch. I just get a little note, that the network capabilities of Monster Hunter will be disabled.

... just as you get a note mid-mission in Warframe that you are currently disconnected from the servers if you go offline then. It's these little nuggets of ignorance that make it look like you don't even play Warframe.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Warframe on the other hand, won't even save your game data by your own admission. I can play through Monster Hunter solo, and enjoy the story no problem. Warframe will reset your progress every mission you said? Meaning that no player can actually progress through Warframe offline. 

Sure, and I never denied that, I merely said that you can continue a mission solo if you ever get disconnected. You seem to be getting very angry over something nobody seems to be disagreeing upon.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Nope. As other MMO's such as Destiny, Tera, and multiple others have instances were teams are limited to 4. What happens when Warframe has its raids re-released? Does it suddenly become a full fledged MMO, when you can suddenly play with more people again? 

Except Destiny and Tera have actual massively multiplayer gameplay, as they are not restricted to that kind of content. For sure, there are specific subcomponents to those games that have size limits (which are typically referred to as "dungeons" in most MMOs), but those are not the be-all and end-all to the core gameplay there, unlike Warframe, including if its raids got re-released. Again, the fact that team size in Warframe is limited to 4 in its missions is a fact, and no matter how hard you may try to argue on semantics, that statement does in fact constitute evidence. Your claim that I do not post evidence is therefore an easily disproven lie.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

You know what would be even more sad? To be as humorless as you are. Must be really sad to not be able to laugh at a simple joke.

Oh, don't get me wrong, your posts are absolutely hilarious, it's just that the one time you actually deliberately try to be funny, well... it just didn't land. The meme you posted is the kind that gets made in such complete isolation that the moment it gets revealed to more than just the person who made it, it's so garbled as to be cringeworthy. I sincerely doubt anyone outside of this thread, even within the Warframe community, would be able to understand the point of the meme, in no small part because the meme itself is utterly incoherent.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Warframe is a game loaded with memes. My personal favorite meme, is all hail booben. 

vauban_ponders_something_interesting_by_

Indeed! Warframe is full of wonderful and funny memes, none of which were contributed by you. This situation so far hasn't changed, and likely never will.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:


I don't think you know what MMO means. Massively Multiplayer Online game. I play on console, as that is where my friends play. I am completely unable to play Warframe, as it is an MMO.

Wait, are you confessing that you don't actually play Warframe?

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

You admitted to, and destroyed your own argument, that you cannot progress, or complete the game while Offline. See, you have to log on. Connect to the server, then have full access to every other play who has connected to the ONLINE server.

I'm sorry, which argument did I destroy? By all means, please point to the quote where I made the argument that one can progress or log in while offline.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Peer 2 Peer is a non argument. Diablo 3 has Peer to Peer. Its an MMO.

LOL 😂

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Diablo is also the closest comparison to Warframe as both games have such a focus on loot, and player progression. 

That's perfect then, because despite your incredibly weird notions, Diablo isn't a MMO. I don't quite get why you'd think that it would be in the first place, but if Diablo is indeed the closest thing to Warframe, then that's perfect, because that also implies Warframe isn't a MMO either.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I addressed his points long ago.

Where? Please point directly to the part in this thread where you directly gave an answer to ysmer and commented on their ideas.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Progression needs to exist in this game. Weapons need to be stronger then the other for the sole reason, of incentivizing other players to get them. I have many friends who will stick to a single weapon, and frame; until they find something stronger. They have no interest to switching to another weapon, when they already have one they like. They would be willing to swap, if it made their character more powerful. 

Why? Why are you trying to force players to abandon weapons and frames they like? Why is power creep the only way of incentivizing all players to try new stuff? Why is it bad if some players stick to the same stuff? This is why it's so difficult to understand your opinion, because despite this being the core argument you're running on, none of it is substantiated in any way, nor does any of it even make sense.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I choose to ignore your attempts at picking a fight with me.

LOL. How can you even pretend to claim this when your very first post on this thread did nothing but directly pick a fight with me? This is nothing but more projection, and is so poorly disguised that even the motivation behind it is obvious. Moreover, I called you out on this long after you had started arguing with me: you weren't avoiding a fight with me, you just attempted to ignore getting called out on your toxic behavior, and so in the absolute most cowardly way possible. The fact that you'd try to defend yourself on this matter here, while still having failed to make any contribution to the OP or this thread, is pathetic.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I explained the reasoning behind how the game functions, you tried to talk down in a condescending manner. You cling on to your dogma. I correct you, debunk every point you try to make and move on. Your logic is weak, flawed, full of holes, and you only have a single argument. Why shouldn't weapons all be equally strong? Why not? Why is Warframe not an MMO? Not Massive enough. You have a single argument each. Only your opinion to back either. Multiple arguments against every angle of your post. 

Which multiple arguments? Which reasoning? Again, you are projecting so perfectly here that your accusations would make perfect sense, had you the honesty to switch us around in the text. From the very beginning, your posts have been condescending, and your argumentation so utterly weaksauce that you've had no choice but to abandon the vast majority of your points after they immediately fell apart. The only arguments you have left are arguments you made several posts ago, which you keep repeating despite them having been refuted each and every time. You do not have arguments any more, only a desperate need to save face in an argument you lost since the moment you made your first post.

Oh, and for the record, "not massive enough" is a pertinent point to make when discussing whether or not a game is massively multiplayer, a key aspect of the genre you don't quite seem to understand, or rather, want to pretend doesn't exist. It is a fact that no more than 4 players can engage together in Warframe's current core gameplay loop, and if you consider facts to be "dogma", then I sure as hell am dogmatic, and proud of it too.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Really then? Give me one other argument for any of your positions. Tell me one other reason why Warframe isn't an MMO other then the repeated trash can of logic you have repeated over and over.

Where to start? I pointed out that the multiplayer in Warframe isn't massive, so that's already evidence enough, but as mentioned above already, Warframe's core content release and update model does not hinge upon typical MMO-style expansions or power creep, even if there are legacy features in place that make power creep a pervasive risk. The game doesn't try to put too many players in the same session, and in fact it likely doesn't want to, because having more than 8 players in the same mission would be likely too chaotic for the game to work. Put more simply: Warframe doesn't want to be a MMO, because its gameplay is simply not build for massive-scale multiplayer, so much as relatively small-sized teams. I could go on, but that's already more valid arguments than you've ever put forth.

On that matter, by the way: what about your own arguments? Do you have anything new to say? Any responses to the above? Because so far, the only person to repeat themselves, even after their points have been refuted, has been you: not only have I made many arguments that have remained uncontested (including the above), your arguments by contrast have all been refuted several posts ago. Do you therefore have anything to offer than, as you put it, "the repeated trash can of logic you have repeated over and over"?

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I have made the argument that Warframe has multiple aspects of MMO's, has a massive active player base that interacts in dozen of ways, that Warframe follows common gameplay loops of other MMO's, and that like other MMO's, you have to log on, to a server to play. 

That's cute... except you didn't. Exactly none of your arguments were valid, and in many cases they were based on outright lies. Your definition of a MMO initially changed from post to post, until you eventually gave up, abandoned any consistent definition altogether, and instead insisted upon repeating the same few tired arguments, even after they'd long been proven wrong, and even though you ended up contradicted the bulk of your arguments immediately before.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Warframe is Multiplayer, as you can play with 59,000 other people on steam. Warframe is online, as you have to be online to log on to play. "Massive" is the only subjective argument your make. It's a weak argument, with enough proof against it, I could go on all day.

In more honest words: "I can't justify the massively multiplayer aspect of Warframe, because there isn't one, so I'll just pretend that it's all subjective instead".

You do realize you've critically undermined your own argument as well, right? If the question of whether a game is massively multiplayer is indeed subjective, as you're saying, then your opinion of Warframe as a MMO is as good as mine, and you have no reason to pretend your own definition of massively multiplayer (what even is your definition?) is fact. It's like you know already that you cannot claim in seriousness that Warframe is a MMO, yet don't want to say it explicitly, because that to you would also be an admission of defeat.

2 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Talk about losing an argument, and a shallow facade. You might as well accept you are a 1 trick pony. 

I'd have to agree, except you seem to have the rather interesting habit of substituting me for yourself in these comments. Whereas I have answered your arguments directly, while making counter-arguments of your own, you have done nothing except repeat yourself for the last few posts, resorting to increasingly desperate exaggerations as you dig yourself a deeper hole. In your imaginary world, Diablo 3 is a MMO, TF2 doesn't have trading, and Warframe apparently has paid expansions that raise the level cap. As long as you keep repeating yourself, I will keep repeating back the same counter-arguments, and if that bores you, that's just too bad. If you want conversation to advance, you'll just have to come up with an original thought.

  • Applause 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Balance similar weapons around similar damage levels, so that there aren't stark differences in power: This I think is pretty self-evident, in that if there are two weapons that do mostly the same things, except one is much stronger than the other, obviously that weapon's going to get picked and not the other. We therefore need to balance weapons to be able to deal consistent and competitive amounts of damage relative to each other.

agreed with this, but still i think like in real life weapons, sometimes there is a beretta, and there is a beretta with silencer and laser sight (just and example). so there are similar weapons but one is better, of course people would go for the better but the question is they cant afford it? im agree with you with this point but simply i do think cheaper weapons have to be just a little weaker (not that much so dont be upset!) just for the fact if you spend your time or money farming for something atleast it should be rewarding.

and i think this have a factor that i support that is balance "similar weapons" of course some weapons have diferent level of damage, pretty much like now but improved, i dont think automatic weapons should damage more than semi automatic, the diference should be bigger. even slow some firerates to make more diference between weapons ( to adress the problem with macros and semiautomatic weapons)

 

  • Differentiate weapons from each other so that each weapon is unique in some respect: This I think would likely be the most difficult task, because it would involve either finding what makes a weapon unique, and flesh it out more, or inventing a new mechanic altogether, which would entail quite a bit of work on older weapons. This, however, I think would be the only way to justify the existence of all these weapons, because otherwise they just remain clones of each other as is the case now, which also means there ends up being only one weapon worth using. In many cases, this could likely be solved by integrating unique weapon augments directly into the weapon itself.

agree with this but i think some weapons are just improved version and we dont need to go deeper in that, same example with the beretta i give before, what i do think could be better is to differentiate WEAPONS TYPE cause in the end shoutguns will still be shotguns and shoutguns maybe they arent so diferenc thenselves.

i like the part of mechanics maybe pasives, that stuff,and the augment idea is great, i do have the sames thought that you have weapons feel all like the same.... just a diferent sprite and sound,

 

  • Differentiate enemy distributions so that we're not always fighting a horde: This I think is a change that needs to happen for reasons beyond just weapon balancing, because currently fighting any enemy faction tends to play out like horde mode-type combat. This makes enemy factions too similar to each other, lessening diversity of play, and also causes some specific enemies to mesh really poorly with the current systems: Corpus enemies in particular tend to be more complex, with many units in Orb Vallis demanding the player's attention, for example, but this doesn't work in an environment where the player has to pay attention to many different enemies at a time. With pure respect to weapons, this means that room blenders tend to dominate, whereas weapons intended for single targets tend to suffer. Differentiating these factions so that some offer a small number of tough enemies (e.g. the Corpus), others offer horde mode (e.g. the Infested), and others would offer a blend of weaker and tougher enemies (e.g. the Grineer), would help make different weapons naturally more viable against different factions (snipers could naturally become great anti-Corpus weapons if the faction had fewer units with much greater health).

i touch this point before enemyes are too similar and have too little AI. could be good a improvement and this have a consecuence in weapons, some weapons have a lot of damage and maybe hard to use like for example a sniper, the way that enemies are right now let you easily groups enemies to use the sniper like a short range rifle, this should never happen, i strongly thinks that shotguns and automatic rifles should be for close range and low damage weapons (some exceptions), semi automatic weapons should be medium range and medium damage weapons and sniper and maybe bows should be for long range weapons and high damage weapons (of course need to be more specific) and some automatic weapons have too much damages that we use it like a sniper from a long range

i still not have check fortuna much, but corpus enemys have special unit created to stop abilitie powers of warframe that i dont like much. (seeing at you nulifier) but basically im agree with you in all your points.

i like very much sharing thoughs see middle points between them or agreements, too bad people do not give theirs ideas, the person that share is toughs is ultrakards about if warframe is mmo or not and all that... so.... jajajaj he is just trying to make you feel bad talking to you up to dead

 

Edited by ysmer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-12-06 at 5:36 PM, ysmer said:

agreed with this, but still i think like in real life weapons, sometimes there is a beretta, and there is a beretta with silencer and laser sight (just and example). so there are similar weapons but one is better, of course people would go for the better but the question is they cant afford it? im agree with you with this point but simply i do think cheaper weapons have to be just a little weaker (not that much so dont be upset!) just for the fact if you spend your time or money farming for something atleast it should be rewarding.

Let's actually go a little further with that example: adding a silencer to a gun may affect the way its propellant gas escapes, which in turn affects its accuracy as the barrel is jerked around. A laser sight may aid the user's aim, but will also produce a recognizable light and dot that will give them away. Both also add weight to the gun, further affecting the user's accuracy, and the increase in size may make the weapon more cumbersome to carry around, especially if one has to carry the silencer in a separate case (which also means one has to spend time putting the silencer on or taking it off). Even when putting aside the costs associated with buying and maintaining these add-ons, in real life they present sufficient drawbacks that it is not in fact always desirable to go for the most tricked-out gun, and one such weapon is not automatically "better" than the vanilla version. Warframe is thankfully not real life, but the same rationale can be argued for its own weapons, if realism is your concern here.

Quote

and i think this have a factor that i support that is balance "similar weapons" of course some weapons have diferent level of damage, pretty much like now but improved, i dont think automatic weapons should damage more than semi automatic, the diference should be bigger. even slow some firerates to make more diference between weapons ( to adress the problem with macros and semiautomatic weapons)

I can very much agree with this. If a weapon has a high fire rate, it makes sense to balance that out with low damage per shot, and vice versa. There's also room to explore here I think: a weapon could possibly have a high fire rate and high damage per shot, but very high recoil, whereas another weapon may have a lower rate of fire and lower damage per shot, but also innate punch-through on each hit. This is also just fiddling with basic stats, when unique mechanics could help differentiate and balance out different weapons.

Quote

agree with this but i think some weapons are just improved version and we dont need to go deeper in that, same example with the beretta i give before, what i do think could be better is to differentiate WEAPONS TYPE cause in the end shoutguns will still be shotguns and shoutguns maybe they arent so diferenc thenselves.

I feel the example of the Beretta pertains more to modding than to an actual, separate yet improved weapon. Even in the case of different weapons in the same series, e.g. the Glock pistol, later models may not necessarily be perceived as pure improvements to their predecessors (the latest generation of pistols cannot be as easily configured or customized as previous models, for example). I think if two separate weapons exist, and aren't simply variants of the same weapon by name (e.g. Wraith, Vandal, Prime, etc.), they should work differently from each other, and could be okay with being on the same overall power level, provided their advantages and drawbacks are distinct.

Quote

i like the part of mechanics maybe pasives, that stuff,and the augment idea is great, i do have the sames thought that you have weapons feel all like the same.... just a diferent sprite and sound,

Indeed, and this I think could help move away from the idea that some weapons need to be pure improvements of others. In fact, I think a much more interesting progression in this respect could be progression in weapon learning curve: instead of arranging weapons by power level, one could make the easiest, least complicated weapons accessible to players right from the start, whereas more esoteric or difficult weapons could unlock later on. In an ideal world, these weapons should be overall as powerful as each other, but the later weapons should reward players who commit to them with great benefits coming from their more difficult mechanics. This would create a learning curve where players would be able to go back to older weapons and still have a great time, but also be pushed to try out newer, increasingly funkier weapons out of curiosity, and see if they want to commit to them afterwards.

Quote

i touch this point before enemyes are too similar and have too little AI. could be good a improvement and this have a consecuence in weapons, some weapons have a lot of damage and maybe hard to use like for example a sniper, the way that enemies are right now let you easily groups enemies to use the sniper like a short range rifle, this should never happen, i strongly thinks that shotguns and automatic rifles should be for close range and low damage weapons (some exceptions), semi automatic weapons should be medium range and medium damage weapons and sniper and maybe bows should be for long range weapons and high damage weapons (of course need to be more specific) and some automatic weapons have too much damages that we use it like a sniper from a long range

I don't necessarily think separation by range is what works best for Warframe, because the vast majority of its combat occurs in close quarters to medium ranges, due to most of its levels being made up of small corridors. Snipers with heavy zoom will always feature some drawbacks relative to weapons with less intense zoom on their sights, as aiming with them is always a little unwieldy, and because of this, I think snipers (not to mention bows) could be perfectly okay even in an environment with low amounts of high-health enemies, where they'd be favored.

Quote

i still not have check fortuna much, but corpus enemys have special unit created to stop abilitie powers of warframe that i dont like much. (seeing at you nulifier) but basically im agree with you in all your points.

Yup! At high enemy alertness levels in Orb Vallis, enemies will actually start giving each other Nullifier bubbles as well, until virtually every enemy you deal with becomes immune to abilities. It's one of the problems with the level's balancing, and also a problem with how the game handles abilities as a whole, though that's likely a whole other discussion in its own right.

  • Like 1

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