Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

The game's outdated horde-shooting mechanics are showing (Challenge Discussion)


Tellakey
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, 1ivay1 said:

The main topic of discussion is combat difficulty, I asked him to provide one example of a looter game which applies this concept (There isn't any, because that isn't a looter feature) he couldn't.

I mean, they did bring up Monster Hunter: World, a looter game that also happens to be known for genuinely challenging combat. Other players have also pointed out several examples, so why insist on this one person bringing up examples they've already given?

Quote

His entire argument is that his opinion of difficulty should circumvent the design choices for looter games, no matter how many times people tell him this would detract from the actual concept of the game...

Where did they say this, exactly?

Quote

He also edited his post in which he claimed that easy combat is "broken", then had the nerve to belittle me and claim he never said such a thing. Why should I show any semblance of respect to someone who acts in such a childish way?

Where exactly did they make this claim? You also acted disrespectfully from the very beginning, so let's not make excuses for bad behavior here.

Edited by Teridax68
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty contrived argument, if I'm being quite honest. You said a lot to skirt around the fact that what you're actually trying to convey here is "I don't like horde shooters, so change the game." Overall, you've pretty much thrown any objective analysis straight out the window.

A great example of this is naming Dark Souls and Monster Hunter, and then praising Melee 3.0 as being a step in the "right direction" because "gone are the mindless combos locking you into an inflexible state." It's incredibly dissonant. Those games are notoriously sluggish and stiff, and I'd frankly quit the game if DE started trying to make it more like them. You're free to like them, but do be aware that Dark Souls is the definition of being "locked into animations."

They claim to be taking more inspiration from Devil May Cry style games, I. E. spectacle fighters, a genre that is far, far faster with much tighter controls. Especially Platinum's offerings, the amount of creativity in combat that Bayonetta allows the player is still unparalleled at this time. You can dodge cancel a combo at any point, and if you keep the attack button held down you can pick it up where you left off. It's a mechanic called dodge offset and it's actually part of why the game can throw packs of enemies at you at once without overwhelming the player. The other part of course being witch time.

Damage mods are just the nature of a game with vertical progression. There's really no other way around it. Numbers are going to inflate. There's been all sorts of talk in the past about doing something like reworking the mods to be more flat and moving much of the damage into weapons themselves, as well as flattening out the game's scaling... But all this is easier said than done, and I don't think it would accomplish what you really want, which is to be playing a different type of game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, XaoGarrent said:

Pretty contrived argument, if I'm being quite honest. You said a lot to skirt around the fact that what you're actually trying to convey here is "I don't like horde shooters, so change the game." Overall, you've pretty much thrown any objective analysis straight out the window.

A great example of this is naming Dark Souls and Monster Hunter, and then praising Melee 3.0 as being a step in the "right direction" because "gone are the mindless combos locking you into an inflexible state." It's incredibly dissonant. Those games are notoriously sluggish and stiff, and I'd frankly quit the game if DE started trying to make it more like them. You're free to like them, but do be aware that Dark Souls is the definition of being "locked into animations."

They claim to be taking more inspiration from Devil May Cry style games, I. E. spectacle fighters, a genre that is far, far faster with much tighter controls. Especially Platinum's offerings, the amount of creativity in combat that Bayonetta allows the player is still unparalleled at this time. You can dodge cancel a combo at any point, and if you keep the attack button held down you can pick it up where you left off. It's a mechanic called dodge offset and it's actually part of why the game can throw packs of enemies at you at once without overwhelming the player. The other part of course being witch time.

Damage mods are just the nature of a game with vertical progression. There's really no other way around it. Numbers are going to inflate. There's been all sorts of talk in the past about doing something like reworking the mods to be more flat and moving much of the damage into weapons themselves, as well as flattening out the game's scaling... But all this is easier said than done, and I don't think it would accomplish what you really want, which is to be playing a different type of game.

6
6

My opinion is by definition subjective.

You've got a better grasp on the technical terms and whatnot, I'll give you that 😉

That said, I'm not in agreement with you that Dark Souls and Monster Hunter are sluggish and stiff. The entire point of Dark Souls' combat is to make the right decision at any given time and avoid bad decisions, all via smart timing of dodging, blocking, attacking, etc... Monster Hunter is the same - position yourself, attack, defend, dodge, run the f*** away, heal, rinse repeat.

Sure, the animations are punishing but that would depend. If you go for a heavier weapon like the great sword you sacrifice mobility for higher damage and stun, but go for a lighter weapon like the sword and shield and you can move freely while constantly on the offense. It's a perfect balance.

Whereas in Warframe your weapon is an uber killing machine no matter its type or initial speed. Just plug in some damage mods, speed mods, stat/crit, and the heavy sword is as speedy as the dagger. Who needs to dodge when you've got Iron Skin or Nyx's Bubble? Why block when you can just dash in and destroy mobs? Why aim when you can 1-shot most enemies? You see my point?

To be clear, by saying "inflexible state" what I mean is that either you commit to an entire combo or backtrack. The better direction would be to use a certain move in a combo, dodge, block, and then choose a different move from the combo, which is mostly what melee 3.0 does - less flashy, but more strategic. As of now, most combos are useless against a single enemy since most of them die long before it ends. DE would do well to allow us the option to split up the moves in a combo into different buttons so that we can choose which one to use and when.

Oh and, I'm no fan of Bayonetta or Devil May Cry, but from what I've seen both require you to make quick decisions and employ that same mindset as the aforementioned. But I could be wrong.

What do you think?

Edit: That dodge offset you mentioned sounds like a great feature to include in Melee 2.0.

Edited by Tellakey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gebuesch said:

Btw. there is also the "Ignore User"-Option... for "severe cases"

There's also a handy "Report Post" link as well, which you should not hesitate to use if someone really steps out of line and decides to be abusive, insulting and / or advocating something that you honestly feel runs counter to forum rules and common decency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna take the time to point out/re-emphasize a few things...

  1. Even if challenging combat is rare in the looter genre, and possibly even nonexistent in looter-shooters specifically... Why is that a problem? There's always a game that does something first; it's not like the only option is to copy other games.
  2. It is possible to add challenging enemies without eliminating or impairing the horde aspect. All we need are an effective tiering (trash mobs/elites) system and better DPS balance. Players should absolutely be able to tear through trash mobs with reckless abandon, but nuking bosses without health-gating and invulnerability phases is a problem.
  3. Drawing inspiration from and taking notes on things other games do well is NOT the same thing as changing genre or transforming into those other games. Dark Souls does fair, balanced, and skill-based combat very well. Warframe could learn a lot from it when it comes to implementing telegraphs and manufacturing opportunities for melee counter-attack. That does NOT mean Warframe should copy its restrictive movement and limited healing options.

OP's underlying complaint is that Warframe's combat is actually rather unimaginative and unengaging. This has nothing to do with not enjoying looters and everything to do with not enjoying the combat. If we're gonna be sticklers about a strictly arbitrary definition of what a "looter" is, Warframe doesn't even fit the bill that well.

Most enemies don't drop meaningful loot, and there is no real random variation in the quality of what they drop. Warframe is rather far removed from games like Diablo or Borderlands or Path of Exile in that respect, which to my understanding is a cornerstone of the looter genre.

This lack of loot-specific entertainment (i.e., the excitement of finding better stuff) means Warframe conversely depends more heavily on combat to be engaging and entertaining. And currently, that combat is very flat.

Edited by DiabolusUrsus
Mobile typos and accidental deletions.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

I'm just gonna take the time to point out/re-emphasize a few things...

  1. Even if challenging combat is rare in the looter genre, and possibly even nonexistent in looter-shooters specifically... Why is that a problem? There's always a game that does something first; it's not like the only option is to copy other games.
  2. It is possible to add challenging enemies without eliminating or impairing the horde aspect. All we need are an effective tiering (trash mobs/elites) system and better DPS balance. Players should absolutely be able to tear through trash mobs with reckless abandon, but nuking bosses without health-gating and invulnerability phases is a problem.
  3. Drawing inspiration from and taking notes on things other games do well is NOT the same thing as changing genre or transforming into those other games. Dark Souls does fair, balanced, and skill-based combat very well. Warframe could learn a lot from it when it comes to implementing telegraphs and manufacturing opportunities for melee counter-attack. That does NOT mean Warframe should copy its restrictive movement and limited healing options.

OP's underlying complaint is that Warframe's combat is actually rather unimaginative and unengaging. This has nothing to do with not enjoying looters and everything to do with not enjoying the combat. If we're gonna be sticklers about a strictly arbitrary of what a "looter" is, Warframe doesn't even fit the bill that well.

Most enemies don't drop meaningful loot, and there is no real random variation in the quality of what they drop. Warframe is rather far removed from games like Diablo or Borderlands or Path of Exile in that respect, which to my understanding is a cornerstone of the looter genre.

This lack of loot-specific entertainment (i.e., the excitement of finding better stuff) means Warframe conversely depends more heavily on combat to be engaging and entertaining. And currently, that combat is very flat.

I hereby promote you to Person Who Totally Gets It. Clap clap, muh friend, clapity-clap.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, (PS4)robi191291 said:

Why always speak about dark souls, and not about bloodborne ? I think this is a better example for warframe. 

 

I ah... haven't played Bloodborne (PC master race!) 

Still waiting for Sony to bring it here... *Sniff sniff*

Edited by Tellakey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tellakey said:

My opinion is by definition subjective.

Subjectivity and opinion is by definition not actionable. You can't make an effective change off subjective information, at least not without first attempting to interpret something objective from it. If you want to actually make an argument for changing anything, you must move past opinion. Nobody should take you seriously otherwise.

People who attempt to constrain a discussion to opinions and subjectivity do so because the truth doesn't suit their agenda. They want the ability to say "I disagree" and "we should change this" with no responsibility for when their opinion or intention to change something is factually wrong.

I'm honestly not sure if this is an honest mistake on your part, and you don't realize that you're doing it, or if it's a cynical, concerted attempt to muddy the water, but either way you're displaying double think. You have, without realizing it, just said something that amounts to "I don't agree that the combat is sluggish, but let me now proceed to explain to you how the game is intentionally designed to be sluggish." You're not actually disagreeing with me, you're just rephrasing what I said.

While I don't know where to find frame data for Bayonetta off hand, I can show you frame data for Dark Souls III and what I can tell you is that I have, repeatedly, heard this kind of dissonant argument made in regards to fighting games (most notably Mortal Kombat). And it's always utterly wrong. The sluggishness and rigidity of a game always correlates directly to its frame data, cancel windows and other hard, objective mechanics.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HebtulqF41iLC4jQQHyKejrReK5V9DmBdPdp9ZVHk3s/edit#gid=421385370

The average startup frames of an attack in Dark Souls can easily be as high as 30-40. To put that in perspective, the startup of most jabs in fighting games is 3 to 6 frames (usually towards the lower end), and most weapons in Devil May Cry have a startup that is around 10-15 frames on the opener of their normal combo. This sluggishness of a game like Dark Souls isn't just observable reality, it's also possible to represent it numerically.

If you like that sort of thing, that's fine, argue that sluggish is good. But trying to describe your way around reality is a contrived method of convincing people there needs to be a change that just makes you look like you're arguing in bad faith for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

It is possible to add challenging enemies without eliminating or impairing the horde aspect. All we need are an effective tiering (trash mobs/elites) system and better DPS balance. Players should absolutely be able to tear through trash mobs with reckless abandon, but nuking bosses without health-gating and invulnerability phases is a problem.

The game sort of does this, albeit in a non-obvious and clumsy way. Take the stock-standard Grenier, for example. The majority of the enemies are your basic minions: Lancers, Scorpions, Butchets, etc. Then you have your Lieutenants: Bombards, Heavy Gunners, and a few others depending on the map (Hyeka Master, Drakh Master, Elite Lancer) and finally you have your Boss enemy, which is predominantly the Nox. I don't know how it's set up internally, but each of these decrease in spawn rate as you go up the ladder, while each is tougher and more dangerous than the last.

The main problem, I think, is this kind of doesn't apply as clearly to the other factions and, crucially, I don't think it's handled very explicitly in the spawn code. My high water mark for MMOs is the old City of Heroes game, so please forgive me if I draw a few examples from there. That game had explicit classes of enemies - Minion, Lieutenant, Boss, Elite Boss (rare), Archvillain (team-only). The spawn system for that game had prefab rosters that it would pick for depending on the team size and "difficulty" (which counted as an artificially larger team). A two-player spawn, then, could be six minions, five minions and a lieutenant, two lieutenants and a minion or a boss and a minion. If I remember right, obviously - it's been six years since that shut down. I'm of the opinion that Warframe could - like you said - benefit from explicit tiering like that.

More than that, though, I feel the basic factions can stand to be redesigned a little bit. I might have mentioned this in the thread. I feel the Greneir's basic design of heavily armoured thugs with big guns would lend itself best to a faction comprised predominantly of lieutenant level enemies in small number. Rather than spawning 30 gimpy Grenier on me, spawn 5 really tough ones, or two REALLY tough ones and let me duke it out with them like mini-boss-fights. You can still have trash minions scurrying about, but I'd rather introduce some kind of "underling" who basically can't hurt you and dies if you look at it funny to pad out the look. Make them scrawny little things over whom the "proper" Grenier would tower in their bulky armour.

That can be contrasted against something like the Infested, which I'd stock predominantly with Chargers and Crawlers and Runners, with Ancients being rare (rather than spawning 10 Ancients on me at higher difficulty). Contrast the factions in more than just stats and superficial visuals, is what I'm saying. That way, people who prefer to fight few, tough enemies can bring out their sniper rifles and go hunt some Grenier while those who prefer a ridiculous horde shooter can whip out their flamethrowers and go prune the Infested. Want something more tactical? The Corpus could be generally weak, but come with a nasty array of tricks, traps, debuffs, control and generally all the really annoying things which hamper you from wielding your Warframe's full potential. I realise people generally don't like being hit with control effects, but those can still be really effective and probably SHOULD constitute the majority of the Corpus' challenge over just giving them Grenier-level guns and armour.

Again, basic combat in a horde shooter is fine. Low-ish difficulty is fine. As long as the game offers enough variety, then burnout shouldn't be TOO much of an issue. The problem is a lot of the Warframe factions play very similar and benefit from very similar builds, so potential variety is lost. There's more than enough space in this game to cover far more ground than it does right now.

Oh, and please let me scale missions up and down already. I'd love to play some more missions on Earth, but it's a waste of time when enemies there are always going to be level 7 or so. Low-level planets are another bit of content which could add massive variety to the end game if they could actually scale up TO the end game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XaoGarrent said:

Subjectivity and opinion is by definition not actionable. You can't make an effective change off subjective information, at least not without first attempting to interpret something objective from it. If you want to actually make an argument for changing anything, you must move past opinion. Nobody should take you seriously otherwise.

False.

Feedback is rooted firmly in subjectivity and largely dependent upon it. Game design is not an exact science, and demanding pure objectivity is entirely disingenuous.

What is important is to maintain the distinction.

Quote

People who attempt to constrain a discussion to opinions and subjectivity do so because the truth doesn't suit their agenda. They want the ability to say "I disagree" and "we should change this" with no responsibility for when their opinion or intention to change something is factually wrong.

Ad hominem. For someone so concerned with objectivity you seem rather comfortable making blanket statements without proof.

What claim has OP made that is factually wrong? Something can't be factually wrong if it's a subjective statement as you are claiming.

Quote

I'm honestly not sure if this is an honest mistake on your part, and you don't realize that you're doing it, or if it's a cynical, concerted attempt to muddy the water, but either way you're displaying double think. You have, without realizing it, just said something that amounts to "I don't agree that the combat is sluggish, but let me now proceed to explain to you how the game is intentionally designed to be sluggish." You're not actually disagreeing with me, you're just rephrasing what I said.

It's not OP's fault if you can't follow simple distinctions.

Yes, Dark Souls ATTACKS are sluggish, but the defensive aspects are extremely responsive (and deliberately so, to punish panic-spamming).

Your counter-argument is predicated on the idea that Warframe would be forced into copying Dark Souls' offensive pacing, which is not something OP suggested nor is it factually true.

Quote

While I don't know where to find frame data for Bayonetta off hand, I can show you frame data for Dark Souls III and what I can tell you is that I have, repeatedly, heard this kind of dissonant argument made in regards to fighting games (most notably Mortal Kombat). And it's always utterly wrong. The sluggishness and rigidity of a game always correlates directly to its frame data, cancel windows and other hard, objective mechanics.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HebtulqF41iLC4jQQHyKejrReK5V9DmBdPdp9ZVHk3s/edit#gid=421385370

The average startup frames of an attack in Dark Souls can easily be as high as 30-40. To put that in perspective, the startup of most jabs in fighting games is 3 to 6 frames (usually towards the lower end), and most weapons in Devil May Cry have a startup that is around 10-15 frames on the opener of their normal combo. This sluggishness of a game like Dark Souls isn't just observable reality, it's also possible to represent it numerically.

If you like that sort of thing, that's fine, argue that sluggish is good. But trying to describe your way around reality is a contrived method of convincing people there needs to be a change that just makes you look like you're arguing in bad faith for some reason.

Why is frame data even relevant? Who said Warframe should copy frame data? This is a high-level design discussion and you have repeatedly attempted to drag it down into the more specific details of design to prove irrelevant points.

Are you sure you're not arguing in bad faith yourself?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, XaoGarrent said:

Subjectivity and opinion is by definition not actionable. You can't make an effective change off subjective information, at least not without first attempting to interpret something objective from it. If you want to actually make an argument for changing anything, you must move past opinion. Nobody should take you seriously otherwise.

People who attempt to constrain a discussion to opinions and subjectivity do so because the truth doesn't suit their agenda. They want the ability to say "I disagree" and "we should change this" with no responsibility for when their opinion or intention to change something is factually wrong.

I'm honestly not sure if this is an honest mistake on your part, and you don't realize that you're doing it, or if it's a cynical, concerted attempt to muddy the water, but either way you're displaying double think. You have, without realizing it, just said something that amounts to "I don't agree that the combat is sluggish, but let me now proceed to explain to you how the game is intentionally designed to be sluggish." You're not actually disagreeing with me, you're just rephrasing what I said.

While I don't know where to find frame data for Bayonetta off hand, I can show you frame data for Dark Souls III and what I can tell you is that I have, repeatedly, heard this kind of dissonant argument made in regards to fighting games (most notably Mortal Kombat). And it's always utterly wrong. The sluggishness and rigidity of a game always correlates directly to its frame data, cancel windows and other hard, objective mechanics.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HebtulqF41iLC4jQQHyKejrReK5V9DmBdPdp9ZVHk3s/edit#gid=421385370

The average startup frames of an attack in Dark Souls can easily be as high as 30-40. To put that in perspective, the startup of most jabs in fighting games is 3 to 6 frames (usually towards the lower end), and most weapons in Devil May Cry have a startup that is around 10-15 frames on the opener of their normal combo. This sluggishness of a game like Dark Souls isn't just observable reality, it's also possible to represent it numerically.

If you like that sort of thing, that's fine, argue that sluggish is good. But trying to describe your way around reality is a contrived method of convincing people there needs to be a change that just makes you look like you're arguing in bad faith for some reason.

I'm no expert debater, but I know one thing - where there is truth one's opinions are useless. How, though, do you measure truth in regards to preference? Can you prove to me that vanilla is tastier than chocolate? This is where subjectivity comes in. On the topic of Warframe, I can only speak from a point of personal likes and dislikes, and try to shape my feedback on that basis.

I, personally, subjectively, do not enjoy thoughtless gameplay. I think that a game feels more rewarding when you actively engage in it. I, personally, wish that Warframe would improve upon it and take lessons from - NOT copy - games like Dark Souls, Monster Hunter, For Honor, and so on. I, personally, think DE could embrace elements from these games' combat systems and adapt them such that they would fit into Warframe's existent framework.

Now, whether or not this is GOOD or BAD for the combat system is reliant ENTIRELY on the personal taste of the bulk of Warframe's playerbase. IF most people like slower, tactical combat then it is GOOD. If most prefer the mindless but enjoyable power fantasy that is click2win, then a change in my preferred direction is BAD. If you run an ice cream stand with both vanilla and chocolate flavors, and your customer-base hardly ever buys one, then you prioritize the other. That doesn't mean the neglected flavor is objectively bad, it just means the bulk of your customers prefer another taste.

I am not highlighting Dark Souls and Monster Hunter as games where the frame-data is fast, I am highlighting them as games that actively demand you to think. Are we clear?

Edited by Tellakey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

The game sort of does this, albeit in a non-obvious and clumsy way. Take the stock-standard Grenier, for example. The majority of the enemies are your basic minions: Lancers, Scorpions, Butchets, etc. Then you have your Lieutenants: Bombards, Heavy Gunners, and a few others depending on the map (Hyeka Master, Drakh Master, Elite Lancer) and finally you have your Boss enemy, which is predominantly the Nox. I don't know how it's set up internally, but each of these decrease in spawn rate as you go up the ladder, while each is tougher and more dangerous than the last.

I rellalize that elites and whatnot technically exist, but they are not functionally distinct.

For example, the Heavy Gunner fills the exact same role as the Lancer and behaves in much the same way. It walks around and shoots, with the only real difference being that the Heavy Gunner doesn't take cover.

When I talk about trash mobs, I mean Lancers of all levels should be killed by a stiff breeze and never do more than tickle players with damage. In contrast, the Heavy Gunner should fill a more niche role on the battlefield and require more precision to bring down.

The Nox is a good start, but ideally Elites should offer equal opportunity for melee and ranged counter-play.

As an example, Bombard ROF should be drastically reduced and their homing ability should be decreased, but their projectile speed should be greatly increased. They also should switch to melee attacks or attempt to retreat if a player enters a minimum range instead of continuing rocket spams.

Quote

The main problem, I think, is this kind of doesn't apply as clearly to the other factions and, crucially, I don't think it's handled very explicitly in the spawn code. My high water mark for MMOs is the old City of Heroes game, so please forgive me if I draw a few examples from there. That game had explicit classes of enemies - Minion, Lieutenant, Boss, Elite Boss (rare), Archvillain (team-only). The spawn system for that game had prefab rosters that it would pick for depending on the team size and "difficulty" (which counted as an artificially larger team). A two-player spawn, then, could be six minions, five minions and a lieutenant, two lieutenants and a minion or a boss and a minion. If I remember right, obviously - it's been six years since that shut down. I'm of the opinion that Warframe could - like you said - benefit from explicit tiering like that.

I agree that spawning should be handled in a more deliberate manner.

Quote

More than that, though, I feel the basic factions can stand to be redesigned a little bit. I might have mentioned this in the thread. I feel the Greneir's basic design of heavily armoured thugs with big guns would lend itself best to a faction comprised predominantly of lieutenant level enemies in small number. Rather than spawning 30 gimpy Grenier on me, spawn 5 really tough ones, or two REALLY tough ones and let me duke it out with them like mini-boss-fights. You can still have trash minions scurrying about, but I'd rather introduce some kind of "underling" who basically can't hurt you and dies if you look at it funny to pad out the look. Make them scrawny little things over whom the "proper" Grenier would tower in their bulky armour.

That can be contrasted against something like the Infested, which I'd stock predominantly with Chargers and Crawlers and Runners, with Ancients being rare (rather than spawning 10 Ancients on me at higher difficulty). Contrast the factions in more than just stats and superficial visuals, is what I'm saying. That way, people who prefer to fight few, tough enemies can bring out their sniper rifles and go hunt some Grenier while those who prefer a ridiculous horde shooter can whip out their flamethrowers and go prune the Infested. Want something more tactical? The Corpus could be generally weak, but come with a nasty array of tricks, traps, debuffs, control and generally all the really annoying things which hamper you from wielding your Warframe's full potential. I realise people generally don't like being hit with control effects, but those can still be really effective and probably SHOULD constitute the majority of the Corpus' challenge over just giving them Grenier-level guns and armour.

YES.

In my mind's eye, Warframe would do well to develop an emphasis on aggro-management and suppression.

The Grineer should have tight squad formations (e.g., Troopers closing gaps with aid from Shield Lancers) and emphasize aggressive pressure.

Corpus should attempt to stay at range while using their Proxies as a sort of picket line.

Infested can keep their Zerg-rush behavior, but I think they would do well to copy the WH40K Tyranids' synaptic backlash when bringing down specialist units like Ancients (for example, killing a Disruptor might reverse its power-resistance aura and make them more vulnerable.

Quote

Again, basic combat in a horde shooter is fine. Low-ish difficulty is fine. As long as the game offers enough variety, then burnout shouldn't be TOO much of an issue. The problem is a lot of the Warframe factions play very similar and benefit from very similar builds, so potential variety is lost. There's more than enough space in this game to cover far more ground than it does right now.

Agreed, and I think this would be a great place to start. We also need more variable, distinct, and viable elemental damage types. As it is, the elements are really just color-coding for the various factions.

Quote

Oh, and please let me scale missions up and down already. I'd love to play some more missions on Earth, but it's a waste of time when enemies there are always going to be level 7 or so. Low-level planets are another bit of content which could add massive variety to the end game if they could actually scale up TO the end game.

+1!

Edited by DiabolusUrsus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost all the games being mentioned here as things Warframe should take lessons from are games with fixed, deliberate encounter and level design. They have near-minimal randomness, because randomness greatly reduces your ability to balance games. Additionally, the games generally have only a handful of encounters before you get to natural breakpoints, because each encounter is exhausting. And because each enemy brings new, interesting tactics and unique considerations, enemies need to be drip-fed to you very slowly, in a fixed manner. This is the price you pay for well-balanced, thoughtful encounter design. You need to space out the gameplay a lot more, you need to remove as much randomness as possible, and you need to drip-feed mechanics to players in a slow, thoughtful manner. The one exception is Borderlands 2 raid bosses-but those are also very much structured encounters and make up a small minority of the game. Furthermore because they're intended to only be fought by players at the level cap, using the best endgame gear, they can be balanced with a specific expectation of power. And Borderlands has much less encounter randomness than Warframe-pretty much every encounter is hand-designed regarding what it spawns and when, and the terrain and levels are all hand-designed as well. I'm going to suspect that Monster Hunter does the exact same thing-limited, hand-designed encounters-so it can make difficulty that is fair and balanced.

Getting that experience in a game with random spawns and procedural level generation is much harder. Basically, the only place you could mostly expect it is in extremely specific boss fights-and there, DE isn't too bad. Most of the more modern bosses have reasonable attack and encounter design-the Orb is just the odd man out, probably because it needs more polish. It's everything else that is relatively easy. And that's not unusual for a game where there's a great difference in weapon power based on weapon tier and modification, and most of the game needs to be available to most players or it rapidly becomes frustrating and unprofitable.

The same goes for BL2, which someone brought up as an example. Outside of the broken and unbalanced True/Ultra Vault Hunter mode, the game was pretty easy. TVHM/UVHM were also not exactly interesting. They were just difficult, but it was entirely because enemies were spongier and did more damage. There wasn't more interesting gameplay, just less of a margin of error. Furthermore they greatly reduced build diversity in BL2 because you were mandated to use Slag weapons and weapons which synergized with your class skills to get every ounce of possible performance out of your loadout. They didn't require you to think, they just reduced the margin of error and made the game more exhausting. Some people enjoy that, don't get me wrong.

But it's not an example of thoughtful challenge.

Edited by MJ12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

In my mind's eye, Warframe would do well to develop an emphasis on aggro-management and suppression.

Sorry to pull a single sentence out of context but SUPPRESSION! Totally forgot this was something I wanted to talk about. My favourite take on suppression comes from Payday 2, where shooting past (but not hitting) enemies would build up an internal meter. At first this would cause them to crouch and fire slower and less accurately, and eventually it would cause them to dodge-roll and run for cover, completely disengaging from the fight. That gave a "support" role to some of the less damaging rapid-firing weapons. While those wouldn't kill as fast, they would easily suppress enemies and thus keep the user (and their team-mates) a lot safer.

I know Warframe isn't entirely realistic, but it still kind of feels like the Grenier and the Corpus at least would probably elect to keep their damn heads down when a crazy Tenno demon is hosing down their entire postal code down with horrifying gunfire. Indeed, they might be persuaded to drop what they're doing and run for their lives when that thing opens up in their general direction and they don't have any cover. I don't know how realistic (from a programming and game balance sense) something like this might be to program, but it seems like a way to give weaker weapons more of a support role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-12-19 at 4:47 AM, Teridax68 said:

With that said, when the discussion on whether or not Warframe should be a horde shooter gets brought up, I feel the framing of the discussion is wrong: when players ask whether Warframe should have horde mode combat or more tactical and cerebral play, I personally think it can have both, depending on the faction we're fighting. The Infested, for example, absolutely deserve to play out like a horde mode, because the faction is a literal horde of deformed monsters that all rush the player. The Corpus, on the other hand, are very poorly-suited for horde mode combat, as it is simply not realistic to give every unit a bunch of special abilities that all require the player's attention, under threat of punishment, but then throw literal dozens of those units around at the same time.

I have to quote this for personal truth and saying it better than I would.

I feel like this is the one aspect of gameplay variety that's missing. We have mission variety ranging from Sabotage to Spy to Exterminate to Assassination, but everything surrounding that is horde shooter territory. That's not bad, I like being able to cleave through rooms with Excal, but it's a gigantic point of potential variety that just doesn't exist.

I also feel it pertinent to point out that, if that kind of variety were to be implemented, we probably should get reward mirrors and adjustments for each faction. ATM it's fine to have to play one faction for a specific resource, since they all fall under the "horde shooter" umbrella. If they're differentiated to that level of "horde shooter v non-horde shooter", though, we shouldn't be making people play one or the other if they need Cells or Argon. I think it's too core of a change.

I have more consternation about the looting system, like how it leads to nukers having to play low-level missions to get things like Orokin cells and likely leading to a great deal of the "press 4 to win" controversy, but that's for another day...

EDIT: Diabolus on the other page mentions it. Scaling missions. Maybe with boosts to rewards. That is a should-have. (It might only work as an "uber starchart", since I imagine matchmaking would be horrendous if people could choose between level 45 and 46...)

Edited by Tyreaus
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing about 'thoughtful difficulty' is that it requires a knife-edge of balance and high mechanics awareness to work. Vanquish would probably be the best example of a combination of thoughtful difficulty and power fantasy (with some horde shooting elements) in a third person shooter that gives high mobility, but it rests on a total knife edge of balance that is based around plentiful checkpoints, fixed encounter design, near-zero player scaling, and most of the difficulty honestly comes from the scoring system discouraging cheesy tactics and forcing the player to engage in risky behavior rather than playing it safe. Metal Gear Rising feels like complete BS on higher difficulties until you master unexplained mechanics, and because they badly explain how parrying and counters work in the game, it often feels like complete BS even on lower difficulties until you realize how important parrying is.

But the thing is, all these games are precisely balanced and have basically fixed content. The extra DLC content that gets introduced is basically explicitly broken stuff that lowers the difficulty curve, or extra levels based on characters with more fixed, less versatile repertoires of items and moves and encounters designed around said movesets and items.

The most likely result of thoughtful difficulty in Warframe is that it's 'thoughtful' because it excludes most of the content from viability, like Mass Effect 3 did early on. Otherwise, either DE is going to die of overwork trying to balance everything for every potential encounter (which will almost certainly require not just a rebalance of warframes and weapons, but a redesign of all maps, enemies, and spawns), or you get mechanics that make you pause and think, but people just bypass them by using overtuned weapons and powers. Like ME3 did later in its lifespan, where later content like the Turian Ghost and other super powerful classes basically let you bypass most of the frustration of Gold/Platinum.

And in general, it's better that a game is too easy over being too hard when you want to actually make a profit, because players looking for a challenge can always make their own challenge. Players who are looking to make the game too easy because it's too hard in the first place have few or no options. So I'm not sure what design you could do here-I feel like a lot of the players who complain about low difficulty are also players who gravitate towards the most efficient methods of beating missions, and if the game is tuned so that the majority of weapons and warframes are viable in the majority of content, the most efficient toolkit for missions is going to just trivialize said content.

Edited by MJ12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MJ12

You're generally correct with your assessment of crafted level design vs. procedural generation, but I believe you are mistaken regarding the need for pacing and exhaustion.

Dark Souls needs to be spaced out because

a) every enemy is a legitimate threat, and 

b) the game is deliberately punishing.

Warframe does not need (nor should it) to copy that particular aspect of the combat, and it can manufacture any necessary breaks by controlling spawn rates of specific enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MJ12 said:

The other thing about 'thoughtful difficulty' is that it requires a knife-edge of balance and high mechanics awareness to work. Vanquish would probably be the best example of a combination of thoughtful difficulty and power fantasy (with some horde shooting elements) in a third person shooter that gives high mobility, but it rests on a total knife edge of balance that is based around plentiful checkpoints, fixed encounter design, near-zero player scaling, and most of the difficulty honestly comes from the scoring system discouraging cheesy tactics and forcing the player to engage in risky behavior rather than playing it safe. Metal Gear Rising feels like complete BS on higher difficulties until you master unexplained mechanics, and because they badly explain how parrying and counters work in the game, it often feels like complete BS even on lower difficulties until you realize how important parrying is.

But the thing is, all these games are precisely balanced and have basically fixed content. The extra DLC content that gets introduced is basically explicitly broken stuff that lowers the difficulty curve, or extra levels based on characters with more fixed, less versatile repertoires of items and moves and encounters designed around said movesets and items.

The most likely result of thoughtful difficulty in Warframe is that it's 'thoughtful' because it excludes most of the content from viability, like Mass Effect 3 did early on. Otherwise, either DE is going to die of overwork trying to balance everything for every potential encounter (which will almost certainly require not just a rebalance of warframes and weapons, but a redesign of all maps, enemies, and spawns), or you get mechanics that make you pause and think, but people just bypass them by using overtuned weapons and powers. Like ME3 did later in its lifespan, where later content like the Turian Ghost and other super powerful classes basically let you bypass most of the frustration of Gold/Platinum.

And in general, it's better that a game is too easy over being too hard when you want to actually make a profit, because players looking for a challenge can always make their own challenge. Players who are looking to make the game too easy because it's too hard in the first place have few or no options. So I'm not sure what design you could do here-I feel like a lot of the players who complain about low difficulty are also players who gravitate towards the most efficient methods of beating missions, and if the game is tuned so that the majority of weapons and warframes are viable in the majority of content, the most efficient toolkit for missions is going to just trivialize said content.

This is spot on.

This is what I mean about objective feedback. This post is actually extremely well informed. And I can see why, your examples demonstrate that you've taken time to understand some of the better games in their given genre. Platinum's games are all balanced based off a complete package approach, an approach that puts every small detail under a microscope and lines everything up with painstaking effort.

This is something that isn't economical in a game like Warframe, or really any long running, constantly evolving game. It would be an immense amount of work to do this even with a handful of updates, and it could be broken within patches when the devs are required to add something new that doesn't fit nicely into the existing framework to keep the game fresh. They then have to rework a bunch of stuff to try to keep it updated, we actually see DE trying to do this all the time.

Creating a game with super tight mechanics, even something fast paced and cheesy like a Platinum title, is really hard. Believe me, it's not for a lack of trying that things are the way they are in Warframe. It's to no small degree the result of many points of reality presenting logical difficulties. I do sometimes get mad over bugs and obvious balance or design issues, but make no mistake, I don't blame the Warframe devs for the general inability to design a sand castle on a razor's edge. It's excessively difficult with the type of game they're producing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, XaoGarrent said:

This is spot on.

This is what I mean about objective feedback. This post is actually extremely well informed. And I can see why, your examples demonstrate that you've taken time to understand some of the better games in their given genre. Platinum's games are all balanced based off a complete package approach, an approach that puts every small detail under a microscope and lines everything up with painstaking effort.

This is something that isn't economical in a game like Warframe, or really any long running, constantly evolving game. It would be an immense amount of work to do this even with a handful of updates, and it could be broken within patches when the devs are required to add something new that doesn't fit nicely into the existing framework to keep the game fresh. They then have to rework a bunch of stuff to try to keep it updated, we actually see DE trying to do this all the time.

Creating a game with super tight mechanics, even something fast paced and cheesy like a Platinum title, is really hard. Believe me, it's not for a lack of trying that things are the way they are in Warframe. It's to no small degree the result of many points of reality presenting logical difficulties. I do sometimes get mad over bugs and obvious balance or design issues, but make no mistake, I don't blame the Warframe devs for the general inability to design a sand castle on a razor's edge. It's excessively difficult with the type of game they're producing.

Nobody is underestimating the dire straits of game design. We're simply providing the what and why, not the how. By telling DE how I think the combat should evolve I am by no means calling them stupid, inept or incompetent for failing to meet my expectations.

Edited by Tellakey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...