Jump to content

Pablo acknowledges why better AI alone will not be enough for good difficulty in WF: We need to be nerfed first


Recommended Posts

Just now, akrid45 said:

1. That enemy would just die in 1 second from over overpowered weapons

nope. Instead of imagining the current enemies, imagine an opponent with the same 'potential' of a Warframe (dodging, sprinting, climbing, damage reduction, etc). It can really be done, now the question is just "does the community want it?". My guess is no...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ILOHARTA said:

Instead of imagining the current enemies, imagine an opponent with the same 'potential' of a Warframe (dodging, sprinting, climbing, damage reduction, etc). It can really be done, now the question is just "does the community want it?". My guess is no...

That would be scary, super fun, provides a challenge and intense! I actually want it—oh. Guess not then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ILOHARTA said:

nope. Instead of imagining the current enemies, imagine an opponent with the same 'potential' of a Warframe (dodging, sprinting, climbing, damage reduction, etc). It can really be done, now the question is just "does the community want it?". My guess is no...

Yep pretty much, community couldn't even deal with the elite shield lancer before asking for a nerf so your idea will never happen sadly 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

In other words:

Jizo: The problem? The car has a flat tire. Can changing the tire fix it by itself with no other action?

Pablo: No, because you need to lift the car first. Then changing the tire can be done.

You: That's not a valid answer because Karen doesn't want you to lift the car. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yet you seem to be the only one here who thinks that the context provided is wrong. People here are debating why they agree or don't agree with Pablo. You are the only one saying I misquoted him or misrepresented him.

Its actually not the same situation, in what is happening here, Pablo is saying that the solution is to get a car that doesn't have tires so that they can't be given a flat. Right now, the Game (or the car) in your example has functionality, it can drive, it doesn't have a flat, but it doesn't run well, and the engine could use some fixing, the catalytic converter is made from scrap, and its GPS actively picks off road situations or roads that have glass on them to give a more interesting riding experience. Now, the logical solution here, to reduce the lets say bumpiness of the ride would be to improve or replace the GPS's reasoning and actions it takes on that reasoning, but its easier to say to the owner, get a new car. Or better yet, a bike, then you don't have to worry about the fact the GPS is badly implemented, and the mechanics of the car are failing under their lack of available parts or dealer maintenance.

Yes, nerfing the players is easier, we are already using mods when the enemies don't; we can choose to act, while the enemies are reliant on AI. Just like pumping out Deathmatch pvp, this is the easy no thought answer to a problem. The problem is really one of perceived balance, and in this act, the enemies and players use two different methods. You could improve the way the AI works, they are much more numerous than the player, so Pablo's "but then a player disables them and neutralizes that AI work" is sort a cop-out, while the AI could be told to avoid clumping situations similar to how the AI spams Grenades (one of their abilities) whenever players stand still, and Objectives. This is the same behavior he says is annoying in players by the way. This can easily be rectified by making both players and enemies use the same progression system. We use mods, they use mods; we have finite ammo for our guns and energy for our warframes? They also do. This isn't new, Halo Combat Evolved for instance had enemies having finite ammo and reacting to basic tactical concerns like flanking, suicide rushes, and sharpshooters while Halo 2 instead got rid of that and focused on scripted scenes for most of its encounters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember salad days of Warframe and importance of SYNERGY between frames that was utilised often.

Recently I was playing with my girlfriend and we started messing with combos like:
Vauban's Vortex + Ember's Inferno, Vauban's Bastille + Mesa's Regulators, Volt's Shield + Mesa's Regulators etc.

I think main problem with fun and challenge in Warframe is lack of actual necessity of teamwork and little to no synergy between abilities.

It would be much more fun if game could be played in actual ROLES rather than Selfsustaining Murder Machines.

Remember when Trinity in squad was ACTUALLY NEEDED? Or when you couldn't go far without Chroma's boosts?

Bring it back. We don't need hell of redesign of abilities. We need new objectives that will require us to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

I don't know, I can only go from what I've heard - that they were extremely lethal.

I'd say hardly lethal unless you got clawed and under fire which are the combined cause of death most of the time

16 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

No, the fact that the Bursa Weak spot is on the back. Which they're a bursa, and it's not. Or are they? Because they have a different name but the same design, which is a sin for pretty much the same reason.

I'm used to a thing called variants where they're modified model of existing model. Who knows, maybe it's a modified bursa to be as tough as a bursa, but as agile as a moa with no security hole for tenno to turn them against the Corpus

19 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

Perhaps.

Having said that however, and looking... I'm honestly questioning the idea that it looks like a weak spot to begin with.

  Hide contents

5A2NC4I.jpg

Auditor

zZrHwKm.jpg

Regular Bursa.

It doesn't glow, it's not visibly weaker, in fact it's a big-old piece of armour plating. There's absolutely no reason in the world to believe that shooting a plate of armour would deal more damage.

Now, the Auditor? It does glow. And, whilst it's still clearly a piece of armour, it's also gaming shorthand for glowing things to be the weak point.

Guess what

  Reveal hidden contents

Regular bursa, both using crits:kEpL4CD.jpg

8b3RbGM.jpg

Auditor, this time without crits:

aTb0NYW.jpg

2wG2m8M.jpg

The one with the glowing back doesn't have it as a weak point, and the one where it's just a flat shield of armour does.

Looks like I missed something since the last time I see it's still a panel with three blue lasers covering it. Guess Nef are not cutting corners this time

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Xylena_Lazarow said:

I just want it to be non-trivial.

Personally this is what I'm looking for as well.

It isn't about things being easy so much as it is them being trivial and co-op being pointless aside from increasing spawn counts.

When a nuke frame or a Bramma user can blow up entire tilesets alone what point is there to having 3 other players?

At the same time the extreme power end of the scale is forcing the content design to be either built around that higher end or ignore it and be destroyed by the higher end anyway.

There isn't a middle ground that can exist right now, enemies either have to be omni-immune sponges or they are cardboard that die in seconds or get stunlocked forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Felsagger said:

 

That's not what my comment says. Read it again. My comment is about the idea of complementing this F2P GAAS game with other experiences. 

 

I don't spend energy on things that I can't change. I enjoy War Frame for what it is. I stopped expecting anything and the end result was that I'm enjoying this game more than just placing faith in favor or against the developers. 

Simple. 

Cool, you do you.

But either way, I'm still going to do what I want to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want more fun in this game? 

 

Then focus your attention on mission situations instead of enemy buffs or War Frame downgrades. 

 

If the situations or happenings in the game gets interesting then you have winner. Look for example the situational game of The Last of Us 1. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

How does that contradict what was said? "Can X be done? In order for X to be done, Y would need to change" means the exact same thing as "Can X be done? No, unless Y is changed". 

How, considering I posted this in the opening post?

So where is the part that I am forgetting? Also, again, the community not wanting it bears no relation to his perception of what the solution to the problem is.

In other words, you are failing to acknowledge that he mentioned a hindrance towards a goal:

Jizo: The problem? The car has a flat tire. Can changing the tire fix it by itself with no other action?

Pablo: No, because you need to lift the car first. Then changing the tire can be done.

You: That's not what Pablo meant because Karen doesn't want you to lift the car. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yet you seem to be the only one here who thinks that the context provided is wrong. People here are debating why they agree or don't agree with Pablo. You are the only one saying I misquoted him or misrepresented him.

Ok let me make it real simple for you.

Player: Can x be done?

Pablo: Yes but in order to do that we fundamentally need to change the game and I dont think the community will like that.

In other words he is saying it's not a good idea overall, yet you seem to insist his intention or at least his opinion is everything needs to be nerfed, it isn't.

Ultimalty x can be done but he doesnt think it's a good idea, that the point

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Take War Frame for what it is: a social interactive network.

Many of us still remember when Warframe was an actual game though, it's only arrived at this point due to... improper time and project management. This is a flaw not just with the game, but with the development of the game overall, and it's worth discussing. The game could be better, should be better, if things were done differently.

If we didn't discuss it, DE wouldn't be attempting all these revisions of late to rectify. Admittedly these revisions are a ripple in an ocean of problems, but they're a sign that they're at least trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 844448 said:

'd say hardly lethal unless you got clawed and under fire which are the combined cause of death most of the time

I dunno, wasn't around to personally experience it. All I know is that people say Manics used to be really deadly.

2 minutes ago, 844448 said:

I'm used to a thing called variants where they're modified model of existing model. Who knows, maybe it's a modified bursa to be as tough as a bursa, but as agile as a moa with no security hole for tenno to turn them against the Corpus

This isn't a lore situation. This is a game design situation. It's honestly something the game as a whole struggles with, many of its enemies share the same overall visual design, making it harder to tell which enemies are which. Having two enemies share the same design outside of colour, but behave entirely differently is a bad thing, and steps should always be taken to reduce that.

5 minutes ago, 844448 said:

Looks like I missed something since the last time I see it's still a panel with three blue lasers covering it. Guess Nef are not cutting corners this time

And with that, I think we've determined that Bursa's are a problem. Their visual design, their practical design, it makes it unclear what you're supposed to do when fighting them. It's poor conveyance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, (XB1)ALTBOULI said:

Surely u understand the players u are seeing still only make up a minuscule amount of the player base?

From what statistics? Does it count inactive players that have been offline for 3 months? This is a big issue that is being overlooked. It has been two years of hopping on for a week, realizing I am finished with the game and require nothing new from x update etc... If you find me 2019 or 2020 polls declaring high end geared Tenno with my progressive mind set minuscule. I still feel that it is not right to oppress a group of players completely because me and you have different opinions on what the game is supposed to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, (PS4)CrazyBeaTzu said:

And the battle rages on: The casuals versus the try hards.

I love the smell of internet debates in the morning. 

Hey man, 7 years. I’m not going down until everyone understand Warframe does not really have a definitive genre, it dynamically is changing annually!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Midas said:

From what statistics? Does it count inactive players that have been offline for 3 months? This is a big issue that is being overlooked. It has been two years of hopping on for a week, realizing I am finished with the game and require nothing new from x update etc... If you find me 2019 or 2020 polls declaring high end geared Tenno with my progressive mind set minuscule. We can talk

What statistics do you have to refute otherwise? Ur argument is 'the players I spoke with' which is a minuscule amount unless you have some how spoke to the entire player base across PC and the various consoles?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Midas said:

Hey man, 7 years. I’m not going down until everyone understand Warframe does not really have a definitive genre, it dynamically is changing annually!

It has an identity crisis, that's for sure. The last time I checked, Warframe was being compared with Destiny, The Division and Anthem, for it's grounded gunplay and sinister tone. Not some DmC-lite power trip like Dark Souls or Dynasty Warriors or whatever

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jarriaga said:

Jizo really (Honestly) wanted an answer considering he had recently made a video about AI improvements and AI counter-measures against camping.

I would not say that. It's more like people don't really think of ramifications because people tend to miss the forest for the trees.

It's the same argument as when people ask to adjust weapon stats instead of nerfing riven disposition. They don't really think that their popular weapon would now get nerfed instead of its riven, or at least they don't want to think about it.

Those are good points. But still, wouldnt players with longstanding experience with the game see the forest after all this time no matter the trees? I can get it that a newer player may not really see it, since they transition into the AoE and speed issues overtime and just assumes it is the mobs that lag behind with poor A.I. But with extensive experience of the game and its system it quickly becomes clear than no A.I will help when we have access to the things we have. Even when I think of things like adding more special attacks I quickly come to the point where I go "it is as pointless as anything else" since we are too fast and most often constantly moving, so even those special attacks would never really have a chance to hit us.

At the point we are at in the game along with the recent nerfs to A.I behavior (lower chance to hit, slower tracking etc.) even things like movement speed stats turn into power creep for our survival.

But yeah, I do see your points and they are reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Midas said:

Hey man, 7 years. I’m not going down until everyone understand Warframe does not really have a definitive genre, it dynamically is changing annually!

I agree. Warframe sucked me in because of this. It broke like every game mold I was used to being in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, (PS4)CrazyBeaTzu said:

And the battle rages on: The casuals versus the try hards.

I love the smell of internet debates in the morning. 

Meanwhile the people who want something in the middle get ignored...

It's not easy being in the middle of things.

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

Most reasonable players will adapt. But those are not the ones causing so much friction that Pablo implied they kinda feel like hostages at times.

I thought showing his childhood photo was a legit move to keep players from being mad about nerfs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, warframe isn't a game where you come to use your brain, it falls in what I call 'mindless fun' category of games.

While I wouldn't say no to some slightly better AI (especially on spectres and pets etc), trying to turn warframe into a challenge, which in most cases will just find a new meta and be cheesed anyway, just isn't really right for this game. 

If you want a challenge in a game there are other options out there, let warframe be the 'power fantasy' it's designed around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

This isn't a lore situation. This is a game design situation. It's honestly something the game as a whole struggles with, many of its enemies share the same overall visual design, making it harder to tell which enemies are which. Having two enemies share the same design outside of colour, but behave entirely differently is a bad thing, and steps should always be taken to reduce that.

I'm used to it where games I play are always using this kind of design so I'm not thinking it's a bad thing, more like how fast you can differentiate units through a single glance and I can differentiate bombard and napalm from a glance when flying so I'm okay with it considering people say warframe is a fast paced ninja game

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, (XB1)ALTBOULI said:

Ok let me make it real simple for you.

Player: Can x be done?

Pablo: Yes but in order to do that we fundamentally need to change the game and I dont think the community will like that.

In other words he is saying it's not a good idea overall, yet you seem to insist his intention or at least his opinion is everything needs to be nerfed, it isn't.

Ultimalty x can be done but he doesnt think it's a good idea, that the point

So we're back to square one: The community not liking the solution does not negate that he expressed that it was the solution.

Since I acknowledged that he said that this is not viable because of community backlash in the opening post, I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. If you are arguing that "I dont think the community will like that." needs to be added, the opposite is true: You are in fact making his point by highlighting that the hindrance is the community, not that he thinks that such a change would be bad on its own.

We're going in circles, and you're even arguing for the same thing and amplifying what he said without even noticing because of your rejection to the concept of nerfs in principle. Otherwise, the implication there is that nothing is a solution if the community doesn't like it, which I find to be an extremely entitled mindset that holds the game hostage against what the devs would like to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...