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

[Goodwill]

There is no point in DE wasting development time on enemies and AI that will be destroyed before the player even sees them. Honestly, the enemies could be placeholder objects and I doubt many players would really care.
"What? Why are the enemies just primitive objects?"
"Oh well" *presses 4.

Probably what DE should do is introduce a hardcore mode to the game which allows them to test out nerfs or more restrictive play. Then see what the players interact with the most.

[Tokens210]

they could nerf weapons and frames into the ground and combat would still remain boring due to the ai making it less of a looter shooter and more of a fish in a barrel shooter

 

better enemies doesnt even have to mean more or less damage or accuracy, enemies dont even use cover half the time and when they do their on the same side as you

youll be on a larger tileset or open world and a dropship may drop them off spread out but they instantly bunch up

 

ive said it a bunch already that were gonna have to atleast adjust somethings in all areas, but some changes will affect other areas just by themselves

like seen mesa getting some hate lately about peacemaker being OP, peacemaker need line of sight, so enemies being more reactive to cover or even the fact that a mesa is there and they should probably stay behind it, would lessen that

seen equinox getting hated and called a nuker alot recently and they really arnt, problem here is weapons hitting for such crazy damage in a single hits and maim gets it all, tweaking some of the op weapons would take care of that, and if not implement a limit on how much he can absorb per shot, so burst weapons or more rapid fire ones that just dont do higher number fast arnt effected but have that change only take effect when hes in a group, so people that play solo wont be effected

seen saryn catching some hate recently as well but the spores wouldnt spread to every enemy in seconds if they didnt stand directly next to one another the entire time, it does seem like the spores might have a bit to much range but i dont play saryn enough to judge that i try to not judge frames i havent played enough myself to know about

yet havent seen banshee on the list or atleast nowhere near as muxh as you used to and she used to be a press 4 to win and im willing to bet that its cause whatever tweaks they did to her since lasttime i played balanced her power and energy so yea she can wipe out anyone in her AoE but its gonna be alot of energy todo so

 

the way i personally think they need to look at it is

1. Enemies first, cause no matter what else they do, noone wants to fight statues (thankfully it seems like their also aware of this as enemies like amalgam and arbitration enemies are much more responsive and have some hiccups here and there but besides that 100% better then old enemies and with reworks of planets it seems hopefully 1 by 1 theyll all get the treatment)

2. Weapons second, cause the weapons in some cases are useless still and in other cases are so strong youll never need another gun, these weapons also make things worse when you have character that can absorb or buff like equinox or chroma around, making it sometimes seem like the frames are super OP even if not

3. Frames Last, the whole idea of the game and the fantasy of us space ninjas is we were created for battle, we are warframes, were supposed to be powerful, 4 of us together are supposed to be able to take on the world, 1 if set to solo lol, we dont need to loose this idea or structure, so after enemies and weapons are in a better place well have a proper or clearer viewpoint of which frames may or may not need some tweaking

 

and again since its been a few days ill add my standard lets keep this thread rolling along without attacks or hatred as were all here cause we love the game and would like to see it bettered in any and all ways possible, i personally and honestly hope this threads on DE radar, weve had some fantastic ideas and or brainstorms going on here and i have to assume it is since like someone said before alot of time these threads end up closed but id like to believe this ones still open cause unlike the ones that get closed everyones been handling themselves brilliantly, so we have a genuine discussion or debate going on in here

 

also since i usually do huge posts instead of 17 smaller one and ppl sometimes think im being aggressive, im not, just a wall of text maker lol, nothing but love for all my fellow tenno

and just to throw numbers the threads now just 7 days old, is 46 pages and upon the time of this edit (1,137 replies and 16,980 views)

Edited May 24, 2020 by Tokens210

[Felsagger]

36 minutes ago, Goodwill said:

There is no point in DE wasting development time on enemies and AI that will be destroyed before the player even sees them. Honestly, the enemies could be placeholder objects and I doubt many players would really care.
"What? Why are the enemies just primitive objects?"
"Oh well" *presses 4.

Probably what DE should do is introduce a hardcore mode to the game which allows them to test out nerfs or more restrictive play. Then see what the players interact with the most.

 

False. 

Doom Eternal is a strict power fantasy game that uses different difficulty settings on A.I and advanced enemies. 

 

[Aldain]

1 hour ago, Tokens210 said:

1. Enemies first, cause no matter what else they do, noone wants to fight statues (thankfully it seems like their also aware of this as enemies like amalgam and arbitration enemies are much more responsive and have some hiccups here and there but besides that 100% better then old enemies and with reworks of planets it seems hopefully 1 by 1 theyll all get the treatment)

2. Weapons second, cause the weapons in some cases are useless still and in other cases are so strong youll never need another gun, these weapons also make things worse when you have character that can absorb or buff like equinox or chroma around, making it sometimes seem like the frames are super OP even if not

3. Frames Last, the whole idea of the game and the fantasy of us space ninjas is we were created for battle, we are warframes, were supposed to be powerful, 4 of us together are supposed to be able to take on the world, 1 if set to solo lol, we dont need to loose this idea or structure, so after enemies and weapons are in a better place well have a proper or clearer viewpoint of which frames may or may not need some tweaking

Honestly I'd say it is all three, in different parts.

As many have stated the A.I. improvements would be hit-or-miss depending on what they do to account for things, enemies diving for cover in response to a Mesa is all well and good, but the speed at which she can melt things might not give them a chance. Meanwhile even if they counter the Warframes cover is mostly useless with some of the popular AoE weapons, you can fire down a hall and hit enemies hiding at the corners so they make cover kind of meaningless.

However it does still stand that the enemies are...I'm not gonna say stupid but slow might be a more accurate word, they just don't react even 50% as fast as a player can, outside of the instant hooks and "use aoe knockdown if enemy is nearby" behaviors which supercede any other behavior. It could be that the A.I. is just too slow to react rather than outright stupid, because the current state of things is that due to the low time-to-kill ratio it can't react to anything before it dies.

Its a mix of issues rather than an order of operations one in my eyes, several enemies react too slowly even when they aren't dying in seconds (most of the time at least) but even if they react faster things that can kill/CC them instantly make those fast reactions meaningless. It might be best to address the largest problem in each category, Outdated A.I. behaviors, Over-the-top/Stug-tier weapons, and some Warframes reaching their power apex too quickly.

Of course that's just a general re-tread of what some of us have been talking about, but honestly the solutions thankfully don't seem to need to be "Scorched Earth" changes for the most part.

[SneakyErvin]

18 hours ago, CoalitionOfGears said:

So... are you saying that every game with a plot is an RPG? How would it even work? Is GTA an RPG? Are all single player shooters RPG's?

Even Mortal Kombat has "some" story-mode, cutscenes and a sense of progression towards an end, but it doesn't make it an RPG.

Okay. So CS and WF aren't really alike, we're agreed on that. So why, in order to state as much, are you mentioning probably the only thing that WF and CS actually have in common? Apart from a few replayable quests and hoarding resources to craft the next new piece of gear, WF is all about one-off matches. Currently against silly, weak bots that die on spawn.

GTA is and has always been an RPG, this because it gives you complete freedom to do what you want in an artificial world, it is a sandbox RPG just as Red Dead. And no, not all games with a plot are RPG's because not all games have progression systems tied to them or lets you make choices that change something in the story or the world. Both are big RPG aspects. No, all single player shooters are not RPG's, not really where you got that idea from or where you saw that connection.

Mortal Combat is just a game that tells you a story, you dont actually play a role immersed into the world you are in. No choices, no persistance etc. Just a story going from A-B that you cant have any real impact on.

As I said, WF has persistance, everything you do makes you progress in a RPG fashion, some things you do also changes the world to a cretain degree. They arent one-off matches, you take what you get from them with you to the next missions etc. Have you never played an arpg/looter shooter before or what? WF is pretty much the exact same as Path of Exile, Grim Dawn, the Diablo and Borderlands series. It just happens to be third person with extreme movement options. Everything you do is pretty much instanced based "one-off" activites, but those activites makes you progress. One-off in the case of CS is just that, it is one-off, you take nothing with you, no progression and you most importantly do not play a persistant character role. Same reason why Battlefield isnt an RPG, you have RPG-like progress with the rank system that rewards new weapons and attachments, but you dont play an actual character role and you arent really part of a story or a persistant world.

[Corvid]

7 hours ago, Tokens210 said:

the way i personally think they need to look at it is

1. Enemies first, cause no matter what else they do, noone wants to fight statues (thankfully it seems like their also aware of this as enemies like amalgam and arbitration enemies are much more responsive and have some hiccups here and there but besides that 100% better then old enemies and with reworks of planets it seems hopefully 1 by 1 theyll all get the treatment)

2. Weapons second, cause the weapons in some cases are useless still and in other cases are so strong youll never need another gun, these weapons also make things worse when you have character that can absorb or buff like equinox or chroma around, making it sometimes seem like the frames are super OP even if not

3. Frames Last, the whole idea of the game and the fantasy of us space ninjas is we were created for battle, we are warframes, were supposed to be powerful, 4 of us together are supposed to be able to take on the world, 1 if set to solo lol, we dont need to loose this idea or structure, so after enemies and weapons are in a better place well have a proper or clearer viewpoint of which frames may or may not need some tweaking

Congratulations, that is the exact opposite of what a sensible developer should do.

You determine what the player can do first, then design enemies around that. Otherwise, the enemies that you design around a less clear-cut version of the player's capabilities will be poorly suited to the actual abilities they end up having.

Oh, and for the record, there's nothing about being balanced that precludes players being powerful, so kindly stop treating the two as if they are diametrically opposed.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Corvid

[CoalitionOfGears]

16 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

GTA is and has always been an RPG, this because it gives you complete freedom to do what you want in an artificial world, it is a sandbox RPG just as Red Dead.

With all due and all that, but at this point I don't think this discussion will get us anywhere... This is like saying that The Lord of the Rings is a western because they ride horses or that Good Fellas is a comedy because the Joe Pesci character called another one a funny guy and subsequently laughed.

But all right...

Spoiler

Sandbox games are a different sub-genre entirely. All thumbs are fingers, not all fingers are thumbs. You can have games that are simultaneously sandboxes and RPG's, you can have games that are neither and you can have games that are one or the other. No-one - and I mean no-one - who knows gaming (and doesn't merely play video games) considers any of the GTA series an RPG. Yes, it's story-driven; yes, it can be called a sandbox game; yes, you can select your load-out and outfit; yes, the most recent entries in the franchise (GTA4 and 5 to be specific, so no idea where this "always has been" came from) allowed some choice regarding the way the story unfolds (though not its direction in any feasible way), and yes, as you progress, you unlock more of the world. But it's not an RPG - despite having some RPG elements - as at no point in the game do you actually choose your role. Yes, there are RPG's that don't have a structured class system but still let you choose a role; GTA isn't one of them. Your choice there - by and large - is limited to picking mission strategies and tactics (but it doesn't make GTA a Real-Time Strategy game now, does it?).

Neither GTA nor Warframe are RPG's.

 

Don't believe me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warframe

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/warframe

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_Vice_City

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/grand-theft-auto-vice-city

 

and for comparison, an actual sandbox RPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim

 

also, spoiler alert, AC isn't an RPG series, either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin's_Creed

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/assassins-creed-directors-cut-edition

 

 

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

As I said, WF has persistance, everything you do makes you progress in a RPG fashion,

Given that you're using GTA as a frame of reference for RPG's as a genre... ah well. You're not saying "WF (or GTA, or whatever) has some RPG elements and it would be cool to look at it from this perspective". You're stating that both of them are actual RPG's and - to my understanding at least - that they need to be treated as such...

 

I mean, I wouldn't care normally, but it seems weird to me that there's a discussion on what Warframe is and what direction it should take as a game, yet you and some others seem to think that game genres are opinions or something and not a classification tool for gamers to better recognise and talk about their tastes. It's not a bad thing that Warframe isn't an RPG. Why defend such an idea? Why here? Do you want it to be an RPG?

 

[Tokens210]

2 hours ago, Corvid said:

Congratulations, that is the exact opposite of what a sensible developer should do.

You determine what the player can do first, then design enemies around that. Otherwise, the enemies that you design around a less clear-cut version of the player's capabilities will be poorly suited to the actual abilities they end up having.

Oh, and for the record, there's nothing about being balanced that precludes players being powerful, so kindly stop treating the two as if they are diametrically opposed.

i never said balance precludes power, but its been brought up about 100 times already, i simply mentioned that we can have both

no its not the exact opposite as they know exactly what we can do, they created the characters after all, and weve been testing them for them for years now, yet we keep just getting buffed or nerfed, then buffed or nerfed, endless cycle

i know it may be long but you may wanna go back and reread it as i said all areas need tweaking, thats just the order i said id personally look at it

cause as i stated in the beginning, they can raise or lower our characters abilities all you want our enemies are boring and do not respond to us,

you can raise and lower the weapons all you want but while we have guns drop 100k+ damage every second, those boring enemies above are fish in a barrel

the frames i said last was to infact keep the power fantasy as, if your not aware of other sections on the forums theres atleast 2-5 threads started everyday that blow up into a nerf this and nerf that threads and currently the nerfing crosshairs are set on mesa,equinox,saryn almost every single time, and if we follow suit with how things have normally gone that means if ppl keep making those threads we will end up seeing nerfs, just like ember, gara, soma prime, atterax, literally anything that simply may need tweaks gets nerfed if they yell loud enough and i for one personally would like to see that stop

what i was saying was merely fixing other things will adjust those frames seeming so outta wack

enemies taking cover more often or realizing mesa is on the level would cause effects on peacemaker

lower weapons crazy damage would have an effect on equinox maim

having enemies not group up instantly would effect saryns spore

[Tokens210]

8 hours ago, Aldain said:

Honestly I'd say it is all three, in different parts.

As many have stated the A.I. improvements would be hit-or-miss depending on what they do to account for things, enemies diving for cover in response to a Mesa is all well and good, but the speed at which she can melt things might not give them a chance. Meanwhile even if they counter the Warframes cover is mostly useless with some of the popular AoE weapons, you can fire down a hall and hit enemies hiding at the corners so they make cover kind of meaningless.

However it does still stand that the enemies are...I'm not gonna say stupid but slow might be a more accurate word, they just don't react even 50% as fast as a player can, outside of the instant hooks and "use aoe knockdown if enemy is nearby" behaviors which supercede any other behavior. It could be that the A.I. is just too slow to react rather than outright stupid, because the current state of things is that due to the low time-to-kill ratio it can't react to anything before it dies.

Its a mix of issues rather than an order of operations one in my eyes, several enemies react too slowly even when they aren't dying in seconds (most of the time at least) but even if they react faster things that can kill/CC them instantly make those fast reactions meaningless. It might be best to address the largest problem in each category, Outdated A.I. behaviors, Over-the-top/Stug-tier weapons, and some Warframes reaching their power apex too quickly.

Of course that's just a general re-tread of what some of us have been talking about, but honestly the solutions thankfully don't seem to need to be "Scorched Earth" changes for the most part.

oh again i completely agree, i believe its all the above i just believe fixing enemies may give us a better view of weapons and frames etc etc, for them to then be fixed, and this would all require alot of testing

i still think they need other things as well which would fall under enemies to me, like dropships on tilesets disabling powers till it leaves

things like arbitrations drones witch cause all enemies to ignore all warframe abilities, i actually like what they did with these guys, but to circle back to weapons my tigris 1 shots em so they are absolutely a non threat really

maybe another enemy type that can call in warframe specters, as it seems we may only have 1 now and it usually takes awhile to get him to show, in some cases

its been a few days since i posted here so i was coming back again to reiterate that its a multi point issue we have going on that while yes it requires us to touch on everything, some things will have a trickle down effect to others helping relieve some other issues along the way

[Lakais]

One aspect that has to be accepted that either way you cut it: Some people will leave. And that includes you, me and even developers like Pablo if they feel that the game is no longer something they want to work on. 

If you lean in to the power fantasy angle and have everyone be unstoppable when they become even somewhat acclimated to the game mechanics and make it all about the big number nukes and AoE's, then people who want to be challenged and use all the best mechanics like mobility will eventually grow bored or even angry and leave.

However if you angle more towards challenge and difficulty, the players who are in it just for the big numbers, nukes and maximum efficiency gameplay will feel ignored or dare I say: abandoned. And they will also feel like leaving. 

And as for developers; they each have an image in their heads as to what the game should be, how it should be played. You can see it clearly with large gameplay reveals and demo plays with the way how Steve and Scott explain it all as to how they imagine it all going to pan out. And then players come along and whole swaths of the mechanics they have planned out are being ignored, exploited or turned on their heads. At some point every person working at DE has probably asked themselves: "Do I really want to keep doing this? Do I like working on this game?" And as much as some might salivate over a dev or two leaving with whom they might have a personal irk towards, it's just as likely for someone loved like Pablo to decide that it is time to wrap up and go for other projects. 

I, personally, am in the "challenge and difficulty through mechanics not stats" camp. I wholly expect nerfs and have been hoping for quite a few over the years. I don't enjoy overleveled enemies because the options aren't there. I don't like when my builds or styles become overspecialized that these enemies demand to combat effectively. I accept that some specialization is to be required, but when my entire build is centered around a single ability being used in a very specific manner and doing only that for extended periods of time, my attention and interest just melts away. Not a single "high level endurance" game I have seen have been mechanically impressive to me. The numbers are big, yes, and the math work put behind it by the ORIGINAL creator of the build is notable as is the alchemical knowledge of mechanics and stats to pull off some clearly unintended gameplay moves is impressive. But the gameplay itself is bland and boring and considering they are relatively easy to replicate (getting the component mods can be tedious) there really isn't much mechanical skill expertise on display. 

[Felsagger]

8 hours ago, Tokens210 said:

 

1. Enemies first, cause no matter what else they do, none wants to fight statues (thankfully it seems like their also aware of this as enemies like amalgam and arbitration enemies are much more responsive and have some hiccups here and there but besides that 100% better then old enemies and with reworks of planets it seems hopefully 1 by 1 they'll all get the treatment)

2. Weapons second, cause the weapons in some cases are useless still and in other cases are so strong you'll never need another gun, these weapons also make things worse when you have character that can absorb or buff like equinox or Chroma around, making it sometimes seem like the frames are super OP even if not

3. Frames Last, the whole idea of the game and the fantasy of us space ninjas is we were created for battle, we are war frames, were supposed to be powerful, 4 of us together are supposed to be able to take on the world, 1 if set to solo lol, we don't need to loose this idea or structure, so after enemies and weapons are in a better place well have a proper or clearer viewpoint of which frames may or may not need some tweaking

 

 

I differ.  

1. Enemy design revolves around a defined player. 

Game concept goes as follows. First define player capabilities then design enemies around player capabilities similar to the player. If you do it the other way around the player may end up having a cumbersome game play as a result. Enemies are designed around the capability of the payer. If a developer design the player and the enemies independently, the player may be under powered or the enemy will end up under powered. The design should be near a point of equilibrium. If this doesn't happen the enemy or the player ends up being the bully. 

The factors for a battle is defined by the context or the stage, the enemy A.I., the enemy type, the enemy load out, the changing conditions of the context and the actuators or triggers in the stage. A game environment is generated wen all these conditions are generated under a finite set of rules defined by the designer. A.I. is not enough. The linear combination of these variables defines the degree of the engagement. The engagement quality defines the degree of immersion with the game. 

DE critique:

Enemies attacks without coordination, pattern recognition, context or stage negotiation, lack of awareness of the stage, enemy A.I. doesn't recognize the weapon he carries. Enemy behaves like wild horses galloping towards a rift. Enemies lacks sense of danger and selection of pursuit curve strategies, enemies has short reaction times but 100 percent hit scan accuracy. Enemies doesn't focus damage per second when needed. Enemies behaves like lemmings waiting to be dispatched. Enemies need to have some sort of 'memory' recognizing what war frame is in the field. 

DE missed the way enemies spawn. They are using an old system of magically inserting the enemy. There are not teleport small coils, no drop ships in the normal tile sets or insertion points are heavily guarded by Galleons and artillery. Attacking an insertion point should be penalized since the enemy dominates that zone. DE missed that. The game MUST HAVE a lore logic, the game MUST HAVE 'common sense' design. 

2. Weapon design is fundamental. 

Classification of weapons should happen eventually. It doesn't need to be explicit but there are categories on primary, secondary and melee. These categories should be denoted somehow for example swords, double swords, spears, double spears, knives, bars, two linked bars, three linked bars, axes and so on. These families should be named on the sets of weapons. The same goes with primaries and secondary. Weapons have a vocabulary, nomenclature, typology, characterization and classification. 

Weapon switching is a factor, weapon alternate fire is a factor, weapon usage is a factor among other aspects as projectile speed, reloading, recharging, rate of fire, damage per second, damage per pellet, damage per projectile. A game is characterized by the design of the items and the versatility of these items. The player has the ability to do load outs. Why not equip the enemy with three weapons. A heavy, primary and secondary load outs gives A.I. flexibility in the decision tree.  

Lore definition directs context design. For example the green engineers uses robotics and so corporation faction. Green engineers are specialized in cybernetics assisted agility with robotics. The corporation faction uses advanced A.I, robotics and automation. The green engineers uses cameras, radio communication where other troops can see  where are these frames. Information knowledge data reconnaissance is shared throughout their hardware devices. Lore gives features that justifies enemy behavior. 

Weapons, artillery and vehicles should revolve around the features of these enemies such as drones, mech, robots, power armor, transport vehicles, large vehicles and large carriers. 

 DE critique:

Weapons are gimped and sometimes useless. They don't scale up, their accuracy is hampered cheaply. Design opportunities are missed constantly with lack of alt fire on many of these weapons. Some weapon design are simply dull and uninteresting. Weapons have minimal animation, they feel weightless. Enemies don't use them to the full potential. If a weapon has alternate fire, the enemy can use those alternate fire for their advantage. In rare occasions this happens. 

Constant decrease/increase in the damage output  shows how off DE is with their designs and intentions. Excel tables should be made not only for damage output but for other features such as scale up. There is no sense of progress on the weapons. The only feature is the mod cards. 

Example, Opticor design:

DE misses the opportunity of making a family of each weapon. For example if the Opticor is launched, why not do primary, secondary, heavy, and mega heavy or archiwing version of the opticor family with the respective weapon updates. 

DE misses the opportunity of adding a third weapon on the War Frames. War Frame should have three weapons such as the heavy, primary and secondary and the melee weapon of choice. The heavy archiwing weapons should feel mega heavy like the Gauss Cannon, or the Petrusite Cannon. Lately weapons have movable parts but they need more drama like the weapons in Doom 

Throughout the series of Doom games you see progression in weapon design. They keep the same spirit but there are updates, alternate fire, use animation, modifications on the sport and more than three alternate fire for some weapons. 

The opticor only has one recharge shot and that is it. Opticor doesn't have alternate fire, modes of ranged distances among many other things. This apply to minor weapons like the seer or a simple stubba. 

DE misses the chance to fix old weapons updating the skins, fire power and animations. They throw them to the canister bin when such weapons served the purpose. DE must commit to certain compromises. If DE wants to attract crowds to their game they should be ready for the harsh comparisons. Why? What makes me play War Frame over Doom Eternal? What makes me invest money one product over the other when the product that I have doesn't cater my quality standards that were established by the video game industry? DE can't put deaf ears to progress when they add weapons into their game. 

Side note: Doom Eternal and the family of Doom games are known as the FPS genre. Such genre focuses on weapons, first person and weapon interaction with the enemy. War Frame is a game that depends DIRECTLY with the hordes. It is obvious that such game borrows traits and attributes of other games. If such thing is going to be design practice then design should be intense on those areas. For certain weapons allows first person view due to the particular weapons. War Frame is a third person view game that depends on awareness and panoptic vision. However certain weapons like sniper rifles has first person view. Why not doing this for most weapons? The philosophy of design is different on these genres but quality standards should increase in a GAAS F2P game. ID and DE have different takes and approaches on hordes but if DE incursion on these topics they should carry the responsibilities that comes with such incursions on game design. 

3. War Frames should be first. 

 Warframes ARE NOT ninjas, that is one of the many attributes they have. The word gives away what they really are. They are WAR FRAMES. What does the concept means? These are power mechano organic weaponized armor that has control over force fields like electricity, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity and force fields. Other strictly organic frames has control over spores and fungus. These are more organic less cybernetic frames. Their technology could be biological, technological or force elemental. These are molecular level designed machines for war according to the War Frame lore. The name ninja refers as a particular approach or class called shadow or stealth. (Look for the etymology) .

Since everybody knows about War Frames, I'm not going to get into detail about their nature. However War Frame structured game play happens in games like Titan Fall 2 (few frames), Batman Arkham Knight (1 frame), Spider Man (1 frame), Over Watch (lots of war Frames). They have abilities, particularities and parkour movement system. War frame where created to fight the Sentient waves. They should be on par with the Sentients. Grineer can defeat them but takes a lot of resources, Corpus can defeat them with less heavy robotic resources and of course the infestation can defeat them with a staggering number of the infested. 

DE critique: Enemy design match are a joke. War Frame are the minority. They should be on the run. A power fantasy event should happen when War frame tackles few enemies but such advantage goes to the floor when the enemy increase their numbers, counter measures, troop types and augmentation in enemy types. War Frame should always be on the run because they alone CAN'T defeat the corpus, the Grineer or the Infested. They can turn the tide of battles once their number increases with allies, NPCs and support. DE missed that elementary lore fact reducing it to just the 'endurance game' of endless hordes. 

War frame ARE NOT omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. That conception is simply wrong because it reduces everything to ability spams and trivialization of content. A War Frame should always provide tactical approaches such as Wisp, Vauban, Protea, Volt, Zephyr, Titania, Frost, etc. Their design are based on four parameters. Defense, offense, support and reconnaissance or (tactical data gathering). They are not immortal beings. Their advanced technology gives the age on MOBILITY. That is what makes them War Frame in this respective lore context. 

DE, play your game first understanding the extension of your War frame. Yes this game is always susceptible to change however some downgrades are easy excuses for the post position of the solution on fundamental problems that the game has. Don't abuse that crutch. It irks people and makes players despise such decisions because their time where not taken into consideration. 

 

Tokens, we all went throughout a learning process. This is not a harsh critique on your post but another view on the problem. 

[Felsagger]

29 minutes ago, Lakais said:

One aspect that has to be accepted that either way you cut it: Some people will leave. And that includes you, me and even developers like Pablo if they (DE) feel that the game is no longer something they want to work on. 

If you lean in to the power fantasy angle and have everyone be unstoppable when they become even somewhat acclimated to the game mechanics and make it all about the big number nukes and AoE's, then people who want to be challenged and use all the best mechanics like mobility will eventually grow bored or even angry and leave.

However if you angle more towards challenge and difficulty, the players who are in it just for the big numbers, nukes and maximum efficiency gameplay will feel ignored or dare I say: abandoned. And they will also feel like leaving. 

And as for developers; they each have an image in their heads as to what the game should be, how it should be played. You can see it clearly with large gameplay reveals and demo plays with the way how Steve and Scott explain it all as to how they imagine it all going to pan out. And then players come along and whole swaths of the mechanics they have planned out are being ignored, exploited or turned on their heads. At some point every person working at DE has probably asked themselves: "Do I really want to keep doing this? Do I like working on this game?" And as much as some might salivate over a dev or two leaving with whom they might have a personal irk towards, it's just as likely for someone loved like Pablo to decide that it is time to wrap up and go for other projects. 

I, personally, am in the "challenge and difficulty through mechanics not stats" camp. I wholly expect nerfs and have been hoping for quite a few over the years. I don't enjoy over leveled enemies because the options aren't there. I don't like when my builds or styles become overspecialized that these enemies demand to combat effectively. I accept that some specialization is to be required, but when my entire build is centered around a single ability being used in a very specific manner and doing only that for extended periods of time, my attention and interest just melts away. Not a single "high level endurance" game I have seen have been mechanically impressive to me. The numbers are big, yes, and the math work put behind it by the ORIGINAL creator of the build is notable as is the alchemical knowledge of mechanics and stats to pull off some clearly unintended gameplay moves is impressive. But the gameplay itself is bland and boring and considering they are relatively easy to replicate (getting the component mods can be tedious) there really isn't much mechanical skill expertise on display. 

 

 

This man gets the point. 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Felsagger

[Felsagger]

19 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Typically, the reason cited around these parts is that any nerf would be apparently damaging to our power fantasy: a game cannot offer both challenge and a power fantasy, so the argument goes, so Warframe needs to choose between one or the other. This argument falls apart rather quickly I think, because it doesn't take a lot of looking around to see that many games offer both. In fact, most games do. Without having to think very hard, I can think of literally a dozen examples:

• Doom
• God of War
• Devil May Cry
• Shadow of Mordor
• Dishonored
• Final Fantasy
• Saints Row
• Sid Meier's Civilization
• Sekiro
• Wolfenstein
• Metal Gear Solid
• Space Marine

 

Rofl.....

I agree with the rest of the comment but wait, hold it a minute. You mentioned WHAT?!!!!

 

Civilization game is a turn based strategy game. What is wrong with you? 

 

Every game makes a compromise between power fantasy and challenge. War Frame has zero business with turn based games. 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Felsagger

[Teridax68]

27 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

Civilization game is a turn based strategy game. What is wrong with you? 

Whoosh.

[(XBOX)YoungGunn82]

On 2020-05-18 at 8:33 PM, GreyDeath789 said:

So it is just nerf the players abilities instead of working to make the enemies more difficult/complex as a solution? Sounds about right for the direction DE has been going for a while now...having the DE developer in the video confirm it doesn't make this a welcome decision but should at least let the player community manage expectations when it comes to the 'difficulty' of the game moving forward.

 

On 2020-05-19 at 3:24 AM, (XB1)SirMilkfiend said:

You can give enemies more tools for dealing with CC without nerfing the CC itself - they could throw special void grenades that could pick up the properties of areas under the effects of an ability so if one is thrown through a stasis field at 155 range and 155 duration the grenade gets boosted range on it's explosion which disables the CC and it's effect lasts longer which is to block all abilities cast in that area and silence Warframes who were caught in the explosion. Grineer could toss Parasitic Drones that attach onto Warframes and lower Duration/Range to 10 percent and need to shot off by teammates (or an operator), Sentient could create portals that bypass CC entirely, Infested could produce special Eximus units who resist CC and gain more damage for every active ability in your Warframe squad giving a tradeoff of CC for enemy lethality, Corpus could cleanse CC on their allies, Orokin could steal a CC ability off your Warframe casting it on you while for you it is disabled until you take care of the thief, There are so many options that don't involve putting CC back in the orphanage.

 

[(XBOX)YoungGunn82]

22 hours ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

The ai isn’t stupid it’s actually very intelligent for gaming standards to date

[(XBOX)YoungGunn82]

18 hours ago, Felsagger said:

DE's AI, I say it again, is a joke. 

 

On the other hand:

Problem: Nuke frames SHOULD NOT exist. 

Problem: Invulnerable frames SHOULD NOT exist. 

Problem: Area of Effect frames SHOULD NOT exist. 

Problem: hitscan SHOULD NOT exist

Edited May 24, 2020 by (XB1)YoungGunn82

[Loza03]

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Rofl.....

I agree with the rest of the comment but wait, hold it a minute. You mentioned WHAT?!!!!

 

Civilization game is a turn based strategy game. What is wrong with you? 

 

Every game makes a compromise between power fantasy and challenge. War Frame has zero business with turn based games. 

 

You play as the leader of a nation trying to take over the world.

 

If that doesn't scream power fantasy, I don't know what doesn't. Even if the exact methods are different, the point still stands.

[Tokens210]

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

I differ.  

1. Enemy design revolves around a defined player. 

Game concept goes as follows. First define player capabilities then design enemies around player capabilities similar to the player. If you do it the other way around the player may end up having a cumbersome game play as a result. Enemies are designed around the capability of the payer. If a developer design the player and the enemies independently, the player may be under powered or the enemy will end up under powered. The design should be near a point of equilibrium. If this doesn't happen the enemy or the player ends up being the bully. 

The factors for a battle is defined by the context or the stage, the enemy A.I., the enemy type, the enemy load out, the changing conditions of the context and the actuators or triggers in the stage. A game environment is generated wen all these conditions are generated under a finite set of rules defined by the designer. A.I. is not enough. The linear combination of these variables defines the degree of the engagement. The engagement quality defines the degree of immersion with the game. 

DE critique:

Enemies attacks without coordination, pattern recognition, context or stage negotiation, lack of awareness of the stage, enemy A.I. doesn't recognize the weapon he carries. Enemy behaves like wild horses galloping towards a rift. Enemies lacks sense of danger and selection of pursuit curve strategies, enemies has short reaction times but 100 percent hit scan accuracy. Enemies doesn't focus damage per second when needed. Enemies behaves like lemmings waiting to be dispatched. Enemies need to have some sort of 'memory' recognizing what war frame is in the field. 

DE missed the way enemies spawn. They are using an old system of magically inserting the enemy. There are not teleport small coils, no drop ships in the normal tile sets or insertion points are heavily guarded by Galleons and artillery. Attacking an insertion point should be penalized since the enemy dominates that zone. DE missed that. The game MUST HAVE a lore logic, the game MUST HAVE 'common sense' design. 

2. Weapon design is fundamental. 

Classification of weapons should happen eventually. It doesn't need to be explicit but there are categories on primary, secondary and melee. These categories should be denoted somehow for example swords, double swords, spears, double spears, knives, bars, two linked bars, three linked bars, axes and so on. These families should be named on the sets of weapons. The same goes with primaries and secondary. Weapons have a vocabulary, nomenclature, typology, characterization and classification. 

Weapon switching is a factor, weapon alternate fire is a factor, weapon usage is a factor among other aspects as projectile speed, reloading, recharging, rate of fire, damage per second, damage per pellet, damage per projectile. A game is characterized by the design of the items and the versatility of these items. The player has the ability to do load outs. Why not equip the enemy with three weapons. A heavy, primary and secondary load outs gives A.I. flexibility in the decision tree.  

Lore definition directs context design. For example the green engineers uses robotics and so corporation faction. Green engineers are specialized in cybernetics assisted agility with robotics. The corporation faction uses advanced A.I, robotics and automation. The green engineers uses cameras, radio communication where other troops can see  where are these frames. Information knowledge data reconnaissance is shared throughout their hardware devices. Lore gives features that justifies enemy behavior. 

Weapons, artillery and vehicles should revolve around the features of these enemies such as drones, mech, robots, power armor, transport vehicles, large vehicles and large carriers. 

 DE critique:

Weapons are gimped and sometimes useless. They don't scale up, their accuracy is hampered cheaply. Design opportunities are missed constantly with lack of alt fire on many of these weapons. Some weapon design are simply dull and uninteresting. Weapons have minimal animation, they feel weightless. Enemies don't use them to the full potential. If a weapon has alternate fire, the enemy can use those alternate fire for their advantage. In rare occasions this happens. 

Constant decrease/increase in the damage output  shows how off DE is with their designs and intentions. Excel tables should be made not only for damage output but for other features such as scale up. There is no sense of progress on the weapons. The only feature is the mod cards. 

Example, Opticor design:

DE misses the opportunity of making a family of each weapon. For example if the Opticor is launched, why not do primary, secondary, heavy, and mega heavy or archiwing version of the opticor family with the respective weapon updates. 

DE misses the opportunity of adding a third weapon on the War Frames. War Frame should have three weapons such as the heavy, primary and secondary and the melee weapon of choice. The heavy archiwing weapons should feel mega heavy like the Gauss Cannon, or the Petrusite Cannon. Lately weapons have movable parts but they need more drama like the weapons in Doom 

Throughout the series of Doom games you see progression in weapon design. They keep the same spirit but there are updates, alternate fire, use animation, modifications on the sport and more than three alternate fire for some weapons. 

The opticor only has one recharge shot and that is it. Opticor doesn't have alternate fire, modes of ranged distances among many other things. This apply to minor weapons like the seer or a simple stubba. 

DE misses the chance to fix old weapons updating the skins, fire power and animations. They throw them to the canister bin when such weapons served the purpose. DE must commit to certain compromises. If DE wants to attract crowds to their game they should be ready for the harsh comparisons. Why? What makes me play War Frame over Doom Eternal? What makes me invest money one product over the other when the product that I have doesn't cater my quality standards that were established by the video game industry? DE can't put deaf ears to progress when they add weapons into their game. 

Side note: Doom Eternal and the family of Doom games are known as the FPS genre. Such genre focuses on weapons, first person and weapon interaction with the enemy. War Frame is a game that depends DIRECTLY with the hordes. It is obvious that such game borrows traits and attributes of other games. If such thing is going to be design practice then design should be intense on those areas. For certain weapons allows first person view due to the particular weapons. War Frame is a third person view game that depends on awareness and panoptic vision. However certain weapons like sniper rifles has first person view. Why not doing this for most weapons? The philosophy of design is different on these genres but quality standards should increase in a GAAS F2P game. ID and DE have different takes and approaches on hordes but if DE incursion on these topics they should carry the responsibilities that comes with such incursions on game design. 

3. War Frames should be first. 

 Warframes ARE NOT ninjas, that is one of the many attributes they have. The word gives away what they really are. They are WAR FRAMES. What does the concept means? These are power mechano organic weaponized armor that has control over force fields like electricity, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity and force fields. Other strictly organic frames has control over spores and fungus. These are more organic less cybernetic frames. Their technology could be biological, technological or force elemental. These are molecular level designed machines for war according to the War Frame lore. The name ninja refers as a particular approach or class called shadow or stealth. (Look for the etymology) .

Since everybody knows about War Frames, I'm not going to get into detail about their nature. However War Frame structured game play happens in games like Titan Fall 2 (few frames), Batman Arkham Knight (1 frame), Spider Man (1 frame), Over Watch (lots of war Frames). They have abilities, particularities and parkour movement system. War frame where created to fight the Sentient waves. They should be on par with the Sentients. Grineer can defeat them but takes a lot of resources, Corpus can defeat them with less heavy robotic resources and of course the infestation can defeat them with a staggering number of the infested. 

DE critique: Enemy design match are a joke. War Frame are the minority. They should be on the run. A power fantasy event should happen when War frame tackles few enemies but such advantage goes to the floor when the enemy increase their numbers, counter measures, troop types and augmentation in enemy types. War Frame should always be on the run because they alone CAN'T defeat the corpus, the Grineer or the Infested. They can turn the tide of battles once their number increases with allies, NPCs and support. DE missed that elementary lore fact reducing it to just the 'endurance game' of endless hordes. 

War frame ARE NOT omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. That conception is simply wrong because it reduces everything to ability spams and trivialization of content. A War Frame should always provide tactical approaches such as Wisp, Vauban, Protea, Volt, Zephyr, Titania, Frost, etc. Their design are based on four parameters. Defense, offense, support and reconnaissance or (tactical data gathering). They are not immortal beings. Their advanced technology gives the age on MOBILITY. That is what makes them War Frame in this respective lore context. 

DE, play your game first understanding the extension of your War frame. Yes this game is always susceptible to change however some downgrades are easy excuses for the post position of the solution on fundamental problems that the game has. Don't abuse that crutch. It irks people and makes players despise such decisions because their time where not taken into consideration. 

 

Tokens, we all went throughout a learning process. This is not a harsh critique on your post but another view on the problem. 

oh i take no offense and welcome other ideas and view points, i actually like plenty of yours

i just feel like personally at this point they should know what were capable of (they created the frames and altho not as many as old days many of them do still play altho it often doesnt seem like it, weve also been basically beta testing while everything except enemies have seemed to get nerfed or upgraded, until more recently atleast) and weve gotten to a point where after all these years enemies were left in the dust while newer frames and weapons got created, we still have mostly 2015 circa enemies with 2020 frames and weapons

i think DE knows to some extend enemies and their AI are a potential big issue with the unbalance which will hopefully get fixed with the tileset reworks, which will take some time but i welcome them very much so

warframes are also going thru the rework changes as well which again will take time but as long as they arnt fundamentally changing all aspects of a character the community may have loved i think that will go well and i welcome that too

weapons seems to be atleast for me more off the radar to them and some of them make any enemy or frame changes not as important, thats what i mean when i say you can nerf my frame into the ground but as long as my gun is dropping 100k+ per shot im still gonna be able to wipe the floor with them and with a frame able to absorb "nuke" areas (with new weapons or with updates also come new rivens and currently their actually adding more riven slots, which to me, is just crazy, but thats cause ive always thought rivens were a bad idea, atleast with how DE implemented them)

arbitrations a good example which i think i mentioned, ive just been grinding out that solo with nekros recently 30min at a time (only due to enemy droughts on solo and how fast oxygen drops), they have the arbitration drones which like shield drones have an AoE, making all enemies within it completely immune to any and all warframe abilities, i like this

absolutely useless tho since its AI causes it to seek me out and my guns can 1 shot it, would be better if it actually hid out of my sight so i needed to seek it out to kill it

similarly hiding in a hallway while running survival on solo, not really camping as much as a tactic to get all potential life support to be closer to you, so not broke but strategy

the fact that the enemies, wave after wave just keep pouring into the hallway with no plans of attack or ally that can disable us, like they cant even see the pile of bodies their pushing through to get to it, questionable or broken AI decisions

 

and also to say again, im not someone who believes 1 thing will fix it all, i know that this is going to have to be a multiple category fix meaning weapons, enemies and frames,ive said this before, i also believe the mechanics behind our current AI are one of their larger issues and that relieving some of that would help other areas out, thats the sole reason i listed enemies as first

Edited May 24, 2020 by Tokens210

[Aadi880]

23 hours ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

The ai isn’t stupid it’s actually very intelligent for gaming standards to date

No.

Warframe's AI is "diverse"

But that doesn't mean its not stupid.

Being able to do many things (taking cover, providing cover, back-peddling, huddling, quick-scoping) does not mean they are smarter.

 

Its all slow. AI takes forever to get out of cover, or get into cover. Even triggering alarms and lobbing grenades. At the same time, AI needs visual indication of its existence such that players can react to them. Otherwise, it becomes an "aimbot" AI.

Only way I see by "improving AI" without nerfing warframes is by giving the AI OP abilities as well, just like warframes, one with visual indication (This is the important part) . Just improving AI by normal means won't do anything if I can just shut the AI off by pressing 4.

It does not matter how overpowered you make an AI ability. As long as there is enough visual indication with a viable reaction, humans will counter it.
Trick is to make that counter engaging enough for it to be called the AI an enemy with a valid thread.

 

Example:

Imagine a defense mission. An enemy comes in with a nuke. Nuke bypasses limbo's catacalysm and stasis. Cannot be blocked, can phase through walls. It will ALWAYS hit the defense target. However, If defense target is regenerating health or at full health, it will do no damage at all. This can theoretically make all warframes that has meager healing abilities viable for all defense missions.

This is just a gist of what I'm trying to imply. I'm not saying to make it like this, but rather have the AI more likely to trigger mission fail states in an extreme manner.

 

Though, Pablo's suggestion would still do the same thing, but I think it may not be engaging enough for players to care.

[Felsagger]

6 hours ago, Loza03 said:

You play as the leader of a nation trying to take over the world.

 

If that doesn't scream power fantasy, I don't know what doesn't. Even if the exact methods are different, the point still stands.

Nope. 

 

He entirely missed the point mentioning that game. The context of application is way off. Every game deals with power fantasy and  challenge giving high stakes in favor of the player. The rest of his list makes sense since all of the other games have similar traits or attributes with War Frame. 

Civilization is one of my all times favorite game. I know how it works. Turn based games are way different. Talking about War Frame and Civilization is the same as talking about cheap comedy and well thought out serious drama. 

 Both games should not be on the same discourse. They are nowhere near.  

Edited May 25, 2020 by Felsagger

[Loza03]

Just now, Felsagger said:

Nope. 

 

He entirely missed the point mentioning that game. The context of application is way off. Every game deals with power fantasy and  challenge giving high stakes in favor of the the player. The rest of his list makes sense since all of the other games have similar traits or attributes with War Frame. 

Civilization is one of my all times favorite game. I know how it works. Turn based games are way different. Talking about War Frame and Civilization is the same as talking about cheap comedy and well thought out serious drama. 

 Both games should not be on the same discourse. They are nowhere near.  

I would argue it's an example of the same abstract concept. 

If they were arguing that Warframe should play like Civilisation, sure, that would be absurd. But power fantasy, as a concept, extends far beyond just action games, or even games in general.

[Felsagger]

47 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

I would argue it's an example of the same abstract concept. 

If they were arguing that Warframe should play like Civilisation, sure, that would be absurd. But power fantasy, as a concept, extends far beyond just action games, or even games in general.

 

The concept doesn't materialize the same way that Warframe  does it. Every game makes balances between power fantasy and challenge. The materialization of the concept in each game are different but at least the previous list shows games where some aspects of those games are similar and comparable with War Frame. 

Any reader who sees the list finds that something is out of place in the list. We have to be extremely careful when we talk about Civilization. That example is way too volatile and complex.

 

Let us review the list: 

• Doom (Doom Eternal) (Weapon mechanics, enemy hordes, game play parkour)
• God of War (God of War IV) (Melee mechanics, enemy hordes, damage elemental type)
• Devil May Cry (Devil May Cry V) (Weapon mechanics, enemy hordes, melee combos)
• Shadow of Mordor (Liches)
• Dishonored (Stealth, stealth kills, parkour, war frame abilities)
• Final Fantasy (RPG attributes of hit point damage and damage type among many other RPG related subjects)
• Saints Row (Such crap should not be here in this list)
• Sid Meier's Civilization (A turn based game here? Outstanding games like this should not be compared to games like War Frame. Warframe is not all that.)
• Sekiro (Stealth, parkour, Melee mechanics, stealth kills)
• Wolfenstein (Which game?)
• Metal Gear Solid (Which game?)
• Space Marine (Which game?)

Edited May 24, 2020 by Felsagger

[Loza03]

Just now, Felsagger said:

 

The concept doesn't materialize the same way that Warframe  does it. Every game makes balances between power fantasy and challenge. The materialization of the concept in each game are different but at least the previous list shows games where some aspects of those games are seen. 

Any reader who sees the list finds that something is out of place in the list. We have to be extremely careful when we talk about Civilization. That example is way too volatile and complex. 

 

Yeah, that's my point. As far as I can tell, that use of Civilisation as an example isn't talking about it in terms of lessons, just the abstract concept.

I mean, hell, large chunks of Metal Gear are dedicated to stealth fantasy, which is arguably distinct from power fantasy (since it's more about being smarter than everyone else, not stronger). Nobody's questioning it's inclusion on that list though. Granted, yes, you do also jump into a nuclear-enabled mech and beat the living daylights out another nuclear-enabled mech, so it's sure got plenty of power fantasy of its own, but point here - list isn't bringing up specific ways to make Warframe better, just other times the challenge/power fantasy dynamic has been handled.

[Aldain]

26 minutes ago, Aadi880 said:

Its all slow. AI takes forever to get out of cover, or get into cover. Even triggering alarms and lobbing grenades. At the same time, AI needs visual indication of its existence such that players can react to them. Otherwise, it becomes an "aimbot" AI.

That's a good part of the issue in a nutshell.

The A.I. is so slow that even if they had the tools to react to the player they'd never get the chance, the A.I. also suffer from pathing issues depending on the tileset and don't have a good behavior priority setup, which can easily lead to units getting confused and jumping up and down ledges multiple times (something I've see far too often for my liking).