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

[Flamethekid]

On 2020-05-24 at 2:13 PM, CoalitionOfGears said:

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...

  Reveal hidden contents

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

 

 

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?

 

On wikipedia the very same website you are using to prove your argument if you look up RPG video games GTA is literally called a sandbox RPG along with dragon slayer, elder scrolls, the legend of Zelda and dragon quest

[Teridax68]

23 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

I'm going to draw the line here. 

If you want to save your ego, fine by me you can. But I'm not going to deal with arrogance, your condescending attitude and your insults. If you come with this tone again, be sure that I'm going aggressive and direct. 

 

Simple. 

Generally, the threat when perceiving rudeness on another's part is "I won't respond to you", not "I'll post abusive behavior on the forums", but if you really want those warning points so badly, that's not really anyone else's problem.

[(PSN)lumen2ne1]

I don't know if it has been said in the thread yet because it has 49 pages... but what about some of the mastery rank test mechanics?
I've been ranking up recently and I've seen mechanics that supposedly test us for things we have been learning in missions but were never there, like the moving capture points that you have to stay inside and leaving the ring resets your capture time, while fending off enemies. If they combine this mechanic with nullifiers, arbitration drone-like immunity or demolyst's erupting cleansing bubbles to stop the defense cheese, it could be interesting on the defense side of missions.

Edited May 25, 2020 by (PS4)lumen2ne1

[Felsagger]

12 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Generally, the threat when perceiving rudeness on another's part is "I won't respond to you", not "I'll post abusive behavior on the forums", but if you really want those warning points so badly, that's not really anyone else's problem.

 

The objective of conversation is the game and the subjects in them. When you try to harp on the individual's intelligence you make it personal. The objective of any conversation is the subject of discussion. When you try to snide, try to insinuate or go passive aggressive you alone downgrade the conversation. This is why I draw the line. 

I don't have to insult, humiliate or talk in a condescending tone like you do. See the difference? I agreed with your post because it was coherent. I had a difference with you because you selected Civilization. Any reader will question that. Then you decided to respond with a "whooosh" when you had the choice to ignore my post. 

Again I'll draw the line without insult but you can't pester people here with your attitude. 

 

Simple. 

 

 

[Aldain]

14 minutes ago, (PS4)lumen2ne1 said:

If they combine this mechanic with nullifiers, arbitration drone-like immunity or demolyst's erupting cleansing bubbles to stop the defense cheese, it could be interesting on the defense side of missions

There's a small snag with that which people often forget.

If you apply broad countermeasures to solve outlier issues it can have disparate impacts on non-outliers.

Think like the Wolf of Saturn Six, he was designed to not die to a stiff breeze through being durable, but as a result he wound up making anything that wasn't able to get over the mountain of damage resistance basically useless.

[Felsagger]

20 minutes ago, (PS4)lumen2ne1 said:

I don't know if it has been said in the thread yet because it has 49 pages... but what about some of the mastery rank test mechanics?
I've been ranking up recently and I've seen mechanics that supposedly test us for things we have been learning in missions but were never there, like the moving capture points that you have to stay inside and leaving the ring resets your capture time, while fending off enemies. If they combine this mechanic with nullifiers, arbitration drone-like immunity or demolyst's erupting cleansing bubbles to stop the defense cheese, it could be interesting on the defense side of missions.

 

Have you seen Mastery Rank 29?

 

What's next? Shoot or slice a static sphere in Mastery Rank 30?. 

 

[Teridax68]

3 minutes ago, Felsagger said:

The objective of conversation is the game and the subjects in them. When you try to harp on the individual's intelligence you make it personal. The objective of any conversation is the subject of discussion. When you try to snide, try to insinuate or go passive aggressive you alone downgrade the conversation. This is why I draw the line. 

That's interesting, because I never actually disparaged your intelligence, whereas your own unprompted initial comment was itself needlessly disparaging and directed against my person:

On 2020-05-24 at 6:07 PM, Felsagger said:

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

So not only are you taking your own obvious mistake as someone else personally attacking you, your own criticism is itself hypocritical. The problem I am pointing out here is not with your intelligence, but with your compulsion to blame your mistakes upon other people, as you attempt to dominate threads through largely irrelevant comments. Clearly, I am not the only one to have pointed this out either, as these issues, and associated arguments, follow you in most of the threads you post in.

[Felsagger]

1 minute ago, Teridax68 said:

That's interesting, because I never actually disparaged your intelligence, whereas your own unprompted initial comment was itself needlessly disparaging and directed against my person:

So not only are you taking your own obvious mistake as someone else personally attacking you, your own criticism is itself hypocritical. The problem I am pointing out here is not with your intelligence, but with your compulsion to blame your mistakes upon other people, as you attempt to dominate threads through largely irrelevant comments. Clearly, I am not the only one to have pointed this out either, as these issues, and associated arguments, follow you in most of the threads you post in.

 

I can live with my mistakes, you don't. 

 

 

I will walk away and leave it like that.  

 

[Felsagger]

21 hours ago, (XB1)YoungGunn82 said:

Yes this is the problem.  Nerfing Warfames into the ground won't make enemies less dead or challenging. Enemies will still lemming each other and run past you, have terrible pathing, bewildering tactics, and dated reaction time. Enemies have never had a meaningful AI update. We need an enemy rework 2.0 before they finish the weapon rework and/or nerf another frame. 

True. 

Downgrading War Frames is the easy way out of the problem. It doesn't hide the fact that the A.I. is atrocious and awful. If the daily engagement of the player is boring then he or she eventually will get another game that brings more challenge and a tight win instead of an easy one. Farming games are nice and all but at least some parts of the farming game should provide some depth and some tricky challenges. 

Sometimes the developer should not be afraid of beating our ass. We are not speaking about the exclusion of players who are learning the game. We are speaking of putting a bit more stress on the activities that are quotidian and repetitive. Hydron needs attention. Akkad needs attention. ESO, SO, Ropalolyst, Profit Taker and Exploiter Orb needs more care. For example, why not four gigantic legged robots simply doing scouting. This type of encounter IS NOT a possible win. The War Frame must hide and cover waiting for these platoon of robots  marches out. 

Enemies behaves like units. This throws every once of immersion. They behave like brain dead fleas waiting to be stumped. The daily encounter doesn't have to be hard but at least there should be some challenge involved. If War Frames wreak havoc too much then Grineer calls in for orbital strikes, Galleons and artillery. The same for the corpus. Intelligent War Frames will hide or flee away from danger. This type of encounter provides some depth to the game because you experience the presence of an opposing force that is stronger, bigger and greater in numbers. 

Some simple A.I. tweaks does the trick. Some selections of tiers does the trick. It doesn't require much since all the infrastructure and assets are in the game. 

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Felsagger

[(PSN)GEN-Son_17]

There's nothing wrong with the level designs, AI or overall game design. I respect the opinions but we don't get to say that when we enjoyed those very things for years. 

That said, gas city was a sensational new design that some players ignore because rushframe. There are many who are yet to discover all of its secrets, master its really good spy missions or enjoy the work put into the design. DE can't, and shouldn't, try to engage and please rushframe or YouTube-frame players.

I do think they could focus on harder content from here on out though. New players have a ton of content to get lost so upgraded enemies would be a nice surprise for the vets. Rushframers should actually be punished, not rewarded.

[ShirakawaNaoya]

I remember DE mentioned before not to have cooldown on abilities if possible... i mean not exactly word by word per se but it is somewhere along the same meaning. Well, in that case... "diminishing abilities effectiveness for spamming consecutively within xx seconds" is an option on the table.

[Danielw8]

i like plablo idea, but before you destroy everything try test, you not need a special client for brozimi and 15 min stream about how bad is the new warframe.  to test those changes, lets say ... this warframe have 50m range with all range mods, ok for this week/2week now will have 40m, and then 30m, just let us test how feel the new changes, also if you are going to hear someone at least do it from people who are in late game-veterans

 

And yes i know we are beta tester since we download the game

Edited May 26, 2020 by Danielw8

[Felsagger]

3 hours ago, (PS4)GEN-Son_17 said:

There's nothing wrong with the level designs, AI or overall game design. 

 

 

[(PSN)GEN-Son_17]

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

 

 

Ahh, the life of the spoiled:

"Honey, I'm tired of the same old mansion. I no longer like the pool, Jacuzzi, spa, servants, limos, game room, race track, theater and private helipad. It sucks!"

[Felsagger]

41 minutes ago, (PS4)GEN-Son_17 said:

Ahh, the life of the spoiled:

"Honey, I'm tired of the same old mansion. I no longer like the pool, Jacuzzi, spa, servants, limos, game room, race track, theater and private helipad. It sucks!"

 

 A game that constantly receives updates. 

https://forums.warframe.com/forum/3-pc-update-notes/

You said: 

"There's nothing wrong with the level designs, AI or overall game design. "

A game that constantly requires revisions. 

https://forums.warframe.com/forum/11-pc-bugs/

You said:

"There's nothing wrong with the level designs, AI or overall game design. "

A typical game in Frontier Horde mode Titan Fall 2: 

A typical game in ESO War Frame:

A skill based game versus a gear based game

You said:

"There's nothing wrong with the level designs, AI or overall game design. "

Enemy A.I. 

You said:

"There's nothing wrong with the level designs, AI or overall game design. "

Urdak: Doom Eternal. 

Urdak secret rooms. 

Jupiter Gas Giant tileset: 

You said:

"There's nothing wrong with the level designs, AI or overall game design. "

If there nothing wrong with the level design, AI or overall game design then we should not even be here discussing problems of balancing and challenge. We would not be disusing here anything related with difficulty settings, A.I. immersion or any other related topic on these matters. 

Shall I continue? 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Felsagger

[(XBOX)ShonOfDawn]

9 hours ago, (PS4)GEN-Son_17 said:

There's nothing wrong with the level designs, AI or overall game design.

Well, saying that there's nothing wrong is a bit of a hyperbole. Level design has got way better with the growth of the game, Jupiter Remastered, at least to me, is always an absolute pleasure to run through. I usually just switch to solo and enjoy exploring and opening secret rooms just for the sake of it. Same with the sentient tileset, although that one still lacks some small secret activities (in the same vein as Orokin speed challenges or the aforementioned hidden labs) that encourage exploration, but I'm pretty sure DE has something in store for us in that regard as the new war progresses. Their main point of strength is that they were built with parkour 2.0 in mind. Unfortunately that cannot be said for the rest of the tilesets. Especially the grinner ones feel cramped, clunky and unfit for the kind of mobility we have. The main reason for that is their age, or the fact they are just convoluted for the sake of being convoluted (Kuva fortress, Derelict). Because of that I'm totally looking forward to the Deadlock protocol, it will be a much needed breath of fresh air with new, upgraded tiles, side activities, and (hopefully) interesting enemies. DE should keep going in this effort to renovate old locations, since they are the background of most of our activities.

The same can be said for mission design. By focusing on a single objective (which often just boils down to either defense through CC, AoE destruction, single-target damage or speed), they become extremely easy to trivialize through specialization. Disruption is the only instance in which multiple mechanics are combined together, offering more varied approaches to the same mission, and providing a slightly more engaging experience. More endless and non-endless encounters should follow that same scheme, multiple different objectives (either chained together or simultaneous) that promote variety. 

AI is... kind of terrible, but it doesn't need to be great by any means. Stuff dies fast in this game. Too fast at this point in time, but that issue is solved through other manners. The problem I have with AI is how extremely unresponsive it feels. Enemy units feel slow in everything they do (except, for some god forsaken reason, in hard knockdowns or CC to the player, which should on the other hand be telegraphed): moving, aiming, ducking behind cover, throwing grenades seem to be performed underwater. A slight bump in speed and more danger awareness, by trying to keep cover between them and the Tenno, in an active manner, and by trying to dodge AoE weapons and effects, would do wonders. 

Edited May 26, 2020 by (XB1)ShonFr0st

[Urlan]

13 hours ago, Felsagger said:

 

The game feels shallow since there are no distinctive enemies. The game resumes to a race track where War Frames spam abilities while they lap few times until they get the necessary XP for the weapons or War Frames. Even a Sonic the Hedgehog game feels more interesting and immersible while Hydron or any other endurance activity becomes monotonous because there is no emphasis on the enemies or even the levels. 

 

If Hydron is a place where everybody visits, why not make it interesting? If Akkad is a place where many players farm, why not make it interesting? If the void is a place where many invest time, why not make these stages interesting and rework the corrupt enemies. Farming levels should be interesting, dynamic and of course more complex other than a piston platform that goes up and down like Hydron. 

I disagree, at least with the reason that it feels shallow; that it is lacking substance could be true; but the reasoning is empty. You can play that example you gave of Sonic with its enemies being actual color swaps and moving up or down, left or right as the distinction of their AI; but within the context of Sonic this is acceptable as you previously stated, "its all about going fast". Within Warframe, the point is for super soldiers using Warframes; technocyte organisms made to have awesome infestation powers fueled by Tenno Void energies (space magic if this helps from the outside looking in) fighting near faceless enemies because they are actually faceless enemies in many cases, having helmets and indoctrination to make them less individual while the other are actual clones and the last mainstream faction are near hivemind machine cells mergings in a type of space zombie that unmakes the individual into a shared whole. Part of the themes of Warframe is finding a line of self identity when even us Tenno until 2nd Dream are among those faceless; as to that point our warframes are the 'characters'. No, the failing is a lack of value to the activity itself, the doing; fighting faceless endless numbers can be fine as a repeatable activity if it has value, leaves a mark, or gets worthwhile loot. The core of farming stuff be it experience, items, or just score on a dashboard it has to be equal to the investment. As for Mesa being uncomplicated when specifically using her move to act like a turret, play a different warframe or do as this thread keeps suggesting as if they don't even play this game; don't use powers (one of the core elements of this game)

As to making Hydron interesting (by extension all nodes) I agree, though this wouldn't necessarily make them "harder" that would be other missions ideally or different level caps for those that want no reward but just ego ala bragging rights hollow and empty as those are. Farming is farming however, it shouldn't be interesting, its killing a blue slime ten thousand times because the level design doesn't want to bother putting work into making the difference between a no gear cypher and anything stronger than the weakest most worthless for the time enemies. I do agree however that playing should be fun, and while farming itself is mindless just as it is in real life; that doesn't mean the missions should have their rewards diminished to the same lack, or that the fights should be unchanged from those on much earlier planets with the only difference being enemy levels, however this could be handled via secondary objectives (not the challenges, those have never represented that) but reward giving submissions, different static defenses, weather hazards (which the ceres locales folk gravitate to were an attempt long ago with) Like having the goo on Berehynia raise, flooding most of the ground area and receding throughout the duration. Of course, enemy AI as rejected by Pablo in that interview would be ideal to making these situations more unique; but worrying about interactions are hard in real life sometimes too. If one wants a dynamic game though, the missions shouldn't be the same on the locations after clearing, they should change as folk have depleted forces, destabilized communications, or stolen all the un-nailed stuff perhaps only resetting as player activity calms down enough for enemy factions to stabilize and replace losses but that would be outside the ken of what I feel DE is currently looking for in the game.

[SneakyErvin]

5 hours ago, Felsagger said:

You said:

"There's nothing wrong with the level designs, AI or overall game design. "

If there nothing wrong with the level design, AI or overall game design then we should not even be here discussing problems of balancing and challenge. We would not be disusing here anything related with difficulty settings, A.I. immersion or any other related topic on these matters. 

Shall I continue? 

He's correct though, level design and A.I is enough and overall game design is good. Those things arent the overarching problems. The problems lie in the game design that comes outside the overall parts that are good. Like shakey balance and power creep gone too far. This can be fixed by bringing frames and weapons inline. I really dont get the complaint (cos that is what you try to do right with the video comparisons?) regarding the Jupiter secret rooms either, they are actually secret to a point where they are interesting to find. The no handholding part is a big bonus in WF. Same reason why I enjoyed hunting cubes in SWToR aswell, because they were actual secrets and same reason I played my first ESO character without add ons, in order to find all secrets on my owns.

I think the only part of level design that is bad in WF are defense mission's layout. They more resemble something tenno built for most effective defense instead of something built by the faction we defend against. The defense area should be a vulnerable spot to stand on, not the most bunker -like place on the whole map. A few get it right in that they are open and exposed, but there should be more defense positions the A.I could use on those maps to force us away from the D spot.

edit: Oh and what is wrong with the A.I in the first video? It just shows how threat and aggro works in WF since it is made like other RPGs where skills and items can taunt enemies. This isnt a tactical shooter afterall.

edit 2: Also, what exactly am I supposed to look at in the TF2 video that is impressive or better than WF? I see stupid A.I, slow combat and nothing else. Kinda reminds me of Overwatch PvE. You expect when there are so few mobs per wave it would atleast act smarter. It also seems very scripted regarding where the mobs spawn. And wave 1 was just a joke to look at seeing as how the big mech just stood there till the end of the whole long wave.

Edited May 26, 2020 by SneakyErvin

[Aadi880]

Now that I think about it, Warframe's AI is not "bad" by design

stupid? yes, but not "bad"

emphasizing on the word bad there if you didn't notice.

When was the last time AI was updated? I can't recall, nor I think most of you can, in fact, it may have never updated at all since 2012. And no, I'm not calling the aimbot changes as AI update, I'm talking about EVERYTHING in it.

Remember warframe's initial vision? One that DE wanted to make but later changed their mindset? One that's in Excalibur's Skins sections?

Dark Sector, DE's first shot on the futuristic sci-fi game, is a cover shooter. And what does the AI in warframe behave like? Warframe's AI is slow, has little to low aggression, and will rarely leave cover regardless of the player being in line of sight (at least, until the AI decides that you are not there). Same for their movement and teamwork (yes, warframe's AI can do teamwork). I'm pretty sure that the Dark Sector AI is the same AI that was ported over to Warframe. They exhibit extremely similar behavior.

Its not that warframe's AI is bad, rather, its designed for a game that's slower paced. This is in fact, the exact problem that conclave suffers.

Over the years, warframe has sped up. Movement increased, weapon damage increased, abilities became faster in acting. But AI? They remained the same. The AI still expects the player to use things like cover,  does not have any functions that lets it react to players zipping pass them at mach 5.

In conclave, you have weapons with very long time to kill and extreme movement. This is an undesirable mix (I can't think of any pvp game that survived like this). Less people enjoy it, and Devs eventually abandon it.

I think, warframe's AI needs aggression, or at least, updated.

However, Pablo is still right. AI can't do anything if abilities that just turns them off exists. Having them target at mission fail states would be a better option. However, I do think warframe abilities needs some toning if that's the regard.

People say "No! It will ruin warframe's power fantasy!". It won't. warframe was a power fantasy 5 years ago too. Nerfing things will do nothing to that.

In my opinion, I would say warframe's power fantasy died a long time ago. Warframe is not a power fantasy. I argue that warframe has become a megalomania. Its only downhill from this.

"Nerf to revive power fantasy" so to speak. I don't think its too weird to think about it that way.

 

If I myself have to change how nuking works, I would just give them a bypassable LOS requirement. For example, Saryn's 4 will need LOS, but LOS can be ignored if enemy is under the effect of spores. Or things the that.

Regardless, some abilities do need to be looked at.

[Hypernaut1]

44 minutes ago, Aadi880 said:

Now that I think about it, Warframe's AI is not "bad" by design

stupid? yes, but not "bad"

emphasizing on the word bad there if you didn't notice.

When was the last time AI was updated? I can't recall, nor I think most of you can, in fact, it may have never updated at all since 2012. And no, I'm not calling the aimbot changes as AI update, I'm talking about EVERYTHING in it.

Remember warframe's initial vision? One that DE wanted to make but later changed their mindset? One that's in Excalibur's Skins sections?

Dark Sector, DE's first shot on the futuristic sci-fi game, is a cover shooter. And what does the AI in warframe behave like? Warframe's AI is slow, has little to low aggression, and will rarely leave cover regardless of the player being in line of sight (at least, until the AI decides that you are not there). Same for their movement and teamwork (yes, warframe's AI can do teamwork). I'm pretty sure that the Dark Sector AI is the same AI that was ported over to Warframe. They exhibit extremely similar behavior.

Its not that warframe's AI is bad, rather, its designed for a game that's slower paced. This is in fact, the exact problem that conclave suffers.

Over the years, warframe has sped up. Movement increased, weapon damage increased, abilities became faster in acting. But AI? They remained the same. The AI still expects the player to use things like cover,  does not have any functions that lets it react to players zipping pass them at mach 5.

In conclave, you have weapons with very long time to kill and extreme movement. This is an undesirable mix (I can't think of any pvp game that survived like this). Less people enjoy it, and Devs eventually abandon it.

I think, warframe's AI needs aggression, or at least, updated.

However, Pablo is still right. AI can't do anything if abilities that just turns them off exists. Having them target at mission fail states would be a better option. However, I do think warframe abilities needs some toning if that's the regard.

People say "No! It will ruin warframe's power fantasy!". It won't. warframe was a power fantasy 5 years ago too. Nerfing things will do nothing to that.

In my opinion, I would say warframe's power fantasy died a long time ago. Warframe is not a power fantasy. I argue that warframe has become a megalomania. Its only downhill from this.

"Nerf to revive power fantasy" so to speak. I don't think its too weird to think about it that way.

 

If I myself have to change how nuking works, I would just give them a bypassable LOS requirement. For example, Saryn's 4 will need LOS, but LOS can be ignored if enemy is under the effect of spores. Or things the that.

Regardless, some abilities do need to be looked at.

You make some good points about the a.i. it's there, but it's definitely designed for a slower paced game.

I noticed the a.i actions more as a new player when I was trying to solo. I remember them going for cover, talking to each other, throwing grenades etc. As our power increase, theres less reason to wait around for the a.i to act smart. 

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

He's correct though, level design and A.I is enough and overall game design is good. Those things arent the overarching problems. The problems lie in the game design that comes outside the overall parts that are good. Like shakey balance and power creep gone too far. This can be fixed by bringing frames and weapons inline. I really dont get the complaint (cos that is what you try to do right with the video comparisons?) regarding the Jupiter secret rooms either, they are actually secret to a point where they are interesting to find. The no handholding part is a big bonus in WF. Same reason why I enjoyed hunting cubes in SWToR aswell, because they were actual secrets and same reason I played my first ESO character without add ons, in order to find all secrets on my owns.

I think the only part of level design that is bad in WF are defense mission's layout. They more resemble something tenno built for most effective defense instead of something built by the faction we defend against. The defense area should be a vulnerable spot to stand on, not the most bunker -like place on the whole map. A few get it right in that they are open and exposed, but there should be more defense positions the A.I could use on those maps to force us away from the D spot.

edit: Oh and what is wrong with the A.I in the first video? It just shows how threat and aggro works in WF since it is made like other RPGs where skills and items can taunt enemies. This isnt a tactical shooter afterall.

edit 2: Also, what exactly am I supposed to look at in the TF2 video that is impressive or better than WF? I see stupid A.I, slow combat and nothing else. Kinda reminds me of Overwatch PvE. You expect when there are so few mobs per wave it would atleast act smarter. It also seems very scripted regarding where the mobs spawn. And wave 1 was just a joke to look at seeing as how the big mech just stood there till the end of the whole long wave.

 

 

"He's correct though, level design and A.I is enough and overall game design is good"

Wrong. 

His hyperbole is thrown out of the window due to the existence of the Jupiter tile set. Digital extremes felt the need of level design improvisation. The A.I. depends on the level path. A.I. follows path and routes. The A.I. defines the shortest curve for arrival and the A.I. negotiate the space according to the architecture of the stage. A.I. and level designed are linked completely. A.I. alone on awful designs becomes useless. The level design defines the pace of the game, the incidence and the scale of any situation. War Frames are 'arachnids' that hop into the walls, climb, latch and attach to vertical surfaces at fast speeds. The context of War Frames is more vertical than horizontal. 

Lua defines more vertical space than any old Corpus linear map. The tileset permutations and combinations are almost linear structures. Levels with a bit more of complexity is the Kuva Fortress, a level design that still requires redesign and improvement. It misses a lot of opportunities like Zero G game play. The A.I. must have different behavior on contexts that are horizontal, vertical, narrow corridors or open levels. Space directly influences behavior and speed of the encounters. Levels justifies the parkour tool set of War Frames. Levels defies the neural motor coordination of eyes and hand while the player takes decisions on short spans of time. Quick reaction, negotiation with the level and the behavior of the A.I. increases immersion. 

Encounters are defined by the nature of the level tile set. The sentient architecture is almost incidental to this A.I. since sentient units are almost flying. However their pattern again is linear. In open spaces they should behave lick flocks or amorphous swarms when they are greater in number. Their attack patterns should not be suicidal like in every other unit of the Green engineers, corporation or the Sentient. When games like World War Z, a game about Zombies has better A.I. then you question what type of game you are playing in War Frame. When games like Gears of War 5 horde mode throws different tiers that requires different approaches then you question why should I play this game with skill and dexterity when I can spam abilities like a spasmodic schizophrenic autistic retarded Pockemon.

The layouts for interception and defense are atrocious. When players hold ground for a long period of time the stage should change dynamically. What does the level of Hydron add after wave 20? Nothing. Changing conditions and happenings at least involvement and movement other than sticking to the same area. What was one of the best part of the raid? The moving tram. This objective was moving all the time requiring hacking, protection and a changing environment. Of course there should be a circuit however condition changes and new enemies poses different problems. 

The problem of balance and challenge is way harder when you deal with War Frame downgrade and upgrades. Part of the problem recedes there but the rest of the game requires attention too. The exaggerated, excessive even hyperbolic focus on War Frames left the enemies unattended. They are incidental. A game with boring enemies is a game that makes people purchase other games because there is no depth in these encounters and engagements. Players search varying conditions than just a plethora of static meshes. Players search challenging encounters that depends on the situations. 

Balancing hides the problem of enemy sophistication, deeper enemy design and enemy engagements. Regulating few capabilities of War Frames doesn't take much time. Designing levels, stronger enemies with load outs and three weapons, smarter A.I. requires a lot of effort and time. However these engagements are richer similar to the engagements in Titan Fall 2 and Doom Eternal. Another game that depends on traverse and versatility is Batman Arkham Knight. The traverse has three modes of marching. On foot, gliding and the armored vehicle. War Frames has three ways of negotiating space. They can simply run, go all around wall hopping and gliding. Levels should be less restricted without those bounding boxes. Enemies should have more resources like vehicle assistance for these levels instead of populating them like lemmings unaware of the dangers. 

See? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Felsagger]

2 hours ago, Urlan said:

I disagree, at least with the reason that it feels shallow;

 

 

I was way too soft saying 'shallow'. The game feels trivial and irrelevant when the only thing the player does is lapping in circles while spamming abilities like an autistic hamster  running on a wheel. 

Warframe in the current state: 

2 hours ago, Urlan said:

 

that it is lacking substance could be true; but the reasoning is empty. You can play that example you gave of Sonic with its enemies being actual color swaps and moving up or down, left or right as the distinction of their AI; but within the context of Sonic this is acceptable as you previously stated, "its all about going fast". Within Warframe, the point is for super soldiers using Warframes; technocyte organisms made to have awesome infestation powers fueled by Tenno Void energies (space magic if this helps from the outside looking in) fighting near faceless enemies because they are actually faceless enemies in many cases, having helmets and indoctrination to make them less individual while the other are actual clones and the last mainstream faction are near hivemind machine cells mergings in a type of space zombie that unmakes the individual into a shared whole. Part of the themes of Warframe is finding a line of self identity when even us Tenno until 2nd Dream are among those faceless; as to that point our warframes are the 'characters'. No, the failing is a lack of value to the activity itself, the doing; fighting faceless endless numbers can be fine as a repeatable activity if it has value, leaves a mark, or gets worthwhile loot. The core of farming stuff be it experience, items, or just score on a dashboard it has to be equal to the investment. As for Mesa being uncomplicated when specifically using her move to act like a turret, play a different warframe or do as this thread keeps suggesting as if they don't even play this game; don't use powers (one of the core elements of this game)

But enemies should not be faceless or trivial. The engagement with the enemy increases replay value. The value of a GAAS F2P game depends on the willingness of the player stay and consume because every experience is different. If the game provides variety, diversity, unexpected encounters, moderate challenge, moderate difficulty in the parkour because a level demands it your player will return to the same arena doing more farms when needed. He doesn't get bored. 

Why the level is fundamental? Every Frame changes a bit the experience. However DE should not rest in their laurels or use that excuse as a crutch forgetting the delicate design of the levels. Enemy peculiarities makes them to be remembered. Enemies squads with powerful weapons makes them memorable because they give you hard times. A squad of Lankas with nulls followed by a squad of supra vandals and opticor vandal puts a lot of stress moreover when there are tactical teams with secura penta popping explosive shells like Junkrat all over the place. 

The level of engagement adds depth to the game when the enemy is smart, throws in some lines and talk strategically when you hear their 'radio'. The enemy must be an entity not an incidental event where you simply go over every planet cleaning the levels with a cheap one button press build. Or a dumb algorithm like Gara's wall shatter with a mire. What makes you remember a particular match in Hydron? What makes you remember one of the 50 waves you had in Hydron? See? The game feels and behaves like a palindrome. It stops making any sense at all. 

Do you want an example of a palindrome game like War Frame? 

This is a textbook example of a palindrome game

2 hours ago, Urlan said:

As to making Hydron interesting (by extension all nodes) I agree, though this wouldn't necessarily make them "harder" that would be other missions ideally or different level caps for those that want no reward but just ego ala bragging rights hollow and empty as those are. Farming is farming however, it shouldn't be interesting, its killing a blue slime ten thousand times because the level design doesn't want to bother putting work into making the difference between a no gear cypher and anything stronger than the weakest most worthless for the time enemies. I do agree however that playing should be fun, and while farming itself is mindless just as it is in real life; that doesn't mean the missions should have their rewards diminished to the same lack, or that the fights should be unchanged from those on much earlier planets with the only difference being enemy levels, however this could be handled via secondary objectives (not the challenges, those have never represented that) but reward giving submissions, different static defenses, weather hazards (which the ceres locales folk gravitate to were an attempt long ago with) Like having the goo on Berehynia raise, flooding most of the ground area and receding throughout the duration. Of course, enemy AI as rejected by Pablo in that interview would be ideal to making these situations more unique; but worrying about interactions are hard in real life sometimes too. If one wants a dynamic game though, the missions shouldn't be the same on the locations after clearing, they should change as folk have depleted forces, destabilized communications, or stolen all the un-nailed stuff perhaps only resetting as player activity calms down enough for enemy factions to stabilize and replace losses but that would be outside the ken of what I feel DE is currently looking for in the game.

 

HELL NO!!! 

That's madness. 

Farming should be the opposite. Farming should at least give surprises, unexpected unscripted boss encounters, rare ensembles of enemies, odd situations like two profit takers marching near by, farming should be an activity that gives you the widest variety of enemies, encounters, experiences, moderate challenges among other things. Farming should allow all type of tactics pulled against you and your team mates. This is the exact moment where some bosses and 'abuses' should happen when you farm the enemy. This is the right moment when War Frame can exceed being a great game. 

Farming is the most frequent activity in the game. It should not be a shore, it should not be shallow, it should not be repetitive with the same enemies doing the same spasmodic activity for two hours. There should be a thought out strategic plan executed by the enemy when we venture ourselves into resource farming. This is the only chance and stack exchange that we have with the game. We challenge the wits of DE, we challenge the abilities and capabilities of the enemy. We challenge our naiveness because we ignore what could happen if we annoy the enemy much. We should be aware of unexpected situations instead of waiting for harder level enemies. 

Stress testing should not happen gradually. It must happen at any moment creating situations. Game design should revolve around the concept of farming. That imply amazing level design, amazing enemy types, incredible architecture, outstanding A.I. Sometimes I wonder if DE wants to continue this project? Sometimes I wonder if they really want to continue working with this after all the lack of enthusiasm on the last four releases? A developer feels the excitement working with Warframe? Should farming be boring? No. It is a challenge to entertain a player that visited the game for seven years. It is challenging but not impossible. 

Farming requires a combination of great level design, unscripted events like unexpected middle boss fights, a wide variety of tactics and strategies pulled off by the enemy. A true battlefield occurs when people are farming. Why we throw the game to the gutter saying that farming should not be interesting? 

 

 

 

[SneakyErvin]

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

 

 

"He's correct though, level design and A.I is enough and overall game design is good"

Wrong. 

His hyperbole is thrown out of the window due to the existence of the Jupiter tile set. Digital extremes felt the need of level design improvisation. The A.I. depends on the level path. A.I. follows path and routes. The A.I. defines the shortest curve for arrival and the A.I. negotiate the space according to the architecture of the stage. A.I. and level designed are linked completely. A.I. alone on awful designs becomes useless. The level design defines the pace of the game, the incidence and the scale of any situation. War Frames are 'arachnids' that hop into the walls, climb, latch and attach to vertical surfaces at fast speeds. The context of War Frames is more vertical than horizontal. 

Lua defines more vertical space than any old Corpus linear map. The tileset permutations and combinations are almost linear structures. Levels with a bit more of complexity is the Kuva Fortress, a level design that still requires redesign and improvement. It misses a lot of opportunities like Zero G game play. The A.I. must have different behavior on contexts that are horizontal, vertical, narrow corridors or open levels. Space directly influences behavior and speed of the encounters. Levels justifies the parkour tool set of War Frames. Levels defies the neural motor coordination of eyes and hand while the player takes decisions on short spans of time. Quick reaction, negotiation with the level and the behavior of the A.I. increases immersion. 

Encounters are defined by the nature of the level tile set. The sentient architecture is almost incidental to this A.I. since sentient units are almost flying. However their pattern again is linear. In open spaces they should behave lick flocks or amorphous swarms when they are greater in number. Their attack patterns should not be suicidal like in every other unit of the Green engineers, corporation or the Sentient. When games like World War Z, a game about Zombies has better A.I. then you question what type of game you are playing in War Frame. When games like Gears of War 5 horde mode throws different tiers that requires different approaches then you question why should I play this game with skill and dexterity when I can spam abilities like a spasmodic schizophrenic autistic retarded Pockemon.

The layouts for interception and defense are atrocious. When players hold ground for a long period of time the stage should change dynamically. What does the level of Hydron add after wave 20? Nothing. Changing conditions and happenings at least involvement and movement other than sticking to the same area. What was one of the best part of the raid? The moving tram. This objective was moving all the time requiring hacking, protection and a changing environment. Of course there should be a circuit however condition changes and new enemies poses different problems. 

The problem of balance and challenge is way harder when you deal with War Frame downgrade and upgrades. Part of the problem recedes there but the rest of the game requires attention too. The exaggerated, excessive even hyperbolic focus on War Frames left the enemies unattended. They are incidental. A game with boring enemies is a game that makes people purchase other games because there is no depth in these encounters and engagements. Players search varying conditions than just a plethora of static meshes. Players search challenging encounters that depends on the situations. 

Balancing hides the problem of enemy sophistication, deeper enemy design and enemy engagements. Regulating few capabilities of War Frames doesn't take much time. Designing levels, stronger enemies with load outs and three weapons, smarter A.I. requires a lot of effort and time. However these engagements are richer similar to the engagements in Titan Fall 2 and Doom Eternal. Another game that depends on traverse and versatility is Batman Arkham Knight. The traverse has three modes of marching. On foot, gliding and the armored vehicle. War Frames has three ways of negotiating space. They can simply run, go all around wall hopping and gliding. Levels should be less restricted without those bounding boxes. Enemies should have more resources like vehicle assistance for these levels instead of populating them like lemmings unaware of the dangers. 

See? 

What does Jupiter's design have to do with anything? That map is designed for the potential of adding a more planet accurate tile, with a little dash of Star Wars sprinkles ontop. It had nothing to do with balancing the combat or counter out power. It was simply designed the way it now is to let us use parkour for fun. The combat on those maps still take place 99% on the ground in corridors and rooms. The vast open spaces are occupied by 1 or 2 mobs. A.I and level design still doesnt matter when we have the power that we currently do. With less power the maps and A.I would be enough for the game it is. When you actually play WF from scratch you a notice that the A.I already has the needed potential for the game. The problem comes with layered limitations that the A.I cant overcome, so is in a constant uphill battle, this along with our apecrazy power that blows them away.

The reason other games look like they have a smarter A.I is because they do not have the arsenal of WF at their disposal. Give the players the same mindless options in those games and the A.I would be dead before you see it, just like here. This brings us back to the actual problem of WF, which is balance, nothing else. DE can slap on whatever behavior to the A.I they want, it will still be DoA when it spawns on a map.

You also need to stop comparing a horde shooter to far less dense games, like Arkham, Doom and TF2. And no, the TF2 gameplay is not richer. I'd fall asleep playing the PvE of that game if it entails what those videos showed. Watching paint dry is probably more interactive and interesting. How can you even think the TF2 gameplay is some form of model to shape things after? It is one of the most boring gameplay videos I've ever laid eyes on. Just that you bring up "enemy sophistication", "deeper enemy designed and enemy engagements" and claim those things belong to TF2 while you've provided the video you did is breathtaking. That video shows the opposite of all that and finely explains why PvP is the main attraction of TF2. As I said, I havent see a more boring gameplay video of a game. And I thought I had experienced the worst PvE first hand when engaging in the Overwatch PvE events, you clearly proved me wrong on that assumption cos that TF2 video sure took that price. You should sell that video to Kim Jong, he could replace his waterboard with that as a torture method.

[Felsagger]

 

Now I'm going to challenge this without an aggressive tone. 

17 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

That's interesting, because I never actually disparaged your intelligence, whereas your own unprompted initial comment was itself needlessly disparaging and directed against my person:

True. 

But I advocate for quality standards. I advocate for better treatment of the client and a well served delivery. I can't tolerate conformism. I can't tolerate mediocrity because if we do then we get a shallow product like we are having now with War Frame over the last four releases. 

Why I critique the use of Civilization in you list? Because Civilization is a high standard game. War Frame doesn't deserves that respect yet. War Frame doesn't deserves those merits that Civilization had. Those developers worked hard for their concept, they had ups and downs but in the end they established their own standard without weaseling out the problems in their previous games. 

These people where truly responsible attending the problems of balancing versus privileged player. Civilization is a game that defined lots of theories and challenging issues of balancing. The pace of this game is intensive and intellectual while the pace of War Frame is mild. 

This is a Civilization PvE coop team based match against the A.I. 

Balancing and challenge makes the encounter thrilling without providing an easy win. A tight win always taste much better than an easy win when you already know the outcome of the competition. 

17 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

So not only are you taking your own obvious mistake as someone else personally attacking you, your own criticism is itself hypocritical. The problem I am pointing out here is not with your intelligence, but with your compulsion to blame your mistakes upon other people, as you attempt to dominate threads through largely irrelevant comments. Clearly, I am not the only one to have pointed this out either, as these issues, and associated arguments, follow you in most of the threads you post in.

Completely true. 

My true mistake was that I never demanded quality before during the last three years. That is a mistake that I regret. I would be completely hypocritical if I say that War Frame is awesome, perfect, unmatched and unique. I don't need to blame my mistake on other people because these mistake are mine. My biggest mistake was that I supported a game that is mediocre at best on certain areas without saying a word. 

Do I need to dominate threads? No. However I'm going to vehemently defend quality, defend the customer, defend top quality gaming, endorse high standards. applaud when DE does something right, support developers when they show off hard work that deserves merit. I'm going to have a mental fit and even a convulsion defending and white knighting high standards. Why? Because we are investing our money and time in the game. This is a business transaction were quality should be the currency. 

We can't pay more for less. We have to pay for quality and moderate standards. Yes I understand mishaps, bugs and errors. They happen, these can be amended. However I'm not going to be happy with stupidity, laziness and low standard when the game health is almost in a peril. You invested time in your fun. We invested time in this game. We want to continue paying and supporting a company that is not like E.A., Activision, Take 2, Ubisoft or Microsoft game division. These indies gave us hope. Despite their quick attempts to be solvent the game survived miraculously through seven years because DE themselves understood that quality is survival in the industry.   

If these comments are irrelevant to you, fine. Video games are entertainment they do not need to be that important to our daily living. I don't expect my verbose be the best verbatim. I don't expect to illustrate or guide people's thinking. I want to truly make them think instead of consume. I want to give them alternatives showing them other games and where other features are done better so they COMPARE. Comparison is fundamental for a better criticism. If I fail in the attempt, then another person will follow doing a better job at it. 

I'm not going to quit on my beliefs and my search for fair quality, good development and good customer service. 

I try to persuade quality. 

[Corvid]

16 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And no, the TF2 gameplay is not richer. I'd fall asleep playing the PvE of that game if it entails what those videos showed. Watching paint dry is probably more interactive and interesting. How can you even think the TF2 gameplay is some form of model to shape things after? It is one of the most boring gameplay videos I've ever laid eyes on. Just that you bring up "enemy sophistication", "deeper enemy designed and enemy engagements" and claim those things belong to TF2 while you've provided the video you did is breathtaking. That video shows the opposite of all that and finely explains why PvP is the main attraction of TF2. As I said, I havent see a more boring gameplay video of a game. And I thought I had experienced the worst PvE first hand when engaging in the Overwatch PvE events, you clearly proved me wrong on that assumption cos that TF2 video sure took that price.

Dude, what's with the Titanfall hate boner?