Is Warframe a horde-shooter?

[(NSW)Greybones]

Or does the idea come from players equipped to delete enemies fast, therefore facilitating rapid respawns?

I don’t play Warframe as a demigod, and my experience in solo missions has mostly been a maximum of about 12ish enemies at any one time (I’d have to do some testing to confirm). In my situation, mission failure is a very likely outcome, as those enemies stay alive and can put pressure on the player (me), and if possible I’d try to keep those numbers from happening. Considering them a horde doesn’t cross my mind, since I don’t have one-size-fits-all equipment, so I tend to have to deal with each individual in different ways.

I feel like whenever I hear that Warframe is a horde-shooter, it comes from players who blend enemies with their power. Is this a correct interpretation of what I’m hearing?

[SpicyDinosaur]

6 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

I don’t play Warframe as a demigod

I'm not sure what you mean by this

[-Kittens-]

The flat answer is yes as stated by scott and steve literally hundreds of times over the years.

You refusing to optimize your approach mindset and the mechanics thereof is an active choice, and it most certainly makes some of your posting anecdotes a lot clearer.

Youtube is literally chock full of Discord copypasta of which to peruse and pick from for one button solutions that erase things in bulk well past Steel Path, so you choosing to eschew such methods or memes is entirely a voluntary prison you choose to exist in.

In a vacuum that's all fine and dandy; you do you.

The greater problem is you can often be found in mechanic and power threads making claims that now seem slightly disingenuous at best.  WF's answer to the solo player is essentially super OP mechanics or vehicles, if you eschew those things in favor of but muh favuruht, there's not much anything/one on the design staff can do to fix your self inflicted problem.

[(NSW)Greybones]

Just now, SpicyDinosaur said:

I'm not sure what you mean by this

I’ve seen the term “Demigod” used to describe players who absolutely overpower the enemies. I rather like it as a term and think it’s fitting. I’m not-that 😋

[SpicyDinosaur]

Just now, (NSW)Greybones said:

I’ve seen the term “Demigod” used to describe players who absolutely overpower the enemies. I rather like it as a term and think it’s fitting. I’m not-that 😋

I think you mean "play what is effective." 

[(NSW)Greybones]

Just now, SpicyDinosaur said:

I think you mean "play what is effective." 

Hmm yes, that would fit as well 🤔 There’s understandable overlap

[(NSW)Greybones]

7 minutes ago, -Kittens- said:

The flat answer is yes as stated by scott and steve literally hundreds of times over the years.

You refusing to optimize your approach mindset and the mechanics thereof is an active choice, and it most certainly makes some your posting anecdotes a lot clearer.

Youtube is literally chock full of Discord copypasta of which to peruse and pick from for one button solutions that erase things in bulk well past Steel Path, so you choosing to eschew such methods or memes is entirely a voluntary prison you choose to exist in.

In a vacuum that's all fine and dandy; you do you.

The greater problem is you can often be found in mechanic and power threads making claims that now seem slightly disingenuous at best.  WF's answer to the solo player is essentially super OP mechanics or vehicles, if you eschew those things in favor of but muh favuruht, there's not much anything on the design staff can do to fix your self inflicted problem.

Oof.

[Sevek7]

12 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

I feel like whenever I hear that Warframe is a horde-shooter, it comes from players who blend enemies with their power, and where the game doesn’t have a way to make mission failure a feasible outcome. Is this a correct interpretation of what I’m hearing?

Basically, yes. Although "horde shooter" is a bit of a misnomer, since the most effective way to play is to use melee and/or abilities (i.e.: no shooting!).

If you choose to handicap yourself by using single-target weapons and no abilities, you'll find a much more frantic and challenging game, which can certainly be a lot more fun! Ideally, these single target weapons would serve a good purpose in the "horde shooter" style too, but currently they have drastically lower damage, downtimes for reload, slow weapon swapping, etc... 

Personally, I play mostly with guns & abilities (so I'm also handicapping myself somewhat). I find this level of handicap ideal for my needs, it lets me enjoy a small amount of challenge while still including some of the variety that comes with all the different abilities. 

However, when I really want challenging shooter action, I play other games. Or Conclave. 

[(NSW)Greybones]

3 minutes ago, Sevek7 said:

Basically, yes. Although "horde shooter" is a bit of a misnomer, since the most effective way to play is to use melee and/or abilities (i.e.: no shooting!).

Yeah, the term “Horde Shooter” is a varied one. I wasn’t sure how to clarify what I meant since my main thinking is Dynasty Warriors style, but it’s not a consistent term for everyone

edit: I tune Warframe to my needs as well, and while it mostly delivers, I can respect that it doesn’t always do so (I play something else as well when I get bored 👍)

[(NSW)Greybones]

What makes you say my claims are disingenuous, @-Kittens-?

[Leqesai]

17 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

I don’t play Warframe as a demigod, and my experience in solo missions has mostly been a maximum of about 12ish enemies at any one time (I’d have to do some testing to confirm). In my situation, mission failure is a very likely outcome, as those enemies stay alive and can put pressure on the player (me), and if possible I’d try to keep those numbers from happening. Considering them a horde doesn’t cross my mind, since I don’t have one-size-fits-all equipment, so I tend to have to deal with each individual in different ways.

What...

 

Have you ever played a survival mission? 

From the topic I'd suggest getting farther into the game and spending more time playing with groups. Solo gameplay is markedly less dense, enemy-wise, than with a group. Furthermore, Steel Path cranks up the spawn mechanics to max even when playing solo. 

 

The whole "I don't play Warframe as a demigod" thing is really funny because the whole point of Warframe is to become super powerful. The "power fantasy" as the developers have described it for years. For starchart content it is fairly easy to push through with crappy builds/setups (non demigod) but the game heavily incentivizes upgrading. You upgrade your frame, your weapon, your companion, your technique, your map-knowledge etc. I'm not sure how you can play the game in avoidance of the intended gameplay loop.

 

 

[PublikDomain]

29 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

I feel like whenever I hear that Warframe is a horde-shooter, it comes from players who blend enemies with their power, and where the game doesn’t have a way to make mission failure a feasible outcome. Is this a correct interpretation of what I’m hearing?

Yes. Warframe is a horde shooter because there is a never-ending horde of enemies for you to shoot. You're not fighting enemies in a one on one duel, you're fighting a group of them all at once en masse. The high level of player power lends to that and also creates the lack of failure outcomes, but that isn't the reason the term is used.

[(NSW)Greybones]

10 minutes ago, Leqesai said:

The whole "I don't play Warframe as a demigod" thing is really funny because the whole point of Warframe is to become super powerful. The "power fantasy" as the developers have described it for years. For starchart content it is fairly easy to push through with crappy builds/setups (non demigod) but the game heavily incentivizes upgrading. You upgrade your frame, your weapon, your companion, your technique, your map-knowledge etc. I'm not sure how you can play the game in avoidance of the intended gameplay loop.

For many, I can understand that the power fantasy is pretty fun.

The power fantasy is boring for me, though. When I don’t engage in the commonly-held idea of “power fantasy”, the game has a good system of resistances, enemy variety, and failstates that, in trying to avoid mission failure, creates interesting encounters.

I gauge whether a game is designed in a certain way by how a player can fail, and it feels like for those engaging in the power fantasy, failure isn’t really an option. Is there another way to figure out whether a game is designed in a certain way?

edit: 🤔 I guess “Is it fun?” might work

hmm. Though that makes the designing pallete massive

[Tiltskillet]

24 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Or does the idea come from players equipped to delete enemies fast, therefore facilitating rapid respawns?

I don’t play Warframe as a demigod, and my experience in solo missions has mostly been a maximum of about 12ish enemies at any one time (I’d have to do some testing to confirm). In my situation, mission failure is a very likely outcome, as those enemies stay alive and can put pressure on the player (me), and if possible I’d try to keep those numbers from happening. Considering them a horde doesn’t cross my mind, since I don’t have one-size-fits-all equipment, so I tend to have to deal with each individual in different ways.

I feel like whenever I hear that Warframe is a horde-shooter, it comes from players who blend enemies with their power, and where the game doesn’t have a way to make mission failure a feasible outcome. Is this a correct interpretation of what I’m hearing?

You're having a good time, right?  What does it matter how the games signature play is categorized or what other players are saying or doing?

If you're not having a good time I'd suggest expressing what your specific issues are and asking concrete questions about them.

 

 

[(NSW)Greybones]

2 minutes ago, Tiltskillet said:

You're having a good time, right?  What does it matter how the games signature play is categorized or what other players are saying or doing?

Curiosity. I’ve heard the term used a lot and am wondering at its origins

edit: I’ve got some responses as to where it originates from, so that’s good 👍 

Mostly I’m being attacked though, haha 😅

[Loza03]

Yesn't.

 

On the one hand, most the current game is definitely designed as a horde shooter. Tons of mooks with a couple of bigger goons. Simple AI. Pretty much a horde shooter, through and through.

A lot of problems arise with the fact that more than a few of the underlying mechanics weren't actually designed for a horde shooter. They were designed for a stealth/action shooter, or maybe something closer to a more destinyesque tactical shooter, perhaps hybridised with a pinch of boomer shooter philosophy. Rarer powers, fewer, more substantial enemies, and bigger health bars. And the problem is, a lot of these foundational mechanics like the damage system haven't been substantially changed since then. Not to mention that these systems were designed roughly around the level 50 range, tops. Much of the AI was also designed around this time, so it's less that it's simple by design and more because DE had less of a budget in both finance and time.

All that adds up to a horde shooter/slasher that doesn't necessarily deliver on a really good horde shooter experience, because it's kind of been jerry rigged into being one. And it does show.

[-Kittens-]

13 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

What makes you say my claims are disingenuous, @-Kittens-?

Your opinions are taken from a voluntarily narrowed perspective, which in turns makes general application of that perspective to the rest of the playerbase or a general mechanic employed thereof potentially difficult, if not outright "incorrect." (Opinions not being facts makes "correct" and "incorrect" fluid as hell.)

 

[(NSW)Greybones]

Just now, -Kittens- said:

Your opinions are taken from a voluntarily narrowed perspective, which in turns makes general application of that perspective to the rest of the playerbase or a general mechanic employed thereof potentially difficult, if not outright "incorrect." (Opinions not being facts makes "correct" and "incorrect" fluid as hell.)

 

Are you saying that I’m expecting everyone to play the way I do?

[-Kittens-]

No I'm saying you presenting something as a factual basis for your opinion when there are very likely other things you're not taking into account deliberately leaves less room to consider other options or pick an effective solution, especially a solution other people can also use.

[(NSW)Greybones]

7 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

Yesn't.

 

On the one hand, most the current game is definitely designed as a horde shooter. Tons of mooks with a couple of bigger goons. Simple AI. Pretty much a horde shooter, through and through.

A lot of problems arise with the fact that more than a few of the underlying mechanics weren't actually designed for a horde shooter. They were designed for a stealth/action shooter, or maybe something closer to a more destinyesque tactical shooter, perhaps hybridised with a pinch of boomer shooter philosophy. Rarer powers, fewer, more substantial enemies, and bigger health bars. And the problem is, a lot of these foundational mechanics like the damage system haven't been substantially changed since then. Not to mention that these systems were designed roughly around the level 50 range, tops. Much of the AI was also designed around this time, so it's less that it's simple by design and more because DE had less of a budget in both finance and time.

All that adds up to a horde shooter/slasher that doesn't necessarily deliver on a really good horde shooter experience, because it's kind of been jerry rigged into being one. And it does show.

Yeah. I’ve thought about how a lot of mechanics haven’t changed much over the years.

Is Deimos still applying the same philosophy? When I escort Loid in the vaults, it feels like I tend to get attacked by handfuls of infested at a time

[(NSW)Greybones]

3 minutes ago, -Kittens- said:

No I'm saying you presenting something as a factual basis for your opinion when there are very likely other things you're not taking into account deliberately leaves less room to consider other options or pick an effective solution, especially a solution other people can also use.

….We’re talking about my “Hey, if you’re bored with being powerful, you could try not being so powerful” posts, right?

[Leqesai]

10 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

For many, I can understand that the power fantasy is pretty fun.

The power fantasy is boring for me, though. When I don’t engage in the commonly-held idea of “power fantasy”, the game has a good system of resistances, enemy variety, and failstates that, in trying to avoid mission failure, creates interesting encounters.

I gauge whether a game is designed in a certain way by how a player can fail, and it feels like for those engaging in the power fantasy, failure isn’t really an option. Is there another way to figure out whether a game is designed in a certain way?

edit: 🤔 I guess “Is it fun?” might work

hmm. Though that makes the designing pallete massive

So if I understand this correctly.

You play Warframe, which is a game specifically designed with power-fantasy in mind (gameplay is predicated on the idea that players are going to build powerful setups) but find this boring. 

Then you gauge the game's value by virtue of how you can experience failure when not playing it as intended?

I'm not sure your criteria for evaluation is appropriate considering you're not playing the game as intended. If you judge the game based on your experience (intentionally putting yourself on crutches because you like to risk failure) you're missing the point of the game entirely. 

There are games specifically designed with your criteria in mind but Warframe is strictly a power-fantasy horde shooter. You're not really expected to fail very often and the fun is in developing new strategies/options. Warframe is essentially a game designed around building bigger numbers. More frames, gunss, builds, gear etc.

Warframe hasn't really offered much in the way of difficulty for a long time. People don't play it for the difficulty. People play it for the power fantasy. If you disagree with this and play Warframe with self-imposed limitations then you at least need to recognize that this is not how the game was intended to be played. You can't set criteria for judging Warframe by the strange standards/limitations imposed on yourself when they're not consistent with how the majority of players play the game.

I apologize if I misunderstood your response. It sounds like, to me, you're playing a game that doesn't really interest you unless you make your own fun. This is pretty weird to me, I guess... I don't know why I'd bother playing a game that isn't designed in a way that meets my expectations without a need for self-imposed limitations.

[Huskaraen]

38 minutes ago, Sevek7 said:

since the most effective way to play is to use melee and/or abilities (i.e.: no shooting!).

How to play warframe 101,

1st step : 

[Leqesai]

1 minute ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

….We’re talking about my “Hey, if you’re bored with being powerful, you could try not being so powerful” posts, right?

This can be fun... But I'm not sure I can really relate to the desire of making myself less powerful ingame unless I am playing with new players or players that are all on board with these kind of limitations. Outside of solo gameplay these kind of limitations are generally inconsistent to the expectations random players have.

[(NSW)Greybones]

14 minutes ago, Leqesai said:

So if I understand this correctly.

You play Warframe, which is a game specifically designed with power-fantasy in mind (gameplay is predicated on the idea that players are going to build powerful setups) but find this boring. 

Then you gauge the game's value by virtue of how you can experience failure when not playing it as intended?

I'm not sure your criteria for evaluation is appropriate considering you're not playing the game as intended. If you judge the game based on your experience (intentionally putting yourself on crutches because you like to risk failure) you're missing the point of the game entirely. 

There are games specifically designed with your criteria in mind but Warframe is strictly a power-fantasy horde shooter. You're not really expected to fail very often and the fun is in developing new strategies/options. Warframe is essentially a game designed around building bigger numbers. More frames, gunss, builds, gear etc.

Warframe hasn't really offered much in the way of difficulty for a long time. People don't play it for the difficulty. People play it for the power fantasy. If you disagree with this and play Warframe with self-imposed limitations then you at least need to recognize that this is not how the game was intended to be played. You can't set criteria for judging Warframe by the strange standards/limitations imposed on yourself when they're not consistent with how the majority of players play the game.

I apologize if I misunderstood your response. It sounds like, to me, you're playing a game that doesn't really interest you unless you make your own fun. This is pretty weird to me, I guess... I don't know why I'd bother playing a game that isn't designed in a way that meets my expectations without a need for self-imposed limitations.

Hmm yes 🤔. I think you’re right about how it is designed to be a powerfantasy. I think there’s also design implementation that facilitates a non-powerfantasy approach (otherwise we wouldn’t have resistances and failstates, and we have to choose our mods instead of being able to slot all at once).

I’ve always approached Warframe as it being able to cater to a wide range of people, and part of that is why I really like it; I’m quite impressed that it works

I guess I’d have to say I was in the wrong to think of failstate as the main way to consider how Warframe is designed. It is designed for both that and not-that