Warframe's foundational mechanics are broken.

[(NSW)Greybones]

5 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Yes, I have, which is why I have still ended up going for the builds I run now. What exactly is it that you expect would come out of equipping a different build?

For me it’s made engaging with the game’s systems a thing.

From your original post I was interpreting that you equipped all the damage mods and then the game systems failed to be of interest or were needlessly complex since most things just melted or were bypassed entirely?

[Teridax68]

7 hours ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

For me it’s made engaging with the game’s systems a thing.

For me it hasn't. Even with weaker mods, gameplay remains incredibly cheesy for a bunch of reasons, and having run Grendel's part acquisition missions, I can confirm that this happens even with no mods at all. Part of the problem at hand is that the game's systems are flawed beyond just modding: enemies spawn haphazardly, have notoriously terrible AI (as does any AI-controlled unit in this game), and are usually designed in such a way that they either don't challenge the player to play differently at all, or simply shut down their agency. Because I'd played the exact same mission types hundreds of times before, and most missions progress based on kills, the missions I ran simply took longer to complete, without being more difficult. Downgrading my build did not fix any of this.

7 hours ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

From your original post I was interpreting that you equipped all the damage mods and then the game systems failed to be of interest or were needlessly complex since most things just melted or were bypassed entirely?

You are correct: when a player uses certain combinations of mods that they've earned through play, gameplay becomes trivial. As mentioned above, this isn't just the fault of mods, but ultimately there is still a problem of the game not being balanced around its own options. This is bad design, and should change for the better. It should not be up to the player to fix the game's problems, and if the only way to have fun is to do so despite the game's systems, rather than because of them, then again, there is a design problem at hand.

The problem of needless complexity as I've discussed it does not in fact relate to the state of our excessive damage, either: the status system is needlessly complex, for example, because it is designed in such a way that most of its effects will rarely if ever see play at any given time. Modding itself is overly complex because most of our choices there are false choices, i.e. some options are obviously better than others, and that isn't going to change until our mod system gets turned away from its current damage multiplier stacking: if you truly believe in going for weaker, more enjoyable builds, this would only benefit you, as the game could then be balanced around those more interesting mod setups rather than the current optimum.

[(NSW)Greybones]

37 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

For me it hasn't. Even with weaker mods, gameplay remains incredibly cheesy for a bunch of reasons, and having run Grendel's part acquisition missions, I can confirm that this happens even with no mods at all. Part of the problem at hand is that the game's systems are flawed beyond just modding: enemies spawn haphazardly, have notoriously terrible AI (as does any AI-controlled unit in this game), and are usually designed in such a way that they either don't challenge the player to play differently at all, or simply shut down their agency. Because I'd played the exact same mission types hundreds of times before, and most missions progress based on kills, the missions I ran simply took longer to complete, without being more difficult. Downgrading my build did not fix any of this.

Hmmm, yes, I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from. Cool cool.

I'm not sure what we're doing differently then. Some missions have come very-much down to the wire; I recently did an Aten Mobile Defense where it was nearly destroyed by one laser MOA while I was bouncing around the walls as Titania using the evasion bonus from both Dust and the wall-hop just trying to stay alive while juggling having to make sure the enemy kept targeting me while trying to keep their numbers thinned a little (didn't have the energy for Lantern, which would have been a nice thing). I feel like I was on my last life, but that may be mistakenly remembering a different mission I did.

37 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

You are correct: when a player uses certain combinations of mods that they've earned through play, gameplay becomes trivial. As mentioned above, this isn't just the fault of mods, but ultimately there is still a problem of the game not being balanced around its own options. This is bad design, and should change for the better. It should not be up to the player to fix the game's problems, and if the only way to have fun is to do so despite the game's systems, rather than because of them, then again, there is a design problem at hand.

The problem of needless complexity as I've discussed it does not in fact relate to the state of our excessive damage, either: the status system is needlessly complex, for example, because it is designed in such a way that most of its effects will rarely if ever see play at any given time. Modding itself is overly complex because most of our choices there are false choices, i.e. some options are obviously better than others, and that isn't going to change until our mod system gets turned away from its current damage multiplier stacking: if you truly believe in going for weaker, more enjoyable builds, this would only benefit you, as the game could then be balanced around those more interesting mod setups rather than the current optimum.

Wouldn't mind seeing what they'd do if the multiplier effect was perhaps changed. Most of the Star Chart stuff feels pretty good, but there's always room for improvement or shifts in how things may be done

Something that stands out though is your use of the phrase "only way to have fun is to do so despite the game's systems, rather than because of them". What's meant by that?

 

 

[Teridax68]

16 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Hmmm, yes, I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from. Cool cool.

I'm not sure what we're doing differently then. Some missions have come very-much down to the wire; I recently did an Aten Mobile Defense where it was nearly destroyed by one laser MOA while I was bouncing around the walls as Titania using the evasion bonus from both Dust and the wall-hop just trying to stay alive while juggling having to make sure the enemy kept targeting me while trying to keep their numbers thinned a little (didn't have the energy for Lantern, which would have been a nice thing). I feel like I was on my last life, but that may be mistakenly remembering a different mission I did.

I mean, part of it may come down to preference, but part of it I think comes from how the difficulty is framed: I personally actually really like it when there's a real chance of losing, and some of my most enjoyable moments have come from stuff as simple as our pub group collectively failing to pay attention to the Mobile Defense console in a high-end mission. This leads to a tense minute of play where we all do our utmost to prevent the console from taking even a single hit as its health bar is an inch away from mission failure, and that I find exhilarating. However, during that time I also came to the mission equipped to win it, and if I had intentionally tanked my build to raise the chance of failure, when a loss does happen it feels cheap. I'd much rather the game were changed to offer interaction that couldn't be bypassed, with proper difficulty options given to the player.

16 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Wouldn't mind seeing what they'd do if the multiplier effect was perhaps changed.

Something that stands out though is your use of the phrase "only way to have fun is to do so despite the game's systems, rather than because of them". What's meant by that?

Warframe's systems clearly do not lend themselves to maximum enjoyment: when you follow the incentives the game gives you, including incentives the developers explicitly list out such as hunting and equipping top-end mods, the end result is gameplay so trivial that the player often finds themselves bored through lack of challenge, especially when they've also accumulated skill through experience. What you are suggesting here is that the player goes against what the game pushes them to do, i.e. intentionally downgrade themselves, in order to find the fun: this is having fun despite the game's systems, because you are intentionally choosing to avoid engaging with bits of the game that it pushes you to engage with, and so because the fun you're making then is presumably better than the fun you'd get from following those systems. If a game were trivialized by a frequently-pressed button and I chose to challenge myself by never pressing that button, I would similarly be demonstrating that that hypothetical game would be more fun (or at least more challenging) if that button did not exist. If players were to have more fun by not equipping damage multipliers in Warframe, that would just prove that Warframe would be a more fun game without those, and so all the more reason to design those out of the game.

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

I mean, part of it may come down to preference, but part of it I think comes from how the difficulty is framed: I personally actually really like it when there's a real chance of losing, and some of my most enjoyable moments have come from stuff as simple as our pub group collectively failing to pay attention to the Mobile Defense console in a high-end mission. This leads to a tense minute of play where we all do our utmost to prevent the console from taking even a single hit as its health bar is an inch away from mission failure, and that I find exhilarating. However, during that time I also came to the mission equipped to win it, and if I had intentionally tanked my build to raise the chance of failure, when a loss does happen it feels cheap. I'd much rather the game were changed to offer interaction that couldn't be bypassed, with proper difficulty options given to the player.

Warframe's systems clearly do not lend themselves to maximum enjoyment: when you follow the incentives the game gives you, including incentives the developers explicitly list out such as hunting and equipping top-end mods, the end result is gameplay so trivial that the player often finds themselves bored through lack of challenge, especially when they've also accumulated skill through experience. What you are suggesting here is that the player goes against what the game pushes them to do, i.e. intentionally downgrade themselves, in order to find the fun: this is having fun despite the game's systems, because you are intentionally choosing to avoid engaging with bits of the game that it pushes you to engage with, and so because the fun you're making then is presumably better than the fun you'd get from following those systems. If a game were trivialized by a frequently-pressed button and I chose to challenge myself by never pressing that button, I would similarly be demonstrating that that hypothetical game would be more fun (or at least more challenging) if that button did not exist. If players were to have more fun by not equipping damage multipliers in Warframe, that would just prove that Warframe would be a more fun game without those, and so all the more reason to design those out of the game.

This sounds like you'd take the stat-increase equipment (I'm going to refer to just the mods side of it for simplicity's sake) out of the game because their existence is causing you a conundrum of choice? "I equip the best things, and the game loses its interest for me because of it", sort of thing.

It sounds like you're saying that the value of that equipment is established by the game instead of the player, and that that's only logical and should be adhered to?

I'm not quite on the same wavelength, though, because while the game gives you the valued stat-increase mods, it's also given me valued playstyle-altering mods. And we can't equip all of the mods at once, so a choice is made, right?

[Teridax68]

3 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

This sounds like you'd take the stat-increase mods out of the game because their existence is causing you a conundrum of choice? "I equip the best things, and the game loses its interest for me because of it", sort of thing.

No, the opposite: there is no conundrum, because our current stat-increase mods are so much stronger than anything else that there ceases to be any equivalent choices. If I want to choose the best option, there is only one clear option. The game fails to present valid and interesting choices to the player, which is why the situation needs to change.

3 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

It sounds like you're saying that the value of that equipment is established by the game instead of the player, and that that's only logical and should be adhered to?

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth here: yes, I am saying the game itself (and the developers) pushes stronger equipment and mods upon us, because this game's entire incentive structure hinges upon making us play for the promise of more and stronger toys. We become more powerful as we play through various means, and stat-increase mods are a part of this. Even you admit they are necessary to some extent in order to run content. As players we are also pushed to make optimal choices, because that's how one wins a game, hence why the game needs to be designed to make the optimal choices the most fun ones, as you otherwise end up with the classic quote: "given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game". I never, however, claimed you had an obligation to adhere to only the optimal strategy, though if you are in a pub match, you would be in the wrong to not carry your own weight. At the end of the day, the objective of the game is to entertain us, and the objective it sets us is to win: if the best strategy to win is not a fun one, that is the game's fault, not the player's.

3 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

I'm not quite on the same wavelength, though, because while the game gives you the valued stat-increase mods, it's also given me valued playstyle-altering mods. And we can't equip all of the mods at once, so a choice is made, right?

Precisely, you have to make a choice between power and fun. Why exactly is this the choice that needs to exist? Why defend this sort of design when those playstyle alterations could be turned into viable choices?

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

No, the opposite: there is no conundrum, because our current stat-increase mods are so much stronger than anything else that there ceases to be any equivalent choices. If I want to choose the best option, there is only one clear option. The game fails to present valid and interesting choices to the player, which is why the situation needs to change.

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth here: yes, I am saying the game itself (and the developers) pushes stronger equipment and mods upon us, because this game's entire incentive structure hinges upon making us play for the promise of more and stronger toys. We become more powerful as we play through various means, and stat-increase mods are a part of this. Even you admit they are necessary to some extent in order to run content. As players we are also pushed to make optimal choices, because that's how one wins a game, hence why the game needs to be designed to make the optimal choices the most fun ones, as you otherwise end up with the classic quote: "given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game". I never, however, claimed you had an obligation to adhere to only the optimal strategy, though if you are in a pub match, you would be in the wrong to not carry your own weight. At the end of the day, the objective of the game is to entertain us, and the objective it sets us is to win: if the best strategy to win is not a fun one, that is the game's fault, not the player's.

Precisely, you have to make a choice between power and fun. Why exactly is this the choice that needs to exist? Why defend this sort of design when those playstyle alterations could be turned into viable choices?

Yeah, sorry. I was trying to summarise what I was hearing, not so much put words in your mouth, in the hopes that if I was wrong you’d clarify (which you did 👍 ).

Also, I can agree that in multiplayer with randoms or those who just want to grind fast, good-faith rules apply, and I for one wouldn’t be slowing others down for my sake.

Yes, we do need stat increases (for reasons) for most of the content, but when those stat increases are sufficient to complete the content in the first place, their value would come into question, and the answer of “Is more of this a valuable thing to have?” would be different for different players. The game has already decided that it was enough, and “enough” is different for each of the different mission levels. It’d be safe to say that after reaching the threshold of being able to complete a mission, anything beyond is player choice?

 

Er, about that last part.

 🤔 There’s something… a little funny about the way it was written? I think I’m reading “power” and am thinking of the world-ending power that many players strive for, in which case some of them have fun and the choice isn’t really a choice. But then it sounds like you’re wanting “power” that isn’t that?

edit: I can easily be misunderstanding something, and clarification would be appreciated 👍 

[Teridax68]

8 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Yes, we do need stat increases (for reasons) for some of the content, but when those stat increases are sufficient to complete the content in the first place, their value would come into question, and the answer of “Is more of this a valuable thing to have?” would be different for different players. The game has already decided that it was enough, and “enough” is different for each of the different mission levels. It’d be safe to say that after reaching the threshold of being able to complete a mission, anything beyond is player choice?

This presumes that the standard for "enough" is "able to complete the mission". This is not usually the case, because after that, there are incentives to complete the mission faster and more reliably due to the rewards attached, which more and stronger mods help us achieve. Thus, in this sense it is never really "enough", because if an option lets us complete missions even faster and with even greater ease, the game will continue to incentivize us to take that option.

8 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Er, about that last part.

 🤔 There’s something… a little funny about the way it was written? I think I’m reading “power” and am thinking of the world-ending power that many players strive for, in which case some of them have fun and the choice isn’t really a choice. But then it sounds like you’re wanting “power” that isn’t that?

Pretty much all of our mods give us power. In fact, on an even more abstract level, all of our tools at our disposal give us power in some sort, and aid us in winning missions and fights. Some of this power, e.g. our movement, is generally fun, while other expressions of that power, such as the power to eliminate all interaction with enemies through some abilities, are not. However, in both cases that power is desirable insofar as it makes players more able to succeed: thus, it is the game's responsibility to ensure that the power it gives players contributes to the game's fun, instead of reducing it, because otherwise players will find themselves incentivized to go for power over fun. Put another way: all else held equal, there is no reason for the game to offer us power that isn't inherently fun, and if there exist options for more power that make the game less fun than if those options didn't exist, then those options should not exist.

[(NSW)Greybones]

41 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

This presumes that the standard for "enough" is "able to complete the mission". This is not usually the case, because after that, there are incentives to complete the mission faster and more reliably due to the rewards attached, which more and stronger mods help us achieve. Thus, in this sense it is never really "enough", because if an option lets us complete missions even faster and with even greater ease, the game will continue to incentivize us to take that option.

Pretty much all of our mods give us power. In fact, on an even more abstract level, all of our tools at our disposal give us power in some sort, and aid us in winning missions and fights. Some of this power, e.g. our movement, is generally fun, while other expressions of that power, such as the power to eliminate all interaction with enemies through some abilities, are not. However, in both cases that power is desirable insofar as it makes players more able to succeed: thus, it is the game's responsibility to ensure that the power it gives players contributes to the game's fun, instead of reducing it, because otherwise players will find themselves incentivized to go for power over fun. Put another way: all else held equal, there is no reason for the game to offer us power that isn't inherently fun, and if there exist options for more power that make the game less fun than if those options didn't exist, then those options should not exist.

About the first part; yeah. I can actually agree with that. That’s why I consider the cut-off point as “If a mission is completeable”. Have you seen how much there is to get/level up? Someone’d have to be bonkers to try and get it all on their own at break-neck speed ( 🤔 perhaps appreciating just how over-powered they can get, since it makes it easier).

Technically that’s a game defined reason to stack all the power, so that’s a point to you, but personally, if I had to get all of that to enjoy the game, I’d be moving on instead 😅

Thanks for your perspective 👍. Been a good chat

[Teridax68]

1 minute ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

About the first part; yeah. I can actually agree with that. That’s why I consider the cut-off point as “If a mission is completeable”. Have you seen how much there is to get/level up? Someone’d have to be bonkers to try and get it all on their own at break-neck speed ( 🤔 perhaps appreciating just how over-powered they can get).

As one of those bonkers people, I can confirm that there is a lot of stuff to obtain. Given this response, I take it you still have a lot of stuff to hunt?

1 minute ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Technically that’s a game defined reason to stack all the power, so that’s a point to you, but personally, if I had to get all of that to enjoy the game, I’d be moving on instead 😅

Thanks for your perspective 👍. Been a good chat

Much appreciated, the feeling is mutual! 😀

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 minute ago, Teridax68 said:

As one of those bonkers people, I can confirm that there is a lot of stuff to obtain. Given this response, I take it you still have a lot of stuff to hunt?

Oh yes. I’ve got years of Warframe left in me; the game’ll probably shut down before I get all of what it offers, haha.

I’ve rushed before and burned myself out, and after asking what I’m even looking for, decided to take the fatalistic approach 😋