The impact AoE nerf could have

[Monolake]

1 hour ago, Venus-Venera said:

that's right. sp surv will then be unplayable.
I had a game in void yesterday. there was an ivara with blatant overkill mele damage. when i joined it was 52% and there was nothing to activate.

and only because of my aoe weapon and my buffs, the mission was saved.

In addition, there is very high damage and even the best single target weapon is useless because enemies have good aimbots.

It's not exactly unplayable even now with singletarget weapons but you have to resort to various tricks, good builds and buffs and you have to sit in a good place where all the enemies run towards you.

Post this AOE change OP explosives like Brama/Zarr will still outscore singletarget weapons and let you sit on max support while single-target weapons will continue to struggle keeping up the necessary killrate, forcing people to still resort to AOE be it explosive guns, glaives, long-reach melee and mass kill-frames. So you need changes to LS drops to help singletarget guns be viable.

Not dying should be a challenge by all means - its survival. But quickly running out of LS because you cant keep up constant ~90 kills per minute makes singletarget weapons barely-viable and enforces AOE usage.

[Venus-Venera]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Monolake:

It's not exactly unplayable even now with singletarget weapons but you have to resort to various tricks, good builds and buffs and you have to sit in a good place where all the enemies run towards you.

Post this AOE change OP explosives like Brama/Zarr will still outscore singletarget weapons and let you sit on max support while single-target weapons will continue to struggle keeping up the necessary killrate, forcing people to still resort to AOE be it explosive guns, glaives, long-reach melee and mass kill-frames. So you need changes to LS drops to help singletarget guns be viable.

Surviving should be a challenge by all means - its survival. But quickly running out of LS because you cant keep up constant ~90 kills per minute makes enforces AOE usage.

I always mean in general. because of course there are tricks and I know more than enough.
but then the possibilities are so reduced that i fall asleep while playing. example would be max range saryn with single target weapon. then i get 800-1000 solo kills on sp surv in 5 min.

and your points are important. I hope devs hear them too.

[pinkxblack]

9小时前 , Monolake 说:

SteelPath survival  (the mission type) is very stingy on LifeSupport thus requiring insanely high killrate  - so it unfairly punishes those who use single-target weapons alone.  I would suggest bumping up LS drops in SP survival just a bit, like 10%, or maybe even have a higher chance for LS drop on headshots to incentivize active play vs mindless spam or automation (ie Octavia and Monke bot)

so true, i was doing solo as nekros on jupiter survival quest, barely made it by using explosive gun killing bunch of enemies in 1 hour, you can hardly do that with regular assault rifle last at least 20 mins.

[KiteForest_2035]

On 2022-08-30 at 11:33 AM, Jarriaga said:

You are precisely the type of player Johnson was referring to when he said developers must protect players from themselves.

It's a game of accumulated resources, and losing doesn't make you grow in any sense. If you think losing is fun, that's what you think. Most players hate it when they work hard for nothing, right

[(XBOX)Lord ChibiVR]

On 2022-08-30 at 4:54 AM, Monolake said:

SteelPath survival  (the mission type) is very stingy on LifeSupport thus requiring insanely high killrate  - so it unfairly punishes those who use single-target weapons alone.  I would suggest bumping up LS drops in SP survival just a bit, like 10%, or maybe even have a higher chance for LS drop on headshots to incentivize active play vs mindless spam or automation (ie Octavia and Monke bot)

Why zariman is better...

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

Just wanted to add in here a little experience.

Normally, I solo. Today, I decided to try to get Khora's blueprint from the Lith relic, and thought, "hey, why not go public for a change?"

I got in several missions... only 1 run all night had 1 person using an AoE weapon that caused the on-screen particle issue that people talk about (and I didn't mind it at all), and I still had plenty of enemies to run around and kill with my melee. I still would have, if more people had those weapons, because enemies were plenty spread out, and I move fast.

With all the talk of how unplayable the game is these days with AoE ruining everything, I expected it to be much worse. Go figure.

[Jarriaga]

3 hours ago, KiteForest_2035 said:

It's a game of accumulated resources, and losing doesn't make you grow in any sense. If you think losing is fun, that's what you think. Most players hate it when they work hard for nothing, right

There are degrees of separation between finding fun in losing, and removing any and all resemblance of catharsis altogether by automating what you do. Both are extreme outcomes on opposite ends of the street and developers see removing catharsis as the worst outcome out of the two by a wide margin.

Not just Warframe or Civilization developers, but even the Doom (Eternal) director is publicly on record highlighting games with earned outcomes (Catharsis) are more satisfying than games with given outcomes. This is a core principle most developers follow as well. 

Again: Is winning at all costs worth the risk of chipping away your interest in the game itself every time automation is made more difficult by virtue of developers seeing automation as the bigger evil in principle? Sounds like a self-inflicted wound to me.

[Venus-Venera]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb (PSN)AyinDygra:

Just wanted to add in here a little experience.

Normally, I solo. Today, I decided to try to get Khora's blueprint from the Lith relic, and thought, "hey, why not go public for a change?"

I got in several missions... only 1 run all night had 1 person using an AoE weapon that caused the on-screen particle issue that people talk about (and I didn't mind it at all), and I still had plenty of enemies to run around and kill with my melee. I still would have, if more people had those weapons, because enemies were plenty spread out, and I move fast.

With all the talk of how unplayable the game is these days with AoE ruining everything, I expected it to be much worse. Go figure.

you have hardware limitations. it's not the case with pc. I have an old pc and mostly have 40-80 fps in the game. and only play in publics.

I had fps lags maybe only in 2013/2014.

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

On 2022-08-30 at 4:06 AM, Numerikuu said:

On 2022-08-29 at 10:33 PM, Jarriaga said:

"Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. What gives the most reward for the least risk? What strategy provides the highest chance – or even a guaranteed chance – of success? Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game." - Soren Johnson, lead designer for Civilization IV.

Why must survival be guaranteed? Why do so many WF players consciously default to removing any semblance of engagement by approaching the game as an absent-minded puzzle to automate with zero opposition? There is no catharsis or pathos in playing the game like that. Is the desire to win at all costs really worth killing the game for yourself long-term? It's a soulless self-fulfilling prophecy at best.

You are precisely the type of player Johnson was referring to when he said developers must protect players from themselves.

Expand  

Amen. Love that quote.

I DESPISE that quote. It shows an entire disregard for what makes things fun for an entire group of people. It may not be the type of fun that particular designer was aiming to provide, but it's entirely player-driven fun. This type of player might find a game fun, that most others would find boring, or pointless... but to them, incredibly fun. Soren Johnson and Sid Meier... were blind to this, and took the success of Civ to their heads, IMO. It's not a "universal truth" that should be considered in all game design.

(anyway, making my own games, so I can have the type of fun I want.)

[Jarriaga]

1 hour ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

I DESPISE that quote. It shows an entire disregard for what makes things fun for an entire group of people. It may not be the type of fun that particular designer was aiming to provide, but it's entirely player-driven fun. This type of player might find a game fun, that most others would find boring, or pointless... but to them, incredibly fun. Soren Johnson and Sid Meier... were blind to this, and took the success of Civ to their heads, IMO. It's not a "universal truth" that should be considered in all game design.

(anyway, making my own games, so I can have the type of fun I want.)

You may disagree with it and consider it to not be a universal truth, but how many developers that don't see it as a universal truth are there besides you? Which games did those developers make? How successful were those games economically and culturally? There's you, currently now making your own game with the express intent of violating this principle. Who else? Why are there no counter-quotes from successful developers with the same level of seniority and influence Soren has?

Exceptions are not the point of reference that allow you to invalidate established common guiding principles ("Universal truths"). I wish you the best of luck with your development plans, but good luck finding success with a game design that removes catharsis by means of automation. 

[0_The_F00l]

1 hour ago, (PSN)AyinDygra said:

(anyway, making my own games, so I can have the type of fun I want.)

Oh please do share , would love to see it.

[(PSN)AyinDygra]

10 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Oh please do share , would love to see it.

I'm writing a book series, and working on several games based on those books, using the Godot game engine. It's currently a hobby/passion project, as daily life requires a day job to pay the bills, and that's really crowding out most other things I'd like to do right now.

The main series of games are Action RPGs, one will be a platformer. I've got a couple mini-games for fun that won't be required to understand the story or progress in the main games.

When I get bored with one project, I skip over to another that I get inspired to work on, when I get the time. (when I was in high school I finished the first draft of the first book, but when I turned 40, I started a re-write that is about 8 chapters in. I'm 46 now... haven't written anything in 2 years... feels bad.)

 

EDIT:

For about 10 years, I was in the administrative and creative team for 2 text based online games (MUDS).

[BR31]

В 30.08.2022 в 16:21, Monolake сказал:

It's not exactly unplayable even now with singletarget weapons but you have to resort to various tricks, good builds and buffs and you have to sit in a good place where all the enemies run towards you.

Post this AOE change OP explosives like Brama/Zarr will still outscore singletarget weapons and let you sit on max support while single-target weapons will continue to struggle keeping up the necessary killrate, forcing people to still resort to AOE be it explosive guns, glaives, long-reach melee and mass kill-frames. So you need changes to LS drops to help singletarget guns be viable.

Not dying should be a challenge by all means - its survival. But quickly running out of LS because you cant keep up constant ~90 kills per minute makes singletarget weapons barely-viable and enforces AOE usage.

Yeah glad some people are realizing it .

Sp fissures will introduce nullies and ancients (giving overguard in aoe to units who usually don't have it ) - significantly reducing already narrowed choices.

Primed example will be a sp kuva survival fissure: The tankiest faction at base with nullies and ancients addition,
with already reduced life supports + activating towers for kuva , not air to make rewards better.
And since it's a mobile defense loop - usual camping survival strat doesn't work if you want to activate them all.
 

[(PSN)clary_pangs]

On 2022-09-04 at 12:09 PM, Jarriaga said:

There are degrees of separation between finding fun in losing, and removing any and all resemblance of catharsis altogether by automating what you do. Both are extreme outcomes on opposite ends of the street and developers see removing catharsis as the worst outcome out of the two by a wide margin.

Not just Warframe or Civilization developers, but even the Doom (Eternal) director is publicly on record highlighting games with earned outcomes (Catharsis) are more satisfying than games with given outcomes. This is a core principle most developers follow as well. 

Again: Is winning at all costs worth the risk of chipping away your interest in the game itself every time automation is made more difficult by virtue of developers seeing automation as the bigger evil in principle? Sounds like a self-inflicted wound to me.

To be fair, most developers want to earn money is the biggest reason why they want what they term as "active engagement" which to me is just a euphemism for play our game for hours on end and turn it into some sort of "achievement" if it stresses you out. I don't see catharsis in that, just developers wanting you to keep playing and not be efficient with how you spend your play time. Also hours of annoyance is not "interest."

[Jarriaga]

5 hours ago, (PSN)clary_pangs said:

To be fair, most developers want to earn money is the biggest reason why they want what they term as "active engagement" which to me is just a euphemism for play our game for hours on end and turn it into some sort of "achievement" if it stresses you out. I don't see catharsis in that, just developers wanting you to keep playing and not be efficient with how you spend your play time. Also hours of annoyance is not "interest."

Game design that is artificially prolonged for the sake of it is identifiable on the spot by most people (Assassin's Creed, Far Cry), with a tell-tell sign being repeated mission design and collectible hunts.  You may argue WF falls into that trap as well by having 3-4 tiers of the same mission type, but at least these are spread-out between different enemy factions for gameplay variety. At the same time, you can also argue that happens because WF is unreasonably easy (At the top end) for an action game and DE are forced to prolong it by randomizing drops and increasing crafting costs.

The fact you are given a guaranteed reward on the most difficult content available (Grendel and Archon missions) indicates DE are not prolonging for the sake of it and recognize that the reward and effort scales must be in tune in one another. That at times means stressing out Animal Crossing and Dear Esther players because you can not go left and right at the same time and rewarding skill and interactivity over passiveness and automation does not have a middle ground..

That doesn't apply to what I was referring to in that post I made though. I meant that game developers have to design around the consideration that some players can not help themselves and literally can't stop optimizing to the point of removing any semblance of interactivity in favor of efficiency until they bore themselves out of the game without even realizing what they are doing because they just want to optimize for the sake of optimizing.

They see "gameplay" as a puzzle "to break" at all times, in turn transforming the core gameplay loop from "reaction and adaptation" to simply "preparation and automation" (Ergo: Succeeding despite the odds vs. removing the odds altogether).