Dangerous ambition: unnecessary content

[(PSN)Station2D-]

In this topic I will talk about why I think the game has too much unnecessary content

So, for me the strength of this game is the large amount of content it has, but I think that what gives strength to the game is also what weakens it, like missions or game modes that are no needed for game sustainability

This is a list of what i think is obviously necessary for the game vs what is not necessary (just adding a few things)

Necessary:

Frames mode: main mode of the game

Archwing mode: a mode which allows you to combat in space or aquatic environments, it encourages variety which is great

Operator mode: a mode which for me lacks identity, but has the potential to create more variety

K-drive mode: mode which allows you to race in different environments, it's great because it doesn't include shootings

Unnecessary

Railjack mode: mode similar to archwing mode, unnecessary because archwing mode could do the same job

Necramech mode: mode similar to frames mode, unnecessary because it does the same as frames mode

Operator combat mode: mode similar to frames mode, unnecessary because it collides with frames mode

I know that sounds ungrateful, but I really don't understand why creating content that only clashes with existing content, and it's not that these content that I mention are bad, it's just that you could have obtained the same results with the things that are already in the game

I dare to say that all this content only affects the maintenance of the game, because in the end it seems that the developers are working for 1 result for the price of 3, I have also see that there are games that have the same impact as WF without needing so much content like Destiny 2 for example , and I'm not trying to make a nonsense toxic comment for attention, but i think that the game could have a better sustainability with less content.
 

[Drasiel]

this basically comes down to "I like these modes but not these modes so get rid of them" This is highly subjective and you are going to get a lot of people disagreeing about what's actually "fun" or "good".

[Tyreaus]

I mean, if we're talking maintenance, and talking in retrospect, then the "necessary" list is just "Warframe mode", and everything else is under "unnecessary". As soon as you bridge past that, everything becomes arbitrary. Archwings are necessary to enable space combat? Well, Railjack is necessary to enable ship combat. We don't need ship combat? That's fine - we don't need space combat, either. You could draw the line any way you like. Which is what DE does.

[Pakaku]

One thing that is unnecessary: the loads and loads of redundant planet nodes. What is the point of having to clear blatant duplicates of missions in the same tilesets except to waste player time? (One way this could be resolved is if every planet eventually recieves its own unique tilesets, but that takes a metric ton of planning and time.)

Railjack was supposed to be the replacement for archwing missions, I believe, but the entry gate is still too high for that.

Necramechs are literally prototype Warframes, and being too similar is probably an intended design point. The only problem they have is they can't be used in regular missions. Fix that and there isn't really any more problems with them than adding new warframes.

Operator comes with a lot of interesting benefits, such as free invisibility/stealth and buffs from focus trees and arcanes. The worst part is focus is just too grindy to farm in a reasonable amount of time. But here it just seems more like you just haven't dived very deep into what is possible.

 

[(PSN)Station2D-]

hace 1 hora, Drasiel dijo:

this basically comes down to "I like these modes but not these modes so get rid of them" This is highly subjective and you are going to get a lot of people disagreeing about what's actually "fun" or "good".

Why would you create two equal modes so that people say it's fun...

when you can create 1 to have the same result?

railjack and archwing are the same: combat in space

and there are not enough differences to say that they can coexist, in the end the player will only choose one mode and the other will be less used, or am i wrong?

[(PSN)Station2D-]

hace 1 hora, Tyreaus dijo:

I mean, if we're talking maintenance, and talking in retrospect, then the "necessary" list is just "Warframe mode", and everything else is under "unnecessary". As soon as you bridge past that, everything becomes arbitrary. Archwings are necessary to enable space combat? Well, Railjack is necessary to enable ship combat. We don't need ship combat? That's fine - we don't need space combat, either. You could draw the line any way you like. Which is what DE does.

Why would you make two vehicles to reach one destination (space combats)?

do you think that the vehicles will co-exist like having 2 hats at the same time?

or do you believe that people will only choose ONE vehicle to reach this ONE destination?

[(PSN)Station2D-]

hace 1 hora, Pakaku dijo:

One thing that is unnecessary: the loads and loads of redundant planet nodes. What is the point of having to clear blatant duplicates of missions in the same tilesets except to waste player time? (One way this could be resolved is if every planet eventually recieves its own unique tilesets, but that takes a metric ton of planning and time.)

Thanks for saying it, basically is the realization of quantity without quality, i agree.

 

hace 1 hora, Pakaku dijo:

Operator comes with a lot of interesting benefits, such as free invisibility/stealth and buffs from focus trees and arcanes. The worst part is focus is just too grindy to farm in a reasonable amount of time. But here it just seems more like you just haven't dived very deep into what is possible.

I like the concept of the operators, what I don't like is that the devs designed them for combat since this is a task that warframes perform, making the abilities and AMPs of the operators a waste of time

so I think it would be better if the operators have an identity where they can shine without clashing with the tasks that the frames does, but right now they are just a shadow for the frames that help to get energy and other things.

[(PSN)gadgaurd]

1 hour ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

Why would you create two equal modes so that people say it's fun...

when you can create 1 to have the same result?

railjack and archwing are the same: combat in space

and there are not enough differences to say that they can coexist, in the end the player will only choose one mode and the other will be less used, or am i wrong?

You're totally wrong.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

 

hace 24 minutos, (PSN)gadgaurd dijo:

You're totally wrong.

so I can say that this is not about subjectivity, and... that's it?

[(PSN)gadgaurd]

38 minutes ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

 

so I can say that this is not about subjectivity, and... that's it?

I'll make this quick, because I honestly can't work up the motivation to take this seriously.

 

Archwing missions: You have access to the Archwing abilities, Arc Gun, Arc Melee, and your Warframe's passive.

 

Railjack: You have access to the Archwing abilities, Arc Gun, Arc Melee, your Warframe's full kit, your Primary weapon, secondary weapon, melee weapon, a second Arcgun in your Heavy Weapon slot, a third Arc gun in your Necramech slot, the Necramech's abilities, your companion, your specters, your Railjack weapons, and your Railjacks abilities. Assuming I didn't miss anything, and not touching on the 3 possible methods of engagement in any RJ missions. Or the difference in rewards from both missions.

 

I repeat, you're totally wrong.

[Drasiel]

10 hours ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

Why would you create two equal modes so that people say it's fun...

when you can create 1 to have the same result?

railjack and archwing are the same: combat in space

and there are not enough differences to say that they can coexist, in the end the player will only choose one mode and the other will be less used, or am i wrong?

They're not "equal modes". That's like saying Disruption and Survival are the same because they spawn infinite enemies. You're boiling two different game modes down to only their most basic theme and declaring them the same disregarding everything that makes them unique.

Railjack has barely any archwing in it, you're not going into railjack and having one of your buddies have to go and complete a trench run exterminate or archwing mobile defense while you fight off crewships in the railjack. I like archwing, I would play more archwing missions but there's nothing to farm there anymore and there hasn't been any new modes since archwing defence failed. If you want to put forward the idea that Railjack should contain more proper archwing mission objectives and gameplay I would agree that that would make sense to do but getting rid of it? No thanks.

[Tyreaus]

10 hours ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

Why would you make two vehicles to reach one destination (space combats)?

do you think that the vehicles will co-exist like having 2 hats at the same time?

or do you believe that people will only choose ONE vehicle to reach this ONE destination?

Two vehicles to reach one destination....you mean K-drives? One of the things you espouse as necessary?

Of course, you say it's necessary because it isn't just about traversal. K-drives bring other elements to the table. Thing is, so does Railjack. It's that you don't find value in what Railjack brings.

That's why it's arbitrary.

[Crestofawave]

for one, archwing cannot replace railjack, could you believe flying through vast distances in space through a wormhole just in an exosuit, alone? no you need the protection of a ship and crew to bring to bear all your gear to far flung outer reaches of the galaxies, where disembarking allows you to travel small distance in your wing.

and similar, operator mode, your squishy body dont fare well against weapon fire, but can help/compliment  your frame.

necromech....cmon its a stompy robot

[(PSN)Station2D-]

hace 18 horas, (PSN)gadgaurd dijo:

I'll make this quick, because I honestly can't work up the motivation to take this seriously.

 

Archwing missions: You have access to the Archwing abilities, Arc Gun, Arc Melee, and your Warframe's passive.

 

Railjack: You have access to the Archwing abilities, Arc Gun, Arc Melee, your Warframe's full kit, your Primary weapon, secondary weapon, melee weapon, a second Arcgun in your Heavy Weapon slot, a third Arc gun in your Necramech slot, the Necramech's abilities, your companion, your specters, your Railjack weapons, and your Railjacks abilities. Assuming I didn't miss anything, and not touching on the 3 possible methods of engagement in any RJ missions. Or the difference in rewards from both missions.

My guy... those things you mentioned are EXTERNAL to the concept of Railjack, focus in the internal part of the concept since basically those variables can exist without the need of Railjack

I'm sorry but Railjack does not offer anything new to the game and all those things you mentioned can be easily implemented in the Archwings missions, it's just not worth creating two concepts with minimal differences because in the end it would be like a competition to see which is the best

plus you can literally beat some Railjack missions just by using the Archwing while the ship is hidden, and if you don't believe me you can try it yourself.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

hace 9 horas, Drasiel dijo:

hey're not "equal modes". That's like saying Disruption and Survival are the same because they spawn infinite enemies. You're boiling two different game modes down to only their most basic theme and declaring them the same disregarding everything that makes them unique.

Railjack has barely any archwing in it, you're not going into railjack and having one of your buddies have to go and complete a trench run exterminate or archwing mobile defense while you fight off crewships in the railjack. I like archwing, I would play more archwing missions but there's nothing to farm there anymore and there hasn't been any new modes since archwing defence failed. If you want to put forward the idea that Railjack should contain more proper archwing mission objectives and gameplay I would agree that that would make sense to do but getting rid of it? No thanks.

Forget about missions, resources, maps or all variables outside of Railjack and Archwing, all those external variables that you mentioned can be implemented in one concept without the need to create two 

Railjack just doesn't offer anything new, it's just the same Archwing formula about space combat with the only difference being that it's a ship, and those little details don't make a big difference, so in the end Railjack and Archwings are two concepts competing to see which is the best in space combat, for me that is just complicating your own work.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

hace 9 horas, Tyreaus dijo:

Two vehicles to reach one destination....you mean K-drives? One of the things you espouse as necessary?

Of course, you say it's necessary because it isn't just about traversal. K-drives bring other elements to the table. Thing is, so does Railjack. It's that you don't find value in what Railjack brings.

That's why it's arbitrary.

Tell me, what does Railjack do that Archwing can't? because I don't see a big difference where it's worth working on, I only see small details and external variables that can easily be implemented in Archwing without the need to complicate the work

the only thing that makes it special is the audiovisual part and the story, but creating a concept just for those little details is a waste of time, it's not bad, it's just unnecessary

and yes, the difference in K-drives is that it is based on races that is what makes it special as no other concept shines there, which makes it good, unlike Railjack and Archwing which seem like two concepts competing to see who shines more in space combat.

[Drasiel]

12 minutes ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

Forget about missions, resources, maps or all variables outside of Railjack and Archwing, all those external variables that you mentioned can be implemented in one concept without the need to create two 

Railjack just doesn't offer anything new, it's just the same Archwing formula about space combat with the only difference being that it's a ship, and those little details don't make a big difference, so in the end Railjack and Archwings are two concepts competing to see which is the best in space combat, for me that is just complicating your own work.

actually there are huge differences behind the scenes. Archwing was built in a Massively resized normal mission format while railjack was designed in multiple segments that work together to create a seamless mission.  When you are in the ship you are actually in your own sub level seeing the "outside" mission area through essentially windows. They've talked about the different tech behind each so while you could put archwing in railjack, it would be impossible to put railjack in archwing missions.

[Frendh]

I do not like Railjack, Archwing missions and Necramechs. But I find it 99% detrimental to the game to remove them. It was optional content for a long time.  Now you need Railjack and Necramech for New War. Not sure about the Archwing.  Once New War is done you do not need to touch it again unless you really want to farm the items in respective modes.

I built the Railjack when Zariman was released, because I was locked out of Arbitrations and had to do Zariman to unlock Arbitrations again.

[(PSN)gadgaurd]

6 hours ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

My guy... those things you mentioned are EXTERNAL to the concept of Railjack, focus in the internal part of the concept since basically those variables can exist without the need of Railjack

 

On 2022-09-11 at 12:19 AM, (PSN)Station2D- said:

Railjack mode: mode similar to archwing mode, unnecessary because archwing mode could do the same job

Careful you don't trip while shifting those goalposts, "my guy". 

 

It doesn't matter if all those are "external" to the concept of Railjack(which is questionable at best, since as far as I recall Railjack has always been intended to combine the boots on ground aspect of Warframe with space combat). They objectively offer vastly different experiences. Unless Arcwing missions suddenly let me whip out my Laetum or fire a massive crew ship destroying cannon, it is not doing "the same job".

[Tyreaus]

12 hours ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

Tell me, what does Railjack do that Archwing can't? because I don't see a big difference where it's worth working on, I only see small details and external variables that can easily be implemented in Archwing without the need to complicate the work

Enables team-based ship-to-ship combat, the same way Archwing enables individual space combat. If that difference isn't important to you, that's fine. But it exists.

12 hours ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

the only thing that makes it special is the audiovisual part and the story, but creating a concept just for those little details is a waste of time, it's not bad, it's just unnecessary

Why ask a question, then assume there is no answer?

12 hours ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

and yes, the difference in K-drives is that it is based on races that is what makes it special as no other concept shines there, which makes it good, unlike Railjack and Archwing which seem like two concepts competing to see who shines more in space combat.

It's about races? Like the Orokin challenge puzzles? The ones where you have to parkour through in a time-frame to get rewards? Dojo obstacle courses are, I think, built along a similar line.

And if it's about flat-plane races, it doesn't seem too hard to boost the player's sprint speed instead.

Ergo, races don't really require K-drives.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 11/9/2022 a las 22:59, Drasiel dijo:

actually there are huge differences behind the scenes. Archwing was built in a Massively resized normal mission format while railjack was designed in multiple segments that work together to create a seamless mission.  When you are in the ship you are actually in your own sub level seeing the "outside" mission area through essentially windows. They've talked about the different tech behind each so while you could put archwing in railjack, it would be impossible to put railjack in archwing missions.

I am not saying that the size and environment of the missions are unnecessary, I am saying that the ship with what it includes (weapons, trajectory, abilities, etc.) are unnecessary, not because it is bad but because you already have the Archwing existence to endorse the space combat thing

it's like releasing Archwing after Railjack, why waste your time creating a vehicle that does the same job as the one that already exists in the game?

if Railjack offered a different goal there would be no problem, and it is not that I want to underestimate the work of the developers, but the details that Railjack offers in my opinion are not necessary enough to work on them, because in the end both the ship and the archwings are used for the same combat, with the difference that the ship is stronger, so why waste time with the archwings in the first place? just for aesthetics?.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 12/9/2022 a las 3:17, Frendh dijo:

do not like Railjack, Archwing missions and Necramechs. But I find it 99% detrimental to the game to remove them. It was optional content for a long time.  Now you need Railjack and Necramech for New War. Not sure about the Archwing.  Once New War is done you do not need to touch it again unless you really want to farm the items in respective modes.

I built the Railjack when Zariman was released, because I was locked out of Arbitrations and had to do Zariman to unlock Arbitrations again.

I mean, I can call Railjack unnecessary right now but that doesn't mean it can become much better in the future, because right now the only problem for me is that the ship gameplay doesn't offer anything new to the game, although that does not mean that the developers cannot remove it to concentrate better on other plans.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 12/9/2022 a las 4:35, (PSN)gadgaurd dijo:

Careful you don't trip while shifting those goalposts, "my guy". 

 

It doesn't matter if all those are "external" to the concept of Railjack(which is questionable at best, since as far as I recall Railjack has always been intended to combine the boots on ground aspect of Warframe with space combat). They objectively offer vastly different experiences. Unless Arcwing missions suddenly let me whip out my Laetum or fire a massive crew ship destroying cannon, it is not doing "the same job".

Do you understand that I am talking about the ship/railjack or not?

I'm not saying that the external variables are unnecessary, those variables are fine, the ship is the problem because it plays the same role as archwing in the gameplay, with the only big differences being that the ship is more powerful

so tell me, do you think it's worth the time to create a ship just for the stats and aesthetics? or do you think it is better or worse to save that time for other plans?

it's like printing two documents just for a little sentence, that can be replaced.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 12/9/2022 a las 11:43, Tyreaus dijo:

Enables team-based ship-to-ship combat, the same way Archwing enables individual space combat. If that difference isn't important to you, that's fine. But it exists.

And do you think creating a ship just to have cooperative combat is worth it when you can easily create a similar dynamic in archwing missions to have the same result?

En 12/9/2022 a las 11:43, Tyreaus dijo:

Why ask a question, then assume there is no answer?

Are you assuming that because you don't have any answers or just because I wrote my point?

En 12/9/2022 a las 11:43, Tyreaus dijo:

It's about races? Like the Orokin challenge puzzles? The ones where you have to parkour through in a time-frame to get rewards? Dojo obstacle courses are, I think, built along a similar line.

And if it's about flat-plane races, it doesn't seem too hard to boost the player's sprint speed instead.

Ergo, races don't really require K-drives.

Clever point!

except for the fact that parkour plays a big part in combat too, while K-drive races are just K-drive races

the problem would be if the K-drive also intervenes in combat, a problem that apparently exists if you see some of the mods created for the K-drive, because "reasons”.

[Tyreaus]

5 minutes ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

And do you think creating a ship just to have cooperative combat is worth it when you can easily create a similar dynamic in archwing missions to have the same result?

Asking about my opinion on its worth all but admits the distinction is arbitrary.

7 minutes ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

Are you assuming that because you don't have any answers or just because I wrote my point?

You're assuming I don't have any answers immediately after quoting my answer, which was to a question you seemed to expect had no answer. This is getting pretty bad faith.

10 minutes ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

except for the fact that parkour plays a big part in combat too, while K-drive races are just K-drive races

the problem would be if the K-drive also intervenes in combat, a problem that apparently exists if you see some of the mods created for the K-drive, because "reasons”.

This seems like a strange methodology for distinguishing necessity. Pardon if I don't interpret correctly, but it sounds like, if K-drives can do races and combat, it's not necessary, because the parkour system already fulfils that role. But if K-drives do only races, even if the parkour system also does races, K-drives become necessary. So it's a problem only when they're equal, meaning any imbalance entails they're both necessary.

I'm sure I'm misinterpreting something but I'm struggling to parse it any other way.