Dangerous ambition: unnecessary content

[quxier]

On 2022-09-11 at 7:19 AM, (PSN)Station2D- said:

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

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

On 2022-09-12 at 5:34 AM, (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.

K-drive includes shooting. K-drive is just worse in any way. What you can do in K-drive you can do better in Archwing. Even mentioned Races could be done using Archwing.

On 2022-09-11 at 7:19 AM, (PSN)Station2D- said:

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

For normal combat (e.g. Sentients) it's fine but with Eidolons it's just too much for me.

On 2022-09-11 at 7:19 AM, (PSN)Station2D- said:

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

I agree with that. However RJ were meant to connect mission together (e.g. Mars to Venus trip OR different mission types) in seamless experience. It's not like this so it's indeed unneccessary.

On 2022-09-11 at 7:34 AM, Drasiel said:

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".

It's not about OP's like or dislike. OP says that you can do same things in both modes so it's not necessary to have both. That's far from subjectivity.

On 2022-09-11 at 7:36 AM, Tyreaus said:

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.

Is Parkour (bullet jump, wall jump etc) neccessary? Nope. However it makes game much more rich & dynamic. Do we need space combat? Nope. However it has potential to make game better. Spaces combat can be used via Archwing & RJ. You can do basically same things in both modes. RJ just makes it more unnecessary complex for some of us. Archwing flying is much better because you can see everything around you.

On 2022-09-11 at 8:24 AM, Pakaku said:

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

Afair they wanted implement RJ for long time but couldn't. Now they have some RJ implementation they want to push forward, merging Archwing.

On 2022-09-11 at 8:24 AM, Pakaku said:

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.

It fits lore-wise. However gameplay wise it's just interrior frames just with being able to exist in Orphix field.

On 2022-09-12 at 11:35 AM, (PSN)gadgaurd said:

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".

Blowing Ship is like blowing another enemies. You should both in RJ & archwing. It's very similar experience. Except ship maintaining...

On 2022-09-12 at 6:43 PM, Tyreaus said:

On 2022-09-12 at 5:34 AM, (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.

Archwing could be around team-based combat as well. It's not like you cannot put one "mobile defense unit" then force someone to do something else. Ship-to-ship is like more clunkier person (frame, op) combat.

[Drasiel]

3 hours ago, quxier said:

<snip>

It's not about OP's like or dislike. OP says that you can do same things in both modes so it's not necessary to have both. That's far from subjectivity.

<snip>

No It's very much based on what they arbitrarily decide is too similar to something else. They ignore the underlying systems, design, mission goals, and code differentiation as in the the case of Archwing and Railjack to boil it down to "both happens in space therefore the same". Their view is entirely subjective to what they deem pointless due to sharing theming.

[SuperFuret]

Il y a 3 heures, quxier a dit :

K-drive is just worse in any way. What you can do in K-drive you can do better in Archwing. Even mentioned Races could be done using Archwing

You forget a core principle of almost all racing games : air time management, find the smooth race line. Archwing races would loose a lot of finesse in comparison with K-drives ones.

I do not agree with them tho. The beauty in this game is the diversity of things and options it gives you.

[quxier]

21 minutes ago, Drasiel said:

No It's very much based on what they arbitrarily decide is too similar to something else. They ignore the underlying systems, design, mission goals, and code differentiation as in the the case of Archwing and Railjack to boil it down to "both happens in space therefore the same". Their view is entirely subjective to what they deem pointless due to sharing theming.

It might be subjective but it has some objectivity.

10 minutes ago, SuperFuret said:

4 hours ago, quxier said:

K-drive is just worse in any way. What you can do in K-drive you can do better in Archwing. Even mentioned Races could be done using Archwing

You forget a core principle of almost all racing games : air time management, find the smooth race line. Archwing races would loose a lot of finesse in comparison with K-drives ones.

Then archwing has easier to achieve "smooth lines".

13 minutes ago, SuperFuret said:

 

I do not agree with them tho. The beauty in this game is the diversity of things and options it gives you.

It's fine till you "have to" use one or another.

[(PSN)max141064]

On 2022-09-11 at 9:13 AM, (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?

When you numb everything to a single line, everything is the same. 

Eating at a restaurant and making your food at home = Eating. 

Kinda lame, uhu? 

[SuperFuret]

il y a 9 minutes, quxier a dit :

Then archwing has easier to achieve "smooth lines".

Triumph without peril brings no glory.

[Tyreaus]

5 hours ago, quxier said:

Is Parkour (bullet jump, wall jump etc) neccessary? Nope. However it makes game much more rich & dynamic. Do we need space combat? Nope. However it has potential to make game better. Spaces combat can be used via Archwing & RJ. You can do basically same things in both modes. RJ just makes it more unnecessary complex for some of us. Archwing flying is much better because you can see everything around you.

Bolding to emphasize my point is that "necessary / unnecessary" distinctions, beyond bare necessity, are arbitrary. And because it's arbitrary, the list OP gives is no more useful than any other list, containing any other rationales. Which also includes the list - whether written or not - DE uses.

5 hours ago, quxier said:

Archwing could be around team-based combat as well. It's not like you cannot put one "mobile defense unit" then force someone to do something else. Ship-to-ship is like more clunkier person (frame, op) combat.

Sure. We can do the same sort of simplification to K-drives for similar reasons, much to OP's chagrin. We could do it to operators, too. But here's the thing:

Where we would we stop, and why? Why not somewhere else? And, importantly: how would it work going forward?

If we say "it's necessary because it has potential", lots of things have potential. Even things we'd otherwise consider as unnecessary, like K-drives or Railjack, have potential. If we say something like, "we remove things that do the same fundamental job as other things..." well, for one, we have to decide which hits the road; for two, that doesn't always lead to good prescriptions. I mean, we have weapons, and new weapons are just doing the same fundamental job as old ones, but I don't think we'd want to say, "well new weapons aren't necessary so let's never work on them." Right? If it isn't useful going forward, we may as well not consider that distinction at all.

[quxier]

2 hours ago, SuperFuret said:

2 hours ago, quxier said:

Then archwing has easier to achieve "smooth lines".

Triumph without peril brings no glory.

Artificial perils are not for everyone.

46 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

7 hours ago, quxier said:

Is Parkour (bullet jump, wall jump etc) neccessary? Nope. However it makes game much more rich & dynamic. Do we need space combat? Nope. However it has potential to make game better. Spaces combat can be used via Archwing & RJ. You can do basically same things in both modes. RJ just makes it more unnecessary complex for some of us. Archwing flying is much better because you can see everything around you.

Bolding to emphasize my point is that "necessary / unnecessary" distinctions, beyond bare necessity, are arbitrary. And because it's arbitrary, the list OP gives is no more useful than any other list, containing any other rationales. Which also includes the list - whether written or not - DE uses.

What is necessary or unnecessary might be arbitrary, like you say. However you can see similarities in OP's comparisons. It's useful as it shows where we can change some stuffs and where things may stay the same.

1 hour ago, Tyreaus said:

7 hours ago, quxier said:

Archwing could be around team-based combat as well. It's not like you cannot put one "mobile defense unit" then force someone to do something else. Ship-to-ship is like more clunkier person (frame, op) combat.

Sure. We can do the same sort of simplification to K-drives for similar reasons, much to OP's chagrin. We could do it to operators, too. But here's the thing:

Where we would we stop, and why? Why not somewhere else? And, importantly: how would it work going forward?

If we say "it's necessary because it has potential", lots of things have potential. Even things we'd otherwise consider as unnecessary, like K-drives or Railjack, have potential. If we say something like, "we remove things that do the same fundamental job as other things..." well, for one, we have to decide which hits the road; for two, that doesn't always lead to good prescriptions. I mean, we have weapons, and new weapons are just doing the same fundamental job as old ones, but

It's more about adding stuffs that are different than removing old stuffs. What advantage does K-drive have over Archwing. That kind of question you can ask to see if you (game maker) should introduce new mechanic. It's ok if it's some kind of different version that adds certain feature (e.g. different attacks). However copy-pasting whole stuffs, changing few things and calling it "new thing" is just wrong. What's even worse if you require another set of mods (Mechs...).

1 hour ago, Tyreaus said:

but I don't think we'd want to say, "well new weapons aren't necessary so let's never work on them." Right? If it isn't useful going forward, we may as well not consider that distinction at all.

To be honest I would say we (DE) should stop and think about introducing new weapons. It's ok if it's some kind of different version but introducing new type that has 0 unique features is just wrong (Hespar).

[Tyreaus]

1 hour ago, quxier said:

What is necessary or unnecessary might be arbitrary, like you say. However you can see similarities in OP's comparisons. It's useful as it shows where we can change some stuffs and where things may stay the same.

I can...kind of see some similarities? But then I can draw other similarities, too, like between K-drives and Archwings as I have, but which (according to OP) have enough differences to be treated differently. So the existence of some similarities doesn't tell a lot.

1 hour ago, quxier said:

It's more about adding stuffs that are different than removing old stuffs. What advantage does K-drive have over Archwing. That kind of question you can ask to see if you (game maker) should introduce new mechanic. It's ok if it's some kind of different version that adds certain feature (e.g. different attacks). However copy-pasting whole stuffs, changing few things and calling it "new thing" is just wrong. What's even worse if you require another set of mods (Mechs...).

To be honest I would say we (DE) should stop and think about introducing new weapons. It's ok if it's some kind of different version but introducing new type that has 0 unique features is just wrong (Hespar).

Right - but then how much difference, or of what kind, is sufficient? K-drives and Archwings are pretty different in many respects, but K-drives largely end up on the chopping block because Archwings do the mobility part better. Meanwhile, Kuva and Tenet weapons tend to be mild upgrades on their base counterparts, much more similar than the vehicles, but they seem to be OK additions.

[SuperFuret]

il y a une heure, quxier a dit :

Artificial perils are not for everyone.

Why gaming then ? 

[quxier]

1 hour ago, Tyreaus said:

2 hours ago, quxier said:

What is necessary or unnecessary might be arbitrary, like you say. However you can see similarities in OP's comparisons. It's useful as it shows where we can change some stuffs and where things may stay the same.

I can...kind of see some similarities? But then I can draw other similarities, too, like between K-drives and Archwings as I have, but which (according to OP) have enough differences to be treated differently. So the existence of some similarities doesn't tell a lot.

It's because K-drive has races (riding without shooting, checkpoints etc) and Archwing doesn't (afair). However they could implement races for archwing then difference will become smaller.

However do those races plays some role in the game (in combat)? We can put Gliphs in the game but it's completely useless gameplaywise.

1 hour ago, Tyreaus said:

Right - but then how much difference, or of what kind, is sufficient?

For me it's more "general rule" than "this need 5 on the scale to be in game".

1 hour ago, Tyreaus said:

K-drives and Archwings are pretty different in many respects, but K-drives largely end up on the chopping block because Archwings do the mobility part better.

Yes, they are different (I would say 2D movement + jump WHILE archwing is 3D movement) but you can see on their purpose. In the game:

- transportation - as you said archwing wins

- combat - again, archwing wins

They serve similar role. The problem is implementation. K-drive doesn't do anything too much to make it stand out. You have k-drive movement... and that's it. They are restricting us without giving anything in return.

2 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

Meanwhile, Kuva and Tenet weapons tend to be mild upgrades on their base counterparts, much more similar than the vehicles, but they seem to be OK additions.

They are basically same weapons with different stats and maybe unique feature (valence fusion). They are variants. It's ok to have few very similar weapons with some small feature added/changed. They are not very hard to make. With things like Mechs or K-drive you end up with lot of work with not very unique feature.

[Tyreaus]

8 minutes ago, quxier said:

It's because K-drive has races (riding without shooting, checkpoints etc) and Archwing doesn't (afair). However they could implement races for archwing then difference will become smaller.

However do those races plays some role in the game (in combat)? We can put Gliphs in the game but it's completely useless gameplaywise.

Again, that doesn't exactly tell a lot.

Well, it does in a way: it tells that there are things needing work. It just doesn't prescribe what to do, whether to delete it or touch it up or expand its role or whatever else.

10 minutes ago, quxier said:

For me it's more "general rule" than "this need 5 on the scale to be in game".

I'm sure as you can see in the thread, general rules don't beget consensus.

31 minutes ago, quxier said:

Yes, they are different (I would say 2D movement + jump WHILE archwing is 3D movement) but you can see on their purpose. In the game:

- transportation - as you said archwing wins

- combat - again, archwing wins

They serve similar role. The problem is implementation. K-drive doesn't do anything too much to make it stand out. You have k-drive movement... and that's it. They are restricting us without giving anything in return.

The problem is that DE didn't really prescribe that purpose, players did. K-drives have the entire trick and racing system, and that's largely what got promoted via the syndicate. It's that those unique aspects didn't catch on, and so K-drives became judged on the facets they share with Archwings: transportation and combat. When that's in the player's hands, it's not exactly easy for DE to control it, let alone predict it.

It's also one of those things that's kind of obvious in hindsight but, when they were released, I don't think was a major train of thought. That's a sort of 'value shift' that happened over time. So, in the context of this thread, that would mean expecting DE to avoid implementing K-drives because the things that made them similar to Archwings would become the things emphasized by players in the future.

That's a bit of an ask. It also sets the bar really high, because you're having to avoid almost any similarity with anything, lest those similarities become the main focus of what you're implementing. Complete novelty, front to back.

Or you short-circuit that with content islands, like making K-drives work in Orb Vallis but Archwings not. Or with Archwing missions being an entirely separate thing so they don't compete with Warframe gameplay. I mean, it's entirely artificial, since you don't need to restrict Archwings in Orb Vallis. Nor do you need Archwings (Warframes will do), Archguns (weapons will do), or Archmelee (regular melee will do) to implement Archwing gameplay. But, you know, shh, we don't talk about that.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 13/9/2022 a las 21:01, Tyreaus dijo:

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

Do you understand that if this were arbitrary this conversation would not make any sense, right?

En 13/9/2022 a las 21:01, Tyreaus dijo:

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.

It was a q u e s t i o n, not an exclamation

you're the only one assuming that

En 13/9/2022 a las 21:01, Tyreaus dijo:

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

I don't think imbalance is the right word, but yes, you interpreted it correctly

the problem with having two equal concepts is that in the end you only need one to complete the task, while the second is just a shadow 

so having two different tasks for two different concepts sounds better, that makes it more balanced (50% - 50%) 

in summary, creating a concept that is the replacement of another and expect both to coexist is counterproductive.

 

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 14/9/2022 a las 11:59, Drasiel dijo:

No It's very much based on what they arbitrarily decide is too similar to something else. They ignore the underlying systems, design, mission goals, and code differentiation as in the the case of Archwing and Railjack to boil it down to "both happens in space therefore the same". Their view is entirely subjective to what they deem pointless due to sharing theming.

Well, I guess saying that creating a new concept that collapses with an old concept to replace it isn't counterproductive because it's just my opinion then?

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 14/9/2022 a las 12:28, (PSN)max141064 dijo:

Eating at a restaurant and making your food at home = Eating. 

In the end you only choose one option, doesn't that tell you something?

[mbf-wr]

2 hours ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

In the end you only choose one option, doesn't that tell you something?

So, which do you propose: closing all restaurants or removing kitchens from homes?

[ShogunGunshow]

I'm pretty sure that railjack only exists because Steve wanted a ship combat section in The New War. Could live without.

[Drasiel]

3 hours ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

Well, I guess saying that creating a new concept that collapses with an old concept to replace it isn't counterproductive because it's just my opinion then?

That is correct, and as I disagree with that opinion I'm here to provide counterpoint.

[Grommile]

On 2022-09-14 at 10:06 PM, quxier said:

Artificial perils are not for everyone.

All peril in a video game is artificial.

[quxier]

26 minutes ago, Grommile said:

All peril in a video game is artificial.

No.

[Grommile]

Just now, quxier said:

No.

This is a categorical matter. A video game is an artificial experience, therefore all peril within it is artificial.

Of course, talking about "peril" at all is pretty questionable when the subject matter is K-Drive racing vs. Archwing racing.

Archwing racing sounds honestly pretty dull. To the extent I find the K-Drive races interesting, it's precisely because of the control limitations of K-Drives.

5 hours ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

In the end you only choose one option, doesn't that tell you something?

I only choose one option for a given meal. Which option I choose (fancy restaurant, cheap restaurant, takeaway, delivery, packaged microwave meal, or cooking from ingredients) depends on a variety of factors, including the state of my bank balance, the state of my mood, whether there's a suitable restaurant open, whether I have company, ...

[quxier]

10 minutes ago, Grommile said:

21 minutes ago, quxier said:

No.

This is a categorical matter. A video game is an artificial experience, therefore all peril within it is artificial.

Of course, talking about "peril" at all is pretty questionable when the subject matter is K-Drive racing vs. Archwing racing.

Archwing racing sounds honestly pretty dull. To the extent I find the K-Drive races interesting, it's precisely because of the control limitations of K-Drives.

It's like saying all video games are just bits (1 & 0) so you cannot talk about story, characters, graphics, tactics etc. When you go past "this is fiction" you can talk about stuffs like this.

[Drasiel]

17 minutes ago, quxier said:

It's like saying all video games are just bits (1 & 0) so you cannot talk about story, characters, graphics, tactics etc. When you go past "this is fiction" you can talk about stuffs like this.

and all words are just scratches on a page that people decided mean something. Just because something is artificial or fictional doesn't mean it has no impact or value.  ones and zeros, marks on a page, dreams, even though what they create isn't real you can still talk about them without disregarding their imaginary nature.

[(PSN)max141064]

15 hours ago, (PSN)Station2D- said:

In the end you only choose one option, doesn't that tell you something?

Are you serious? lol 

[_Anise_]

On 2022-09-11 at 6:19 AM, (PSN)Station2D- said:

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

except Necramechs are immune to null stuff, so they do serve a very niche purpose, I just wish they hadn't put the orphix inside a railjack mission then people might have actually played/farmed it !!

On 2022-09-11 at 6:19 AM, (PSN)Station2D- said:

K-drive mode

its good to get k-drive almost asap so you can go into openworld missions with other people as it dosn't have the same timegate archwing construction has and it's just cool to surf around the open world !! but I agree once you have archwing, k-drive is basically pointless and even if they allowed it on missions it would just be dumb *cough* Yareli *cough*

so k-drive also serves a purpose.

On 2022-09-11 at 6:19 AM, (PSN)Station2D- said:

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

I will agree with you on this, there is literally no reason the mode couldn't have been done designed around the stealth capable landing craft and archwings, it might have even been better because most of the fun on railjack imo is the archwing and the actual normal mission they bolted onto the end, no one wants to run around a ship operating turret sections and shooting a lazybeam at walls