Warframe 1999 - Add-on content is nice, but I'd have preferred core Warframe to be the main focus

[RichardKam]

1小时前 , Silligoose 说:

It appears you are struggling to discern differences in game mechanics and rules within different gameplay experiences. I suggest materials such as A Theory of Fun for Game Design by Raph Koster, Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games by Tracy Fullerton, The Art of Game Design by Jesse Schell and branching out from there.

> talk about mechanics and rules in Warframe, a game known for breaking mechanics and rules.

> recommend readings from authors who have not made any 5+ years live service game, like Warframe.

That's why discussion like this is futile and a waste of time.

[Silligoose]

12 minutes ago, RichardKam said:

> talk about mechanics and rules in Warframe, a game known for breaking mechanics and rules.

> recommend readings from authors who have not made any 5+ years live service game, like Warframe.

That's why discussion like this is futile and a waste of time.

While I do not believe discussions like these are futile in principle, they are more productive when those who participate have a decent foundation of understanding regarding the subject matter. I sometimes forget a lot of people don't actually look into subjects they wish to discuss. Based on your writings, the knowledge in those books can help you greatly. After that you can look into revenue models such as GaaS.

Ironically, dismissing the value the texts recommended based on the reasons you did, indicates the reading material could help you understand the subject matter far more.

[(XBOX)C11H22O11]

I'm not sure it would be considered not Warframe, from the little they showed it just looks like the gameplay was excal but with a regular guy skin. 

I think we should wait a bit and see more of that expansion since what they showed, personally, wasn't enough to know what exactly it's going to be.

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, (PSN)Joylesstuna said:

It's still better then being blind to the problems the game has. The opinion of leaving things in the status quo is about as helpful as road kill.

Railjack is very much the definition of content island. There is currently no reason to play it whatever so ever.

Nope, not better since doesnt move anything forward.

RJ having no reason to play it results in it being a content island how exactly? There are plenty of modes I practically dont touch anymore, it doesnt make them islands since the things I used in them have been obtained elsewhere and the rewards I got from them is now used elsewhere aswell. We have two things in this game that could be considered actual content islands and that is Kahl aswell as Nihil, since neither of them use any of our progress from earlier in the game. Both however do/did reward us with something to use outside of those modes. That said I think those two are content islands, as opposed to RJ and everything else that makes us use everything we've earned throughout the game while also giving us something to improve several of those things aswell in return. RJ gives us intrinsics that improve Archwing, it also gives us a new type of universal gear through the Crew, ontop of that the mode holds several different rewards to be used in all of the game, from sentinels, frames for newer players, weapons, tenet weapon and so on, in addition to that you can also open relics in the mode to knock out more than one thing at a time.

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

If you think DE doesn't want to "take away power fantasy" in terms of being ridiculously overpowered to the point of not being challenged, you have not been paying attention - they wouldn't implement the direct and indirect nerfs we've seen over the years had that been the case.

Prior to last year's radial AoE nerf, radial AoE was as effective as it was because enemies are not nearly as durable as they should be and DE foolishly decided to turn spawns to max on SP endless missions regardless of player number, which led to players being surrounded by multiple weak enemies, which makes it easier to spam AoE weapons and abilities due to drop chance mechanics of resources. Due to how flimsy enemies are, the potential damage single target weapons are capable of doesn't have the opportunity to be of practical value. I'm not a radial AoE enthusiast, but it didn't need to be nerfed directly in the way it was. Armoured enemy durability could've been increased a bit, non-armoured enemy EHP needed to be increased to maintain the ratios found at lower levels and more importantly, less reliance on armour to make enemies durable. Exceptional outliers in performance, such as the Bramma, should've been nerfed as well. One could've looked towards other options as well, but the route DE went obfuscates damage mechanics needlessly to an even greater extent and it seems the ammo nerfs in particular were introduced to make Incarnon Genesis AoE options more attractive.

A cc-adaptation system can be implemented in an optional challenge mode to address cc power creep, implementing some %-based values to allow for duration builds to have value despite diminishing returns being inherent to such a system. A bare-bones system is found on Demolishers, but that system needs to be fleshed out far more.

Those arent nerfs worth to mention, since they've practically done nothing.

Again you mention nerfs that made no difference. The power fantasy is still 100% intact. Those that saw the "nerfs" were the people that used AoE the opposite way you describe, since they used it against everything. The nerfs only impacted the players that used AoE for single target aswell, which ment they started to waste ammo with the ammo changes. And Bramma had already been nerfed once and took another adjustment with the ammo changes, still only noticable if you used it for absolutely everything. Also how would increasing armored durability change anyhting? It would just make single target even worse off while cleave would still rain supreme.

So how is "an optional challenge" any different from an optional mode such as 1999? Where would the %-based system come into the picture? On the skill effect? The duration? I assume the duration since certain frames rely on the hard effect of some CCs in order for them to work with certain modding etc. And some CC effects are things like Larva and Entangle, which wouldnt work with a reduced %-based CC effect, but would work with a duration reduction. But it could also screw up frames that might need low duration builds from the start, meaning the duration reduction from the mobs would suddenly render those builds useless, since the skill wouldnt have time to take effect for instance with a lower duration.

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Had RJ been considered part of the core-WF experience, had it been integrated well, the term "taxijack" wouldn't have become as popular as it did. DE had an opportunity to integrate it well. They failed and as with so many other content islands, they moved on. That's the way it goes round these parts.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Warframe merely loses variety if it loses add-on content such as RJ. It falls flat if it loses core-Warframe, ie frame gameplay.

Except "taxijack" became a term only after Corpus missions were introduced. And it wasnt due to not being "core-WF" it was due to Corpus proximas reduced the use for the RJ itself. Which means people enjoyed the non "core-WF" part of RJ the most. It also still doesnt make RJ an island, since it is still very much a part of the rest of the game in several different ways.

Clearly that isnt true as mentioned above i.e people got upset there was less RJ content in Corpus proximas. 

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Drifter is so different from core-Warframe, DE had to retcon Duviri being an NPE choice, because switching between Drifter and core-Warframe is too jarring. It is also the weaker of the two options in terms of gameplay and mechanics, which is why it wasn't made the sole NPE choice.

No, not compared to what was old "core-WF". Which shows that there is no "core-WF" since the game has changed significantly over the years, even the Warframe part of the game. Currently "core-WF" is making use of several different systems, it is the red thread that binds the whole game together. Also as to drifter being too different to warframes, sure before you get a few decrees rolling. I tend to end up with an AoE 1-shot kill build after a few side objectives.

It starts out with the frame then develops into using more and more systems together over time. WF+AW, WF+AW+OP, WF+OP, WF+OP+AW+Mech, WF+RJ+OP+AW+Mech, WF+OP+Drifter and so on. That is core WF. So being surprised more systems get added or alterations to current systems occur is kinda odd. And with 1999 you will likely end up with gameplay that lands somewhere between operator, drifter and warframe gameplay in a single package i.e Arthur. So it wont be something we are unfamiliar too, unless for some reason you've ignored several systems and only play with warframes. And if you refuse to accept that, well then Arthur is an improved version of original "core-WF" gameplay, since he plays like a frame back then, plus he comes with parkour, which was a later addition.

Edited September 5, 2023 by SneakyErvin

[Silligoose]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Those arent nerfs worth to mention, since they've practically done nothing.

Again you mention nerfs that made no difference. The power fantasy is still 100% intact. Those that saw the "nerfs" were the people that used AoE the opposite way you describe, since they used it against everything. The nerfs only impacted the players that used AoE for single target aswell, which ment they started to waste ammo with the ammo changes. And Bramma had already been nerfed once and took another adjustment with the ammo changes, still only noticable if you used it for absolutely everything.

You are arguing that the nerfs did practically nothing, while in the same breath state it did affect players who use it in certain ways. I'll make it simple: If the nerfs affected some players, which it did, it means the nerfs affected their "power fantasy", which it did, in turn proving my claim.

The Bramma already having been nerfed doesn't mean it didn't still require nerfs. 

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Also how would increasing armored durability change anyhting? It would just make single target even worse off while cleave would still rain supreme.

If a lvl 140 Corrupted Heavy Gunner has 18 mil EHP instead of 15.2 mil, of which 3.6 mil is HP with 80% DR due to armour, instead of 217k HP and 98,57%DR due to armour, various radial AoE weapons would no longer be able to kill it has quickly and easily as it used. The change would result in single target weapons having more practical value in comaprison to radial AoE.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

So how is "an optional challenge" any different from an optional mode such as 1999? Where would the %-based system come into the picture? On the skill effect? The duration? I assume the duration since certain frames rely on the hard effect of some CCs in order for them to work with certain modding etc. And some CC effects are things like Larva and Entangle, which wouldnt work with a reduced %-based CC effect, but would work with a duration reduction. But it could also screw up frames that might need low duration builds from the start, meaning the duration reduction from the mobs would suddenly render those builds useless, since the skill wouldnt have time to take effect for instance with a lower duration.

How it would differ depends on how WF1999 is implemented. 

Demolsihers were referenced to give context as to how the %based-values come into play. There is scope for hard cc to be downgraded to forms of soft cc with repeated use, or other parameters. The system can also incorporate a subsystem in which hard cc need not be permanently downgraded to soft cc. There is a lot of room for creativity so cc's power is addressed, but it retains value to some degree, not only so frames more reliant on cc for survivability doesn't get shafted too hard, but so encounters with different frames can retain a more unique feel and so certain enemies, such as bosses, don't have to get the rather lazy cc-immunity mechanic.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

No, not compared to what was old "core-WF". Which shows that there is no "core-WF" since the game has changed significantly over the years, even the Warframe part of the game. Currently "core-WF" is making use of several different systems, it is the red thread that binds the whole game together. Also as to drifter being too different to warframes, sure before you get a few decrees rolling. I tend to end up with an AoE 1-shot kill build after a few side objectives.

It starts out with the frame then develops into using more and more systems together over time. WF+AW, WF+AW+OP, WF+OP, WF+OP+AW+Mech, WF+RJ+OP+AW+Mech, WF+OP+Drifter and so on. That is core WF. So being surprised more systems get added or alterations to current systems occur is kinda odd. And with 1999 you will likely end up with gameplay that lands somewhere between operator, drifter and warframe gameplay in a single package i.e Arthur. So it wont be something we are unfamiliar too, unless for some reason you've ignored several systems and only play with warframes.

What constitutes the core gameplay of a game can change with sequels, or updates. Not all additions to a game becomes part of the core of that game. A game's core gameplay changing doesn't mean the core gameplay no longer exists.

Based on our interactions, you may be more open-minded to concepts being shared within a book or college material, than the same concept from forum posters, a website etc. If the subject matter interests you and you wish to expand your knowledge on it, I suggest materials such as A Theory of Fun for Game Design by Raph Koster, Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games by Tracy Fullerton, The Art of Game Design by Jesse Schell and branching out from there.

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

You are arguing that the nerfs did practically nothing, while in the same breath state it did affect players who use it in certain ways. I'll make it simple: If the nerfs affected some players, which it did, it means the nerfs affected their "power fantasy", which it did, in turn proving my claim.

The Bramma already having been nerfed doesn't mean it didn't still require nerfs. 

That doesnt mean it did anything for balance at all though. Nor that it actually removed anything regarding power fantasy, since those players are still miles above the power curve. If the power fantasy was reduced it would have effected everyone equally since the power would have been universally reduced, which it wasnt.

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

If a lvl 140 Corrupted Heavy Gunner has 18 mil EHP instead of 15.2 mil, of which 3.6 mil is HP with 80% DR due to armour, instead of 217k HP and 98,57%DR due to armour, various radial AoE weapons would no longer be able to kill it has quickly and easily as it used. The change would result in single target weapons having more practical value in comaprison to radial AoE.

AoE still deals as much single target damage as a single target gun except versus things like Guardians, units with external shields like nullis and cold eximus. So there would be no practical value for single target because the CHG would come with friends so AoE would remove more threats while also damaging the CHG severely. And that is before we include guns that effectively double as both, like pretty much any chain-beam weapon out there. I cant remember the last time I brought a pure single target weapon to anything in the game. The closest I come is when I bring Felarx and Laetum to Archons.

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

How it would differ depends on how WF1999 is implemented. 

Demolsihers were referenced to give context as to how the %based-values come into play. There is scope for hard cc to be downgraded to forms of soft cc with repeated use, or other parameters. The system can also incorporate a subsystem in which hard cc need not be permanently downgraded to soft cc. There is a lot of room for creativity so cc's power is addressed, but it retains value to some degree, not only so frames more reliant on cc for survivability doesn't get shafted too hard, but so encounters with different frames can retain a more unique feel and so certain enemies, such as bosses, don't have to get the rather lazy cc-immunity mechanic.

And Demolishers are pushovers even with their %-based resistance and nullification burst. Since there are already ways to circumvent it. And even the shortest of CCs are enough already to completely #*!% them over. I think the best CC counters we have are currently in the shape of OG, OG-auras and nullibubbles. Heck I think DE should add OG to demolishers. The whole "repeated use" just doesnt work, since in 99.99% of all cases you wouldnt hit the same target twice with a CC since the target would be long dead and gone by that time, because we deal too much freakin' damage. Right now with something like Demolishers it takes me about two seconds to waste them, they die during the very short stun window that Seeking Talons provide. And on my Frost when doing other content I run around with a 4 second Avalanche, which is enough CC time to clear rooms. So how short should CCs be in order to not trivialize things? And which mobs should this apply to? All? Some? Well if it is some it is already solved through OG. If it is to apply to all how would that work with things like Strangle Dome, Tentacle Swarm and so on? Would mobs suddenly start dropping from the dome or tentacles? Would those mobs still be considered "debuffed" by the dome for skills sync etc?

21 hours ago, Silligoose said:

What constitutes the core gameplay of a game can change with sequels, or updates. Not all additions to a game becomes part of the core of that game. A game's core gameplay changing doesn't mean the core gameplay no longer exists.

So then why are you and other complaining it wont be "core-WF" if core gameplay can change over time? Which is also what I pointed out, that the core of WF has changed from how it started out and constantly does. Core systems have also changed vastly over the years which also impacts what core gameplay is. And you cant cherry pick which parts you want to include in that, since it is all intended to be part of the core. You may not find the Drifter gameplay to be core, but it is similar to the early WF gameplay which at one point was the core you speak so preciously about. Heck it is more evolved than that since we dont need to bother with stamina. Though the Drifter will never become part of the core gameplay since we will likely never use him anywhere besides in Duviri. Everything else however is used in several different places together in one way or another, so are all part of what could be considered current core-WF. So 1999 will be core gameplay since it will mix the current systems into a new familiar one by the looks of it. Drawing inspiration from very old WF aswell as how it has evolved over the years. In essence, running, gunning and chopping things up while doing acrobatics would be enough to class it core WF.

[Silligoose]

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

That doesnt mean it did anything for balance at all though. Nor that it actually removed anything regarding power fantasy, since those players are still miles above the power curve. If the power fantasy was reduced it would have effected everyone equally since the power would have been universally reduced, which it wasnt.

It is delusional to think power fantasy is only affected if everyone is affected equally. By this delusional take, people can argue a change that putts an upper cap of 10k damage on weapons doesn't affect power fantasy because not EVERYONE is affected EQUALLY, since some lower-level players won't be affected at all.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

AoE still deals as much single target damage as a single target gun except versus things like Guardians, units with external shields like nullis and cold eximus. So there would be no practical value for single target because the CHG would come with friends so AoE would remove more threats while also damaging the CHG severely. And that is before we include guns that effectively double as both, like pretty much any chain-beam weapon out there. I cant remember the last time I brought a pure single target weapon to anything in the game. The closest I come is when I bring Felarx and Laetum to Archons.

We're talking about the AoE meta and the radial AoE nerfs of 2022 that weren't required in my opinion, so let's stay on that topic. Post the builds of the radial AoE weapons that were referred to when players were discussing the AoE meta in 2022, because they weren't talking about the Acceltra, or Zhuge, or Laetum, or any weapon with a radial damage radius component of 4m or less. Show me the builds of the AoE meta weapons' builds, such as the Bramma, that can do as much single target damage as top tier single target weapons by way of the weapon's build. Let us see it. Compare how radial AoE would've performed given the changes I speak of. 

Weapons like the Felarx, Tenora, Vectis etc are considered single target weapons. Having punch through doesn't change that. The Felarx doesn't have a radial damage component.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And Demolishers are pushovers even with their %-based resistance and nullification burst. Since there are already ways to circumvent it. And even the shortest of CCs are enough already to completely #*!% them over. I think the best CC counters we have are currently in the shape of OG, OG-auras and nullibubbles. Heck I think DE should add OG to demolishers. The whole "repeated use" just doesnt work, since in 99.99% of all cases you wouldnt hit the same target twice with a CC since the target would be long dead and gone by that time, because we deal too much freakin' damage. Right now with something like Demolishers it takes me about two seconds to waste them, they die during the very short stun window that Seeking Talons provide. And on my Frost when doing other content I run around with a 4 second Avalanche, which is enough CC time to clear rooms. So how short should CCs be in order to not trivialize things? And which mobs should this apply to? All? Some? Well if it is some it is already solved through OG. If it is to apply to all how would that work with things like Strangle Dome, Tentacle Swarm and so on? Would mobs suddenly start dropping from the dome or tentacles? Would those mobs still be considered "debuffed" by the dome for skills sync etc?

In this part, we are talking about cc and a way to address it. Compartmentalize and stay on topic. If you can't do that, then attempting to discuss any mechanic individually with you is a waste of time.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

So then why are you and other complaining it wont be "core-WF" if core gameplay can change over time?

The reason for the thread is in the OP. 

[(XBOX)Mastermitchel89]

On 2023-09-05 at 8:00 PM, RichardKam said:

> talk about mechanics and rules in Warframe, a game known for breaking mechanics and rules.

> recommend readings from authors who have not made any 5+ years live service game, like Warframe.

That's why discussion like this is futile and a waste of time.

Spoilers

i don't like the operator because the game was fun until my warframe stopped warframing around and didn't warframe all over the place

Then some goblin tadpole thing struggled out of its golden bed and my warframe took the monster back to its ship

Now after that i have to scroll five times in my ability menu and after war within the transference to operator doesn't help me warframe it just adds a helminth like system that gives me 5 sets of 2 abilities step into my Warframe gameplay

I want transference to not be apart of the ability menu because its not warframe enough, i still want to use Necramechs but a simple aim and x to interact/transfer would suffice

Because its not warframe enough

[SneakyErvin]

16 hours ago, Silligoose said:

It is delusional to think power fantasy is only affected if everyone is affected equally. By this delusional take, people can argue a change that putts an upper cap of 10k damage on weapons doesn't affect power fantasy because not EVERYONE is affected EQUALLY, since some lower-level players won't be affected at all.

I said the power fantasy wasnt reduced since we are still just as powerful. Ammo economy changed which didnt impact TTK, TTL and so on. It just ment players needed to think a bit what they wasted ammo on. Which really isnt tied to the power fantasy itself. Heck, the idea people in this game have regarding power fantasy is #*!%ed up royally to begin with. Walking mindlessly through everything isnt a must for power fantasy to exsist. Heck, things like Elden Ring, Dark Souls and so on are also power fantasies, since you play a powerful fellow in an otherwise mundane world, taking down supernatural creatures as if you are a demigod. I'm also fairly sure DE refers to some universal idea of where the power fantasy is supposed to be at, not what every individual player consider is their power fantasy bar. Otherwise DE would never be able to add anything and then nerf it if it is too strong or broken, since it would surely step on someones toes at that point and ruin their ridiculous idea of power fantasy. 

My point is simply DE wont make drastic changes that effectively reduces the power fantasy across the board, like severely narrowing the gap between ceiling and floor, or well pulling the ceiling closer to the floor. The things you mention arent on that scale and are practically blanket changes that do jack and squat in the end. Just as the change to Catchmoon didnt really do anything really at the time, nor did the Bramma changes back when they were introduced. Because we are just too powerful and those changes made us go from 1HK to 1HK, since we cant kill things in less than a hit.

16 hours ago, Silligoose said:

We're talking about the AoE meta and the radial AoE nerfs of 2022 that weren't required in my opinion, so let's stay on that topic. Post the builds of the radial AoE weapons that were referred to when players were discussing the AoE meta in 2022, because they weren't talking about the Acceltra, or Zhuge, or Laetum, or any weapon with a radial damage radius component of 4m or less. Show me the builds of the AoE meta weapons' builds, such as the Bramma, that can do as much single target damage as top tier single target weapons by way of the weapon's build. Let us see it. Compare how radial AoE would've performed given the changes I speak of. 

Weapons like the Felarx, Tenora, Vectis etc are considered single target weapons. Having punch through doesn't change that. The Felarx doesn't have a radial damage component.

What does any of that have to do with things? Are you sitting in sim and thinking it is the game, comparing single target vs AoE to kill single mobs? I'm talking about live missions, where stopping to kill anything with a single target weapon is and would be meaningless, unless the thing happens to be a guardian or one of the "shielded" enemies that go down quicker to single target or "multishot" weapons (which currently several AoE clearing weapons are). You'd always be better off just dumping AoE directly ontop of that heavier target since it would also kill everything around it while dealing full splash damage and the direct damage instance to that heavy target. Swapping over to the single target to kill it would mean all those other trash still fire at you, while killing the heavy would not be much faster. You can already see the outcome in SP missions with Eximus units. How often do you swap over to a single target to kill an Eximus that isnt a guardian?

And who claimed they are anything but that?

17 hours ago, Silligoose said:

In this part, we are talking about cc and a way to address it. Compartmentalize and stay on topic. If you can't do that, then attempting to discuss any mechanic individually with you is a waste of time.

And I'm talking about CC and how little a change would do since the CC would still last long enough to trivialize things since we can already see how little CC we need before a room or "boss" is dead. I mean, the whole section you quoted is about CC and how it interacts with single mods and crowds currently at shorter durations or with innate short durations. And you have absolutely no counter answer or input on it and instead claim it isnt about CC? So instead of making a false meta complaint regarding my quote, maybe read it and actually try to argue your point when it is questioned or proven flawed.

17 hours ago, Silligoose said:

The reason for the thread is in the OP. 

That reason is nowhere to be found after you yourself saying that the core can change in a game. I also wonder if you claim Archons and Zariman arent WF content, or that they are somehow poor releases even though Zariman is one of the better releases with completely new game modes, pure "core-WF" gameplay and a try at actual boss encounters.

 

 

 

 

[Silligoose]

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I said the power fantasy wasnt reduced since we are still just as powerful. Ammo economy changed which didnt impact TTK, TTL and so on. It just ment players needed to think a bit what they wasted ammo on. Which really isnt tied to the power fantasy itself. Heck, the idea people in this game have regarding power fantasy is #*!%ed up royally to begin with. Walking mindlessly through everything isnt a must for power fantasy to exsist. Heck, things like Elden Ring, Dark Souls and so on are also power fantasies, since you play a powerful fellow in an otherwise mundane world, taking down supernatural creatures as if you are a demigod. I'm also fairly sure DE refers to some universal idea of where the power fantasy is supposed to be at, not what every individual player consider is their power fantasy bar. Otherwise DE would never be able to add anything and then nerf it if it is too strong or broken, since it would surely step on someones toes at that point and ruin their ridiculous idea of power fantasy. 

My point is simply DE wont make drastic changes that effectively reduces the power fantasy across the board, like severely narrowing the gap between ceiling and floor, or well pulling the ceiling closer to the floor. The things you mention arent on that scale and are practically blanket changes that do jack and squat in the end. Just as the change to Catchmoon didnt really do anything really at the time, nor did the Bramma changes back when they were introduced. Because we are just too powerful and those changes made us go from 1HK to 1HK, since we cant kill things in less than a hit.

We agree with regards to power fantasy not only being applicable to domination.

Your previous statement was, and still is, delusional.

The whole point to damage attenuation is to narrow the gap, as it nerfs higher levels of damage to a greater extent than lower levels of damage.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

What does any of that have to do with things? Are you sitting in sim and thinking it is the game, comparing single target vs AoE to kill single mobs? I'm talking about live missions, where stopping to kill anything with a single target weapon is and would be meaningless, unless the thing happens to be a guardian or one of the "shielded" enemies that go down quicker to single target or "multishot" weapons (which currently several AoE clearing weapons are). You'd always be better off just dumping AoE directly ontop of that heavier target since it would also kill everything around it while dealing full splash damage and the direct damage instance to that heavy target. Swapping over to the single target to kill it would mean all those other trash still fire at you, while killing the heavy would not be much faster. You can already see the outcome in SP missions with Eximus units. How often do you swap over to a single target to kill an Eximus that isnt a guardian?

And who claimed they are anything but that?

On 2023-09-06 at 3:49 PM, SneakyErvin said:

AoE still deals as much single target damage as a single target gun except versus things like Guardians, units with external shields like nullis and cold eximus.

20 hours ago, Silligoose said:

We're talking about the AoE meta and the radial AoE nerfs of 2022 that weren't required in my opinion, so let's stay on that topic. Post the builds of the radial AoE weapons that were referred to when players were discussing the AoE meta in 2022, because they weren't talking about the Acceltra, or Zhuge, or Laetum, or any weapon with a radial damage radius component of 4m or less. Show me the builds of the AoE meta weapons' builds, such as the Bramma, that can do as much single target damage as top tier single target weapons by way of the weapon's build. Let us see it. Compare how radial AoE would've performed given the changes I speak of. 

Your claim is in bold. Time to back it. Post the builds. Go into the damage types and their effects. Go into elemental weighting. See how the changes I suggested affects the TTK. How long would it take your builds to kill a 50 mil EHP Ancient Healer? 100 mil? 

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And I'm talking about CC and how little a change would do since the CC would still last long enough to trivialize things since we can already see how little CC we need before a room or "boss" is dead. I mean, the whole section you quoted is about CC and how it interacts with single mods and crowds currently at shorter durations or with innate short durations. And you have absolutely no counter answer or input on it and instead claim it isnt about CC? So instead of making a false meta complaint regarding my quote, maybe read it and actually try to argue your point when it is questioned or proven flawed.

You veered off talking about damage. You did it again in this paragraph. The mechanics pertaining to a cc-adaptation system is cc. Compartmentalize and focus on the cc. Apply what I said regarding it.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

That reason is nowhere to be found after you yourself saying that the core can change in a game. I also wonder if you claim Archons and Zariman arent WF content, or that they are somehow poor releases even though Zariman is one of the better releases with completely new game modes, pure "core-WF" gameplay and a try at actual boss encounters.

The reasons are in the OP. The core of a game being able to change doesn't alter the reasons, because it isn't some new revelation.

[VoidD3vil]

Warframe 1999 looks like the core Warframe just set in 1999. I believe it is actually Warframe and we will see how it is Warframe when it comes out.

Edited September 8, 2023 by VoidD3vil

[ReddyDisco]

I'll always take more content, something to do is better than login and logout.

[SneakyErvin]

19 hours ago, Silligoose said:

We agree with regards to power fantasy not only being applicable to domination.

Your previous statement was, and still is, delusional.

The whole point to damage attenuation is to narrow the gap, as it nerfs higher levels of damage to a greater extent than lower levels of damage.

Delusional, no simply poorly worded. And if you refer to attenuation as we have it, it is horrible, because it is riddled with holes and also punishing progression without doing anything about overall actual power.

19 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Your claim is in bold. Time to back it. Post the builds. Go into the damage types and their effects. Go into elemental weighting. See how the changes I suggested affects the TTK. How long would it take your builds to kill a 50 mil EHP Ancient Healer? 100 mil? 

And we are as you point out yourself talking about AoE, but suddenly you decide to talk about single target fights? There is no situation in the game where swapping over to a dedicated single target weapon would be an improvement if there are several mobs around, which there would be in your case where you simply buff CHGs etc. since they'd still be surrounded by other trash mods. So AoE does in reality deal several times more damage since it hits the main target and everything around it aswell.

It would be a different story if certain units worked more like the guardians and were simply more resistant to AoE specifically. However, even there it isnt due to the personal AoE resistance of the Guardian that makes us swap over, it is due to their area buff for allies. Without the buff the guardian might aswell be kept alive since it is on its own a low threat unit. So for a units like a CHG getting more health, it wouldnt change the approach of killing it, since it would still take full damage along with everyone else. And it wouldnt even have the "resistance" of bubbles either that go down faster from multiple instances of damage instead of from the damage itself. Plus if you still wanna swap the goalpost here to being about pure single encounters, how would you solve things like Boar, Torid, Lex, Kzarr, Bramma, Tcycron, Knukor and so on that deal several instance of damage to a single target or deal single target damage that chains or covers a wide lane? We arent just limited to singular damage instance AoE weapons, even those would still be better used in the encounter you describe. The only way to actually make single target appealing is by giving heavy units weakpoint and making them near or fully immune to AoE, and even with such a mechanic it wouldnt counter chain weapons.

19 hours ago, Silligoose said:

You veered off talking about damage. You did it again in this paragraph. The mechanics pertaining to a cc-adaptation system is cc. Compartmentalize and focus on the cc. Apply what I said regarding it.

Damage is part of everything since we cannot complete missions without it, unless of course you only run spy and rescue I guess. Which means that with the access to damage we have, reducing CC duration is pointless since it wouldnt really solve anything late game because we simply dont rely on long CCs for anything. And ontop of that we'd never have to re-CC anything either for that same reason, the thing is already dead. Hence why OG and bubbles are great, since they make things immune to CC, so you cannot CC a whole map and kill it, there will always be some targets left to attack you. Not that it is nearly enough with the very scarse presence of eximus imo.

19 hours ago, Silligoose said:

The reasons are in the OP. The core of a game being able to change doesn't alter the reasons, because it isn't some new revelation.

I still dont see it. You complain about something changing and going off-core, when in reality it is going towards a former core setup of the game, same deal with Drifter that also embraced an older core version of Warframe to a point. You say "actual warframe" which in reality is everything that has gone into the game over the years, so if a new release goes back towards something older it is still in reality "actual warframe". The whole game has always been about the idea of adding various different things.

And if you really want what you claim i.e "well balanced endgame", 1999 is realistically the first step towards that, since the rest of the game has already seen that ship sail off into the distance and over the edge of the world. I hope 1999 will be used as a platform to allow them to create balanced endgame by not having to deal with our current power creep. Other games release seasons or expansions to help solve balance issues by more or less wiping the slate clean, DE has dont nothing like that over a course of 10 freakin years. It is high time they do so, and I really hope 1999 is doing that. Expecting a game that has 10 years worth of power progression bloating it to come up with balanced endgame without drastic changes is laughably silly. I mean it is full on clown car levels of ridiculous.

[Silligoose]

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And we are as you point out yourself talking about AoE, but suddenly you decide to talk about single target fights? There is no situation in the game where swapping over to a dedicated single target weapon would be an improvement if there are several mobs around, which there would be in your case where you simply buff CHGs etc. since they'd still be surrounded by other trash mods. So AoE does in reality deal several times more damage since it hits the main target and everything around it aswell.

It would be a different story if certain units worked more like the guardians and were simply more resistant to AoE specifically. However, even there it isnt due to the personal AoE resistance of the Guardian that makes us swap over, it is due to their area buff for allies. Without the buff the guardian might aswell be kept alive since it is on its own a low threat unit. So for a units like a CHG getting more health, it wouldnt change the approach of killing it, since it would still take full damage along with everyone else. And it wouldnt even have the "resistance" of bubbles either that go down faster from multiple instances of damage instead of from the damage itself. Plus if you still wanna swap the goalpost here to being about pure single encounters, how would you solve things like Boar, Torid, Lex, Kzarr, Bramma, Tcycron, Knukor and so on that deal several instance of damage to a single target or deal single target damage that chains or covers a wide lane? We arent just limited to singular damage instance AoE weapons, even those would still be better used in the encounter you describe. The only way to actually make single target appealing is by giving heavy units weakpoint and making them near or fully immune to AoE, and even with such a mechanic it wouldnt counter chain weapons.

Still no builds I see and still trying to veer away from that. I can't take you seriously. I am not surprised that you don't see solutions for imbalances, or praise band-aid fixes. 

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Damage is part of everything since we cannot complete missions without it, unless of course you only run spy and rescue I guess. Which means that with the access to damage we have, reducing CC duration is pointless since it wouldnt really solve anything late game because we simply dont rely on long CCs for anything. And ontop of that we'd never have to re-CC anything either for that same reason, the thing is already dead. Hence why OG and bubbles are great, since they make things immune to CC, so you cannot CC a whole map and kill it, there will always be some targets left to attack you. Not that it is nearly enough with the very scarse presence of eximus imo.

On 2023-09-06 at 7:41 PM, Silligoose said:

In this part, we are talking about cc and a way to address it. Compartmentalize and stay on topic. If you can't do that, then attempting to discuss any mechanic individually with you is a waste of time.

As stated above, there really isn't much point in attempting to discuss a system within the game with you, since you apparently can't compartmentalize. You need to be able to see, understand and assess individual systems as well as their role and effect within the overall environment, but it seems you can't. It is perfectly fine if can't. It is what it is. We can move on.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I still dont see it. You complain about something changing and going off-core, when in reality it is going towards a former core setup of the game, same deal with Drifter that also embraced an older core version of Warframe to a point. You say "actual warframe" which in reality is everything that has gone into the game over the years, so if a new release goes back towards something older it is still in reality "actual warframe". The whole game has always been about the idea of adding various different things.

I do not see Frame Fighter as 'actual warframe' simply because it is in the game. To each their own.

I've addressed other add-ons.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And if you really want what you claim i.e "well balanced endgame", 1999 is realistically the first step towards that, since the rest of the game has already seen that ship sail off into the distance and over the edge of the world. I hope 1999 will be used as a platform to allow them to create balanced endgame by not having to deal with our current power creep. Other games release seasons or expansions to help solve balance issues by more or less wiping the slate clean, DE has dont nothing like that over a course of 10 freakin years. It is high time they do so, and I really hope 1999 is doing that. Expecting a game that has 10 years worth of power progression bloating it to come up with balanced endgame without drastic changes is laughably silly. I mean it is full on clown car levels of ridiculous.

Thank you for your input.

[SneakyErvin]

20 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Still no builds I see and still trying to veer away from that. I can't take you seriously. I am not surprised that you don't see solutions for imbalances, or praise band-aid fixes.

In what world do you live where the modding between single target and AoE weapons are vastly different to a point where you need to see builds? We are talking about gun-CO, and primed firestorm more or less, where you likely end up sacrificing some heat or crit damage on the AoE gun to slot firestorm. Plus napkin builds do not account for monster density, which further increases AoE dps over single target. And you still ignore that chain-beam weapons exsist, weapons that effectively act as both AoE and single target at the same time, something we have wide access to right now with Kuva, Tenet and Incarnon, in addition to cluster options like Zarr and Bramma that deal massive damage to single targets due to their multiple hit mechanics and status stacking. Not to mention main attack Torid that melts everything in an area, including guardians even though it is effectively an AoE attack. How does your imaginary "must use single target cos more health on mob" scenario impact those?

20 hours ago, Silligoose said:

As stated above, there really isn't much point in attempting to discuss a system within the game with you, since you apparently can't compartmentalize. You need to be able to see, understand and assess individual systems as well as their role and effect within the overall environment, but it seems you can't. It is perfectly fine if can't. It is what it is. We can move on.

No system works alone though. As I said, you cannot complete a mission with just CC. So damage needs to be accounted for in the process, which in the case of CC shows just how little CC time matters when it comes to clearing efficiently. So adding something like a %-reduction to CC wont matter, since it would practically only hit those that already run low duration and do nothing on frames with natural long durations and at the top of power progression. You cant even give examples of where CC %-duration reduction would result in anything that changes the game.

20 hours ago, Silligoose said:

I do not see Frame Fighter as 'actual warframe' simply because it is in the game. To each their own.

I've addressed other add-ons.

Which it isnt, since it is its own mini-game. What I'm refering to, which should be quite clear (due to what we've already been over), is core aspects of the game i.e needed systems we regularly use. As in RJ, AW, Mech, Operator, Drifter, Frame, companions, weapons and so on. Systems that simply work together to bring us the full experience of the game. And things added that match those needs are core (or actual) parts of WF.

Kahl is a system that isnt a core-WF aspect, since it is neither a looter shooter nor does it actually involve any particular progression. And if 1999 ends up the same it wouldnt be a core-WF aspect either, since it would be void of the basics of the overarching genre the game belongs to for starters. However if it restarts progression in order to balance the game and open up for future potential it will be core-WF, since the pace of it is not unlike early WF. At that point the question would more be if it ends up as an island or not, or simply just the next step in WF progression.

I kinda wish DE makes 1999 a self sustaining "mode", where the items we get serve as sidegrades for the regular game and as upgrades and progress for 1999 itself. Preferably to the point where we could potentially focus on 1999 if we like to play a more balanced version of WF and leaving most of the old behind. Heck I wouldnt mind if 1999 required me to unlock access to frames I own in order to use them within that mode. Though all of that is likely a pipe dream and massively wishful thinking.

[Silligoose]

42 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

In what world do you live where the modding between single target and AoE weapons are vastly different to a point where you need to see builds? We are talking about gun-CO, and primed firestorm more or less, where you likely end up sacrificing some heat or crit damage on the AoE gun to slot firestorm. Plus napkin builds do not account for monster density, which further increases AoE dps over single target. And you still ignore that chain-beam weapons exsist, weapons that effectively act as both AoE and single target at the same time, something we have wide access to right now with Kuva, Tenet and Incarnon, in addition to cluster options like Zarr and Bramma that deal massive damage to single targets due to their multiple hit mechanics and status stacking. Not to mention main attack Torid that melts everything in an area, including guardians even though it is effectively an AoE attack. How does your imaginary "must use single target cos more health on mob" scenario impact those?

I'd love to tell you, but I see no builds, so it would be a wate of my time: There is little point in me looking to discuss aspects of balance to a finer degree with someone who doesn't seem to understand some of the more basic concepts and who is willing to make up excuses not grounded in reality as a counterargument. 

45 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

No system works alone though. As I said, you cannot complete a mission with just CC. So damage needs to be accounted for in the process, which in the case of CC shows just how little CC time matters when it comes to clearing efficiently. So adding something like a %-reduction to CC wont matter, since it would practically only hit those that already run low duration and do nothing on frames with natural long durations and at the top of power progression. You cant even give examples of where CC %-duration reduction would result in anything that changes the game.

You can't compartmentalize and as a result it isn't worth my time expanding on this.

Btw you forgot Mobile Defense, Excavation, Hijack, Survival and some other mission types that can be completed with reliance on cc only. Saying "No system works alone though" simply backs why discussing systems individually with you is a waste of time.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Which it isnt, since it is its own mini-game. What I'm refering to, which should be quite clear (due to what we've already been over), is core aspects of the game i.e needed systems we regularly use. As in RJ, AW, Mech, Operator, Drifter, Frame, companions, weapons and so on. Systems that simply work together to bring us the full experience of the game. And things added that match those needs are core (or actual) parts of WF.

Kahl is a system that isnt a core-WF aspect, since it is neither a looter shooter nor does it actually involve any particular progression. And if 1999 ends up the same it wouldnt be a core-WF aspect either, since it would be void of the basics of the overarching genre the game belongs to for starters. However if it restarts progression in order to balance the game and open up for future potential it will be core-WF, since the pace of it is not unlike early WF. At that point the question would more be if it ends up as an island or not, or simply just the next step in WF progression.

I kinda wish DE makes 1999 a self sustaining "mode", where the items we get serve as sidegrades for the regular game and as upgrades and progress for 1999 itself. Preferably to the point where we could potentially focus on 1999 if we like to play a more balanced version of WF and leaving most of the old behind. Heck I wouldnt mind if 1999 required me to unlock access to frames I own in order to use them within that mode. Though all of that is likely a pipe dream and massively wishful thinking.

We disagree on what core-Warframe is. That is to be expected, given your thoughts on systems and apparent lack of ability to compartmentalize.

Thank you for your input.

[(XBOX)Cram Duahcim]

As much as I'm excited for Warframe 1999:

Megan stated during the first panel that a Stalker Update is also in the works for 2024. They don't show anything involving it at all.

That's what I'm the most curious about. Also Infested Lichs are apparently in the cards which I'm also excited about.

And my prediction is that Infested lichs are coming with WF1999. Since it does have some sort of Infested enemy tied to it, I'm thinking it's coming with that Update.

[(NSW)Free_Aetharus]

In before 1999 releases, being identical to BOTH star charts in the way that matters.

The warframe. The parkour. The flashin' Fashionframe. The spinnin' to winnin'. The bullet jumping on people lazily head bumping. There's no reason why it's not core-wf in context, gameplay, and principle. Unless, of course, you're not performing at peak, have limited mobility, and probably have no nodes to choose. If it's a gimp, it's still core. If it's New War 2.0, it's worse than core, it's Thrillville.

[SneakyErvin]

19 hours ago, Silligoose said:

I'd love to tell you, but I see no builds, so it would be a wate of my time: There is little point in me looking to discuss aspects of balance to a finer degree with someone who doesn't seem to understand some of the more basic concepts and who is willing to make up excuses not grounded in reality as a counterargument. 

If you want others to post builds you should do it first yourself. Especially when it also comes as a demand from a person that has previously claimed choices in WF does not matter.

19 hours ago, Silligoose said:

Btw you forgot Mobile Defense, Excavation, Hijack, Survival and some other mission types that can be completed with reliance on cc only. Saying "No system works alone though" simply backs why discussing systems individually with you is a waste of time.

Oh yes mobile defense (some) and hijack. That clearly changes the picture and gives us a true reason to waste time on reducing CC duration... And claiming you can complete excavation without killing is hilarious! Do you have a magic trick up your sleeve to get carriers and their batteries to spawn without killing them or others? Did you mean interception perhaps? Which cant be completed without killing either. As to survival, yes you can technically complete it, but you wont get anything out of it. Why run survival if you arent there for loot in a loot based game? And some survival you cannot complete without killing.

So right now we have Rescue, Spy, non-corpus/corrupted Mobile Defense and Hijack that can be run with only realying on CC, oh and possibly void flood. And if we plan to do them as fissures, well then that pacifism goes tumbling out the window. And in the case of Hijack, chances are low that you will actually run it with a CC frames, since you likely want a frame with either a pure HP pool or massive shields so the objective moves on at a steady pace. Meaning you likely wont run the high range and long CC frames to start with.

I'm also glad you arent a devs, since in that case we'd just have a multitude of disjointed system because you'd only look at the in a vaccuum and never together.

19 hours ago, Silligoose said:

We disagree on what core-Warframe is. That is to be expected, given your thoughts on systems and apparent lack of ability to compartmentalize.

Thank you for your input.

And you cant actually explain what core-WF is. Much less how you think 1999 isnt core-WF. What part of using WF parkour, guns, melee and abilities is not core-WF? 

 

 

[(PSN)Pablogamer585]

Can someone explain to me what Core Warframe is?
I've been playing almost daily since January 2016, and 7-8 years later I don't think I understand completely what this term means.

Is it just playing with the frame + weapons, killing whatever & using abilities while moving around with the parkour? Aka, what we do practically all the time?
Because if that's the case, on a 10 years old game I believe you can do this only that many times before it gets old, therefore experimenting seems logical.
And to be fair, what was shown during Tennocon looked a lot like this.

It's like in similar fashion to the lore of the game, the story of the Sentients and the Orokin would only go that far after 10 years with us sticking around.
Yeah, they could probably make the Archons & Narmer much more relevant story wise so that TNW isn't "Tenno arrive and everyone else dies, entire 'imperium' collapses in under a day. Stragglers now hunted for fun."- which they should have done, but didn't.
4-5 factions surely could do a lot in 10 years, but one of those factions is us, and we basically don't dominate the entire system because... we haven't chosen to.

The War between the sentient and other factions came to an end rapidly, and right now I basically look down upon every single enemy faction, so newer things like the Murmur & Nekramech expansion are truly interesting, so is 1999. Otherwise, I know for a fact I'd get there and either stomp everything with 0 problems, or start seeing threads about x new thing being too hard.

So what is core warframe? The same old defence missions with different things to defend, the other common start-chart missions?

[Silligoose]

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

If you want others to post builds you should do it first yourself. Especially when it also comes as a demand from a person that has previously claimed choices in WF does not matter.

You made the claim. I'd have liked to see you present something to back your claim, so I can at least see what your perspective is built on and see how much you understand about the damage system. It has become painfully obvious your knowledge and understanding regarding various mechanics in this game is lacking.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Oh yes mobile defense (some) and hijack. That clearly changes the picture and gives us a true reason to waste time on reducing CC duration... And claiming you can complete excavation without killing is hilarious! Do you have a magic trick up your sleeve to get carriers and their batteries to spawn without killing them or others?

I simply know the game. 

I made the claim and I back it up. Stop your excuses.

[(NSW)Free_Aetharus]

6 hours ago, (PSN)Pablogamer585 said:

So what is core warframe? The same old defence missions with different things to defend, the other common start-chart missions?

It can be dressed however possible, and this question would answer itself. The heart of Warframe is the game you play as a necessity, rather than a game you play merely and only for 10% of your real progress.

 

You will ALWAYS need to do a spy, a capture, or an excavation.

But Kahl is optional and becomes irrelevant and only used for spare mods, once you get what you came for.

Duviri is also pretty much irrelevant once you farm for the incarnon adapters you need, possibly all of them, and top off your resources.

As someone who double-dipped on resource farming for Kullervo, one to subsume, it's possible to say "Circuit is Core" because the undercroft utilizes a LOT of what that term is, but it's arguable that it's not core, it's only core-adjacent that borrows gameplay elements, and then abandons gameplay elements, to make it work.

'Core' means the foundation. How the game plays and how the modes, the enemies, the objectives and the rules revolves around this feeling you get, playing them.
'Core' is that car you drive...

The car has windows[Spy], functional doors[Exterm] and the engine[Capture] sounds like a true grizzly beast. Yeah, without the core, these things simply do not work together and never will. The windows and doors need something to revolve around. A base. A feeling.

Warframe could be a truck, but it's not that deep. It's not a semi, so it's not that steep. It's casual and has your son's entire band group in the back, but it's arguable if Warframe has a destination in mind. Duviri could be that new bobblehead.

[(NSW)Greybones]

11 hours ago, (PSN)Pablogamer585 said:

Can someone explain to me what Core Warframe is?
I've been playing almost daily since January 2016, and 7-8 years later I don't think I understand completely what this term means.

Is it just playing with the frame + weapons, killing whatever & using abilities while moving around with the parkour? Aka, what we do practically all the time?
Because if that's the case, on a 10 years old game I believe you can do this only that many times before it gets old, therefore experimenting seems logical.
And to be fair, what was shown during Tennocon looked a lot like this.

It's like in similar fashion to the lore of the game, the story of the Sentients and the Orokin would only go that far after 10 years with us sticking around.
Yeah, they could probably make the Archons & Narmer much more relevant story wise so that TNW isn't "Tenno arrive and everyone else dies, entire 'imperium' collapses in under a day. Stragglers now hunted for fun."- which they should have done, but didn't.
4-5 factions surely could do a lot in 10 years, but one of those factions is us, and we basically don't dominate the entire system because... we haven't chosen to.

The War between the sentient and other factions came to an end rapidly, and right now I basically look down upon every single enemy faction, so newer things like the Murmur & Nekramech expansion are truly interesting, so is 1999. Otherwise, I know for a fact I'd get there and either stomp everything with 0 problems, or start seeing threads about x new thing being too hard.

So what is core warframe? The same old defence missions with different things to defend, the other common start-chart missions?

🤔 It doesn’t jump out as an easy answer, that’s for sure. It feels like there’s like a… conceptual core Warframe, where it’s about experimenting both for the player and the developer, trying different ways to play. And then I feel like there’s a… mechanical(?) core Warframe where most of the game sort of gravitates back to in the form of the Arsenal and what we do with it.

At least that’s what I think of when I think of like gameplay(?)-core Warframe

[(NSW)Free_Aetharus]

5 hours ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

mechanical(?) core Warframe where most of the game sort of gravitates back to in the form of the Arsenal and what we do with it.

If concept was more involved with the essential mechanics you're told about during the literal tutorial, we would never have New War, we'd have "New War, but you're allowed, if only, to use what secondary weapon, as well as any melee you managed to build, to progress. The core of your journey is aided by what you learned as well as what you earned in order to pass an equipment check."

An umodded Lato will never perform the same on Sedna as it does on Earth. This is because of that very check that separates progress and none-prog. That's what New War doesn't have and doesn't understand, if it revolved around the crucial equipment check, optional or not, that quest would be a proud example. If the check exists casually, it should exist narratively, it should exist professionally.

In fact, the best possible place to have an equipment check is during a primary story mission, or before a primary story boss. You're literally GIVEN[And are forced to use] Paracesis because it's pretty much that entire arc's "Legendary Sword" and you're the "Chosen One," but the game passes the equipment check on your behalf, so instead of being deemed worthy because you tried and succeeded, you succeed only BECAUSE you're deemed worthy for the act alone of trying.

Part of a power fantasy is also feeling like you began somewhere, eventually working up to the power and making it your own. You lose the quest five times, you discover the boss has a weakness, you build toward the weakness. Five years later, the boss feels weaker, but you simply got stronger. Core 'game' gravitates toward the core themes of the game, collectively. Failure > Farm > Success > Wall > Sledgehammer > Broken wall.

Die to your next enemy type> Craft new weapon > Build new weapon > Kill your next milestone.
You were always bullet jumping, farming, dying, advancing, and improving. Skip a beat and it stops having rhythm. That's definitive. On the other hand, the core philosophy of an RPG game is the subtext of "If you don't clash, you don't change."

So if you aren't doing the same thing on parade, you're not really advancing.

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 hour ago, (NSW)Free_Aetharus said:

If concept was more involved with the essential mechanics you're told about during the literal tutorial, we would never have New War, we'd have "New War, but you're allowed, if only, to use what secondary weapon, as well as any melee you managed to build, to progress. The core of your journey is aided by what you learned as well as what you earned in order to pass an equipment check."

An umodded Lato will never perform the same on Sedna as it does on Earth. This is because of that very check that separates progress and none-prog. That's what New War doesn't have and doesn't understand, if it revolved around the crucial equipment check, optional or not, that quest would be a proud example. If the check exists casually, it should exist narratively, it should exist professionally.

In fact, the best possible place to have an equipment check is during a primary story mission, or before a primary story boss. You're literally GIVEN[And are forced to use] Paracesis because it's pretty much that entire arc's "Legendary Sword" and you're the "Chosen One," but the game passes the equipment check on your behalf, so instead of being deemed worthy because you tried and succeeded, you succeed only BECAUSE you're deemed worthy for the act alone of trying.

Part of a power fantasy is also feeling like you began somewhere, eventually working up to the power and making it your own. You lose the quest five times, you discover the boss has a weakness, you build toward the weakness. Five years later, the boss feels weaker, but you simply got stronger. Core 'game' gravitates toward the core themes of the game, collectively. Failure > Farm > Success > Wall > Sledgehammer > Broken wall.

Die to your next enemy type> Craft new weapon > Build new weapon > Kill your next milestone.
You were always bullet jumping, farming, dying, advancing, and improving. Skip a beat and it stops having rhythm. That's definitive. On the other hand, the core philosophy of an RPG game is the subtext of "If you don't clash, you don't change."

So if you aren't doing the same thing on parade, you're not really advancing.

It’s not like we don’t have a sense of vertical progress; a newbie isn’t going to be fighting Lichs straight away. But progress is also horizontal as well as vertical and isn’t nearly as linear as some might think, and vertical power comes with a literal cost in capacity and mod slots that could be used for alternative building, and we’re not locked into highest-level content precisely because vertical power comes at cost to horizontal variety.

We’re not guaranteed to be doing the quests at the same time, instead some players could jump straight into them while others may leave them on the backburner, so the amount of options we’ll have when we do them can drastically vary, but the level of the quest and all the balance around that level of content will be set. DE could set quests at, I dunno, level 60, and that would require vertical progress of both gear earned and player knowledge but also give a chance for horizontal customisation to breath. I’m sure you know what players would do though, hence the understandable limits to the player, because the player is typically not concerned with options but with ease of completion and grind for things they don’t end up using and that means that the experience won’t get a chance to breath. Or some kind of sense of maximum power defining player capability outside of being able to make big power builds (which always struck me as odd; you don’t follow meta build guides because you want to have to fight)

Edited September 11, 2023 by (NSW)Greybones