Feedback: Runner Stunlock needs to go. Negative Gameplay.

[Ronyn]

Stun lock is negative gameplay.

Yes it can be easily avoided in the first place and yes the infested need some love to feel properly challenging but cheap moments like stun lock are NEVER the right answer.

Negative gameplay moments (loose all player control until the enemies are done with their cycle) should just not be in the game.

period.

The way to solve the current way they can knock us down and stun lock us is to add two things

1: add a skill based, quick pop up mechanic when knocked down. Think tech-roles from fighting games, this fits right into the overall feel of the game.

2: shooting while on the ground. The way they did it Resident evil 6 is a good general example of it.

NOTE: Sargus Ruk is not the same thing because he stops us from shooting but not from moving, using powers or melee.

This forces us to change tactics but does not eliminate all tactical options compeltely.

Its a limiter not a total take away of control.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Ronyn

[kraed]

Negative gameplay really isn't a common term and the definition clearly varies from person to person. I'll use the definition you're supplying for arguments sake, but don't be so surprised when nobody has any idea what it means or misunderstands the intention behind it. It's a lot easier to argue a point if you aren't shoehorning in the same term over and over to argue a point, especially when you're trying to argue an opinion as objective fact.

You have this conception that absolutely any gameplay component that removes player control is automatically a negative experience. This is categorically not true. It is only "negative gameplay" if it is an unavoidable action that the player is forced to sit through every time. It would be the sort of situation where no matter what the player did they would always lose control of their player temporarily, whereas this is so clearly a punishment for a tactical mistake. If these guys could stun you with instahit spells at long range that the player couldn't avoid then this would totally be negative gameplay, but they can't do that. In the case of runners the stunlock is punishment for getting hit by them in the first place and/or fighting swarms of them at point blank range. Forcing the player to change their tactics to deal with each threat is not negative gameplay. A single weapon is not and should never, ever be suitable for dealing with all situations. Besides you can completely neutralise this threat by doing something as inane as jumping on a small box.

Now I can't say I'm the most experienced player of Warframe ever (I've sunk in about 20 hours or so, but I've done pretty much all the content and have maxed out most of my gear), but the Infested are clearly designed to punish and/or disable you at close range. Given how the Grineer have a lot of attacks that can instakill you, I don't really see the problem with the infested having attacks that can knock you out of the fight if you don't have a friend backing you up. The problem here isn't so much that they can stun you, but they're so weak/the player is so powerful that they are completely unable to utilise the advantage opened by stunning you.

I certainly agree that constant stunlock can a bad thing, but the stuns by themselves are not. Maybe the player could have a very, very short immunity to stun - no more than half a second, if that - after being stunned. But removing the stuns completely would just make these enemies so mind-numbingly easy/boring there would be no reason to include them in the game anymore. If the infested were strong enough to kill a player that was stunned then this would be a credible threat, and arguably good gameplay.

The suggestion of covering the screen in goop so you couldn't see would just be a much, much more annoying experience and still pose no threat at all. Other games have done this and all it means is you just stand still and spam an attack until the screen clears.

[Alacratha]

DISCLAIMER DUE TO PEOPLE MISREADING THE POST.

This is not "Runners are hard and I have problems dealing with them."

This is "Runners are negative gameplay taking away player control, making them unengaging and annoying."

__________________________________

Oh hai,

The problem is not that they are not survivable. Runners hardly do any damage, other than smear my screen with their intestines. The problem is that they are negative gameplay. Because they explode in sequences as they get through the crowd, Runners can put you in a stunlock that you have almost no way of getting out of until they all popped. Such a stun sequence can go on for easily 15 seconds, if there is a huge blob.

15 seconds that I cannot control my character, repeatedly through a level, cause negative gameplay. They take away from choice, disable my character and all I can do is sit there and hope that there is a split-second between their explosions. I highly recommend revising them.

For example, give them more damage, but take the stun away. The stun is equal to a critical hit stagger on mobs, it seems - almost no one else can inflict that state, and if, they are singular enemies - not a chain of 15 or so. Another option would be obscuring vision - cover the screen with slime.

But the negative gameplay needs to go, or it will always evoke these feelings of bleak sighs once you are in stunlock again. It's not theatening, unless you are fresh out of the gate. It doesn't kill you. It just annoys you. And that is not a good design element. ;)

Actually I agree, the Stun gets out of control at times, I've had an issue where I was stuck in constant stun ( a horde of about 20+ Runners came at me ) And I was unable to move or do anything.. it was like I was being juggled!

Now they don't do much damage, but I think you should be able to go into this sort of sequence where you become imune to stun for a short period of time AFTER you've been stun.

Or you can tap a series of keys to become un-stunned.

OR.. Just remove it.

[MEsoJD]

Infested are easy enough. The runners are fine.... Just keep your eyes open and have a weapon to stun them.

[Ronyn]

You have this conception that absolutely any gameplay component that removes player control is automatically a negative experience. This is categorically not true. It is only "negative gameplay" if it is an unavoidable action that the player is forced to sit through every time.

I certainly agree that constant stunlock can a bad thing, but the stuns by themselves are not. Maybe the player could have a very, very short immunity to stun - no more than half a second, if that - after being stunned.

If youre willing to consider ways to stop the "stun lock" you are looking to solve the real problem here.

Being knocked down and being open to attack is a deterant from lazy play and will make you change your tactics to a void it.

This is why the initial action of being stuned is ok. it serves its purpose.

This does not have to go so far as a stun lock

Stun lock meaning - Once you are hit you can be hit repeatedely, with no way of stopping the hits, until the supply of the runners is emptied.

Potentially being locked down for several seconds.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Ronyn

[The-Blacksmith]

Keep the stuns, but add either

(a) a built up stun immunity [eg, after being stunned X times in Y seconds, become immune to further stuns for Z seconds]

(b) give players a very short [0.5-1sec] stun immunity after being hit by a stun, allowing fast reactions to get out of the way

© add the ability to fire whilst on the floor, or a combat roll whilst on the floor to get out of the way, or something along those lines

Then, buff the damage of infested in general. This way, you can't be perma-stunned but ultimately in little to no danger of dying because of pitiful damage (=annoying, boring, bad), but instead if you aren't quick on your feet, letting yourself get stunned and not responding provides a very real threat of death.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Lionsbane

[MegatechBody]

^^^ I like the stun immunity idea too. Good thinking.

Hey I hate stuns as much as the next guy and you know what I'd agree. Get rid of the stun and buff their damage considerably. There's still a big risk vs reward equation in keeping them the hell away from you if they do a ton of damage without the annoying stun.

That said I never have to deal with the stun because shotguns magically make them not blow up and instead fly across your screen away from you.

Edited January 10, 2013 by MegatechBody

[TeamWorkTom]

Stun lock is negative gameplay.

Yes it can be easily avoided in the first place and yes the infested need some love to feel properly challenging but cheap moments like stun lock are NEVER the right answer.

Negative gameplay moments (loose all player control until the enemies are done with their cycle) should just not be in the game.

period.

The way to solve the current way they can knock us down and stun lock us is to add two things

1: add a skill based, quick pop up mechanic when knocked down. Think tech-roles from fighting games, this fits right into the overall feel of the game.

2: shooting while on the ground. The way they did it Resident evil 6 is a good general example of it.

NOTE: Sargus Ruk is not the same thing because he stops us from shooting but not from moving, using powers or melee.

This forces us to change tactics but does not eliminate all tactical options compeltely.

Its a limiter not a total take away of control.

I would love to see that added.

[Gestalt]

--or what Lionsbane already said--

Abilities to chain CC(crowd control; ie: taking away one's ability to do anything) has always been a problem in games with abilities and spells. Take WoW's mage chain polymorph, warlock chain fear and rogue stunlock. It's a cheap way to add "challenge" to the PvE game, and it's unfair and takes away skill in PvP; either way it creates nothing but frustration. But WoW and various other games have fixed the problem of chain cc by implementing a diminishing returns mechanic, in which if a player gets cc'ed in close succession, say, more than once within 5 seconds, the game forces each successive cc attempt to be less potent.

Take the example of a simple fear spell (in which a character runs around in a random pattern, losing total control), if a character is afflicted by fear in close succession, each subsequent fear will be half the duration of the previous. So if the full duration of a fear is 8 seconds, the 2nd fear will be 4 seconds, 3rd will be 2 seconds, and perhaps the 4th time on the affected character will gain an immunity to fear for a short duration.

This maybe slightly harder to implement for runners' stuns, since it's not strictly speaking duration-based, as it just triggers the standard staggering animation of the player character. But perhaps, the devs can make it so after the 3rd or 4th (examples) successive stun/explosion, subsequent explosions will not stun for the next say 3 seconds -- more than enough for the character to gain distance/roll away.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Gestalt

[Ronyn]

I'm open to diminishing returns on stun effects as part of the solution but my main desire to have a skill based option for situations not just a passive one.

[Nubsawce]

Ced23Ric, I have two things to say to you sir.

1. I love how mindlessly some people feel the need to call you bad, instead of reading any of your posts fully.

2. I agree with both the explosions and the bullet attractor posts. Both are just not fun, and they limit how to play unnecessarily. I personally also don't like how every elite mob (or whatever you want to call them) seems to have an unavoidable stomp (unless I snipe them or some such). Now there may be a way I haven't discovered, but even so, I feel like these kinds of mechanics really don't add anything to the game.

Perhaps, instead, if one of these guys explodes on you, it summons a few more infested to mob you, kind of like those bloaters or whatever from left 4 dead. I dunno, something that makes it harder because you got hit, but doesn't remove control from you.

[ACRONYNJA]

Currently runners are too easy to kill; they stop for a little while to trigger their explosion, which allows you to one hit kill them with a melee. I think a higher level of tension can be maintained if they run for you and explode on contact like heat-seeking zombie missiles.

Edited January 11, 2013 by ACRONYNJA

[Ced23Ric]

A single Runner, in a vacuum, has never been the focus of this thread. The issue is a pack of Runners, from various directions, especially in narrow passages. And I am also not taking the beefed-up gear that I have into account, I am thinking of new players and average gear. In those situations, a stunlock can and will happen, and it will result in moments of annoyment.

That can be changed.

Diminishing returns is an idea, temporary stun immunity another one, reducing the AoE range of the explosion would work, instead of chaining triggering them in shorter sequence, too. Replacing the stun with other effects, too.

The issue at hand is, Infected give out Stun like it's candy. They have two mobs that cannot stun: Crawler & Noxious Crawler. Every Charger can push you, every Runner sttaggers you, Leapers knock you over, Naseaous Crawler puke you into a frozen ball of disgust, Ancients have stun tentacles, and even the Golem combines Pull with similar attacks. It is fine on the bigger guys, fine on the rarer Leapers. But putting it this blatantly, with such an AoE radius, on a trash mob that spawns in large numbers makes for unpleasant gameplay.

[Mak_Gohae]

A single Runner, in a vacuum, has never been the focus of this thread. The issue is a pack of Runners, from various directions, especially in narrow passages. And I am also not taking the beefed-up gear that I have into account, I am thinking of new players and average gear. In those situations, a stunlock can and will happen, and it will result in moments of annoyment.

That can be changed.

Diminishing returns is an idea, temporary stun immunity another one, reducing the AoE range of the explosion would work, instead of chaining triggering them in shorter sequence, too. Replacing the stun with other effects, too.

The issue at hand is, Infected give out Stun like it's candy. They have two mobs that cannot stun: Crawler & Noxious Crawler. Every Charger can push you, every Runner sttaggers you, Leapers knock you over, Naseaous Crawler puke you into a frozen ball of disgust, Ancients have stun tentacles, and even the Golem combines Pull with similar attacks. It is fine on the bigger guys, fine on the rarer Leapers. But putting it this blatantly, with such an AoE radius, on a trash mob that spawns in large numbers makes for unpleasant gameplay.

You have enough tools in game once you learn what to do to deal with this. Yes, the first time i dealt with the infested was alone in an alert mission and they bum rushed me and i died but that was the first and only time. This is in no way at all some serious problem of imbalance in the game.

[Gilgas]

You still don't seem to understand the term "negative gameplay". It does not mean bad, wrong, false, overpowered, too hard or anything like that. It means that this mechanic eliminates and/or nullifies gameplay

Why would runners being able to stun you be bad? We can establish that it's 'negative gameplay' but you're arguing for that it's a bad design choice when it comes to runners. I'm not saying that they can't use some tweaking, but what's the bad thing about this? It teaches players to be careful in their environment and that there is a possibility of getting killed unless they can deal with those enemies.

On the other hand, your definition of 'negative gameplay' is wrong if we are to trust the Gamasutra page, which had this to say about negative gameplay:

"Negative game mechanics can be defined as followed:

game mechanics whose purpose is to stop the current player from continuing to play

. In some games these are defined as "gating mechanics", in which the player cannot progress without performing some task or reaching some milestone. While gating mechanics are an example of negative game mechanics, there are more examples then just gated mechanics.

Negative mechanics first appeared in the arcade and were designed to make people lose. Arcades were designed first and foremost to make constant money through the player having to insert quarters to play. The worse thing for an arcade machine was someone getting so good at it that they didn't need to continue to insert money."

I can live with using your definition, but saying that 'stuns are bad because new players might get killed' or 'stuns are bad because they take away control of your character' are no arguments. These things are meant to happen, that is the so called POINT of the mechanic in the first place. I'll repeat: This does not mean that the mechanic cannot be tweaked. There are plenty of examples in other games where control is temporarily removed from the player, such as Dark Souls, where actions are 'queued'. If you swing then you can't cancel that swing, just as in Warframe, you can't cancel stuns when you get stunned. None of these mechanics are bad as long as they are done right.

In the case of Warframe, infected behave in a certain way. If I was a new player I'd notice that a lot of them mob up on me and if I just run in there shooting, I'll get stunned. That teaches me something. "I can't deal with these enemies in this way, I'll either have to be further away from them, or try something new.". The real question here is, why do you want the stun removed?

Yes, it's frustrating, it's annoying, it might be a danger to new players, but riddle me this:

Would you like the game easier? Would you like it spoonfeeding you cheap action without having to think? Would you like it spoonfeeding other players? Maybe it's a resounding 'Yes' on those questions, if then, I have no business here.

EDIT: Something got borked when I quoted that article.

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20120903/177027/A_Look_At_Negative_Game_Mechanics.php

Edited January 11, 2013 by Gilgas

[Ced23Ric]

You have enough tools in game once you learn what to do to deal with this. [...] This is in no way at all some serious problem of imbalance in the game.

Would you like the game easier? Would you like it spoonfeeding you cheap action without having to think? Would you like it spoonfeeding other players? Maybe it's a resounding 'Yes' on those questions, if then, I have no business here.

Gentlemen.

DISCLAIMER DUE TO PEOPLE MISREADING THE POST.

This is not "Runners are hard and I have problems dealing with them."

This is "Runners are negative gameplay taking away player control, making them unengaging and annoying."

Thank you.

This is feedback towards a game mechanic that is not enjoyable. I wrote a disclaimer, explained it numerous times. Please try and understand the difference. Maybe you are used to people crying about how unfair games are, but this is not one of those posts. I am pointing out a design decision that, in my eyes, could use a fix, because it lacks enjoyment and has only two modes of existance: neutral or annoying. It's never fun to be stunlocked / chain-stunned. But that is the only thing Runners can do: die or chain-stun you.

I am about to flip my table at the blatant misunderstandings. Also, for some results of the debate, I refer to my second-to-last post. https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/2740-feedback-runner-stunlock-needs-to-go-negative-gameplay/page__st__20#entry19244

[Mak_Gohae]

Gentlemen.

Thank you.

This is feedback towards a game mechanic that is not enjoyable. I wrote a disclaimer, explained it numerous times. Please try and understand the difference. Maybe you are used to people crying about how unfair games are, but this is not one of those posts. I am pointing out a design decision that, in my eyes, could use a fix, because it lacks enjoyment and has only two modes of existance: neutral or annoying. It's never fun to be stunlocked / chain-stunned. But that is the only thing Runners can do: die or chain-stun you.

I am about to flip my table at the blatant misunderstandings. Also, for some results of the debate, I refer to my second-to-last post. https://forums.warfr...__20#entry19244

We know that you dont like stun in game..... but we are telling you that there are plently of ways to get around this fabled 15 second stun.

You can ACTUALLY not get stunned at all but apparently that doesnt matter because you just dont want the probability to be stunned to exist. The only way situations like you described actually happen are if you just stand there and do nothing. If you are actually playing the game there is no way some one will be stun locked for 15 seconds. It's just not going to happen.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Mak_Gohae

[Ced23Ric]

I cannot communicate with you in a meaningful way if you don't attempt to understand what I am trying to convey over and over again. Hence, I'll drop it at this notion. I have made my point clear multiple times, with examples, deliberately chosen words and explanations. If you cannot grasp it, then I am sorry to say that I am out of ways to express it.

[MaguroPiano]

Although "Negative Gameplay" is the correct term for such things, perhaps you should've chosen another way to phrase it to avoid a lot of these silly comments :P

[Mak_Gohae]

I cannot communicate with you in a meaningful way if you don't attempt to understand what I am trying to convey over and over again. Hence, I'll drop it at this notion. I have made my point clear multiple times, with examples, deliberately chosen words and explanations. If you cannot grasp it, then I am sorry to say that I am out of ways to express it.

I understand fine you just dont want people who disagree with you to reply it seems.

Sorry, bud, but i have been playing game for a loooooong time and an annoying mechanic in a game that gives several ways to avoid it's hardly anything that comes close to a "negative game mechanic." Something that is an actual negative game mechanic would be enemies require you to kill them in a way that will always hurt you, ergo, it's basically attrition, you gonna die. There is nothing in the way this enemy behaves where you always end up with a negative on your side every time you fight them.

[Gilgas]

Gentlemen.

Thank you.

This is feedback towards a game mechanic that is not enjoyable. I wrote a disclaimer, explained it numerous times. Please try and understand the difference. Maybe you are used to people crying about how unfair games are, but this is not one of those posts. I am pointing out a design decision that, in my eyes, could use a fix, because it lacks enjoyment and has only two modes of existance: neutral or annoying. It's never fun to be stunlocked / chain-stunned. But that is the only thing Runners can do: die or chain-stun you.

I am about to flip my table at the blatant misunderstandings. Also, for some results of the debate, I refer to my second-to-last post. https://forums.warfr...__20#entry19244

The questions I posed to you have nothing to do with if you personally can deal with them or not.

Instead of responding to my criticisms of your argument you'd rather respond to the tone of them, ignoring the substance of my post.

Do not be dishonest like this or no one in their right mind will take you seriously.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Gilgas

[Ced23Ric]

Gentlemen,

my point is explained prior, your questions have been answered prior to your posts in here. I grow weary of repeating myself, and repeatedly being misunderstood. Also, I have little to no interest left to defend my person, wherein this topic the subject is the matter to be discussed. I won't justify myself towards jabs bordering on insults of sanity if the same source dabbles intensively with polemic argumentation. Alas, I retreat from this conversation - it has become pointless due to circular discussion.

My best.

[Gilgas]

Gentlemen,

my point is explained prior, your questions have been answered prior to your posts in here. I grow weary of repeating myself, and repeatedly being misunderstood. Also, I have little to no interest left to defend my person, wherein this topic the subject is the matter to be discussed. I won't justify myself towards jabs bordering on insults of sanity if the same source dabbles intensively with polemic argumentation. Alas, I retreat from this conversation - it has become pointless due to circular discussion.

My best.

Nothing was misunderstood, I said in my post that it had nothing to do with whether or not you could deal with them.

I asked questions: Why should the stun be removed? Why is it a bad gameplay mechanic? I also illustrated contradictions as to why it would be a bad game mechanic. If the subject is the matter to be discussed, why do you avoid answering my questions and arguments? 'Jabs bordering on insult of sanity'? Do you honestly not understand that those 'jabs' are due to you not not answering the subject of discussion, and not showing that you understand that you work with flawed definitions?

You carry yourself with verbosity akin to some 1800's scholar, switch goalposts, refuse to answer and then pull a martyr fallacy; you even called this a debate. You came in here, said that this mechanic is bad, which is an opinion; and supported removing it with 'It's annoying'. Who is it annoying to? First you say new players, but didn't you overcome the runners yourself? Why would you tell the developers to remove that opportunity for new players? Again, I'm not asking if you can deal with them, I'm asking about this part: "This is "Runners are negative gameplay taking away player control, making them unengaging and annoying."

Why does removing player control for a second or two depending on how much you get stunned lead to bad gameplay? We can then level the question: Does everyone think this is bad gameplay? We can answer that with 'No'. It's subjective. Limitations are placed in games so they may be overcome. So explain to me:

Why is this a bad mechanic and why should it be removed?

It's one question.

[MegatechBody]

Why is this a bad mechanic and why should it be removed?

Because if you're not able to interact with a video game you're not playing a video game, you're watching it. It's a fundamental break from the interactivity of the medium which is instinsic to its nature. Stuns literally remove the interactivity from the video game.

Edited January 11, 2013 by MegatechBody

[CheeseThief]

I find the stun/stagger mechanics enjoyable because they allow for situations that get me killed and therefore punish my own stupidity.

I've been trapped in a small loot room by 3 Shockwave Moas, surrounded by 6 Ancients while hacking and punched into fire and shot to death by multiple shield lancers. All of those were my fault and I enjoy the fact the game punished me for doing the stupid action that got me into that situation.

Runners however...

Runners are just an inconvenience, they race far ahead of anything that can actually kill you, their path-finding means they'll always trigger one after the other and they pop when shot. Yes they die in one melee hit (usually) so going in swinging is the best and only action you can take against them, and being yellow it's easy to single them out when you know what to look for, but if they hit you all they really succeed in doing is wasting your time.

I'd fix Runners however not by removing their stun lock abilities, but by buffing the damage of Chargers and Leapers, a lot, that way Runners are actually a threat because if you get stunned by them, then the Chargers and Leapers will butcher you. No longer are Runners pointless and inconvenient, unless you get a runner only spawn, but they are the instigator of pain and you need to watch out for them and use ever so slightly more strategy.

Edited January 11, 2013 by CheeseThief