Handspring Shouldn't Be A Mod

[MJ12]

Do the frames actually have weight ratings or are you just calling those ones "heavy" because of their larger appearance?

 

The heavies have higher armor, more toughness, and slower speed. That'd be Frost, Saryn, and Rhino, all of which have low speed (0.8 for Frost and Rhino, 0.9 for Saryn) and high armor (150) paired with more shields/health (Frost and Rhino have 150 base shields, Saryn has 150 base health).

[Effusion-]

Yes, handspring should be inherent.  The unmodded recovery animation has always bugged me anyway as it isn't fitting for a super space ninja in fancy magic techno armor.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Effusion-

[BigSchmexy]

I think a better mod would be a chance to ignore knock down efects and when you max it out you have like a 25-50% chance to ignore a knockdown that would be a lot more helpful and not as much of a waste of a modslot and points IMHO

Edited May 8, 2013 by BigSchmexy

[goozilla]

I'm going to be one of the odd ones out and say its fine as a mod. If you get your &#! knocked down, you deserved it. The only issue I have with the mod is the cost.

 

This game doesn't have any other punishes, other than knockdowns, toxic, and disrupt. Remove knockdown punishment, and the only thing you need to worry about are bullets and tentacles.

[Br0k3nSaint]

+1  I think this is a great idea.  Maybe you should have to  hit the jump button right when you hit the ground to spring back up?

[Effusion-]

I'm going to be one of the odd ones out and say its fine as a mod. If you get your &#! knocked down, you deserved it. The only issue I have with the mod is the cost.

 

This game doesn't have any other punishes, other than knockdowns, toxic, and disrupt. Remove knockdown punishment, and the only thing you need to worry about are bullets and tentacles.

?

The mod doesn't remove knockdowns.  It just reduced the time it takes to stand back up from 3s to 2.5s (or something around that), and adds a better animation.  Challenge shouldn't come from cheesy gimmicks like stunlock anyway.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Effusion-

[Kattefjaes]

This game doesn't have any other punishes, other than knockdowns, toxic, and disrupt. Remove knockdown punishment, and the only thing you need to worry about are bullets and tentacles.

 

Personally, I am always a bit disturbed by both bullets and tentacles :)

[Ronyn]

Personally, I am always a bit disturbed by both bullets and tentacles :)

So you wouldnt go out with an octupus holding a shotgun?

What if I told you she had a really great personality?

[goozilla]

?

The mod doesn't remove knockdowns.  It just reduced the time it takes to stand back up from 3s to 2.5s (or something around that), and adds a better animation.  Challenge shouldn't come from cheesy gimmicks like stunlock anyway.

Stunlock != knockdown.

Heavy grineer units, such as the minigun, napalm, and explosive can only knock you down ONCE before going on a god-long cooldown before they can do it again. Shield grineers are ridiculously easily strafed. Leapers are easily seen a mile off. Ancients are.. well, Ancients.

 

If you're getting easily stunlocked so much, we're clearly not playing the same game.

Edited May 8, 2013 by goozilla

[Ronyn]

Stunlock != knockdown.

NO.

 

Knockdown is something that happens, you get up, its over. Like a stun or stagger.

 

StunLOCK means youre locked into the stun animation. Usually said in reference to being repeatedly bounced around by more than one enemy.

Like one enemy knocks you down, then before the character stands up another enemy hits you with a stuning move, then another...and you cant control your movements because their is simply no system out of this once it starts. You just have to wait until the AI stops their cycle.

That is stunLOCK.

 

This kind of thing happens rarely, but it just shouldnt be a possible outcome in the game at all. ever. period.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Ronyn

[goozilla]

NO.

 

Knockdown is something that happens, you get up, its over. Like a stun or stagger.

 

StunLOCK means youre locked into the stun animation. Usually said in reference to being repeatedly bounced around by more than one enemy.

Like one enemy knocks you down, then before the character stands up another enemy hits you with a stuning move, then another...and you cant control your movements because their is simply no system out of this once it starts. You just have to wait until the AI stops their cycle.

That is stunLOCK.

 

This kind of thing happens rarely, but it just shouldnt be a possible outcome in the game at all. ever. period.

 

Look, the moment you get up, you have like a half second to do something, besides getting your face pounded in again. Half a second is enough to use a skill to get out of that situation because you totally didn't spam all of your energy without reserve like a scrub, right? Or shoot the @&#(&*@#$# that's hitting you. Even in a group of ancients, you still have a point when you can do an action, since NOT EVERY HIT IS A KNOCKDOWN.

 

Again, we're not playing the same game. I facetank with Frost, and I still haven't run into that situation in wave 15~20 Xini, or Pluto.

[Ferghus]

Look, the moment you get up, you have like a half second to do something, besides getting your face pounded in again. Half a second is enough to use a skill to get out of that situation because you totally didn't spam all of your energy without reserve like a scrub, right? Or shoot the @(&*@#$# that's hitting you. Even in a group of ancients, you still have a point when you can do an action, since NOT EVERY HIT IS A KNOCKDOWN.

 

Again, we're not playing the same game. I facetank with Frost, and I still haven't run into that situation in wave 15~20 Xini, or Pluto.

Except I've encountered rare instances where I literally cannot get up because consecutive knockdown attacks re-triggered the knockdown effect while I was already knocked down, resulting in me flopping around several times, effectively stunlocked. They may have changed it, but I recall being greeted by a dozen or so shockwave moas on the other side of an elevator door a few weeks ago, and I was repeatedly knocked down while already knocked down. Likewise, I've had instances where I was perpetually knockdown juggled off the ledge by Jackal because someone decided to stay in his face permanently with iron skin on. These situations are extremely rare, and, ultimately, you learn how to avoid them, but they can happen. The majority of the time, however, you are correct in that you usually have time to break out of the potentially vicious cycle.

 

Edit: Also, Corpus laser doors. Remember those? They can still stunlock you, but they used to be a lot worse. Avoidable, but they can still mess you up if you have a scattered team that doesn't care enough to kill cameras.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Ferghus

[Effusion-]

Stunlock != knockdown.

Again: ?

I never said it was.  The implication is that the faster you get up the less likely it is that stunlock will occur.

Look, the moment you get up, you have like a half second to do something

Then you're not stun-locked, and so you're talking about a different situation.

[Enomilli]

People take a look at this...I had suggested this before the mod came out...maybe you all can support it so we can have immersion instead of slapping mods on everything.

 

 https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/27477-the-concept-of-ukemi/?hl=%2Bconcept+%2Bof+%2Bukemi

Edited May 9, 2013 by Ystella

[MoonicusMaximus]

Stunlock is my problem with the system. It shouldnt be in the game at all. Handspring resists it but is a mod instead of being standard.

 

And I agree with you. There are a lot of good reasons why stunlock shouldn't be a part of Warframe. However, I want to preserve the enemies' ability to just simply stun players, as I believe it is a good mechanic that accomplishes its intended purpose.

 

And for the record, loosing an exchange is part of the fun.

Getting hit by a monster in DMC and then somehow squeezing out the win at the end is fun.

The fun actually comes partly from the challenge, challenge partly comes from not having perfect encounters, that comes partly from getting hit sometimes...essentially loosing an exchange

 

And this doesn't pertain to Warframe just as much as Devil May Cry? I mean, I really don't like using this sort of comparison, because these are two vastly different games with very different focuses, but when I read this, I see exactly what I see when I play Warframe.

 

"Getting hit by a Charger/Roller/Ancient in Warframe and then somehow squeezing out the win at the end is fun.

The fun actually comes partly from the challenge, challenge partly comes from not having perfect encounters, that comes partly from getting hit sometimes... essentially losing an exchange."

 

And I agree with this line of thinking, because being stunned adds a certain tension that simple damage cannot and will never be able to provide.

 

Why do you think games like Resident evil and dead space create such fancy death animations?

To make that moment more memorable and exciting..yes, that is part of the fun.

 

This is also not a very good comparison. Resident Evil and Dead Space are survival horror/action horror, and part of that horror element translates into your enemies be able to off your player character in gruesome ways. It makes things memorable and exciting, for those types of games, because that's the intention, and I agree that seeing Sack-Head cut Leon in half with a chainsaw is rather exhilarating, and seeing a Puker dribble acid vomit down Isaac's throat is sickeningly satisfying... but how would this translate into Warframe? It's just not a good example, unless your intent is to make Warframe deaths like those we see in these horror games. In which case, it might be neat... but doesn't really pertain to stuns, stunlocks or the Handspring mod.

 

You can't boil the whole concept of loss/win down to death/ not die....that is oversimplified to the point of innacuracy.

 

I agree with you, yet again. Stuns do not boil down to a loss/win or death/live scenario. They often are accompanied with plenty of time to reverse the situation after the initial stun has faded, and the stun itself will rarely ever kill you.

 

A game actually is supposed to be fun even when you loose the moment, the battle or even the war.

Youre desire to succeed will push you to win even when loosing is fun.

 

Warframe is still fun even if you lose, although losing carries a myriad of penalties, such as lost mods, materials and credits. The core game doesn't change from being fun to not being fun the moment you die; you're just not rewarded for not succeeding, which is not a bad thing, because the desire to be rewarded will push you to succeed and win.

 

Thank you for posting more or less the same thing I did.

 

What was the Dwarf Fortress motto again?

 

Ah right. "Losing is fun." Losing should always attempt to be as fun as possible. If 'losing' involves losing control of your character for several seconds due to stun/knockdown while you slowly get your health whittled away, instead of desperately juggling recovery moves as you get overwhelmed by 50 bajillion dudes, it's not fun. Or at best it's not as fun as it could be.

 

This is actually a pretty bad comparison as well.

 

Dwarf Fortress is technically a God Game. You command the dwarves and build their mountainhomes, but ultimately, there isn't an actual goal inherent in DF other than continuing to build and waiting for something bad to happen and cause you to lose. The learning curve for Dwarf Fortress is also notoriously steep, to the point where the motto of DF became "Losing is Fun" because losing is what happened to a vast majority of new players, time and time again, and often in Dwarf Fortress the ways you lose can be singularly spectacular. I've had a fort destroyed by a massive goblin horde in a very glorious battle, I've had another fort that died from the inside when one very popular dwarf went insane and killed himself, then everyone else in the fort when into a depression spiral, and eventually EVERYONE just killed themselves.

 

Losing is fun in Dwarf Fortress because the goal essentially IS to lose. There is no other goal but to survive until your fortress dies in one random, often spectacular fashion or another. Warframe, however, has very clear goals, as per mission, and although currently does not have an endgame, will eventually have players working to something greater. So, in Warframe, the goal is to have fun AND to win. Not have fun and lose, because losing ultimately accomplishes nothing for you. As it should be, because it's not the goal of the game, and players shouldn't be given incentive to lose, but rather incentive to win.

 

Like I said... a pretty poor comparison.

[MJ12]

This is actually a pretty bad comparison as well.

 

Dwarf Fortress is technically a God Game. You command the dwarves and build their mountainhomes, but ultimately, there isn't an actual goal inherent in DF other than continuing to build and waiting for something bad to happen and cause you to lose. The learning curve for Dwarf Fortress is also notoriously steep, to the point where the motto of DF became "Losing is Fun" because losing is what happened to a vast majority of new players, time and time again, and often in Dwarf Fortress the ways you lose can be singularly spectacular. I've had a fort destroyed by a massive goblin horde in a very glorious battle, I've had another fort that died from the inside when one very popular dwarf went insane and killed himself, then everyone else in the fort when into a depression spiral, and eventually EVERYONE just killed themselves.

 

Your goal in Warframe is to farm for things. So remind me how this makes stunlock legitimate? You're right that Dwarf Fortress is a 'god game', but it works because losing in it is fun. If it wasn't fun, if the game wasn't at its most interesting when things are going wrong and hilariously so, nobody would play it. Dwarf Fortress, by all means, is actually objectively not a well-done game. There are huge imbalances. There are a lot of hidden variables you have to look up. The difficulty curve is terrible. The game is heavily luck-based. Its interface is complete &#!. But losing in it is fun and you're never disempowered (you can always give orders, it's just that people might not carry them out...) so it sort of works.

 

 

Losing is fun in Dwarf Fortress because the goal essentially IS to lose. There is no other goal but to survive until your fortress dies in one random, often spectacular fashion or another. Warframe, however, has very clear goals, as per mission, and although currently does not have an endgame, will eventually have players working to something greater. So, in Warframe, the goal is to have fun AND to win. Not have fun and lose, because losing ultimately accomplishes nothing for you. As it should be, because it's not the goal of the game, and players shouldn't be given incentive to lose, but rather incentive to win.

 

Like I said... a pretty poor comparison.

 

So what you're saying is because the goal is not to lose, you shouldn't have fun if you're losing. That's awful. It's the "you have to earn your fun" argument, which I only always hear because those players never conceive of the possibility that they might be the guy getting shafted by the Tomb of Horrors, generally because those players are hyper-grognardy gamers who only play one game and refuse to try anything else (because they fear their own philosophy). Like I said, pen and paper RPGs have realized for quite a while that "you have to earn your fun" is $&*&*#(%&. Mainstream gaming has realized this. You haven't. Probably because you will never be hurt by it. Because most game designers will never listen to someone going "you know what you should do? Reduce the amount of fun in the game."

 

This is especially hilarious because you said you wanted players to challenge themselves more and improve as players. How the f**k are they going to do that when you discourage them from trying anything that might cause them to lose, because losing is completely unfun while winning is the only fun thing? You cannot make a game that encourages player development without making losing fun, because if you make losing unfun, a player will always seek out the least risky way of 'winning' the game, no matter how terrible, illegitimate, or exploitative it is. No matter how badly it prevents them from improving in skill.

 

It'd be like if you didn't get anything from losing matches in CoD: MW2. That'd mean everyone would use akimbo 1887 cheese and Javelin glitching because they're afraid of losing. The fact that your insistence that losing should "rightfully" be unfun is exactly what keeps players angrily yelling on these forums instead of 'getting better' (because losing is unfun, so they don't want to put themselves in losing situations) and yet you have the temerity to complain that people are complaining instead of getting better at the game by putting themselves in risky situations and 'challenging themselves' (which means risking losing) is incredible.

 

You reap what you sow.

Edited May 9, 2013 by MJ12

[RealityMachina]

Stunlock != knockdown.

Heavy grineer units, such as the minigun, napalm, and explosive can only knock you down ONCE before going on a god-long cooldown before they can do it again. Shield grineers are ridiculously easily strafed. Leapers are easily seen a mile off. Ancients are.. well, Ancients.

 

If you're getting easily stunlocked so much, we're clearly not playing the same game.

I noticed you left rollers out of that.

 

Is there a good reason why or did you just not wanted to ruin your example by trying to figure out how to incoporate the most flagrant example people will use when they refer to enemies that can stunlock you?

Edited May 9, 2013 by RealityMachina

[darrenalilim]

I noticed you left rollers out of that.

 

Is there a good reason why or did you just not wanted to ruin your example by trying to figure out how to incoporate the most flagrant example people will use when they refer to enemies that can stunlock you?

Shockwave MOA packs anyone? Or am I the only one who gets stunlocked by those?

[MoonicusMaximus]

Your goal in Warframe is to farm for things. So remind me how this makes stunlock legitimate? You're right that Dwarf Fortress is a 'god game', but it works because losing in it is fun. If it wasn't fun, if the game wasn't at its most interesting when things are going wrong and hilariously so, nobody would play it. Dwarf Fortress, by all means, is actually objectively not a well-done game. There are huge imbalances. There are a lot of hidden variables you have to look up. The difficulty curve is terrible. The game is heavily luck-based. Its interface is complete &#!. But losing in it is fun and you're never disempowered (you can always give orders, it's just that people might not carry them out...) so it sort of works.

 

It is a completely different style of game. You cannot compare the two.

 

It's funny that you are trying to compare them, though, because for all intents and purposes Dwarf Fortress's very goal of losing and the other aspects of it are reasons why it actually isn't a popular game, just well-spoken of by the few who actually can play it. You yourself have gone on to say that Warframe should at the very least attempt to cater to a wider audience. Trying to be more like Dwarf Fortress isn't going to accomplish this.

 

So what you're saying is because the goal is not to lose, you shouldn't have fun if you're losing. That's awful.

 

Never said that. Perhaps I didn't explain it properly, or you misunderstood.

 

It's the "you have to earn your fun" argument, which I only always hear because those players never conceive of the possibility that they might be the guy getting shafted by the Tomb of Horrors, generally because those players are hyper-grognardy gamers who only play one game and refuse to try anything else (because they fear their own philosophy). Like I said, pen and paper RPGs have realized for quite a while that "you have to earn your fun" is $&*&*#(%&. Mainstream gaming has realized this. You haven't. Probably because you will never be hurt by it. Because most game designers will never listen to someone going "you know what you should do? Reduce the amount of fun in the game."

 

This is especially hilarious because you said you wanted players to challenge themselves more and improve as players. How the f**k are they going to do that when you discourage them from trying anything that might cause them to lose, because losing is completely unfun while winning is the only fun thing? You cannot make a game that encourages player development without making losing fun, because if you make losing unfun, a player will always seek out the least risky way of 'winning' the game, no matter how terrible, illegitimate, or exploitative it is. No matter how badly it prevents them from improving in skill.

 

It'd be like if you didn't get anything from losing matches in CoD: MW2. That'd mean everyone would use akimbo 1887 cheese and Javelin glitching because they're afraid of losing. The fact that your insistence that losing should "rightfully" be unfun is exactly what keeps players angrily yelling on these forums instead of 'getting better' (because losing is unfun, so they don't want to put themselves in losing situations) and yet you have the temerity to complain that people are complaining instead of getting better at the game by putting themselves in risky situations and 'challenging themselves' (which means risking losing) is incredible.

 

You reap what you sow.

 

What? You're going off on so many wild tangents. strawman arguments and blatant assumptions that I don't even know what you're trying to argue about anymore.

 

Losing, as in failing the mission, in a game like Warframe isn't supposed to be more fun or as fun as winning, because the goal of the game is to win. Playing the actual game is where a majority of the actual fun is derived from; the gameplay. And if a large part of the gameplay of Warframe is to beat the mission, normally you intend to win, rather than lose and fail the mission, because that's what the developers intended for you to accomplish. If you enjoy playing the actual game, then you overlook the possibility of losing, as in failing the mission, and the consequences of losing, as in failing the mission, because you can continue playing the game you initially enjoyed, and eventually win, if you put in the effort.

 

You can argue until you're blue about how losing isn't fun, but I don't see a real reason why it should be FORCED to be fun, when losing is not a part of the main enjoyment of the game, which is gameplay. Losing, as in failing the mission, in this game, Warframe, is a consequence and an incentive to become better, so that you win the mission.

 

Being stunned is a unique consequence, but it is not one that automatically makes you fail the mission, and it is not one that completely overshadows the enjoyment of the game itself. Being stunLOCKED can potentially be, but I don't like stunlock, and I hope DE does something about it in the future.

Edited May 9, 2013 by MoonicusMaximus

[Ronyn]

Look, the moment you get up, you have like a half second to do something, besides getting your face pounded in again. Half a second is enough to use a skill to get out of that situation because you totally didn't spam all of your energy without reserve like a scrub, right? Or shoot the @(&*@#$# that's hitting you. Even in a group of ancients, you still have a point when you can do an action, since NOT EVERY HIT IS A KNOCKDOWN.

 

Again, we're not playing the same game. I facetank with Frost, and I still haven't run into that situation in wave 15~20 Xini, or Pluto.

I'm not interested in debating this point. I don't care if its happened to you personally or not

Getting hit and stuck in a loop of stun that offers literally no get up in between hits can and does happen.

Its very rare, but it exists. note I said rare...because it requires a very specific set up of AI doing a speciic set of moves in succession. 

I and many, many other long time players like me with minimums of 100 to 200 plus hours in the game know it happens. 

If you havent experianced thats cool. I'm sure youre not alone in that.

 

First time it happened to me I said "whoah, stunlock isnt good. they need to fix that" and went on enjoying the game.

Since then Ive seen it happen maybe twice.

So do not mistake this for anything other than a simple critique of one little thing.

Or confuse this with some kind of statement of the game being hard. The game in general is fine.

Stunlock is bad, even if its rare, the system should simply not allow it.

 

Heck, something to consider. Warframe is still in beta right? So there is a certain amount of bugs that still need to be ironed out.

Most of the bugs Ive read about on the forums have never happend to me personally but I don't tell people they are wrong.

I just feel lucky Ive been spared the annoyance.

 

How about another way to look at this..

So here is the deal, if stunlock is in the game, it hasnt been a problem for you so why would you care if they gave us a techrole anyway?

If its not in the game, if all of us folks are just making ut up, how would a tech role hurt the game?

And I agree with you. There are a lot of good reasons why stunlock shouldn't be a part of Warframe. However, I want to preserve the enemies' ability to just simply stun players, as I believe it is a good mechanic that accomplishes its intended purpose.

Then we agree. I never said that stuns should be taken out so we have no issue.

 

As for all of the comparisons, how accurate they are isnt really important, they express the same core ideal that fun must persist regardless of success or failure. You'll see that is true across all genre lines.

 

There is no game I think of like Warframe that has stun locks in it. if you view look at shooters its extremely rare for any long term stunning to be a part of a shooter.If you look at sword swinging action games like devil may cry or ninja gaiden, they have stuns and knockdowns but also usually have tech roles or fast recovery.

 

One of the things about action games is they want to keep the action in the control of the player. Its to keep the player engaged regardless of misteps. Thats all I'm asking for.

 

In all cases getting hit should not result in loosing control for an extened period. Expect to get hit on accasion or there is a lack of challenge. But loosing player control is anti-fun. Success or failure at any single action should not change the fact that you should be engaged in the action and having some amount of fun. When you mess up on a dodge that is a loss, yet shouldnt ruin the fun of the game.You should be actively playing until you are dead. simple as that. That is the core point I was making.

 

So here is my problem with the implementation of the handspring mod.

We agree that Warframe isnt helped by stunlock.

An obvious way to stop it from being possible is to increase our get up speed and/orgive us the ability to quickly recover.

Many members of the community had been asking for this, DE said they were going to do something about the slow recovery times...

and then we get the Handspring mod. That is the closest thing to an answer we have seen so far and its not quite the right answer.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Ronyn

[RealityMachina]

Shockwave MOA packs anyone? Or am I the only one who gets stunlocked by those?

Forgot about them, thanks for reminding me about them.

 

Honestly it seems like Warframe can take a page from MMOs even like Champions Online, at least there not only do the enemies that can do knockdowns "rationed" so one doesn't get overwhelmed with them (along with knockdowns not lasting that long to boot barring you facing a boss or something), they look like they can knock down your superhero, and at least for the mooks, you have the ability to block it if you have good timing. (Which is another problem with things like rollers and shockwave MOA packs, even if we did have the ability to block their knockdowns, timing them would be hell.)

 

 

[MJ12]

It is a completely different style of game. You cannot compare the two.

 

It's funny that you are trying to compare them, though, because for all intents and purposes Dwarf Fortress's very goal of losing and the other aspects of it are reasons why it actually isn't a popular game, just well-spoken of by the few who actually can play it. You yourself have gone on to say that Warframe should at the very least attempt to cater to a wider audience. Trying to be more like Dwarf Fortress isn't going to accomplish this.

 

No, it's not a popular game because of the problems I stated. However the philosophy of losing being fun is extremely popular. Games have been slowly giving reduced death penalties for a while now. Checkpoints, autosaves, hell some games outright don't penalize you for dying. Or at most give you a slap on the wrist.

 

That's because it means if you lose, you lose very little and can try to figure out that puzzle right from the start.

 

Never said that. Because it's wrong.

 

Don't play dumb. You brought up the idea that you're supposed to win in Warframe and not lose, specifically when I was saying that Warframe should make losing fun, which means, as I have repeated in multiple threads, no losing to multiple staggers, no 'cheap' enemies, player empowerment even when losing, and as little fake difficulty as possible.

 

What? You're going off on so many wild tangents. strawman arguments and blatant assumptions that I don't even know what you're trying to argue about anymore.

 

Losing, as in failing the mission, in a game like Warframe isn't supposed to be more fun or as fun as winning, because the goal of the game is to win. Playing the actual game is where a majority of the actual fun is derived from; the gameplay. And if a large part of the gameplay of Warframe is to beat the mission, normally you intend to win, rather than lose and fail the mission, because that's what the developers intended for you to accomplish. If you enjoy playing the actual game, then you overlook the possibility of losing, as in failing the mission, and the consequences of losing, as in failing the mission, because you can continue playing the game you initially enjoyed, and eventually win, if you put in the effort.

 

That's funny because my argument has stayed constant and the only reason you think there's tangents is that you can't seem to see how they fit together. My argument has consistently been "the difficulty in the game from things like nervos/rollers/ancients is bad because it's unfun difficulty that is extremely bad at providing actual tension because you will either be face-rolling things or getting wrecked, there is no middle ground." It's like EYE Divine Cybermancy's interesting damage system where you can walk through 50 elite cyborgs shooting bullets at you and then get critical hit headshot by a single gangbanger with a SMG and die instantly.

 

Here's a question. How have you deluded yourself into thinking that losing isn't part of the intended gameplay? If losing wasn't intended maybe you wouldn't be able to lose. Clearly, losing some of the time is intended, because there's a Mission Failed screen and there are consequences for failure. In fact, given that Revives can cost money those consequences can sometimes be real cash if you need those revives to, say, play another mission that's hard for you and beat it. Losing is an intended part of the gameplay. It's obviously rare but so are bosses. Does that mean bosses shouldn't be balanced? Does that mean bosses shouldn't be fun? Just because something is rare does not mean it doesn't need to be tweaked to be fun. Given that if someone is losing they're already not going to be terribly sold on the game simply because of the fact that people want to win, saying "it's okay if losing isn't very fun" is awful.

 

You can argue until you're blue about how losing isn't fun, but I don't see a real reason why it should be FORCED to be fun, when losing is not a part of the main enjoyment of the game, which is gameplay. Losing, as in failing the mission, in this game, Warframe, is a consequence and an incentive to become better, so that you win the mission.

 

You don't see a real reason why gameplay should be fun? Because losing is part of the gameplay. It's a 'consequence' but all consequences are gameplay. A lot of old-school adventure games could easily be rendered unwinnable if you took the wrong actions and you wouldn't know until hours later. That's also a "consequence" and an "incentive to become better, so that you win the game". Somehow, your boilerplate defense of bad game mechanics falls apart when you apply it then, doesn't it? That's because it was never a good defense to begin with. Nothing in a game should be unfun. If you can't think of a way of making it fun, at least make it as un-annoying as possible. This is a fairly basic game design philosophy. Everything, from character generation to post-mission loot to inventory management, should be as fun as possible. If it can't be made fun make it as un-frustrating as possible.

 

Being stunned is a unique consequence, but it is not one that automatically makes you fail the mission, and it is not one that completely overshadows the enjoyment of the game itself. Being stunLOCKED can potentially be, but I don't like stunlock, and I hope DE does something about it in the future.

 

Says you. People hate stuns and knockdowns for a reason. It's a consequence that almost all modern games use extremely sparingly specifically because of how frustrating loss of agency is in any game. Now, the thing is, yes, they're a valid "consequence", but most games use them extremely sparingly because as soon as they start showing up in huge numbers people very quickly stop thinking of them as valid. And more importantly, the novelty wears off. The Ancient Disruptor's HUD disruption would be less interesting and far more frustrating if every enemy did it, just as a intra-game example.

[MoonicusMaximus]

No, it's not a popular game because of the problems I stated. However the philosophy of losing being fun is extremely popular. Games have been slowly giving reduced death penalties for a while now. Checkpoints, autosaves, hell some games outright don't penalize you for dying. Or at most give you a slap on the wrist.

That's because it means if you lose, you lose very little and can try to figure out that puzzle right from the start.

Then why are games like Dark Souls so popular? It penalizes you far worse than Warframe does, yet people love it.

Games have been slowly giving reduced death penalties for a while now, and while it makes games more appealing to casual masses, it also detracts from any sense of accomplishment one would have from beating a game or a portion of that game. I feel very accomplished when I defeat a Dark Souls boss, like soloing Ornstein and Smough, but in comparison, I do not have nearly the same feeling of accomplishment when I beat a boss in a game like, say, God of War, where even if I die, I just return to a checkpoint 5 seconds prior to when I died.

Some people enjoy challenge and will stomach frustrations to get the sense of accomplishment inherent in overcoming challenges. Games that coddle you and hold your hand may make you feel like your winning, but really you accomplish very little and ends up feeling empty because these games are very seldom actually difficult in a meaningful way.

That's funny because my argument has stayed constant and the only reason you think there's tangents is that you can't seem to see how they fit together. My argument has consistently been "the difficulty in the game from things like nervos/rollers/ancients is bad because it's unfun difficulty that is extremely bad at providing actual tension because you will either be face-rolling things or getting wrecked, there is no middle ground." It's like EYE Divine Cybermancy's interesting damage system where you can walk through 50 elite cyborgs shooting bullets at you and then get critical hit headshot by a single gangbanger with a SMG and die instantly.

Your definition of what stuns provide for the game is far too black-and-white. Ancients don't just suddenly appear, hit you once and cause you to automatically fail the mission. Getting hit by a Moa shockwave doesn't mean you will automatically die. You are given every opportunity to avoid such situations, and even should you fail to do so, the penalties do not automatically cause you to lose the game; at most, you will stumble, fall down, then get right back up and can continue.

All of your points would be great if Warframe was a single player game, but it is not. You need to consider that this is a multiplayer game. You are meant to have a team, your team is meant to help you, and you are meant to help your team. Enemies in the game are built around the idea that you are traveling with a team, not that you are running alone. A Shockwave Moa may knock you down, but your teammate would kill it before it would have the chance to do it again; that's the standard situation. The fact that you can get your &#! handed to you by 20 Chargers with Rollers coming out of their ears when playing solo is irrelevant, because the game isn't built and balanced to be a solo experience.

Yes, some enemies have the ability to take away player agency. But you are meant to work as a team, and as a team, enemies NEED to be able to present a positive threat to you as an individual and to your team as a whole. Simple damage alone won't accomplish this, because it would require enemy damage to be outrageous enough to down you in seconds to actually be threatening, leaving even less room for error. Enemies need to be able to deliver consequences to players that impart difficulty to them and to the team as a whole without outright killing them instantly. I would much rather be stunned for a second and regain my movement than be downed in a second and forced to wait for a teammate to pick me up.

Says you. People hate stuns and knockdowns for a reason. It's a consequence that almost all modern games use extremely sparingly specifically because of how frustrating loss of agency is in any game. Now, the thing is, yes, they're a valid "consequence", but most games use them extremely sparingly because as soon as they start showing up in huge numbers people very quickly stop thinking of them as valid. And more importantly, the novelty wears off. The Ancient Disruptor's HUD disruption would be less interesting and far more frustrating if every enemy did it, just as a intra-game example.

People hate stuns and knockdowns because they are meant to. You are meant to avoid them, by changing the way you play around units that stun, adding variety to the gameplay. If they were not so bothersome, people would not avoid them, and gameplay variety would diminish. If Shockwave Moa did not have the ability to stun me, I would treat them just like regular moa, meaning instead of two varieties of gameplay that these two units represent, I only have one. Even if the Shockwave Moa was made to just shoot faster or more damageing shots, my gameplay against them would not change; I would not have to watch their movements for signs of an impending shockwave, I would not have to gauge or change my distance from them. They wouldn't disrupt my aim or my movement, meaning I would just treat them like regular moa, which are effortless enemies that impart next to no tangible dangers unless I stand in front of them and allow them to be.

If Rollers didn't stagger me for barely a second, why would I need to worry about them? They don't disrupt my movement, meaning I can just run through them without worry. They don't disrupt my aim, so I can just continue shooting unimpeded. If they did a lot of damage, people would just scream that it was unfair that something that fast shouldn't do that much damage. If Rollers were removed entirely, that's just another gameplay variety that's been removed for no real reason other than people disliking it, reducing Grineer gameplay to a Call of Duty simulator with ugly grunting men instead of angry Russians. A lot of people actually like Rollers, or rather they love to hate Rollers. I see "Please DE Make A Giant Roller Boss!" thread nearly every week. I don't see how their opinions are suddenly not as valid as yours. Are they not actually having fun and are faking having fun?

If Chargers and Ancients didn't stun me in their close-range attacks, why should I worry about them getting so close? They won't disrupt my movement; I can simply sit through their damage until it's reached a certain point, then I can just move away without worry. The won't disrupt my aim, so I can just continue to shoot them at my feet without worry. If their stuns were replaced with more damage, the amount of damage they would need to deliver in order to be a threat would be too much of a punishment to allow them to hit you at all, even once, rather than a hindrance of a stun followed by regaining mobility, during the length of which a handful of units might claw at you. I would have no reason to have to choose between targeting Chargers over Ancients for vice versa, because they both do the same thing. I would normally have to worry about the effects of a Disruptor hit... but considering my mobility as a Tenno means I never have to stop moving and will never be forced to stop moving, Ancients actually are even less threatening than other Infested units. Strategy for fighting Infested units would boil down to "just melee everything" because there is little inherent danger, even if they do hit you.

I understand your reasons for disliking stuns and wanting them removed, but without a valid way of removing the Tenno's impressive ability to outrun every single unit in the game, and without a valid way of stopping Tenno from delivering damage while being attacked, the difficulty would spike so sharply downwards that it would not be worth it. A lot of players are already complaining that the game is too easy, while apparently very few seem to think it's too difficult. Making it easier doesn't seem to be the best alternative, and removing stuns completely would drastically reduce the difficulty that these challenge-starved players already deem less than acceptable, and until/unless new ways of difficulty are introduced that maintain the balances already instated in the game, I won't condone ridding the game of stuns completely.

I am becoming increasingly more aware of alternatives, though.

Edited May 9, 2013 by MoonicusMaximus

[Reaver_X]

yes, this honestly should NOT be mod. To make it simple, u should be able to tap the Spacebar and recover either in mid air by going into a backflip, or if it knocks you to the ground, either a handspring or a backwards roll. Its really quite simple.

[I00thlurker]

Then why are games like Dark Souls so popular? It penalizes you far worse than Warframe does, yet people love it.

 

Just a question, but do you actually understand why Dark Souls is difficult?

 

Becuase it's pretty clear to me that you have no clue.