Make The Game Harder Without Impacting Players Playing 'properly': Cover Ignoring Attacks

[NotaCobra]

 

'Cept for the Fusion Moa drones... but I think those are horribly buggy -- I can shoot them and shoot them and shoot them and never hit the stupid things and then suddenly I'll see a 2 damage after 4-5 shots and it'll explode.

 

Yeah, what the crap is with that?

 

I've unloaded entire clips of ammo into them to no avail, then they die to my sentinel...

[Xylia]

Yeah, what the crap is with that?

 

I've unloaded entire clips of ammo into them to no avail, then they die to my sentinel...

 

I have no idea. There are times I've unloaded 4-5 Bronco Clips with the crosshairs right on the stupid thing and it is hovering like 5 feet in front of me... no freaking way I'm missing it. No damage.

 

Then suddenly, 2 damage and BOOM!

[KageNoShini]

Vauban? How many newer players have Vauban, considering how freaking hard he is to obtain/build without plunking down plat?

Nyx? Same. She comes off of a somewhat later boss fight.

Ash? I forget who even drops Ash, same for Loki.

 

What about the people who are still using Excalibur or Mag? What are they supposed to do when they can't take cover long enough to fully regen their shields? You might say stuff like "use Bullet Attractor" etc... what happens when you run out of energy? Then what?

ash is uranus and loki is neptune, excal can pretty much slash dash away, or slash dash everything (I do wish it was named excelsior instead, kinda fits the excalibur thing imo) mag, I don't know, you're SoL unless you spam crush so yea, too bad for mags. Uranus and neptune are hardly challenging, even with level 10-15 gear and limited mods, ember is saturn so that isn't bad to farm either.

 

Uranus is easy, especially since by lvl 10-15~ gear I'd assume a braton replaced the mk1 and they've got dual latos, and cronus is pretty much top 3 in the OH sword category(this is me assuming minimum things, I had a U6 gorgon by then but I don't know about now)

 

The problem, from what I'm inferring from your posts, is more likely happening after someone is going to level 20+ areas/mobs and/or solo players who are trying to take on higher level content w/o decent gear. My suggestions are based more around the fact that at that level you should have some decent mods, even w/o rares(not counting the 3rd/4th powers of course). Although you are also using new players as an example, in which case I have re-run mercury/venus to help my friends, new to the game, get their bearings and learn the game (as the in-game tutorial doesn't help jack) and I don't see much of a problem with excess mobs. One of them got the founder Disciple pack and got vauban(Despite being glitchy as all hell, he's great fun he says), so it is an option.

 

Also to your elitist statement, at least no one is asking for the nervos back, they practically guaranteed death on solo grineer.

[MJ12]

At the moment, there is no evidence that cover is so drastically screwing with game balance.

 

Except... there is. Rollers, Scorpions, the stunlock cheese Grineer enemies? All intended to flush players out of cover.

 

The players who cheered on the super-buffed enemy dps in 7.7.1? All cover-shooter guys. The 'the game is too easy' complainers? Generally spend all their time taking cover.

 

And while we're on the subject of "what the developers intended" and "ninja badassery", I think everyone should stfu and watch the old Dark Sector trailer again:

 

 

 

Tell me: is Hayden Tenno somehow less badass because he ducks into the shadows? Is he failing to "actually play the game"?

 

Ah right, the old Dark Sector trailer. Note that the old Dark Sector was a stealth game like Splinter Cell wherein fighting was a complete last resort, not an action game with very light stealth elements. It's like comparing Metal Gear Solid to Metal Gear Rising. Notice the old Dark Sector trailer has Hayden Tenno running away from enemies and using subterfuge to take out their heavy units, not shooting them and using guns except in one situation.

 

Note: In Metal Gear Solid, Solid Snake takes cover all the time.

 

In Metal Gear Rising Raiden takes cover zero percent of the time.

 

Again, the old Dark Sector was a stealth game, Warframe is most emphatically not.

[MJ12]

OP believes that we should all play the game *his* way, and is advocating poisonous changes to inflict his playstyle upon the rest of the community.

 

Why this thread even got to 4 pages instead of just being laughed at and ignored is beyond me.

 

 

When the people who spend all their time with their butt planted behind a crate stop advocating poisonous changes to inflict their playstyle upon the rest of their community (poisonous changes, mind you, that I've had to live with for months), you might have some room to talk. Please remind me why 'there is no safe hiding place' and 'you might get inaccurately shot through a wall' is so 'poisonous'.

 

Are you one of the people who plants their butt behind a railing and then, while bullets laughably ping off the railing, claim the game is too easy and enemies need to deal more damage, we can just facetank everything, but can't comprehend that constant vulnerability requiring constant movement will only improve the game?

 

It makes melee stronger relative to gunplay, it emphasizes mobility, something we have tons of but have little use for, and is a far better solution to people hiding, which I'm already sure DE doesn't like given all the enemies designed to stop people hiding behind crates, than 'yet another stunlock robot'. Also, the OP gets rid of Grineer Commander switch teleport, which is annoying, for an ability which provides a similar net effect (you can't hide) with less annoyance.

[MJ12]

@op

So I finally broke down and read most of this thread. And as I suspected it's absurd. Never mind difficulty is subjective, never mind the logic of shooting through supposedly solid objects. Big reason this OP is rediculis and almost down right arrogant is me playing a game on my computer. I have fun with this game. Sometimes I use cover (more in solo play) sometimes I don't. No one, not even the development team should tell me how to play the game. You reach more people by giving them a tool box and letting them choose how they would prefer to handle the problem provided. And you do use cover, there are walls. If there was really no cover ever there would just be a blank floor with you and the mobs, have fun. What you're suggesting is like giving someone a car and demanding that they never ever turn left, or never use reverse. I'm trying hard not to go to crazy here but do you really not see the tone of your underlying suggestion? Are you going to tell me what mods I should be using? What I should be drinking as I play the game? Which toon is the best?

I'm fine with your suggestion of whatever you want to do, after all this is place for opinions. I disagree with your idea of removing cover. But where I really have a big problem is when you tell me how to play, which is in essence what you have attempted to do over the space of several posts. If the devs take out the boxes I can shoot the mobs from all the way down the hallway. If the mobs can shoot through cover and not the players it will probably kill the game because "it won't feel fair". So I'll basically play however I most enjoy it (without hacks of course) and don't tell me how I should be playing, that sir is your opinion and the rest of us are not subject to it.

A little strongly worded and sarcastic, yea maybe, but this concept that I should play a certain way is IMO just as bad. Only difference is I am admittedly tactless.

 

No, the difference is that you're creating a strawman and failing to understand something as basic as 'how the game tells you you should play and what playstyle the game mechanics encourage is entirely different and this mismatch is terrible'. Because all games tell you exactly how you're supposed to play. Try playing Gears of War or Modern Warfare as a melee beat-em-up. Or Crysis as a modern military shooter. The answer is, you can't. Games tell you exactly how you're supposed to play. A good game matches how you're supposed to play with what playstyle is best at winning the game.

 

So Warframe. How are you supposed to play? Look at the trailers. You use powers a lot, you murder everything in close range, you don't use cover very often if at all. The open beta trailer has zero cover use. What does the current system encourage? Hiding your butt behind a box and killing everything with your gun. And no, stop claiming 'hiding behind a box isn't the easiest way to beat encounters', because it is and I've tried it to make sure.

 

Also, the 'logic of shooting through supposedly solid objects'?

 

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

 

Most 'cover' in games is actually just concealment. Some enemies being able to shoot through it doesn't break any sort of logic. Especially since it's not 'unfair' because they have different weapons. Weapons that you... might be able to unlock? Possibly via research or via market BPs? Or Alerts? Hmmm? So instead of 'this is unfair' it's "oh man guns that shoot through cover or fire airburst grenades? Fricking cool! I want one."

Edited May 29, 2013 by MJ12

[Xylia]

When the people who spend all their time with their butt planted behind a crate stop advocating poisonous changes to inflict their playstyle upon the rest of their community (poisonous changes, mind you, that I've had to live with for months), you might have some room to talk. Please remind me why 'there is no safe hiding place' and 'you might get inaccurately shot through a wall' is so 'poisonous'.

 

I don't really like your suggestion either, but I hardly "plant my butt behind a crate". But....

 

Are you one of the people who plants their butt behind a railing and then, while bullets laughably ping off the railing, claim the game is too easy and enemies need to deal more damage, we can just facetank everything, but can't comprehend that constant vulnerability requiring constant movement will only improve the game?

 

I do very much hate the "This is too easy" crowd. They seem to forget that some people aren't geared as well or maybe aren't skilled as well (OMIGOD, HOW DARE SOMEONE OF LESSER SKILL PLAY!?!?!) as these "pros" who whine.

 

It makes melee stronger relative to gunplay, it emphasizes mobility, something we have tons of but have little use for, and is a far better solution to people hiding, which I'm already sure DE doesn't like given all the enemies designed to stop people hiding behind crates, than 'yet another stunlock robot'. Also, the OP gets rid of Grineer Commander switch teleport, which is annoying, for an ability which provides a similar net effect (you can't hide) with less annoyance.

 

I don't like being robbed of a choice. I don't hide behind railing often, but when I do... I do because there's just too much crap at any given time, OR when I just don't feel safe rushing a room. I like having that CHOICE. I don't like, however, being constantly railgunned which is annoying as hell.

 

I wouldn't mind things like Ospreys that have guns tho. As long as they didn't stun/stagger you. We have more than enough of that in Warframe already.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

Confusion. So much confusion.

Indeed. And in no greater quantity than in this post.

These things were introduced to balance the game, not to punish people for using cover that the developers carefully put in the game in the first place. The basic assumption here is wrong.

And how do they "balance" the game? By denying use of cover. Seriously. That they do this in a poor stunlock fashion doesn't change the fact that their behavior does only one valid thing from a gameplay standpoint, and that's get Tenno out of cover. Scorpions in particular literally yoink you out of cover, while rollers run right up to you and force you to move out of cover.

 

Grenades, and other such "cover-clearing" tools are given to AI in many games featuring cover, as a means to ensure that cover never becomes a sort of godmode, and that the player is never granted absolute certainty or safety.

 

Yeah. Now look at how grenades are used in Warframe compared to Mass Effect 3, FEAR, Gears of War, or indeed any shooter that comes to mind.

You'll notice that grenades in Warframe explode almost on contact, do fairly low damage, and are spottily employed, with no audio or visual cues that a grenade is incoming. (If players don't know a grenade is in the air, they don't know to avoid it, thus it isn't doing the job of flushing them out of cover.)

Using cover and "actually playing the game" are not mutually exclusive.

It should be clear that I'm not referring to tactical use of cover (ie hit and run strikes to recharge shields), but instead camping behind a particular piece of cover for extended periods, massacring enemies in view, then moving on.

 

If the game is "too easy", and if it can be demonstrated that players are winning fights too easily due to impenetrable cover and limited flanking AI, then the answer is not to change the very nature of the game, but to add more of what currently exists, in small, carefully-tested amounts.

Scorpions can already shoot you through cover. Railgun moas too. Grineer napalm troops can already deny you cover through AOE effects. So this wouldn't really change the nature of the game.

 

At the moment, there is no evidence that cover is so drastically screwing with game balance.

This is a good point. You know, I'mma make a topic on the wider subject of difficulty, because nobody's ever told me why exactly the game is "too easy" and while I have my own views on this, it'd be good to see why dudes keep saying it in their own words. It'll be illuminating.

[Xylia]

This is a good point. You know, I'mma make a topic on the wider subject of difficulty, because nobody's ever told me why exactly the game is "too easy" and while I have my own views on this, it'd be good to see why dudes keep saying it in their own words. It'll be illuminating.

 

All you're going to get is a bunch of trolls and Elitists boasting about how pro they are how they can take a Lv1 Excal and solo Pluto with their unranked starter weapons, and how they can solo Stalker with the same.

 

And I notice a lot of the "TOO EASY" posts are coming from...... get this.....Grand Masters.

 

You know, the people who start the game with nearly NINE THOUSAND platinum?

 

Yeeeeeah.

 

Must be nice to start the game and have access to any frame or weapon you could possibly want 'cept the unranked ones, and everything comes with a potato......

Edited May 29, 2013 by Xylia

[silentdrumr]

 

 

If the game is "too easy", and if it can be demonstrated that players are winning fights too easily due to impenetrable cover and limited flanking AI, then the answer is not to change the very nature of the game, but to add more of what currently exists, in small, carefully-tested amounts.

 

 

I agree with this far more. I rarely use cover unless I reaaally have to. Being surrounded or flanked is less frustrating and more challenging than being pulled in by a scorpion who's hook can go through physical objects. I like playing fast-paced, but you shouldn't punish someone who likes to take a slower approach to the game by adding more frustrating enemies. 

[Xylia]

I agree with this far more. I rarely use cover unless I reaaally have to. Being surrounded or flanked is less frustrating and more challenging than being pulled in by a scorpion who's hook can go through physical objects. I like playing fast-paced, but you shouldn't punish someone who likes to take a slower approach to the game by adding more frustrating enemies. 

 

^^

Well said.

 

Those peeps looking for challenge can try and solo Defense all the want.

 

The rest of us players would enjoy content that isn't ridiculously hard/frustrating and/or be allowed to use playstyles that are a little slower.

 

There's a wide range of Warframes in the game. We're supposed to pick one that suits our playstyle. Why, then, are some people trying to advocate the total removal of a few of the playstyles?

[Carcharias]

 Or Crysis as a modern military shooter.

Wow, out of all the games you could have chosen for your point of debate you chose the one I was going to use, oh irony how i love thee! Crysis is a perfect example of a game where you have many different tools to approach a given challenge. At almost every encounter there is at least three different play styles that will get you through. I'm gonna try one last time to spell this out and then I'll probably just sit back and watch.

 

There.

Is.

No.

Such.

Thing.

As.

A.

"Proper."

Way.

To.

Play.

A.

Game.

 

You play a game however you enjoy it. "look at the trailers"  And? So what? Trailers are a preview of a game, not directions. You have said "look at the trailers" a couple times and yet you try to throw around straw-man, do you know what a logical fallacy is? Do I have to spell out for you which logical fallacy "look at the trailer" is? Cause ya know, it clearly qualifies. This is not Russia where games plays you. There is no way I am "supposed" to play the game except what I find to be "fun." The concept that you would make a game and then say to the player you should play this game this way is arrogant, which is why most developers don't do that. This game has a ridiculous amount of cover in it. It the Devs didn't want it there it probably wouldn't be there, it's not like they designed these levels and just accidentally dropped cover everywhere. Even the new levels have an obscene about of cover. So please explain to me again how I'm suppose to play the game "properly" and why.

 

Hint: trailers are not command instructions. Matter of fact watching the two trailers on steam the greater percentage of the screen time isn't even game play, its cinematics, and the game play that is there is clearly edited for the cool parts. Exciting and good trailers, yes. I like em. An example of how to play? Clearly,  N.  O.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Carcharias

[Xylia]

Even the new levels have an obscene about of cover.

 

The new areas have convenient pillars that RISE OUT OF THE GROUND for both the enemies AND you.

 

Oh, and......there are no roller balls, no scorpions, no napalms, no grenades in the Void levels (at least not Tier 1).

 

If DE didn't want us to use cover....

 

Why would they make the rising pillars that react to you AND enemies?

 

 

 

Hint: trailers are not command instructions. Matter of fact watching the two trailers on steam the greater percentage of the screen time isn't even game play, its cinematics, and the game play that is there is clearly edited for the cool parts. Exciting and good trailers, yes. I like em. An example of how to play? Clearly,  N.  O.

 

That's the way every game trailer in existence is. 80% Hype, 19% Concept, 1% Gameplay.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Xylia

[MJ12]

Wow, out of all the games you could have chosen for your point of debate you chose the one I was going to use, oh irony how i love thee! Crysis is a perfect example of a game where you have many different tools to approach a given challenge. At almost every encounter there is at least three different play styles that will get you through. I'm gonna try one last time to spell this out and then I'll probably just sit back and watch.

 

Yes, so play Crysis as a generic modern military shooter on Posthuman Warrior.

 

You can't. You'll die.

 

You're forced to use suit modes and stealth to survive encounters. So no, it's a perfect example of a game where the game tells you how you should play it. The fact that it gives you multiple options does not change that the game tells you what you should be doing, even if it gives you a choice of what you should do.

 

There.

Is.

No.

Such.

Thing.

As.

A.

"Proper."

Way.

To.

Play.

A.

Game.

 

What. Okay, so Mass Effect 3 is a dress-up game and saying 'it's a bad dress-up game, it sucks' is valid. Crysis is a modern military shooter without superpowers and I'm allowed to whine how I can't beat it if I just charge in without using suit powers. Deus Ex is a shooter and I get to be angry when I can't shoot everything dead without specifically speccing for it. Alpha Protocol is a terrible game because it's got terrible shooting mechanics. No, there most definitely is a "proper" way to play a game.

 

I know people like claiming there isn't, but there in fact is. If there was no 'proper' way to play games, why are there game mechanics specifically designed to punish me if I don't play properly? If I play Warframe as a tourist and don't shoot enemies, I die and can't do more tourism. This most definitely proves that there are improper ways of playing a game according to the devs.

 

Which proves that there are, in fact, 'proper' ways of playing. I don't understand why it's so hard to accept that games are intended to emphasize behavior that the devs want to encourage, and thus, they have 'proper' ways of playing, which are rewarded with positive outcomes. It's basic operant conditioning here.

 

You play a game however you enjoy it. "look at the trailers"  And? So what? Trailers are a preview of a game, not directions. You have said "look at the trailers" a couple times and yet you try to throw around straw-man, do you know what a logical fallacy is? Do I have to spell out for you which logical fallacy "look at the trailer" is? Cause ya know, it clearly qualifies. This is not Russia where games plays you. There is no way I am "supposed" to play the game except what I find to be "fun." The concept that you would make a game and then say to the player you should play this game this way is arrogant, which is why most developers don't do that. This game has a ridiculous amount of cover in it. It the Devs didn't want it there it probably wouldn't be there, it's not like they designed these levels and just accidentally dropped cover everywhere. Even the new levels have an obscene about of cover. So please explain to me again how I'm suppose to play the game "properly" and why.

 

Ah yes, the devs added cover. Cover that the enemies use, because the enemies aren't superhuman space ninjas who block bullets. Also, you're literally claiming 'the trailer has no relevance to what game the developers want to make, it's false advertising entirely designed to sucker people into playing the game which has no relation to the trailer which sold them on the game'. "The concept that you would make a game and then say to the player you should play the game this way is arrogant, which is why most developers don't do that"?

 

Ahahaha. Ahahaha. This is so wrong.

 

Everything about a game tells you how you should play it, from the basic movement controls to animations to how you attack to the enemy design. Literally. Everything. There is absolutely no way to design a game and not have the game 'tell you how you should play it', I know, I've designed tabletop games and have plenty of experience with them, and those are far, far easier to modify than a computer game, especially a F2P computer game. So if a game which can be trivially modified, which tells you 'throw out anything you don't like', already tells you how you should play it and does so in a very strong fashion, such that people do in fact recommend these games based on whether or not they like the intended style of play, a computer game does so in an even stronger fashion.

 

So let's talk about what Warframe tells you. You have no cover animations whatsoever. Tenno do not react to walls. Enemies have cover animations, and there are tons of humanoid enemies, so they clearly can and did implement cover animations.

 

Most of the cover is put a decent distance from the entrance of the room, implying that it's there for the enemy's benefit. Furthermore, most of the cover is relatively poor cover which provides limited concealment of both you and enemies. The cover which is not is generally large and placed so that it breaks any way of keeping line of sight on enemies, implying it's supposed to conceal you, not be something you pop your gun out a little bit to shoot from.

 

Basically, the devs already don't think you should be taking excessive cover right now. The problem is that the enemies which discourage cover use in this game generally discourage everything else even more, outside of Scorchers which are legitimately cool enemies.

 

Hint: trailers are not command instructions. Matter of fact watching the two trailers on steam the greater percentage of the screen time isn't even game play, its cinematics, and the game play that is there is clearly edited for the cool parts. Exciting and good trailers, yes. I like em. An example of how to play? Clearly,  N.  O.

 

So... you don't understand that trailers are there to sell what the game is supposed to be? I.e. a fast-paced action game with a minimal emphasis on taking cover? Look at the trailers for shooters where you're supposed to take cover. If you have a game with a trailer that shows ridiculously awesome acrobatics and ninja moves then you get a slow modern military shooter? That's false advertising. I'm claiming DE has a vision and they should attempt to achieve it in a different way. You're claiming DE is actively malicious and misrepresenting the game intentionally to sucker people. Frankly, your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is overdone.

 

 

The new areas have convenient pillars that RISE OUT OF THE GROUND for both the enemies AND you.

 

Oh, and......there are no roller balls, no scorpions, no napalms, no grenades in the Void levels (at least not Tier 1).

 

If DE didn't want us to use cover....

 

Why would they make the rising pillars that react to you AND enemies?

 

Because those pillars also block your line of sight and act as obstacles to movement? Because it's a cool effect that they didn't think through? Because they consider using cover occasionally to not be a problem, but clearly don't think the game should emphasize taking cover or anything? There's a million ways 'you shouldn't hide behind cover all the time' is compatible with 'occasionally there are things which block enemy LoS'.

[A5PECT]

Maybe the game is giving mixed messages because the developers want players to be able to develop and utilize different playstyles?

 

I'd love to spend less time behind cover. But the game has to give me some tools to make it worthwhile. As it stands, enemies have near-perfect accuracy (which only gets even higher at increasing levels), half of their weapons are hitscan or AoE, evasive maneuvers don't actually evade anything (enemies will hit a sprinting, 30% Rush, rank 3 Speeded Volt just as easily as an unmodded Rhino standing in an open field)  and none of my warframes - regardless of how much defensive modding I do - can survive a reasonable length of time against high-level damage sources without the liberal abuse of defense-boosting powers.

 

Let me dodge bullets if I'm quick, let me absorb damage if I run a tank. I want to be able to do both of those things without having to resort to spamming powers or exploiting enemy AI. Don't get me wrong, I still want powers to let me do those things more easily/effecitvely, but I still want it to be possible to play these ways, if less efficiently, without relying on my powers as a crutch.

Edited May 29, 2013 by A5PECT

[MJ12]

Maybe the game is giving mixed messages because the developers want players to be able to develop and utilize different playstyles?

 

I'd love to spend less time behind cover. But the game has to give me some tools to make it worthwhile. As it stands, enemies have near-perfect accuracy (which only gets even higher at increasing levels), half of their weapons are hitscan or AoE, evasive maneuvers don't actually evade anything (enemies will hit a sprinting, 30% Rush, rank 3 Speeded Volt just as easily as an unmodded Rhino standing in an open field)  and none of my warframes - regardless of how much defensive modding I do - can survive a reasonable length of time against high-level damage sources without the liberal abuse of defense-boosting powers.

 

Let me dodge bullets if I'm quick, let me absorb damage if I run a tank. I want to be able to do both of those things without having to resort to spamming powers or exploiting enemy AI. Don't get me wrong, I still want powers to let me do those things more easily/effecitvely, but I still want it to be possible to play these ways, if less efficiently, without relying on my powers as a crutch.

 

I do, in fact, want dodging to be buffed, and blocking to be buffed as well, so they effectively replace cover as the go-to defensive maneuver.

 

I do, in fact, want it to be possible to play the game and take cover. I do not want it to be the optimal strategy or even close to it, thus enemies that punish you for it. There are enemies that punish you for everything else, why is cover the sole exception? I keep trying to explain that I have nothing against people who take cover some of the time and specifically said 'new enemies' so you could eliminate the cover-removing enemies first if you play the game like a cover shooter, rather than giving every enemy a cover-ignoring attack.

 

It does, in fact, make the game harder for the guys who take cover. Even if overall enemy damage is significantly reduced, because 'some damage' is infinity percent higher than 'no damage'. But the game's pretty easy if you do so, I don't see that as a huge problem.

Edited May 29, 2013 by MJ12

[A5PECT]

Okay, so the real issue here is that aggressive, skill-based playstyles aren't facilitated or rewarded.

 

I'm going to disagree that adding enemies that can attack the player through walls at range will solve this. In fact, given the things I listed in my previous post, it will only make the game even more frustrating, especially at higher levels. So your new enemies with x-ray bullets flush the player out of cover. Then what? Their warframe won't withstand more than a few seconds of fire, which they can't evade or mitigate to any meaningful extent without spamming powers that either grant god mode (Link) or superficially gimp enemy AI to the point of complete impotence (Smoke Bomb, Invisibility).

 

The new enemies don't fix anything that's broken. They just shove players into a broken environment.

Edited May 29, 2013 by A5PECT

[MJ12]

Okay, so the real issue here is that aggressive, skill-based playstyles aren't facilitated or rewarded.

 

I'm going to disagree that adding enemies that can attack the player through walls at range will solve this. In fact, given the things I listed in my previous post, it will only make the game even more frustrating, especially at higher levels. So your new enemies with x-ray bullets flush the player out of cover. Then what? Their warframe won't withstand more than a few seconds of fire, which they can't evade or mitigate to any meaningful extent without spamming powers that either grant god mode (Link) or superficially gimp enemy AI to the point of complete impotence (Smoke Bomb, Invisibility).

 

The new enemies don't fix anything that's broken. They just shove players into a broken environment.

 

Well, in the metagame sense, this helps because those players are dying and complaining, which means lethality is reduced to pre-Update 7.7.1 levels wherein you could survive in the open, or the moves like dodging and blocking are significantly buffed so you can survive in the open.

 

And/or Warframe abilities become more reliably used.

 

You're correct that it'd put people into a broken environment. But people need to understand how broken the current system is for anyone playing aggressively instead of rushing while overleveled or hiding behind boxes first. I'm fully aware of how broken the current system is, but until other people are similarly made aware, nothing will be done to change it, because you'll have the Cover Shooter Clique constantly demanding more enemy lethality

 

Ideally reduced enemy lethality, improved evasion and defensive maneuvers, a reliable energy regain system, and enemies capable of shooting you through walls would all be dropped in the same update. Ideally. But first you have to show people how broken the game is if you try to play it like the trailers tell you you should be playing, or else people will just constantly complain about the game being too easy with the other fixes (and DE might give up and roll them back).

[A5PECT]

Dodging and blocking need improvement, no question there.

 

Warframe powers... as I said, I personally interpret many of them as crutches. Others are gimmicks. They're somewhat entertaining crutches and gimmicks, but they become tiring quickly and then only serve to point out the various flaws in the game's design (at least for me). A few of them are executed well, and I like the ideas behind most of them. But as a whole powers need a lot of reworking. I'd like to see those revisions before making them an even more prominent gameplay element than they already are.

 

How are these changes going to go through when DE doesn't get any support for them from the community? You can't drop a slew of unpopular changes of that scale in all at once. It doesn't work from a PR point of view, and any game developer worth their weight in salt will recoil in horror at the thought. Besides, your entire idea seems to be a bit of a step back within the context of DE's work on the game thus far. That's not saying the ideas aren't bad, but Warframe existed in that state for a time, DE decided they didn't like that state, and they changed it. I'm not sure they'll be so reticent to go back to it whole cloth.

 

As for people complaining: you can't stop them.

Edited May 29, 2013 by A5PECT

[MJ12]

Dodging and blocking need improvement, no question there.

 

Warframe powers... as I said, I personally interpret many of them as crutches. Others are gimmicks. They're somewhat entertaining crutches and gimmicks, but they become tiring quickly and then only serve to point out the various flaws in the game's design (at least for me). A few of them are executed well, and I like the ideas behind most of them. But as a whole powers need a lot of reworking. I'd like to see those revisions before making them an even more prominent gameplay element than they already are.

 

How are these changes going to go through when DE doesn't get any support for them from the community? You can't drop a slew of unpopular changes of that scale in all at once. It doesn't work from a PR point of view, and any game developer worth their weight in salt will recoil in horror at the thought. Besides, your entire idea seems to be a bit of a step back within the context of DE's work on the game thus far. That's not saying the ideas aren't bad, but Warframe existed in that state for a time, DE decided they didn't like that state, and they changed it. I'm not sure they'll be so reticent to go back to it whole cloth.

 

As for people complaining: you can't stop them.

 

First off, Warframe powers shouldn't be crutches or gimmicks, they should be necessities for content. I should have a reason to want all of them slotted for every Warframe and have to think really hard to take them off for anything.  You're right that a ton of stuff in this game is broken, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. Furthermore, I'm not sure these changes would be 'a whole slew of unpopular changes all at once'. A lot of these changes seem to be popular enough in concert. Even my suggested 'give guys cover-ignoring attacks', which is the most controversial change out of the whole bunch, has 30 upvotes.

 

Thirty. These changes also synergize extremely well to create a greater whole.

 

Furthermore, what do you mean 'a step back'? The implication here is that there was some build of the game which had tons of power use emphasis, lots of emphasis on mobility, and levels with poor cover, and I'm not sure if that was ever the case (to be fair I only started during Update 5...). You seem to be mentioning the sunk cost fallacy, I guess? It's a thing, but I think this game's difficulty curve and mechanics have been fundamentally needing a rework to be more Metal Gear Rising/Vanquish/Tribes: Ascend and less Gears of Modern Warfare for the longest time and the sooner the game gets on with that by making 'taking cover a lot' the crutch instead of 'ability use and dodging/blocking' the better.

 

The game needs to emphasize things other than shooting and hiding behind crates far more, and because the game isn't exactly hard if you hide behind a crate, you can't do that by making aggressive moving gameplay easier. You really have to punish cover users to some extent. I don't like punishments for things. I prefer positive reinforcement far more than negative reinforcement, but in this case unless the difficulty is utterly trivialized there's no real choice in the matter.

[Nichizzy]

 MJ12,

 

Why do you look for changes that forces people to play your style? If you're game for close range melee, then that's your thing. Others may like to play long range camping then that's their thing! Playing differently from what was advertised is not a bad thing. In fact, I'd think you're most unimaginative if you only play games the way you've seen it being played via trailers etc.

 

Furthermore, I would hardly say that DE discourage shooting from cover. They've just introduced the Vulkar, a sniper weapon. Do you run to melee range with a Vulkar or do you do snipe from a safe distance, behind cover? So if they intended the game to be played your style then Vulkar wouldn't be introduced at all. Please don't delude yourself by saying Vulkar is intended to be used while wall running and in melee range etc. There's only so much of self-deception that can happen in a day.

 

Also take note that 2 out of 3 of your weapons you carry to battle are ranged ones. Therefore by your logic DE wants us to range 2/3 of the time. Do you adhere to your reasoning?

 

You could always argue that YOUR way is how DE wants WF to be played. But I sincerely believe that your way is just the way you think DE wants WF to be played. There are lots of ways to reason things out and you're just looking at 1 facet of it. While I do support that DE have in mind for WF to be a faster gameplay experience, I highly doubt they intend it to be achieved by punishing excessive use of cover.

 

To be fair, I support that fighting from behind cover is not a very good gaming experience. But its at no loss to you, honestly. They're the one who's losing out in terms of real fun. Either way, most people play without cover, and the speed of their gameplay will leave those who camp unable to kill much, and have to constantly catch up. Like it or not, they cant stick behind cover for long anyways.

 

Like what others have also pointed out:

 

1. Not all warframes are meant to be played aggresively. Some are just weak and needs cover rather frequently.

 

2. Cover is a nice option to have when you've surrounded. To recuperate and replan. Honestly, the AI doesn't quite let u take cover for more than 5 seconds anyway, IF you're surrounded by that many mobs. If you aren't heavily surrounded, then its simply much more efficient to kill from the open. I've NEVER EVER SEEN ANYBODY strictly play from cover to cover ONLY.

 

3. I support the grenade idea more.

 

Finally, I dont want to be punished for not playing how others think I should play. I want to play how I want to play. Just as you want to play how you want to play, although you went overboard and impose it on others.

[Kyte]

Then want you to run and gun or they want you to move from cover to cover while sniping targets, they want you to keep moving between cover.

That's the entire point! Not eliminate cover, eliminate players plunking down behind some cover and stay there until nobody's left.

 

That's why every cover-buster is meant to be slow and telegraphed, it's why he has also advocated better energy and power use, better blocking, better dodging.

 

And yes, those playing Gears of Warframe do harm the reast because it makes the game so hilariously easy DE is making everything else stupidly lethal to compensate!

Edited May 29, 2013 by Kyte

[MJ12]

 MJ12,

 

Why do you look for changes that forces people to play your style? If you're game for close range melee, then that's your thing. Others may like to play long range camping then that's their thing! Playing differently from what was advertised is not a bad thing. In fact, I'd think you're most unimaginative if you only play games the way you've seen it being played via trailers etc.

...

Finally, I dont want to be punished for not playing how others think I should play. I want to play how I want to play. Just as you want to play how you want to play, although you went overboard and impose it on others.

 

I look for changes which improve the game experience for everyone. The guys who plunk their butts behind cover indefinitely and kill everything are harming themselves by refusing to support this change, because this adds a constant level of tension to their cover use that they clearly don't have, since they keep complaining about how easy the game is. The guys who don't benefit because instead of super lethal everything we have enemies who are designed so staying out in the open for a while isn't inherently suicidal, because the game mechanics expect you to be out in the open for more than brief periods. And I'm going to repeat this again. Again, you're acting like 'people taking cover' doesn't harm the game when I have provided multiple, repeated examples of how it actually does, in the massive increases to enemy lethality and the number of 'cover-buster' enemies which easily create or created frustrating stunlocks, like Commanders, Scorpions, Rollers, and more. If you want to complain about how people are imposing their vision of how Warframe has to be, complain about the people who use cover first, because that's exactly what they did. They didn't even have any reason for it, either. Instead, they merely angrily yelled about how enemies can't kill you and everyone needs to deal more damage and lo and behold, now everyone does more damage and you have to take cover more often.

 

Furthermore, All games tell you exactly how you should play them. It's not 'unimaginative' to look at a trailer and think 'heeeeyyyy maybe the trailer might reflect the designers' vision for the game and maybe this vision is not being properly encouraged'. If I played a third person beat-em-up and the game encouraged standing far away from enemies and holding down the ranged attack button, I would be just as adamant in requesting enemies that made ranged attacks less viable (or melee more viable), because a game should have gameplay that reinforces its themes. I am asking for a game to encourage playstyles closer to what its thematics and design vision imply rather than 'hide behind crate, kill everything forever' or 'run away from enemies like a coward', with no in-between.