Let's Recap What Has De Taken Out Due To "optimization"

[Aoden]

You make a good argument, Attley, I'm mostly just a bit salty still over the Kohm's alterations. I miss my confetti cannon quite a bit. Though it does say a bit about DE's methods.

 

Its good that they listen to said minority, but the way they go about doing things leaves a bad taste in my mouth from time to time. Warframe is still very much a fun game despite the occasional derp.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Aoden

[GreyEnneract]

The clone changes really pissed me jimmies.

Holograms are so lazy and ugly.

[NavyBluePanda]

You make a good argument, Attley, I'm mostly just a bit salty still over the Kohm's alterations. I miss my confetti cannon quite a bit. Though it does say a bit about DE's methods.

 

Its good that they listen to said minority, but the way they go about doing things leaves a bad taste in my mouth from time to time. Warframe is still very much a fun game despite the occasional derp.

Poor Steve, not being able to quote. =P

 

The alteration, although a tad disappointing, was really the quickest and easiest way to solve the issues that were happening with the Kohm, which has been the case with some other fixes too.

[Airyllish]

Rather than be an absolute arse in your wording towards everybody who has a lower-end computer, why don't you try a little bit of re-wording. Because it will go a very long way and instead of it looking like you made a thread to piss on the parade of everybody else, it will look like you actually have a valid suggestion that can be talked about.

 

For example, the suggestion is: I would like to propose that DE look into adding additional graphics options for the PC version of Warframe, to bring it back in line with the graphics it used to run at.

 

Which sounds so much better than "Oh my god all of these lower-end pc users with craptops ruining my gaming experience how dare they and all of these filthy console users how dare they all of them are waste of space rada rada rada"

 

Because the thing is, making a game more friendly to lower spec computers (and to consoles if ported) helps bring in new players and promote community growth. Meanwhile, games like ARK that required ridiculous beast machines to run without 20 minute loading screens and an FPS equivalent to the speed of a dying beached whale had dev teams that initially didn't care to optimise and only wanted to release content - which was fantastic for the percentage of people who could play the game but for everybody else was essentially the biggest middle finger that told them to go shaft themselves and come back when they could blow extortionate amounts of cash on a monster rig.

 

Treating players with lower spec rigs like they don't matter is a surefire way to make sure they don't ever play your game - and they advise everybody else to avoid it on the basis that the company is a big pile of $&*^s who doesn't care. I don't see anything wrong with DE lowering the requirements for the game. 

 

There's also nothing wrong with asking if they can re-implement the old graphics for those with better rigs, but the trick is to ask nicely. Did your mother never teach you to say please?

[(XBOX)Solargeo]

Rather than be an absolute arse in your wording towards everybody who has a lower-end computer, why don't you try a little bit of re-wording. Because it will go a very long way and instead of it looking like you made a thread to piss on the parade of everybody else, it will look like you actually have a valid suggestion that can be talked about.

 

For example, the suggestion is: I would like to propose that DE look into adding additional graphics options for the PC version of Warframe, to bring it back in line with the graphics it used to run at.

 

Which sounds so much better than "Oh my god all of these lower-end pc users with craptops ruining my gaming experience how dare they and all of these filthy console users how dare they all of them are waste of space rada rada rada"

 

Because the thing is, making a game more friendly to lower spec computers (and to consoles if ported) helps bring in new players and promote community growth. Meanwhile, games like ARK that required ridiculous beast machines to run without 20 minute loading screens and an FPS equivalent to the speed of a dying beached whale had dev teams that initially didn't care to optimise and only wanted to release content - which was fantastic for the percentage of people who could play the game but for everybody else was essentially the biggest middle finger that told them to go shaft themselves and come back when they could blow extortionate amounts of cash on a monster rig.

 

Treating players with lower spec rigs like they don't matter is a surefire way to make sure they don't ever play your game - and they advise everybody else to avoid it on the basis that the company is a big pile of $&*^s who doesn't care. I don't see anything wrong with DE lowering the requirements for the game. 

 

There's also nothing wrong with asking if they can re-implement the old graphics for those with better rigs, but the trick is to ask nicely. Did your mother never teach you to say please?

I dare not play on PC because of my laggy net kills me sort of on Xbox.

[NEONOVUS]

Rather than be an absolute arse in your wording towards everybody who has a lower-end computer, why don't you try a little bit of re-wording. Because it will go a very long way and instead of it looking like you made a thread to piss on the parade of everybody else, it will look like you actually have a valid suggestion that can be talked about.

 

For example, the suggestion is: I would like to propose that DE look into adding additional graphics options for the PC version of Warframe, to bring it back in line with the graphics it used to run at.

 

Which sounds so much better than "Oh my god all of these lower-end pc users with craptops ruining my gaming experience how dare they and all of these filthy console users how dare they all of them are waste of space rada rada rada"

 

Because the thing is, making a game more friendly to lower spec computers (and to consoles if ported) helps bring in new players and promote community growth. Meanwhile, games like ARK that required ridiculous beast machines to run without 20 minute loading screens and an FPS equivalent to the speed of a dying beached whale had dev teams that initially didn't care to optimise and only wanted to release content - which was fantastic for the percentage of people who could play the game but for everybody else was essentially the biggest middle finger that told them to go shaft themselves and come back when they could blow extortionate amounts of cash on a monster rig.

 

Treating players with lower spec rigs like they don't matter is a surefire way to make sure they don't ever play your game - and they advise everybody else to avoid it on the basis that the company is a big pile of $&*^s who doesn't care. I don't see anything wrong with DE lowering the requirements for the game. 

 

There's also nothing wrong with asking if they can re-implement the old graphics for those with better rigs, but the trick is to ask nicely. Did your mother never teach you to say please?

 

 

So your logic is to cater to them in the face of all other indications by companies?

 

The issue is that there is a needed cutoff point that tells everybody behind it to upgrade.

Instead, the otption seems to be to decrease the highend, after introducing features.

If we had never known, a simple no in favor of potato comps would have been fine.

But as we had it so cruelly ripped from our hands, its quite the sting.

 

No more so than a gift taken from you for not being agreeable to your parents.

 

And as to please, why not ask us if you could please play a game with higher specs than you?

:p

 

But really, people need to upgrade their comps more, still seeing too many supermarket computers around.

 

 

I dare not play on PC because of my laggy net kills me sort of on Xbox.

Network issues are separate and largely outside of your control.

Unless you're the basnitch streaming anime and doing torrents at the same time as playing, without at least a 10 megabit connection.

Edited February 14, 2016 by NEONOVUS

[(XBOX)Solargeo]

 

So your logic is to cater to them in the face of all other indications by companies?

 

The issue is that there is a needed cutoff point that tells everybody behind it to upgrade.

Instead, the otption seems to be to decrease the highend, after introducing features.

If we had never known, a simple no in favor of potato comps would have been fine.

But as we had it so cruelly ripped from our hands, its quite the sting.

 

No more so than a gift taken from you for not being agreeable to your parents.

 

And as to please, why not ask us if you could please play a game with higher specs than you?

:p

 

But really, people need to upgrade their comps more, still seeing too many supermarket computers around.

 

 

Network issues are separate and largely outside of your control.

Unless you're the basnitch streaming anime and doing torrents at the same time as playing, without at least a 10 megabit connection.

 

My net is bipolar that is why. He will be doing good for a while then bamn. it starts to lag.

[Aoden]

 

So your logic is to cater to them in the face of all other indications by companies?

 

The issue is that there is a needed cutoff point that tells everybody behind it to upgrade.

Instead, the otption seems to be to decrease the highend, after introducing features.

If we had never known, a simple no in favor of potato comps would have been fine.

But as we had it so cruelly ripped from our hands, its quite the sting.

 

No more so than a gift taken from you for not being agreeable to your parents.

 

And as to please, why not ask us if you could please play a game with higher specs than you?

:p

 

But really, people need to upgrade their comps more, still seeing too many supermarket computers around.

 

 

Network issues are separate and largely outside of your control.

Unless you're the basnitch streaming anime and doing torrents at the same time as playing, without at least a 10 megabit connection.

 

 

That's not how online games tend to work. They set a minimum and do their absolute best to stick to it, so that they can include as many people as possible.

 

Honestly, what makes more sense? Cutting off say.. 10,000 players so 15,000 can be happy, or working on the game so that all 25,000 can play together? DE won't cater to the elitist alienware or GTFO attitude.

 

Also, older systems tend to run better in f2p online games, as Attley has already stated. Dev's start from the bottom and work their way up in optimization.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Aoden

[vazerd68]

+1

 

you could add the amount of projectiles with HoM to the list. quanta vandal + split chamber + Hom = 80~90 cubes exploision  and ~50 now #rip

 

btw rife rate increases the status chance on beam weaps but over 100% makes me stuck at 1proc/sec

[NEONOVUS]

That's not how online games tend to work. They set a minimum and do their absolute best to stick to it, so that they can include as many people as possible.

 

Honestly, what makes more sense? Cutting off say.. 10,000 players so 15,000 can be happy, or working on the game so that all 25,000 can play together? DE won't cater to the elitist alienware or GTFO attitude.

 

Also, older systems tend to run better in f2p online games, as Attley has already stated. Dev's start from the bottom and work their way up in optimization.

The separate issue here is warframe is not a traditional F2P where it needs to be wholly on its own.

Its also part of where DE applies and uses their knowledge for more contracts.

Essentially, like how you make your foyer more beautiful than the rest of the house, so people can see what you do.

 

As well. part of the issue is how many people are running potato comps?

As I said, we could be making a bunch of noise about nothing, and it turns out the evolution engine was S#&$ting itself as the issue regardless of hardware. I mean for crying out loud, some engines don't even have arrays still!

 

 

Regardless, my stance is make the ultra notpotato option (corn? carrot? Beefy? Yeah I like beefy option) availible as a way to appease us, and add a host option. Leave it so you have public as a join only option, and host as that.

Would solve some of the issues, particularly if you do a net stat check and make it so only capable people will host or it bins people together to optimize the net part.

 

 

I just potato or supermarket comps for the fact most of the people I deal with who use them swear its good enough because it can go on facebook.

So I have a dislike from there, along with the issue that nobody likes optimizing code to run anymore and assumes throw more resources is an answer.

 

You really don't know pain until you try to make a game in under 3 thousand letters.

Pain, so much pain.

Still least I made a hackey sack game.

[fatpig84]

Remember when vegetation didn't pop in on Earth and the draw distance for it was greater than 10 metres?

Add that to the list!

My 660TI had no issues with the game when I got the card, supposedly consoles have similar horsepower to that?

My 970 barely gets warm.

The settings and changes mentioned by the OP and others could have been left in, they did not take a monster rig to run.

The low or medium presets could have been used for those who needed optimisation, and consoles and better PCs could have kept some of this stuff, or at least made them optional extras.

 

Well it is "optimization".

Again DE should have left in the options. 

 

As usual. Nothing new really.

 

 

P.S As for people asking me to ask nicely ?

Hey look at this thread.

A petition to fix beam weapons.

 

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/170638-petition-to-fix-continuous-weapons/

 

How old is that thread ? More than 2 years old.

Patience can only go so far.

Edited February 15, 2016 by fatpig84

[Marthrym]

Yeah it's sad. While it's perfectly understandable to make sure the game runs on as many comps as possible, outright removing features just shows how little they care for those who have the hardware to make the game run with them. It's a middle finger just as much as ignoring low end PCs is. But since more people have "lower" end rigs than beefier machines, it's better, or let's say "less worse" to give said middle finger to the minority. Sucks to be among those who know how to build a decent rig without blowing up their wallets nowadays it seems...

Edited February 15, 2016 by Marthrym

[Necrius]

But really, people need to upgrade their comps more, still seeing too many supermarket computers around.

Oh, maybe then you'll donate them some bucks on this upgrade? DE is interested in wide playerbase, not in appeasing rich kids.

[Gurpgork]

Something that really needs to be optimized (or have another option) is the loading screen. I usually run Warframe at 150-170 FPS, but every time I see that load screen, it drops to 20-30. My system, which is very powerful, loses somewhere around 130 FPS on the load screen.

There really needs to be a lower-impact option for the loading screen.

[(PSN)gino1313]

DE should remember that Warframe was always a PC game at first.

And a high spec PC game at that.

If you want to optimize to get a bigger crowd, fine.

Just don't do it at the expense of people with the rigs to run them.

First off, games evolve. Especially warframe, it changes at the fastest rate I've ever seen. Second off, optimization is meant to reach the majority of players, so someone running a PhysX capable machine is very high up on the spectrum. The devs are just trying to get a larger player base for a larger profit.

[fatpig84]

First off, games evolve. Especially warframe, it changes at the fastest rate I've ever seen. Second off, optimization is meant to reach the majority of players, so someone running a PhysX capable machine is very high up on the spectrum. The devs are just trying to get a larger player base for a larger profit.

 

As I said, not at our expense.

It's okay if they want to optimize, it is absolutely fine.

You leave the graphical fidelity options for me, I will add them in myself.

 

You don't have to remove them from the core client.

Just make them optional. So I can turn em on, while those on weaker machines simply do not select them.

If they choose to select the options it's their problem, not my mine, neither is it DE's fault.

 

So there is no need to worry to the extent that you have to force feed down the same default watered down settings for everyone. WF players are normally smart enough to know what is going on and mostly wiki savvy.

 

So just give us back our options.

 

Like Sniper scopes are now optional which is great since when I played snipers back in my day, I never used scopes and I'm loving they put that option in to disable sniper scopes.

 

PhysX was an option as well no ?

Edited February 16, 2016 by fatpig84

[DoomFruit]

Other missing fun things:

-Guaranteed flying corpses on death when killed with a blunt impact melee weapon (Amphis was what I used most - charge strikes and normal strikes had different knockback levels). Not the ridiculous Team Rocket-style thing you get if you put blast on a Jat Kittag, but a comfortable middle ground where they get whacked 5 metres back into a wall and crumple into a boneless heap on the floor. Far enough that it feels as if you've delivered a mighty finishing blow, but not too far as to cheapen the effect. See

.

-Guaranteed dismemberment on death when killed with a charge attack from bladed melee weapons, or with certain ranged weapons (Flux Rifle, Lanka). I'm not talking about the watered down system we have now. This was *guaranteed* dismemberment into several pieces.

And then you can enjoy playing the game for a few more months while player numbers drop and DE goes into liquidation.

Jesus Christ, you people would legitimately cut off your noses to spite your faces.

So... how would putting in an option to increase the graphics to their previous level reduce the playerbase?

DE should also use nVidia Gamework features such as HBAO+, Volumetric God Rays, or Hairworks for Kubrows/Kavats.

Putting that in would screw over AMD users - not a good idea. Best to keep it vendor-neutral.

[Multicom-EN-]

Preach!

[Littlerift]

So... how would putting in an option to increase the graphics to their previous level reduce the playerbase?

 

See my previous posts. If you add a load of laggy, unoptimised effects to the game then more people's computers will crash. That means more 'failed to connect to host' and more aggro on the forums. 

I have no issue with better effects being added to the game, so long as they are well optimised.

[Redhux]

Too much changes and a tasteless feeling appeared.

[EvilChaosKnight]

See my previous posts. If you add a load of laggy, unoptimised effects to the game then more people's computers will crash. That means more 'failed to connect to host' and more aggro on the forums. 

I have no issue with better effects being added to the game, so long as they are well optimised.

I don't think you are getting it. At all.

If my computer can handle said extra effects, let me have an option to enable them. It's called "Very High" or "Ultra" graphics settings in most games.

 

People with toasters can still use High-Medium-Low settings and play just fine because it doesn't affect them. But why remove features from Very High and Ultra? It's beyond me. If consoles can't take it, don't give them the Ultra preset and limit it to High or Very High. Simple enough, isn't it?

[Littlerift]

I don't think you are getting it. At all.

If my computer can handle said extra effects, let me have an option to enable them. It's called "Very High" or "Ultra" graphics settings in most games.

 

People with toasters can still use High-Medium-Low settings and play just fine because it doesn't affect them. But why remove features from Very High and Ultra? It's beyond me. If consoles can't take it, don't give them the Ultra preset and limit it to High or Very High. Simple enough, isn't it?

 

Except people don't always set the game up to perform at its best. Many people value appearance over performance, and will be happy straining their computer to get 30fps at max settings. This is fine if they're playing on their own, but if they're the host and their game crashes 39 minutes into a Tower IV Survival mission because the particle density got to high then everybody loses out.

So no, it's not 'simple enough'. When deciding what graphical options to add and keep in a mostly online game you have to consider that how each player sets up the game will have a major effect on the experience for everybody.

And regardless, I at no point said that extra effects shouldn't be added, in fact I expressly said the opposite - my concern is only that reintroducing some of the buggy and poorly optimised effects we've had in the past will degrade the online experience for more people than its improves it for.

[EvilChaosKnight]

Except people don't always set the game up to perform at its best. Many people value appearance over performance, and will be happy straining their computer to get 30fps at max settings. This is fine if they're playing on their own, but if they're the host and their game crashes 39 minutes into a Tower IV Survival mission because the particle density got to high then everybody loses out.

So no, it's not 'simple enough'. When deciding what graphical options to add and keep in a mostly online game you have to consider that how each player sets up the game will have a major effect on the experience for everybody.

And regardless, I at no point said that extra effects shouldn't be added, in fact I expressly said the opposite - my concern is only that reintroducing some of the buggy and poorly optimised effects we've had in the past will degrade the online experience for more people than its improves it for.

Regarding the crash point. Well if game engine didn't crash under load this wouldn't have been a problem, right? Just FPS dip for the host and easier game for clients (for some reason XD).

 

And tbh. You can't design everything around people's potential stupidity really. Let's not sell cars because people speed, crash and die. Let's not sell kitchen knives because someone might decide to joggle them and hurt themselves. Let's ban tennis balls because I can think of 3 ways someone could die to them without even trying. Etc.

In fact. Let's put breathing on strict regulation because some people might want to breathe in acid, sand or asbestos dust to see what happens. Oh and walking, because some people walk into open manholes, trip over objects or wander into restricted areas.

 

See? It makes no sense to apply such logic IRL, why would it make sense to use it in game?

[Littlerift]

Regarding the crash point. Well if game engine didn't crash under load this wouldn't have been a problem, right? Just FPS dip for the host and easier game for clients (for some reason XD).

 

And tbh. You can't design everything around people's potential stupidity really. Let's not sell cars because people speed, crash and die. Let's not sell kitchen knives because someone might decide to joggle them and hurt themselves. Let's ban tennis balls because I can think of 3 ways someone could die to them without even trying. Etc.

In fact. Let's put breathing on strict regulation because some people might want to breathe in acid, sand or asbestos dust to see what happens. Oh and walking, because some people walk into open manholes, trip over objects or wander into restricted areas.

 

See? It makes no sense to apply such logic IRL, why would it make sense to use it in game?

 

A fairer comparison to most of the old graphical effects that have been removed would be 'Lets not sell cars without brakes because people might die', 'lets not sell knives where the handle is also a knife because people might hurt themselves'.

As I said, add all of the high end options you want so long as they're well optimised. Almost all of the graphical effects that have been removed certainly weren't well optimised, using a Kohm used to make anybody's computer lag; having 4 Nekros use Desecrate on a pile of enemy gibs did slow the game down, and for what? So that you could pause the game and count every piece of shot exiting your gun?

 

Edit: And it's not really possible to ensure that overstressing a computer won't cause the program to crash.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Attley

[DoomFruit]

A fairer comparison to most of the old graphical effects that have been removed would be 'Lets not sell cars without brakes because people might die', 'lets not sell knives where the handle is also a knife because people might hurt themselves'.

No, that's a stupid comparison. Your examples give the end user no choice in getting harmed. You seem to forget once again that these are OPTIONS that can be activated or deactivated at will.