My Concerns for Damage 3.0

[Tzolkat]

Where are people getting information on damage 3.0 to speculate on? In truth we really don't know what DE wants to do, and I don't think they have decided yet either. The consensus, however, seems to be that some sort of change is needed. Enemy armor scaling is out of control and damage, traditionally, has had to rely on certain mods to try and match the armor scaling. This results in armor degrading effects and high DPS gear being heavily favored, with not much room for weapon diversity if you want to tackle high level content. There are other, related issues, such as the increasing irrelevance of star chart content, including bosses, but I think the root of the issue is that the basic 'more kill' mechanic that the game reinforces is at odds with the kind of game it wants to be.

A properly implemented damage 3.0 should tackle these issues without negating what a player has already done in terms of forma and mod ranking, a tricky balancing act indeed. If I might be allowed to speculate a bit, based on the changes DE has made so far, with things like Sentient damage adaptation, convergence, and the mods dropped by the acolytes, it seems like DE is on a path to change how we play Warframe, rather than just redesigning its underlying math.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Tzolkat
Minor spelling correction

[Clovis15]

To LeifKlover:

I'm actually 100% for the removal of base damage cards - and instead incorporating those results directly into the gun's level - and have been nearly since the day I joined, but not necessarily for the same reasons as everyone else. I don't like the fact players are stuck in a worthless dead-weight phase until however long the RNG decides to wait before finally gracing them with the permission-to-relevance cards, and - yes - I did have an ungodly long hunt for mine well beyond the norm. That everyone uses them because they're good doesn't bother me, and I'd just as equally accept everyone being given them up front as well (but since both ends solve the same dilemma, I could honestly be happy either way).

I'm sorry this was ill-explained in earlier posts, but it's the ramifications of penalizing the multi-shot mods that have me terrified. This is because all rifles have stats based around the assumption of 1.9x multi, and all pistols around the assumption of 2.8x multi. As a result of this pistols are deliberately given stats assumed to be 30% of their potential, while rifles are given stats assumed to be 50% of their potential. If you encourage rifles and pistols - which are currently balanced against each other - to stop using multi-shot, then rifles instantly become the god-tier over pistols (especially since the devs have proven they will never compensate stats after a sweeping change like this). Worse still is that rifles have higher reserve pools than pistols, meaning rifles can far more easily regain their lost damage - without dire consequences - than pistols can with their much smaller reserve capacities. As a result I suspect that the popular meta will still involve putting multi-shot on rifles afterwards, and simply throwing all pistols permanently into the trash (and not just for the people seeking perfect god-tier stats - mind you - but also for everyone else due to how hard they're about to be hit).

Edited February 23, 2016 by Clovis15

[LeifKlover]

3 minutes ago, Clovis15 said:

To LeifKlover:

I'm actually 100% for the removal of base damage cards, and have been nearly since the day I joined (but not necessarily for the same reasons as everyone else).

I'm sorry this was ill-explained in earlier posts, but it's the ramifications of penalizing the multi-shot mods that have me terrified. This is because all rifles have stats based around the assumption of 1.9x multi, and all pistols around the assumption of 2.8x multi. As a result of this pistols are deliberately given stats assumed to be 30% of their potential, while rifles are given stats assumed to be 50% of their potential. If you encourage rifles and pistols - which are currently balanced against each other - to stop using multi-shot, then rifles instantly become the god-tier over pistols (especially since the devs have proven they will never compensate stats after a sweeping change like this). Worse still is that rifles have higher reserve pools than pistols, meaning rifles can far more easily regain their lost damage - without dire consequences - than pistols can with their much smaller reserve capacities. As a result I suspect that the popular meta will still involve putting multi-shot on rifles afterwards, and simply throwing all pistols permanently into the trash (and not just for the people seeking perfect god-tier stats - mind you - but also for everyone else due to how hard they're about to be hit).

Which I understand completely. I do believe, that in these changes, they may push a slight numbers nerf to the multishot mods on pistols, or buff the ammo capacity mods. Either way, it would be nice to have a reason to use Ammo restores as liberally as we use Energy Restores these days. As the way meta goes, any change is a good change. Anything that causes an ounce of diversity is good. The pistols that are bad will stay bad, the pistols that are good will stay good, not because of multistrike balance, but because of the damage that can be capitalized upon. The Rakta Ballistica, even without multistrike, has one of the highest shot for shot damage of any weapon in this game. This is aside from the fact that with those multishot nerfs and serration removals, they will be adding a scaling damage to these weapons which would require a fine tuning of the base and max damages they can output.

[Clovis15]

To LeifKlover:

I'm glad the conversation is on the same page at this point. It would have immensely helped if my super-long original post hadn't been half eaten by the forums up front, after which my way-too-late retyped second half no-longer contained the pistol/rifle multi-shot argument the second time I typed it up.

One thing I would currently counter-argue with is that you're fighting for lesser diversity through a system that - as you put it - should actively discourage people from using pistols over rifles (and thus it's okay for pistols to get ludicrously maligned so long as rifles get knocked down closer to melee in the process). However, some people - like myself - actually enjoy running around with pistols. If you get what you want from the devs, then - although you'd be perfectly okay with the new rifles shifted meta - for others it would actually result in a decrease of viable diversity. Just as you want the option to focus on your melee weapons more exclusively - something which I honestly would appreciate as well - I would like the ability to front with pistols, but a praised-nerfing that will knowingly relegate them to deliberate-emergency-only tier will take that as an option away from players like me.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Clovis15

[LeifKlover]

8 minutes ago, Clovis15 said:

To LeifKlover:

I'm glad the conversation is on the same page at this point. It would have immensely helped if my super-long original post hadn't been half eaten by the forums up front, after which my way-too-late retyped second half no-longer contained the pistol/rifle multi-shot argument the second time I typed it up.

One thing I would currently counter-argue with is that you're fighting for lesser diversity through a system that - as you put it - should actively discourage people from using pistols over rifles (and thus it's okay for pistols to get ludicrously maligned so long as rifles get knocked down closer to melee in the process). However, some people - like myself - actually enjoy running around with pistols. If you get what you want from the devs, then - although you'd be perfectly okay with the new rifles shifted meta - for others it would actually result in a decrease of focus diversity. Just as you want the option to focus on your melee weapons more exclusively - something which I honestly would appreciate as well - I would like the ability to front with pistols, but a praised-nerfing that will knowingly relegate to deliberate-emergency-only tier will take that as an option away from players

Well, it's more the case that Pistols are emergency weapons, and in such a case, are often ridiculous on the front of self defense. We see things like the Angstrum and Talons, Ballistica(or its Rakta Component), Twin Graks and such. It is less that they will be nerfed, but more than the multishot mods will be used on weapons in a fashion that will MAKE them emergency only weapons. If, say, a Lex was balanced on the same level as a Latron, then it will scale similarly. While a 2x shot rate on a latron will make it semi inefficient, a 3x shot rate on a lex will make it horribly inefficient in the nature of ammo. However, its damage efficiency, per shot, would skyrocket. It is less the case that I wish for all secondaries to be delegated to emergency only status, but I feel they should be balanced in a fashion that if they are kitted to such a nature, they should sustain you well enough with or without a primary weapon. Remember, these are designed to save you if you run out of ammo on a primary weapon. This means they are functional as weapons on their own, but they just may need a bit more care to define that line between an emergency weapon and a common use weapon. This line is drawn on melee weapons and on some primaries that bear more status than damage. See the Sobek, which can attain a 99% status chance with its augment.

Though, speaking of multishot, I have to wonder how DE will balance Shotgun ammo consumption, considering multishot is a pellet increase.

[Clovis15]

To LeifKlover:

Although I have horrid fears for shotguns getting hurt far worse this time than the original Hek-driven drop-off nerf ever did, I'll have to wait and see on that front since - as you said - there's no real way to even guess where they might take Shotguns after this.

For the record, I do believe Warframe - as an overall whole - has slowly become perpetually better with all of the updates instated since the closed-beta began. It's just that when something gets ruined by a sweeping update, it's likely to be abandoned forever in the trashcan (I'm honestly surprised they ever decided to give dignity back to the Supra and Ignis). I really wish we had even a little bit more info on all of this, specifically relating to how they plan to compensate base-stats in relation to how these changes will affect many weapons' future relevance (or if they honestly just plan to permanently trash bin a ton more weapons - most of which will be pistols - in the name of weakening rifles to be more even to melee).

Also, I still miss scythes - the Hind - and the Seer.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Clovis15

[Lakais]

The only thing I want out of Damage 3.0 (I thought it was more like Weapons X.something) is for some weapons to become more usable. And I don't mean that ludicrous "1 hour T4 survival!" stuff. I mean that you can take a weapon, any weapon. Level it up to 30 and still be usable at standard mission range of level 35-ish without needing maxed out mods, nor formas and potatoes.

And I say "usable" because that's what I mean. The weapon doesn't have to one-shot or be super-powerful. Some can be powerful within reason, there needs to be a sense of progression. I just mean that all weapons, regardless of tier, should be able to kill an opponent in a reasonable amount of time and ammo.

Personal stake in this: I love the latos. Their looks and feel. I remember when I first started playing around two and a half years ago, and the Lato was my go-to weapon because the Braton just burned through ammo and just seemed inaccurate. But I could snipe people with the Lato. The Latos look great but functionally right now they are just horrible beyond words. 

In the end, that's what I think a part of this change is about. Not just about mods, but weapons. We have hundreds of weapons in the game. But only a small number of them are seeing more widespread use. I've been personally going through older weapons I find interesting when I have nothing new to level. And though some weapons look and function in neat ways, I can feel that they just don't work great. They are "meh" at best  and cringe worthy at worst. 

Edited February 23, 2016 by Lakais

[Lost_Cartographer]

All I want out of 3.0 as a baseline are for base damage mods (serration, hornet strike, point blank, pressure point) to get the axe, multi-shot to be made less "must have" (but not an alternative form of a fire rate mod, which is what "2 bullets out = 2 bullets spent" will accomplish) and for the utility mods to be worth a damn.  I WANT to install a slip magazine onto my Magnus... I just want it to amount to more than 2 more bullets for 9 mod points and a slot...  I'm thinking more in the realm of six to eight, as in, +80-100% magazine capacity.  I WANT to install Quickdraw onto my Soma... I just want to take off more than .7 freakin' seconds for a slot and 7 points, and no one's going to eat that on a 2 second reload.

If they scale back all damage increases and scale back enemy scaling to compensate, then maybe we won't find ourselves in a situation where heavy units become ultra spongy compared to their common fodder counterparts.  Even the $#!%%!#$% gun will wreck a level 30 elite lancer, but that same gun will only nick and scratch the level 30 heavy next to it.  It's a bit too wide of a disparity.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Littleman88

[matrixEXO]

If we want to talk about build diversity, that would also mean scrapping/reducing stuff like damage weakness and resistance. They force-streamline people into taking effects like Electricity/Magnetic against Corpus or similar. While not in every build, they actually are existent in any build that would fight Corpus units because they just outright perform better. On top of that, other factions like the Grineer or the Infested do not really get a negative effect from effects like Magnetic or Electricity (to a minor degree).

Going on, crit weapons will have their meta build heavily reliant on crit mods so there will be no forgiveness in that regards. Just as crit weapons cannot survive without crit mods to make themselves more powerful, so too will crit mods be heavily incorporated into crit weapons. You don't see any build diversity there as well.

 

If one really wants to have build diversity, then effects that are similar to Corrupted mods are needed instead for major benefits or maybe just a minor boost rather than a major boost in statistical advantage for pure benefits. Either way I see it, the mod system actually adds more problem than solves them (seen since Day 1). IMO, I'd prefer an 'upgrade path' style where players get to choose how they upgrade their weapons and spec them accordingly via shifting of stats. Not only does that give reason to hold multiples of a specific weapon, it also give reason to try and and see what really fits the player more. That way, sometimes a player might go for the higher DPS potential and squander the capabilities of crowd-control effects of the status effects or the capability to reload faster. An open upgrade system is never a good system for diversity as it just asks the player to min-max their builds without any real repercussions.

Edited February 23, 2016 by matrixEXO

[RedmeetsBlack]

I have a few questions regarding damage 1.0 and the transition to damage 2.0. Namely armor ignore and how it functioned. The reason being is because I didn't start playing until U17 and the armor scaling in this game can get out of control without the appropriate aura. The first question being how did it work? The second is how effective was it compared to now? Lastly, do some of you preper it to the current system and hope for some reimplementation in the next iteration?

[Clovis15]

To KikoEschobar:

If a weapon was Serrated type damage (this is something the weapon had to inherently be, there were no mods for this) then it would do 100% of its attack damage every time, no questions asked. Most melee weapons only did Serrated damage during a charge-attack (not the one you know, but a much older version that hasn't existed for a long time). A few other melee weapons would do it on any strike whatsoever, rather than only when they were charging. As a result many melee weapons had stats that were based around the fact that armor never impeded them, yet - as per my complaints - they never received compensatory buffs when their armor bypass perks were taken away. 

The Despair, Hikou and Acrid also used to have this overpowered perk, and is part of where the entire problem began stemming from (since at least Melee had the trade off of really bad range to balance things out). For weapons that didn't have built in armor ignore, you'd also have +armor piercing cards. They were sort of like a +% element mod we have now, except the value added was 100% unblockable damage that would always hit for the absolute full amount.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Clovis15

[RedmeetsBlack]

To Clovis15: 

Okay I think I understand. I appreciate the answer and I'd like to ask one other thing. Do you believe the next damage rework will be as drastic as the last due to the removal of the mandatory mods and probable insertion of more mods such as blood rush? Or do you think it will be rather minor compared to the previous changes you described? 

Little off-topic from the OP, but I'd like veteran insight from previous changes.

[(PSN)Lord_Gremlin]

Steve tweets say that damage rework may not happen at all. And in truth there should be no more mod system and damage reworks. Do mods need readjustment, where serration is 165%, yet rifle aptitude is only 30% status etc? Probably. But do you need to actually remove any mods? No.

Damage mods should stay. It's just mod effects should be brought in line. For example only 30% faster reload can't compete with 90% damage increase. To compete reload mod should be 100% faster reload speed. That applies to many mods.

[Clovis15]

To KikoEschobar:

I just hope the new system isn't stuff like "Super-lame damage until you successfully get 3 shot headshots - in less than five seconds - no-scope at 50m away, and then your damage cards work for precisely 2.5 seconds". I really like the idea of the Acolyte cards as mods that reward people for incorporating them - and playfully skillfully - as powerful alternatives to using straight working cards, but they should never be the new baseline standard instead. That would create a massively toxic game that actively discourages new players, since inability to pull off feats early on will make other players become actively violent towards them.

That said, I'm currently assuming something like that isn't it. However - yes - that's been the entire gist of my rant, I expect some major fall-out here due to wide sweeping changes, which the devs will spend the next couple years attempting to fix all the things they broke in the process. Then - finally - when stuff is almost good again, we'll move on to rebreaking everything with Damage 4.0 because enough people whined that an all new meta was discovered.

To Lord_Gremlin:

I'm all down for changing the numbers on the mods - mind you - as it's a lot easier to not create unintended results that way, it's changing the fundamental mechanics behind the game that has me positively scared. I also fully agree that this could've been far more easily solved if utility cards were just buffed already, but the devs have long been steadfast against that solution.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Clovis15

[Clovis15]

EDIT: Moved to previous post, feel free to delete this post for cleaning purposes.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Clovis15

[Sh0ck-Wave]

14 hours ago, Clovis15 said:

I wanted to also bring up the case of the Flux Rifle, an expensive to build MR6 weapon - that leaks ammo like a sieve - and had really bad range. It too used to use Serrated damage, up until the whiners claimed that you could thwart the meta-chasers by taking that system out. The meta-chasers weren't thwarted in the slightest, but the flux rifle is now just a short range weapon - expensive to build - and suffering from very bad stats with no perks anymore to justify its existence.

Dude if you can't mod up a decent Flux Rifle then I think your whole argument is invalid. Not all weapons are meant to be top tier, or even equal. You seem to be complaining more that weapons are imbalanced because weapon A is better then weapon B ergo 'everything is broken'. Your argument ignores status, crit, versatility, and overall 'fun to use'. eg. Soma P is very powerful, but I don't see everyone in every mission using it.

Overall if every game you played had people using the same gun, I'd agree with you that things are broken. But this is not the case, so I disagree and recommend you to stop shouting at clouds.

[Chroia]

13 hours ago, Airyllish said:

IIt's not a skill-based battle, it's a simple war of attrition. How long can your build and your resources keep you fighting until your resources dry up and the scaling enemies out-number, out-damage and out-live you? 

... It's not damage that would need to change but gameplay, ...Enemy scaling, enemy AI and even resource management (in terms of health, shields and energy and your access to them at any given moment either through orb drops, gear you take or mods) would need to be revised in order to change the standing meta of "what is the fastest way I can delete the current strongest enemy I can fight" because those are the things that decide why damage needs to work the way it does. /shrug

^.

Stats >> skill = get more flat stats.

Enemy damage output to player eHP scales faster/farther than player damage to enemy eHP = prioritize damage over defense, utility a distant third unless it directly affects either survivability or killing potential

And why is this the case? because

11 hours ago, Clovis15 said:

Currently rifles are balanced around the assumption of 1.9 shots - and pistols around 2.8 shots.

+90% base per elemental mod, x2-5 for crit mods, etc.

And enemies are balanced around having that.

 

11 hours ago, (PS4) Magician_NG said:

I'd like room for body count and blood rush on my current obex build while keeping the same base damage remaining competitive.

Fixed that for you me.

It doesn't need to be the best option, just a viable one.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Chroia
Clarification.

[SunsetChaos]

They should make it 1 element per weapon. So you're modding a weapon for 1 element instead of simply modding it for more and more damage. That's diverse. Everyone is using something different.

[(PSN)Alphonso-Alonso]

I still maintain that DE can do whatever they want to the weapons and I'll adapt- but at the same time they have to do something about the spongeyness of late-game enemy damage resistance. Difficulty is difficulty and I know a few hardxcore Tenno are foaming at the mouth at my utterance of this, but seriously, spamming 4 wouldn't be a thing if our actual weapons were still viable at high levels.

[duhadventure]

Devs are just wanting to make it so you cannot just 1shot bosses.

[Cosmic_Elf]

On 23 February 2016 at 0:44 PM, Clovis15 said:

Apparently we have post length limits now.

 

Seriously ? forum austerity :p

[Airyllish]

18 hours ago, duhadventure said:

Devs are just wanting to make it so you cannot just 1shot bosses.

Not even close.

The developers' idea of keeping us from "one shotting bosses" - if Razorback is any indication - is entirely artificial and has nothing to do with changing damage to encourage skill instead of simple number-crunching stat. Razorback was not hard and would still not be hard with Damage 3.0, I imagine, because Razorback's "difficulty" and "inability" to one shot was completely artificial due to including the use of buggy AI and invulnerable stages.

That is, in fact, the only answer to the insane damage scaling I've witnessed so far in a lot of bosses. The answer to "make a boss feel like a boss and not another regular enemy you blow up" hasn't been to encourage skilled play, but has been to include artificial damage sponge stages where it doesn't matter if you do one damage or one million damage, you won't be able to kill it because it's got an artificial (and frankly arbitrary) invulnerable mechanic.

So no. No, the devs aren't just wanting to make it so you can't just instagib so-called bosses. And if that is their goal than this is still going about it the wrong way, because as long as Warframe consists of endless scaling where the enemies are made to scale on the assumption you can kill them in one hit (and therefore, keep giving them more armor until you have to kill them in two hits, but also make sure their damage scales on the assumption you can still delete them in 3 seconds or less) the bosses will always be trivial and the difficulty will always be created by artificial "stages" of fights where you can't damage them without relying on something else or needing to perform some arbitrary task first.

[Atlas.0-5]

On 2/23/2016 at 1:08 PM, Airyllish said:

In a game where enemy level scales well beyond the "level cap" available to players, and thus to achieve the ability to fight against the steadily exponentially scaling enemies you have to start consider min-maxing and equipping specific mods to achieve the best effect, you are always going to have an "efficient meta". The game forces you to, in fact, because at a certain point in end-game content being inefficient will cost you your life - enemies will out-scale you and decimate you in seconds if you cannot blow them up first.

That's the gist I get from end-game Warframe. It's not a skill-based battle, it's a simple war of attrition. How long can your build and your resources keep you fighting until your resources dry up and the scaling enemies out-number, out-damage and out-live you? 

Therefore, the game actively promotes finding efficient metas. No changes made to damage are ever going to change or fix this because the very foundation of the game in the very end-game missions basically demand that you have the set ups that can deal the most reliable damage you can manage so that you can blow up everything before it blows up you. It's not damage that would need to change but gameplay, if you want to try and "eradicate" the idea of a meta. The end-game of Warframe would need to be fundamentally and drastically re-worked to be a mode that isn't the current "war of attrition" mode it currently is. Enemies cannot be allowed to delete you off the face of the planet in three hits or less - because those are the situations when yes, you do need to have the optimal build in order to delete that enemy before it deletes you.

So honestly, bring on Damage 3.0. Your concern of encouraging a meta is null and void because there will always be a meta, and the way damage works won't change that. Enemy scaling, enemy AI and even resource management (in terms of health, shields and energy and your access to them at any given moment either through orb drops, gear you take or mods) would need to be revised in order to change the standing meta of "what is the fastest way I can delete the current strongest enemy I can fight" because those are the things that decide why damage needs to work the way it does. /shrug

This is probably the best post in this thread.

I've brought this up on some "best/worst warframe" threads.

The  Meta truly is simply caused by the endgame not being balanced by the rest of the game. Weapons and warframes that "suck" in the eyes of the community are simply weapons/frames that aren't within the "meta" for the endgame content.

like you mentioned: the only way to rid of meta for good is to change the way the game plays. Which is a huge undertaking just even in concept stages. Which we won't see anytime soon, or ever.

 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Atlas.0-5

[TalonBlue]

My concern, or really anyone's concern will or would be how is DE going to compensate you... meaning YOU the player, for balance changes that directly affect your Warframes, Weapons, Abilities, and in general gameplay. Let's say for example you just recently finished upgrading a Warframe or a weapon a couple of Forma and balance changes make that Warframe or weapon less than what you had before. Are they going to compensate you? Are they going to offer you a respec? Are they going to give you the Forma back? or the Orokin Catalyst/Reactor? Will they even bother to apologize that Damage 2.0 didn't quite work out? or will they just placate you? The subtle thing other game developers do make their consumers appreciate them and want to support them.

Will they be transparent with this upcoming changes in the weeks before the change take effect so maybe you can prepare? You know, subtle things a game develop could do to not upset it's consumers. So that they aren't made to feel like their time and money isn't being wasted in favor of game balance changes. Because you know, a good consumer generally like to be not kept in the dark, or be at the mercy or whims of a development team. Good consumers like honesty and transparency and generally dislike being pandered to in vague, veiled, buzzwords.

 

...

 

But then again, this DE. They enjoy keeping you in the dark, they prefer you be misinformed, and have you wasting your time and money. They rather you ignore the fact this game after three years is still incomplete, and grindfest, and devoid of fresh ideas, fresh engaging gameplay. They rather you spend your time and money getting the next new warframe, or the next new weapon, or the next new warframe, or the next new weapon, or the next new warframe, or the next new weapon, or the next new warframe, or the next new weapon, or the next new warframe, or the next new weapon, or the next new warframe, or...

[duhadventure]

2 hours ago, Airyllish said:

Not even close.

The developers' idea of keeping us from "one shotting bosses" - if Razorback is any indication - is entirely artificial and has nothing to do with changing damage to encourage skill instead of simple number-crunching stat. Razorback was not hard and would still not be hard with Damage 3.0, I imagine, because Razorback's "difficulty" and "inability" to one shot was completely artificial due to including the use of buggy AI and invulnerable stages.

That is, in fact, the only answer to the insane damage scaling I've witnessed so far in a lot of bosses. The answer to "make a boss feel like a boss and not another regular enemy you blow up" hasn't been to encourage skilled play, but has been to include artificial damage sponge stages where it doesn't matter if you do one damage or one million damage, you won't be able to kill it because it's got an artificial (and frankly arbitrary) invulnerable mechanic.

So no. No, the devs aren't just wanting to make it so you can't just instagib so-called bosses. And if that is their goal than this is still going about it the wrong way, because as long as Warframe consists of endless scaling where the enemies are made to scale on the assumption you can kill them in one hit (and therefore, keep giving them more armor until you have to kill them in two hits, but also make sure their damage scales on the assumption you can still delete them in 3 seconds or less) the bosses will always be trivial and the difficulty will always be created by artificial "stages" of fights where you can't damage them without relying on something else or needing to perform some arbitrary task first.

Was referencing this.