Renewing Blocking Mechanics Ala Matrixexo

[Ronyn]

Or the AI could just not auto-snap onto enemy Tenno as quickly as right now. Re-centering the aim actually has nothing to do with aimbotting since it already 'locks' the crosshair on a person. It's recoil 'removal' that causes them to be able to hit so dead accurate at the same places all the time.

You say "not auto snap to us as quickly"  I said "A delay to how fast they re-center there aim"...

I'm not taking that any further.

 

 

When the new tutorial to teach the mechanics comes out, newbies will be more aware than before. If you were to think that newbies will never learn how to do anything would be an understatement. Even one who just sifts through the binding menu would be able to see the 'Block' command. What you are theorizing is that they are all dumb (OK, not quite true on this) and don't make an effort to experiment or find it out by accident and that DE would leave the tutorial as it is, incomplete.

 

It being disastrous is a semi-baseless statement. The fact that it's baseless is due to the nature of some gamers to not experiment and try things out. The fact that is based is because when you experiment and see an experiment last for only 1s, you would go 'Hmm, so I can block AND run but only for 1s. Not gonna do this ever because it consumes too much stamina for no real purpose.'. As for changes to be made to enemies along with the blocking system rework, I doubt it will happen in a good way. You are looking way too far ahead. It's possible they might add guarding to AI melee units but other than that, I don't see any real coding that would improve enemy AI in the short term scenario related to blocking (1~2 yrs).

I said that not being able to block/sprint simultaneously for very long in early game would in no way be disastrous.

To say it would be disastrous is baseless plain and simple. Even if it was a problem, disastrous is an exaggeration.

 

I was saying that well designed new player experiences are built in a way that they can be completed without the player utilizing all of the various systems properly. That is a common aspect of the skill curve.

That does not remotely imply that the tutorial wont make folks aware of things, that some people wont experiment and that other folks, even show a high level of mastery early on.

 

Blocking and sprinting for about a second has a relevant purpose in the short distance rush, as a second is an important chunck of time in the moment to moment craziness of combat.

 

And how can you say "I'm looking to far ahead" from me referencing an updated blocking system possibly making blocking more important than it is now?  It is unwise to consider changing how the player character moves without also considering how that will affect the balance of combat encounters and therefore how enemies must be changed to keep it right. Any feature that gets changed or added can potentially require some amount of tweaking to enemy behaviors. Heck you suggested that enemies be able to block, which will have SOME effect on them. 

 

 

I can wallrun for more than 6s (horizontal wallrun the best way to check) without any stamina mod. Do we need to nerf wallrun to 2s, whilst adding ghosting and disablement of enemy AI to auto-aim, without stamina mods? You get how crazy it sounds but it's about similar to how you suggest it by saying that players are limited by the mods he use, which is not true and causes dislike for these functions because, though they can do better than just running, are just too restrained to allow most people to even remotely like it. Mods improve how a player can act but should not be the turning point of the usability of a skill inherent to any player.

From a purely objective, mathematical point of view-We ARE limited in how much we can use our tools based on the lack of mods.

Without mods we can use things less than we can once we are modded to use it more. Period.

Weather that be stamina, energy or ammo...

 

Nothing I said indicates that EVERY mechanic has to burn out super quick when unmodded. 

In fact, I spoke about how activating two individually functional mechanics simultaneously would burn out very quickly unmodded, and that is because it is combining two things that have impact by themselves.

 

Acrobatics (like wall running) IS the evasive type of actions that I say should mess with enemy aim....not some additional mechanic that would take additional stamina.

 

My point, once again, is to turn each mechanic into something with more impact.

 

Then I must have forgotten most of it. I played all DMC games (except the reboot) and non-handheld God of War games and when I play it, I never block. Both games I play by moving a lot and dodging any incoming shots because blocking is a waste of time when I can hack and slash more of them to pieces (or get hacked and slashed because of wrong timing). Definitely need to check UC2 out.

Your style of play in DMC and GOW is more than fine, as for going so far as to say "blacking is a waste of time" that very much depends.

In GOW some enemies, like medusa's for example, can be turned to stone with a well timed counter block.

In DMC the royal guard system often came with a way to convert the block damage defended into the most powerful single offensive attack in the game.

These blocking mechanics can have some real depth. Use them or not but don't discount their potential.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Ronyn

[matrixEXO]

-snip-

Try running for 1s in-game. Time it and calculate the distance traveled by each of your frame. I can assure you that 1s is too small a timing to effectively do anything really substantial other than closing an already close gap (at which, I doubt you need to hold the block button up). I cannot force you to understand this effect so you need to do playtesting yourself right now.

 

When I suggest changes, I always suggest counter-plays. Counter-plays are very important in melee combat or you will not be able to do anything when you "get knocked down by 50 rollers in an area", a real example for lack of counter-play. Apart from that, I meant AI improvement to be, "Hey, this guy is blocking, we need to flank him!" and not implementation of the same mechanics we get onto enemy combat. Sorry if I didn't clear it up.

 

But it's an example that's clearly synchronous with how you would want the blocking design to be, more impact at the cost of usability. Not something I would want it to be. It's like suggesting for a melee weapon with 1000 damage but have an attack rate of 0.25, a weapon with clearly a very strong impact (damage) but clear lack of usability due to the massive cuts that weigh down it's potential. If it were a skill, however, I wouldn't mind it because it's a skill that only a singular frame can use. A niche of that frame to be able to do something like that while others cannot. Meaningful impact needs to be kept frame-specific while universal utility skills needs to be more utility-based, less towards impact and more towards usability. I don't think we can see eye-to-eye on this one though so I won't press further.

Edited July 22, 2013 by matrixEXO

[Ronyn]

Try running for 1s in-game. Time it and calculate the distance traveled by each of your frame. I can assure you that 1s is too small a timing to effectively do anything really substantial other than closing an already close gap (at which, I doubt you need to hold the block button up). I cannot force you to understand this effect so you need to do playtesting yourself right now.

Can you disagree without being condescending? lol

 

First-consider how much time I spend dealing with the issues related to the problems associated with closing distance to an enemy who is armed with a ranged weapon when teaching modern day hand to hand combat scenarios in a professional capacity. 

Add to that, you should know that I don't bring ideas onto the boards until I've run some sort of in game tests (more accurately, as close to it as I can get without actually having the feature in question actually in the game).

 

Now, for a Warframe combat scenario illustration, Imagine you are pretty close to an small enemy group, at the range where a about a second of sprinting would get you close enough to hit them with your melee weapon (lets say dual skana). You see the center enemy telegraph a powerful range attack (like a railgun shot for example)...

A sprint/block to melee range followed with an attack that hits multiple targets is a very good choice.

 

For a close ranged/melee focused player, situations of this nature (and others with similar needs) is not so rare that it wont factor in.

Will it be used as commonly as just blocking or just sprinting? nope. But it doesn't have to be to place a place in the arsenal.

 

You have a different viewpoint on that fine but do not mistake my suggestion for some half thought idea from someone who doesn't know what we are dealing with.

 

Honestly I'm getting tired of having to talk about my backgroujd just to convince you that I'm not ignorant on this subject.

How about you stop talking to me like I am and I'll stop bringing it up.

When I suggest changes, I always suggest counter-plays. Counter-plays are very important in melee combat or you will not be able to do anything when you "get knocked down by 50 rollers in an area", a real example for lack of counter-play. Apart from that, I meant AI improvement to be, "Hey, this guy is blocking, we need to flank him!" and not implementation of the same mechanics we get onto enemy combat. Sorry if I didn't clear it up.

OK. In whatever way the game may be changed with the inclusion/change of new blocking mechanics, it may affect how important learning to block effectively is.

 

 

But it's an example that's clearly synchronous with how you would want the blocking design to be, more impact at the cost of usability. Not something I would want it to be. It's like suggesting for a melee weapon with 1000 damage but have an attack rate of 0.25, a weapon with clearly a very strong impact (damage) but clear lack of usability due to the massive cuts that weigh down it's potential. If it were a skill, however, I wouldn't mind it because it's a skill that only a singular frame can use. A niche of that frame to be able to do something like that while others cannot. 

NO. It's not synchronous, it's ignoring the specifics of my suggestions so you can take the core philosophy to an extreme..

and like just about everything taken to an extreme it becomes ridiculous, problematic and inherently flawed.

 

What I ACTUALLY presented was-

Blocking, at the base level & by itself, should be pretty effective at mitigation for a moderate amount of time.

That is a mechanic with impact & usability.

Acrobatics, a the base level & by itself, should be pretty effective at evasion for a moderate amount of time. 

That is a mechanic with impact & usability.

ONLY when blocking and acrobatics are combined should the cost reach the point where it can only be done for a very short time. 

As that is the result of using two features with impact simultaneously.

Extreme impact, shorter window of usability.

 

Some alternate example where you change the specifics of that will not have an accurate similarity.

In fact, making effective evasion (like wall running) burn so much stamina that it only lasts two seconds is contrary to my suggestion of how it should work.

So agree or disagree with my actual suggestion and that's cool but don't throw some twisted version of it back at me and act like its the same thing.

 

 

Meaningful impact needs to be kept frame-specific while universal utility skills needs to be more utility-based, less towards impact and more towards usability. I don't think we can see eye-to-eye on this one though so I won't press further.

Too vague of a statement to agree or disagree with in a broad sense.

Many features could be classified as one, the other, or both.

Neither Usability, Utility or impact are mutually exclusive from one another.

They are often like dials that can be tuned up and down.

I will speak about such features on a case by case basis with enough specifics to see it individually.....

or I wont speak about it at all.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Ronyn

[matrixEXO]

-snip-

Sorry for being so condescending when disagreeing on something T.T

 

That Railgun example is a bad example because you will get knocked down regardless unless your idea of full migitation blocking removes every single CC that occurs when you get damaged... in which case, most of your reasoning in the previous post regarding Iron Skin not being substituted with full migitation blocking is rendered void. In fact, rarely does one even encounter a scenario where you really need that kind of blocking-running mechanic combo. The best use of such scenarios are normally met with major disasters. (Grineer Heavies all have unique aspects like Napalm applying DoT, Bombard having AoE splash (and thus should theoretically pierce a directional block but need testing) and Gunner with his massive magazine and fire rate. Corpus High-Techs also armed with crazy weapons like Fusion's laser beam (but is so close that you don't even need to block and just straight melee), Railgun's knockdown component and Tech's identical-ness to the Grineer Heavy Gunner. As for Infested, why block?)

 

True, you mentioned already a few times you teach CQC but as you already know how different game is to real life, we cannot fully include realism into gaming. How a weapon 'feels like it should be' versus how a weapon 'exactly is in real life' is different. As such, we have to use game statistics onto account whilst keeping real life designs out of the equation, at least half of the time. This is how Ninja Gaiden has that huge-&#! Kama that people can swing around like it was made of paper XD

 

Sorry for throwing twisted versions of what I perceive to be how you wanted to make both running while blocking be viewed as. I wasn't intending for it to be an equal to just blocking but the effects of having both running and blocking being used simultaneously. If it isn't something that can be viewed like that to you, then I might be using a wrong example here. I don't -think- I am but... yeah, seems like I am.

 

I never said that they are mutually exclusive.

Edited July 22, 2013 by matrixEXO

[Ronyn]

Sorry for being so condescending when disagreeing on something T.T

We cool.

 

That Railgun example is a bad example because you will get knocked down regardless unless your idea of full migitation blocking removes every single CC that occurs when you get damaged... in which case, most of your reasoning in the previous post regarding Iron Skin not being substituted with full migitation blocking is rendered void. In fact, rarely does one even encounter a scenario where you really need that kind of blocking-running mechanic combo. The best use of such scenarios are normally met with major disasters. (Grineer Heavies all have unique aspects like Napalm applying DoT, Bombard having AoE splash (and thus should theoretically pierce a directional block but need testing) and Gunner with his massive magazine and fire rate. Corpus High-Techs also armed with crazy weapons like Fusion's laser beam (but is so close that you don't even need to block and just straight melee), Railgun's knockdown component and Tech's identical-ness to the Grineer Heavy Gunner. As for Infested, why block?)

I'd say that blocking should effectively stop rail gun moa hits (not ALL CC or ALL secondary effects in every instance though.)

Note, that is blocking a direct angle effect as opposed to a 360 degree full on anti-CC and secondary effect negation like iron skin.

 

There are several effects that I say should be blockable.

Most direct attacks like raligun shots, ancient punches, & jumper leaps would fall under the blockable category.

AOE's like shockwaves, persistent damaging effects on the ground, or poison clouds should not be blockable.

Example-deflecting away the napalm shell itself would be possible with a well aimed blocking,

but blocking wouldn't protect you from the damage one receives from the fire on the ground.

The differences between iron skin and blocking remain.

 

Beyond that we could go over scenario after scenario to see where sprint/blocking may or may not come in handy...

Bottom line is I say there are times when a short burst of both speed and defense are quite nice.

League of legends reference time! Kind of like how the better players can time a use of Rivens Valor ability so perfectly they block an enemies hit with the shield aspect JUST as the dash aspect gets them close enough to melee. 

 

That will lead to nowhere good if there is a lack of good melee moves to do once in range though.

That is partly why right now getting in close is often met with disaster....making getting in close less desirable overall anyway.

 

True, you mentioned already a few times you teach CQC but as you already know how different game is to real life, we cannot fully include realism into gaming. How a weapon 'feels like it should be' versus how a weapon 'exactly is in real life' is different. As such, we have to use game statistics onto account whilst keeping real life designs out of the equation, at least half of the time. This is how Ninja Gaiden has that huge-&#! Kama that people can swing around like it was made of paper XD

Real life and video games are definitely different and shouldn't be confused for one another.

My point in bringing up my CQC background (in combination with pointing out I also playtest the game) is to say that the thought process related to melee verses ranged combat is something I am intimately familiar with on multiple levels.

While real life knowledge doesn't always translate directly to video game knowledge it is pretty reasonable to think that the thought process shed some light on things.

 

Sorry for throwing twisted versions of what I perceive to be how you wanted to make both running while blocking be viewed as. I wasn't intending for it to be an equal to just blocking but the effects of having both running and blocking being used simultaneously. If it isn't something that can be viewed like that to you, then I might be using a wrong example here. I don't -think- I am but... yeah, seems like I am.

Fair enough. It's cool.

 

 

I never said that they are mutually exclusive.

True.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Ronyn

[matrixEXO]

-snip-

I don't think Railgun shots are direct since it penetrates even cover. But that's just me. Additionally, you should have known already that damage dealt =/= CC applied. That's why there are 0 damage AoE crowd control skills that enemy use. So, if you want certain shots to not apply crowd control, then it has to have some form of crowd control negation. Therefore, while scriptable, I would say that it would pose more work and more testing to see what would go through and what wouldn't. BTW, IMO, someone bodyslamming you with a speed of roughly 100km/h should definitely knock you down, even if you have a shield.

Riven's Valor ability procs the shield after the dash, at least from what I remember on playing her 'ages' ago.

Getting in close during lvl 50+ missions are often met with disaster. Somehow, I normally get away with only melee-ing at levels below 50. As you can tell by that, it would mean that there is no issues whatsoever to even rush in to melee, except spatial awareness.

True. Thought process does shed some light on things. Most times, some form of impact or change is needed though (speed of swinging a Kama in Ninja Gaiden for example as opposed to real life handling of such size). Edited July 23, 2013 by matrixEXO

[Ronyn]

I don't think Railgun shots are direct since it penetrates even cover. But that's just me.  BTW, IMO, someone bodyslamming you with a speed of roughly 100km/h should definitely knock you down, even if you have a shield.

Direct just means it goes in a single direction. You know, as opposed to a cone of effect or a big sphere like area of effect.

Of course considering you aren't even a fan of 100 percent mitigation block I wouldn't expect you to want railguns hits and body charges to be block-able. lol

 

Additionally, you should have known already that damage dealt =/= CC applied. That's why there are 0 damage AoE crowd control skills that enemy use. So, if you want certain shots to not apply crowd control, then it has to have some form of crowd control negation. Therefore, while scriptable, I would say that it would pose more work and more testing to see what would go through and what wouldn't. 

If damage dealt=/ CCApplied then stopping damage dealt=/CC not applied.

Since in my suggestion blocking stops the damage from certain attacks it makes sense that it also stop the CC from those same attacks.

Though I wouldn't want everything to be quite that simple. In some games certain attacks are blockabale but push you back anyway, or might be blocked but opens you up for an attack after that if you aren't careful...etc...

 

Of course it's all going to take work and testing to get right. I'm not looking for the quickest fix, I'm looking for what I feel is the best fix that can be done with a reasonable amount of effort.

 

Riven's Valor ability procs the shield after the dash, at least from what I remember on playing her 'ages' ago.

Oh yeah let's delve super deep into every little detail over a "kind of like" example some more shall we...lol

Point is that even small windowed defense/mobility actions can have a good use.

 

Getting in close during lvl 50+ missions are often met with disaster. Somehow, I normally get away with only melee-ing at levels below 50. As you can tell by that, it would mean that there is no issues whatsoever to even rush in to melee, except spatial awareness.

In Warframe-How effective melee will be is very dependent on a lot of factors, the weapon you have, the enemy we space, the frame you are using, the level your frame/weapons are compared to the enemies you fight, how you are modded and the tactics you employ.

 

One thing that is a good test for a feature in a game is how well it performs at higher difficulty levels.

When things are easy, weaker mechanics can still work. When things get challenging, that is when the weaker mechanics will lead us to disproportionate amounts of trouble. 

 

We both agree that Melee in warframe needs an improvement to the melee system.

Whether using melee results in disaster or not doesn't indicate whether its fun enough to use.

 

True. Thought process does shed some light on things. Most times, some form of impact or change is needed though (speed of swinging a Kama in Ninja Gaiden for example as opposed to real life handling of such size).

Indeed.

[matrixEXO]

-snip-

Of course not. Because it's a mechanic that is implemented with reason (or irregular reasoning). But then again, pushback when blocking a knockdown cc would be a nice addition (it does it's part as a cc effect but with lesser impact).

 

Huh. A 3s shield in LoL is as common as it gets, sorry. If you want a small-windowed shield, try Fiora, Sivir or Nocturne. That 1~2s is as small as a shield can really get (and be as equal an impact to your suggestion minus mobility). As a combination mechanic, I don't see Riven's Valor being a worthy comparison since it's not really running + blocking but running into blocking (with 360 degrees protection).

 

I think the problem is not really high levels but how the design of levels dampen the mechanics. It's the point where the enemy has high armor, high damage resistances and high damage that makes it so unbearably weak. A shift to where 'higher level = smarter AI' is a better way to play it than where 'higher level = tougher enemy of the same kind'. Spawn rates are fine though, IMO.

Edited July 23, 2013 by matrixEXO

[Ronyn]

Huh. A 3s shield in LoL is as common as it gets, sorry. If you want a small-windowed shield, try Fiora, Sivir or Nocturne. That 1~2s is as small as a shield can really get (and be as equal an impact to your suggestion minus mobility). As a combination mechanic, I don't see Riven's Valor being a worthy comparison since it's not really running + blocking but running into blocking (with 360 degrees protection).

You're discounting the specific context and purpose of my example.

That one example wasn't supposed to showcase all of the attributes of what we are discussing.

It was about the timing aspect, that's all.

A good riven will sometimes use precise timing to close distance and defend an attack in just one second of time using the Valor move.

As, in that instance, we were talking about whether 1 second of combined mobility and defense could be useful in theory, I was showing a place where it is useful in practice. 

 

But sure, we could use other champs like fiora who can use her short shield in conjunction with her dash if that works better for you.

It's worth noting a lot of action games put a few frames of invulnerability onto evasive movements that people learn to time properly.

I'd even reference fighting games where players use a moves split second (a few frames) of invulnerability to close distance if that would help but I don't want to open up a 2d verses 3d debate again...lol

 

Bottom line is that even a single a second of high mobility & defense can have it's uses.

 

I think the problem is not really high levels but how the design of levels dampen the mechanics. It's the point where the enemy has high armor, high damage resistances and high damage that makes it so unbearably weak. A shift to where 'higher level = smarter AI' is a better way to play it than where 'higher level = tougher enemy of the same kind'. Spawn rates are fine though, IMO.

heh heh...now this opens up into yet another aspect of the game.

To avoid a derail I will let that be.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Ronyn

[Mohavon]

Yes. Please. The block mechanic is useless now. At this point I would be happy with anything they introduce to make it more viable.

 

What I like:

 

The idea of a "parry" mechanic and enemies staggering if you block their melee. This would be awesome for bullets as well--deflect them back at enemies if you time it right.

 

Enemies blocking, and unblockable attacks.

 

The idea of a special attack when attacking from block. (Perhaps a super-quick block-breaker?)

 

Not sure about the other specifics. But I'm happy to see other people talking about this. It really does need a re-work.

 

 

 

[matrixEXO]

-snip-

Rather minute uses and only meant for clutch plays against real people. Problem is, AI in this game aren't real people. It's near impossible to pull 1s moves off with great success half of the time, yet alone all the time. Compared to that, Riven's Valor is player-trained into reading the flow; how the Champion would move, how that specific player would act, etc. It's the main difference why 1s can be clutch in LoL but not in Warframe.

Edited July 23, 2013 by matrixEXO

[Ronyn]

Rather minute uses and only meant for clutch plays against real people. Problem is, AI in this game aren't real people. It's near impossible to pull 1s moves off with great success half of the time, yet alone all the time. Compared to that, Riven's Valor is player-trained into reading the flow; how the Champion would move, how that specific player would act, etc. It's the main difference why 1s can be clutch in LoL but not in Warframe.

I disagree with the conclusion you've come to there.

When I play Warframe with a melee focus I see these moments of opportunity often. 

To put it simply-learning how to effectively use a 1 second advancing/defense move is matter of knowing your distancing and reading a telegraph.

That is largely why I used the railgun moa in my example-There are MANY times when I can read that they are about to shoot.

If I could activate a second of advancing/defense move I could use it to close into melee range without much issue as opposed to having to do something else, generally less ideal for melee, than I do now.

[J-Pax]

Time would only slow down for you, since you're doing the blocking you know.

Didn't know blocking affected all players when one player started blocking. :o 

 

Seriously guys, lol.

 

 

How do you localize the effect and maintain the "reality" of the situation? If time slows down while you block, everyone's time slows down, unless you want to slow-mo stab someone in the face only to find there's a excalibur slash-dashing all over the place, killing everything all in the time it takes you to swing. You can't really localize slow-motion in a MP game.

 

Seriously....guy.

 

 

It's a nice idea but it's not practical. DE have said they're moving away from "YOU ARE STOPPED NOW" moves on enemies that are unavoidable, but if you give players the ability to slow down in-game time it would literally have to affect the entire localized game-space meaning other players will be slowed down against their will, which for some can be a penalty, not a boon. Yes, there are ice patches in void missions that slow you and everyone on it, to that extent they can probably make a time manipulation warframe that essentially just applies the ice debuff to enemies or some such, but it's against their design plan to hand over the power to slow down players to the players themselves.

Edited July 23, 2013 by J-Pax

[matrixEXO]

-snip-

That is if a railgun MOA is alone. Say you have a Railgun MOA, 2 Techs and 1 Shockwave MOA there along with some few normal MOAs and Crewmen. This is how bad your PoV is, especially when you have more than 1 (or 5) enemies that you need to handle at one time. Using just 1 enemy type and telegraphing combat to a 1v1 scenario is bad as is. Another good example is if you have an enemy Commander at one other side and an enemy Napalm who's close to you and you know he's going to fire (they normally don't move when ready to fire).

 

You need to look at a bigger picture. 1v1 is fine and we all know we can theorize it but let's say you take out all the enemies before taking out the Railgun, what would happen is either you get shot a (exaggeration) million times over or you dodge all the attacks (sliding make dodging railgun shots easier). And what happens if there are 2 Railgun MOAs who are firing in sequence? You get killed and your 1s is just not usable.

 

I can drag this as long as you want to drag this as well but my stand will never change. It's too restricted to be of any use without any mod and will turn people down from using it or get willing to mod into getting more out of it. And because of that, I just cannot accept an increased stamina cost for blocking.

Edited July 23, 2013 by matrixEXO

[Ronyn]

Your statements that my POV is so bad and that I need to look at the big picture is more condescension.

I'm going to just ignore it because honestly, I have way too much clout in that department from multiple respected sources to keep worrying about proving myself to you.

 

That is if a railgun MOA is alone. Say you have a Railgun MOA, 2 Techs and 1 Shockwave MOA there along with some few normal MOAs and Crewmen. This is how bad your PoV is, especially when you have more than 1 (or 5) enemies that you need to handle at one time. Using just 1 enemy type and telegraphing combat to a 1v1 scenario is bad as is. Another good example is if you have an enemy Commander at one other side and an enemy Napalm who's close to you and you know he's going to fire (they normally don't move when ready to fire).

 

You need to look at a bigger picture. 1v1 is fine and we all know we can theorize it but let's say you take out all the enemies before taking out the Railgun, what would happen is either you get shot a (exaggeration) million times over or you dodge all the attacks (sliding make dodging railgun shots easier). And what happens if there are 2 Railgun MOAs who are firing in sequence? You get killed and your 1s is just not usable.

 

I can drag this as long as you want to drag this as well but my stand will never change. It's too restricted to be of any use without any mod and will turn people down from using it or get willing to mod into getting more out of it. And because of that, I just cannot accept an increased stamina cost for blocking.

Ok.

Let's clear some stuff up.

 

1) EVERY battlefield example is limited in applicability to ANY other battlefield example.

When I point out a simple 1v1 to explain something, it is just that, simple to explain something.

In a larger sense, there is quite a bit more to consider. We can go into more battlefield scenarios, including some with multiple enemies...

At times it will be a good idea, at times it will be a terrible idea, at times it will be just one reasonable idea out of many.

There is no move that is always a good idea. There are some moves that are used more rarely than others.

That is the indisputable nature of combat.

 

I say there are several moments in warframe where I see that I have the opportunity to use it right now.

You disagree, that fine.

 

2) We are talking about just a few aspects of an entire combat situation.

Even if one has some effective defensive to close the distance, such things only gets us so far if once closed in we can't have a real effect on the enemies we face. Right now the melee system is quite limited. These scenarios we speak of will keep running into that wall.

If Dante in devil may cry couldn't do all kinds of things like uppercuts and juggles..but was limited to basic hits...

getting all up into the face of a group of larger enemies would be a generally less than ideal tactic more times than not.

Right now warframe lacks depth in how we can effect enemies in melee.

 

3) You are focused on how little one could sprint and block at the same time in my system as if that is some big detrimental loss.

Yet look at the entirety of my suggestions compared to warframes existing blocking and acrobatics system.

In my system both blocking OR acrobatics alone would be approximately as effective as Blocking & acrobatics are simultaneously in the current system.

We are talking about something that may only have use in rare occasions, but that combination is far more powerful under my system than it is now. It really shouldn't be used that often or it would be OP.

 

4) I went ahead and followed along with the "1 second" reference because i viewed it as just some generalized number not worth heavy examination.

However,since it's apparently a sticking point, if we really look at the numbers it is likely not that short eve un-modded.

Lets say you can sprint for 6 seconds, lets say you could block for 6 seconds, doing both simultaneously would limit the action to about 3 seconds.

Note-time of block is not static because, as I said, it's length should be decided by the amount of damage it mitigates and I never suggested that block should burn stamina when not actually blocking something as it does in the current system.

In fact, blocking not burning stamina unless actually blocking something really opens up how easy it would be to use in general AND in concert with sprint.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Ronyn

[matrixEXO]

 

-snip-

1) I played DMC 1 without most of the skills used. I just use Stinger for gap-closing and uppercut for aerial takeouts. Personally, I would say that unless you tried to play in such a fashion, you would only assume that it's a less-than-ideal tactic. Skills and combos are designed for players to learn how to use all of Dante's tools that he has at his disposal but general practice doesn't necessitate or show that they are a better/more ideal tactic. It's options that are given, not damage boosts.

 

2) Depth of how we can affect enemies in melee has nothing to do with blocking. But let's talk about 'depth'. It is basically how many 'flashy' moves you can pull off using the same weapon. That's how depth is. Right now, the current formula is the simplest and easiest to use. Each swing does X damage and has Y speed. Charging has Z speed and C damage. That's all we need to know, that's all there is to know. Therefore, computing how fast you kill an enemy of the same level over and over just becomes "How many swings do I need?" rather than "Can I pull off a sick kick-up to a melee plummet strike?". Besides that, what else do you want? Melee to be able to knock down enemies by swinging at their feet? Hit their hand to disable them from firing a gun? Not gonna happen; not yet and most likely not in the immediate future because the design would take too much work and (cue) realism to even bother.

 

3) If a skill is designed already but not meant to be used often, what's the point of designing that skill. It's like a 1-ton nuke that you can launch every year at an enemy as opposed to a 100 kilo nuke every 1/10th of that. The way you are designing the combo effect is as if it were an ultimate skill, which is totally unnecessary. Simply put, we won't see eye-to-eye on this case.

 

4) Currently, sprinting and stamina consumption on blocking is completely different. Stamina consumption on blocking shots continuously is more than sprinting, possibly flat even if you disregard the passive drain. Therefore, doubling that number would be the same as (using your example) granting you a 3s shield duration. On top of that, adding the sprinting feature on and you effectively have 1s max of sprint blocking effect. Both consumptions are considerably high if you regard that.

 

5) I ignored it because it wasn't something that was core to the discussion at hand. Which is how bad the stamina cost itself is. Sure, it would solve some issues regarding everything but it doesn't completely solve it. You still have a block that is practically a deadweight, draining a lot of stamina when blocking shots and enemy melee attacks; you still have a less-than-ideal sprint blocking mechanic, though more usable now; and it still doesn't provide enough sustain for use outside a one-time-only system, given how you wanted the whole damage-to-stamina consumed thing.

Edited July 23, 2013 by matrixEXO

[Mietz]

I dont understand what this would solve. The game isn't designed around defensive options.

[Ronyn]

1) 

In the spirit of testing-I try multiple scenarios in multiple games.

 

In devil may cry, uppercutting most non-boss enemies makes then incapable of fighting back temporarily, the stinger interrupts most non-boss enemy attacks.

If you just run around the enemies using the base combo, you will have serious issues getting through any of the more powerful/exotic non-boss enemies on the harder settings.That is what I mean by how we can effect enemies. It wasn't a reference to the damage of the attack.

 

Stuns,interrupts, knockdowns, juggles, knockbacks, disarms, trips, guard breaks, etc..this are things that EFFECT the enemy.

These are some of the things that allow a player to effectively fight groups of enemies who cannot be just killed off quickly.

The harder difficulty settings of games like Ninja Giaden and Devil may cry prove that very thing.

In the harder settings those moves aren't just options, utilizing at least some of them correctly is mandatory for success.

Like I eluded to before, when the game gets challenging is when you find out the true limits and potential of a system.

 

Note-The first devil may cry didn't have a whole lot of skills to choose from. If you used the stinger and the uppercut that was most of it. 

 

2) 

I said that blocking is one part of the whole combat model, how we can effect enemies in melee is another and they interact with each other.

There is no denying that getting close to an enemy is only useful if you can do something once you get there.

If blocking is used to get close, and melee options are used to do something once close-the relationship between them is clear.

 

Depth isn't the same thing as "flashy". What I referenced above in DMC and Ninja Gaiden is an example of how certain moves do more than just damage. They EFFECT the enemy in more ways than just damage. These moves may be spectacular to look at (flashy) but its how they allow the player to effect the enemy that makes it depth. 

 

Right now in warframe there isn't much of that. Right now. The current melee combat model is quite simplistic.

Because of that, we are limited in tactical options objectively speaking.

Whether that is a good or bad thing is a subjective issue.

 

I don't want to turn this into a debate about whether they should, shouldn't, would or wouldn't expand into things like uppercuts and disarms.

The point is that the existence or lack of existence of those types of moves greatly effect what kind of combat options we have in melee range.

That limit effects how wise it is to stay in melee range against tougher enemies.

 

 

3) 

Many things implemented in game design are intended to be used less often than others.

 

While yes the way I'm designing the skill is to be a very strong combo to be used in rare situations..

keep in mind that combo is just the by product of re-designing two skills that will be useful quite often to good effect.

 

Whether we see eye to eye on the issue is not a big deal. 

 

4) & 5) 

 

I see part of the problem here. 

When I say that block should consume more stamina to be more effective I am speaking in the broad, overall sense.

In the current system- non moded stamina kind of burns away too fast while fully modded stamina burns too slowly.

At full modded stamina, the amount of excess stamina I have is ridiculous. 

At base level, the amount of stamina used to block just half damage isn't worth it. 

This is a prime situation where the exact numbers used in implementation decide so much of how effective or not this would be.

 

For my suggestion-The equation of how much damage costs how much stamina hasn't even been presented here. 

It's easy enough to simply acknowledge that the numbers should be set up to make it reasonable....

 

Note-Without the passive stamina drain it makes it a lot easier to time the block to the incoming fire. That is very important to usability.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Ronyn

[matrixEXO]

Note-Without the passive stamina drain it makes it a lot easier to time the block to the incoming fire. That is very important to usability.

You just made me question your mindset. Easier to time? It makes it easier to just hold block until they fire, no timing needed. Timing is key when you have some other thing draining your resource pool other than soaked bullets. Or the usage of it is restricted for a flat duration, regardless of the bountiful amount of resource available. Maybe you meant "easier to use" because you don't have that massive penalty for holding it up for so long.

 

Now, hopping back to where the conversation should be flowing.

 

While you prefer to pull moves after moves, I prefer to actually do hard work for it (and get bored because of hard work). It's a matter of preference and should not bog down gameplay by much. The game does not have numerous insane stat-changer because I don't use that move, they still remain the same. Using such moves makes life easier but doesn't really cost anything and harm anyone (as long as you read the telegraph right). But this game lacks total telegraphy patterns of all enemies. Grineers don't shout, "I'm firing my gun!" before firing nor does the Corpus Crewman. This game doesn't need telegraphs as much as those games with the exception of CC-based or uniquely applied effects (Leaper's reel before leaping, Shockwave's leg-up before stomp, Railgun's priming charge before fire, Ancient's sprinting charge 'roar' and arm pullback before stretch, Fusion's prepping for Drone release, Runner's hunching before exploding).

 

Well, as long as it deals damage and shows of an animation that is different than the norm, it's "flashy" in my books. Because there isn't anything different about it and normal attacks. They don't apply pressure or leech life or do something unique to make them more unique and varied. Just a +25% damage boost (example) and it's depth? That ain't depth at all. It's just changing of numbers but the same thing is occurring over and over again. It's also part of the reason why I get bored of a lot of games easily these days. Combat-wise, it's so... samey. Damage this with move X, damage some more with move Y.

 

Wait, redesigning TWO(2) skills? Sigh. (Didn't want to delve into this but FINE!) Parkour are not really meant for combat use and it's only purpose if done is to run from cover A to cover B or past it. And clones that are trained for combat for so long and have the combat analysis of the Tenno not be trained to aim at a Tenno who's parkouring is a bit... strange. <Sarcasm> And as with all movement skills, they are super impactful so why not say we need to nerf the duration of usage? It's SUPER impactful as that you can move from cover to cover so you can survive so long. </Sarcasm>

 

I actually learned that I didn't need Stamina+ mods if I attacked right. Attacking while holding the block button leads you to attack in a block stance. After attacking, with Stamina Regen+ mod, you normally are able to regen that stamina out faster than it can drain. And you can swing as fast as normal too. I think the issue you are having is that you are using block as a kind of plasma shield from Halo that protects against bullets.

 

EDIT: Might edit this. I might be skipping on details since I'm sleepy while writing this.

Edited July 24, 2013 by matrixEXO

[Ronyn]

You just made me question your mindset. Easier to time? It makes it easier to just hold block until they fire, no timing needed. Timing is key when you have some other thing draining your resource pool other than soaked bullets. Or the usage of it is restricted for a flat duration, regardless of the bountiful amount of resource available. Maybe you meant "easier to use" because you don't have that massive penalty for holding it up for so long.

I mentioned that I am not a fan of stamina being pulled from blocking when not actually blocking a long time ago...

You could say I meant easier to use though easier to time is a reference to how during the sprint/block combo, stamina is burning do to the sprint.

so if one isn't careful at some point you would still run out of stamina OR just not have enough stamina to effectively block whatever it is coming your way.

You were concerned about usability, that is addressing it.

 

 

While you prefer to pull moves after moves, I prefer to actually do hard work for it (and get bored because of hard work). It's a matter of preference and should not bog down gameplay by much. The game does not have numerous insane stat-changer because I don't use that move, they still remain the same. Using such moves makes life easier but doesn't really cost anything and harm anyone (as long as you read the telegraph right). But this game lacks total telegraphy patterns of all enemies. Grineers don't shout, "I'm firing my gun!" before firing nor does the Corpus Crewman. This game doesn't need telegraphs as much as those games with the exception of CC-based or uniquely applied effects (Leaper's reel before leaping, Shockwave's leg-up before stomp, Railgun's priming charge before fire, Ancient's sprinting charge 'roar' and arm pullback before stretch, Fusion's prepping for Drone release, Runner's hunching before exploding).

When I talk about having various moves to do that is in no way saying I don't want challenge.

Again, hard settings of DMC and Ninja gaiden are WELL KNOWN for their challenge.

The need to utilize various moves doesn't make it an easier game to play.

 

Depth is what asks for an expanded thought process.

It's not about being bogged down with options its about enriching the experience.

Its having enemies that push you to do more than the same tactic over and over & having the move set that allows for that.

To use those moves right the player has to think fast, know when to use what and execute things precisely.

Believe me when I say, wanting a deep melee combat system is NOT about making a game easier.

I can't say I've ever seen a reference to dmc/ninja gaiden style combat get met with "I prefer to actually do hard for it". lol

 

Telegraphing is an interesting subject. I'd rather not go down that road.

Suffice to say that Warframe has a fair amount of it already.

As a hybrid shooter/melee game the enemy design will show sensibilities of both genres.

 

Well, as long as it deals damage and shows of an animation that is different than the norm, it's "flashy" in my books. Because there isn't anything different about it and normal attacks. They don't apply pressure or leech life or do something unique to make them more unique and varied. Just a +25% damage boost (example) and it's depth? That ain't depth at all. It's just changing of numbers but the same thing is occurring over and over again. It's also part of the reason why I get bored of a lot of games easily these days. Combat-wise, it's so... samey. Damage this with move X, damage some more with move Y.

 

Combat depth is different than flash. 

Flashy is just moves that look cool, combat depth is actual difference in how a move effects an enemy.

To use your words, its depth when there IS something different about a move than normal attacks.

I talked about stuns and interrupts and all that...

Most successful games of the melee genre (again..like DMC and Ninja gaiden) are both flashy and deep in their combat model.

Two different things that often go together.

 

Honestly, we don't need to continue the talk about that aspect of things.

 

Wait, redesigning TWO(2) skills? Sigh. (Didn't want to delve into this but FINE!) Parkour are not really meant for combat use and it's only purpose if done is to run from cover A to cover B or past it. And clones that are trained for combat for so long and have the combat analysis of the Tenno not be trained to aim at a Tenno who's parkouring is a bit... strange. <Sarcasm> And as with all movement skills, they are super impactful so why not say we need to nerf the duration of usage? It's SUPER impactful as that you can move from cover to cover so you can survive so long. </Sarcasm>

 

What pakour is for..well it's for whatever they make it for.

I'd prefer it integrates into the combat model seamlessly

I can't pretend to know DE's mind of this stuff but I got the sense they wanted the acrobatics to be more than just a traversal and get to cover system.

 

 

I actually learned that I didn't need Stamina+ mods if I attacked right. Attacking while holding the block button leads you to attack in a block stance. After attacking, with Stamina Regen+ mod, you normally are able to regen that stamina out faster than it can drain. And you can swing as fast as normal too. I think the issue you are having is that you are using block as a kind of plasma shield from Halo that protects against bullets.

 

I wasn't saying I was having a "problem" with stamina. I was talking about cost verses reward.

Early on, the block seems to burn too much stamina for what it does.

End game, once modded, I have enough stamina to sprint/block through room after room.

 

 

EDIT: Might edit this. I might be skipping on details since I'm sleepy while writing this.

I don't feel like you caught what I was saying. lol

Edited July 24, 2013 by Ronyn

[matrixEXO]

-snip-

Morning... My brain normally don't try to soak implied information when sleepy, instead just processing it as written on surface. Bad habit of keeping myself awake when tired.

 

I see. I still feel that timing is still key when it drains stamina passively because you know that it would suck your stamina if you use it too early. Lessening that stamina burden allows for easier use of blocking without much repercussions (though there still is). But when the repercussions hit, they hit harder than what it is right now.

 

It sound like the issue you have is actually with the AI, not the melee combat system. Unless the AI is improved first, the current form of combat is more than enough to suffice. Expanding on the combat system without improving AI is just ridiculous because you can still just go up and basic melee people until they drop. No point going down this road.

 

Which was why when I said on my previous 2 posts ago about melee affecting body parts hit (forms of CC), no reply on that. Thus, I assume you ignored it because it has nothing to do with how you perceive depth in combat. What you want when it comes to stagger and interrupt is actually a guaranteed effect of it, right? Current system says, "Get a Fire, Ice and Electrical mod." and if you ask me if it's a good design, no. Like I said, it would be best if they remove those mods and make weapons imbue-able with them but can't be changed. If you expect the melee combat system to have the depth that DMC did, then you might need to change your views. With the numerous weapons designed, even the combat system depth that DMC had would be crazy to be implemented in this game. The amount of moves that a single weapon has in DMC is a lot (10+) compared to the current melee combat system in place (2). That and animations, damage shifts, effect application, etc.

 

I prefer parkour in it's own place. And running too. Else, enemies ought to be harder, stronger and better (and we don't want to screw newbies over, right?). When your common enemy of the country are ninjas and you know they wallrun and do crazy stuffs, would you still train the fresh recruits for just basic combat only? No, you train them on both basic combat AND how to combat these enemies. Same thing needs to be applied to the Grineer and other factions.

 

The cost vs reward is definitely not up-to-par. Which is why both of us have our own takes onto how we could improve the rewards associated with the cost. You have yours while I have mine. You wanted to mix your own boosts with mine; some accepted, some being debated and the others in disagreement.

Edited July 24, 2013 by matrixEXO

[Ronyn]

Morning... My brain normally don't try to soak implied information when sleepy, instead just processing it as written on surface. Bad habit of keeping myself awake when tired.

I have a habit of staying awake beyond the point that I should as well. :)

 

 

I see. I still feel that timing is still key when it drains stamina passively because you know that it would suck your stamina if you use it too early. Lessening that stamina burden allows for easier use of blocking without much repercussions (though there still is). But when the repercussions hit, they hit harder than what it is right now.

Yes, that is a fair way to put it.

 

It sound like the issue you have is actually with the AI, not the melee combat system. Unless the AI is improved first, the current form of combat is more than enough to suffice. Expanding on the combat system without improving AI is just ridiculous because you can still just go up and basic melee people until they drop. No point going down this road.

 

Which was why when I said on my previous 2 posts ago about melee affecting body parts hit (forms of CC), no reply on that. Thus, I assume you ignored it because it has nothing to do with how you perceive depth in combat. What you want when it comes to stagger and interrupt is actually a guaranteed effect of it, right? Current system says, "Get a Fire, Ice and Electrical mod." and if you ask me if it's a good design, no. Like I said, it would be best if they remove those mods and make weapons imbue-able with them but can't be changed. If you expect the melee combat system to have the depth that DMC did, then you might need to change your views. With the numerous weapons designed, even the combat system depth that DMC had would be crazy to be implemented in this game. The amount of moves that a single weapon has in DMC is a lot (10+) compared to the current melee combat system in place (2). That and animations, damage shifts, effect application, etc.

My reply was there though perhaps not obviously enough. 

 

Speaking broadly-

There is no "how I perceive depth in combat". There is simply the truth of what is depth in combat.

It comes from the relationship between cause and effect, action and reaction, attack and defense, move and counter move.

That is the nature of combat, something that persists between real life and video games.

The specific moves change but that core paradigm does not.

 

Speaking specifically on Warframe-

One can't boil my issues with the melee system down to JUST the enemy AI or JUST the players move set. They are interconnected.

Changing just one or the other would be foolish and not achieve the desired effect. Each must be designed with the other in mind.

A combat system, and it's depth, is the result of both what the player can do and what the enemy can do. It is the interplay itself.

I'll refer you to two points I made earlier.

 

1)It is unwise to consider changing how the player character moves without also considering how that will affect the balance of combat encounters and therefore how enemies must be changed to keep it right. Any feature that gets changed or added can potentially require some amount of tweaking to enemy behaviors.

 

2) Its having enemies that push you to do more than the same tactic over and over & having the move set that allows for that.

 

On to my references of DMC and Ninja gaiden-

I have been using Devil may cry and Ninja Gaiden as examples of what depth in a melee combat system looks like when done well.

I am not suggesting that Warframe do exactly what they did, or even go as far as they did. They are just examples for illustration.

 

However it's very important to note that DMC1 didn't have a particularly large moveset but was reasonably deep.

From that, and other similar examples, we can theorize that bringing Warframe's melee combat depth up to a good place doesn't require the long combo lists of later ninja gaidens or the prolonged Arial combos of the later DMCs.

Just a few key moves that have strong interplay with the enemies. 

 

Yes, even that would require some real time and effort to implement.

But DE has stated several times that they want to really expand the melee combat system and they have been looking for ways to do that.

There isn't going to be some quick easy fix.

 

On to Effects being guaranteed-

Essentially yes, the effects have to be guaranteed for real combat depth to exist properly.

Or, more accurate to say, there needs to be more predictability in what does what to who, when and why.

Example-In games like DMC and Ninja Gaiden the uppercut does a certain specific thing

<knocks enemies into the air leaving them open to attack>.

Some enemies are prone to it, some are resistant to it, some are immune to it, some can only be effected by it under certain conditions....etc..

 

The point is that its predictable in the sense that its based on controllable and/or perceivable factors not "chance to proc".

Warframe has a few of the guaranteed types (jump attacks knock down enemies) and a few of the chance to proc types(chance to stun).

The true combat depth will come more from the guaranteed types than from the proc types.

The chance to proc effects do have their uses though, so I'm not trying to abolish them completely.

 

Side note-I'm open to the elemental/Mod imbue idea. But that is yet another branching subject. lol

 

I prefer parkour in it's own place. And running too. Else, enemies ought to be harder, stronger and better (and we don't want to screw newbies over, right?). When your common enemy of the country are ninjas and you know they wallrun and do crazy stuffs, would you still train the fresh recruits for just basic combat only? No, you train them on both basic combat AND how to combat these enemies. Same thing needs to be applied to the Grineer and other factions.

Again, good combat is about the interplay between the players and the enemies.

Bringing parkour more synergisticly into the combat model by making it more evasive in nature is meant to expand that interplay.

Ideally it would be something that has it's own advantages, disadvantages, limitations and opportunities.

This is it's own subject and would require it's own line of specific suggestions to express what I am getting at accurately enough to debate properly.

Still, it is important when considering the limitations of the sprint/block combo under my suggestions, that you count it as part of a larger re-work of more than just one mechanic.

 

 

The cost vs reward is definitely not up-to-par. Which is why both of us have our own takes onto how we could improve the rewards associated with the cost. You have yours while I have mine. You wanted to mix your own boosts with mine; some accepted, some being debated and the others in disagreement.

Exactly.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Ronyn