Warframe classes: Military, Infiltrators, Spies, Support and Reconnaissance

[Marthrym]

1 hour ago, (PS4)felsager said:

According to you. I could say the same about the tenno focus schools. We all have opinions on everything. It's perfectly normal to write a disagreement. 

Are we talking frames or Focus schools here? You specifically mentioned frames in your OP. And frames only. If you want to go into Focus schools, we can, but this is an entirely different debate, covering entirely different mechanics and parts of the game. Using it as an argument in favor of classes for frames seems extremely misguided and I would even go so far as to say... disingenuous.

 

1 hour ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Warframe is a playground. It tests different types of game play in lineal combinations. This game is the reference book for many other game designers and developers. With some frames I can combine Pharah, Mercy, Diva, Gengi and Hanzo. These are perfect lineal combinations that are particularized in parameters similar to Overwatch. A Zephir can take those tasks in a seamless transition. 

Overwatch? How is Warframe, a third person cooperative PvE oriented horde shooter, the same as Overwatch, a competitive team vs team PvP oriented game? Might as well say "hey, this game is like any game with melee weapons, I can test lots of swords and other pointy and bludgeonny things to kill stuff!", or "Warframe is like any shooter out there because I use guns to shoot at stuff!". I mean come on! Really? Overwatch has heroes with specific skillsets, specific roles. Of course frames can do much more than them! They were DESIGNED to in the first place! That's the whole point of the game! Play with whatever frame you want, with whatever loadout you want, whichever way you want! Why are you so hellbent on taking that away? I don't understand! I want to understand but I just can't! It makes no damn sense to me!

1 hour ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Yes, we know this is not a Battlefront 2 testing ground. That is the classical vehicular CLASS system. It's a military test. When many people listen to class they think on COD. Warframe is a COMPOSITE game that adds a card game, hack and slash, parkour, and suppers with gear. It's a cooperative game, we all agree on that. 

See previous paragraph. What does that have to do with Battlefront 2? Or CoD? That's exactly the point! They are not similar! Where the hell are you going with all these references? You're just trying to jam in utterly irrelevant examples into the discussion to make your case! Why?

1 hour ago, (PS4)felsager said:

CLASSES ARE NOT RESTRICTION. Classes assign extra attributes. The class happens on the tenno. Nothing gets pigeonholed. You simply can get the must of your weapon by modding. A class ACTIVATES a perk that allows you to switch between FPV to TPV. The videos included in the previous posts gives an idea how the idea will look. 

RESTRICTIONS ARE EXACTLY THE POINT OF CLASSES. Classes give you specific attributes. NOT extra ones. They promote using several classes in squads to use ALL of their specific, RESTRICTED TO THEM ONLY skillsets together to get a polyvalent team that can respond to as many different situations as possible! You can only use the perks your SPECIFIC class ALLOWS you to activate!

And by the way switching from TPS to FPS view has nothing to do with classes in the first place... It has nothing to do with perks either. And I don't need a video to know how it looks, it used to be a bug that we could recreate more or less reliably. And it got squashed because it showed very well that no, Warframe is NOT a FPS, is not built for that type of gameplay at all, and why would it be?

1 hour ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Yes, Battlefront 2. 

But the class doesn't kill the freedoms, choices or selection of items. These are classes that ACTIVATES special abilities. 

Again with Battlefront 2! Why the fixation? why? I want to understand!

Of course the class inhibits the freedoms, choice or selection of items. Each class has specific loadouts and perks that no other class can use! That's the whole point of the class system! Specific roles! Specific equipment! Why? Why are you doing this to me? What have I done to you? Stop! Please! I'm begging you!

Edited August 25, 2017 by Marthrym

[Dwolfknight]

I couldn't play the part of devils advocate here even if I tried, @(PS4)felsager You keep flip flopping your opinions, on one post it's "just a suggestion" and on another that is how it's supposed to be, you are only prolonging a by now meaningless thread, since it's just you replying the same 2 options to different people that are saying the same stuff.

Stick to one of your choices, if it is just a suggestion then don't cling to it, if you really want this in game, well, you are not getting it (at least not in the next 2 years).
Here is a bit of number to show why it's a bad idea.

Spoiler

Let's assume that from all warframes only 6 will be classified as able to use the first person mode, let's also be optimistic and say that all warframes are used on an equal split meaning that these 6 warframes are used ~18% of the time. Let's also be optimistic and say that 60% of the people that use these frames also use the appropriate weapons, that is 0.60*0.18 that is ~10% of players. Let's also say that they use the first person mode around 50% of the time that is 0.50*0*10 which means that only this mode will only see 5% use, this with very optimistic numbers. Do you think that anyone in their right of mind would make something that only 5% of people would use?

Now you know what other stuff has under 5% use? Trials, that is why we only have 2, PVP, that is why it hasn't been expanded yet, Archwing, it's been quite some time we don't have more archwing content.

In simpler words, even if we got it, it would be discontinued after no one cares.

 

Everyone heard yours and voiced their opinions, No, we don't want classes for Warframes, we don't want this game to be more similar to Overwatch or Battlefront or any other first person shooter or any combination of all of them. That is why we are playing Warframe and not them.

This argument is becoming needlessly heated.

[(PSN)felsager]

26 minutes ago, Marthrym said:

Are we talking frames or Focus schools here? You specifically mentioned frames in your OP. And frames only. If you want to go into Focus schools, we can, but this is an entirely different debate, covering entirely different mechanics and parts of the game. Using it as an argument in favor of classes for frames seems extremely misguided and I would even go so far as to say... disingenuous.

Original idea evolved throughout the discussion. 

There are three options. 

1. Classes could be assigned to tenno. 

2. Classes could be assigned to some particular gear

3. A new warframe could be a class on that warframe alone.

We are not asking for be ingenious or disingenuous. It's not a debate about wits, This is a debate about the better design idea. I am not trying to leave the idea behind. Why should I? This is a feedback discussion, see? 

26 minutes ago, Marthrym said:

 

Overwatch? How is Warframe, a third person cooperative PvE oriented horde shooter, the same as Overwatch, a competitive team vs team PvP oriented game? Might as well say "hey, this game is like any game with melee weapons, I can test lots of swords and other pointy and bludgeonny things to kill stuff!", or "Warframe is like any shooter out there because I use guns to shoot at stuff!". I mean come on! Really? Overwatch has heroes with specific skillsets, specific roles. Of course frames can do much more than them! They were DESIGNED to in the first place! That's the whole point of the game! Play with whatever frame you want, with whatever loadout you want, whichever way you want! Why are you so hellbent on taking that away? I don't understand! I want to understand but I just can't! It makes no damn sense to me!

My design DOESN'T limit the potential of the game. Overwatch was used as a comparison. We don't want to turn Warframe into Destiny or Call of Duty. We have greener and Corpus. These uses military approaches to deal with the problems. Classes are not restriction. Classes in COD are designed for restricted roles. That is the whole purpose of that game. Warframe has the freedom to choose, set, define and select your loadout. 

26 minutes ago, Marthrym said:

See previous paragraph. What does that have to do with Battlefront 2? Or CoD? That's exactly the point! They are not similar! Where the hell are you going with all these references? You're just trying to jam in utterly irrelevant examples into the discussion to make your case! Why?

Because these are immediate comparisons. The concept we are using is the CLASS. Those games will happen in the discussion. When you bring a concept people will bring the references and the precedent. Discussions happens like that. 

26 minutes ago, Marthrym said:

RESTRICTIONS ARE EXACTLY THE POINT OF CLASSES. Classes give you specific attributes. NOT extra ones. They promote using several classes in squads to use ALL of their specific, RESTRICTED TO THEM ONLY skillsets together to get a polyvalent team that can respond to as many different situations as possible! You can only use the perks your SPECIFIC class ALLOWS you to activate!

We suggested a NEW definition of CLASS. I am not imposing a literal translation of a class in Warframe. We have to define that object in the Warframe universe. We are trying to do it in here. 

Definition: A CLASS in warframe is an extra layer of skill tree that allows more parkour movements, TPV-FPV switching, weapon reconfiguration for extra zoom, use of sentry guns, use of spy bots, etc. 

It is the same idea as the FOCUS tree. Looks like your problem is the use of the word class. I need the word because if we want to add an extra attribute to ANY warframe we have to start with a set of these advantages. 

26 minutes ago, Marthrym said:

And by the way switching from TPS to FPS view has nothing to do with classes in the first place... It has nothing to do with perks either. And I don't need a video to know how it looks, it used to be a bug that we could recreate more or less reliably. And it got squashed because it showed very well that no, Warframe is NOT a FPS, is not built for that type of gameplay at all, and why would it be?

Again, it is a design idea. We add attribute to a specific class. Each concept is not the consequence of the other. We are clear on that. Warframe can be a HYBRID of FPS and TPS, why not? 

 

26 minutes ago, Marthrym said:

Again with Battlefront 2! Why the fixation? why? I want to understand!

Use of examples as reference. We don't want that type of class in Warframe. It gives an idea of the things I don't want in my class definition. Too easy to understand, I don't see why you can't?

26 minutes ago, Marthrym said:

Of course the class inhibits the freedoms, choice or selection of items. Each class has specific loadouts and perks that no other class can use! That's the whole point of the class system! Specific roles! Specific equipment! Why? Why are you doing this to me? What have I done to you? Stop! Please! I'm begging you!

WRONG.

Example:

a. Class Support: It is assigned to the tenno. The tenno may choose any warfare inheriting the particular attributes of that class. The choice of that class gives the FPV-TPV switch, grants you faster reloading on heavy weapons and faster recharges on the OPTICOR for example. The clip size increases and your hit power increases. You get the parkour of cover based play. 

see?

 

[(PSN)felsager]

7 minutes ago, Dwolfknight said:

I couldn't play the part of devils advocate here even if I tried, You keep flip flopping your opinions, on one post it's "just a suggestion" and on another that is how it's supposed to be, you are only prolonging a by now meaningless thread, since it's just you replying the same 2 options to different people that are saying the same stuff.

According to you. Yes, suggestions turns into ideas. We debate those. Remember not everybody reads the same comments so some ideas repeats. 

Stick to one of your choices, if it is just a suggestion then don't cling to it, if you really want this in game, well, you are not getting it (at least not in the next 2 years).
Here is a bit of number to show why it's a bad idea.

Sorry but you are in no position to tell me what to do. If you don't like the thread, simply leave. If you want to add your suggestions or ideas then do so. Choose.  

  Reveal hidden contents

Let's assume that from all warframes only 6 will be classified as able to use the first person mode, let's also be optimistic and say that all warframes are used on an equal split meaning that these 6 warframes are used ~18% of the time. Let's also be optimistic and say that 60% of the people that use these frames also use the appropriate weapons, that is 0.60*0.18 that is ~10% of players. Let's also say that they use the first person mode around 50% of the time that is 0.50*0*10 which means that only this mode will only see 5% use, this with very optimistic numbers. Do you think that anyone in their right of mind would make something that only 5% of people would use?

Now you know what other stuff has under 5% use? Trials, that is why we only have 2, PVP, that is why it hasn't been expanded yet, Archwing, it's been quite some time we don't have more archwing content.

In simpler words, even if we got it, it would be discontinued after no one cares.

 

Everyone heard yours and voiced their opinions, No, we don't want classes for Warframes, we don't want this game to be more similar to Overwatch or Battlefront or any other first person shooter or any combination of all of them. That is why we are playing Warframe and not them.

This argument is becoming needlessly heated.

Yes, that is is you, speak for yourself. Again if you don't want classes then leave the thread. I heard your opinion once. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by (PS4)felsager

[GrayArchon]

15 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

1. Temporary flight with the archwing, already available in the development of Plains of Eidolon. 

2. Switch between TPS to FPS on specialized weapons 

3. More advanced parkour on some warframes. 

4. Considerable larger clip size and a very fast reload speed on heavy weapons. 

5. Beam weapons recharges even faster. 

6. Enemy can be seen behind wall. 

7. Gun emplacements and flying sentry turrets. 

Ah, okay. Thanks for elaborating. 4 and 5 sound pretty generic. They remind me of the perks from the Borderlands skill trees; plus, you can get the same effect with rivens. But some of these are pretty interesting (1, 3, 6). I'd be interested in seeing these maybe being looked at. But, I have to say, classes are still restriction by definition, even under your proposed framework. If you give one class the ability to see through walls, then you are restricting other classes from that perk. Depending on how much these classes impact gameplay and choice, a player could feel locked out of a playstyle they want because their other choices don't allow it. Even if you only add abilities and don't directly place restrictions, the act of creating classes creates restriction by nature.

15 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Example of an instance:

Two Greener flying carriers equipped with heavy guns maned by heavy troops are searching for you. The whole thing has powerful main guns and these carriers fly in numbers of two. Each carrier has platoons of Greener with special teams that uses sentry guns, droids and globe shields. 

Your warframe has a powerful weapon that can be shot as you already can with the TPV. However this gun uses a special perk that is given due to some class selection on your tenno. Since you want to take out the gunners in the flying carrier, you perform your speed run, do your bullet jumps and then once on land you immediately switch to FPV. This activates a perk in your weapon that makes extra damage plus gives you accuracy. Then make few shots and switch back to TPV for an escape route since the other ship is trying to pull a barrage on you. 

You "ORGANICALLY" switch between FPV to TPV whenever you want. It's not a limiting box of being stuck with FPV. You can continue shooting your weapon doing those maneuvers on TPV. 

Ooohhhhhhhhhh. Okay. Now it's actually clear to me what you want, and why. Okay.

Yeah, I can get this. Battlefield adaptation of tactics would be an interesting mechanic to implement (as long as it were optional) (side note: this is actually kind of what I was hoping the gameplay experience with Equinox to be like, but it's not very well-developed for this purpose as far as I can tell). I could get behind this.

However, I still don't see the advantage of first person in this situation. I don't see how it improves accuracy – in the current third-person view, your bullets still hit the centre of the reticle, unless your accuracy is gimped by Heavy Calibre or something. I guess I wouldn't be opposed, necessarily, to its addition, were it free, but I think the personnel and time cost would be irresponsible, as I can't really see any reason for it (the first-person view specifically, not the tactical adaptation element).

[Marthrym]

2 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Original idea evolved throughout the discussion. 

There are three options. 

1. Classes could be assigned to tenno. 

2. Classes could be assigned to some particular gear

3. A new warframe could be a class on that warframe alone.

I wasn't there when it devolved. Sorry... evolved.

1. Why? Why would we need that? Why not put in the game for everyone, period?

2. Again, no. This LIMITS loadout options. A concept you seem to have a real hard time wrapping your head around.

3. Worst of the 3 "options", by a landslide. I can't even begin to understand why this is even mentioned as "option".

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

We are not asking for be ingenious or disingenuous. It's not a debate about wits, This is a debate about the better design idea. I am not trying to leave the idea behind. Why should I? This is a feedback discussion, see? 

Except this is not a good idea. And you did use irrelevant examples of completely different games, with completely different design philosophies to try and "advertise" said idea as a "good" one. That's not what feedback is FYI.

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

My design DOESN'T limit the potential of the game. Overwatch was used as a comparison. We don't want to turn Warframe into Destiny or Call of Duty. We have greener and Corpus. These uses military approaches to deal with the problems. Classes are not restriction. Classes in COD are designed for restricted roles. That is the whole purpose of that game.

Where did I say your design limited "the potential of the game"? I stated that it imposed pointless, unneeded limiations to the range of gameplay options any player can have at any time. That's our potential, the players'. Because again, your "design" does impose limitations. Using Overwatch as a comparison material makes no sense. This is not a valid comparison to make between these two games because they are far too different in their design philosophies, mechanics, and purposes themselves to make such a comparison in the first place. And stop it with CoD. IRRELEVANT.

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Warframe has the freedom to choose, set, define and select your loadout. 

Please, PLEASE tell me you see how you just utterly destroyed your whole "design" with this very sentence...

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Because these are immediate comparisons. The concept we are using is the CLASS. Those games will happen in the discussion. When you bring a concept people will bring the references and the precedent. Discussions happens like that. 

We suggested a NEW definition of CLASS. I am not imposing a literal translation of a class in Warframe. We have to define that object in the Warframe universe. We are trying to do it in here. 

Definition: A CLASS in warframe is an extra layer of skill tree that allows more parkour movements, TPV-FPV switching, weapon reconfiguration for extra zoom, use of sentry guns, use of spy bots, etc. 

I see where the problem lies now. You have absolutely no idea what the word class means! That or you used it in the single worst possible manner to talk about something completely unrelated to what the class system is in every other game in history.

This clarifies a lot of things. Now we're finally going somewhere.

Basically you just want players to be able to do more stuff. THEN WHY NOT JUST WORD IT LIKE THIS INSTEAD? Seriously! Just say "hey it would be cool if we could do this and that in Warframe!". That's it. THAT'S IT. Not "hey let's use the class system from this game, and that game, and that other game, except not at all!" in the most unrelated and confusing way ever!

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

It is the same idea as the FOCUS tree. Looks like your problem is the use of the word class. I need the word because if we want to add an extra attribute to ANY warframe we have to start with a set of these advantages. 

Then WHY use the word CLASS? It's a VERY specific word, with a very SPECIFIC meaning. It's like you did on purpose just to troll! And again, you're confusing me, what with this idea of adding it to SPECIFIC frames! You're back to what classes are! God, make up your mind! Stop saying one thing to then say the opposite like they're one and the same! They're not the same thing! Either you want something new that isn't tied to any frame or weapon, like the Focus system, which I am fine with since it doesn't limit options, or you want it tied to specific frames or gear, which basically is what a class is!

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Again, it is a design idea. We add attribute to a specific class. Each concept is not the consequence of the other. We are clear on that. Warframe can be a HYBRID of FPS and TPS, why not? 

And again, it's bad design idea. It's not an "attribute". And no, Warframe can't be a hybrid of TPS and FPS. For so many obvious reasons. Your asking why not is just baffling to me. Not to mention this is not what a TPS/FPD hybrid is in the first place! We have examples of this type of game, why not mention one of THESE instead? Wouldn't that be relevant to your design for a change? Just baffling.

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Use of examples as reference. We don't want that type of class in Warframe. It gives an idea of the things I don't want in my class definition. Too easy to understand, I don't see why you can't?

Except these examples are IRRELEVANT. These games are NOTHING like Warframe! Their core design is COMPLETELY different! Too easy to understand, I don't see why you can't?

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

WRONG.

Example:

a. Class Support: It is assigned to the tenno. The tenno may choose any warfare inheriting the particular attributes of that class. The choice of that class gives the FPV-TPV switch, grants you faster reloading on heavy weapons and faster recharges on the OPTICOR for example. The clip size increases and your hit power increases. You get the parkour of cover based play. 

see?

IRRELEVANT.

This has nothing to do with classes, it's just pointlessly tedious, tacked on mechanics that could be used without ANY of said pointless hassle. You have no idea what "class" means, that much is obvious, but still seem to badly want to add mechanics that could be interesting, except you want them to be implemented in a rather peculiar, tedious, pointless fashion, when they could very well be made readily and easily available to everyone without  any of that mess.

See?

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Marthrym

[(PSN)felsager]

1 hour ago, GrayArchon said:

Ah, okay. Thanks for elaborating. 4 and 5 sound pretty generic. They remind me of the perks from the Borderlands skill trees; plus, you can get the same effect with rivens. But some of these are pretty interesting (1, 3, 6). I'd be interested in seeing these maybe being looked at. But, I have to say, classes are still restriction by definition, even under your proposed framework. If you give one class the ability to see through walls, then you are restricting other classes from that perk. Depending on how much these classes impact gameplay and choice, a player could feel locked out of a playstyle they want because their other choices don't allow it. Even if you only add abilities and don't directly place restrictions, the act of creating classes creates restriction by nature.

This makes perfect sense. 

Remember when we pick up a frame we make decisions on our playstyle. We simply agree when we choose a frame in particular. Classes for better or worst is a decision you make and a compromise. If I choose EV trinity over slow nova I'm choosing some limiting parameters and game conditions that I'm going to produce with a crowd control frame like slow nova or energy vampire trinity who farms energy out of the enemy. Those are two different approach to the same game. 

My ev trinity blesses and cares for the team, while my slow nova is just a lone wolf soldier slowing down the damage per second rate of the enemy. I had to make restriction on my playstyles by the mere fact of choosing one frame over the other. This never downgraded my EV or my Slow Nova. It helped my value each trait and attribute I searched in each frame. 

True, in that list 4 and 5 are seen many times. We could redefine those. Eq

1 hour ago, GrayArchon said:

Ooohhhhhhhhhh. Okay. Now it's actually clear to me what you want, and why. Okay.

Yeah, I can get this. Battlefield adaptation of tactics would be an interesting mechanic to implement (as long as it were optional) (side note: this is actually kind of what I was hoping the gameplay experience with Equinox to be like, but it's not very well-developed for this purpose as far as I can tell). I could get behind this.

However, I still don't see the advantage of first person in this situation. I don't see how it improves accuracy – in the current third-person view, your bullets still hit the centre of the reticle, unless your accuracy is gimped by Heavy Calibre or something. I guess I wouldn't be opposed, necessarily, to its addition, were it free, but I think the personnel and time cost would be irresponsible, as I can't really see any reason for it (the first-person view specifically, not the tactical adaptation element).

Equinox is a very complex warframe. Only the few comprehends her day and night capabilities. I think DE made an outstanding job with Equinox to be honest. Trinity was another great warframe. We are aware that some warframe are incredibly interesting and way too complex because these demands a deeper comprehension of the game. If we choose a frame that represents warframe universe, well it's Equinox. 

Sadly I never spent time evolving my equinox. I'll revisit her soon. 

[(PSN)felsager]

1 hour ago, Marthrym said:

I wasn't there when it devolved. Sorry... evolved.

1. Why? Why would we need that? Why not put in the game for everyone, period?

2. Again, no. This LIMITS loadout options. A concept you seem to have a real hard time wrapping your head around.

3. Worst of the 3 "options", by a landslide. I can't even begin to understand why this is even mentioned as "option".

Number 3 is a devolution and a downgrade. I'm not convinced of it. Number 2 is not even a realistic option. I'll continue arguing for number 1. 

The tenno focus school is some sort of a "perk" and a "class system" However the effects are on the enemy and a benefit on your shields and attack strength. 

The tenno CLASS, our proposal, behaves as a "perk" on weapons, game play and style. The warframe is not going to be downgraded. On the contrary he will have a FPV and TPV switch, increased library of moves and some other benefits depending on that class assigned on the tenno. 

 

1 hour ago, Marthrym said:

Except this is not a good idea. And you did use irrelevant examples of completely different games, with completely different design philosophies to try and "advertise" said idea as a "good" one. That's not what feedback is FYI.

These are examples. I wrote direct examples on the previous post speaking about the game assets on Warframe. Read them. We all agree that Overwatch, Horizon Zero, Destiny 2, Battlefront 2 are games with another scope. Feedback happens when we speak about the warframe universe alone. Ideas are transmigrated from other games. It happens, we are not in a deep blue sea where warframe is the only game. We inevitably use references. 

1 hour ago, Marthrym said:

 

Where did I say your design limited "the potential of the game"? I stated that it imposed pointless, unneeded limiations to the range of gameplay options any player can have at any time. That's our potential, the players'. Because again, your "design" does impose limitations. Using Overwatch as a comparison material makes no sense. This is not a valid comparison to make between these two games because they are far too different in their design philosophies, mechanics, and purposes themselves to make such a comparison in the first place. And stop it with CoD. IRRELEVANT.

Adding classes doesn't gimp Mesa, Rhino or Trinity. Classes doesn't restricts the movements on these frames. You add a new layer of game play similar to what the focus schools did. Warframe is a game that increases game play complexity with different layers. Up to now we have the card game, the four supers, the parkour on the warframe and the combinations of three wheapons (Primary, secondary and close combat). Classes will add another layer of information to the game. 

The philosophy of adding a class, particularize one player over the other. I am more of a heavy weapon wielder. I'm not a spy or stealth player. I attack the enemy directly. If there is no direct confrontation, with the enemy then i'm not interested. Other players can perform other tasks. You do not cut the potential of other items by assigning one class on your scheme. This is how you play it. 

 

1 hour ago, Marthrym said:

 

Please, PLEASE tell me you see how you just utterly destroyed your whole "design" with this very sentence...

There is something called honesty. 

At the same time, warframe DOESN'T HAVE a FPV to TPV switch. I would like to see that on warframe among many other things.

1 hour ago, Marthrym said:

 

I see where the problem lies now. You have absolutely no idea what the word class means! That or you used it in the single worst possible manner to talk about something completely unrelated to what the class system is in every other game in history.

We are defining the term. It doesn't behave the same it behaves in Call of Duty, Destiny, Battlefront 2, Arma III, etc. The term needs an interpretation. It doesn't mean that I don't know what it is all about. 

In Architecture, the profession I study, we need to establish a problem and select concepts from precedents. We select these precedents where their conditions are the nearest to our problem. In here we selected Class as a precedent and we are working over it. Maybe we need to define a new term or use that in the meantime. 

 

1 hour ago, Marthrym said:

This clarifies a lot of things. Now we're finally going somewhere.

Basically you just want players to be able to do more stuff. THEN WHY NOT JUST WORD IT LIKE THIS INSTEAD? Seriously! Just say "hey it would be cool if we could do this and that in Warframe!". That's it. THAT'S IT. Not "hey let's use the class system from this game, and that game, and that other game, except not at all!" in the most unrelated and confusing way ever!

This discussion is for the DESIGN and specification of a concept. Maybe CLASS is misleading but we have to start somewhere. I am not copy pasting ideas from other games. We want to make the WARFRAME SYSTEM deeper and interesting for a greater diverse of players. We are in a niche stage. We want to add new players, increase sales and improve the system WITHOUT LOOSING all the previous traits we have in the game. 

So yes, design is a tedious process of testing and surveying. 

1 hour ago, Marthrym said:

 

Then WHY use the word CLASS? It's a VERY specific word, with a very SPECIFIC meaning. It's like you did on purpose just to troll! And again, you're confusing me, what with this idea of adding it to SPECIFIC frames! You're back to what classes are! God, make up your mind! Stop saying one thing to then say the opposite like they're one and the same! They're not the same thing! Either you want something new that isn't tied to any frame or weapon, like the Focus system, which I am fine with since it doesn't limit options, or you want it tied to specific frames or gear, which basically is what a class is!

Let me clarify this:

I want warframe to stay warframe. If I want to play a strict FPS I simply pick up one of these game and play. For me warframe is an intersting game because it allows endless combinations of styles, approaches and procedures. A "CLASS system" similar to the "FOCUS" system adds an extra layer. As you have five schools, you have five classes. Maybe the whole class system can simply be integrated with the focus system. It doesn't make the game FPS and it doesn't turn the whole thing into a generic copy of other commercial fps out there. 

Have some patience. A debate could be extremely annoying but we have to go through the preconceptions. Once we all understand the idea then we move forward leaving behind the "class" name and change it for another word. I know that the word is tainted with these generic fps iterations. Warframe is not a trendy product but if we want it to grow, stay and improve we have to generalize it. Up to now DE is progressing slowly at a good steady rate. They don't try to be trendy but at the same time they don't want to fall behind. 

 

1 hour ago, Marthrym said:

 

This has nothing to do with classes, it's just pointlessly tedious, tacked on mechanics that could be used without ANY of said pointless hassle. You have no idea what "class" means, that much is obvious, but still seem to badly want to add mechanics that could be interesting, except you want them to be implemented in a rather peculiar, tedious, pointless fashion, when they could very well be made readily and easily available to everyone without  any of that mess.

See?

 

I do know what a class is. 

Do you know what a proposal is? We have to give an example. Why not you provide an example other than saying "no", "irrelevant" or "pointless". A proposition is a bet, a gambit and a risk. I came here knowing that such debate is going to be harsh. If this where so easy, I don't even spend a second arguing with you. This requires patience. If you don't have it then you have a choice, skip the thread and carry on farming your primes and your rivens. 

Simple. 

[DatDarkOne]

This topic has devolved into beating a horse that was already D.O.A.  

[(PSN)Croewe]

5 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

need to establish a problem

 

Why does there need to be a problem? I see no problem with the current system.

[torint_man]

On 8/20/2017 at 10:25 AM, (PS4)felsager said:

Warframes ARE NOT ninjas, in my opinion. Warframes are exactly what they where build to do, mechano organic avatars controlled by a tenno designed for war. Warframes encompasses many types of game play and add a wide variety of approaches to the game. This is why we deeply enjoy the experience.

They kind of are though, so long as one does not cling to the stereotypical black cloth shuriken stealth sneaky sneaky stab stab. I think ninjas as quick, lethal, and working in small groups, which is exactly what we do in every mission type that isn't endless.

On 8/20/2017 at 10:25 AM, (PS4)felsager said:

Warframe should specialize on five classes that are implicitly suggested on our current warframes. I would like to see more first person shooter warframes being specialists on demolition, heavy weapon wielders with many barrages types.

For what purpose. Arbitrary designations should be made by the players, not the game itself. Also, the "first person shooter warframes" aren't a thing, and will never be.

On 8/20/2017 at 10:25 AM, (PS4)felsager said:

( I ) would like see a diversification of players on the five possible classes:military frames, infiltrators, spies, support and reconnaissance.

Y tho. The game should treat every frame as its own class, and guess what, it does. Arbitrarily designating frames to be a specific class or classes doesn't work due to most frames having multiple avenues to build themselves viably, due to the modding system. Also the classes you suggest are pretty bad. "Military frames" is generic to the extreme. Infiltrators, spies and reconnaissance are basically the same thing.

Anyways, once focus gets reworked to be actually good and balanced, we'll get a class system. Zenurik would be the caster class, Unairu the tank class, Vazarin the support class, Naramon the stealth class, and Madurai the offensive class. Focus is purely additive in the grand scheme of things, so as such, isn't limiting. Unlike what you propose. With Focus, I choose what class my warframe is. With your system, the game chooses for you.

[NightBlitz]

the way i see it, after reading through this whole darn thread, is that half of what you really want is some sort of fps mode added to the game.

that will never happen, the Devs have made this clear.

 

as for the part about the "classes" and focus, id have to say id rather not, but we must first see what DE has planned for the focus system anyways

[(PSN)felsager]

11 hours ago, DatDarkOne said:

This topic has devolved into beating a horse that was already D.O.A.  

Then why you bothered to enter the thread? 

[(PSN)felsager]

10 hours ago, torint_man said:

"Military frames" is generic to the extreme. Infiltrators, spies and reconnaissance are basically the same thing.

This is a new topic on warframe despite that we have seen it in other games. Sorry, but infiltrator, demolition, reconnaissance, etc are not the same. You need to read. 

10 hours ago, torint_man said:

Anyways, once focus gets reworked to be actually good and balanced, we'll get a class system. Zenurik would be the caster class, Unairu the tank class, Vazarin the support class, Naramon the stealth class, and Madurai the offensive class. Focus is purely additive in the grand scheme of things, so as such, isn't limiting.

That's exactly the idea. Finally someone got it right. 

The Class system is IMPLICITLY implemented in the focus schools. So all boils to add FPV to TPV implementation, some weapon advantages and more parkour. 

"With your system, the game chooses for you."

But it doesn't limit to that. You can choose your class and your approach to the game. Warframes gets pluses in game play, weapon handling and few other advantages, any warframe. 

[(PSN)felsager]

10 hours ago, NightBlitz said:

the way i see it, after reading through this whole darn thread, is that half of what you really want is some sort of fps mode added to the game.

that will never happen, the Devs have made this clear.

I'm aware of what the Devs said already about the first person shooter approach. There are many games like Battlefront 2, Star Citizen 42 and Overwatch that provides exactly what I want. 

Warframe must generalize and improve further on these "MODULES" of game play. Otherwise the game will slowly become irrelevant. It will be substituted by other experiences that gathers all these approaches. 

Edited August 26, 2017 by (PS4)felsager

[DatDarkOne]

6 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Then why you bothered to enter the thread? 

Because it's sometimes entertaining to see ignorance in written form.  This topic has provided quite a bit of it to entertain for a good while.  Also, you started a topic in a public area.  Once that is done, you forfeit the right to dictate who and when others should come to it.  :D    

[(PSN)Croewe]

10 hours ago, (PS4)felsager said:

This is a new topic on warframe despite that we have seen it in other games. Sorry, but infiltrator, demolition, reconnaissance, etc are not the same. You need to read. 

That's exactly the idea. Finally someone got it right. 

The Class system is IMPLICITLY implemented in the focus schools. So all boils to add FPV to TPV implementation, some weapon advantages and more parkour. 

"With your system, the game chooses for you."

But it doesn't limit to that. You can choose your class and your approach to the game. Warframes gets pluses in game play, weapon handling and few other advantages, any warframe. 

The thing is people will see weapon advantages and take out their e-peens if you use something that isn't "good" for your class. That's a horrible way to go about it.

 

No parkour advantages. None, certain frames passives allow for that which is fine but a class wide advantage is bad.

 

If YOU want to see focus as schools, great as long as it at can still use them on any frame at any time.

 

Edit: Generalising is the equivalent to gimping systems which wouldn't work.

Edited August 27, 2017 by (PS4)Chris_Robet

[ShakeyMac]

OP this idea is terrible. Classes in Warframe would add nothing and result in needlessly restricted playstyles. I could go on but others have said what needs to be said already. Let it go.

[(PSN)felsager]

6 hours ago, DatDarkOne said:

Because it's sometimes entertaining to see ignorance in written form. 

I enjoyed yours. 

[(PSN)felsager]

3 hours ago, ShakeyMac said:

OP this idea is terrible. Classes in Warframe would add nothing and result in needlessly restricted playstyles. I could go on but others have said what needs to be said already. Let it go.

Ideas needs to be tested. 

I don't give up on mine. Why should I? Warframe is a game that could grow in many areas. Why not add FPV, better weapons and strategy without sacrificing the system we have now? 

If classes are not the path DE wants, I don't mind moving away from this idea. Other games will provide what this can't provide. Simple as that. 

I prefer an FPS options, heavy weapons, guns emplacements, and perks over the platitudes of Fashion Frame. The game doesn't turn generic by adding FPS as many suggests. With Fashion Frame I don't improve my game play at all.  

Edited August 27, 2017 by (PS4)felsager

[DatDarkOne]

10 minutes ago, (PS4)felsager said:

I enjoyed yours. 

I hope you did enjoy my posts in this topic.  Each one contained statements that showed some flaws in your ideas.  You should have took them as helpful advice as it was meant instead of ignoring them as you have done with everyone in this topic.  Heck, I even told you exactly how Warframes would be considered if they were a real military unit.  

2 minutes ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Ideas needs to be tested. 

I don't give up on mine. Why should I? Warframe is a game that could grow in many areas. Why not add FPV, better weapons and strategy without sacrificing the system we have now? 

If classes are not the path DE wants, I don't mind moving away from this idea. Other games will provide what this can't provide. Simple as that. 

Why not add FPV you say?  Because the Devs already said multiple times in Devstreams that it would not happen.  So why don't you move away from this idea just as you said in the quote above.  That's both of your ideas that just are not going to happen.  That's 6 full pages of basically everyone telling you this, but yet you still seem to not accept the simple truth of this.  

Now seriously think about this.  Go back and re-read these past 6 pages and really take in what everyone is telling you. Make adjustments to your ideas while also removing the ones that just are not going to happen.  

I had thought about blasting you in my reply.  Instead I decided to pity you instead and offer advice again.  Don't put your ideas out for public consumption if you aren't ready to have them critiqued.  I think everyone has been fairly nice with their critiques than is usually expected.  Especially given how long this has drawn out.    

[(PSN)felsager]

11 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

I hope you did enjoy my posts in this topic.  Each one contained statements that showed some flaws in your ideas.  You should have took them as helpful advice as it was meant instead of ignoring them as you have done with everyone in this topic.  Heck, I even told you exactly how Warframes would be considered if they were a real military unit.  

Ideas are far from perfect. I never expected to land a precise idea where everybody agrees with it. The probability of such event is slim. In architecture, engineering, programming, game design, etc we tests ideas and develop those with some sort of success or public agreement. 

I name my louadouts with a CLASS nomenclature. Would be nice if I can arrange my warframes in those names I gave. That's how I try to organize my approach on this game. 

11 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

Why not add FPV you say?  Because the Devs already said multiple times in Devstreams that it would not happen.  So why don't you move away from this idea just as you said in the quote above.  That's both of your ideas that just are not going to happen.  That's 6 full pages of basically everyone telling you this, but yet you still seem to not accept the simple truth of this.  

I already did the research and wanted to discuss the topic despite DE opinion on the subject. 

Besides, you can't tell me what to do, say or think. 

11 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

Now seriously think about this.  Go back and re-read these past 6 pages and really take in what everyone is telling you. Make adjustments to your ideas while also removing the ones that just are not going to happen.  

Don't put your ideas out for public consumption if you aren't ready to have them critiqued.  I think everyone has been fairly nice with their critiques than is usually expected.   

1. The feedback happened. 

2. I was ready for the critiques. This is the objective of forums, debate sketches and dispatch or modify them according to a GENERAL CONSENSUS. 

3. I don't expect them to be nice. I don't expect anyone to be nice or condescending. I'm fine if they provided validity and specific details. 

11 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

I had thought about blasting you in my reply. 

Instead I decided to pity you.

I invite you to try. Please, try. 

 

[DatDarkOne]

1 hour ago, (PS4)felsager said:

If classes are not the path DE wants, I don't mind moving away from this idea

 

36 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

move away from this idea just as you said in the quote above

 

8 minutes ago, (PS4)felsager said:

Besides, you can't tell me what to do, say or think.

It was your own statement.  I just repeated it back to you.  

[(PSN)felsager]

6 hours ago, DatDarkOne said:

Hi, I'm 12 years old.   

Probably, but...

DE visions of the game is now heading towards Plains of Eidolon. They want to compete against other markets inserting the small open world. We know that games like Anthem and Destiny 2 are going to deal a large portion of exploration, farming and grinding. DE, an indie developer, managed to establish a market successfully but such market can't progress if there is no current trend in the game. DE does this by introducing weapons, Warframes and new tile sets. Their goal now is to compete directly with other contenders that has almost endless resources like BioWare and Bungie. 

Warframe is a game that grew up adding layers of information and game structures. Right now balancing 49 warframes and more than 380 weapons is an impossible task. DE did the right thing by constantly renewing and betting on their platinum system. Their conception of 'freemium' was well implemented on a game of "grinding" and "farming". Yes, their game was a complete success and their constant experimentation with "pokemon" like avatars gave them a rare genre. 

Everybody here will have a hard time trying to explain this game because the genre is very hard to categorize. I don't want to derail DE intentions or make the game a clone of other experiences available in the market. DE knows as we do that we have games like COD, Battlefront, Killzone, Star Citizen 42, Dreadnought, Elite Dangerous, Horizon Zero among other. Each one does their thing an a satisfactory way. I don't want to pigeonhole a system that seems to be very successful  being reduced into five Classes. I want to see immersible elements on the game. First person view could be an alternative and so how we handle heavy weapons. 

This approach is a preference that doesn't destroy the game at all. DE doesn't need to satisfy every caprice each user has. It's unwise to do so. However the market pushes you to take decisions that are risky. If your company always stays on a comfort zone that company likely will survive but will stay small. Warframe is a PC game and it should continue with the policies of being a PC game. I don't want them to fall into the abyss of a commercial games like the other generic FPS out there. On the other hand DE came to make money. Every company needs to stay solvent economically or simply close their doors. Warframe is not going to live forever. It needs renewal and the possibility to attract new clients into their experience. 

Games like CoD makes billions despite the popular trendy hate it has. Other successes like Horizon Zero Dawn proved that a new formula can be successful too. Should we want Warframe to grow and adapt to current trends? Or do we want Warframe stay in a perpetual Beta without taking any mayor decision due to the low personnel in Digital Extremes? These Canadians made a great concept, like a hit song, but can it last few more years if the game continues adding prime frames, prime weapons and some cards? What is the vision of DE about this game after all these four years? 

Maybe a Class system is not the solution. Nothing was lost arguing about the possibility or impossibility of the concept. Looks like a change in the current system must be done carefully without harming the core. In my opinion classes could work if they are implemented and defined specifically to this game. This is just a point of view. No one here wants to throw away the good attributes on a good game like this.

 

[TentownsRaid]

The issue I see with classes is that it can go either way but if it fails it's more damaging then a new game mode. A recent example of a class based system being implemented was First assault and it's closing it's doors due to players leaving from it. I would rather see more content and them changing their philosophy of balancing things then a class system.