Too Easy To Fail?: A Simple Gametype Tweak

[Holocow]

Hey everyone, I'm going to try to make this as breif as possible, critiques appreciated. For quite some time, the lovely people at DE have been telling us that they're willing to let us fail. With that premise, I recommend some tweaks to the current gametypes. I know some of them are going to be removed, but pending that, I'll address them all (if I can remember them.) 

 

With the idea being a failure-goal, I'll start with Rescue, since that already has one. Pretty simple, but we can take that idea into types like Raid and Capture. Once a player has picked up a vital objective, if this objective becomes damaged to  much, the mission fails. This would require a health meter of some kind for the objective (one which I would LOVE in Rescue, personally.)

 

For modes like Sabotage (Intel), Deception, and Mobile Defense, give the Intel itself an HP meter. If the intel becomes damaged too much, it breaks, failing the mission. This, along with the previous recommendations, would require players to work together as a team to protect the intel or tenno carrying said objective.

 

Finally, if the new "Survival" gametype is implemented, I would highly recommend making it very likely to occur as a second objective on difficulty 5 missions. Tenno enter a mission and complete the objective, only to find that their enemies have prevented their original evac. Tenno would then have to survive until a new evac could be scrambled up by the Lotus.

 

That right there sounds like a true Mobile Defense. Just a couple of random ideas, I can elaborate/expand if more people are interested. Critique away!

[Zareek]

I'm not much for the suggestion of giving Data masses health. Just sounds annoying. Im all to make the game harder, but not everywhere. I mean I would love some more end game content, and to be able to take a challenge if thats what I feel like doing. But making it easier to fail ALL missions, just sounds annoying. Thats just me though.

[Vahlak]

I'm not much for the suggestion of giving Data masses health. Just sounds annoying. Im all to make the game harder, but not everywhere. I mean I would love some more end game content, and to be able to take a challenge if thats what I feel like doing. But making it easier to fail ALL missions, just sounds annoying. Thats just me though.

Mostly this, while i like the idea of missions being more difficult, perhaps this could be restricted solely to hard modes.

[Liminal]

I'd never support turning most mission types into escort missions :I

[TheHeraldXII]

I agree with adding fail states to missions but making them all into escort missions seems like a bad idea. I have a series of ideas for how to make missions failable without making everything into a "protect the guys" mission.

Capture: The second you enter the room, the target makes a break for it, hunt him down before he escapes. Like the Arid Fear targets. If you are undetected when you get there he doesn't run, allowing for a stealthy snatch and grab.

Sabotage (reactor): Make the reactor go critical every mission, requiring a hasty exit on a time limit.

Spy: There are now more terminals than are strictly necessary for you to hack (maybe double the number) but the enemy can lock them down and purge the data, preventing you from obtaining it. I imagine it working like them setting off the alarm. So there would be 8 possible terminals and if you lose 5, you're out.

 

More could come later but seeing as they're shaking up the missions at the moment, I'd wait to see what they do before offering suggestions.

[Holocow]

My main thought was not to make the gametypes escorts in context of Rescue. Rescue gets annoying because the target is very slow, and if you leave them behind, you're screwed. If the escort was a player you could talk to, I doubt it would be as annoying.

[Nubsawce]

So if the intel breaks... you can't go hack back into the systems? It wasn't professional enough for Lotus to reward you? I don't get it.

 

I also agree that turning more missions into escort type missions is foolish. I don't know anyone who seeks out escort missions over other types. Most people rage about them, from my experience. They're virtually never a good thing.

 

Difficulty would be increased if the enemies had more dangerous abilities and didn't just stand around shooting you. An improved AI is likely the route to go.

 

AI that had strong storming and flanking tactics would likely boost the difficulty a good deal, and overhauling how the infested work is likely the only way to save them... They need some form of ranged attacking, firstly. Most of the infested units are just annoyances.

 

I guess my point, overall, is that you're going the completely wrong way with how to tune the game's difficulty. You'll just annoy a lot of people and make it hard in a frustrating way, not in a rewarding way.

 

Edit: one more thing. Your title is ambiguous. It should say something more like "Is the game so easy that you cannot fail?"

Edited August 17, 2013 by Nubsawce

[Echo-419]

"I love escort missions" - No one ever.

 

This would make it really boring for the person carrying the objective. They would basically have to hide and let everyone else do the fun part.

[Holocow]

To address each point in turn;

 

So if the intel breaks... you can't go hack back into the systems? It wasn't professional enough for Lotus to reward you? I don't get it.

 

I also agree that turning more missions into escort type missions is foolish. I don't know anyone who seeks out escort missions over other types. Most people rage about them, from my experience. They're virtually never a good thing.

 

Difficulty would be increased if the enemies had more dangerous abilities and didn't just stand around shooting you. An improved AI is likely the route to go.

 

AI that had strong storming and flanking tactics would likely boost the difficulty a good deal, and overhauling how the infested work is likely the only way to save them... They need some form of ranged attacking, firstly. Most of the infested units are just annoyances.

 

I guess my point, overall, is that you're going the completely wrong way with how to tune the game's difficulty. You'll just annoy a lot of people and make it hard in a frustrating way, not in a rewarding way.

 

Edit: one more thing. Your title is ambiguous. It should say something more like "Is the game so easy that you cannot fail?"

 

If the intel breaks, yes, you cannot re-hack it. You have removed the information from the system. Its gone. The point of taking afore-mentioned Intel is so whoever had it before (Grineer, Corpus, w/e) is without their valuable plans/schematics/whatnot, while you are in possession of a great bargaining chip for the Lotus. Breaking it over the head of a MOA doesn't help that.

 

Players rage over the current Escort mission types because of the NPC itself. The new Escort-type mission DE has proposed has alot of promise, and my original idea was inspired by this. To condemn an entire genre of possibilities because of one bad mechanic is near-sighted to say the least.

 

Increasing AI difficulty is good. Increasing need for ability spam is not.

 

Ancients are a pain in the rear. Possible to deal with, but energy drain is a b****.

 

 I dont understand how enforcing teamplay is "making the game more annoying". The possible interlacing could promote the use of classes like Vauban and Frost outside of "Defend the shiny casket" mode. 

 

And the title is supposed to be ambiguous. Good titles draw attention. If there is a rule advising boring topic titles, I'll gladly change it.

 

"I love escort missions" - No one ever.

 

This would make it really boring for the person carrying the objective. They would basically have to hide and let everyone else do the fun part.

 

"I play a co-op game because I hate teamwork" - No one ever.

 

Carrying wouldn't be boring, but much more thrilling. It would promote players to not speed run away from their team mates and leave them to rot. Nothing against speed running, but its disappointing to enter a game only to be left in a field of enemies you cant hope to take on alone. If the mentallity wasn't "If they die we finish faster", the community in-game might make a turn for the better.

 

---

As always, I really do appreciate the critiques. I hope you dont mind me responding in kind, I just want to hammer out the ideas. If it doesn't work, it doesn't, but no harm in giving it a thought. 

Edited August 19, 2013 by Holocow