The issue with your Warframe example is literally that it's a function of a system that Ember probably won't have, that being extensive vertical progression.: No. Builds in warframe are not purely the result of vertical progression. Indeed the vertical aspect of warframe creates some of it, but so does the horizontal aspect. That is to say: The builds are also the result of choices between various non-comparables of what-is-meant-to-be situationally equal value. Some obvious examples-Do you go with a fire or ice? Do you go crit or pure damage? Do you go for life strike/channeling combo or do you rely on other healing methods. Etc. These types of differences are exactly what one finds in a horizontal progression system. Even without vertical progression tactical potato would still have purpose making build suggestions because builds remain relevant in horizontal progression systems.
And how complex Warframe is (along with many other aspects of it) remain a matter of opinion. Our agreement on such matters is not required for this discussion. Again, we need to move away from warframe.
Your actions in a single round of DotA, purchases included, are not the same as having a set loadout that you get at the start of every fight.: So? Whether the builds in dota or lol happen in match or pre-match is irrelevant to the actual point being discussed:customization. It is undeniable that those games do in fact have customization and what builds are optimal are decided, in part, by the circumstances.
Success: Yes, for every game that succeeds there are others that fail. That is true of every type. If that means that we cannot use successful games as an example for anything, then why are you bringing up successful games? They are illustrations. Once again, I did not say that we should follow/copy/repeat any particular games formula. I was simply referencing some for the illustration of some central points. For the record, success proves that something CAN work. No more, no less.
Again, none of these games are going to be directly applicable to all others. Nor do they need to be to have value. I made no suggestion about taking X system from Y game and implementing it in Ember. These are illustrations of general points as they appear in a great variety of different ways.
Weapon customization systems cut down on the ways in which a weapon can be readily used in a combat scenario:
No. That's putting the blame in the wrong place. Pre-built/non-modifiable weapons could just as easily be build in a very specialized manner. Likewise, in a system with customization, a person could tune a weapon to be multi-purpose. Also, how far a weapon can be pushed in any direction depends largely on the specific list of customization options. Customization comes in a great many magnitudes.
And how complex Warframe is (along with many other aspects of it) remain a matter of opinion. Our agreement on such matters is not required for this discussion. Again, we need to move away from warframe.
Your actions in a single round of DotA, purchases included, are not the same as having a set loadout that you get at the start of every fight.: So? Whether the builds in dota or lol happen in match or pre-match is irrelevant to the actual point being discussed:customization. It is undeniable that those games do in fact have customization and what builds are optimal are decided, in part, by the circumstances.
Success: Yes, for every game that succeeds there are others that fail. That is true of every type. If that means that we cannot use successful games as an example for anything, then why are you bringing up successful games? They are illustrations. Once again, I did not say that we should follow/copy/repeat any particular games formula. I was simply referencing some for the illustration of some central points. For the record, success proves that something CAN work. No more, no less.
Again, none of these games are going to be directly applicable to all others. Nor do they need to be to have value. I made no suggestion about taking X system from Y game and implementing it in Ember. These are illustrations of general points as they appear in a great variety of different ways.
Weapon customization systems cut down on the ways in which a weapon can be readily used in a combat scenario:
No. That's putting the blame in the wrong place. Pre-built/non-modifiable weapons could just as easily be build in a very specialized manner. Likewise, in a system with customization, a person could tune a weapon to be multi-purpose. Also, how far a weapon can be pushed in any direction depends largely on the specific list of customization options. Customization comes in a great many magnitudes.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
In terms of world/mission design Ember is already doing something different because of it's focus on dynamic content and playing War. So that is alraedy something setting it apart.
In terms of loadouts/customization/class design there are F2P and MMO games with all sorts of different takes on that.
Ember is going mostly horizontal, which is already uncommon, but not unheard of. What do you recommend for Ember that will be more different from other games?
