Old, overlooked firefall idea: In-depth tuning

Ronyn · Sep 16, 2016

Bingo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let's examine how that applies to the general subjects of customization and balance using a more extensive example for illustration.

I'll use warframe as the game and a hypothetical player named Bob.

Let's say there is a guy named Bob who has a frost prime. It's fully forma'd, set up with tons of the best mods and Arcanes, all tuned for frosts potential strengths and weaknesses. And he even got some of the fancy cosmetics of every type. Both from in game and tennogen. (Warframe is making a lot of money off of cosmetics)

It's well known that frost is most optimal in modes where the goal is defend a point or object. So in those modes Bob's frost is highly sought after by even the most discerning, endurance run players.

Bob also knows how to make a solid crowd control build with frost (the optimal potential frost has with CC) for those missions where defending a point is less important than moving around and disabling enemies, though it's not the best at that compared to some other frames of the game but then who says bob necessarily has any of the frames with better CC? Bob also knows how to make a burst damage build with frost (the optimal potential frost has with burst damage) for farming parts/mods/ingredients from certain mission types, it's not the best at that compared to some other frames of the game but then who says bob necessarily has any of the frames with better burst damage? Even if Bob has some other frames are they built up enough? Are they better enough to make Bob use them over his Frost for the situation at hand?

So, what we have here is a situation where Bob's Frost, even though the builds are sub optimal in the grand scheme of the whole game, are optimal for what bob has available to him, meaning it has a purpose and will be useful for Bob.

Are there several build set us for frost that are just plain bad? Yep. Are some just plain sub optimal for frost? Yep. But does that mean they don't have use?
Well did Bob have to mess around and experiment to figure out what builds were better and worse? Potentially yes, as large percentages of people don't just blindly follow someone elses advice without trying their own ideas. More to the point, did Bob have fun experimenting? Meaning that even bad or mediocre builds served a purpose in Bob's overall enjoyment of the game experience. It was a journey of discovery that had value to Bob.

Even if Bob did follow someone elses advice he may have needed some tweaks to make sure it fully fits what works for him. (The warframe community has a lot of common builds but it also shows small variations in them from person to person). Or maybe Bob hates experimentation and just wants to know what to go with. So he hops on the forums or wiki to get build advice. Either reason that brings him to those sites can very well create some engagement in the community. Which is a whole new set of experiences both good and bad. heh

After long periods of playing the game Bob might even know all about which frame is ideal for each situation. Does that mean he is going to go get one or play them? A lot of folks prefer a certain style of play and won't spend much time in other styles.

Plus Bob get's to try a multitude of new combinations every time a new weapon, mod, or arcane gets added to the game. Which adds a certain sense of change through the periods in between the release of new classes. A relatively small addition can have a large effect on creating new experiences. That's the upside, while the downside is that it's hard to balance all this new stuff trickling in like that. Loose one thing to gain another.

If we to discuss how this all relates to the game's difficulty (Warframe ranges from that which is so trivial nearly any reasonable strategy will work to that which is so difficult it pushes for a select set of practically mandatory approachs) there are additional questions. Does Bob mostly play solo? (A large percentage of warframe players do) Is he reliant on P.U.G.s? Does he have a solid group of friends that play together with high coordination? What frames do these other people have, how well equipped are they and how optimal are they for any particular situation? Heck do we even know much time Bob spends playing the harder missions compared to farming easier ones? What is more fun for him?

Alternatively what if the game did not allow Bob much customization, what if he couldn't make those builds that were sub optimal from the game wide perspective but were optimal for what he has? It would only be harder for Bob to deal with situations where a snowglobe focused/point defense Frost is far less effective than a CC or burst damage Frost. And potentially prevented Bob from enjoying a certain journey of discovery. It could limit what he spent time collecting and leveling up, making the game a shorter lived experience. There would also be no new experimentation in between class releases.

Remember what I said about the push and pull of things? It's real. It's important.

Sure, that hypothetical Bob guy isnt everyone. There are some players who have everything and use only the most optimal everything for every scenario. Let's call that guy Jeff. lol. But how many fall into that category? How many don't? The bob's (folks who do the best they can with limited options) and the jeffs (those who have collected tons of stuff) likely make up the two largest percentages of warframes playerbase. How does Bob's playstyle harm Jeffs? How does Jeff's harm bobs? Or perhaps the main point is that both the Bobs and the Jeffs can (and in fact do) coexist in the very same game.
Not to mention those outliers who insist on using certain frames, weapons or builds based on some enjoyment of the playstyle regardless of how sub optimal it is. And those those folks who limit themselves to purposefully increase challenge. Again, folks who coexist in the same game.

You have to factor in things like investment, progression, access, and personality to know what kind of things can "have a purpose and be useful" and define the term "optimal" in practice.....Note the difference between "in theory" and "in practice" largely come down to how a person will actually interact with the game.

Now I know you never said anything like "Bob can't enjoy himself if he doesn't have the most optimal, overall build to play X" or that "Only in a balanced system can Bob have a good time".... but I hope I am making it clear what this is all about. An overall enjoyable game experience. Which leads me to the end here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ultimately I want to point out a rather interesting thing. Yes, Warframe has tons of "balance" problems and inconsistencies. I personally have a HUGE issue with how warframe is "balanced", I think it needs some real attention there...I mean would less throw away mods/powers among the myriad of warframes options make it even sweeter and maybe even more successful? It very well might. Could it get away with cutting out some of the numerical bloat? It very well might. I could go on about it's flaws there for a long time.
But here is the thing. Warframe is doing quite well as it is. It's a fact.
Despite it's many problems Warframe is a highly successful game that has been able to grow quite a bit. It has managed to retain large chunks of players for long periods of time. Remember that DE started with a very small team on Warframe. It's staff grew because the game allowed for/called for it's growth.

Objectively speaking: It would be wonderful if Ember could grow to achieve the same level of commercial and financial success that Warframe has.

So here is a very important question. Is Warframes extensive customization (flawed as it is) one of the reasons why it (Warframe the game and DE the company) has done so well? Personally, I believe that it is.

Disclaimers:
-Do not mistake any of what I explained above to mean that games with strict, low/no customization systems cannot also be successful. They certainly can be. There are many paths to success.
-While there may be a few things to learn from Warframes rise to success, do not think I'm suggesting that Ember should try to directly copy Warframe in any way. It is merely an example of a game with rather extensive customization options that we have both played. I have always viewed the idea of a massive planetary wargame ,what firefall was meant to be and what Ember will be, as a far more appealing concept than warframes mission based system. An M.P.W. has far more potential to be great. We just need the execution to see it through to greatness. If you ask me, we will have it.
-I am aware that Warframe is a class based game so using it as an example to sort of champion the values of a hypothetical class-less game is limited. Though warframes example does serve as a good base to talk about the larger concepts at play here (balance, customization, expression, etc).

At the end of the day each type of system has advantages and disadvantages.
What you gain in one system you loose in another and vice versa. Which is why I think it's best to view this issue less as a which system is "better or worse" and view it more as which system "offers X as opposed to Y". The history of gaming has taught us that there is value in that.

PS: if you're going to write a large reply I request that you use spoilers to limit the space it takes up. Thank you.

Beemann · Sep 21, 2016

@Ronyn Apologies for the delay, missed the alert

The issue is not only that Warframe is a class based game, but also that Warframe is a game of heavy linear power progression. You spoke of "the best of what he has", but with a short grind and more of a horizontal focus, a player could have the exact loadout they wanted within a short period of time. Warframe forcibly restricts options (can't have this without X mastery rank, can't have this without a Dojo and X room/research projects, can't have this without this quest, can't have this without this alert resource, can't have this without a region restricted resource). This is, to me, the worst part of Warframe, and the only reason why I can stomach it is because I don't have to do any of that, given that I unlocked a good chunk of content when it was much less of a hassle.

Additionally you speak of copying success, but Warframe is already running into retention issues, with some of its most visible and vocal players becoming bored with the game. Meanwhile, games where customization is not persistent, like CS:GO and DotA (both of which originated with small modding teams are still going strong a good 10+ years after their creation, with gussied up iterations and cosmetics providing enough incentive to continue playing.

Even disregarding that, I'd think that anyone who followed FireFall would be willing to admit that simply sticking to a successful game's formula is not a recipe for success. Firefall dropped beam healing and died after implementing conventional leveling after all.
The same could be said about a number of other games, Hawken being another excellent example

What ultimately matters is that the gameplay is compelling. DE has done an excessive number of redesigns with regards to their core gameplay, but in doing so the optimal builds I come back to are the ones used when I left. The customization, vertical progression enabled fun builds aside, is stagnant. Further, new additions to the game run the risk of being passed up if they do not fit into the framework already set by the game's meta

Worse still, that point about objectives isn't really as valid when you consider the fact that not all objectives are created equal. Survival, Defense and Excavation are, for instance, more worthwhile than Extermination, so the murderhobo equivalent of a sprinter isn't as valuable as the equivalent of a marathon runner. There also aren't really any instances where you're going to do great in those mission types and fail elsewhere (unless we're including PvP, but I don't know why you would)

Also I've noticed you seem to really disregard the possibility of the gameplay itself being a more personal thing. People can pick the same build as you, but if there's enough depth they will never play quite the same as you. Your habits, style, capabilities and thought process should be the focus, not how many points you put into damage

Ronyn · Sep 22, 2016

Beemann said:

Let me get something out of the way. Using a successful game as example of where/how something worked, or suggesting there is something to learn there, is not the same thing as suggesting that we copy the formula. You have used some games as examples, are you suggesting we copy their formula? No. I'd wager youre just trying to illustrate something.

A game being commercially and financially successful does not mean it is without detractors or struggles. The last numbers I saw on warframes playerbase were quite impressive from a pure business standpoint. I'm sure it fluctuates to one degree or another, but it's unwise to take the out cry of certain personalities as any sign of a game falling out of popularity. Besides, this discussion is about customization. If Warframe is declining is it likely because it has a form of customization or far more likely because of things like power creep and increasing complexity in each system without tutorials to keep up with it.

------------------------------------------------------------
Look...Dissecting Warframe any further is not helping the discussion.
I used Warframe to illustrate how the variety of circumstances a player finds themselves in can lead to different things being useful or having purpose. The point is that what is "optimal" for a player can and will change based on the situation at hand. Obviously Warframes particular list of different situations (progression, access, objective, experience, etc) won't be the same list as every other game. Certainly Warframe pushes those differences better or worse in certain places (Access and progression are more pronounced than what is required from certain types of objectives). Not to mention that different folks have different opinions on any single aspect of that game. Not everyone will agree that the builds from update to update remain the same. Not everyone agrees that what is viable is truly stagnant. Not everyone farms the same way. etc. But this isn't a discussion about warframe. That was just an example of a central point. So let's let warframe go and get back on point.
-------------------------------------------------------------

The overall point remains, what has use, what has purpose depends on many things. Situations will change what is optimal for a person.
Whether it be the simple choice in weapon to best counter terrain and enemy type. Or whether it be choosing a certain class to counter a certain enemy set up. Or whether it be altering the build of your armored core based on the enemy and environment. Whether some games do it better or worse. It is a demonstrable truth.

Games like Dota and LOL actually feature quite a bit of customization in the itemization of the heroes/champions. The core kit is set, but there remains room to play so speak.
Funny enough, the good/pro MOBA players often talk about changing quite a bit of their builds and tactics in match based on the opposing teams choices in character, build and placement. The way that stats can be manipulated to alter performance is not unlike a tuning system. Again - situations will change what is optimal for a person. And again we see that customization, of some form, has a place in some highly successful games. Not that all successful games do that.....

See your last paragraph in your last post makes me think we are having a huge disconnect here. There is no reason to think I'm disregarding the possibility of gameplay being a place for personality and expression when I already said " Understand that choice can come in many forms. As an example: A single weapon with multiple ways to use it OR a large variety of weaponry from which to select. Both are forms of choice. Both can potentially allow for expression. Both can be representative of a systems depth. That is what I am talking about."

In case it isn't clear, "a single weapon with multiple ways to use it", is when two people pick up the same weapon but use it differently. Those potential differences tend to be more pronounced in action games. In well designed action games this can be a part of where folks can express themselves. (and also why all possible tactics and strategies cannot be forseen even when you know all numbers) But, as I keep saying, how you build/kit/set up the character can be a place for expression as well. By choosing just one of those avenues of expression you leave out the potential of the other. That same old push and pull.

Once again-Expression is about having interesting choices to make. Those interesting choices can exist in battle as well as before it. My personal favorite systems tend to have them in both before and during.

Honestly there are tons of successful games out there with customization systems.
From the small teams that grew (LOL and Warframe) to the big boys (WOW and Diablo) and multiplayer powerhouses (COD). So there is no question that games with customization systems CAN work quite well. Just as there are games with little to no customization that have done very well. As I keep saying, both can work. It's been proven.

Simply put, there are plenty of highly successful games that have rather meaty customization. One could reasonably argue that in the case of many of those games customization was one of the reasons they succeeded. It's not the only way to go but it is a way that can work. And it's the way we are headed.

Beemann · Sep 22, 2016

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. You don't have Tactical Potato's build because you have not done Warframe 's equivalent of leveling up (which is getting better loot, essentially, alongside a leveling and re-leveling system to slot that loot). For Ember to have a similar system, we would have to accept that new players cannot have an even remotely optimal build for potentially dozens of hours. I don't know about you, but I think that's a terrible set-up for a shooter

Re: DotA/LoL. I explicitly used DotA as an example because it doesn't have rune pages muddling things up. 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. By the same virtue, getting weapons and armor in Quake, and getting a particular weapon setup+body armor in CS would ALSO be customization on the same level if we allowed that. DotA item setups are the equivalent to your build order in an RTS. You want more AA because the enemy has built more bombers. You want an item that helps against the type of enemy and the style of play you are fighting for that match.

Re: success
My point was that the level of success is not as relevant as you seem to be making it out to be, because for every game that has X system and succeeds, there are at least 2 that fail. There are more factors at play in terms of customization, and Warframe 's stagnant build meta is the perfect example of that

Additionally Re: Warframe's issues, builds aside, the game really isn't all that complex. You don't have to remember every ability set, just your own, and the enemies are pretty brain-dead. When it comes to builds, the only part of the game I'd argue gets particularly complex, you really just have to remember which mods are best, and what the weaknesses are, or copy someone else's build. There's a lot of dumb fluff and newbie traps, for sure, but I wouldn't argue that such a thing is what you'd want to emulate. The only issue gameplay-wise is that DE's tutorials have been spotty and incomplete over the years, meaning new players sometimes go months or years without knowing a mechanic. Part of that is because it's an eternal beta, but I'd suggest that anything ready for public consumption needs to explain itself or be *very* intuitive

The people who are prominently leaving though are people who have cleared that phase of the game and have nothing to do. Once you have X Prime loaded out with a few formas and a set of prime/wraith/vandal weapons (or a Tonkor) with associated formas, there's not a whole lot to do other than rip through sorties and replay the same set of high level defense/survival/excavation missions for resources and enemy scaling. The issue too is that many of these players are the big content creators, the free advertisers and the supplemental tutorializers for DE.

I would also suggest that weapon customization systems cut down on the ways in which a weapon can be readily used in a combat scenario. If I have a projectile weapon that can be customized to be faster, have a larger explosion or do more damage and I sacrifice one or two of those to get the third, I end up with a weapon that is good for one specific thing, and okay-poor when it comes to the others. Enemies must be designed around the possibility of all 3 existing, which is harder and probably won't happen perfectly, meaning one of those 3 will be more important. When you scale up in terms of difficulty, efficiency must be higher, so the lesser options will get filtered out over time/with enough of said scaling. Then you're left with a weapon that could have done a decent job at 3 things but now only does one.

Think about how many builds utilize crit weapons vs basically anything else in Warframe, and imagine if all mods were corrupted mods. I'll bet crit weapons would still be top of the pile

Re: summary
There are more games that have failed with X mechanic than there are games that have succeeded. Using an idea because a successful games or set of games has it is nonsense. The mechanics need to fit the design of the overall product you're building and should be there to create a compelling experience that isn't outdone by a similar product. I'd suggest that the more Ember approaches the standard MMO/F2P set of systems, the more it will have to directly compete with products that have more money, and larger teams. In a market based around PvE titles, that's dangerous

Ronyn · Sep 22, 2016

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.

Beemann said:

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?

Beemann · Sep 22, 2016

Dynamic content is one of those things that is interesting conceptually but generally doesn't play out in a way that makes the experience truly different in the long term. Unless FireFall had a super special secret update for its dynamic events that would have made them more interesting or more dynamic, people who had played the game for a week likely would have seen all the relevant content.

Additionally, adding a war only works circumstantially, and is only necessarily different in the sense that it's PvE instead of PvP. I think the core gameplay loop needs to break out of MMORPG but you aim guns now, or Overwatch/Global Agenda/Paladins but now in a proper open world. The base building stuff could be a way into that, as few games have scratched that SWG itch for more socially inclined users, but I think having a game that requires minimal hassle for new players to become useful to the overall playerbase is exceedingly important.

Considering the fact that newbie trap options are an inevitability given a large enough pool of choices, the goal should be to center the game around a decent sized pool of relatively balanceable options. Not only is it less daunting to sort through 20 guns than a forest of tiny gun variants but, if gear is crafted, there is less trial and error and the impact of any newbie traps is lessened. Furthermore, people who aren't interested in a long grind and the associated assloads of content that established titles can provide may just find a KISS approach to be refreshing. To add to the advantages of such a system, time that would be spent constructing modes of customization and attempting the balancing equivalent of herding cats can instead be spent on core gameplay and content. To add even more to that, a few weapons introduced in an expansion (maybe region specific, maybe a free aspect of the expansion that the rest of the userbase can craft) will have much more impact if they're 3 of 30 as opposed to 3 of 300 gun variants.

Ember 's dev team will already have to populate a procedurally generated map with interesting dynamic events, create a compelling core gameplay loop, work on an AI army and produce a crafting system for both gear and platforms/base assets. They will have to create a wide variety of enemies, weapons, cosmetics, buildings etc. Given that these things are core to Ember 's premise, I'd suggest that consolidating resources and NOT chasing an extensive customization system (one that will inevitably be "solved" and boil down to a few good builds anyway, while also causing new users to waste resources on dead end options and making the new user experience more daunting) for weapons and frames would be not only a good choice for those other portions of the game, but would also avoid creating yet more systems that will inevitably get compared to more fleshed out and better funded titles.

I would suggest that Ember be developed along lines that play explicitly to its strengths. Make some really cool shit people can add to their platforms, create a new user experience that brings players through a short and efficient tutorial right into the thick of things (and let them choose their level and style of involvement) and focus on having an online open world game that actually has good action-based gameplay for once

Edit: Missed your expanded section
Your Warframe example was built on the idea of someone not having access to the full optimal loadout, but that's a function of Warframe's progression locks (he hasnt unlocked the moon and thus cant get any drift mods, he cant access corrupted mods, he hasn't unlocked access to enemies that will give him the more interesting crit mods etc.). The point about fire v ice is moot because you do enough damage either way with a decent build that you're just slightly optimizing on overkill damage for 4 hour survivals. The point about crit vs pure is moot when you consider the fact that crit weapons are the optimal ones. They may be INTENDED to be horizontal choices, but the fact that they are far from it is EXACTLY my point. The intent ultimately doesn't matter when you have a broken and stagnant customization system

We can discuss another game, but we'll run into the same issues unless you name one I just haven't played much at all, in which case I'll bet I can find some high end players talking about a lack of optimal build variety regardless. It's not limited to Warframe, it's not limited to Global Agenda, Firefall, WoW, Dungeons and Dragons, Shadowrun, etc. It is a function of resources to things requiring resources. The more shit you need that requires work, the more things will go without being properly worked on. It is not feasible for a game with a persistent, customized build and more than a few options to not have optimal choices and newbie traps

It happening during or before the match is the ENTIRE point. People are not suddenly changing their loadout in the field. They are not getting their ideal loadout in 15-30 minutes. They are not picking their loadout specifically to counter one thing
You are comparing the equivalent of build order to the customized loadouts people will be using on a regular basis

I was not the one who attempted to say Ember should use a mechanic solely based on its existence in successful titles. I did not float any system by naming games that used it and made money to "prove" the concept. You are ultimately arguing against your own point here

The existence of mechanics is ultimately a result of the non-existence of other mechanics, unless you have infinite resources. Unless y'all are going to fund Mark Kern and co til the end of time at Star Citizen levels, there will need to be something sacrificed somewhere, and in a title where you're already banking on crafting, dynamic events, compelling open world PvE, a war against an AI, etc. I would not also count on having both a complex and well balanced customization system AND deep and compelling combat.
Especially when you consider that more successful and less ambitious games fail to have at least one or the other, if not both

DARKB1KE · Sep 22, 2016

What part was overlooked?

They tried constraints but it didn't make a difference unless you were a hardcore min/maxer pushing gear to the last possible decimal point.

Just wasn't fully explored that's all.

Ronyn · Sep 23, 2016

Beemann said:

That is inaccurate. My example was built on the idea of someone who did, in fact, have the full optimal loadout. But only for one particular frame. That distinction is very important because it drives the discussion into questions of...

Hold on. There is a larger disconnect here.
-------------------------------

Beemann said:

That's not even right. hmmm. I'm at a loss for words here. I have tried to clear up the confusion on why I was using other games as examples multiple times now. I don't know what else to say.

I guess I'll try this-

Beemann said:

I never tried to say that. You accused me of it repeatedly, I told you that wasn't the case repeatedly. Learning something from other games is not the same as trying to transplant things between games. We learn from other games because, as you said yourself, games arent made in a vacuum. Certainly you only apply what lessens that fit and even then you don't literally just copy stuff. It's just examples to learn from.

Beemann said:

A bunch of games doing something successfully does, more or less, prove that a concept CAN work.
Which is why I had no problem when you did it here-

Beemann said:

That doesn't mean it will work in every game or that we should try to copy it here.
It's just an example, an illustration. One thing to look at to learn something from.

Beemann · Sep 24, 2016

Disconnect is on your end, actually

When I point out that a persistent customization leads to less gameplay depth, less actual good options, a larger learning curve for newbies, and by extension more newbie traps, I use examples of games that have those effects. When I bring up Quake or CS, it's to point out how those games work mechanically. I did not bring up Quake for its financial success over a decade ago. I brought it up because it is mechanically illustrative of my point

On the contrary, you were the one who brought up the success of a title as a method of justifying a mechanic

This is not a qualitative mechanical argument. It is an appeal to another product's financial success. You then go on to suggest that said customization systems are the reason for the game's success, but I sincerely doubt that you have any evidence of that
Successful games having X doesn't actually prove the efficacy of X, because X could actually be the weakest part of a product (which I would absolutely argue is the case with Warframe, and I'm far from alone in that). If the existence of X equates to Y amount of financial success, we wouldn't have so many flops with X, or so many games that replaced X with A and became more successful, or games that replaced A with X and failed

This is why arguments as to the results of a mechanic are better than statements of its existence in successful games. DotA does not have persistent customization, League of Legends does.
Both are successful, probably because the playerbase for that genre doesn't care quite as much about that aspect of the game, and likely flocked to the product for some other reason. However the results aren't going to be overly affected by perception, so if shit's broke in League and not in DotA, it's still going to be broken, but with features that compensate for that in the eyes of its current and potential userbase

When you did attempt to get into more detail, it was either with a non-persistent system (not feasible for Ember, and not what I'm actually talking about, though I could level more than a few complaints at such a system as well) as in League and DotA, or was with a game that, if I recall correctly, you agree has a good number of issues with said systems (that being Warframe)

Re: Warframe
Frames are part of your loadout. Bob does not have access to better frames, either because that content is locked, or because he's getting shafted by resource drops, or because the content that he has that could be used to farm those parts is numerically too difficult for what he has already. Otherwise it would be relatively easy to grab a better frame's parts (even if it was a non-Prime) and he would not have to play Frost anymore. Unfortunately, maybe Bob decided to get Ember next, or decided his next weapon should be a Seer, or that he should put his Soma away and try the Stradavar, and suddenly all that time and effort is wasted on what is basically just mastery farm gear. Bob is not currently benefiting much from the system, could have his time and effort wasted by it, and could skip all of this by just looking at the info that tells him that high damage or CC frames, Trinity, nigh-invincible frames and crit weapons are really what matters. Or he could just hit the point where none of that quite matters much anymore because Warframe has no proper endgame

Ronyn · Sep 24, 2016

Beemann said:

So you're saying that-
" Simply put, there are plenty of highly successful games that have rather meaty customization ",-What I actually said.
Is the same message as-
"Ember should use a mechanic solely based on its existence in successful titles.",-what you claim I tried to say.

It's not the same. My stance is that a thing being used successfully in multiple places means that thing CAN work. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with that stance, whether or not that same particular thing should be applied to any specific game is still another matter.

Beemann said:

I understand the mechanically illustrative aspect but I thought you'd also referenced success in certain points. So you didn't point out Dota's long lasting success as an example? I must be mistaken on that part. Pardon me.

Beemann said:

No, I said customization might be PART of the reason for certain games success, and that I believe it is in the case of several games.
That is such an important distinction.

Look, I said multiple successes show that a mechanic CAN work. I didn't say it proves it to be the only, best, strongest, or ideal mechanic. I mean, are you really saying that a feature found in many successful titles CAN'T work?

Let's be real here. How would you properly collect evidence that any particular mechanic was a weaker or a stronger aspect of a game? Player bases opinions are hard to go by, often there are as many people saying they like a feature as there are those who say they dislike it. History of the feature is tricky to go by, considering that just about every mechanic has been seen in more failures than successes. Outside of edge cases, it's usually a mixed bag of information. So what evidence do we really have left to go on? It comes down to our personal take on what factors it was we think combined to make any particular game work for people. Unless you're honestly going to tell me that there is no value in trying to learn from successful games....I'm going to keep looking to them for advice.

Warframe: I feel that following up on you with the example of warframe was a mistake. I hoped it wold give us a central example to talk about but I think the outcome was something very different. This conversation continues to be too much about the minutia of warframe as opposed to some overall concepts. There is much about the game that you and I disagree on, plus much about the game I find extremely flawed (too much numerical bloat that makes balancing it's options exponentially harder for little gain) which we never quite get to. So nevermind that game as an example.

Seriously I'm done talking about all of the above. If you bring it back up I'm just going to not respond. Please just let all that go. I'd like to get back to having a beneficial discussion.

@Beemann Let that be put to rest.

Ronyn · Sep 24, 2016

@Beemann Onto more interesting things.

Beemann said:

Ember's core gameplay loop is heavily defined by the relationship created by dynamic content and the war. I'll break that down. (note: firefall barely scratched the surface of how that was meant to work)

Make no mistake, there is no way to avoid players seeing everything there is to see, doing everything there is to do, at some point. The more stuff you can put in the game the longer that will take but it will always be limited. There will always be the need for new stuff. What dynamic content does is take the same amount of stuff(number of variables), and then moves them around into more possible combinations than static content would.

Dynamic content is build on a set of modular pieces. By using modular pieces it raises the number of potential encounter scenario's exponentially compared to static content. That extends the amount of new factors one has to account for as well increases the unpredictability of when/how they will arise compared to static content. This is it's value.

Now add to that, this is happening in a sci fi-actiony version of a simulated War. War, in this case, is a reference to there being a larger, fully relevant, conflict the player is involved in. For one thing the utilization of player-built-bases and player-built-vehicles increases the moment to moment variety. But even more than that it means that, where many PVE games place you in the thematic setting of a war, the battles will ultimately be fixed scenerio's.

In most PVE games failure to stop the enemy from building a tank manufacturing plant doesn't actually result in their being more tanks in the game world. You just do the mission over until you do stop the manufacturing plant from being built. Some games offer a few different outcomes but for the most part there is a lack of changing consequences based on the players victory or failure conditions. The most common exception to that would be the RTS genre. If you fail to take out a particular manufacturing plant the battle doesn't simply end, you now deal with more tanks on the field. That is the an example of a dynamic war.

You see, playing as a character in a Massive planetary wargame is a lot like being on foot in the middle of an active RTS. This is one of the things that will set it apart from most games right out of the gate.

It is in that setting that the great movement and sharply tuned shooting will thrive.
All tied together by a resource based economy built to connect the fighters to the territory itself. That's all interesting stuff and we haven't even talked about whether it would have character/class customization yet.

Now a point about "nooby traps" and "learning curves".
Progression systems exist for a few reasons. Two primary reasons are to extend the life of the game and to give the player time to learn. I want to focus on the latter.
If there are a wide variety of options that a player can play with they arent all given at once. That would be overwhelming. But for the long term player, additional gameplay options to access can be nice. So we need to differentiate between what customization is, and what creates nooby traps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customization happening during or before the match is the ENTIRE point:
Is it now? So then, if this is an important distinction to the matter at hand, youre saying that customization and counter builds are fine with you as long as they happen AFTER the battle starts? Right?
Well in a persistent open world full of dynamically generated war, a player can disengage from the fight, swap builds, then go back to battle: does that count as "pre-mission" or "mid-mission"? Do you put that in the same category of "mid-battle" like a dota clone because you can go back to base for items/gear but the fight still rages on? Again, playing as a character in a Massive planetary wargame is a lot like being on foot in the middle of an RTS. The battle is on and constant, reprieves are more like the calm between enemy waves, the only question is whether you are in the fight or on the sidelines at any given time.

Also, would Ember count as a game with moment to moment customization, a game with long term customization,or both? If you can freely go and swap between multiple builds and loadouts, utilizing everything you have unlocked, then what would either of those systems offer that Ember does not?

Does all that seem like needless categorization? lol. Thing is, you either stand by the blanket stance that "customization limits choice" or you acknowledge that customization being good or bad for choice depends on how it is executed. The whole pre-mission and mid-mission distinction get's pretty muddy in a persistent world at war.

The existence of mechanics is ultimately a result of the non-existence of other mechanics, unless you have infinite resources.
This is true. The problem, however, is that you are speaking as though a customization system is simply more work without any tangible benefit to the efficiency of reaching a minimum viable product capable of achieving financial success. That is very much in contention.

Going forward, what I would like to talk about is two things.
1: The different ways to approach customization. Do you realize we have barely even touched on what I think is the right and wrong way to create a customization system? That seems like it would be important if we are trying to say why we think it's good or bad. I'd like to point out how many systems have a ton of numerical bloat or granularity (minor stat differences or a wide variance in numerical value) and how that is what can turn a small selection of modular choices (all that is truly required for custom builds) into a monster of excessive complexity to balance.

2: The potential value that a modular customization system brings to a small studio's required goal of efficiently reaching a minimum viable product capable of achieving financial success.

Beemann · Sep 24, 2016

@Ronyn You're bringing up things that ultimately aren't relevant, or are relevant to my core arguments.
I know what dynamic content is. While your explanation may be beneficial to other users, I don't personally need it

Re: War
It's contextual, not necessarily mechanically different. I could have an ongoing Tribes match, or a 3+ player Supcom match that never ends, and you would get the same results
The trick is that the novelty of that ends, and people will begin to view that content as "Oh, that's this type of mission"

Ronyn said:

I've explained already that things like RTS build orders and persistent builds are not the same thing. You have to restart and use resources wisely with every match

Ronyn said:

Only on paper, or when dealing with trivialized or long and tedious bits of content, and they dont re-earn those resources so it's still not the same thing

Ronyn said:

No it doesn't count. It's not the same thing at all
In DotA, you start with nothing each and every match. You gain your resources to use within the context of a match with an end. You are forced to deal with scarcity and risk. You are spending resources to counter or enhance specific scenarios
When your loadouts are persistent you dont deal with scarcity after X number of minutes/hours. There is no risk because you can just earn everything else in the list. you are making a build to deal with general content, or planning on hitting a specific thing on your own time and terms and you bring a more minmaxed build for that specific thing
It's the equivalent to comparing your lifetime stats in a game to your stats in a specific match. Your total kills, devoid of context, will always increase. Your kills per match will not, and depend wholly on the context in which you played

Ronyn said:

It's not muddy at all, you're just choosing to ignore the distinction. DotA and Starcraft feature mid-mission decisions with outcomes that affect that match. They are not about building up to level cap and then dealing with content as one sees fit. There is forced conflict and a limited time in which to contend with it. This is not the case in a persistent open world game

Ronyn said:

Ronyn · Sep 24, 2016

Beemann said:

Can you not accuse me of ignoring things when I disagree with you? Go with the idea that I view it differently, not that I am ignoring factors at play. It would make this interaction nicer.

Redacted. Best left for later.

Also, I ask again, please use spoiler's to limit the space large posts take up. Thank you.

Beemann · Sep 25, 2016

@Ronyn

Ronyn said:

When you simply disregard the factors without explaining why they don't apply, that is, by definition, ignoring them

My point, overall, is that the dynamic system is only different from a lore/contextual perspective. When person A fights bot B, they're not doing so with the idea of an ongoing dynamic war in mind. A dynamic system is cool on paper, but dynamic events still become rote, much like how the randomized events in Warframe and procedurally generated pieces of content also become stale. This is an issue if the game is leaning on THAT aspect to keep players logging in. This is part of my argument re: the importance of good gameplay and why it needs to be prioritized.

You cannot apply resource or time constraints in the same way to a persistent system. If you work towards getting a Monkeylord, given no time or constraints you will eventually get one. When the enemy is smashing your base with artillery, you may have to prioritize differently. You may never get that Monkeylord. You may never hit max level in DotA. You may never grab the Red Armour. It is an inherently different dynamic

There are still best/worst options though, and I think the dead end ones should be cut down as much as possible, but in a singular match you are answering a specific set of problems, rather than already having a set of answers laid out while just waiting for the problems to show up

My point is that all of those things take a lot of bulk time and resources, and the Ember team already has to take less than ideal paths to completion (procedural generation in place of level design).

Bases and vehicles are not part of player builds. They are external.
What's more, your individual inefficiency in gathering and managing resources is not a distinct disadvantage. A random player does not actually need to care about bases, particularly if their only goal is to thump

Nothing is whatever the beginning point is. Starting a level 5 can be "nothing". It's just the baseline. Choosing to be pedantic wont prove your point

If you started every match in DotA at max level because you played for a year, that would affect the game's systems and the outcome of the match. When you get into a fight in WoW where you outgear the other person, that affects the outcome of the fight. The reason why DotA has non-persistent leveling is to add another dynamic to matches. It is the same concept as having tech trees in RTS'. You need to constantly build and use resources correctly to have an advantage. It's like Quake's stack advantage. You dont get to start off with the Red Armor, you earn it by outplaying an opponent. It is entirely dishonest for you to try to compare something like someone having a particular set of gear in an MMO, to something like someone having a well defended base or a large/strong army in an RTS. One is the result of time played (wherein the goal is guaranteed so long as they keep at it) and the other is an advantage someone had to fight for. Unless Ember's plan is to have constantly degrading gear that you have to build in the field (which I'm sure people would find immensely tedious since there's not necessarily forced conflict like there is in 1v1 games, or in DotA or CS' 5on5) then you're not really dealing with time constraints or scarcity

Right, but your builds are not the same as non-persistent ones as a result. Vehicles and bases are not what the conversation is about

I would argue that extensive customization systems are unnecessarily numerical bloat

Skinner box literally refers to a persistent reward punishment for a specific task, used to affect behaviour. A system in which a mission structure is used repeatedly (thumping) to reward a player (craft a new weapon) is part of a gameplay loop used (intentionally or otherwise) to encourage people to play more, not for the mechanics/quality of the game, but for the feedback loop

I'm saying that in online games, encouraging minmaxing is not a good thing. I'd argue it also isn't good for single player games, but the effects of it are less prominent. When you are directly competing with other players (and PvE can and will still be competitive) having a large number of useless options is not only bad for new players, but it makes combat more repetitive for long term players

Also I hate unlocking content in DMC/Bayo etc. I don't mind games like Super Metroid, where you get a tool and use it to get to a part of the map you couldnt before (especially when you can sequence break it anyway) but I despise the system of "Right, well you selected new game so here's your 3 hit combo. Have fun earning your cancel-able moves, stingers etc." A case could be made for the existence of that system for something like a speedrun though, wherein prioritization could be a factor, but even then from what I understand there's too many obvious right answers for that to be ideal. I think RPGs that base themselves around a grind are wasting their potential, and feel it should be used more like it is in the better SMT games (where there's not a whole lot of reason to grind and you can still get dicked over in mid-late game even with a level advantage) or in Romancing SaGa PS2 (where grinding actually puts the player at a disadvantage)

No inherent value. People can value a mechanic, but it has no value outside of that. There needs to be a better reason than "I like X" because that's easily countered by "I like not-X"

That only really works if the progression ends once the mechanics are taught. You don't teach someone how to play Quake by locking away the rocket launcher after they know how to shoot, dodge and deal with items
I'd also suggest unskippable tutorials actually make game entry harder. If I want to play with a friend and I have to spend X number of hours to do what they're doing, I'm far less likely to bother. As an example of this, I wanted to show some friends Global Agenda, but that required pushing them through at least 30 levels, if not more (some of the post-30 equipment is pretty key for certain classes). After a certain point, running people through the tutorial portion of the game gets dull, and waiting for them to finish it is even worse

Ronyn · Sep 25, 2016

Beemann said:

Another set of events we view differently. Either way, be nice.

At the risk of this first post seeming to be off topic I'm going to break up the conversations into two directions. One about Ember, one about the various other stuff like the customization debate.

If we can get to a good spot on this stuff I'll go back to the other stuff.

Redacted. Best left for later.

Beemann · Sep 27, 2016

Ronyn said:

I don't consider it not nice to point out a lack of evidence given for a particular position. If you would like me to not consider your actions as ignoring my points then you could always address them

It may not be true in the same way that FireFall may have been an Esport

This is because these are all direct effects on your gaming experience. What goes on in Orgrimmar may never affect me if I never play Horde or enter Horde territory

Your average player is not going to be thinking about the larger picture. Theyre going to be thinking about getting enough resources to build a rocket launcher, and if they can't get those resources they'll get frustrated. Chances are a large portion of the playerbase will get "carried" as well, and will continue to ignore the larger context

Which is only an issue if people cannot protect ANY bases, or if a resource they need is near no available bases, the latter contributing heavily to vertical progression should that weapon/armor/etc be stronger than other options

They do not with regards to player customization. It is a red herring. The thread, and this conversation, are not about base building or vehicle construction. They are about player customization. You are the only one attempting to tie bases and vehicles in

I would suggest that if bases and vehicles are ever present enough to allow quick loadout changes, that the actual gameplay content is probably too easy

Except a baseline implies default. You don't start with a max power Omniframe or all customization options, so all of those variants cannot be the baseline any more than the pieces left halfway through a game of chess could be a baseline

You act as though there's some bit of information I'm missing. There isn't. I simply do not think the game can be carried on a neat idea, given that it resides in a medium full of failed neat ideas

Ronyn · Sep 27, 2016

Beemann said:

If, in your opinion, I didn't provide evidence to a specific point, simply say that and leave it at that. There are things I feel you didn't provide evidence on or didn't address to directly, I simply say so. It's wisest to remember that at any given time either one of us could be missing a point or facing a disagreement in relevance...so I prefer we use courteous terms.

To be clear, a large part of my job is to communicate what kind of game we are making. Another large part being to collect peoples concerns so that I may relay them where appropriate. Those two reasons are why I began to, and continue to, engage in this conversation.

Redacted. Best left for later.

Now if we are past all of the above and ready to point a laser at possible Omniframe customization design directions in particular I'm more than happy to do so.

Fillmore · Sep 28, 2016

Really enjoying this conversation. Lots of food for thought.

Daynen · Oct 6, 2016

Unchaining ourselves from the heavily reinforced thought patterns of damage per second will greatly benefit both the variety and viability of all build choices, by the way...

Beemann · Oct 7, 2016

Daynen said:

DPS v Burst is the real issue, but far from the only one. Health v Speed is almost always out of whack, and not all Utility is made equal. Ultimately it depends on the terrain and enemy types but more often than not, focus on one area over the other to increasing degrees is what lowers build variety. Lots of accurate hitscan enemies = health is king. Lots of projectile based enemies who can be juked out = speed is king. There will always be one side that is even slightly more important, thus creating a "right" answer between the two.

Old, overlooked firefall idea: In-depth tuning

Commander

Active Member

Commander

Active Member

Commander

Active Member

Commander

Commander

Active Member

Commander

Commander

Active Member

Commander

Active Member

Commander

Active Member

Commander

Kaiju Slayer

Active Member

Active Member