Mission: Forced use on-foot Anti-Ship Weapons

[sage tartan]

A lot of players dont use the Anti-Ship weapons and just go straight for combat/Dog fight.

So this is just my suggestion: Have Iris park somewhere to investigate some sort of wreckage that uses "ALL of the ship's power"

The map has some Anti ship weapons deployed under Iris's hacking of the Ruins. This would create a scenario where players need to defend the ship using the on-foot anti-ship weapons

[frank compass]

Forcing players into a particular playstyle usually isn't a good idea, and this one is no exception to that rule.

[digital osprey]

disagree, this would pose an interesting challenge, especially if there are Still multiple ways to deal with it, just taking away a few of your most used options and forcing you to diversify
"forcing players into a particular playstyle" is a bad idea, yes, but letting players handle Any challenge in Any way is also not a good idea because then you can just do everything the same way over and over again.

[frank compass]

And what is wrong with players doing things "the same way over and over again"? One of the cardinal rules in game design is this: if the players are having fun, don't get in their way.

[digital osprey]

"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game" it often doesnt matter what's the most fun it matters what works well, if the best way to win is boring people will do that 90% of the time, its the developers job to make sure the best way to win is Not boring but Also that other ways to play are also fun and viable, players may never Try other strategies if there arent situations that force them into them.

aside from that "if the players are having fun, don't get in their way." isn't even a valid rule because if that was actually a cardinal rule of game design, you shouldnt even have anything like a death mechanic. Why would the player be able to take damage, thats just getting in the way of them winning. A game should provide interesting challenges to a player, and if you can "win" at the game by doing the same thing over and over again when there are a lot of different and interesting ways to play, not having parts of the game that nudge (or sometimes force) a player into those is a shame.

[frank compass]

You're really reaching with both your paragraphs there. Death mechanics are bone-stock gameplay, because some element of risk is integral to good gameplay. Your argument there is a non-sequitor.

As for the other quote about optimizing the fun away, you're using that out of context. If on-foot weapons as anti-ship weaponry is fun, it'll emerge naturally as part of emergent gameplay. There's absolutely no need to force it - just provide valid options and let players do it themselves. In fact, we already have the option in the form of an artifact. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of players never use that artifact because it just isn't fun as compared to flying the ship around.

[sage tartan]

well I can say your argument is valid.

Just that there is the battery and cargo mission

[frank compass]

Can't really speak to the battery mission type (because I'm not aware of any way to eliminate the radiation issue), but for the cargo mission, players are already figuring out ways to "parkour" their way around the map to eliminate the arbitrary slowdown from carrying the "cargo" boxes. Why is it I can carry a box full of presumably heavy munitions at full speed, but I can't carry a box of Top Ramen anything faster than a crawl? 😂

[sage tartan]

Not that battery...

the signal jammer battery

[frank compass]

There's only two battery mission types I can think of off the top of my head:

Radioactive batteries collected by flying around to different objectives <--- this is what I thought you meant
Unlock the door batteries collected entirely within a single on-foot map

[sage tartan]

yeah...that mission is as easy as "Collecting scrap"

Unlock the door battery needs parkour sure. but i think that is the Necessary thing cause otherwise you get pinned down easily. you are forced to learn advanced tech to deal it faster OR

Just drop the battery and shoot, delays time but gets the job done. you are still forced to do both actions

[digital osprey]

besides i dont think a mission type that makes you play a certain way is a problem in a game where you can pick which missions you play, you could even let the player Choose to use the ship during said analysis (or whatever the mechanic is, but i do like Tyrions original suggestion) but it'll just make it take longer, like the heavy cargo or the radiation.

[sage tartan]

well tbh, just defend it against 2-3 waves should be enough. then go back to the ship for 1 more dogfight.

most likely 2

you already have a mission to force you to use those weapons. why not just make a mission to make the best of it

[digital osprey]

i mean like, the justification of having to divert ship power to scanning, fun idea.

[frank compass]

You don't get a choice in the matter unless it's the end/primary objective. All other map/objective types are randomly inserted along the map and you don't even know what it will be until you jump into the node.

[digital osprey]

yes, considering the scope of this mission idea is fairly large (go here to analyse this site, or whatever) it would make sense for this to be a primary objective

[sage tartan]

well not really. it like Eulif's input that it should be short if its mandatory, hence i said "2-3 waves"

sides, if you focus on RPG on that mission, its easy to finish 2-3 waves

[cinder ridge]

its still something new?

[digital osprey]

if its a primary mission it wouldnt be mandatory cause you could just pick another mission. also helldivers has a defense mission style and thats some of the most hecticly fun gameplay ive had in that game, which is normally a more open map with objectives on it (like this game) a mission type that makes you hunker down and Really defend something from a bunch of enemies, on foot so the Scale just feels bigger, but giving you the tools to actually deal with enemy aircraft despite that, could be fun.

[cinder ridge]

More is more
Idk what 1 mission that takes you from doing the same thing over and over

can be so detrimental to a playstyle

its not like its coming up like 2-3 times

[frank compass]

Personal preference: I'd rather not use Helldivers as inspiration. I have no objective argument for that, it's merely preference.

[frank compass]

That's my concern, but if it's made into a primary objective rather than a random encounter, that solves several of my arguments against it, so I'm far less against it in that form.

[cinder ridge]

it can easily be put into the asteriod storm category

[digital osprey]

im not saying it should be Like helldiver's defense mission because this game plays quite differently, im just using it as an example of a game (i could name more) where the gameplay is normally quite free and open, but it forces you into a situation where you have to stay in one spot for a while and really defend can be Really fun

[frank compass]

Asteroid storm is a random event that can happen on any node, so no.

[cinder ridge]

Not the random event

[digital osprey]

that said i fully understand your concerns, i just think its a neat idea (:

[cinder ridge]

the actual mission where you have to gather data in a circle or some shit

[frank compass]

In that case, asteroid storm is a random node type that can occur at any point along the jump map, so also no.

[cinder ridge]

yeah its still once per run if even that

[spice cliff]

I feel like this was just a good example of how they are imagining it.

[cinder ridge]

brother you cant shake things up for 1 time? craazy

[frank compass]

Taking away player options and forcing them to play exactly one way and one way only is objectively bad game design.

[digital osprey]

its. really not

[cinder ridge]

its really not

[digital osprey]

you cant just say something is objectively bad game design

[sage tartan]

that Sector screws you if you're not a good pilot OR it's the first sector you jumped into

[digital osprey]

and then tumbs down everyone who disagrees with you

[cinder ridge]

it would be bad game design if it was every mission in out

[cinder ridge]

its just an example of frequency, dont look too into it

[frank compass]

Games/missions that force players into a particular way of playing are some of the most hated mission types in gaming. This bears out over and over again in online discussions and gameplay reviews. I most certainly can say it's objectively bad design in this case. Players hate it.

[sage tartan]

well this can fall into that category

[cinder ridge]

yea

exactly my point, as long as you arent encountering 2-3 times a run its whatever

[sage tartan]

well with the amount of Sector missions we have. dont think you're gonna meet a dupe mission

[frank compass]

With the number of times I run into the radioactive battery objective, I'm confident that the "use on-foot artillary" mission type would come up quite frequently, unless it was implemented only as a primary objective instead of a random node type.

[cinder ridge]

jammers for the 90th time

[digital osprey]

warframe has a bunch of mission types that make you play in certain ways and while i hear a lot of people say that they like one more than the other, nobody can Agree on which one they like the most, and people tend to like one of the specific modes more than the generic modes that let you do whatever you want. variety is the spice of life

[cinder ridge]

that also comes up fairly often hence why i explicitly picked the asterioid storm one

[sage tartan]

what kind? there are like...4 missions that are jammer related

[cinder ridge]

yes thats the joke

[digital osprey]

also i 100% think this should be a primary objective because part of the charm would be that its a bigger event, and having it as a random node would just be another "do this thing and shoot enemies for x waves" thing

[frank compass]

Jammers are just the macguffin that prevents you from jumping to the next sector right away. That's why there's like (4) different types - they need something lore/story/gameplay to keep you from just jump-jump-jump-jumping straight to the primary node.

[sage tartan]

well it's outer space where a lot of the resistance are cornered. You'd obviously expect a lot of jammers

[cinder ridge]

either works
More is just ..more

if its a primary W, if you see it once per 1 hour run every 5 runs also W

just adds variety without being too intrusive

[frank compass]

"Forced" is extremely intrusive.

I'll repeat myself:

If on-foot weapons as anti-ship weaponry is fun, it'll emerge naturally as part of emergent gameplay. There's absolutely no need to force it - just provide valid options and let players do it themselves. In fact, we already have the option in the form of an artifact. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of players never use that artifact because it just isn't fun as compared to flying the ship around.

[cinder ridge]

we can go around in circles all day

[frank compass]

Even if the on-foot weapons were faster (more damage, maybe even extra bonuses like lock-on missiles, etc.), I'd still be willing to bet that players would continue to choose flying the ship around.

[sage tartan]

well I guess this suggestion is as good as dead if this is quite heated

[cinder ridge]

i still maintain with that frequency or if you just get to straight up prepare for it as a end mission objective, its perfectly reasonable to put more emphasis on certain things more than the classic

Ship > ground > ship

[digital osprey]

i think the consensus is that this is at least an interesting idea but care should be put into not making the implementation anoying or frustrating

[frank compass]

I can agree with this summarization. 👍