The Problem with Looter Shooters

[Aikouka]

I originally started writing this around a month ago as a response to a post from @zinfamous that was talking about Borderlands. It has been a while since I played the game, and while I have plenty of time spent in it, I also realize that it's not a perfect game and that there are areas in which it could be improved -- other than the ending! However, after writing about the game, I realized that this wasn't just talking about Borderlands, but I could levy some of these same complaints/remarks against other looter shooters like Destiny or Warframe.

Based on the idea that a looter shooter is essentially a mash-up of the ARPG and the FPS genres, I tried to go into five core philosophies that I think most looter shooters don't do a good job with. Although, to be fair, I do think that some do better than others -- especially in specific points. However, I don't think there's a single game that really hits the mark. So, that's enough prattling... onto the design philosophies!

1. By definition, a looter shooter needs to be based on shooting, or else it's an ARPG with guns.
2. Looter shooters need variety, character, and/or visual distinction in their weapons.

I find it very hard to talk about the focus on shooting (#1) without referencing the lack of gun variations (#2), which is why I've lumped them together. I don't think that the focus on shooting is a problem in the looter shooter, but rather when shooting is arguably what you do the majority of the time, it hurts when most weapons of a specific class feel far too similar. As mentioned in #2, probably the worst aspect is simply the lack of character in weapons. In looter shooters, weapons tend to be generic and rarely offer interesting "flavor". An example could be a weapon with a unique proc effect, or a weapon that affects much ignored class abilities, which will be coming up later.

3. While weaponry is important, don't ignore other types of gear.

One of the important aspects of an ARPG, and consequently, a looter shooter, is to be able to create variations on a character. Part of this can be accomplished through inherent character aspects such as talent trees or ability choices, or through non-weapon factors such as armor and jewelry/accessories. Unfortunately, in a lot of the looter shooters that I've encountered, the non-weapon equipment tends to take a back seat to the weapons, and arguably ends up far less interesting as a result. I think what makes this worse is when a game doesn't provide nearly enough slots for variation. An example of this is Warframe, which only provides three weapon slots, and all class (warframe) variation is handled through the mod system. (I have enough complaints on that system to serve as its own write-up.)

4. The ARPG concept of class abilities should be substantial but not overbearing.

While I think the other issues are arguably more glaring in regard to making a looter shooter good as both a game about looting and a game about shooting, I also think it's important to consider abilities. As noted earlier, class abilities play a role in helping different character types feel unique. In other words, if you're playing a wizard or a warrior, the game will feel vastly different. The problem with abilities in looter shooters is that they often have very little to do with actual shooting, which means if they're used too much, they go against the core concept of shooting, and if not used enough, they feel worthless. This doesn't mean that all survivability or crowd control abilities should be removed, but rather that there should be enough gun-related, combat abilities to coincide with the survivability abilities.

5. Difficulty cannot be defined simply be scaling numbers.

This issue affects far more than just looter shooters, but looter shooters seem to fall prey to it more often. Essentially, the problem is that in lieu of AI or encounter changes to affect difficulty, games will often simply raise enemy health, damage reduction, and/or damage to make the enemy more of a challenge.

 

[Aikouka]

Now, I also wanted to throw my proverbial hat in the ring and come up with my own gameplay system ideas that could help solve these problems.

Ultimately, I think you can sum up the majority of the aforementioned issues with a failure to adapt the ARPG formula to the shooter formula. The developers continue to create classes with abilities in an attempt to diversify the play style, but doing this just ignores the weapons. So, to provide a simple answer... why not just stop ignoring the weapons?
As for the more detailed answer, I think the solution is to either move the usual class functionality to weapons or rather weapon types, or at least provide that functionality to both the character and the weapon. In this situation, a character would gain experience for a specific weapon type, and that weapon type would have its own talent tree and/or unlockable abilities/passives. These abilities and passives should directly affect and be similar to firing the weapon normally. A simple example could be providing rocket launchers the ability to double the number of projectiles fired without any extra ammo cost. (Note the use of "double" rather than simply "an extra projectile" as a method to increase coupling with other items.)

While this may appear to neuter classes, they can easily coexist with this weaponry change. Effectively, weapon talents/passives/abilities should have a higher focus on the offensive where class talents/passives/abilities should have a higher focus on the defensive. Of course, this doesn't mean that a weapon cannot have a defensive ability or a class can't have an offensive ability. It's also worthwhile to consider adding a bit of extra flavor to classes by limiting their available weapon types. For example, if you have a small, nimble class/hero, make them incapable of using larger, siege-style weapons like rocket launchers. However, on that note, from a flavor perspective, I don't think it's a bad idea to introduce weird mergers of the two such as a singe-shot pistol that launches a rocket-like projectile.

The ideas discussed above certainly address some aspects, but they don't address the problem that weapons are typically too similar and lack a fun, distinctive flair. While this isn't usually that important while in the early game, it's usually a fun aspect of the late-game. In what sounds like the simple fix, the easiest way to make weapons individually interesting is to make uniquely defined weapons. An example of this would be Diablo's legendary weapons where the weapon may have a trait that will affect a specific ability or add a different, proc-based ability. Another method is how I mentioned coupling earlier, or rather the combining of multiple benefits to make something more powerful. For a simple example, if you have multiple bonuses that provide an extra chance at double rocket projectiles, you can make it so the player has a higher chance of receiving the proc or that same chance of receiving a ridiculous multiplicative proc.

Unfortunately, the largest issue that I see with my own system is managing levels, and consequently, difficulty. If weapon types are leveled separately from a character, that suggests that there are effectively two sources that define the basis for a character's strength: character level and weapon type level. So, what happens when a level 10 character with level 10 in rifles picks up a pistol, which is level 0. All of a sudden, the character is essentially weaker. To a degree, it can discourage trying different things, but I guess you could argue that for some, leveling aspects of a character is kind of a perk. It does remind me a bit of Final Fantasy XIV's weapon/class system. In that MMO, weapon types do not have levels, but rather, weapon types define which class you currently are. So, if you equip a two-handed axe, you're a Warrior, but if you equip a bow, you're an Archer, and your level will change depending on what your current level for that class is.

 

[KentState]

I think the problem is that most are multiplayer focused and everything has to be balanced to the point where stats are purely scaling. If not, then certain classes or weapons would have an advantage over others from a functionality stand point which would upset players. So it's either a rock-paper-scissors approach or everything caps out. Yes, some things will be duds but as soon as something is OP, then everything complains and it gets nerfed.

 

[zinfamous]

Heh, the only other game I think of is Destiny, and so far I've only played Destiny 2, because it was free...and I think I only have maybe 10 or 12 hours into it? probably not that long. I couldn't get into it for some reason.

As to 3-5:

3:
Yeah, Borderlands doesn't do this very well. The most important item next to your gun would be your shield, and in all of the Borderlands series, there are maybe 2 or 3 very unique, specific shields that do some interesting things, but the rest are very generic. And even of those limited unique ones, one of the more interesting ones has very niche, kinda nooby mechanics...I'm thinking about the Bee in BL2.

The class mods don't really do much beyond altering your damage outputs, determined by which type of guns you use, more or less....so they are really there to influence your gun choice.

grenades are pretty much your primary healing, nearly all the time at the highest difficulties, and you should rarely be using them for anything else? wut? but that's BL. (well, or a tricked-out, not-exactly-legal Moxie gun...)

4:
The complaints I tend to hear about the ability system in these games is that they primarily focus on passive abilities, and not active, MMO/ARPG-like 1-6 or 8 or whatever skill progressions with cooldowns or whatever. A new skill does not equal a new ability, and I guess some want them to be that way, but I don't see how that is reasonable, if impossible. As you say, it should be about the guns, so your damage/skill variety is in the type of guns that you select for your 1-whatever loadout list, and the abilities here, well, how are you supposed to activate them like in an ARPG? These are action-FPS which really don't lend themselves to top-down spacing, battleground strategy, and AoE targeting or whatever. I think passive abilities are really the only way to go with these, and there is really nothing wrong with it. Skill trees offer that variety within classes. I think Destiny pretty much does it the same way with one class-specific action button, and all can be tricked out differently from the skill trees.

5.

Bullet sponging...don't know what else to do here other than some complicated AI-tiering that changes with each difficulty level, maybe ad in some frustrating mechanics like increased sway, gun breaking/repair, misfiring, etc. Those things tend to frustrate the crap out of me, but running around in circles and stacking damage type just to shoot a thing endlessly isn't really fun, either.

 

[zinfamous]

Now, I also wanted to throw my proverbial hat in the ring and come up with my own gameplay system ideas that could help solve these problems.

Ultimately, I think you can sum up the majority of the aforementioned issues with a failure to adapt the ARPG formula to the shooter formula. The developers continue to create classes with abilities in an attempt to diversify the play style, but doing this just ignores the weapons. So, to provide a simple answer... why not just stop ignoring the weapons?
As for the more detailed answer, I think the solution is to either move the usual class functionality to weapons or rather weapon types, or at least provide that functionality to both the character and the weapon. In this situation, a character would gain experience for a specific weapon type, and that weapon type would have its own talent tree and/or unlockable abilities/passives. These abilities and passives should directly affect and be similar to firing the weapon normally. A simple example could be providing rocket launchers the ability to double the number of projectiles fired without any extra ammo cost. (Note the use of "double" rather than simply "an extra projectile" as a method to increase coupling with other items.)

While this may appear to neuter classes, they can easily coexist with this weaponry change. Effectively, weapon talents/passives/abilities should have a higher focus on the offensive where class talents/passives/abilities should have a higher focus on the defensive. Of course, this doesn't mean that a weapon cannot have a defensive ability or a class can't have an offensive ability. It's also worthwhile to consider adding a bit of extra flavor to classes by limiting their available weapon types. For example, if you have a small, nimble class/hero, make them incapable of using larger, siege-style weapons like rocket launchers. However, on that note, from a flavor perspective, I don't think it's a bad idea to introduce weird mergers of the two such as a singe-shot pistol that launches a rocket-like projectile.

The ideas discussed above certainly address some aspects, but they don't address the problem that weapons are typically too similar and lack a fun, distinctive flair. While this isn't usually that important while in the early game, it's usually a fun aspect of the late-game. In what sounds like the simple fix, the easiest way to make weapons individually interesting is to make uniquely defined weapons. An example of this would be Diablo's legendary weapons where the weapon may have a trait that will affect a specific ability or add a different, proc-based ability. Another method is how I mentioned coupling earlier, or rather the combining of multiple benefits to make something more powerful. For a simple example, if you have multiple bonuses that provide an extra chance at double rocket projectiles, you can make it so the player has a higher chance of receiving the proc or that same chance of receiving a ridiculous multiplicative proc.

Unfortunately, the largest issue that I see with my own system is managing levels, and consequently, difficulty. If weapon types are leveled separately from a character, that suggests that there are effectively two sources that define the basis for a character's strength: character level and weapon type level. So, what happens when a level 10 character with level 10 in rifles picks up a pistol, which is level 0. All of a sudden, the character is essentially weaker. To a degree, it can discourage trying different things, but I guess you could argue that for some, leveling aspects of a character is kind of a perk. It does remind me a bit of Final Fantasy XIV's weapon/class system. In that MMO, weapon types do not have levels, but rather, weapon types define which class you currently are. So, if you equip a two-handed axe, you're a Warrior, but if you equip a bow, you're an Archer, and your level will change depending on what your current level for that class is.

I like this idea--leveling the weapons with their own skill trees. I think it could work well with classes, and not neuter class differentiation, especially if each class can maybe use certain weapon types effectively--but in their own way. Say, certain classes have access to certain weapon functions that others do not.

Say, let's go with Borderlands and lets talk Sirens and their classic Synergy with Maliwan elemental SMGs, (and I guess pistols and sniper rifles). Instead of making the elemental proc a Maliwan function, make it a Siren function, right? I mean, why not? It makes total sense.

You could stick with the same gun manufacturers making all sorts of different type of weapons, but only in a Siren's hands would you have the ability to proc elemental damage with SMGs (or maybe all guns?) Maybe Commandos would have access to tighter spread, faster firing, regenerating ammo or something that others wouldn't. Maybe other classes could gain elemental functions through some other gear, but would require some specific ability tree on some dedicated gear, with limited variety. Make the Siren's ubiquitous access to elemental damage an inherent trait, and unmatched compared to other classes access to those functions.

This would enhance the kind of depth that you are talking about.

As far as weapons dropping that enhance specific abilities, BL does do that with the class mods--though those abilities aren't really random at all, as they define the specific class mod and so there isn't a whole lot of variety with them. Because of this, you end up with 1 or 2 mods that are desirable for a class out of the dozen or so that are available. Maybe some randomization of those abilities with some serious bonuses would encourage more exploration of overlooked, rarely-traited abilities or trees.

As for weapon-based skills, like in FFXIV, the Guild Wars II mechanic assigns your slot skills based on your current equipped weapon set. Classes can use the same type of weapons, but can't use all types of weapons. So you have overlapping weapon use, but variety of types. And so depending on your class, say a Warrior vs a Mesmer wielding a sword, each will have a different 1-3 skill for the same sword, because of their class. The secondary weapon determines skills 4-5. I think the elementalist, in one class setup, has mashup of the 4 skill, that sort of melds functions of the individual weapon 1 and 2 skill set. But as with MMOs, the weapons themselves are kinda meaningless--you swing and shoot or whatever, but they don't really do damage--they just determine your skill loadout, which does the damage.

...This could maybe work in these FPS games, but might limit the type of weapons you have equipped in your loadout (GW2 allows for two weapon sets at a time for most characters, so effectively swapping between two skill bars, 5 variable active skills--but that is in addition to 3 fixed class skills). SO, you could maybe have 2 or 3 weapons equipped at a time that determine your ability, then switch to another set that has another skill set.

.....damn, I hope Borderlands 3 will be released!

 

[Aikouka]

I like this idea--leveling the weapons with their own skill trees. I think it could work well with classes, and not neuter class differentiation, especially if each class can maybe use certain weapon types effectively--but in their own way. Say, certain classes have access to certain weapon functions that others do not.

Say, let's go with Borderlands and lets talk Sirens and their classic Synergy with Maliwan elemental SMGs, (and I guess pistols and sniper rifles). Instead of making the elemental proc a Maliwan function, make it a Siren function, right? I mean, why not? It makes total sense.

You could stick with the same gun manufacturers making all sorts of different type of weapons, but only in a Siren's hands would you have the ability to proc elemental damage with SMGs (or maybe all guns?)

The only problem with making a classification of damage specific to one character is that the classification cannot be too strong or else that character is too strong. In other words, elemental damage will have to lose some potency -- albeit, its use was typically situational -- or else Siren will be too strong. Siren's talents allowed her to amplify elemental damage, which did make it stronger, but not too strong.

I've been tempted to try and flesh this idea out more with somewhat comprehensive examples, but one concept that came to mind was a talent for Rocket Launchers called "Bombard" or "Mortar". It would be a 3-point talent that reads "Shoot 5/4/3 rockets into the air to deal damage over a 6/8/10 yard range." What's nice about an ability like this is that it grants one aspect that's commonly missing among these games -- weapon-based AoE. This is something that you'd expect more in an ARPG as classes usually have single target or AoE abilities.

The hardest part would likely be coming up with enough interesting abilities given that they're restricted being based off the flavor of the weapon type. It's certainly a lot easier when working with a more vague idea like "magic caster" or "master of undeath" or "martial arts master".

As far as weapons dropping that enhance specific abilities, BL does do that with the class mods--though those abilities aren't really random at all, as they define the specific class mod and so there isn't a whole lot of variety with them. Because of this, you end up with 1 or 2 mods that are desirable for a class out of the dozen or so that are available. Maybe some randomization of those abilities with some serious bonuses would encourage more exploration of overlooked, rarely-traited abilities or trees.

While Borderland's class mods do amplify abilities, if I remember correctly, they do it specifically by providing additional talent points. In my case, I was alluding to a system more like Diablo where legendary items will have unique enhancements that modify an ability.

.....damn, I hope Borderlands 3 will be released!

Gearbox posted a ton of teasers to their Twitter account about upcoming game announcements. The writing on the wall is that Borderlands 3 is one of the games.

EDIT:

Another ability idea that I came up with could be used for SMGs. I'd like to call it "Spray and Pray", which reads "Deal 150/175/200% bullet damage to all enemies in front of you knocking them back 6/8/10 yards." I'm not sure about a couple factors such as how to properly scale damage or how to represent the cone area without a ton of words (I'd prefer a 90-degree cone). I consider "Bullet Damage" to mean the amount of damage a single bullet would do considering all modifiers. I'm also not sure about ammo requirements, but the ability would likely have either ammo usage or a cooldown.

 

[Aikouka]

I think the problem is that most are multiplayer focused and everything has to be balanced to the point where stats are purely scaling. If not, then certain classes or weapons would have an advantage over others from a functionality stand point which would upset players. So it's either a rock-paper-scissors approach or everything caps out. Yes, some things will be duds but as soon as something is OP, then everything complains and it gets nerfed.

Well, I mean... there will almost always be a concept of Best in Slot for these games. Albeit, sometimes, the games will have systems to possibly amplify a certain weapon's capability (i.e. lightning damage against a shield-heavy boss).

Oh, but talking about multiplayer, I think there's another point that I'd like to touch on that relates to class design and end-game content! ...or in the case of some games, the lack there of.

3: Yeah, Borderlands doesn't do this very well. The most important item next to your gun would be your shield

Most other games aren't any better. As noted, Warframe only has primary, secondary and melee weapons... and maybe companion if you want to be picky. Destiny 2 does have more item slots available similar to an RPG, and there are items that provide specific bonuses; however, you're limited on how many you can have (no stacking of bonuses) and they're usually a little boring. It doesn't help that Destiny 2's class abilities are pretty lackluster to begin with.

Although, it looks like The Division 2 has quite a few slots, but I haven't seen yet if there are any interesting items for said slots.

4: The complaints I tend to hear about the ability system in these games is that they primarily focus on passive abilities, and not active, MMO/ARPG-like 1-6 or 8 or whatever skill progressions with cooldowns or whatever. ... how are you supposed to activate them like in an ARPG? These are action-FPS which really don't lend themselves to top-down spacing, battleground strategy, and AoE targeting or whatever.

I don't think that passive abilities are inherently bad. The only problem is when they're really boring passives like +5% damage. For example, I think Borderlands 2's Mechromancer had an interesting take on class-altering talents, but I also think Gearbox did it poorly. I played an Anarchy Mechromancer, which is quite fun from a run-n-gun perspective. However, it was extremely limited by the number of Anarchy stacks, which took quite a while to add up, and reset upon death. This meant that if you were in an area and died, you might be completely incapable of defeating enemies due to your significantly reduced damage. (This actually happened to me a few times.) So, while that was an interesting passive in that it changed the way you played, it hurt in that it also limited you.

However, I don't think an FPS view has to ruin the inclusion of targeted abilities. For example, Overwatch has a number of targeted, AoE abilities that usually just take effect at the point in which you're aiming, and it works pretty well.

Although, I think what makes the lack of abilities even worse is just the boring weapons. Weapons could be more like abilities if swapping between them was sort of like swapping between abilities. I think Borderlands does add some variety in its weaponry to make them a bit more interesting -- at least more than being generic SMG #2453 -- but I don't think it's enough to work under this idea.

5. Bullet sponging...don't know what else to do here other than some complicated AI-tiering that changes with each difficulty level, maybe ad in some frustrating mechanics like increased sway, gun breaking/repair, misfiring, etc. Those things tend to frustrate the crap out of me, but running around in circles and stacking damage type just to shoot a thing endlessly isn't really fun, either.

I consider "bullet sponge" to be a frustrating difficulty tactic, and the other mechanics that you listed belong under that camp too. Now, to a degree, I'm not against an enemy taking a bit more damage to kill or dealing more damage, but I think it's that the tweaked numbers can't be the only thing that differentiates it. For example, in World of WarCraft, a heroic or mythic boss does have more health and deals more damage, but Blizzard usually tinkers with the mechanics, which includes adding/removing aspects.

Here's an example of a change. Let's say you're fighting a boss in a chemical plant -- not something too crazy for a game like Borderlands. Actually, I think that pretty much describes the Sledge encounter? Anyway, during the basic encounter, the boss may just run after you and try to shoot you. However, in the harder encounter, when the boss hits 50%, he gets mad, shoots his gun in the air out of frustration, causing him to release some slime, which mutates him. This gives the boss a leaping attack (harder to keep away) and maybe a crazy tentacle... because you can't have mutations without tentacles!

 

[Fenixgoon]

make the game not a giant grindfest somehow? that's the biggest problem I see with any ARPG or looter shooter. what's the point in running grifts in d3? to get better loot, to run more grifts and repeat ad nauseum?

i'd rather have the d2 super bosses (which I never even came close to attaining) - granted that was patched in...how many years after LOTD was released? at any rate, i think something like that would be a way better endgame.

 

[Rebel_L]

make the game not a giant grindfest somehow? that's the biggest problem I see with any ARPG or looter shooter. what's the point in running grifts in d3? to get better loot, to run more grifts and repeat ad nauseum?

i'd rather have the d2 super bosses (which I never even came close to attaining) - granted that was patched in...how many years after LOTD was released? at any rate, i think something like that would be a way better endgame.

I agree, while I dont play this genre very much, all the more recent games that Ive played seem like such chore. They are fun initially but once you get through the usually small story campaign it seems like its just pointless. You upgrade your loot so you can get better loot doing the same thing with a little extra difficulty. I seems like all games just level with you these days so I feel like getting gear is just pointless. If the point of the game is trying to collect rare loot it should make the game easier as you play not just let you complete the 20th difficulty level of the same thing.

On top of that they dont seem to make gear ladders that reel me in anymore. At the beginning you have gear upgrades so quickly that you replace gear so often its almost a pain just to do that (especially when drops always seem to depend on your gear level so you have to equip whatever is the latest drop if you want upgrades) but then once you get towards the end it dries up real fast to seeing only very occasional upgrades. I find it especially annoying with so much gear having random attributes on it its always such a pain when you get the gun you want with crappy bonuses and the gun you dont want with good bonuses.

 

[Aikouka]

I mostly agree with you, @Fenixgoon , about Diablo III. I think the difference is that I don't mind playing for gear if the upgrade feels meaningful, and isn't just a stupidly low chance to get. For example, you aren't going to see me running day-in and day-out for a specific Primal Ancient item. I'm also not going to keep running a rift to get my 5.5% crit ring to a 6% crit ring. What I think works to make me continue to push for gear even at end-game is that I can see an appreciable gain, or know that I will eventually get an appreciable gain in power.

However, now that I think about it, that's also somewhat of a downside in regard to Diablo III. When I play D3, I almost always start of with a Necromancer each season, and I always do the same build (Rathma Skeletal Mage). If I were to track out my character's capability with certain gear pieces, what you would notice are ridiculous spikes at specific points. For example, getting the 6-piece Rathma bonus, getting the 2-piece Jesseth bonus, or having both rings (Circle of Nailuj's Evol and Krysbin's Sentence) are all points in which you notice a ridiculous increase in power. That jump in power can be pretty fun when you get to experience it, but it can also be quite frustrating as you're hunting for that last piece. It also hurts the appeal of getting some pieces of gear when you see very little gain.

Oh, here's an interesting idea! What if set bonuses weren't a simple binary switch? In other words, currently, you get the 6-piece bonus when you have 6 pieces of the gear on. However, what if that was changed so you always received a partial bonus? In other words, if I put two pieces on, I get the 2-piece bonus, I get maybe 50% of the 4-piece bonus, and 33% of the 6-piece bonus. (It may be wise to at least require two pieces.) Now, the numbers may need to scale a little differently to avoid people stacking partial bonuses such as 2 = 15%, 3 = 30%, 4 = 45%, 5 = 60%, 6 = 100%. With that, you still see the largest jump (+40%) at the last piece, but outside of that, you get a 15% boost each time.

On top of that they dont seem to make gear ladders that reel me in anymore. At the beginning you have gear upgrades so quickly that you replace gear so often its almost a pain just to do that (especially when drops always seem to depend on your gear level so you have to equip whatever is the latest drop if you want upgrades) but then once you get towards the end it dries up real fast to seeing only very occasional upgrades. I find it especially annoying with so much gear having random attributes on it its always such a pain when you get the gun you want with crappy bonuses and the gun you dont want with good bonuses.

I've heard people complaining about the amount of loot in The Division 2 being a bit excessive. But I'm not sure what you could really do about this? It might be more helpful if useless drops actually had more of a purpose. In some cases, they're just vendor fodder, but in other games, you might break them down into components to be used in crafting.

As for less upgrade options, that's sort of just the problem with gear being limited by your level. Unlike before where getting a level 20 uncommon might replace a level 10 legendary, you don't have that sort of thing at max level. Getting a good item for a slot will end up significantly reducing the chance that you'll find an upgrade for that slot. That's a tough problem to fix.

 

[killster1]

wow.. just wow.. what is all this? so is this a story or a game? i dont remember ever playing this type of game as most of them are kinda like bf4 where you seem to get killed by someones upgraded gun so much when starting out and its so frustrating that people who are more skilled have better weapons. just makes you want to quit the game or drive a tank where the weapon isnt involved (mostly just wrench on the tank and blow up other tanks or fly a aircraft / AA) . sounds like a fallout type game where you go around looking in every drawer to upgrade parts thing / trying to open everything possible. SO BORING!

 

[zinfamous]

wow.. just wow.. what is all this? so is this a story or a game? i dont remember ever playing this type of game as most of them are kinda like bf4 where you seem to get killed by someones upgraded gun so much when starting out and its so frustrating that people who are more skilled have better weapons. just makes you want to quit the game or drive a tank where the weapon isnt involved (mostly just wrench on the tank and blow up other tanks or fly a aircraft / AA) . sounds like a fallout type game where you go around looking in every drawer to upgrade parts thing / trying to open everything possible. SO BORING!

well at least with BL2 and Destiny, they aren't PvP for the most part.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The other problem is making the loot pool enticing enough to keep you going. Meaning if you are hunting that ultimate gun there has to be enough drops otherwise to keep you interested. If everything is junk except one or two things then it becomes an unnecessary grind. This is what happened in Destiny for a while. One gun was the best and if you did t have it, well...good luck getting a group for anything to get the other good stuff. It was so bad at one point that people who had junk gear were picked up over someone maxed out because they didn’t have a specific weapon. So if you were hunting a drop from raid you didn’t get groups because of this. Your luck with RNG should not affect your ability to progress.

The loot pool also has to be large enough and set up so that you don’t keep getting duplicates. This was another problem I had with Destiny. You could get 5 exotic drops and get the same thing multiple times which you junked because it sucked, going back to the first point that the pool wasn’t interesting enough.

Then you have to balance progression using the loot pool. If rank, level, or any other metric is determined by gear and/or weapons you need to make it something everyone can do. In Destiny there was a time where you could not progress level wise unless you did the raid. Then the ridiculous loot system seemed to intentionally hold people back from getting the one piece of gear they needed. Bungie adjusted this later but it presented a real issue for many. As a side problem, the people who did get the gear they needed were sometimes put off by the fact that seemingly overnight someone who was missing it could get gear in other ways that gave them the level that the first guy struggled week after week to finally get. Made the work seem meaningless. The other big problem was making some of the things a grind just for the sake of making it a grind to keep you logging in week after week. At some point you can’t just cater to all the hardcore streamers and cater to their whim. If you do, you lose another segment of the market who isn’t going to 24/7 grind.

 

[cmdrdredd]

well at least with BL2 and Destiny, they aren't PvP for the most part.

One problem destiny had early on was some weapons were too powerful in PvP and when they adjusted it, it was weak in PvE as well. It was like they couldn’t separate the two. Sucked.

 

[Rebel_L]

I've heard people complaining about the amount of loot in The Division 2 being a bit excessive. But I'm not sure what you could really do about this? It might be more helpful if useless drops actually had more of a purpose. In some cases, they're just vendor fodder, but in other games, you might break them down into components to be used in crafting.

As for less upgrade options, that's sort of just the problem with gear being limited by your level. Unlike before where getting a level 20 uncommon might replace a level 10 legendary, you don't have that sort of thing at max level. Getting a good item for a slot will end up significantly reducing the chance that you'll find an upgrade for that slot. That's a tough problem to fix.

I played destiny 2 for a bit (not enough to even get to max level) and Im playing a bit of anthem now. In anthem I have actually hit max level. It feels like missions are so short and xp and items so plentiful I spend way to much time sorting through loot that is just a tiny bit better. Its not that I want to speed up later upgrading because I realize that needs to be a slow process, what I think they should do is slow down early upgrading. The levels may as well not exist in the first place since everything scales. So at the beginning you have this leveling stage that just leads to this overload of needing to upgrade every piece every level so that better loot will actually drop, and in anthem at least you level so to max so fast that the change goes from upgrading a piece or two pretty much every mission to really really slow upgrading almost as soon as you hit max level. They dont slow down loot upgrading gradually enough so it feels like running into a wall.

In rpg's your levels often have a much bigger impact on your overall capabilities with the early levels acting as more of a tutorial to let you get used to the basic combat and adding other things slowly. In the looter shooters I have played you get a bit of a tutorial but other than the gear there seems very little meaningful changes to characters past the gear you wear, and then gear is more about the type of gun etc you choose rather than the stats since everything just scales. I just dont actually fell like my power level is really changing so that once I get through the story I tend to get bored really quickly because I dont see the point in going on. You never really get to a point where you feel overpowered, which in a loot grinder is important to me.

While not a shooter d2 was about the best loot farming formula I have every played. While I play with friends sometimes, but I often play because no one else has time atm. I enjoyed that loot was never bound and you could collect and trade and share. I much prefer that over the forced grouping that most games seem to want these days. I enjoy playing at my own pace, and that multiplayer aspect where friends can help each other when needed but its not needed often. All the more recent games seem like they are trying to force the dev idea of community rather than letting players make their own. I also dont need so many difficulty levels, in general I like getting to an overpowered state at some point... what is the point of collecting gear if you dont get to feel invincible at some point.

 

[EXCellR8]

There were supposedly some changes made to the loot system in Anthem... but it seems the player base is all but gone. The only players I found were in freeplay and there were only a few scattered around. I am level 23 with rare interceptor and I'm not able to find randoms at all for missions. I thought the game was okay but for how long it was in development at a AAA (or once AAA) studio I can totally see it as a failure; no amount of added content is going to save it.

I loved Destiny 2, though I haven't played it since before Forsaken was a thing. It was on sale a couple of weeks back, maybe even more recently, but I didn't feel like jumping back into a game that I played to death, across two platforms, since launch.

 

[Aikouka]

The levels may as well not exist in the first place since everything scales.

In regard to Anthem, I wonder if this is the real issue at hand. Personally, I don't think scaling enemies is a good idea. Well, I should rephrase that as I don't think blanket scaling enemies is a good idea. I think you could create interesting systems where the player's actions may cause certain enemies to get stronger, but I digress. The problem is that developers often use scaling as a cheap way to reuse content. You don't have to necessarily work to create separate pieces of content for different level ranges since the content is never out-leveled.

I think this creates a few different problems:

1. It hurts the power fantasy. Part of what makes leveling interesting is seeing your power grow. Sure, you can see that your damage numbers raise, but if the same Slime enemy from level 1 takes 5 seconds to kill at level 20, then what's the point?
2. It hurts the peril. If most enemies are kept around your own level -- even at the high range -- then you lack a sense off danger as you explore. I'm sure most Alliance World of WarCraft players remember exploring up from Red Ridge Mountains into the Burning Steppes, which took you from a level 15-20 zone to a level 50-55 zone. The first time you see an enemy with a skull instead of a level, you just hightail it right out of there! (Of course, this only applies if the game limits both the low-end and high-end of levels.)
3. Things just get stale. Keeping enemies at your level tends to mean the developer will continue to use that content -- sometimes in the form of repeatable quests. But, to put it simply, who wants to kill 10 boars for the umpteenth time? There's nothing wrong with having some boring quests in a game as long as there are also some interesting ones to go along with them.

This is all off the top of my head, so I may be missing some things....

In rpg's your levels often have a much bigger impact on your overall capabilities with the early levels acting as more of a tutorial to let you get used to the basic combat and adding other things slowly. In the looter shooters I have played you get a bit of a tutorial but other than the gear there seems very little meaningful changes to characters past the gear you wear, and then gear is more about the type of gun etc you choose rather than the stats since everything just scales. I just dont actually fell like my power level is really changing so that once I get through the story I tend to get bored really quickly because I dont see the point in going on. You never really get to a point where you feel overpowered, which in a loot grinder is important to me.

I wonder if this goes back to my issue with interesting weapons and the lack of abilities? If we look at your typical ARPG compared to your typical looter shooter, the one big difference is that a game like Diablo will give you abilities for dealing damage. If you switch around your talents and/or abilities, your gameplay can change significantly in an ARPG, but in a looter shooter... you're just shooting. In most cases, shooting an assault rifle feels the same at level 1 as it does at level 50. That's one of the reasons why I suggested using weapon-based abilities.

I've also mused over that one a bit, because I've had a hard time coming up with interesting abilities. I came up with another, which was the idea of tossing a weapon on the ground and having it turn in to a turret (no ammo usage, still fires as if you were firing it). Of course, I see that Borderlands 3 shows off a gun with legs. Anyway, the problem is that weapons are literally so boring that coming up with sensible abilities can be... kind of hard. You just lack that flavor that you get with classes! That's why I think it's better for weapon-based abilities/talents to have two types: generic abilities/talents that are shared between all classes, and class-specific abilities that are based on the flavor of the class.

While not a shooter d2 was about the best loot farming formula I have every played. While I play with friends sometimes, but I often play because no one else has time atm. I enjoyed that loot was never bound and you could collect and trade and share. I much prefer that over the forced grouping that most games seem to want these days. I enjoy playing at my own pace, and that multiplayer aspect where friends can help each other when needed but its not needed often. All the more recent games seem like they are trying to force the dev idea of community rather than letting players make their own. I also dont need so many difficulty levels, in general I like getting to an overpowered state at some point... what is the point of collecting gear if you dont get to feel invincible at some point.

The one thing that I always hated about Destiny 2 is the way it dropped ammo. The game seemed to always drop ammo for the weapon type you weren't using. For example, if you were using a Kinetic weapon, it would drop Elemental ammo, and vice-versa. I think someone said that they changed this, which sounds great, because it was awful in the raids. The idea of having to swap to an inferior weapon just because the game refused to drop ammo really ground my gears!

 

[cmdrdredd]

The one thing that I always hated about Destiny 2 is the way it dropped ammo. The game seemed to always drop ammo for the weapon type you weren't using. For example, if you were using a Kinetic weapon, it would drop Elemental ammo, and vice-versa. I think someone said that they changed this, which sounds great, because it was awful in the raids. The idea of having to swap to an inferior weapon just because the game refused to drop ammo really ground my gears!

They did that to force you to switch weapons and use something else. A big problem in the first game was using one weapon as your everything gun. They tried to force this habit away.

 

[Aikouka]

They did that to force you to switch weapons and use something else. A big problem in the first game was using one weapon as your everything gun. They tried to force this habit away.

Two things about this...

1. If switching weapons is desired, figure out how to bake it into the encounter in a natural way rather than through some obscure mechanic.
2. If it's really an issue that some people favor one type of weapon over another, then your game design has some serious flaws in its weapon design and/or enemy vulnerabilities.

Ultimately, it was a pretty bad idea. It forced me to swap to a weapon with noticeably less DPS just to get ammo for a weapon that actually performed well. At best, you could maybe argue that it added some artificial difficulty as I had to actively choose what points I could swap weapons without it hurting the raid.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Two things about this...

1. If switching weapons is desired, figure out how to bake it into the encounter in a natural way rather than through some obscure mechanic.
2. If it's really an issue that some people favor one type of weapon over another, then your game design has some serious flaws in its weapon design and/or enemy vulnerabilities.

Ultimately, it was a pretty bad idea. It forced me to swap to a weapon with noticeably less DPS just to get ammo for a weapon that actually performed well. At best, you could maybe argue that it added some artificial difficulty as I had to actively choose what points I could swap weapons without it hurting the raid.

They did that when secondary weapons were elemental damage which ripped shields if you used the right type. Primaries were kinetic damage only. Also many secondary weapons were MORE DPS than some primaries.

 

[Rebel_L]

In regard to Anthem, I wonder if this is the real issue at hand. Personally, I don't think scaling enemies is a good idea. Well, I should rephrase that as I don't think blanket scaling enemies is a good idea. I think you could create interesting systems where the player's actions may cause certain enemies to get stronger, but I digress. The problem is that developers often use scaling as a cheap way to reuse content. You don't have to necessarily work to create separate pieces of content for different level ranges since the content is never out-leveled.

I think this creates a few different problems:

1. It hurts the power fantasy. Part of what makes leveling interesting is seeing your power grow. Sure, you can see that your damage numbers raise, but if the same Slime enemy from level 1 takes 5 seconds to kill at level 20, then what's the point?
2. It hurts the peril. If most enemies are kept around your own level -- even at the high range -- then you lack a sense off danger as you explore. I'm sure most Alliance World of WarCraft players remember exploring up from Red Ridge Mountains into the Burning Steppes, which took you from a level 15-20 zone to a level 50-55 zone. The first time you see an enemy with a skull instead of a level, you just hightail it right out of there! (Of course, this only applies if the game limits both the low-end and high-end of levels.)
3. Things just get stale. Keeping enemies at your level tends to mean the developer will continue to use that content -- sometimes in the form of repeatable quests. But, to put it simply, who wants to kill 10 boars for the umpteenth time? There's nothing wrong with having some boring quests in a game as long as there are also some interesting ones to go along with them.

This is all off the top of my head, so I may be missing some things....

I agree for the most part, it seems that scaling is something thats on the rise in most genres and for me it makes games less interesting. I do wonder how much less content games on average release with now compared to the past, if thats actually a thing or just my individual perception.

In regards to staleness that is really hard to quantify, the fun factor of games is really hard to define and I have little to no idea about how much I will like a game ahead of time. I have had tons of fun grinding the same thing for hours and I have been bored to tears grinding for much shorter periods in other games. I have gotten bored with games that have no challenge yet also played some games in almost exclusively god mode and had a blast.

I wonder if this goes back to my issue with interesting weapons and the lack of abilities? If we look at your typical ARPG compared to your typical looter shooter, the one big difference is that a game like Diablo will give you abilities for dealing damage. If you switch around your talents and/or abilities, your gameplay can change significantly in an ARPG, but in a looter shooter... you're just shooting. In most cases, shooting an assault rifle feels the same at level 1 as it does at level 50. That's one of the reasons why I suggested using weapon-based abilities.

I've also mused over that one a bit, because I've had a hard time coming up with interesting abilities. I came up with another, which was the idea of tossing a weapon on the ground and having it turn in to a turret (no ammo usage, still fires as if you were firing it). Of course, I see that Borderlands 3 shows off a gun with legs. Anyway, the problem is that weapons are literally so boring that coming up with sensible abilities can be... kind of hard. You just lack that flavor that you get with classes! That's why I think it's better for weapon-based abilities/talents to have two types: generic abilities/talents that are shared between all classes, and class-specific abilities that are based on the flavor of the class.

For me I dont really need that much variety in the looter shooters, that is the genre to me, its a co-op fps with a little bit of customization. If I look back to your definition of a looter shooter it cant have that much variety or its no longer a looter shooter and becomes an arpg. Its kind of this weird fusion of fps and rpg, I think its having the correct balance of those two that can make for a great game. Take the d2 for instance again, even though I played the game for years there are classes and specs that I never tried out because I just had no interest in them. When I load my looter shooter I rather enjoy if the focus is on the guns and most classes are similar. For me the problem is mostly in how they try to incorporate some rpg features but then dont do it in a way that feels right to me. Maybe the two just dont mesh that well, but I am still enjoying anthem even though I thought I would done with it by now so who knows.

The one thing that I always hated about Destiny 2 is the way it dropped ammo. The game seemed to always drop ammo for the weapon type you weren't using. For example, if you were using a Kinetic weapon, it would drop Elemental ammo, and vice-versa. I think someone said that they changed this, which sounds great, because it was awful in the raids. The idea of having to swap to an inferior weapon just because the game refused to drop ammo really ground my gears!

I dont think ammo is a mechanic i would miss if it went away. I thought the first mass effect actually did really good when it came to an ammo, at least as far as ammo mechanics go anyways. I never really understood the point of the mechanic other than in games where better guns were picked up with limited ammo so you would not be so overpowered other than for short bursts.

 

[Aikouka]

I agree for the most part, it seems that scaling is something thats on the rise in most genres and for me it makes games less interesting. I do wonder how much less content games on average release with now compared to the past, if thats actually a thing or just my individual perception.

I don't think it's necessarily worse, but more or less that games focus on open world or similar concepts. Open world games get really boring if they're too sparse on content, and as mentioned, content is expensive. So, the easiest way to solve that is to just tweak or repeat it.

In regards to staleness that is really hard to quantify, the fun factor of games is really hard to define and I have little to no idea about how much I will like a game ahead of time. I have had tons of fun grinding the same thing for hours and I have been bored to tears grinding for much shorter periods in other games. I have gotten bored with games that have no challenge yet also played some games in almost exclusively god mode and had a blast.

I guess the first thing that I would ask is "what was the game giving you for your time?" I could see how you would be bored if there was no proverbial light at the end of a tunnel, or if there is one, it's the same ol' thing again. That latter part is an interesting problem, because I think it's something that Blizzard is facing a lot in current World of WarCraft. Blizzard has been trying to make it so players have easier ways of attaining gear through systems like world quests or outdoor bosses. At first, getting the gear can feel pretty good, but eventually, it feels kind of meaningless. I was able to attain a gear level right below mythic dungeons, and I had literally never entered a dungeon or raid.

One large complaint that I've levied against games these days is "the game doesn't respect my time". The idea is that the system in the game feels more like it was designed to waste my time than to provide an engaging experience. Now, to be fair, there's a bit of subjective analysis in that. I got pretty perturbed by Final Fantasy XIV a few times due to this. The first was when the game forced you to play through all major patch quests that were released between 2.0 and 3.0 (the first expansion, Heavensward). That may not sound bad, but if I recall, that's around 100 quests compared to 2.0's ~200. I mentioned "engaging experience" before, which means that if the quests were good, then it might not be a bad thing. (Albeit, the game is still keeping me from advancing regardless of whether they're good or not.) The problem is that maybe a quarter of the quests were good, and even if they were good, they gave piddly experience and worthless items.

Another example from the same game is the crafting system. The system itself gets a ton of praise from players in the game, but for me, it feels like a goofy mini-game that provides the same result with far more needless effort and RNG. Probably the worst part is that the crafting professions rely upon items from each other, which means that you really need to level them all at the same time -- or else pay a lot on the AH -- and this is where storage space becomes a problem. The game has a ton of crafting materials, and there are also high quality variants of each. The problem is that Final Fantasy XIV does not allow you to mail items to yourself (i.e. no mule characters) and only provides extra storage through a Retainer system that has an extra monthly fee.

For me I dont really need that much variety in the looter shooters, that is the genre to me, its a co-op fps with a little bit of customization. If I look back to your definition of a looter shooter it cant have that much variety or its no longer a looter shooter and becomes an arpg. Its kind of this weird fusion of fps and rpg, I think its having the correct balance of those two that can make for a great game. Take the d2 for instance again, even though I played the game for years there are classes and specs that I never tried out because I just had no interest in them. When I load my looter shooter I rather enjoy if the focus is on the guns and most classes are similar. For me the problem is mostly in how they try to incorporate some rpg features but then dont do it in a way that feels right to me. Maybe the two just dont mesh that well, but I am still enjoying anthem even though I thought I would done with it by now so who knows.

Well, I think that goes back to what makes a looter shooter, and it's... pretty light on details if we just go by the name. "Is there shootin'? ...is there lootin'? It's a lootah shootah!" Although, if we take a look at earlier looter shooters like Borderlands, there's definitely a strong presence of ARPG mechanics. Now, as mentioned originally, I'm not suggesting to steer the games away from shooting. Unlike Diablo where your standard attack is pretty much never used after level 2, the looter shooter should still have you shooting your gun just like you would in a normal FPS. The idea of the abilities are to create variance in the combat, and as noted, apart from maybe defensive abilities... they should be more of an extension of your weapon. Now, I do think that my idea of abilities can appear to fit better in some games than in others. For example, I think they'd work better in Borderlands than they would in The Division.

I dont think ammo is a mechanic i would miss if it went away. I thought the first mass effect actually did really good when it came to an ammo, at least as far as ammo mechanics go anyways. I never really understood the point of the mechanic other than in games where better guns were picked up with limited ammo so you would not be so overpowered other than for short bursts.

I was thinking a bit about ammo when I wrote some of the original post. Ammo is a really old FPS concept, and it just sort of "works", but I think it is a valid question to ask if there's a point to it. Ammo can be used in some games to help setup the atmosphere and drive players to use firearms in a specific way. A good example of that is Resident Evil with its limited ammo. On the other hand, the idea of having to use ammo regen mods in Borderlands usually came across as an awkward band-aid fix to excessive ammo usage.

If we look at abilities as a way to manage overall damage output, ammo may not be as big of a deal if abilities focus more on being cooldown-based rather than ammo-based.

 

[Rebel_L]

I guess the first thing that I would ask is "what was the game giving you for your time?" I could see how you would be bored if there was no proverbial light at the end of a tunnel, or if there is one, it's the same ol' thing again.

But thats the weird part, its not about the light necessarily, when I played d2 for instance I dont know if I ever got even one top end item to drop, d3 drops way more good loot but I got bored really fast. Partly its probably just me changing, and partly its the social aspect. When I played d2 I knew others who played so it was fun to have people to talk to about the game and trade things or help if necessary.
The social aspect has changed drastically over time, games now try force group play much more than they used to. In d2 I rarely actually played with my friends as we rarely scheduled specific times of play, it was something you did when you rl schedule had gaps that needed filling. D3 is effectively a single player only game to me so it really lost much of its appeal in loot hunting.
If I look the guild recruitment board on wow now it seems like hardly any guild has a website anymore everyone just has a discord and in game. Things like message boards I can check at work or pretty much anywhere, but voice chats or in game is only going to happen when I'm at home playing in the first place. It seems like many games now try really hard to create communities of specific types by adding specific features in game, rather than having the communities evolve their own way based around the game... or maybe I'm just getting old

That latter part is an interesting problem, because I think it's something that Blizzard is facing a lot in current World of WarCraft. Blizzard has been trying to make it so players have easier ways of attaining gear through systems like world quests or outdoor bosses. At first, getting the gear can feel pretty good, but eventually, it feels kind of meaningless. I was able to attain a gear level right below mythic dungeons, and I had literally never entered a dungeon or raid.

Its a bit off topic but I think the general loot paradigm games have been using for pretty much forever is really backwards. While I dont have great ideas on how to change it other than changing most loot to cosmetics or similar things I find the idea that the best gear should go to the best players really poorly thought out. The worst players are most in need of the best gear and best players can get by with the terrible gear. PvP in most games is really terrible because of that, especially for people who dont try right at the very start of the game.

One large complaint that I've levied against games these days is "the game doesn't respect my time". The idea is that the system in the game feels more like it was designed to waste my time than to provide an engaging experience. Now, to be fair, there's a bit of subjective analysis in that. I got pretty perturbed by Final Fantasy XIV a few times due to this. The first was when the game forced you to play through all major patch quests that were released between 2.0 and 3.0 (the first expansion, Heavensward). That may not sound bad, but if I recall, that's around 100 quests compared to 2.0's ~200. I mentioned "engaging experience" before, which means that if the quests were good, then it might not be a bad thing. (Albeit, the game is still keeping me from advancing regardless of whether they're good or not.) The problem is that maybe a quarter of the quests were good, and even if they were good, they gave piddly experience and worthless items.

Games\tv\fun books are for entertainment or relaxing. If you enjoy it its a good use of time if not then it wastes your time. It really took me a long time to get that right for myself. I was always a bit of a completionist and min maxer. Some games\shows\books got really frustrating but I would keep going while doing a lot of complaining. Now when I find myself complaining more than enjoying I just stop and move on Usually no game is perfect for me, and it would be silly for me to expect a game to be designed just for me so I play while I enjoy and then move on. When I look at the price of games compared something like eating at a nice restaurant or even watching a movie in the theater I really dont have to play a game for that long for it to become one of the cheaper forms of entertainment I participate in.

Another example from the same game is the crafting system. The system itself gets a ton of praise from players in the game, but for me, it feels like a goofy mini-game that provides the same result with far more needless effort and RNG. Probably the worst part is that the crafting professions rely upon items from each other, which means that you really need to level them all at the same time -- or else pay a lot on the AH -- and this is where storage space becomes a problem. The game has a ton of crafting materials, and there are also high quality variants of each. The problem is that Final Fantasy XIV does not allow you to mail items to yourself (i.e. no mule characters) and only provides extra storage through a Retainer system that has an extra monthly fee.

I think this demonstrates what I said perfectly. While you say they system gets a lot of praise meaning lots of people liked it, you didnt. What fun looks like for different people is just so different, what feels tedious for you can be a challenge to overcome for me. For me currently the biggest tediousness of many games is "daily" anything. When I played games all the time they were great, something to do. Now that I probably only log into a game a few times a week it feels punishing and can make longer play sessions feel less fun as I cant even work on one goal at a time because there is a daily limit of progression for so many things.

Well, I think that goes back to what makes a looter shooter, and it's... pretty light on details if we just go by the name. "Is there shootin'? ...is there lootin'? It's a lootah shootah!" Although, if we take a look at earlier looter shooters like Borderlands, there's definitely a strong presence of ARPG mechanics. Now, as mentioned originally, I'm not suggesting to steer the games away from shooting. Unlike Diablo where your standard attack is pretty much never used after level 2, the looter shooter should still have you shooting your gun just like you would in a normal FPS. The idea of the abilities are to create variance in the combat, and as noted, apart from maybe defensive abilities... they should be more of an extension of your weapon. Now, I do think that my idea of abilities can appear to fit better in some games than in others. For example, I think they'd work better in Borderlands than they would in The Division.

I was trying to refer to the idea that if your primary focus of gear is the gun, ie: ranged dps, its pretty hard to come up with a lot of variety. How many different classes can you build on ranged dps? I find the idea of shooting someone to heal them fairly silly and it wouldnt fit well into many game settings. Pet classes I dont believe fit in well either with the gun theme. You can probably build at least one interesting melee hybrid though they are tough to balance since a character like that has to bypass the cover mechanic which I find is usually an integral part of any shooting game. The focus on gun's also makes using magic as different way of doing ranged dps not an option.

For me I actually like that shooters tend to build more self contained classes. Ive gotten kind of bored with the tank/dps/healer dynamic that dominates rpg style games.

I was thinking a bit about ammo when I wrote some of the original post. Ammo is a really old FPS concept, and it just sort of "works", but I think it is a valid question to ask if there's a point to it. Ammo can be used in some games to help setup the atmosphere and drive players to use firearms in a specific way. A good example of that is Resident Evil with its limited ammo. On the other hand, the idea of having to use ammo regen mods in Borderlands usually came across as an awkward band-aid fix to excessive ammo usage.

If we look at abilities as a way to manage overall damage output, ammo may not be as big of a deal if abilities focus more on being cooldown-based rather than ammo-based.

I recall my earlier games usually had a crappy gun that could never run out of ammo and you saved the ammo for better guns for tougher parts of the game. Now it just seems like a doubly whammy for players whos aim isnt that great. On top of more enemies being alive to shoot at you when you dont aim well, you also have to worry about leaving your cover to either collect some ammo or to try your hand with your melee attack. Good players usually dont have ammo concerns and worse players get compounded problems because they are not so good to begin with.