Solar Rail Feedback

[mogamu]

Hey guys,

I have been gathering feedback from hundreds (yes literally hundreds) of players on the Solar Rail game mode in the game and before the devs changed anything I would like to offer some of that feedback I gathered into a nice little bullet point.  For those who know, I promised to post this days ago but I rarely spend much time on the Forum.

 

Also, I have noticed a "vocal few" who are suggesting things that don't represent the whole of the player base and it has reached the devs ears.  I have had the benefit of talking to many players and I can safely say I can summarize what the majority are saying.  anyway...away we go.  The Solar Rails have 3 major problems.  

 

 

1) Whack-a-mole contesting

Lets be honest here, there are only a couple dozen Dark Sectors across millions of registered players.  Contesting a Solar Rail purely based on the fact that you clicked it first is not good.  We need a realistic way to contest.  My suggestion,  first option to contest goes to the clan or alliance that does the most damage to the rail.  A list on the screen should show top 5 clans and how much damage they did to the rail of the losing* clan.  Then, that clan or alliance gets a 1 hour window to contest as a prize.

 

2) Cool-downs are bad...very bad

Once again, thousands of players.  Having a Rail cooldown just locks more players out.   Simple solution, eliminate them.  If a clan wants to wage perpetual war, why do we reward them with ice tea and a lawn chair?  If they want to stay on the solar chart, they should have to fight for it.  Burnout is good, it gives other clans the chance to capitalize on their fatigue.  I cant say it enough, no cool downs.  There are two type of people asking for cooldowns.  The clans/alliances who are battle weary and want a break, and the people who just want a chance to get the uncontested node rewards...which brings me to number 3...

 

3) Allow neutral gamers to play the regular mission.

3 buttons.  Play for Incumbent, play for challenger...play normal mission.  Many players grow angry even resentful at the attacking clan because they just want to play the node, and the attacking clan locking them out of a mission they want to play.  In turn, they rally to support for the Rail owner for the wrong reasons.  This is really bad.  Let casual players or people who just want to PVE have access to the node.

 

 

Summary

- allow players to run the regular missions while the rail is contested

- completely remove the cooldown.

- allow the clan/alliance that deals the most damage to the tower first opportunity to attack it next

- (extra) rails should have minimum tax rates and clan members should receive battle pay/rewards.

- (extra) uncontested rails should offer unique drops, not just increased amounts.  i.e. Oxium, Orokin Cells, Blueprints, etc.

 

*note

after much thought, reward the clan that does the most damage to both rails.  Rewarding clans to fight for the winning rail will just kill off any rail that has a percent less health.  Rewarding damage against both rails is more balanced.

Edited April 22, 2014 by mogamu

[Echowing]

One suggestion would be that while a rail is being contested, some of the bonuses for the node are removed.  That way, people still have an incentive to fight for the rail, rather than simply ignoring the fighting and playing the nodes.

[Siege__]

+1, all of my yes, etc.

 

Its good to see someone with the voice/power who can get to the Developers taking part in supplying so much valuable feedback!

 

Now lets hope the feedback is acted upon.

 

For our sake, for the community's sake, and for Nugget_'s sake (Sayonara buddy)

 

-Cj

[(NSW)Evanz111]

I completely agree with this post. I just really hope that DE won't have to rebuild the system from the ground-up like they did with damage and melee, otherwise it'll be ages before they can implement these changes and it'll be at the bottom of their priority list.

[Namara_]

The king has spoken :3

[Cpl_Facehugger]

1) Whack-a-mole contesting

Lets be honest here, there are only a couple dozen Dark Sectors across millions of registered players.  Contesting a Solar Rail purely based on the fact that you clicked it first is not good.  We need a realistic way to contest.  My suggestion,  first option to contest goes to the clan or alliance that does the most damage to the rail.  A list on the screen should show top 5 clans and how much damage they did to the rail of the losing* clan.  Then, that clan or alliance gets a 1 hour window to contest as a prize.

That kind of screws over players not part of the top 5 clans though. It'd also end up rigging the game in favor of the big clans and alliances.

 

2) Cool-downs are bad...very bad

Once again, thousands of players.  Having a Rail cooldown just locks more players out.   Simple solution, eliminate them.  If a clan wants to wage perpetual war, why do we reward them with ice tea and a lawn chair?  If they want to stay on the solar chart, they should have to fight for it.  Burnout is good, it gives other clans the chance to capitalize on their fatigue.  I cant say it enough, no cool downs.  There are two type of people asking for cooldowns.  The clans/alliances who are battle weary and want a break, and the people who just want a chance to get the uncontested node rewards...which brings me to number 3...

I disagree completely with this premise. If you make it so there's no chance to actually enjoy the fruit of taking or defending a rail, nobody's actually going to care enough to do so more than once. The whole system will stagnate once the novelty wears off, and it's certainly not going to result in the intrigue the devs are looking for to provide player-driven content as endgame.

Even now rails are pretty useless except for prestige since their taxes go into the alliance vault... Which can only be used on more rails. Making it even more of a chore to own a rail does nobody any favors.

Basically, rails have to be valuable enough to fight over instead of play musical chairs with in order to get people invested. If players feel there's no point to contesting a rail because they'll just get contested again literally within moments of their first victory, why the hek would anyone even bother?

 

3) Allow neutral gamers to play the regular mission.

3 buttons.  Play for Incumbent, play for challenger...play normal mission.  Many players grow angry even resentful at the attacking clan because they just want to play the node, and the attacking clan locking them out of a mission they want to play.  In turn, they rally to support for the Rail owner for the wrong reasons.  This is really bad.  Let casual players or people who just want to PVE have access to the node.

There's no real reason to contest nodes at all if this is the case though. Like, if you can just keep on playing the dark sector either way, who's going to bother with the boring and unfun invasion missions unless there's a lot of BP at stake?

Edit: Also, I don't really think it's for the "wrong reasons." Solar rails are meant to be political considerations as part of a player-driven emergent meta. Giving players a way to just ignores those considerations cuts the meta off at the knees before it's even formed.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Cpl_Facehugger

[VMTR-Striker]

Why should you get to play the mission while it is being contested?, that makes no since. That just throws the whole concept out the window of Dark Sectors.

 

Your better off just making it another mission node and throwing everything else out the door.

 

It really should be whoever owns the Dark Sector is the only one allowed into the Sector and a % of what is collected goes to their vault for the fight against the contending clan/alliance who tries to take it over. This makes it more about fighting for ownership. It was made for Clans and Alliances to have endgame content.

[Wallace24]

1) I can understand that if you want your rail on a certain node, you can fight for either side to rack up damage, and then the top few alliances can contest that rail once the present conflict is resolved. but this benefits larger alliances still, whereas a smaller alliance or a clan can put up a rail of their own if they're on top of it. I'm not against this point, but it still doesn't quite give everyone the same chance at contesting a rail. giving the top 5 clans first dibs might be a good system, then after 30 minutes or so allow anyone to deploy a rail

 

2) cooldowns are great. they're the one thing that allows us to actually play the dark sectors. I think DE's recent changes to rail HP are great, if anyone was watching/participating in the sinai conflict yesterday, you would know that a rail can be taken down in a matter of hours now. rather than rails having less than 5% damage after 40+ hours. some rails may still take up the full 48 hours if no one's really contesting them, but if you really want to take out a rail, you can. but you fight so that you can have a day's worth of dark sector play. people will never not contest a rail. there are just too many alliances and clans out there. 48 hour lockout is bad enough, but I'm now more accepting of only 24 hours of free play, because, again, you can destroy a rail in a matter of hours instead of having to wait the full 48

 

3) I thought when dark sectors came out, this is sort of what would happen. except you'd either play the missing for the defender or play the mission for the attacker. each might have a battlepay, or slightly different boosts, and that's what would determine which side you choose. instead, DE gave us a completely separate mission with no resource/affinity/credit boosts. fortunately, they're very quick missions and not very involved. but grinding out countless runs is still tiresome. if casual players could just play the rail, no one would support one side or the other. some people just want to fight infested, and even if you don't get affinity bonuses, they're still easier to fight than the grineer or corpus. people like that. besides, those players should still be subject to the taxes of the dark sector's owner. you can't avoid that. if there were no taxes if you didn't pick a side, then there really wouldn't be a point in owning the dark sectors at all. 

 

one thing that could be done is to change the rail conflict into a competition where you do play the mission as normal (defense or survival), and as you play more on one rail, it degrades the other. again, this is how I imagined the dark sectors going. but then you run into the issue of what the rail health should be based on. number of missions? minutes/waves survived? enemies killed? with the current conflicts, there really isn't much to do other than shut down reactors and run to extraction. and unlike survival and defense, they're fast and the mission completion speed is under your control. with oxygen drop rates and questionable defense spawns, people would complain that their missions took too long because enemies stood around at the spawn points, or they couldn't survive long enough because not enough enemies showed up, even though they had nekros and all

 

edit: sorta ninja'd by Corporal Facehugger. +1 there, buddy

Edited April 22, 2014 by Wallace24

[DirkDeadeye]

Battlepay shouldn't be restricted to people outside the alliance.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

Basically, there kinda has to be at least some aspect of permanence to rails for the political/clan/alliance meta to actually form and do what DE intends it to do. If there's nothing but a constant stream of contesting with no opportunity for break, this won't happen. Yes you'll get churn as clan after clan does it, but you'll not get any actual political stuff forming without at least one side who cares enough to remain in control of a rail for more than one contesting period. It'll be too ephemeral and transient.

Thing is, with your suggestion, Mogamu, there's no real incentive for that to happen beyond alliance prestige, which isn't going to last very long if rails churn *that* quickly.

[mogamu]

Basically, there kinda has to be at least some aspect of permanence to rails for the political/clan/alliance meta to actually form and do what DE intends it to do. If there's nothing but a constant stream of contesting with no opportunity for break, this won't happen. Yes you'll get churn as clan after clan does it, but you'll not get any actual political stuff forming without at least one side who cares enough to remain in control of a rail for more than one contesting period. It'll be too ephemeral and transient.

Thing is, with your suggestion, Mogamu, there's no real incentive for that to happen beyond alliance prestige, which isn't going to last very long if rails churn *that* quickly.

 

A couple things to consider

- this isnt a mmo with 30 servers.  Political intrigue is possible (I ran guild leadership for a 200 member mmo clan) but It will never function the same in warframe without segmenting the player base

 

- A 4000 player alliance with members in various continents can easily kill a contested node.  If half their player-base does 4 missions its gg.  Many of these big alliances are holding multiple territories with minimal total member participation.  ie a couple hundred dedicated mission runners.  

 

- lastly, im not sure how actually fighting for the node makes it less prestigious to own it.  I would argue the opposite =)

Edited April 22, 2014 by mogamu

[Cpl_Facehugger]

A couple things to consider

- this isnt a mmo with 30 servers.  Political intrigue is possible (I ran guild leadership for a 200 member mmo clan) but It will never function the same in warframe without segmenting the player base

The point I'm making here is that political intrigue isn't really possible if rails so easily change hands due to there being no chance for that intrigue to develop before the rail's already contested by a fresh face. And that's assuming the incumbent held it instead of getting kicked off.

Like, for political intrigue to actually show up, there has to be some name recognition there.

 

- A 4000 player alliance with members in various continents can easily kill a contested node.  If half their player-base does 4 missions its gg.  Many of these big alliances are holding multiple territories with minimal total member participation.  ie a couple hundred dedicated mission runners.

While that's true, making rails even easier to contest (ie no cooldown) will just make people not care about it. Even with the system we have now people in major alliances are saying "what's the point with all this? Why are we fighting to defend this territory that's just going to be contested again tomorrow?"

 

- lastly, im not sure how actually fighting for the node makes it less prestigious to own it.  I would argue the opposite =)

Fighting for it constantly makes it less prestigious through mundanity. "Oh, you hear Eclipse defended Sinai again?" "Meh, that's, what, the thirtieth time this week? Let's go grind Nuovo for beacons."

[[DE]Steve]

Hey Mogamu! Thanks for this! I am totally with you on 1, medium on 2 and worry that 3 would defeat the purpose (it would just be reward 'creep' from the other nodes). I really appreciate this (and the tons of other feedback we've gotten).

 

We are working quickly to expand on this system - random stuff that is coming (that may miss the mark on some of your concerns but here goes):

-New game mode, potentially with vs. to make it more interesting and challenging to play contested sectors.

-Rail strategies in the from of types (nuke rail, as destabilizing force), as well as strength/weakness rail types to create some strategy in the planning and deployment phase.

-Troop preparation mechanics based on the rail strength/weakness you're attacking.

-Some amount of tactical responsiveness at rail level when being attacked (accessories you can build for your rail and deploy to bolster).

-Some grief reduction in battle pay baiting.

-Tenno Specter enhancements as well as the potential for individuals to build a 'simulacrum' object that captures their current load out and then is available by tacticians to deploy as Specters in a specific tower.

-Fix the damn 'first to click' as you mentioned.

 

Longer term, it goes wider:

-Use the Dojo building (with UI improvements) to make the gameplay spaces players attack (ala Dungeon Keeper) to increase variety and fun.

-Faction invasions of Dark Sectors to widen the conflict.

-Some Lore and "ritualization" of all of these conflicts to address some of the 'Why are Tenno fighting Tenno'... expanding on Tenno as Warrior culture and making it easier for people to accept the cultural ramifications of this game mode.

-Road-building expansion of Dark Sectors (in that building a rail potentially reveals another Dark Sector beyond).

-These Dark Sectors will become the Frontier when the new faction invades (dramatic music).

 

*-As with everything, these are ideas we are pursuing and do not constitute a guarantee, void in Ontario, etc. :)

[ZeroPhobic]

-New game mode, potentially with vs. to make it more interesting and challenging to play contested sectors.

Don't do it! Fight the urge to totally mess up the rails and game!!!

[Calayne]

Hey Mogamu! Thanks for this! I am totally with you on 1, medium on 2 and worry that 3 would defeat the purpose (it would just be reward 'creep' from the other nodes). I really appreciate this (and the tons of other feedback we've gotten).

 

We are working quickly to expand on this system - random stuff that is coming (that may miss the mark on some of your concerns but here goes):

-New game mode, potentially with vs. to make it more interesting and challenging to play contested sectors.

-Rail strategies in the from of types (nuke rail, as destabilizing force), as well as strength/weakness rail types to create some strategy in the planning and deployment phase.

-Troop preparation mechanics based on the rail strength/weakness you're attacking.

-Some amount of tactical responsiveness at rail level when being attacked (accessories you can build for your rail and deploy to bolster).

-Some grief reduction in battle pay baiting.

-Tenno Specter enhancements as well as the potential for individuals to build a 'simulacrum' object that captures their current load out and then is available by tacticians to deploy as Specters in a specific tower.

-Fix the damn 'first to click' as you mentioned.

 

Longer term, it goes wider:

-Use the Dojo building (with UI improvements) to make the gameplay spaces players attack (ala Dungeon Keeper) to increase variety and fun.

-Faction invasions of Dark Sectors to widen the conflict.

-Some Lore and "ritualization" of all of these conflicts to address some of the 'Why are Tenno fighting Tenno'... expanding on Tenno as Warrior culture and making it easier for people to accept the cultural ramifications of this game mode.

-Road-building expansion of Dark Sectors (in that building a rail potentially reveals another Dark Sector beyond).

-These Dark Sectors will become the Frontier when the new faction invades (dramatic music).

 

*-As with everything, these are ideas we are pursuing and do not constitute a guarantee, void in Ontario, etc. :)

 

That sounds really good, to be honest.

[OniDax]

Summary

- allow players to run the regular missions while the rail is contested

- completely remove the cooldown.

- allow the clan/alliance that deals the most damage to the tower first opportunity to attack it next

- (extra) rails should have minimum tax rates and clan members should receive battle pay/rewards.

- (extra) uncontested rails should offer unique drops, not just increased amounts.  i.e. Oxium, Orokin Cells, Blueprints, etc.

 

I think that for the regular missions, they should be moved somewhere else in the solar chart. The permanent Infested nodes should be moved to none dark sector nodes so that they can be, you know, permanent. Then, another mission could be added there. Maybe public void survival/defense. That way the infested get their permanent place on the star map, and at the dark sector nodes you have missions that take place on the towers themselves. I say use the same tileset also (with the new rooms). I think this is the best scenario and the one that makes the most sense.

 

summary:

 

separate Infested and Dark Sectors

- infested get their own separate node on each planet

- in place of Dark Sector 1.0 infested nodes, have Tenno Tower/Void nodes

[AM-Bunny]

-Tenno Specter enhancements as well as the potential for individuals to build a 'simulacrum' object that captures their current load out and then is available by tacticians to deploy as Specters in a specific tower.

 

Even though I don't particularly care for Dark Sectors, I'm still really excited for this. Looking forward to it!

[-AR.Auxiorion]

Hey Mogamu! Thanks for this! I am totally with you on 1, medium on 2 and worry that 3 would defeat the purpose (it would just be reward 'creep' from the other nodes). I really appreciate this (and the tons of other feedback we've gotten).

 

We are working quickly to expand on this system - random stuff that is coming (that may miss the mark on some of your concerns but here goes):

-New game mode, potentially with vs. to make it more interesting and challenging to play contested sectors.

-Rail strategies in the from of types (nuke rail, as destabilizing force), as well as strength/weakness rail types to create some strategy in the planning and deployment phase.

-Troop preparation mechanics based on the rail strength/weakness you're attacking.

-Some amount of tactical responsiveness at rail level when being attacked (accessories you can build for your rail and deploy to bolster).

-Some grief reduction in battle pay baiting.

-Tenno Specter enhancements as well as the potential for individuals to build a 'simulacrum' object that captures their current load out and then is available by tacticians to deploy as Specters in a specific tower.

-Fix the damn 'first to click' as you mentioned.

 

Longer term, it goes wider:

-Use the Dojo building (with UI improvements) to make the gameplay spaces players attack (ala Dungeon Keeper) to increase variety and fun.

-Faction invasions of Dark Sectors to widen the conflict.

-Some Lore and "ritualization" of all of these conflicts to address some of the 'Why are Tenno fighting Tenno'... expanding on Tenno as Warrior culture and making it easier for people to accept the cultural ramifications of this game mode.

-Road-building expansion of Dark Sectors (in that building a rail potentially reveals another Dark Sector beyond).

-These Dark Sectors will become the Frontier when the new faction invades (dramatic music).

 

*-As with everything, these are ideas we are pursuing and do not constitute a guarantee, void in Ontario, etc. :)

 

Props to fixing the first to click. :D

Edited April 23, 2014 by -AR.Auxiorion

[Ronyn]

.....

Steve, there are MANY ways to improve the Dark Sector system.

You have some good ideas in there.

I look forward to seeing what you guys do with the potential of it.

BUT..for now...

 

Allow neutral gamers to play the regular mission.

3 buttons.  Play for Incumbent, play for challenger...play normal mission.  

Start with this.

 

Do this and you eliminate a large portion of the frustration and it gives you time to do whatever else you need.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Ronyn

[LukeAura]

Those sound like great enhancements to the current system.
Especially the battlepay griefing reduction. 
And the user customization components.

[.Talia.]

Hey Mogamu! Thanks for this! I am totally with you on 1, medium on 2 and worry that 3 would defeat the purpose (it would just be reward 'creep' from the other nodes). I really appreciate this (and the tons of other feedback we've gotten).

 

We are working quickly to expand on this system - random stuff that is coming (that may miss the mark on some of your concerns but here goes):

-New game mode, potentially with vs. to make it more interesting and challenging to play contested sectors.

-Rail strategies in the from of types (nuke rail, as destabilizing force), as well as strength/weakness rail types to create some strategy in the planning and deployment phase.

-Troop preparation mechanics based on the rail strength/weakness you're attacking.

-Some amount of tactical responsiveness at rail level when being attacked (accessories you can build for your rail and deploy to bolster).

-Some grief reduction in battle pay baiting.

-Tenno Specter enhancements as well as the potential for individuals to build a 'simulacrum' object that captures their current load out and then is available by tacticians to deploy as Specters in a specific tower.

-Fix the damn 'first to click' as you mentioned.

 

Longer term, it goes wider:

-Use the Dojo building (with UI improvements) to make the gameplay spaces players attack (ala Dungeon Keeper) to increase variety and fun.

-Faction invasions of Dark Sectors to widen the conflict.

-Some Lore and "ritualization" of all of these conflicts to address some of the 'Why are Tenno fighting Tenno'... expanding on Tenno as Warrior culture and making it easier for people to accept the cultural ramifications of this game mode.

-Road-building expansion of Dark Sectors (in that building a rail potentially reveals another Dark Sector beyond).

-These Dark Sectors will become the Frontier when the new faction invades (dramatic music).

 

*-As with everything, these are ideas we are pursuing and do not constitute a guarantee, void in Ontario, etc. :)

 

Wow i can't wait to see all this. 

 

What do you mean by "vs." Steve? PvP on Dark Sectors? >:O That would AWESOME!! But get ready for a army of tunneled-vision grunts to tell you that this game is not for PvP.

 

But i have to say i am disappointed that an option to play the Dark Sector mission while the node is being contested is not on your plans.

[[DE]Steve]

Don't do it! Fight the urge to totally mess up the rails and game!!!

I understand your reluctance but I hope you're willing to give it a try before rejecting it sight unseen!

[Kaian-a-coel]

-These Dark Sectors will become the Frontier when the new faction invades (dramatic music).

[Brahmastra]

I understand your reluctance but I hope you're willing to give it a try before rejecting it sight unseen!

Another one? You are asking for a lot of things here, steve

edit: also the whole "vs." thing.

If it really means what I think it means, does that mean a ton of stuff will be nerfed or more conclave rating?

Edited April 23, 2014 by DERebecca

[Cemges]

Hey Mogamu! Thanks for this! I am totally with you on 1, medium on 2 and worry that 3 would defeat the purpose (it would just be reward 'creep' from the other nodes). I really appreciate this (and the tons of other feedback we've gotten).

 

We are working quickly to expand on this system - random stuff that is coming (that may miss the mark on some of your concerns but here goes):

-New game mode, potentially with vs. to make it more interesting and challenging to play contested sectors.

-Rail strategies in the from of types (nuke rail, as destabilizing force), as well as strength/weakness rail types to create some strategy in the planning and deployment phase.

-Troop preparation mechanics based on the rail strength/weakness you're attacking.

-Some amount of tactical responsiveness at rail level when being attacked (accessories you can build for your rail and deploy to bolster).

-Some grief reduction in battle pay baiting.

-Tenno Specter enhancements as well as the potential for individuals to build a 'simulacrum' object that captures their current load out and then is available by tacticians to deploy as Specters in a specific tower.

-Fix the damn 'first to click' as you mentioned.

 

Longer term, it goes wider:

-Use the Dojo building (with UI improvements) to make the gameplay spaces players attack (ala Dungeon Keeper) to increase variety and fun.

-Faction invasions of Dark Sectors to widen the conflict.

-Some Lore and "ritualization" of all of these conflicts to address some of the 'Why are Tenno fighting Tenno'... expanding on Tenno as Warrior culture and making it easier for people to accept the cultural ramifications of this game mode.

-Road-building expansion of Dark Sectors (in that building a rail potentially reveals another Dark Sector beyond).

-These Dark Sectors will become the Frontier when the new faction invades (dramatic music).

*-As with everything, these are ideas we are pursuing and do not constitute a guarantee, void in Ontario, etc. :)

OMG