Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

Dark Sectors: The Purpose The Politics & The Pvp Part 3 The Pvp (Now With 60% Less Eye Bleed)


-InV-Skitz0
 Share

Recommended Posts



Part I & II-https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/310445-dark-sectors-the-purpose-the-politics-the-pvp-part-i-the-purpose/

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                            Part III the PvP

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Many of us already knew adding a direct PVP system to a game that historically focused it's balance for PvE would not be a smooth transition. The problem we are now faced with is to bring as much balance to PvP as possible while at the same time ensuring the experience retains the style and felling that is warframe. Also above all else we need to continue to ensure the changes to balance do not directly influence PvE players. The Sections below will cover some of the most prominent problems we have as well as suggested solutions for each.

 

 

 

Balance issues:

 

Overpowered Ability's that you can constantly recast

I could spend hours on end discussing each individual skill that is overpowered and in need of tuning, I will instead try to address the problems overall.

 

While being able to spam an ultimate in normal PvE play is a great idea, having the ability to do so in PvE is a big mistake. Take away that Ash's ability to spam BS and restrict it to only being able to cast once in X seconds (respawning does not reset this counter) will not only greatly balance out that power but will ensure the decision to use it is made more strategically.

I used bladestorm because the PvP form of BS was already changed from the PvE form of that skill. Each skill that needs balance should use the combination of the  changing the PvP functinality of the skill and or cool downs to bring the power into check.2.  Even if it is tesla or super jump, there should be a direct tradeoff of power/spamabaility. Examples: BS every 2 mins, Blessing ever 1 min, Tesla every 10 seconds, super jump every 2 seconds.

 

Weapon power creep

The biggest problem we have at the moment in weaponry is simply power creep. Or to put it another way there are a small group of weapons that are completely more effective in PvP then their older counter parts. Take for example Glaxion, you need no mods what so ever for it to be useful in PvP simply freeze your opponent and finish him off with melee. Compare that to the mk-1 braton that would take you over a full clip to bring down an enemy. To bring this to balance in general at level 0 each sniper should take 2-4 shots and each automatic rifle around an entire clip to bring your enemy down, and only by the time you are at the core should a sniper kill you in one shot and an AR after 5-10 rounds.

 

Rage Quitting prevents players from getting their rewards

An Easy way to address the problem of alt+tabbing out of a mission (causing the other side to receive no BP) would be to simply create an option for each side to forfeit.

 

Say there are 4 attackers, we will call them A,B,C & D. Attacker A is the host and halfway through the battle A decides he/she doesn't want to play anymore. Instead of alt+tabbing he/she uses the forfeit option. The host migrate B is now the host. Discouraged by the absence of the beloved A, B decides to leave as well, D is now the host (during host migration D was the better choice so he/she became the host). Now Both C and D decide to forfeit, without any other attacker to now host the match the last attacker who forfeits immediately ends the match, the defender gets paid as he normally would the attacker who forfeit gets nothing.

 

Also the option to forfeit would not be assessable till 10-15 mins after a match begins, this would prevent shady individuals from immediately joining then forfeiting effectively draining the defenders Bp reserve.

 

Unintentional pay bating

Unintentional pay bating is when a player receives no battlepay because the tactician did not have enough time to reset it when the previous amount ran out.

 

The option to set the next amount of battlepay while the current one is up would ensure any Tactician paying close enough attention to his/her rail that wanted to ensure this doesn't happen would have the option to do so.

 

An example being I set 1 credit for 100 runs, I could then set 2 credits for 100 runs before the first BP runs out, less people would then have the chance to receive 0 BP if intended by the tactician. Also I don't know if its possible but having players receive BP as soon as they join a match and having it refunded to the alliance if they failed to achieve victory could also help out in this area.

 

Spawn camping

The attackers starting area needs shields around it just like the defenders has coming out of both doors in area 1. Perhaps have Liset hover over the attackers spawn area projecting the shield so that it makes sense.

 

As the attackers complete their objectives and move on to section 2 and then section 3, their new spawn rooms should have shields on them just as each defenders spawn has.

 

Lastly both the defenders as well as the attackers side should have more then one exit from section 2 and section 3. Section 3 already has 1 door at A and B, connect those doors to hallways leading to the defenders spawn room. Similarly Attackers could have 2 hallways from point 2 to point 3 coming out a little past each of their exit's.

 

The trade off here being going straight through would always be the fastest way to your target ,but if your being spawn camped at the shield door run down the hallways to your alternate exists and either go on to your objectives or gank the enemy's from behind.

 

 

 

While the above balance issues where expected by many, what we could not predict was the imbalance issues from the game type itself. While many argue against the defenders or the attackers having the upper hand both truly have their own advantages and disadvantages.

 

Attackers

If your an Attacker. You can make a premade group of four and join in on a conflict before the other side even spawns, possibly netting you XP before an opponent even enters the game. Only attackers can host their will never be more attackers then defenders.

 

Defenders

If your a Defender. You have no penalty to dieing other then the very short time it takes to respawn. Kill the human players only 20 times and the match is yours. It is impossible to join as a premade group, and wining does not effect your enemy's rail only prevents damage from yours. If you successfully defend 10k game and only 3K attackers destroy cores you lose the conflict.

 

I think the easiest way to ensure a level playing field would be to offer the option to defend/attack rails on both sides. With both sides having equal options to attack the opposition or defend against them winning a node would switch back to the old system where whoever had the most HP left on a rail at the end of a battle won. Also BP could play more of a tactical role with the inclusion of the option to either post BP to attack your opponent, post BP to defend you rail, or both at the same time. You could then defend your node while you pay mercenaries to attack the opponent, go all out on an attack as well or other options. Also if you get a failed to join while trying to defend because of lack of attackers you could then switch to attack your opponent instead.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                               Specters

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A reminder specters where introduced as a way for players who did not wish to contribute in conflicts to lend their support in an indirect manner by making direct copy's of themselves.

 

While the advantages of deploying a cosmic specter army is clear to many the tactical deployment of this is severely limited to do you have it deployed and does your enemy. What I suggest is a way for players to further customize their specters and for ways the tacticians can use them more tactically.

 

First ensure that the mods in each load out are applied to the specters during cloning, If I have a max rank vitality and redirection on my specter clone it should reflect this in game. Thus the mods and ability as well as the weapons are 100% customizable by the player.

 

Secondly instead of donating to a specter regiment in game you donate your clone directly to your clan/alliance specter vault. The tactician then has the option of going through the vault and hand picking each regiment.

Perhaps the tactician decides to pick a defending specter regiment of all frost of the cosmic variety, or maybe he balances out the regiment with defense and attack. There should also be capacity to each specter picked based on conclave rating. If a tactician picks his/her regiment to all be cosmic then each specters capacity would add up so that he would have around the same number as a cosmic specter regiment does now. You could have a crap load of force specters or a mid size group of well rounded specters. The option for strategic play is greatly improved. Also just as it is now if you deploy a specter regiment and you lose on that node you lose that specter regiment.

 

Summary

Making the players specter completely customizable will ensure that players who opt out of direct DS game play still have the option to support their clan/alliance as intended before.

 

Also letting specter regiments be custom picked by tacticians can ensure they are further used to there full potential and provide yet more strategic options for game play.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                                                     PvE VS PvP

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lastly the subject of PvE being added as an option to support in conflicts. Their is a large portion of the player base that would participate in rail conflicts if doing so did not mean having to participate in PvP. There is a completely easy and simple way to reintroduce this into conflicts in a way that PvE players can contribute in without completely redesigning the system.

 

At the start of a mission a player/squad would have the option to either attack or defend any side of a conflict. If the option is to defend the game starts as it is now. If the option to attack is picked the player/squad is the presented with the option to play in PvP mode or PvE mode ( like the option to do nightmare or regular mission). If the option to PvE is picked then either the pre made squad is loaded as it is now or it goes to matchmaking like any other node.

 

In PvE mode the attacker does not have a cap at 20 lives, instead each WarFrame uses the same 4 revives that it would on normal missions. Also the attackers do not bring with them a specter regiment they are playing the enemy's specters with just their squad of four. Now the only thing left is to ensure that PvE players spend an equal amount of time in game as PvP players do, this way no matter the option to PvP or to PvE you are doing around the same amount of damage in about the same amount of time. First the amount of forces the attacker must face is increased both in number and power in later sections. Secondly Items such as turrets should pose much more of a threat to PvE then it's PvP counterpart. Buff the HP/armor of turrets and make them deal a solid amount of damage, having each turrets in each progressing section doing even more damage.

 

Now If attackers load in and run to the console hack A and B and go on to the next section without properly leveling up in the first, the second room will spawn higher level defenders and turrets which will easily mow them down. They will then have a very hard time killing the spawns at level 1 or 2 because they neglected proper leveling in the first room. If they run even farther to room 3 they would then face turrets and enemy's capable of 1 shooting them because they should be around level 25 at the core but only made it to level 2 by rushing. This system would need a lot of fine tuning but the desired result would be an option of PvE that takes about he same amount of time to complete as the average PvP match does.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

TL;DR- While the Imbalance of PvP is a very important issue, there are countless good solutions to each of these problems. What we need to do as a community is come together in a constructive manner and offer solutions to these problems in a way that both PvP and PvE players can enjoy. The road to balance is not easy and will never truly have an end as more content is always released. All of us must put aside all of our petty differences and work for the common good of the community to help ensure the changes that we all so desperately want to see.

 

 

Revision A~ added more breaks, Added spoilers,Added category's, Removed excessive wording.

Edited by -ExT-Skitz0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry mate, the line breaks did not carry over well from Reddit which breaks the sections apart a bit making it a little easier to read, I have  added them back in now.  In future post I will try to add your suggestion of bullet points, hopefully those post wont be as long winded as well leaving me more free time to work on the presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry mate, the line breaks did not carry over well from Reddit which breaks the sections apart a bit making it a little easier to read, I have  added them back in now.  In future post I will try to add your suggestion of bullet points, hopefully those post wont be as long winded as well leaving me more free time to work on the presentation.

would be much aprieciated, seems like youve got alot to say and thanks for trying not to pull us too far into your insanity ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The biggest problem we have at the moment in weaponry is simply power creep. Or to put it another way there are a small group of weapons that are completely more effective in PvP then their older counter parts. Take for example Glaxion, you need no mods what so ever for it to be useful in PvP simply freeze your opponent and finish him off with melee. Compare that to the mk-1 braton that would take you over a full clip to bring down an enemy. To bring this to balance in general at level 0 each sniper should take 3-4 shots and each automatic rifles around an entire clip to bring your enemy down, and only by the time you are at the core should a sniper kill you in one shot and an AR after 5-10 rounds.

Now I could spend hours on end discussing each individual skill and weapon that is overpowered and in need of tuning, I will instead try to address the problems overall. First and foremost warframe ability's. While being able to spam an ultimate in normal PvE play is a great idea, having the ability to do so in PvE is a big mistake. Taking away that Ash's ability to spam BS and restrict it to only being able to cast once in 2-3 mins (respawning does not reset this counter) will not only greatly balance out that power but will ensure the decision to use it is made more strategically. I used bladestorm because the PvP form of BS was already changed from the PvE form of that skill. Each skill should have these 2 counterparts 1 PvE the other PvP. Also no PvP skill should be spammable. Even if it is tesla or super jump, there should be a direct tradeoff of power/spamabaility. Examples: BS every 2 mins, Blessing ever 1 min, Tesla every 10 seconds, super jump every 2.

 

My suggestions: Make PVP specific mods, change the damage tables in a PVP setting, include the option to create/buy pvp specific armor that comes with specific PVP counter measures for damage mitigation and implementation of warframe abilities. ...

 

If Warframe is going to have a heavy PVP side to it, they need to rewrite the entire system to suit PVP on that particular side of the equation.

 

Currently what we have is a "work around" and by that I refer to the unlocking of the mods you chose to equip, and further the stripping of Aura's and polarities that are not native to each weapon and warframe.

 

This is simply a work around...a patch to try to make something fit.

 

No one wants to feel nerfed, having to wait 3 minutes for a blade storm, but at this current state with the PVE damage system that is what it would take perhaps. Why not just make bladestorm work differently in a PVP setting.

 

I don't like the idea of having to "build up" to a desired loadout...I'd rather have all my stuff right away, but rather have my damage and defense act differently in PVP than it does in PVE.

 

 

I think the easiest way to ensure a level playing field would be to offer the option to defend/attack rails on both sides. With both sides having equal options to attack the opposition or defend against them winning a node would switch back to the old system where whoever had the most HP left on a rail at the end of a battle won. Also BP could play more of a tactical role with the inclusion of the option to either post BP to attack your opponent, post BP to defend you rail, or both at the same time. You could then defend your node while you pay mercenaries to attack the opponent, go all out on an attack as well or other options. Also if you get a failed to join while trying to defend because of lack of attackers you could then switch to attack your opponent instead.

 

 

While this idea may have worked a few months ago...at this point nothing is going to help the unfairness in the dark sectors.

With the "shadow alliances" the "cartel"...What ever you want to call it, you know the several alliances that are making deals under the table to occupy the nodes together,

 

So they can  draw as much tax without the need to really spend the credits retrieved to defend it...you know the several alliances that have held pretty much every node in space for months now without competition.

Yeah those guys, who trade nodes to make tons of credits have been doing it for a long time and they haven't had anyone to really spend those tax dollars on...

 

So no, at this point the only way I see to make the darksectors "FAIR" for anyone is to eliminate the ability for alliances to pay for support.

Because those alliances have grown far more wealthy than they could have alone, they never really earned it on their own merit.

 

And they gang up on any outside clan/alliance that tries to secure a rail in their "network" of rails they play musical chairs with.

 

The system has been rigged, and now the balance is so far skewed that there is no way to fix it without rendering the product of that deed nearly useless. 

 

I'd suggest taking the ability to pay BP in credits and resources away leave the ability to tax them..no one would have any incentive to fight for a rail they didn't own or have a personal interest with (such as LOW TAX).

 

Increase the cost to maintain the rails, repair the rails and defend the rails..sure this will hurt the Newer clans and alliances to the Dark Sectors

 

It will even work in the "shady alliances" favor for the moment...but in time given you have taken away their motive to "band together" and lock down the galaxy completely useless.. they will eventually start going after each other and empty the Vaults in their own wars.

 

We have to discourage the idea of clans and alliances working together to ensure they HOLD rails cooperatively, there should be no need for Alliances to work together outside of commissary, the trade of the products the rails have produced for that clan or alliance...so that it becomes a BARTER system exactly as described in concept of the Tenno HUB. 

 

 

Lastly the subject of PvE being added as an option to support in conflicts...*snip*

 

At the start of a mission a player/squad would have the option to either attack or defend any side of a conflict. If the option is to defend the game starts as it is now. If the option to attack is picked the player/squad is the presented with the option to play in PvP mode or PvE mode ( like the option to do nightmare or regular mission). If the option to PvE is picked then either the pre made squad is loaded as it is now or it goes to matchmaking like any other node.

 

In PvE mode the attacker does not have a cap at 20 lives, instead each WarFrame uses the same 4 revives that it would on normal missions. Also the attackers do not bring with them a specter regiment they are playing the enemy's specters with just their squad of four. Now the only thing left is to ensure that PvE players spend an equal amount of time in game as PvP players do, this way no matter the option to PvP or to PvE you are doing around the same amount of damage in about the same amount of time. First the amount of forces the attacker must face is increased both in number and power in later sections. Secondly Items such as turrets should pose much more of a threat to PvE then it's PvP counterpart. Buff the HP/armor of turrets and make them deal a solid amount of damage, having each turrets in each progressing section doing even more damage.

 

Now If attackers load in and run to the console hack A and B and go on to the next section without properly leveling up in the first, the second room will spawn higher level defenders and turrets which will easily mow them down. They will then have a very hard time killing the spawns at level 1 or 2 because they neglected proper leveling in the first room. If they run even farther to room 3 they would then face turrets and enemy's capable of 1 shooting them because they should be around level 25 at the core but only made it to level 2 by rushing. This system would need a lot of fine tuning but the desired result would be an option of PvE that takes about he same amount of time to complete as the average PvP match does.

 

I like the idea, adding PVE to a conflict would be fun, and it would need to require about as much time/effort as the PVP counterpart.

Again though, I don't think the players should need to "level" the warframes to acquire the mods they have selected.

 

Making the defenses more robust...more lethal, allowing the defending teams to pick enemy spawn perhaps..send in a bunch of those poison flying thingies...should do the trick.

 

I'm not dissing your ideas Skitz, but I feel in the current state of the game with the inclusion of the (for lack of better words) cowardly tactics of the "shadow alliances" to attain untouchable wealth through the manipulation of the system....the dark sectors are BROKE...and no one entering that arena will be Nothing more than a play toy for those shadow alliances that have gotten so fat sitting in their circle J3rks for months now.

 

Musical Chairs!

 

Find a solution to that problem and then we can discuss ways to improve the Dark sectors as a whole...

 

Here is a fairly OLD link I posted after my first experiences in the conclave, many didn't agree with my points of view but it is an elaborated thought on how DE could improve PVP: https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/244369-recently-tried-conclave-for-the-first-time/?p=2841149

Edited by 2ply
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be opposed to some of the suggestions you made regarding PvP gear. The effects of purchasing PvP only gear that mitigates damages from PvP only is more or less the same outcome to what I was referring to in the early stages of PvP. And perhaps having completely different mods and load outs for PvP and not unlocking as you go would be the most effective way of ending the snowball effect as well.
 

 

As to rail blocking, in part II, I went over it briefly but not in detail. As for future ways to prevent it everything I am coming up with I am instantly shooting down with ways to get around it in my head. (Perhaps it's all the writing I've done today and my brain is tired and needs to rest). Im going to sleep on it and get back to this topic tomorrow and I will let you know what I think.

 

But before I go I do want to thank you for giving my post a good patient read, and for keeping an open mind and offering your honest feedback. It means a lot to me when anyone takes the time to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another power that needs to be "locked", along with blade storm, is vauban's bounce (just for defenders) bc if a vauban puts bounces at the consoles it is done, there's no way an attacker can win!

I wouldn't want  any power to be locked out of game play. I have seen a lot of people suggest to take away all powers and the load out completely in PVP. And While that suggestion would be Extremely effective on balance, for me it would take away the identity and feeling that is WarFrame. For me at least customizing your warframe and weapons for both PvE and PvP builds is one of my favorite aspects of the experience. And if you take away my options to use ability's id fell like I might as well be playing cod.

 

Either give the unbalanced skill a completely different function in pvp, or add a timer to it so that it can't be spammed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres a suggestion:

 

 

Rewards:

 

By default Dark sectors give atleast 30k, but if a clan adds even 1 credit they will have to pay the full 30001 out of their pocket.

 

This would make DS worth playing since they give the most payout in the game, and keep clans from abusing the paying system.

 

 

The main reason people don't play DS is because their is NO point unless the clan is giving a reward, if you add a reward it would quadruple the fanbase for DS. :/ Which would intern kill off the big alliances since ATM the only reason they are winning is because their is more Alliance players then their is Lone wolf players playing DS. If we change that then we effectively ballance DS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

But "I'm a stealth ship."

Referring to your suggestion of having a Liset put barrier around attackers' spawb point.

I do agree with your point about shielding the attacker's spawn point but what if they never leave that? Then the defenders cannot win :(

So maybe we'll also need a system to ensure that they engage in battle and not just waste the time of the defenders

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Post LIVES.... In true Halloween fashion you have resurrected the dead .......post mwahahahaha

 

on topic

 

First: if they go afk in the spawn shield then they aren't doing any damage to the defending rail. Unless it is 4 defenders being stalled out by 1 attacker then the trade off isn't a lot.

 

Second: after the last event I  know a number of peep who received warnings in their in game inbox for going afk. Meaning if everyone reports the afk team with screenshots the same could happen to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to truly balance PvP is if DE went the Destiny route. In Destiny, the gear of all players are averaged so that no one has an advantage out the gate. In other words, end game level content's stats are averaged with begginners gear.

So effectively make the only endgame content we have not endgame content. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to truly balance PvP is if DE went the Destiny route. In Destiny, the gear of all players are averaged so that no one has an advantage out the gate. In other words, end game level content's stats are averaged with begginners gear.

 

Why should my guns be less effective if I've put more work into it? No game should punish a long-standing player from being too powerful if they've invested enough time - especially when there is a cap on the numbers and a "beginner" can effectively climb the ladder to reach it by leveling up their mods.

 

It's not a good thing to force someone to play below their level, nor is it good to take away something people have worked on for watered down versions of weapons to prolong fights - the prime reason I don't find Dark Sectors that entertaining. This is especially so considering that damage to Shields and Health have been lowered. No one should be forced to put away their weapon and Warframe that they've worked painstakingly hard on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So effectively make the only endgame content we have not endgame content. :/

That's the exact problem though. It sucks.

Read below

Why should my guns be less effective if I've put more work into it? No game should punish a long-standing player from being too powerful if they've invested enough time - especially when there is a cap on the numbers and a "beginner" can effectively climb the ladder to reach it by leveling up their mods.

 

It's not a good thing to force someone to play below their level, nor is it good to take away something people have worked on for watered down versions of weapons to prolong fights - the prime reason I don't find Dark Sectors that entertaining. This is especially so considering that damage to Shields and Health have been lowered. No one should be forced to put away their weapon and Warframe that they've worked painstakingly hard on.

That's what every good PvP game does. It comes down to skill, not gear. If Warframe truly wishes to do the same, then we're going to have to suck it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please dont make this a cod or bf clone.  If you remove customization, load outs and ability's then you take away the best parts of the game and you are just left with an average game design.

 

I believe the recent change in ability's is already  moving us toward a better area.  The fact that everyone will get all of their skills will open up more counters. The key is tweaking the lvl each one unlocks in PvP. say 1 at start 2 at5 3 at 10 4 at 15.

This way there is a natural progression from early game through late  game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...