if stalker mode cannot be opt out.

[Zanchak]

1 minute ago, Eterud said:

There are 8 pages of comments,
I read through the first few pages in this thread and the other massive thread. 

Who has time to read through every single comment while there are that many?

My comment was aimed at the people who cry without even knowing what is going on and threaten to throw a tantrum/plug their computer out and whatever not simply because they do not like a feature.

Any actual discussion is great, but in the first few and the last page,
there has not been anything constructive, only crying.
 
The game is evolving, why not just wait and see what happens, instead of crying beforehand and therefore discouraging the developers of this game to put in their best effort.
(Imagine that you've been working x amount of hours to implement a great feature, maybe even in your free time to only come to the forum to see that people are complaining about it before they've even seen it. that must be a S#&$ty feeling.)

Well theres always going to be tantrum throwers, but how is that any different from swooping into a thread you haven't fully read, dramaticly "omgodding" to make your sarcasm clear for the slow ones, telling people to roll over and die if they don't want to play it (cause thats a satisfactory solution), I won't even bother to go into the comment after about elitism, since someones innocent perception was flipped and turned into "no but I have more experience and so-and-so are way bigger jerks".

Basically how it sounded from my end.

[Eterud]

23 minutes ago, (PS4)Cargan2016 said:

its far more common they claim to be more better because they can beat some one in pvp performance not pve so dont see how can say its the pve that more so

There will always be players like this.

 

On the other hand:

- Eidolon capture runs: need to have 300+ captures to join. (Really? Why would anyone that has 300+ captures still even do it, as they've maxed out all rewards by then and farmed a zillion extra arcanes to resell. Next to that I've seen players who did a hydro capture for the 10th time perform better than some players who've done it hundreds of times.)
- ESO: Need to have a specific build/gear/setup to join. (No need. you can complete an eso run without a trinity, volt, saryn or equinox perfectly fine in the same time frame.)

In other words: YOU need to play the WAY that I say that YOU should Play.

While there are many other possibilities.

This is a very common thing under PVE-ers.

Luckely warframe isn't that elitist at its core as a lot of mmo's, as most mmo's the pve-ers are extremely elitist.  (Hey, in warframe there is no space for elitism, as lets be honest: there is no end-game in warframe, yet you see those silly things like requiring people to have 300+ Hydro captures, or a specific frame/build for stuff like Eso.

(Guess what, For ESO Volt can be replaced by several other frames, so can Equinox, or saryn etc. For Tridolon captures any of the meta's can be replaced by other frames and do the job just as good.)

Now I'm not saying that there is no elitism under pvpers, a very select group could be. although I haven't seen any elitist pvpers in warframe yet, while I've seen many elitist pve-ers.

 

 

Well theres always going to be tantrum throwers, but how is that any different from swooping into a thread you haven't fully read, dramaticly "omgodding" to make your sarcasm clear for the slow ones, telling people to roll over and die if they don't want to play it (cause thats a satisfactory solution), I won't even bother to go into the comment after about elitism, since someones innocent perception was flipped and turned into "no but I have more experience and so-and-so are way bigger jerks".  Basically how it sounded from my end.

 

I'm sorry that you perceive it that way. 

The rolling over and die is ofcourse meant in game, which is clear as I added"your teammates can revive you"

That's exactly what players can do right now if they dont want to fight the stalker. no difference then if they do that when they dont want to fight a player-stalker.

 

and elitism is all perception, for one person sees that different than another.
the person I responded to claimed that pvpers are elitist, and I shared the other side of the coin. Nothing wrong with that.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Eterud

[XenMaster]

Before Stalker mode become pvp or not, atleast make Stalker or Shadow Stalker strong. Like really strong when up against player warframes.

 

I dont want cheesy sentient resistance and forcing player to use transference only.

 

Allow stalker to use every disposal abilities and not getting him oneshot all the time.

[DishSoap]

Carebear hug-boxes will never fail to make me laugh.

[SneakyErvin]

16 hours ago, ----Legacy---- said:

I enjoy pvp, hence i wouldn't mind to be forced to face a player stalker (despite not having a single min maxed build) and that's the only reason why i would be fine if the game mode got added without being optional.

However, we're not talking about "my" opinion only, but about the one of a heavily PvE biased community, so in order to give random pvp encounters a chance while keeping them optional, i think it would at least require some kind of desirable reward in order to encourage (or straight up bait) more players to opt in to it. 

Just like in conclave, if it has rewards it becomes "you either play to get them or accept that you're not getting them", even if these are some dumb cosmetic rewards that don't affect gameplay (a stalker accllade, a badge, a sigil, the stalker helmet, shadow stalker skin for excalibur, etc. That's up to DE) and/or stuff that can be obtained somewhere else but making the mode slightly better for it (such as it kuva, relics, resources, whatever). 

If a reward is needed to even cater to the extremely small part of the playerbase that cares for PvP to begin with it is even more of a waste of resources, since not even those people seem to want it purely for the thrill of PvP. They still need a carrot to chase.

I still dont get how you can say that a rarely used mode like Conclave (which is optional) is OK without rewards when an upcoming rarely used mode like Stalker (if optional) will need a reward. PvP to me is PvP no matter if it is 1vs1, 5vs5, 40vs40, 500vs500 or 1vs4. Neither needs a reward in my mind if it is good enough to play since the reward is always there when you win. However if it is so poorly designed that you need to have a carrot to play it besides the win, then that PvP mode should stay in development until it is good enough that the win is all that needed as a reward.

Also, too many people are imagining a brand new game mode, it wont be, it will be stalker on regular maps, the difference is that one guy simply controls him. They've already sair they dont want a new type of mission or mode for him, they just want people to be able to control him on current missions. So specific rewards is very likely a no-go to begin with, maybe an updated loot table for Stalker that applies to every version of him, player controlled or not.

[--DSP--Jetstream]

> 4 man squad barely work with occasional bugs

> lets add a 5th player that joined mid game lol

more bugs and broken stuff

[Arkypo]

I am okay with the pvp stalker feature as its been shown. You only fight the basic stalker and he will get defeated very quickly. And as long as you don't kill bosses you won't have stalker spawns, if you're in a pub it'll be a 2-4 v 1 basic stalker. Plus if you go down in a pub you get revived almost every time so you wont lose a revive or affinity. It could suck for a solo run encounter but the stalker, syndicates, and the other bosses only spawn in the first few minutes of the mission and you only get one invasion per match. 

And worst case scenario, you have to do the mission again and you can't be invaded. It could cause problems with people who like to farm but honestly, farming runs shouldn't be over 20 minutes per mission even if you can keep the mission going for 1 hour or 2 hours. That's my logic anyways.

I feel it'll effect low mr players the heaviest so all DE has to do is restrict pvp stalker to say over mr 8 or higher or just have people be required to have completed the second dream quest to be invaded. That way it won't scare away the new players and people more experienced with how to fight the stalker will be okay. 

Besides, if most of the community avoids conclave so I don't think very many would even do the pvp stalker option. I don't know how popular frame fighter is but if that is popular then I don't know how that will translate.

TLDR; It isn't so bad honestly, people are just over-dramatic.

[Lanadra]

7 minutes ago, Arkypo said:

I am okay with the pvp stalker feature as its been shown. You only fight the basic stalker and he will get defeated very quickly. And as long as you don't kill bosses you won't have stalker spawns, if you're in a pub it'll be a 2-4 v 1 basic stalker. Plus if you go down in a pub you get revived almost every time so you wont lose a revive or affinity. It could suck for a solo run encounter but the stalker, syndicates, and the other bosses only spawn in the first few minutes of the mission and you only get one invasion per match. 

And worst case scenario, you have to do the mission again and you can't be invaded. It could cause problems with people who like to farm but honestly, farming runs shouldn't be over 20 minutes per mission even if you can keep the mission going for 1 hour or 2 hours. That's my logic anyways.

I feel it'll effect low mr players the heaviest so all DE has to do is restrict pvp stalker to say over mr 8 or higher or just have people be required to have completed the second dream quest to be invaded. That way it won't scare away the new players and people more experienced with how to fight the stalker will be okay. 

Besides, if most of the community avoids conclave so I don't think very many would even do the pvp stalker option. I don't know how popular frame fighter is but if that is popular then I don't know how that will translate.

TLDR; It isn't so bad honestly, people are just over-dramatic.

''If people don't want to fight Player Stalker.. they can just stop killing bosses.''

Should we also just uninstall the game as the ultimate solution as well..?

Also, I keep seeing that annoying ''it's the same old stalker only player controlled, he's a pussy, no problem'' argument. What do you guys not understand about human nature..? Yes. It will start off that way, and the player Stalkers will get slaughtered. They will then inevitably start complaining about it and demand changes to make their 'role' more viable. Which will negatively impact the rest of us.

Buuuut, I've already discussed this earlier as well, the takeaway remains as follows for me: If they let me opt-out, turn it off entirely. I don't care with how they make this. Fun should be a two way street. If people who like this idea are given the option to use it and enjoy it. People who don't like it should likewise be given the option to turn it off.

[Arkypo]

2 minutes ago, Lanadra said:

''If people don't want to fight Player Stalker.. they can just stop killing bosses.''

Should we also just uninstall the game as the ultimate solution as well..?

Also, I keep seeing that annoying ''it's the same old stalker only player controlled, he's a pussy, no problem'' argument. What do you guys not understand about human nature..? Yes. It will start off that way, and the player Stalkers will get slaughtered. They will then inevitably start complaining about it and demand changes to make their 'role' more viable. Which will negatively impact the rest of us.

Buuuut, I've already discussed this earlier as well, the takeaway remains as follows for me: If they let me opt-out, turn it off entirely. I don't care with how they make this. Fun should be a two way street. If people who like this idea are given the option to use it and enjoy it. People who don't like it should likewise be given the option to turn it off.

I never said the first quote so I don't see how it means anything with my post.

Plus considering your post has a negative connotation to an extreme saying people should uninstall. You are saying that not me.

Like I mentioned in my post if you die to the stalker it wont happen again. Unless you need the boss for something you won't be attacked again. Even if the player controlled stalker kills you on your last revive whats the worst thing to happen? You have to repeat the mission again and that isn't so bad. People quit missions with limbo in the squad already, or get a bad pub that fails a sortie and forfeit their rewards. Basically failure of a mission isn't a new thing or uncommon. I don't know if you read it but, I said to restrict the player controlled stalker to only those who completed the second dream or are at least mr 8.

And you can't really say if DE would even buff the player controlled stalker because none of us have that choice, only DE does.

Yes, the part of the community that plays the player controlled stalker could complain about being squishy but lets look at how DE handles those types of things. For example ember got "nerfed" heavily according to some people and you still see the occasional thread about it complaining and wanting the old ember back in some way. But DE hasn't touched ember since the "nerf". And you can look at the riven disposition nerf they did. Has DE undid that? nope and despite all the complaints about it. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't but lets just go off of how popular conclave is. Would DE really buff a forced pvp interaction? I don't believe so honestly.

If you want to make your point try to not be negative/extreme and speak about what ifs that never happened because it just makes your post not contribute anything to the topic honestly. 

[Highlord83]

On 2018-12-08 at 2:21 AM, Toppien said:

and what about the people who like pvp

You're fully welcome to go back to CoD where you belong.

[MystMan]

6 minutes ago, Arkypo said:

If you want to make your point try to not be negative/extreme and speak about what ifs that never happened because it just makes your post not contribute anything to the topic honestly. 

It's not an extreme negative if you read all the many replies that pointed out hardware, software and design flaws in the idea of a player-controlled Stalker. It's all just common sense really when the cons completely outnumber the pros.

The hardware limitations alone should be a sufficient enough deterrent.  Look at conclave, it suffers from the game's p2p connection.  Players who are lucky enough to find lobbies can end up with a laggy host. You lag, you lose. And the Stalker will obviously never be the host since he's the one invading. There are private hosted conclave servers but you can't apply that to the PVE environment of the main game.

And Stalker is weak. If they change nothing, he will be slaughtered all the time. No player will enjoy this mode, making it DOA in the first week.
Or they buff him, making him powerful, then the whole argument of "he's easy to kill" goes right out the window. Novice players lacking experience & mods are not going to enjoy getting killed by an obviously experienced player if they don't get an opt-out option. Mastery Rank or quest progression is a very faulty method of measuring experience and skill, there is simply no way to do so in this game. This has been brought up countless time on the forums and everywhere else through the years, there is no skill matchmaking in WF, only new players believe that MR myth until they are eventually proven wrong. Even Conclave's Recruit Conditioning has been proven to be very flawed.

And if there is an opt-out option, we all know almost everybody will use it, making this game mode DOA indeed.

And there's the fact that people come to play Warframe because it is Warframe, not Dark Souls.  Pushing a mode that only a minority will enjoy at the cost of the majority getting annoyed without a choice in the matter if there is no opt-out... in what world does that end well? If DE wants to try out something new, then design something new without copy/pasting other games' idea.

So no matter how you see it, when you consider looking at all the facts objectively, good and bad, not just only the facts that you find convenient, this will simply not work well. It will be an abandoned game mode at best (Archwing, Lunaro) or a problematic ongoing issue at worst (Trials). Or you know, the third option being this will never happen because the idea can get ultimately canned and not released to the public at all.

 

And for the love of Konzu's lunch, stop bringing up the whole "then don't kill bosses" excuse.  You participate in killing bosses in sorties, you get a mark.  Unless suggesting skipping sorties every time there is an assassination sounds like good advice?  And like I said earlier (something people conveniently choose to ignore), even if you don't have a mark, what about when you're in a group with other players who DO have a mark?  You can end up in a player Stalker session despite doing everything to not have a mark yourself.  Unless the next excuse is "don't kill bosses and play solo forever".  Or will the next excuse be "if you don't have a mark, Stalker can't hurt you" ?   Please don't say that without thinking it thoroughly how very wrong that idea is.

[Arkypo]

24 minutes ago, MystMan said:

-snip-

I personally don't do much of any pvp in games but I have become accustomed to a forced pvp option so I don't really mind it.

The negatives do outweigh the positives in terms of the general preference of the community, the P2P system, and being dragged into a stalker fight because of someone in the squad. I just don't really mind it either way.

Regardless, we don't know much about it honestly maybe it'll happen all the time 24/7 but maybe they'll make it a rare rare drop from somewhere that allows you to do it once until you get another drop and add a limitation on how many per day like daily caps.

Point being we don't know exactly and all of this is speculation about what ifs and maybes about a feature that isn't released yet or if it even will because somethings DE creates never gets released. I just feel like people are/were over reacting to the possibility of all of this when the details are not actually set in stone.

[SneakyErvin]

4 minutes ago, Arkypo said:

I personally don't do much of any pvp in games but I have become accustomed to a forced pvp option so I don't really mind it.

The negatives do outweigh the positives in terms of the general preference of the community, the P2P system, and being dragged into a stalker fight because of someone in the squad. I just don't really mind it either way.

Regardless, we don't know much about it honestly maybe it'll happen all the time 24/7 but maybe they'll make it a rare rare drop from somewhere that allows you to do it once until you get another drop and add a limitation on how many per day like daily caps.

Point being we don't know exactly and all of this is speculation about what ifs and maybes about a feature that isn't released yet or if it even will because somethings DE creates never gets released. I just feel like people are/were over reacting to the possibility of all of this when the details are not actually set in stone.

The speculations doesnt really matter as long as the game is running a peer-to-peer setup, that is simply enough to not include the mode in the first place. There are simply too many flaws with it.

Example: You have a group of 4 players, where player 1 is the host (just as in game). Now a Stalker is going to hunt #3, a player gets a notification of this and wants to join as the Stalker. The player joining Stalker has a ping of 50ms to #3 since they live fairly close by, however #3 has his matchmaking ping set to 300 as a limit. The ping between #1 and #3 is currently 250ms, the Stalker player is living even further away from #1 than #3 does so may end up with an even worse ping to the host of the game, or sit with a ping limit option of 150ms, resulting in a very likely "failed to join host" message when trying to connect to #1.

What happens then? Does it just spawn an NPC Stalker? Does it skip down the line to the next possible Stalker PC? Does it ignore Stalker spawning at all?

There simply are no good outcomes when peer-to-peer is involved, there are already enough bugs with host migrations and matchmaking as it is, suddenly trying to shove a 5th player into an exsisting game will lead to even more issues.

[IIDMOII]

Why are people upset that for once an enemy can show up that might ....oh i dunno .....pose a threat?

Might actually be fun to fight because it's not controlled by this games down syndrome AI.

 

[----Legacy----]

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

If a reward is needed to even cater to the extremely small part of the playerbase that cares for PvP to begin with it is even more of a waste of resources, since not even those people seem to want it purely for the thrill of PvP. They still need a carrot to chase.

I'm not sure if you're misreading on purpose or if you actually have issues comprehending what you read. 

I know pvp players will play pvp for fun, there are already players with anywhere between 10K to over 100K even tough you could probably get every single conclave reward before reaching 2k kills. 

However, the reason why i'm pointing for rewards is not for the pvp players (who would probaly get them anyways), but as a way to encourage PvE players to opt-in the system in order to give it a try, get them, make an opinion about it, and then decide if tvey want to stay for the fun or opt-out. As it currently stands, you can see how plenty of players in this game have a straight anti-pvp mentality that not only wants to keep them away from pvp, but also makes them spread unjustified hate towards stuff they haven't even tried. 

I'll say it simple once again: i personally don't care if the mode was forced, however, i see how that upsets people who doesn't want pvp, so i agree with the need of making player stalker mode optional, but i also think that, since PvP players would most likely opt-in for fun, there should also be something to make PvE players not opt-out of it simply because it's a random pvp encounter "with no reason to play it" as you can be sure many will say if it has no rewards. 

You can already see how players stop actively doing ESO after maxing focus and getting all capturas, Khora, peculiar mods, and then leave it as a way to level up weapons when a new one pops up. You can also realize how many players claim that there's no reason to play arbitrations after getting all of its rewards, just like i'm sure you won't find many players doing defection or infested salvage other than for Harrow or Nidus parts before never going back there.

[DatDarkOne]

12 hours ago, (XB1)ECCHO SIERRA said:

I didn't happen to see anybody talking about how some frames have insanely vast differences in terms of EHP that would almost certainly make balancing the player stalker's weapons almost impossible. Give him enough damage to deal with the tankier warframes and every other frame just gets 1 shot?

And then theres the problem of how vastly different levels of DPS from players can be.

Then theres the ol' amp+void mode...

I have thought of this many times and even referenced it at least once or twice every time this topic raises it's head.  I look at it mostly from the perspective of a solo Ivara main who has previously faced off against Stalker solo at multiple lvls including twice as lvl 100.

What I do know is that depending on How player Stalker is implemented and what tools the player has as Stalker, that battle between Player Stalker and my solo Ivara can go one of two ways.  Stalker either has the tool that allows him to know where I am at all times, which considering Stalker's power to dispel warframe abilities is a huge advantage against a solo Ivara.  

The other way is if the player Stalker gets the same visibility/view as in-game enemies and can't see any indication of a Cloak Arrowed Ivara.  In this case, the player Stalker would be one-shotted by Artemis Bow every time while he can't see her because of Cloak Arrow.  

 

Then there is the case of Stalker vs Mag which is one sided in favor of Mag either way because of Magnetize.  

[----Legacy----]

3 hours ago, Arkypo said:

I don't know if you read it

I don't know how many players (from both sides of the discussion) actually read comments before replying, and sadly even if those players actually read, it doesn't necessarily mean that they understand what they are reading.

Edited December 10, 2018 by ----Legacy----

[BornWithTeeth]

2 minutes ago, ----Legacy---- said:

I don't know how many of them actually read comments before replying, and sadly even if they actually read our comments it doesn't necessarily mean that they understand them.

Ok, now take that feeling where it’s like no matter what you say, the people with whom you are speaking seem deliberately determined not to understand, ok?

 

And review every single interaction in every single thread on this topic and look at all the instances of someone saying “I don’t mind if they put the mode in so long as it’s optional. This is because I don’t like PvP,” which are then responded to by people who effectively say “Don’t like PvP?! How?! Why?!!! What’s wrong with you?! You need to do some PvP to slap that not-liking-PvP nonsense out of you!”

 

Can you at least acknowledge that this ain’t exactly one-sided? 

[SneakyErvin]

Just now, ----Legacy---- said:

I'm not sure if you're misreading on purpose or if you actually have issues comprehending what you read. 

I know pvp players will play pvp for fun, there are already players with anywhere between 10K to over 100K even tough you could probably get every single conclave reward before reaching 2k kills. 

However, the reason why i'm pointing for rewards is not for the pvp players (who would probaly get them anyways), but as a way to encourage PvE players to opt-in the system in order to give it a try, get them, make an opinion about it, and then decide if tvey want to stay for the fun or opt-out. As it currently stands, you can see how plenty of players in this game have a straight anti-pvp mentality that not only wants to keep them away from pvp, but also makes them spread unjustified hate towards stuff they haven't even tried. 

I'll say it simple once again: i personally don't care if the mode was forced, however, i see how that upsets people who doesn't want pvp, so i agree with the need of making player stalker mode optional, but i also think that, since PvP players would most likely opt-in for fun, there should also be something to make PvE players not opt-out of it simply because it's a random pvp encounter "with no reason to play it" as you can be sure many will say if it has no rewards. 

You can already see how players stop actively doing ESO after maxing focus and getting all capturas, Khora, peculiar mods, and then leave it as a way to level up weapons when a new one pops up. You can also realize how many players claim that there's no reason to play arbitrations after getting all of its rewards, just like i'm sure you won't find many players doing defection or infested salvage other than for Harrow or Nidus parts before never going back there.

No I'm reading it perfectly fine. The incentive will not be big enough for non-PvPers to participate, so in the end it will just be the very small crowd of "PvPers" fishing for more rewards. I'm an old school PvPer, been into it for the last 20 years or so and WF has nothing, zero, siltch, nada, inget to offer me when it comes to that part of the game. It is so painfully poorly made that no rewards will make me want to set my foot in it.

There just isnt a reason to do it when you can just log out and boot up a proper actually well made, PvP intended at the go, game. 

So if WF cant attract PvPers to begin with, how will it possibly have a chance to attract enough PvErs to make it worth it just by dangling some questionable carrot in their face? The few that will bother are going to play it for the rewards then quit. And you are already bringing up the issues already by listing PvE modes that arent very popular. I mean PvE modes in a PvE game that doesnt attract people. And dont forget trials, even with the best possible rewards in the game they barely saw any use. What makes you think some rewards would pull people to PvP in a PvE game?

[(XBOX)VaricBreem]

19 minutes ago, IIDMOII said:

Why are people upset that for once an enemy can show up that might ....oh i dunno .....pose a threat?

Might actually be fun to fight because it's not controlled by this games down syndrome AI.

 

it wont be a threat , example, I have a  Fully built Inaros , I have a  habit of going to answer the  phone when im in missions , deal with real life issues ect.. There have Been many  times i have  come back to  stalker wailing away in Futility at me , because of the way my build  works, If stalker doesnt get any buffs ,(which will ruin the game  for new players), Or i dont receive  any nerfs.. which would waste all the  effort   i put into  putting 8 forma and  farming dual graces and adapatation  to   shame, when I turn and see that stalker  I  am Liable  to  ignore him and just complete  my mission if i  dont just  blow them away with one  of my many  Formad to hell and back wepaons aimed  at PVE HP   value ,  not   poor basic b**ch stalker hp values

resultling    issues will be  ,  either a Buffed up stalker  player base that only farm low ranks, Or the complete  and destruction of PVE builds  to satisfy   the PVP  crowd

 

when Conclave already exist, This  should not

any game ive  played that put PVP in PVE  , has  caused unreasonable  nerfs  aimed  at Both sides,

 

These will be the results, It will either be a mild annoyance  and nothing but suffering  of masochistic stalker players   if nothing changes , Or   massive nerfs across the bored to make this game mode  Viable

[----Legacy----]

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

No I'm reading it perfectly fine. The incentive will not be big enough for non-PvPers to participate, so in the end it will just be the very small crowd of "PvPers" fishing for more rewards.

I've met enough players playing conclave mainly for the skins to tell you that pve players will be attracted to rewards. Fun enough, some of them start playing only for the conclave skins and keep playing after getting them simply because they find it fun after giving it a try.

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'm an old school PvPer, been into it for the last 20 years or so

Empty claims, i could say that i'm an old school PvPer who has been into it ever since the release of multiplayer pong 42 years ago and that would still have no value for the thread, and even less if i have no way to prove it.

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

and WF has nothing, zero, siltch, nada, inget to offer me when it comes to that part of the game. It is so painfully poorly made that no rewards will make me want to set my foot in it.

That's your opinion, and even if that's a popular opinion, it's still just that. You can be sure that the players who enjoy conclave might find a lot of flaws in the pvp games you enjoy, just like both of us can and will find endless flaws to a game we don't enjoy but is enjoyed by someone else.

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

There just isnt a reason to do it when you can just log out and boot up a proper actually well made, PvP intended at the go, game. 

What a "proper actually well made pvp" game entails is up to opinions. Some players might prefer quake 3, ratz, or even the deceased lawbreakers while others can talk about fortnite, CSGO, etc. And that's only scratching the surface on shooters since someone else can despise shooters but love RTS or fighting games. 

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

So if WF cant attract PvPers to begin with, how will it possibly have a chance to attract enough PvErs to make it worth it just by dangling some questionable carrot in their face?

One of the main reasons why warframe struggles to attract pvpers is mainly the heavy PvE grind needed to get new gear to use for pvp. Add that to how pvpers seek challenge and you'll realize that having a pvp game tied to a mind numbing pve experience isn't a good recipy, since even if somehow you manage to create the best pvp ever you'll be pushing pvpers away by not giving them an alternative route to progress without going through the braindead pve.

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

The few that will bother are going to play it for the rewards then quit.

Yeah, but some might enjoy it and keep playing after getting everything, just like the small amount of players who keep playing conclave, lunaro, archwing, infested salvage, defection (trials back when these were still im game), etc after getting everything from them.

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

And you are already bringing up the issues already by listing PvE modes that arent very popular. I mean PvE modes in a PvE game that doesnt attract people. And dont forget trials, even with the best possible rewards in the game they barely saw any use.

Yeah, if you start seeing it that way, you realize that the whole game has been kept alive by dangling carrots on us, and we're used to it to the point of having players who run out of carrots and start complaining about it and claiming that the game will die and blahblahblah. You can be sure it wouldn't happen if the average warframe player saw fun as the reward instead of doing everything for cosmetics or gear.

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

What makes you think some rewards would pull people to PvP in a PvE game?

Because the average warfrane player has a completionist complex that triggers some ocd when there is something they can't get neither through pve or purchase that makes them "endure" whatever DE puts on the way as long as that means to get everything, and that's what DE has been exploiting all of this time, which gets quite noticeable on how often we get rewards locked behind layers upon layers of rng, with awfully low drop chances, or both.

33 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Can you at least acknowledge that this ain’t exactly one-sided? 

It indeed isn't one sided, should have made it more explicit instead of simply using "them" in the comment.

[LascarCapable]

 I locked another thread from you because it failed to remain constructive. This one has ended up in the same manner as the previous one.

Closing.