Why PVP would benefit DE (not a rework conclave post)

[SneakyErvin]

15 hours ago, (PS4)Darth-Escar said:

This is good. I'm about 50% inclined to belive what you're saying now. The other 50% is missing because of potential issues with the data's source, which maybe you can clarify. I'll also just mention the caveats which were stated by the poster of your link's cited source.

http://imgur.com/2ZfKPpW

I compared 3 simlar-ish games on the chart. There may be a better comparison, but I wanted to see how different free and paid game estimations were. As you can see in the screenshot, GTA had more than double Warframe's concurrent players around the time when that data leak happened, yet less. In Warframe's case, the estimated player count is roughly 293x the amount of the concurrent, and in GTA's it's only about 103x. Both of those are way higher than the '10-20x' you meantioned previously. Furthermore, based on the aforementioned caveats, he estimates seem to ignore the possibility of alt accounts, which would much more prominent in a free game than a paid one.

No matter how you look at it, it suggest something is incorrect. Is the estimates from the link are incorrect, than the source is meaningless. If the concurrent player count is somehow incorrect, the source's data is unsupported, and will need some other data to suggest the same. If your mentioned multiplier is incorrect, there's no way to line up the data. With reason, any of those can be corrected though, and if the data does indeed line up after a well-reasoned correction, that would make for a very compelling argument, which I, for one, would belive.

Also, I have mentioned that the estimation I made was simply an estimation based on personal experience, not just made up. I admittedly didn't provide any evidence for it. In my defense though, it's not a farfetched observation with little reason not to belive. Rather than continuing to act as if it's completely exaggerated or made up, you could simply ask me to provide evidence for that. After all, I'd be a hypocrite if I was making claims I had no evidence for. I can't show examples of everyone I know, because that would be super tedious for me, and bothersome to them, but I can nonetheless show many examples from PS4, particularly of the many Youtubers I know. Other Xbox players could tell you about the surprising amount of alt users on Xbox, despite having to have gold to play with others, including a person who supposedly has around 15 alts. If your data doesn't show to be reliable, cole tive player experiences to modify the info shown in Steam's data will be the best info we have to use.

The thing is that the article covers 18m of the playerbase only through Steam, with the other 50% (being generous to steam here) comes from the standalone. That also means that this is only the PC numbers. And with GTA there is only Steam afaik, they dont have a SA and they arent present on other library platforms (possibly coming to Discord?). So that should show the full number of GTA accounts and not just around 50%.

And the thing is. We have DEs official statements on total number of players at 40m. If that included several alt accounts there wouldnt be much room for the console playerbase to be part of those 40m, since just PC alone would make up for atleast 37m with a 50:50 split between Steam and SA. Now surely there are Steam and SA alt accounts, I'm just saying that the 40m players that DE have presented would in that case indicate unique users across all platforms, not including alt accounts. That is just logical thinking unless you happen to believe 2 concoles (3 now) share only 3m player accounts i.e 300k active players (being generous and giving it a 10% retention rate). That is why your guess of 3.5 million unique active players simply falls apart.

And no, what you are doing is not calculating active players. The 16-18m presented in that link are not active players, they are total number of users on Steam. There is no math involved getting to that pont, nor are the concurrent players ued those are simple facts, black on white, coming from a steam app leak. It wouldnt matter if the concurrent players were 100, the total players would still sit at 16-18m on Steam. The x10 to x20 I mentioned is used to get an estimation of active players, by applying the numbers to concurrent users.

As I said before, it isnt strange people question the method when they (including you) have a hard time grasping the connections and meanings of the different numbers to begin with. And the differences/connections between total, active and concurrent are as basic as it gets and you have massive troubles grasping even those.

[(PSN)Darth-Escar]

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

The thing is that the article covers 18m of the playerbase only through Steam, with the other 50% (being generous to steam here) comes from the standalone. That also means that this is only the PC numbers. And with GTA there is only Steam afaik, they dont have a SA and they arent present on other library platforms (possibly coming to Discord?). So that should show the full number of GTA accounts and not just around 50%.

And the thing is. We have DEs official statements on total number of players at 40m. If that included several alt accounts there wouldnt be much room for the console playerbase to be part of those 40m, since just PC alone would make up for atleast 37m with a 50:50 split between Steam and SA. Now surely there are Steam and SA alt accounts, I'm just saying that the 40m players that DE have presented would in that case indicate unique users across all platforms, not including alt accounts. That is just logical thinking unless you happen to believe 2 concoles (3 now) share only 3m player accounts i.e 300k active players (being generous and giving it a 10% retention rate). That is why your guess of 3.5 million unique active players simply falls apart.

And no, what you are doing is not calculating active players. The 16-18m presented in that link are not active players, they are total number of users on Steam. There is no math involved getting to that pont, nor are the concurrent players ued those are simple facts, black on white, coming from a steam app leak. It wouldnt matter if the concurrent players were 100, the total players would still sit at 16-18m on Steam. The x10 to x20 I mentioned is used to get an estimation of active players, by applying the numbers to concurrent users.

As I said before, it isnt strange people question the method when they (including you) have a hard time grasping the connections and meanings of the different numbers to begin with. And the differences/connections between total, active and concurrent are as basic as it gets and you have massive troubles grasping even those.

Well, I don't think it's fair to assume that about 50% of PC players use Steam. Based on given by that leak and DE numbers, about 50% of total players use Steam, assuming DE didn't exclude console players from their player count, which would disbenefit them. That presumably means the concurrent player count across all platforms is a little bit more than double the counts seen on Steam.

The issue is, seeing as your link gives no info on player activity, and there's no evidence supporting your '10-20x' multiplier, there's still no reason to belive anything ypu say about player activity. Aparrently, I wrongfully jumped to the conclusion that your given source was something which would support your point, if it happened to be true. (I now don't doubt that it's true.) More so than the fact that concurrent players don't equal active players, total players certainly don't equal active players, and there's no evidently reliable way to convert either of those numbers into anything better representative of player activity.

[SneakyErvin]

1 hour ago, (PS4)Darth-Escar said:

Well, I don't think it's fair to assume that about 50% of PC players use Steam. Based on given by that leak and DE numbers, about 50% of total players use Steam, assuming DE didn't exclude console players from their player count, which would disbenefit them. That presumably means the concurrent player count across all platforms is a little bit more than double the counts seen on Steam.

The issue is, seeing as your link gives no info on player activity, and there's no evidence supporting your '10-20x' multiplier, there's still no reason to belive anything ypu say about player activity. Aparrently, I wrongfully jumped to the conclusion that your given source was something which would support your point, if it happened to be true. (I now don't doubt that it's true.) More so than the fact that concurrent players don't equal active players, total players certainly don't equal active players, and there's no evidently reliable way to convert either of those numbers into anything better representative of player activity.

Uhm that sounds confusing. "I dont think it's fair to assume that about 50% of PC players use Steam" followed by "about 50% of total players use Steam".

There is no way Steam accounts for 50% of the total players among all 3(4) platforms. Steam is slightly less used than the SA PC launcher (like it is for most games that have standalone versions). And even in a case where it would hold the majority of PC players it still wouldnt be more than maybe a difference of 60/40 or so, meaning that very few play, or have even created accounts for WF on consoles. Which I highly doubt given that not only does DE do alot for console, they also just expanded to Switch. So things must be going good on the console side.

Also, to help explain the x20 estimation. You simply need to look for an avarage expected playtime along with avarage expected hours of attendance a game has per day. Since the avarage active player in most games spend 30m-2h daily you can easily get to the conclusion that each hour has a new set of concurrent player, with a daily peak of slightly longer hours of playtime and players along with a dip with less players and minimal hours. So with 24h/day you'd add it up by x24, but with overlapping hours across the world a more accurate multiplier is x20. Depending on the popularity and concurrent numbers this value can go far lower. A game with alot of spikey player numbers and no real peaks the estimation would drop harshly. For instance, Inquisitor Martyr has numbers that go up and down throughout the day, doubling and splitting the concurrent numbers in half from morning to evening without really have any peaks. In such a game you'd likely apply a x10 because it is both impopular and has no steady numbers during a day. Such a game that shifts between 200 and 400 players throughout the day would probably end up with 3000 or 3500 active players.

 

 

[VenomousValentine]

Why does DE neglect conclave so much. Why is it so hard to OCCASIONALLY show us even something minimal beyond balance changes?

And so many of the community looks at the number of people who play conclave and thinks "well 99% of the community just doesn't want pvp. If they did they would play it"

But people don't play it not because they don't want it. They don't play it because it's BAD. It's a bad implementation. The rewards are something to scoff at, the maps are small and few, the objective based game modes are poorly done and that's an understatement. 

 

Why can we not just get SOMETHING?

[TheGrimCorsair]

'Cause Conclave's playerbase is at any given time a fraction of a percent at best, and PvP as a whole is simply not something DE is interested in pursuing or fostering, especially as the returns aren't likely to keep the lights on.

[Stormdragon]

1 hour ago, TheGrimCorsair said:

Cause Conclave's playerbase is at any given time a fraction of a percent at best

It's always nice to make such claims with updated official information to back it up, otherwise you are just jumping into assumptions. I won't deny that the population in conclave is small, but that's an issue mainly because of how badly DE has handled its implementation and how long it has been neglected. For instance, conclave rewards are mostly "get and forget" stuff (except for the syandana) and haven't been updated since Lunaro was released. We haven't even gotten new augments to play with.

Quote

and PvP as a whole is simply not something DE is interested in pursuing or fostering,

If DE wasn't interested in PvP they wouldn't even have mentioned to want a PvPvE race mode for warframe during devstream 122.

Quote

especially as the returns aren't likely to keep the lights on.

If they invest nearly no resources and the game still manages to have a small but loyal playerbase, then they most likely still see it as a positive return on investment, hence worth keeping in the game.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Stormdragon

[Remy_Lacroix]

En 21/1/2019 a las 20:40, SneakyErvin dijo:

-snip-

Man, your whole thesis is based on assumptions, and after seeing how you got roasted in another thread for spreading misinformation to the point of making out how do some weapons work i don't think anyone else is ever going to believe your claims unless they have even less experience than you. Either provide some acceptable proof of your claims or accept that you can't sustain your arguments anymore since at least in these subforums there is plenty of people ready to shot your arguments down as many times as it's needed.

[SneakyErvin]

1 hour ago, Remy_Lacroix said:

Man, your whole thesis is based on assumptions, and after seeing how you got roasted in another thread for spreading misinformation to the point of making out how do some weapons work i don't think anyone else is ever going to believe your claims unless they have even less experience than you. Either provide some acceptable proof of your claims or accept that you can't sustain your arguments anymore since at least in these subforums there is plenty of people ready to shot your arguments down as many times as it's needed.

DEs own statements, the knowledge of the SA/Steam population ratio and common knowledge is all that is needed. I've already provided a link to total Steam accounts and you yourself have said that yes there are 40m players. The rest is just logical thinking to add it up.

Regarding the other thread, it is just personal opinion. What one thinks is too much influence of a game mechanic may not be what someone else thinks. Others share my view just as others share the other guy, in the end it is just personal opinion regarding mechanics in a game. There is a reason the game mode isnt popular, for me the impact of weapons along with WF movement are two things.

And population numbers versus personal opinions on mechanics are like night and day. One should have no effect on the other because they have no relation when it comes to facts or opinions.

[demoxis]

On 2019-01-21 at 12:40 PM, SneakyErvin said:

Uhm that sounds confusing. "I dont think it's fair to assume that about 50% of PC players use Steam" followed by "about 50% of total players use Steam".

There is no way Steam accounts for 50% of the total players among all 3(4) platforms. Steam is slightly less used than the SA PC launcher (like it is for most games that have standalone versions). And even in a case where it would hold the majority of PC players it still wouldnt be more than maybe a difference of 60/40 or so, meaning that very few play, or have even created accounts for WF on consoles. Which I highly doubt given that not only does DE do alot for console, they also just expanded to Switch. So things must be going good on the console side.

Also, to help explain the x20 estimation. You simply need to look for an avarage expected playtime along with avarage expected hours of attendance a game has per day. Since the avarage active player in most games spend 30m-2h daily you can easily get to the conclusion that each hour has a new set of concurrent player, with a daily peak of slightly longer hours of playtime and players along with a dip with less players and minimal hours. So with 24h/day you'd add it up by x24, but with overlapping hours across the world a more accurate multiplier is x20. Depending on the popularity and concurrent numbers this value can go far lower. A game with alot of spikey player numbers and no real peaks the estimation would drop harshly. For instance, Inquisitor Martyr has numbers that go up and down throughout the day, doubling and splitting the concurrent numbers in half from morning to evening without really have any peaks. In such a game you'd likely apply a x10 because it is both impopular and has no steady numbers during a day. Such a game that shifts between 200 and 400 players throughout the day would probably end up with 3000 or 3500 active players.

 

 

I honestly dont see how numbers of players has anything to do with this conversation considering most of those players havent a clue about solar rails. There are very few players that have been around since practically the beginning and know how far this game has come but if they continue to be ignored its going to lead to a mass exodus from warframe. Depending on how anthem turns out it could be the deciding factor for a lot of people. EA tends to give players love in both pve and pvp. Digital Extremes used to do that but lately it's been nothing but quiet about pvp. If they were going to remove it all, it would have been better to just rip off the band aid off rather than to just let a wound fester beneath it. Obviously from their track record Digital Extremes doesnt care. Look at this feed alone. Thousands of views and hundreds comments and DE hasnt said anything. In the recent dev stream we asked about solar rails and I had a lot of people asking and every time it was immediately deleted from the running chat. Its unsat and unprofessional. I have been playing this game longer than most everyone and I'm horribly disappointed and very upset.

Edited January 25, 2019 by demoxis

[SneakyErvin]

11 hours ago, demoxis said:

I honestly dont see how numbers of players has anything to do with this conversation considering most of those players havent a clue about solar rails. There are very few players that have been around since practically the beginning and know how far this game has come but if they continue to be ignored its going to lead to a mass exodus from warframe. Depending on how anthem turns out it could be the deciding factor for a lot of people. EA tends to give players love in both pve and pvp. Digital Extremes used to do that but lately it's been nothing but quiet about pvp. If they were going to remove it all, it would have been better to just rip off the band aid off rather than to just let a wound fester beneath it. Obviously from their track record Digital Extremes doesnt care. Look at this feed alone. Thousands of views and hundreds comments and DE hasnt said anything. In the recent dev stream we asked about solar rails and I had a lot of people asking and every time it was immediately deleted from the running chat. Its unsat and unprofessional. I have been playing this game longer than most everyone and I'm horribly disappointed and very upset.

I wasnt the one who brought up numbers to begin with. Someone did it to try and make the PvP playerbase look bigger than it is. All we know for sure is that out of all the players only a small margin has any interest in PvP. And who are you exactly refering to with your "mass exodus" scrying? It cant be the PvPers because 1% or so of the players isnt exactly a mass and it cant really be the few people that have been around since the beginning, because as you say they are few.

And I find it straight up silly to claim that EA gives players love in both PvE and PvP. Just look at ToR, it had one unique PvP mode that was fun and one completely broken mess of "open world PvP inspired by RvR from DaoC" a.k.a Illum. Nevermind the complete crapfest that actual world PvP was on PvP servers, you cant get a more carebear S#&$ system. Or take Battlefield and Battlefront as examples where PvE love is as far from the truth as it can get.

How many EA game have great PvP along with great PvE? Is there even a single one? Anthem is an overhyped mess most likely, following the footsteps of Destiny 2 and FO76. Probably slightly worse due to it being ruined by EA.

[demoxis]

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I wasnt the one who brought up numbers to begin with. Someone did it to try and make the PvP playerbase look bigger than it is. All we know for sure is that out of all the players only a small margin has any interest in PvP. And who are you exactly refering to with your "mass exodus" scrying? It cant be the PvPers because 1% or so of the players isnt exactly a mass and it cant really be the few people that have been around since the beginning, because as you say they are few.

And I find it straight up silly to claim that EA gives players love in both PvE and PvP. Just look at ToR, it had one unique PvP mode that was fun and one completely broken mess of "open world PvP inspired by RvR from DaoC" a.k.a Illum. Nevermind the complete crapfest that actual world PvP was on PvP servers, you cant get a more carebear S#&$ system. Or take Battlefield and Battlefront as examples where PvE love is as far from the truth as it can get.

How many EA game have great PvP along with great PvE? Is there even a single one? Anthem is an overhyped mess most likely, following the footsteps of Destiny 2 and FO76. Probably slightly worse due to it being ruined by EA.

You are purposely missing the point. 

A half cocked game like destiny consistently pulls gamers away from warframe which is sad considering warframe is older and more developed except for pvp which is a straight embarrassment. If they were going to introduce the mode to begin with why would they let it embarrass them? 

 

[SneakyErvin]

15 hours ago, demoxis said:

You are purposely missing the point. 

A half cocked game like destiny consistently pulls gamers away from warframe which is sad considering warframe is older and more developed except for pvp which is a straight embarrassment. If they were going to introduce the mode to begin with why would they let it embarrass them? 

 

That highly depends on which players they pull away. If it is old gamers then obviously they wanna try something new. I've been playing WF for a year and a few months now and needed something else to do besides only WF. So I picked up PoE and enjoy that quite alot, because it is different from WF. Likely the same reason people play Destiny, because it is different from WF. It may look sci-fi, it may smell sci-fi but it isnt WF. Kinda like the whole "duhr Anthem!" hype and how it will be the next WF. The games have nothing incommon besides being sci-fi based games with mechanical "suits".

It is like saying WF and Firefall are the same or Path and D3.

PvP is not the reason people play Destiny instead of WF. I also hardly think that Conclave is an embarrasment to DE. They should have know it was a very steep uphill battle to make it popular from the get go given how the movement works in WF etc. Heck people stay away from CoD because it has too much parkour compared to all other shooters out there.

[Aramil999]

If you guys like it or not
STALKER MODE is coming this year! 😄
Confirmed by DERebbeca in Prime Time #233
😄 😄
best day in my life, well... best day will be when this thing is shipped 😄

link for non-belivers:

 

[demoxis]

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

That highly depends on which players they pull away. If it is old gamers then obviously they wanna try something new. I've been playing WF for a year and a few months now and needed something else to do besides only WF. So I picked up PoE and enjoy that quite alot, because it is different from WF. Likely the same reason people play Destiny, because it is different from WF. It may look sci-fi, it may smell sci-fi but it isnt WF. Kinda like the whole "duhr Anthem!" hype and how it will be the next WF. The games have nothing incommon besides being sci-fi based games with mechanical "suits".

It is like saying WF and Firefall are the same or Path and D3.

PvP is not the reason people play Destiny instead of WF. I also hardly think that Conclave is an embarrasment to DE. They should have know it was a very steep uphill battle to make it popular from the get go given how the movement works in WF etc. Heck people stay away from CoD because it has too much parkour compared to all other shooters out there.

Take a look at my profile been around a while and I am still loyal to Warframe as burned out as I am from killing the same enemy over and over with ease. Warframe when I first started playing it was years ahead of any other game. It has taken until January of 2019 for a single game to get close to Warframe in its style. The fast paced movement and combo of weapons to melee was so far ahead of everyone it wasnt even funny but they didn't capitalize. 

Here is the reality of what just hit the deck. I implemented my speed I learned in warframe to anthem. Anthem is as fast paced as warframe and if they implement pvp and succeed warframe will be outmatched and will lose a lot of money to anthem. Its EA so you know the transactions will be there. 

What will Digital Extremes drop? A mode that will be removed because we have monster conclavers that will completely annihilate any of your silly pve guys and people will come to the forums and cry about. We can already call it. 

[SneakyErvin]

38 minutes ago, demoxis said:

Take a look at my profile been around a while and I am still loyal to Warframe as burned out as I am from killing the same enemy over and over with ease. Warframe when I first started playing it was years ahead of any other game. It has taken until January of 2019 for a single game to get close to Warframe in its style. The fast paced movement and combo of weapons to melee was so far ahead of everyone it wasnt even funny but they didn't capitalize. 

Here is the reality of what just hit the deck. I implemented my speed I learned in warframe to anthem. Anthem is as fast paced as warframe and if they implement pvp and succeed warframe will be outmatched and will lose a lot of money to anthem. Its EA so you know the transactions will be there. 

What will Digital Extremes drop? A mode that will be removed because we have monster conclavers that will completely annihilate any of your silly pve guys and people will come to the forums and cry about. We can already call it. 

You expect too much from EA. They've failed to provide us with good games for years, why should Anthem change that? Dont forget what EA have said, that all future content for Anthem will be free... yeah, EA+free... that will not end well. You will either see them back down on that promise and be Destiny 2 2.0 with bad release content and expensive expansion packs to fix it Activi$ion style, or they'll keep it free and never to be seen.

I mean we are talking about the company that takes a year or more after release to fix gamebreaking issues, the company that fails to provide you with a good product even with a $100 pricetag, we are taking about the company that failed so horribly with Sim City that they had to give away free games just to not lose too many customers or suffer massive purchase returns. They may call themselves Electronic Arts, they just missed a Con in between those words. Atleast Bethesda means well mostly, they are just incompetent, EA doesnt have the first excuse to make up for the other problem.

[demoxis]

15 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You expect too much from EA. They've failed to provide us with good games for years, why should Anthem change that? Dont forget what EA have said, that all future content for Anthem will be free... yeah, EA+free... that will not end well. You will either see them back down on that promise and be Destiny 2 2.0 with bad release content and expensive expansion packs to fix it Activi$ion style, or they'll keep it free and never to be seen.

I mean we are talking about the company that takes a year or more after release to fix gamebreaking issues, the company that fails to provide you with a good product even with a $100 pricetag, we are taking about the company that failed so horribly with Sim City that they had to give away free games just to not lose too many customers or suffer massive purchase returns. They may call themselves Electronic Arts, they just missed a Con in between those words. Atleast Bethesda means well mostly, they are just incompetent, EA doesnt have the first excuse to make up for the other problem.

When Warframe started we had these founder packs that went from like $20 to around $250 if memory serves. If you go into the Relays and jump up above you have a running list of people who I believe were grand master founders who gave the top amount of money. Digital Extremes got a very generous boost to get this game off the ground. 

I'm not advertising for EA but they have a product that can compete and as I said it's the first time ive seen anything similar to warframe be released. Up until now Warframe was a stand alone game. Anthem is strictly pve but who knows what will happen. 

My concern is it will eclipse warframe and all the time, effort, and money ive invested will he for nothing as Warframe loses out because it couldnt capitize with their stuff inspite of being darn well 6 years ahead of everyone. 

[SneakyErvin]

15 minutes ago, demoxis said:

When Warframe started we had these founder packs that went from like $20 to around $250 if memory serves. If you go into the Relays and jump up above you have a running list of people who I believe were grand master founders who gave the top amount of money. Digital Extremes got a very generous boost to get this game off the ground. 

I'm not advertising for EA but they have a product that can compete and as I said it's the first time ive seen anything similar to warframe be released. Up until now Warframe was a stand alone game. Anthem is strictly pve but who knows what will happen. 

My concern is it will eclipse warframe and all the time, effort, and money ive invested will he for nothing as Warframe loses out because it couldnt capitize with their stuff inspite of being darn well 6 years ahead of everyone. 

Cant really compare founders packs to what is supposed to be a finalized product. WF will never be a finalized product, the devs have stressed that time and time again, it is an ongoing project, the reason why they keep calling it beta.

I think Anthem will compete for a while, until it stops dead in the water like Destiny 2. Both those games need proper activities because they are not open ended. In WF you set your own goals to achieve what you want, in Dest2 and Anthem there will be a strict progression with an impending end unless new content with proper progression gets released constantly. As I said before, the games are very different from WF, they only share the look. The reasons to play them are just worlds apart. WF isnt and wont be the run of the mill arpg/looter shooter, it just has a far different system setup, a system I enjoy, hence why I play it.

After over 2k hours spent I'm still not at the point saying to myself "there is nothing to do". Few games have managed to last that long while still having something left to do. So my expectations for Anthem is that it is a game that will last a month or two before people are done with the end-game, then they'll be back here waiting for the next "WF killer". We had it with Destiny 2, and we have it now with Anthem, from publishers that give jack about their players.

[demoxis]

15 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Cant really compare founders packs to what is supposed to be a finalized product. WF will never be a finalized product, the devs have stressed that time and time again, it is an ongoing project, the reason why they keep calling it beta.

I think Anthem will compete for a while, until it stops dead in the water like Destiny 2. Both those games need proper activities because they are not open ended. In WF you set your own goals to achieve what you want, in Dest2 and Anthem there will be a strict progression with an impending end unless new content with proper progression gets released constantly. As I said before, the games are very different from WF, they only share the look. The reasons to play them are just worlds apart. WF isnt and wont be the run of the mill arpg/looter shooter, it just has a far different system setup, a system I enjoy, hence why I play it.

After over 2k hours spent I'm still not at the point saying to myself "there is nothing to do". Few games have managed to last that long while still having something left to do. So my expectations for Anthem is that it is a game that will last a month or two before people are done with the end-game, then they'll be back here waiting for the next "WF killer". We had it with Destiny 2, and we have it now with Anthem, from publishers that give jack about their 

So I'm guessing you dont or havent done pvp much. 

We see three things. 

1. Never tried pvp but listened to others trash it. 

2. Tried and got wrecked and never touched again

3. Tried it for a week but still got destroyed so immediately hated it since you dont have the patience to keep practicing. 

 

Which is it?

[MystMan]

5 hours ago, demoxis said:

We see three things. 

1. Never tried pvp but listened to others trash it. 

2. Tried and got wrecked and never touched again

3. Tried it for a week but still got destroyed so immediately hated it since you dont have the patience to keep practicing. 

 

There are also a fourth and fifth that are brought up many times:

4. Waste time in lobbies trying to find a game.  Some people just live in the wrong time zone / have the wrong playing hours, resulting in them never meeting the active pvp crowd during peak hours. A game mode that requires you to be online during a specific period of time in the day to be playable is not a very overall populated game mode. When it becomes possible to play Lunaro or capture the Cephalon and find full lobbies right away at any hour of any day in every time zone, then you have grounds to claim it is well populated.

5. For many this isn't their type of pvp. It's too fast for them and they are not having fun. The argument ends right here and you have to respect others' opinions who honestly gave it a shot and never came back. At this point you have to either accept that the slower pace that every other pvp out there has is the norm, or you can insult people with "git gut" comments which doesn't help your case, in fact it sabotages it. Hence why a suggestion that pops up often is a slower paced "Grineer vs Corpus" mode. There is a reason you don't find many super-fast parkouring pvp games out there. The demand just isn't that high for such type of pvp to gain traction and attain a sustainable player base.

 

And comparing Anthem to Warframe is pointless.  Free2play vs pay2play.  Completely different accessibility. 

EDIT:  SneakyErvin made some solid points in that last post. Except you didn't address any of it, you did an ad hominem attack instead.

Edited January 28, 2019 by MystMan

[SneakyErvin]

8 hours ago, demoxis said:

So I'm guessing you dont or havent done pvp much. 

We see three things. 

1. Never tried pvp but listened to others trash it. 

2. Tried and got wrecked and never touched again

3. Tried it for a week but still got destroyed so immediately hated it since you dont have the patience to keep practicing. 

 

Which is it?

You quoted what I said and came to those questions?

This has all been covered before and has nothing to do what we discussed, which was the flaws of Dest2 and Anthems need for actual end-game content on a regular basis compared to the open ended game that is WF. That along with scum companies holding those two games at gunpoint about what to do. Well Destiny 2 may actually manage to progress now that Bungy went their own way. But the game is already dented and tarnished from the Activision association.

But to actually answer you unlike what you did it is simple. It is a mix of your 2. 3 aswell as point 4, 5 from the poster above aswell as a point 6 and 7 that includes smaller than CoD maps and same old objectives as any other game. This mix simply has no appeal. Why wait in a queue for a game mode I can play near instantly in any other game, on reliable connections at that, with movement and gunplay that feels balanced, on maps that are of decent to large size that also gives you the option to goof around. Not to mention, in some of those games I can also use air or ground vehicles, or fill them with jeep-stuff for some suicide runs or simple booby-trapping.

WF simply has nothing unique to their PvP except massively twitchy gameplay that can even drive me nauseaus. If you play on the simulacrum map the nausea gets even worse due to the extreme contrasts on the map between black and white. And this happens to me, a person with zero medical conditions. I mean it has happened to me once before in a game in 20+ years and that was DayZ Standalone, not due to bright contrasting graphics or twitchy gameplay, it happened due to extreme fluctuations in FPS there.

edit: Also it seems like you mentioned something earlier related to the news of Stalker mode. The line about "silly PvErs or something". When Stalker mode arrives I will give it a try, but most likely I will turn it off to avoid people exploiting it to the fullest. With how it seems to be set up there are lots of loopholes opening up for exploitable gameplay that wouldnt be a thing with PvE Stalker. Things unrealted to actual PvP. I'm simply expecting another hit and miss content releases with sub 1% participation from the community. Atleast that 1% that is into PvP can have a blast with it as they PvE... no wait, someone in this thread previously stated that the majority of those that PvP in WF only do PvP. So Stalker will be kinda pointless, because they will only wanna play Stalker and avoid the PvE missions.

Edited January 28, 2019 by SneakyErvin

[Aramil999]

Well, Stalker Mode is coming this year, so let't hope it will bring more players to Conclave and DE will fix some problems of Conclave. 

Stalker Mode will be very popular, that im sure about. Can't wait 😉

[demoxis]

On 2019-01-28 at 7:37 AM, SneakyErvin said:

WF simply has nothing unique to their PvP except massively twitchy gameplay that can even drive me nauseaus. If you play on the simulacrum map the nausea gets even worse due to the extreme contrasts on the map between black and white. And this happens to me, a person with zero medical conditions. I mean it has happened to me once before in a game in 20+ years and that was DayZ Standalone, not due to bright contrasting graphics or twitchy gameplay, it happened due to extreme fluctuations in FPS there.

Actually thats untrue. Solar rails is unique but my friends every time they asked in one of the latest dev streams they got moderated immediately. Also their pvp was unique even more so that armored core. It's a squandered opportunity. 

[SneakyErvin]

17 minutes ago, demoxis said:

Actually thats untrue. Solar rails is unique but my friends every time they asked in one of the latest dev streams they got moderated immediately. Also their pvp was unique even more so that armored core. It's a squandered opportunity. 

Not truely unique. It was a mish-mash of faction based PvP ideas and MOBAs at the time, just with a little twist. It also doesnt change that the movement in WF isnt that great if you want a popular PvP game or mode.

What part of Solar Rails do you think was unique?

[(NSW)jja209]

I think having pvp is a good thing it gives the players more choices on what they want to do.

[EmberStar]

On 2019-01-14 at 11:44 AM, MJ12 said:

Same argument, and frankly Go has the same relation to Warframe's core gameplay as PvP does.

Actually, given the Eastern (Chinese/Japanese) flavor of a lot of the lore, I'd say that adding Go probably has a bit stronger claim.  Plus, we've actually seen in-story lore relating to a (very simplified) variation of Go.  Maybe there's a similar amount of Lore with Teshin, I couldn't say.  I have less than zero interest in PVP and have only seen Teshin in the War Within story missions.

The downside to adding a full game of Go is that you apparently need some serious AI scripting for a properly challenging NPC opponent.  The version we saw in The Sacrifice was a much, much smaller board and usually only allowed you to play out very limited moves.  I'd need to check, but I think a couple of the "supposed to lose" beats actually only gave you a choice of two or three equally awful counter-moves.

Of course they could do what they did with Frame Fighter and skip any AI to have it strictly between two human opponents.  I'm not sure how they could avoid the same result as Frame Fighter though.  Where people collect the unlockables, mess with the mode for a couple of days, and then immediately forget it ever existed.