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

[demoxis]

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'm still confused how people here think PvP will ever get popular in WF. After 4 attempts at different types of PvP it would be quite obvious that it isnt what the WF community is looking for at all.

I would ask you read my comment friend. 

[SneakyErvin]

15 minutes ago, demoxis said:

I would like to point out a few things. 1. You started this game in 2017 my friend after solar rails was done and gone and all you have heard are regurgitated opinions from people. 

2. The old "nobody plays it" answer doesnt hold water. Nobody plays it because DE doesnt invest themselves in PVP as much as they could or in trending games pvp is huge. COD (all of them), D1&D2, Smite, pubg, fortnite, mortal kombat, killer instinct,  and for honor all make MASSIVE amounts of money off of pvp. All of these games quite frankly I feel are inferior to Warframe on the simple matter is they have been done before. Cod and destiny are your average fps pubg and fortnite and the same old battle royal over and over again yet they are profitable. 

3. There are a group of us that were around in the beginning. We remember when the orbiter wasn't as cool, things were bugged, 3 tile sets where you kicked in the same vent, we had a handful of warframes, no dojo or relays, raids, rails, rivens, sorties, plains, fortuna, the works. This game was literally nothing. Nobody gave a crap about this game. However since Digital Extremes put effort into its pve and its overall content, it has become one of the most successful games in the world that is free to play and download. Over the years I have spent more than the $50 I put in just to get the excal prime it's in the 1000s because I truly love this game and have invested in it some might say. I have come to enjoy pvp because it's really the only challenge I can find in the game but it's as undeveloped as pve used to be. Sure it's cool but it could be WAY more. 

If you found any of this insulting it was not my intent friend. 

I've had plenty of experience with guild vs guild PvP in other more balanced games to understand just what a dumpsterfire rail PvP was. It was no wonder that it got canned.

You are missing a huge point in #2. Those games were designed from the ground up as PvP experiences. You are kinda in Blizzard territory here "mobile games make massive amounts of money, lets make a diablo for mobile!". People buy and play those game only for the PvP (and zombies in CoD), no one is expecting PvE in those games besides in Fortnite. Not every game needs PvP to be successful, just as not every game needs PvE to be successful either. You get mediocre S#&$e when either is implemented as an afterthought. Look at Overwatch, Battlefront, Battlefield, CoD and even Tekken, the PvE in those games are a joke because they are focused on the player vs player experience with a side dish of PvE just for the sake of it.

In point #3 you miss the part that this game was made as a PvE game, it was worth it for them to improve the PvE. Good PvE games are hard to come by these days, good PvP games not so much. If DE are interested in gaining more players by improving PvP they have a massive uphill battle, something they didnt have when it came to the PvE part. Same reason why Path of Exile succeeded so well after their initial release even though that game was lacking hard. Neither had any real competition and had the time to improve in the right way.

It will be a massive upphill battle for WF if they were to try and make PvP great. Even if they were to get stable connections a good netcode and perfect balance I would still not play it due to the movement and combat of WF. It is simply not what I'm looking for in PvP. The arena type maps is also another big no for me. Even Overwatch gets me bummed out about the map sizes at times and the complete lack of asshattery options. I prefer large scale and open world PvP along with non-twitchy combat, something that WF will never be able to provide. I'm sure there are many others that feel exactly the same, maybe not regarding map sizes, but regarding the type of combat the game offers.

[(XBOX)Dark SalvationX]

On 2019-01-16 at 6:58 PM, MJ12 said:

I think a side point which isn't talked about much here is that both LoL and Overwatch spend a lot of effort and money on dealing with people being jerks and toxic behavior, and yet, well, everyone's heard the stories about how their playerbase is basically a gigantic cesspit made of other, smaller, more putrid cesspits. I mean as much as memeing about 'inharmonious chatrooms' is a thing there's a truth to that in how the chat and community environment in PvP games has been pretty toxic in general even since before computer games were a thing.

Everyone's probably heard the stories of how seriously people and parents take high school football. You might not think it's a "PvP game" but it totally is, it's just not played on a computer, and you end up seeing much of the same behavior, moderated only by the fact that if you're too toxic in real life, you can get thrown in jail or punched in the face. Competition can often bring out the worst in people, particularly in environments where the competition 'matters'-and something as small as a number going up makes things matter to people.

How is it unfair to say that PvP brings toxicity? There's actually been studies on videogame violence which have shown that gore and violence onscreen don't make people more violent, but stressful competitive games do. 

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/08/video-games.aspx

And remember, PvP players aren't siloed off in their own game. These attitudes aren't contained, they spread throughout the game's social ecosystem as the PvP players also engage in PvE activities, but their anger and resentment has been activated due to PvP and might well shine through to even those (as it did in the above experiment). Attitudes, good and bad, are contagious.

It depends on the age group generally, fortnight is a childs game, easy difficulty attracts more young players while a much harder to play game will have older smarter players. but if more pvp players come to wf its still more people more money to de more content for you savage AI slayers..

A real pvp/pve mode would not hurt your pve experience in warfame if you choose not to play the pvp witch i assumeyou do already... Unless anyone besides you getting there way is to much to ask.

 

[SneakyErvin]

5 hours ago, (XB1)Dark SalvationX said:

-Snip-

 

"Just fine"? 40+ millions accounts created, 200k+ concurrent players on PC. Yep that is indeed "just fine" /s.

This game would never pull more people by shifting over to develop some "good" PvP mode, it would likely lose disgruntled players in the process. The only games with a ratio where the PvP community is greater than the PvE one is in games that are designed for PvP. Either by being pure PvP games like CoD and BF or hybrids with full open world/frontier PvP like Black Desert, ArcheAge and old DaoC.

Not even GW2 which was based around mass scale PvP had a higher PvP:PvE player ratio. They actually had to make even more PvE content like raids to make the players happy while holding back on PvP. And the GW2 PvP was about as good as PvP can actually get. Near perfect balance among the classes, great map setup and so on.

[----Legacy----]

45 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Netcode for PvP would not help PvE. The netcode for PvE is already good.

The netcode is exactly the same lol.

Quote

Honestly, how often do you miss to land a shot in PvE or how often do you fail to dodge a shot/melee in PvE? I'd say never. Whenever it happens it is due to ping or the host, doing something with the netcode wouldnt help in that regard.

And that shows that the netcode should be improved, having stuff such as weapon swap, calling operator and even opening doors being host dependant doesn't help you to claim that the netcode is good, even less when sometimes doors will refuse to open to clients because they are out of sync and the hosts detects them stuck in a place far away from where they actually are.

Quote

PvE isnt prone to the issues of lacking netcode like PvP.

But you just said that most of the times you miss a shot "it happens due to ping or the host" why are you contradicting yourself like that?

Quote

Just look at BF4, it took them a year or so to fix the netcode in online games, there was never an issue in the PvE campaign.

Why would they even need netcode for single player content that can be locally hosted? You are basically claiming that the network is fine because it works in solo gameplay while omitting that it isn't even needed there in the first place 

Quote

In PvP you could get hit behind a wall 2 seconds after getting behind it, now that is poor netcode.

That's host advantage mitigation added to client sided hit registration, so as long as you are hitting enemies in your end, they will take the damage on theirs. No need to lead to your shots in an attempt to guess where the enemy is based on lag and current position or trajectory.

45 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'm a major PvPer myself and I've never felt a need for PvP to be added to every single game out there.

Care to tell what pvp games have you played and enjoyed? It's easy to throw an empty statement without any kind of backup or at least an example. It's like if i suddenly went out of my way to claim that i am the Queen of Canada and started demanding to DE to work depending on what i want despite what others can think.

Quote

Warframe just happens to be exactly one of those where it isnt needed and it would be too much work to implement something that isnt just mindless S#&$s n' giggles PvP.

It's not about implementig something new since pvp is already here, but about dedicating a really small amount of resources to polish it instead.

Quote

I repeat DE have tried it 4 times already and none of them have been successful and one has been removed completely.

Pvp 1.0 was an unbalanced mess.

Solar rails were shut down because of the toxic politics behind them leading to exploitative practices by the bigger alliances (aside of being an unbalanced mess)

Pvp 2.0 made gear actually balanced, has dedicated servers, a sports mode, but fun enough people seem to hate on it simply because it's balanced and they can't use their rivens to insta kill anything with a stray bullet.

45 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Not a slippery slope at all if you bothered to read what I've already said a few times. Conclave should stay and get maintained just as it is now, with new weapons and frames being balanced for it when they are released.

"As it is now"? Not even revenant has been added to pvp; most of the new weapons are in the same situation; and zaws, the most unbalanced weapons available right now are still usable in there despite feedback asking for their removal since their first day in pvp. As you can see, not even maintenance has been going on.

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by ----Legacy----

[(XBOX)Dark SalvationX]

1 minute ago, SneakyErvin said:

"Just fine"? 40+ millions accounts created, 200k+ concurrent players on PC. Yep that is indeed "just fine" /s.

This game would never pull more people by shifting over to develop some "good" PvP mode, it would likely lose disgruntled players in the process. The only games with a ratio where the PvP community is greater than the PvE one is in games that are designed for PvP. Either by being pure PvP games like CoD and BF or hybrids with full open world/frontier PvP like Black Desert, ArcheAge and old DaoC.

Not even GW2 which was based around mass scale PvP had a higher PvP:PvE player ratio. They actually had to make even more PvE content like raids to make the players happy while holding back on PvP.

Let me ask you one simple question. Did you play solar rails?

 

[(XBOX)Dark SalvationX]

I think the game has made enough progress to bring back rail maybe different if necessary. I know alot of people that loved. Some never played again.

 

 

[demoxis]

13 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I've had plenty of experience with guild vs guild PvP in other more balanced games to understand just what a dumpsterfire rail PvP was. It was no wonder that it got canned.

You are missing a huge point in #2. Those games were designed from the ground up as PvP experiences. You are kinda in Blizzard territory here "mobile games make massive amounts of money, lets make a diablo for mobile!". People buy and play those game only for the PvP (and zombies in CoD), no one is expecting PvE in those games besides in Fortnite. Not every game needs PvP to be successful, just as not every game needs PvE to be successful either. You get mediocre S#&$e when either is implemented as an afterthought. Look at Overwatch, Battlefront, Battlefield, CoD and even Tekken, the PvE in those games are a joke because they are focused on the player vs player experience with a side dish of PvE just for the sake of it.

In point #3 you miss the part that this game was made as a PvE game, it was worth it for them to improve the PvE. Good PvE games are hard to come by these days, good PvP games not so much. If DE are interested in gaining more players by improving PvP they have a massive uphill battle, something they didnt have when it came to the PvE part. Same reason why Path of Exile succeeded so well after their initial release even though that game was lacking hard. Neither had any real competition and had the time to improve in the right way.

It will be a massive upphill battle for WF if they were to try and make PvP great. Even if they were to get stable connections a good netcode and perfect balance I would still not play it due to the movement and combat of WF. It is simply not what I'm looking for in PvP. The arena type maps is also another big no for me. Even Overwatch gets me bummed out about the map sizes at times and the complete lack of asshattery options. I prefer large scale and open world PvP along with non-twitchy combat, something that WF will never be able to provide. I'm sure there are many others that feel exactly the same, maybe not regarding map sizes, but regarding the type of combat the game offers.

You have never participated in rails nor felt what a lot of us felt after a hard fought win. I've never felt that in any other game. When rails worked properly boy did it work. Solar rails system doesn't exist anywhere in the world other than Warframe. You need to see more than a YouTube video to understand it. 

Since this post has so many views I think its an good time to address this argument.......just because a game is made more for pve or pvp doesnt mean you have to discount the other side. 3 games immediately come to mind. Both destiny games and the modern pokemon games. All of them are primarily pve yet they do have a very well developed pvp that gets a very sizable turn out. Its because those modes are developed and cared about. The other part of this is if Digital Extremes didnt want pvp they would have NEVER put it in the game to begin with. With the dojos since I was there the dueling was one of the first things they put in. Even now people fight eachother all the time. It would be odd to have a hack and slash gun ninja game where you cant fight other warframes it legitimately doesnt make sense. Pvp is part of this game whether pve purists like it or not. 

And to address the 3rd paragraph, I'm not coder or designer. However I do know about overlays and reskinning as well as recycling code. Most of what the devs have can be recycled, reworked, and reused. The entire solar rails system still exists in its undeveloped raw form we played on when xbox first got warframe. It will be an uphill battle to catch up to pve in development but we are not asking for that. Warframe is a one-of-a-kind game and if pvp is given love from a players perspective it will do very well because it has quite a few players in it for being neglected since practically titania and from a business stand point there is a lot of draw and money to be made if it grows and begins to compete with the bigger pvp games. Remember it takes a lot of time to progress in this game. If people want to be in pvp they need pve to get a lot of the weapons which most of the desired weapons are mastery locked so they have to play the game and most are impatient and will spend money.

*raises a guilty hand* 

So that being said as a company it is in their best interest to expand and develop their pvp which will draw more players and drive up sales of both packs and platinum. 

 

 

[(XBOX)Dark SalvationX]

I put alot of money in wf but if anthem gets its pvp b4 wf im just uninstalling wf.

Wont be coming back if its good enough.

 

[demoxis]

1 minute ago, (XB1)Dark SalvationX said:

I put alot of money in wf but if anthem gets its pvp b4 wf im just uninstalling wf.

Wont be coming back if its good enough.

 

Idk if I would go as far as uninstalling but anthem will def get more of my time. 

[(XBOX)Dark SalvationX]

1 minute ago, demoxis said:

Idk if I would go as far as uninstalling but anthem will def get more of my time. 

Im actually salty they said they will bring back raids and how they would never just remove part of the game for good on devstream. Like wow.

 

[SneakyErvin]

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

The netcode is exactly the same lol.

And that shows that the netcode should be improved, having stuff such as weapon swap, calling operator and even opening doors being host dependant doesn't help you to claim that the netcode is good, even less when sometimes doors will refuse to open to clients because they are out of sync and the hosts detects them stuck in a place far away from where they actually are.

But you just said that most of the times you miss a shot "it happens due to ping or the host" why are you contradicting yourself like that?

Why would they even need netcode for single player content that can be locally hosted? You are basically claiming that the network is fine for solo gameplay while omitting that it isn't even needed there in the first place 

That's host advantage mitigation added to client sided hit registration, so as long as you are hitting enemies in your end, they will take the damage on theirs. No need to lead to your shots in an attempt to guess where the enemy is based on lag and current position or trajectory.

Care to tell what pvp games have you played and enjoyed? It's easy to throw an empty statement without any kind of backup or at least an example. It's like if i suddenly went out of my way to claim that i am the Queen of Canada and started demanding to DE to work depending on what i want despite what others can think.

It's not about implementig something new since pvp is already here, but about dedicating a really small amount of resources to polish it instead.

Pvp 1.0 was an unbalanced mess.

Solar rails were shut down because of the toxic politics behind them leading to exploitative practices by the bigger alliances (aside of being an unbalanced mess)

Pvp 2.0 made gear actually balanced, has dedicated servers, a sports mode, but fun enough people seem to hate on it simply because it's balanced and they can't use their rivens to insta kill anything with a stray bullet.

"As it is now"? Not even revenant has been added to pvp; most of the new weapons are in the same situation; and zaws, the most unbalanced weapons available right now are still usable in there despite feedback asking for their removal since their first day in pvp. As you can see, not even maintenance has been going on.

 

The netcode will never work as it should not matter how much they fiddle with it unless they implement dedicated servers for PvE too. So an improvement to it is still prone to player-to-player connections, so in essence a waste of time. It will be prone to the same issues in PvP aslong there isnt a surefire way to get good connections through matchmaking. Something that might not be an issue now, with few PvPers actually queueing. But if the numbers increase, those issues will happen more and more because more players will be in the queue, slaves to the matchmaking system.

As for PvP games I've enjoyed. DaoC, SWG, WaR, BF 1942 and onward to 4 with a few in between not played, C&C Renegade, Tribes, Tribes 2, Mechwarrior Online, GW2, WoW, BFront 1+2, DICE BFront, Halo, Ghost Recon, MoHAA, ToR, Delta Force, FNBR, Overwatch, Quake, Unreal T, Blood Bowl, ArcheAge, Black Desert (horrible netcode!) and a crapload of fighter games etc. Those are some I've enjoyed PvP in for one reason or another since they all bring something to the table.

And just as you describe with solar rails it is exactly what I expected as the reason for their shutdown. It is there in all GvG or RvR games, resources are needed to handle it or fix it so it doesnt happen. Likely too much time and resources needed for them to get it inline, so easier to just shut it down (just like they did with trials).

If maintenance isnt going on in conclave that should be an indication that PvP isnt widely used or something they wanna prioritize and spend any resources on unless it is just some very basic needs. Maybe it would take took much time and resources to fiddle with Rev to get him working right in conclave. Also if that little maintenance is too much, how would they ever keep up with a "real" PvP mode?

[Remy_Lacroix]

hace 20 minutos, SneakyErvin dijo:

"Just fine"? 40+ millions accounts created, 200k+ concurrent players on PC. Yep that is indeed "just fine" /s.

Do you realize that even 400K (twice the amount you gave) concurrent players out of 40 millions of registered accounts (the smallest number provided by yourself) turns out to mean that only the 1% of created accounts is still active? Even if 400K players is a huge number, "nobody is playing warframe" when compared to how many players have made an account in it, and that means that a lot of warframe's potential is going to waste.

[demoxis]

6 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

The netcode will never work as it should not matter how much they fiddle with it unless they implement dedicated servers for PvE too. So an improvement to it is still prone to player-to-player connections, so in essence a waste of time. It will be prone to the same issues in PvP aslong there isnt a surefire way to get good connections through matchmaking. Something that might not be an issue now, with few PvPers actually queueing. But if the numbers increase, those issues will happen more and more because more players will be in the queue, slaves to the matchmaking system.

As for PvP games I've enjoyed. DaoC, SWG, WaR, BF 1942 and onward to 4 with a few in between not played, C&C Renegade, Tribes, Tribes 2, Mechwarrior Online, GW2, WoW, BFront 1+2, DICE BFront, Halo, Ghost Recon, MoHAA, ToR, Delta Force, FNBR, Overwatch, Quake, Unreal T, Blood Bowl, ArcheAge, Black Desert (horrible netcode!) and a crapload of fighter games etc. Those are some I've enjoyed PvP in for one reason or another since they all bring something to the table.

And just as you describe with solar rails it is exactly what I expected as the reason for their shutdown. It is there in all GvG or RvR games, resources are needed to handle it or fix it so it doesnt happen. Likely too much time and resources needed for them to get it inline, so easier to just shut it down (just like they did with trials).

If maintenance isnt going on in conclave that should be an indication that PvP isnt widely used or something they wanna prioritize and spend any resources on unless it is just some very basic needs. Maybe it would take took much time and resources to fiddle with Rev to get him working right in conclave. Also if that little maintenance is too much, how would they ever keep up with a "real" PvP mode?

I've said all that needs to be said. You can't be convinced what we want friend. You have these embedded preconceptions concerning what this game is/was/will be and that's ok. We who enjoy pvp will continue protesting to DE to get some love tossed in our direction as we have come to know. 

[SneakyErvin]

11 minutes ago, demoxis said:

You have never participated in rails nor felt what a lot of us felt after a hard fought win. I've never felt that in any other game. When rails worked properly boy did it work. Solar rails system doesn't exist anywhere in the world other than Warframe. You need to see more than a YouTube video to understand it. 

Since this post has so many views I think its an good time to address this argument.......just because a game is made more for pve or pvp doesnt mean you have to discount the other side. 3 games immediately come to mind. Both destiny games and the modern pokemon games. All of them are primarily pve yet they do have a very well developed pvp that gets a very sizable turn out. Its because those modes are developed and cared about. The other part of this is if Digital Extremes didnt want pvp they would have NEVER put it in the game to begin with. With the dojos since I was there the dueling was one of the first things they put in. Even now people fight eachother all the time. It would be odd to have a hack and slash gun ninja game where you cant fight other warframes it legitimately doesnt make sense. Pvp is part of this game whether pve purists like it or not. 

And to address the 3rd paragraph, I'm not coder or designer. However I do know about overlays and reskinning as well as recycling code. Most of what the devs have can be recycled, reworked, and reused. The entire solar rails system still exists in its undeveloped raw form we played on when xbox first got warframe. It will be an uphill battle to catch up to pve in development but we are not asking for that. Warframe is a one-of-a-kind game and if pvp is given love from a players perspective it will do very well because it has quite a few players in it for being neglected since practically titania and from a business stand point there is a lot of draw and money to be made if it grows and begins to compete with the bigger pvp games. Remember it takes a lot of time to progress in this game. If people want to be in pvp they need pve to get a lot of the weapons which most of the desired weapons are mastery locked so they have to play the game and most are impatient and will spend money.

*raises a guilty hand* 

So that being said as a company it is in their best interest to expand and develop their pvp which will draw more players and drive up sales of both packs and platinum. 

All the games you mentioned and mention had PvP in the core design. In WF it was just an afterthought for the sake of having PvP (since it was everywhere at the time). Just as they just burped out Lunaro when Rocket League was popular.

No matter how you look at it, they need to switch manpower and resources from one place to work on PvP, or they need to hire more people to work on it, meaning even more resources are spent on something that hasnt worked the "first" 4 times it was done, although one of those were free and a hobby project. Either way they are risking alot on it and are probably very careful with 4 failed attempts and a 5th one (stalker mode) already getting alot of negativity. If they go with option A, switching manpower and resources they runt he risk of losing current players due to PvE being put on hold, with option B they risk losing resources on it will little gained in return.

It is all just about copy paste of old S#&$, alot has happened with the game since then and many of the dark sector tiles very likely needs a massive update before being re-released as usable assets. 

[SneakyErvin]

9 minutes ago, demoxis said:

I've said all that needs to be said. You can't be convinced what we want friend. You have these embedded preconceptions concerning what this game is/was/will be and that's ok. We who enjoy pvp will continue protesting to DE to get some love tossed in our direction as we have come to know. 

You really think they'll waste resources on less than 1% of the playerbase when they even decided to pull the plug on trials because it was too costly compared to the usage (2-3% of the playerbase).

I who enjoy PvP will simply play a game where PvP isnt an afterthought. 

[SneakyErvin]

13 minutes ago, Remy_Lacroix said:

Do you realize that even 400K (twice the amount you gave) concurrent players out of 40 millions of registered accounts (the smallest number provided by yourself) turns out to mean that only the 1% of created accounts is still active? Even if 400K players is a huge number, "nobody is playing warframe" when compared to how many players have made an account in it, and that means that a lot of warframe's potential is going to waste.

Please learn what concurrent numbers are before trying to lecture people. 200k concurrent means 200k players at any time of the day (not including consoles). It doesnt mean 200k total active players. You are looking at a few millions (4-5 would be my guess) passing through the game each and every day.

[demoxis]

6 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Please learn what concurrent numbers are before trying to lecture people. 200k concurrent means 200k players at any time of the day (not including consoles). It doesnt mean 200k total active players. You are looking at a few millions (4-5 would be my guess) passing through the game each and every day.

4.99 x 200k is nearly a million dollars and that's as you said.....not counting console if they purchase the 75 platinum pack. Its going to be significantly higher considering the most popular is the $20 pack and a lot of us get prime access which is over $80. You can say what you want but Digital Extremes will make its money back in development and then some. 

And with that.....I'm going back to the shadows. 

Edited January 18, 2019 by demoxis

[Remy_Lacroix]

hace 16 minutos, SneakyErvin dijo:

Please learn what concurrent numbers are before trying to lecture people. 200k concurrent means 200k players at any time of the day (not including consoles). It doesnt mean 200k total active players. You are looking at a few millions (4-5 would be my guess) passing through the game each and every day.

You yourself used 200K on PC as an example (which i'd rather see as a believable value since warframe's all time peak on steam charts is ~132K) and that's exactly why i doubled down on that, to make up for the rest of consoles. However, if you arbitrarily talk about 4-5 millions without proof of it, that's barely 10% of the created accounts based on a value given months ago (42 Millions and growing), which still says that warframe's player retention is awful.

[Loxyen]

On 2019-01-11 at 5:54 PM, Firetempest said:

This is two years old.

To waste time, money, resources you need interest. Interest needs content. Catch 22 and they were already burned by lunaro.

Thats freaking blindfolded. You know what happens when Warframe is going to be a decent thing to watch on stream? More big streamers are tempted to check it out, while introducing their huge audience to the game. Idk where you see a waste of time and money, but I see a huge influx in DE's and the ingame traders pockets... smh

[(XBOX)Molag Malphas]

I absolutely love this games pvp but it needs more love by DE this game mode could use more maps more modes (Not like lunoro) like a domination mode or a seek and destroy mode or even something like grifball or a big scale battle similar to battlefields conquest then there’s the balancing problems the arca plasmor you don’t even need to hit your target to kill the daikyu is almost always a one tap which they buffed it they upped its charge rate certain autos do to much dmg certain frames are useless to run in conclave the new weapons and frame you can’t even use like Garuda why can’t you use her she looks awesome 

[(PSN)Darth-Escar]

Yeah, I think something with both PVE and PVP would be highly beneficial. Warframe has had issues with implementing long-term content. The more dedicated players tend to play something new for about a month, maybe 2, and then it's no longer of use. AGGP mentioned this in one of his recent videos. We simply need something that's more suited for veterans. By nature, competitive content does provide that, but in pure PVE the best that can really be done is leaderboards. Leaderboards have some major flaws though. The boards themselves matter very little to people not near the of them, and with our current gear options, it's very hard for the devs to design something without extreme time investment or lack of depth. Most endurance missions, event or normal, are great examples of too much time investment for leaderboard spots, and elite sanctuary onslaught is a great example of being badly balanced, being all about Saryn or that one Trinity exploit.

PVP, on the other hand, temporarily makes isolated groups of players to be competitve with each other. Anyone can be a winner, but not everyone will be a winner. There is the possibility of competive PVE, something based on scores of some sort, but rather than a big leaderboard, you're compared to the others in your lobby. I highly doubt the devs could create a pure PVE without it being Saryn spam, something else hyper-centralized in accordance with what's most rewarding, disabling most gear options, or a major overall gear nerf rebalance. All are major issues, besides arguably the last one. (The devs are evidently not very good at balancing, so I think something requiring relatively few changes and bug fixes is ideal.) I'd be very interested in such a PVE mode if it could be pulled off well, but I doubt the possibility. PVP, of course, is mainly about reacting to the opponents' actions better than they do to yours, and so long as that exists, PVE doesn't need to be exempt from that. There are many opions to design and balance such a mode, and use it to reward skillful players. If done well, it would make for a truly excellent PVP experience, considering Warframe's current mechanics, especially movement.

To summarize, something with improved PVP would make for the long-term content that Warframe needs.

[Lonsfor]

I am a MR18 and close beta player and have neglected pvp all that time until recently. i think that Warframe, with its gunplay and movement, offers a unique pvp experience that you literally cant find anywhere else. its a real shame how it has been memed to dead course it can be fun ones you get the hang of it (and when the other players aren't using bs weps and abilities) .

[(XBOX)Tineda]

I’m a (relatively) new player myself, and while I’ve really enjoyed the PvE side of Warframe (super agile space ninjas with guns and swords, who wouldn’t love that?), I’ve only dabbled in the PvP side of the house.

Listening to clanmates of mine talk about Rails, I’m intrigued. It sounded like DE actually managed (and please pardon the comparison, but it’s just to illustrate the similarity) a large-scale PvEvP mode akin to Destiny 2’s Gambit.  I’ll admit, I play D2 PvP a lot more. Like, you’d maybe throw up in your mouth a little bit to look at the invested time; my point is, IF DE would bring back those particular modes of play, or polish up and maintain the others, I’d do my best to give them a fair amount of my time to see if it was something I’d play with a greater investment of time.

Do I want the PvP side to become the sole focus of DE’s work? No, not at all. But some love, ANY kind of love, just to see what it COULD be, would be something I’d embrace. But then again, I’m not about to go into ass-bleeding detail about what games and platforms I’ve played on to justify my opinion or observation on this topic. I just want DE to give us the best product they can because I love the shared universe they’ve created for us to play in.

[(XBOX)Bubba5234]

I played and stayed with this game for Rails. It was a fun mode that gave many of us a reason to Forma everything and get new weapons, but most of all, it gave Alliances a point. I’ve also played my fair share of Conclave and while it’s obviously not a large part of the community who play it, there is a loyal base to it. Would be nice for those who support this game and love an aspect of it, for them to get some love back. Please find some nice balance of PvP and PvE to mix together and give something for Alliances to work toward again.