Stalker mode ideas

[DatDarkOne]

2 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Mild disagreement.

If it's implemented as a Stalker Syndicate with a rewards table as oppose to just a random drop list, then that would be adding a form of content.

 

Not, like, a huge amount of content, but, yeah, technically a form of replayable content.

Fair enough.  The syndicate possibility slipped my mind.  

edit: That possibly shows just how much interest I have in the mode if the possibility of rewards don't faze me.  😁 

Edited February 6, 2019 by DatDarkOne

[Urlan]

1 hour ago, Aramil999 said:

@DatDarkOne @Kontrollo @Urlan @BornWithTeeth 

Which of you play Rescue missions for fun? Or Defectin missions? 0 rewards just for fun? 

Sorry guys but 99% players in Warframe do certein missions to get rewards. Once they get all possible rewards they ignore said mode forever (unless Sortie forces that on you).

Invasion system is DIFFERENT than normal missions and THAT is why it feels fresh and cool. It needs someone to invade otherwise it is normal mission. You can't "finish" it and be done.

You can't just ignore real Stalker, Syndicate Death Squads, Gragsta 3, Zenuka. The same should apply to Stalker Player. 

Yes, I know some players are against it but hey, we are just some vocal MINORITIES and by no means your voice is holy word of Majority.

Besides most players DON'T KNOW what they even want. In popularity wins "Content" and then "Story".

I play several missions for "fun" though as I might reiterate; I brought up in this thread and several others you have referenced that rewards will ultimately be a determining factor for most modes' acceptance; Particularly in the greater environment of DE's own figures showing Conclave being the least engaged content of the game; the logical path then would be making such a mode Opt-In and then having rewards consistent with trying to engage players that I will repeat, have shown repeatedly that they would rather not have Conclave mixed with their Co-Op PvE matches. Now, you are presenting yourself as a supporter of Conclave which is fine, but it seems like you are saying that Conclave isn't run by players because of a lack of rewards alone. This is interesting, considering that this logically shows that you acknowledge that its not a fun mode by default. Considering that Conclave through Teshin largely only offers mods specific to Conclave or Cosmetics, it would suggest that not only is Conclave not enticing as an activity but considered unrewarding even though a syndicate-esque system exists to produce rewards that players can pick from. This doesn't help that the modes you listed off have much higher play, despite the implication of your statement being they have no rewards worth running them for; though I will give you that few players love Defection - escort missions - it could use a lot of work to make it more engaging, but it still has more players that run it.

If we are talking about Avoiding the Stalker? That isn't actually something you can't do. You totally can hack the terminals that Stalker locks down, and get out of the room and attempt to just continue your mission. Grustag 3 and Zanuka Hunter as well. Its not always easy as you are turning your back on enemies that can often one or two shot you if you don't Tigris them in the face or something; but its not impossible and several warframes are quite good at it.

Stalker mode, invasions have their own systems of course; though I am sure we all understand you well enough. Running missions as you pointed out cheerily in your post are something of a choice, a personal one I would say; as sometimes one might just like the mission mode or the rewards even as others detest them. It only makes sense in this situation to make such a potentially disruptive mode optional by default and see if it can work on its own merits and sub community of supporters.

I however do take some level of offense in the viewpoint that "players don't know what they even want" as that is patently false on many levels but also doesn't paint the mindset of the speaker very kindly. Just focusing on the fallacious statement for now, your own post paints a situation where players are "voting with their wallet" so to speak; they are running missions that are enticing for them. In your own case, @Aramil999 you present yourself as a supporter of Conclave for example, showing you have some idea of what you yourself like, even as you ignore that greater picture of what others like. I support your passion, and hope you try conclave or even Stalker mode when it comes out; enjoy it even but do not feel that your personal minority voice makes others somehow less. For my own, I feel that whether Stalker mode is a boot to run, has good or bad rewards, or is a nightmare to run and fight against; it needs to be Opt-In.

[Kontrollo]

@BornWithTeeth Frankly, I think I've already said enough. If you want to call him out on something, then sure, do so and address his points. But I don't feel like playing stand-in, and also -- as pointed out previously -- I'd rather stick to what we know about the mode. What little of it there is.

Finally, above all else I'd prefer to wait until they present it to us in one form or another (workshop, dev stream, patch).

 

6 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

Sorry, but one PvP replayable feature isn't adding content. Especially if it's just a feature thrown in to existing modes.  That classifies as a feature and not content.  At least by the classic definition of the word content.  

Guess we have to disagree on that, then.

[BornWithTeeth]

1 minute ago, Kontrollo said:

@BornWithTeeth Frankly, I think I've already said enough. If you want to call him out on something, then sure, do so and address his points. But I don't feel like playing stand-in, and also -- as pointed out previously -- I'd rather stick to what we know about the mode. What little of it there is.

Finally, above all else I'd prefer to wait until they present it to us in one form or another (workshop, dev stream, patch).

 

Guess we have to disagree on that, then.

I'm growing tired of this as well, although if you are wondering why I called you in on this, it's to do with our initial argument in this thread, (the last post on page one and the first post on page two) in which you felt that PvP players were being unfairly maligned, and I responded by pointing out that basically every Stalker thread has been a cesspit of pro-Stalker advocates trotting out horrible arguments accompanied by strings of fallacies and insults whenever any compromise has been suggested.

 

It's not exactly pure and innocent PvP players being unfairly bullied by the big bad PvE bloc, is what I'm saying here.

 

We'll find out more when DE release more, I guess.

[Kontrollo]

29 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

I'm growing tired of this as well, although if you are wondering why I called you in on this, it's to do with our initial argument in this thread, (the last post on page one and the first post on page two) in which you felt that PvP players were being unfairly maligned, and I responded by pointing out that basically every Stalker thread has been a cesspit of pro-Stalker advocates trotting out horrible arguments accompanied by strings of fallacies and insults whenever any compromise has been suggested.

Well, it's a bit of a shame that you have to do it again now, though. You know, the whole generalisation and accusation thing. And it's not like I'm defending that guy when he does it, either.

Go through the threads in this subsection a bit, you'll see. I mean, when a purely feedback thread needs disclaimers such as the following, you know what I'm talking about:

"Making it clear beforehand for them PvE addicts that removal implies a PvP removal rather than a global one, as many weapons have yet to be introduced in PvP and thus it should be alright not to have those that have been before."

[Aramil999]

Great replies thank you guys. (i was busy with exams past few days so I couldn't reply fast)

@Urlan I see your point but I have to disagree in case of "fun" in Conclave vs normal missions. First of all players do missions to progress in game, get new mods, guns, warframes and be more powerful and they get accustomed to doing it by doing missions. So of course everyone will ignore game mode that doesn't follow any single thing from that list and is totally different AND harder on top of that. 

If Conclave gave the same Arcanas like say Eidolon hunts or Rivens or thousends of Kuva per match then tons of players would play it and don't complain. At some point lots of players would even say that it is fun and they play Warframe to do this Conclave matches. Why? Because that would be thei're daily routine. 

What you do day after day is what you get comfortable with. So of course PvP is not welcome in Warframe but DE tries to implement some form of middle ground to bring some players to it.

Well whatever happens I hope mode will at least have some seriously good rewards that can't be farmed in 2 weeks (Syndicate, etc.). Because grind hard Warframe community will do ANY form of grind even if it is PvP one 😉

[Kontrollo]

22 minutes ago, Aramil999 said:

Great replies thank you guys. (i was busy with exams past few days so I couldn't reply fast)

@Urlan I see your point but I have to disagree in case of "fun" in Conclave vs normal missions. 1) First of all players do missions to progress in game, get new mods, guns, warframes and be more powerful and they get accustomed to doing it by doing missions. So of course everyone will ignore game mode that doesn't follow any single thing from that list and is totally different AND harder on top of that. 

2) If Conclave gave the same Arcanas like say Eidolon hunts or Rivens or thousends of Kuva per match then tons of players would play it and don't complain. At some point lots of players would even say that it is fun and they play Warframe to do this Conclave matches. Why? Because that would be thei're daily routine. 

3) What you do day after day is what you get comfortable with. So of course PvP is not welcome in Warframe but DE tries to implement some form of middle ground to bring some players to it.

4) Well whatever happens I hope mode will at least have some seriously good rewards that can't be farmed in 2 weeks (Syndicate, etc.). Because grind hard Warframe community will do ANY form of grind even if it is PvP one 😉

I know this wasn't directed at me, but let me answer it anyway, so maybe we can move on after that. I've numbered the points in your quote:

1. Very true, and one of the problems with the implementation.
2. This has been proven to be wrong in the past -- even for items/cosmetics that have zero impact on the PvE gameplay like what the Conclave syndicate offers. Yes, people did play it for that, but no, not without complaints. There were plenty of complaints, there still are, just see the Syandana topics that pop up all the time here. And it went as far as that some of them would go and try to boost each other in public games, then start insulting you for playing the game.
   Therefore: Just imagine what would happen if there were actually relevant rewards in there.
3. Undeniable, and yes the devs should try. But side note: that doesn't mean you can go around and tell people what they like, or that they don't know what they like. Some simply won't touch a certain kind of game mode, no matter what.
4. It's true that a subset of players will do anything for rewards even if they downright hate it. But they won't do that silently, trust me on that one. I still remember one guy who hated it so much, it almost seemed like voicing his discontent was all he was doing anymore. Luckily, most people aren't like that and would rather invest their time to play the game and enjoy it. But take that as a word of caution.

[Urlan]

43 minutes ago, Aramil999 said:

Great replies thank you guys. (i was busy with exams past few days so I couldn't reply fast)

@Urlan I see your point but I have to disagree in case of "fun" in Conclave vs normal missions. First of all players do missions to progress in game, get new mods, guns, warframes and be more powerful and they get accustomed to doing it by doing missions. So of course everyone will ignore game mode that doesn't follow any single thing from that list and is totally different AND harder on top of that. 

If Conclave gave the same Arcanas like say Eidolon hunts or Rivens or thousends of Kuva per match then tons of players would play it and don't complain. At some point lots of players would even say that it is fun and they play Warframe to do this Conclave matches. Why? Because that would be thei're daily routine. 

What you do day after day is what you get comfortable with. So of course PvP is not welcome in Warframe but DE tries to implement some form of middle ground to bring some players to it.

Well whatever happens I hope mode will at least have some seriously good rewards that can't be farmed in 2 weeks (Syndicate, etc.). Because grind hard Warframe community will do ANY form of grind even if it is PvP one 😉

Nothing wrong with finding Conclave personally fun Aramil! That is perfectly understandable, and not everyone is going to like the same modes equally. I also agree that more players would chance Conclave if it offered material rewards that functioned for normal modes, even if they personally didn't like Conclave or enjoy it much since the mode would have more value to them now. It wouldn't get those that would rather cut off an arm, but as long as they could be traded that too would just represent something players could acquire if they wanted. I do not think that purely cosmetic rewards will represent that same drive for the average player, as it hasn't for standard conclave and the original iteration before that - some very cool skull emblems - but I would agree that if the rewards were made good enough to engage players a mode will gain more users. That said, Trials did have Arcanes, and while they had more player supporrt than Conclave - historically, DE has shared records showing this on Devstreams - Trials were removed and Conclave still got dedicated updates and has a small team that keeps active doing balance patches for it. On the topic of rewards and such, I think for many that still played Conclave even though they didn't like it much, the killing blow was when DE based on some feedback made 'boosting' an account ban offense and forced public matches of Conclave to get any points towards rewards. I mean such stuff wasn't in the spirit of such competitive a mode, but it did allow players to dip their toes in.

No prob, with replying on your own schedule. Real life comes first.

[DatDarkOne]

@Kontrollo I see that you have been listening/reading.  I really like the response you just gave.  

[Stormdragon]

36 minutes ago, Urlan said:

That said, Trials did have Arcanes, and while they had more player supporrt than Conclave - historically, DE has shared records showing this on Devstreams - Trials were removed and Conclave still got dedicated updates and has a small team that keeps active doing balance patches for it.

I'm quite curious about how legit is this statement since, afaik, DE only showed records of "player support" once (hence no hostirical records), from data taken on a single weekend and even there the difference between both was around 0.5% despite the negative propaganda from players to conclave and how even partners used to praise trials.

And let's not forget that the main reason why trials were removed wasn't just "lack of players", but actually these being way too resource intensive for the small amount of players they had due to how much bugs they had, how easily a fix could be undone or create even more bugs, and a small part of their community would vocally demand DE to fix stuff in every single opportunity they had even if it was a thread totally unrelated (won't tdeny the existence of civil helpful players, kudos to them for giving their best) and how mad they could get when an exploitable bug to make trials faster managed to be fixed.

On the other hand, the "dedicated updates" you mention for conclave have been mostly balance passes (aka small number tweaks), other than that we got Compound with the earth remaster (2017), a Kuva Fortress themed map with The War Within (back in 2016), Lunaro (which should have a been separate from conclave since it brought more issues than those it fixed, but that's another topic) and the biggest thing would be Dedicated servers back in 2016 as well.

Other than that, neither revenant nor the frames released after him have been rebalanced for conclave, and as you can see in these subforums there's plenty of well documented feedback threads regarding balance, requests to fix certain weapons or straight up disable them for conclave due to how hard these are to rebalance, threads as old as PoE in which not even a dev response has been seen, let alone action about what those concerns and the mode still manages to have people playing it despite the aforementioned bad propaganda from players and the dev's neglect.

TLDR: Comparing trials and conclave based only on that pie chart shown once and claiming that they "historically had more player support" is nothing but an unfair comparison, just confirmation bias since it's purposefully dismissing official info in order to make your point.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Stormdragon

[Kontrollo]

1 hour ago, DatDarkOne said:

@Kontrollo I see that you have been listening/reading.  I really like the response you just gave.  

Hm? I have not actually changed my stance on anything.

[DatDarkOne]

28 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Hm? I have not actually changed my stance on anything.

It's not that you have changed your stance.  More that you acknowledged points made by others instead just blindly ignoring them in your replies.  That shows strength of character.  

[Urlan]

1 hour ago, Stormdragon said:

I'm quite curious about how legit is this statement since, afaik, DE only showed records of "player support" once (hence no hostirical records), from data taken on a single weekend and even there the difference between both was around 0.5% despite the negative propaganda from players to conclave and how even partners used to praise trials.

And let's not forget that the main reason why trials were removed wasn't just "lack of players", but actually these being way too resource intensive for the small amount of players they had due to how much bugs they had, how easily a fix could be undone or create even more bugs, and a small part of their community would vocally demand DE to fix stuff in every single opportunity they had even if it was a thread totally unrelated (won't tdeny the existence of civil helpful players, kudos to them for giving their best) and how mad they could get when an exploitable bug to make trials faster managed to be fixed.

On the other hand, the "dedicated updates" you mention for conclave have been mostly balance passes (aka small number tweaks), other than that we got Compound with the earth remaster (2017), a Kuva Fortress themed map with The War Within (back in 2016), Lunaro (which should have a been separate from conclave since it brought more issues than those it fixed, but that's another topic) and the biggest thing would be Dedicated servers back in 2016 as well.

Other than that, neither revenant nor the frames released after him have been rebalanced for conclave, and as you can see in these subforums there's plenty of well documented feedback threads regarding balance, requests to fix certain weapons or straight up disable them for conclave due to how hard these are to rebalance, threads as old as PoE in which not even a dev response has been seen, let alone action about what those concerns and the mode still manages to have people playing it despite the aforementioned bad propaganda from players and the dev's neglect.

TLDR: Comparing trials and conclave based only on that pie chart shown once and claiming that they "historically had more player support" is nothing but an unfair comparison, just confirmation bias since it's purposefully dismissing official info in order to make your point.

Purposely using official info and data, as well as collaborating with my own experience since I was on of those players playing Conclave and Trials still despite liking neither particularly. The main reason DE said the Trials were retired was low numbers to the large amount of scripts and breakage that came up with each update. Balance passes and changes to how moves work with a mode that had less than 1% of the total player base but changes with each new weapon or warframe allowed, that sounds like Dev support for a under utilized mode right there. Its historical because it is there, and shows such usage, similar to how DE showed how players played warframes, weapons, or certain nodes. Same level of detail, and exists if you wish to question it. One might wonder why someone would put time into a "Dead" mode at all if it is dead; but if it wasn't so abandoned why it would come to no players for hours, unless you are suggesting that the player base just agreed to not play Conclave based on the views of 'haters' of the mode. 😄

[Kontrollo]

1 hour ago, DatDarkOne said:

It's not that you have changed your stance.  More that you acknowledged points made by others instead just blindly ignoring them in your replies.  That shows strength of character.  

Thanks for the compliment.

But I haven't been blindly ignoring posts points, either, if that's what you're alluding to. If not ignore this second line. I did ignore some things, but when I did it was for good reason.

 

1 hour ago, Urlan said:

1) Purposely using official info and data, as well as collaborating with my own experience since I was on of those players playing Conclave and Trials still despite liking neither particularly. 2) The main reason DE said the Trials were retired was low numbers to the large amount of scripts and breakage that came up with each update. Balance passes and changes to how moves work with a mode that had less than 1% of the total player base but changes with each new weapon or warframe allowed, that sounds like Dev support for a under utilized mode right there. 3) Its historical because it is there, and shows such usage, similar to how DE showed how players played warframes, weapons, or certain nodes. Same level of detail, and exists if you wish to question it. 4) One might wonder why someone would put time into a "Dead" mode at all if it is dead; but if it wasn't so abandoned why it would come to no players for hours, 5) unless you are suggesting that the player base just agreed to not play Conclave based on the views of 'haters' of the mode. 😄

Going to number your quote, too:

1. A two year old chart that is not properly labelled. Tell me, is that total time spent or number of instances?
2. I wasn't around when they retired Trials, only before that, so my insight is limited. I've seen a few things about how people found ways to cheese them, over and over again. Is that what caused this upkeep cost?
   Personal opinion: stopped playing Trials at some point, but never asked for their removal despite that. They've been confirmed to make a comeback now, too, and that's a good thing.
3. According to that chart, Trials were about as popular as Conclave.
4. How much time do they put into Conclave? I've been reading up on a few things in the meantime and found something, on top of my own insight from a few years ago. But I'd love to hear you back that up, first.
5. Hey, when people deride it day in day out, it's hardly a surprise when that has an impact on the player base. That's not to say the game mode doesn't have problems, and not to say it should be as popular as PvE, anyway.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Kontrollo
points, not posts

[Stormdragon]

53 minutes ago, Urlan said:

Purposely using official info and data, as well as collaborating with my own experience since I was on of those players playing Conclave and Trials still despite liking neither particularly.

That's part of the confirmation bias. You can't claim that things have been historically in certain way and back it up by a mixture of an old, single and poorly done official statement and anecdotal data taken from personal experiences.

59 minutes ago, Urlan said:

The main reason DE said the Trials were retired was low numbers to the large amount of scripts and breakage that came up with each update.

Yeah, and that's exactly the reason why comparing conclave and trials based only in terms of usage -where both showed similar values- is unfair since trials clearly demanded way more dev resources than pvp, otherwise you can be sure that either these wouldn't have been removed or conclave would have gone with them.

1 hour ago, Urlan said:

Its historical because it is there, and shows such usage, similar to how DE showed how players played warframes, weapons, or certain nodes

Ehh, that pie chart is more of a relic since a follow up hasn't been shown to see how have things changed. It doesn't tell the whole history, it just shows a single moment of it (and still fails due to how poorly labeled and explained it is).

1 hour ago, Urlan said:

Same level of detail, and exists if you wish to question it

I'd gladly accept any official source on the matter: a stream timestamp, overview, forum post, anything from DE would be enough since they are the only ones who know the bigger picture.

1 hour ago, Urlan said:

One might wonder why someone would put time into a "Dead" mode at all if it is dead

To bring it back to life? To prevent the current players keeping it alive to go somewher else? Either way, it looks like DE's conclave team is currently missing (hopefully not dead), yet the game mode still manages to have some life on its own while waiting for them to return.

1 hour ago, Urlan said:

unless you are suggesting that the player base just agreed to not play Conclave based on the views of 'haters' of the mode. 😄

You should probably take a look at the term "peer pressure".

[Urlan]

9 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

Thanks for the compliment.

But I haven't been blindly ignoring posts points, either, if that's what you're alluding to. If not ignore this second line. I did ignore some things, but when I did it was for good reason.

 

Going to number your quote, too:

1. A two year old chart that is not properly labelled. Tell me, is that total time spent or number of instances?
2. I wasn't around when they retired Trials, only before that, so my insight is limited. I've seen a few things about how people found ways to cheese them, over and over again. Is that what caused this upkeep cost?
   Personal opinion: stopped playing Trials at some point, but never asked for their removal despite that. They've been confirmed to make a comeback now, too, and that's a good thing.
3. According to that chart, Trials were about as popular as Conclave.
4. How much time do they put into Conclave? I've been reading up on a few things in the meantime and found something, on top of my own insight from a few years ago. But I'd love to hear you back that up, first.
5. Hey, when people deride it day in day out, it's hardly a surprise when that has an impact on the player base. That's not to say the game mode doesn't have problems, and not to say it should be as popular as PvE, anyway.

1. The two year chart DE gave with Devstream 80 and some of the same stats or about mentioned before that starting with devstream 76; its the total of players playing those modes at the time. The value of those percentages are against the total value of players active at the time, so while for example Trials had 1.29 usage, as DE pointed out in the stream that is a difference in the thousands of players over the 1% listed for conclave during the same period.

2. The reasons given by DE Steve, the week of the removal: https://twitter.com/sj_sinclair/status/961409340434472960?lang=en

His reasoning was mostly around the core low numbers but constant headaches caused so pushed for their temporary removal and later enhancement or replacement. DE pointed out in the devstream that week that the goal was to make something that could engage more players, and DE Scott had mentioned something to the effect back in Devstream 75 as pointed out by the Temporary Future of Warframe Trials back in Feb 2018: https://forums.warframe.com/topic/917480-the-temporary-future-of-warframe-trials/

Essentially, because the Trials were both high maintenance, and low player count but high frustration stuff like Eidolons was considered better as a short term in serving the same community - at least for now - while Conclave might also not have the numbers it got a good deal of support during the same time that Trials were fluttering at times. As probably better said by veteran Trial runner Venn2 in their thread The Current State of Trials: https://forums.warframe.com/topic/722640-the-current-state-of-trials-needs-to-be-addressed/

I would agree that bringing back Trials is a good thing, though I would personally like them to have the minimum squad size removed at least to make them easier to engage with teams. Removing the hurrying up to wait on buttons would also be ideal; but if the majority of players would want them back even so, it would be an overall benefit I think.

3. I think this was pretty much covered by 1. so no worries there.

4.Conclave has always had a large investment compared to player numbers, that isn't to say a huge amount overall, but some of this is covered in number 2; not only did War Within constantly get pushed around to make room for Conclave like Lunaro and beforehand, some pretty significant reworks to allowed mods and rewards; but subsequent updates involving balance tweaks, reworks, new maps, and such were involved in each update since though sadly Venn2's excellent post only goes up to the War Within update. I think that is sufficient in the difference between the two by that time in attention. My experience in the players when climbing the ranks with Teshin and stealing flags and Oro; was that the core player base of the community was small - we had to essentially tell recruiting when we could use more players - so getting enough players for full teams was quite difficult even at Conclave's (the current version) height which was largely before the hotly debated aspect of fun with Quick Steel in a thread by Neriz: https://forums.warframe.com/topic/757500-quick-steel-event-feedback/

In that thread you will see both myself and Stormdragon mostly making around the same kind of posts as here. At least we are consistent eh? The real take-away however is the overall read from the players posts that remained after a significant but sadly necessary purging that occurred. It shows how the players reacted to the mode and the feeling of being 'forced' to run the tac alert conclave mini-events (They were shipped as tac alerts and gave Tac alert points to our emblem but that was changed mid-way to be more fair to players that just saw conclave activities and avoided them) Hey, got me an Oro Sculpture and provided and extra body for conclave regulars like Nazrethim to kill with that Nikana ninja'ing of his. For my clan mates and a group of allies (about 30-40 players at the time) this experience was devastating to their trying Conclave again, though we did run try a few more before they started getting worried about being considered 'feeding'  and reported for banning which was becoming a thing as the conclave population got so low, sorta swirling the drain numbers wise sadly. I hope that trip down memory lane was valuable for showing the perspective you were seeking.

5. That is an interesting perspective, that the majority of players not liking something reflecting influencing others to not play. While this is of course a valid concern, I would look at those conclave threads around the time of Quick Steel. The new conclave players asking for help on how to get into Conclave and what they could build up to; how it seems difficult to be competitive when conclave vets have conclave mods or experience in the mode and no one wants to be the new meat in the grinder. I would contend that the response to those questions, to those players, and how quickly and completely they were crushed upon testing the waters is why so players spun down particularly after the colorful response to players trying Conclave for the first time in the wake and running up to Quick Steel. If the mode had players working like the Raid School Bus, like players helping new players in Co-op and teaching the basics and gear; it could be more inclusive for the generally curious players who might seek the skins, conclave mods, or other cosmetic options conclave can offer.

 

[Kontrollo]

Too many words, this is going to be messy.

1 hour ago, Urlan said:

1. The two year chart DE gave with Devstream 80 and some of the same stats or about mentioned before that starting with devstream 76; its the total of players playing those modes at the time. The value of those percentages are against the total value of players active at the time, so while for example Trials had 1.29 usage, as DE pointed out in the stream that is a difference in the thousands of players over the 1% listed for conclave during the same period.

...

3. I think this was pretty much covered by 1. so no worries there. 

1 and 3: Not quite answering my answering my question, but maybe it doesn't have to be. So you're saying it's the number of unique players in these modes over said time period and neither "total time spent" nor "number of instances run"?

At that point I was still playing, and I've seen the stream. I also went back and watched it again later because that chart is some kind of sacred artifact around here (joking). IIRC, they didn't mention it anywhere in that stream. But I'll be sure go watch it yet again, I guess.

In the meantime, I'm certain you can explain why there's such a wide discrepancy between Survival and Defence. IIRC, Survival was known for being one of the most loved mode at the time which is part of what makes me so suspicious. You can go see it here, in this recent thread, btw. For reference, the "exact" numbers are 1.29% and 1.07%. That's about a +21% difference (again, if we're taking the chart as useful information).

I'm sure you also have a good argument for removing PvP together with Arena, Hijack, Relay, Tutorial, Dojo, Archwing, Hive Sabotage and Misc. (Joking again, of course, you didn't say that. 😉)

 

2. Thanks, while the tweet itself isn't very informative, I'll be able to find the dev stream it points to.

 

1 hour ago, Urlan said:

4.Conclave has always had a large investment compared to player numbers^{[citation needed]}, that isn't to say a huge amount overall, but some of this is covered in number 2; not only did War Within constantly get pushed around to make room for Conclave^{[citation needed]} like Lunaro^{[citation needed]} and beforehand, some pretty significant reworks to allowed mods and rewards; but subsequent updates involving balance tweaks, reworks, new maps, and such were involved in each update since though sadly Venn2's excellent post only goes up to the War Within update. I think that is sufficient in the difference between the two by that time in attention. My experience in the players when climbing the ranks with Teshin and stealing flags and Oro; was that the core player base of the community was small - we had to essentially tell recruiting when we could use more players - so getting enough players for full teams was quite difficult even at Conclave's (the current version) height which was largely before the hotly debated aspect of fun with Quick Steel in a thread by Neriz: https://forums.warframe.com/topic/757500-quick-steel-event-feedback/

(awful Wikipedia tags in your quote mine)

Ok, but I'd like you to back it up with something that at least points in the direction of an official statement. Admittedly, I don't have more than that, either, when it comes to recent dev investment. So again: How much time do they put into Conclave? Then or now? I'd be happy if you could give an estimated range, in number of people, but not 1-300. That'd be about all of DE, I think.

Side notes since you're basing your argument on some guy's post, not anything official:

• Some maps got reused in Index and Arena modes.
• Do you know how much effort it is to make a damage adjustment in the code for a basic hitscan weapon? Because I do, and that sheet looks a lot like every single one got counted. I'll have a look, though.

I might not have played Quick Steel, that's around the time when I left, so no comment on that. I did play Snowdown Showdown and Opticor Variant, however, and had the impression people were having fun. I.e. people were playing it and not flaming each other. The forums were a bit different, though, some vocal people IIRC. Anecdotal evidence of course, and it's been a long time. So don't quote me on any of that.

 

Actually, I'm going to address point 5 separately later, looks like I've got some stuff to dig up.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Kontrollo

[Feyangol]

13 hours ago, DatDarkOne said:

It's not that you have changed your stance.  More that you acknowledged points made by others instead just blindly ignoring them in your replies.  That shows strength of character.  

In general a lot of pvp players don't ignore the points, that pve players make. It's rather that the discussions we have in the forums are often too emotional. The choice of words one makes has a great impact on what you consider to be acknowledging a point. I have been guilty of this myself in the past (I don't know if someone remembers me from 2 years ago ^^).

What I (and probably you too) can appreciate about Kontrollo is that he is actually very careful with his choice of words and just in general well spoken. On top of that he answers calmy, when someone reacts negatively to his posts. That is something that both pve and pvp players very rarely seem to do in these heated discussions.

 

The conclave players have a really simple stance on all of this actually:

• We want balanced pvp (both mechanics and matchmaking).
• We don't want to force anything on anyone.
• We want rewards for what we do, but we are also content with small ones.
• We want a bridge between pve and pvp (that is why Stalker mode is so popular).

 

Edited February 10, 2019 by Feyangol

[Kontrollo]

Ok quick update:

5 hours ago, Urlan said:

4.Conclave has always had a large investment compared to player numbers, that isn't to say a huge amount overall, but some of this is covered in number 2; not only did War Within constantly get pushed around to make room for Conclave like Lunaro and beforehand

I thought this was fishy, that's why I put the tags there. I've watched the relevant parts of dev stream 80 again and made some notes. So here are a few quotes from dev stream 80 regarding the delay on The War Within:

• "Aspects of the story kinda have point of no return elements which meant we couldn't cut it in half ... we couldn't cut the damn thing in half like we should've"
• "we've been cutting pieces off to give you guys content sooner ... Lunaro, Silver Grove all of these pieces were once part of a whole"
• "to get there this is the longest we've taken, this is the most sacrifices we had to make to fragment what was once a whole"
• "we did seven versions of the story" (!)

And some more stuff where they said wanted to make it the best it could be.  Lunaro was ready long before that and released as a separate piece to get out something at all.

Therefore: you're simply misrepresenting what they said.

 

Now regarding the chart (same dev stream):

• "This is just PC from the sort of four day weekend window"
• "and you can see you spend most of your time in exterminate"
• "I mean defence, the most played node is Akkad and that is an endless defence mode, but it's not most played for its endless, it's most played for its in-and-out lucrativeness, for that minimum time spent in the mission" (guess Akkad was the Draco of that time)

Ok, I was definitely wrong about whether it was mentioned; she talked about it and initially makes it sound like it's time spent. But anyway, despite having forgotten what exactly was said, my argument doesn't actually hinge on it unless they were very explicit at one point and I'd missed that. But the jig is up and it's time for that explanation.

So why do I think it's instances, and why did I write "part of what makes me so suspicious" when I brought up Survival vs. Defence?

The main reason why I think it's number of instances is because both Raids and PvP are actually underrepresented (they both take way more time than other non-endless modes, there's no way around it).

And yes, I've been withholding this point so far because somehow this does never seem to occur to anyone who tries to use that chart to play these modes against each other. Why are both of them that far down, even below Junctions? There definitely wasn't a Junction Tactical Alert back then. 😉

But hey, it's still the devs who know for sure.

 

 

P.S. @Feyangol Saw your name pop up somewhere else earlier and thought: now that's a name I haven't seen in a while. 😄

[Aramil999]

9 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

So why do I think it's instances, and why did I write "part of what makes me so suspicious" when I brought up Survival vs. Defence?

The main reason why I think it's number of instances is because both Raids and PvP are actually underrepresented (they both take way more time than other non-endless modes, there's no way around it).

And yes, I've been withholding this point so far because somehow this does never seem to occur to anyone who tries to use that chart to play these modes against each other. Why are both of them that far down, even below Junctions? There definitely wasn't a Junction Tactical Alert back then. 😉

But hey, it's still the devs who

Hmm interesting point, I will have to look more into that.

This thread evolved into something else sooo I think that's it guys. Stalker Mode ideas saddly didn't do well as topic (even if some points you guys made and made me think about were amazing) so I might make new thread when devs show us any new info about it. 

Thank you for meaningful disscussion 😉 @DatDarkOne @Urlan @Kontrollo and anyone that made some good post here. I hope for the best and that Warframe will get best game modes and cool future updates for everyone to enjoy.

I suggest making new thread about "Trials and Conclave population/dev resources" because very good info you guys disscuss is getting lost in this too long thread and litteraly only 4 of us are up to date with it.

 

 

[Poisonjack]

Has anyone in here ever played Dark Souls?

In Dark Souls, you have an Invasion system, which ties in greatly with the otherwise PVE focused game. To put it simply, it works like this:

When a player is Online, they can Invade(and be Invaded) other players. It is done by the usage of a specific item(not consumable). By using said item, the game searches for a player that's also Online, in an area nearby yours, and close to your level(to avoid overpowered characters being matched against weaker ones).

The Invader then spawns into the Host's World, and is tasked with hunting them down and killing them. While the Invader is present in the Host's World, all exits from the area they're present are locked out until one of them is dead.

This just so happens to be very similar to how the Stalker works in Warframe, except it's an AI. If it were a player, it would be really cool, as long as the game made sure to never match a Stalker against a over/underpowered Target.

Going back to Dark Souls, players have the option to go offline in order to be immune to invasions from other players, in case they don't like/want PvP. I can see that working in Warframe by going to missions in solo mode, in which case you can only be struck by the usual AI Stalker.

[Aikatears]

Read this thread a dev has confirm how the mode will work as told by a mod I think. 

 

[Kontrollo]

On 2019-02-11 at 12:41 AM, Aramil999 said:

This thread evolved into something else ... I suggest making new thread about "Trials and Conclave population/dev resources" because very good info you guys disscuss is getting lost in this too long thread and litteraly only 4 of us are up to date with it.

The big ones always do. And eh, why bother. if the mods want to split it apart, they can do that. And when we're finally done with this one, I'll give it three weeks tops until the whole circus starts again. It will still be useful to quote myself, anyway.

 

That said, as predicted this was going to be messy. So in this post I'm going to address points 2 & 4 again (Trials and dev resources), and let's call the other thing 5.1.

 

On 2019-02-10 at 8:53 AM, Urlan said:

Conclave has always had a large investment compared to player numbers

First of all, I'm still waiting for you to back this up with something that is at least a little bit more tangible. Make an estimate, quote something, give your own impression, or tell us that you don't know.

 

To give everyone a better picture on the Trials issue, here's what I've gathered by now. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction @Urlan, that helped a lot. So we have three official sources: Steve's tweet (1), dev stream 106 (2), announcement thread (3), and a well-made inofficial one by Venn2 -- OP is worth a read (4).

Boxing this to make things more manageable:

Spoiler

1. "Warframes Trials - very low user engagement yet high player/dev frustration. Team wants to apply the lessons learned on a fresh page. More on Friday's devstream!"
    
2. I even went as far as making a partial transcript:
   •   "the plan is to actually turn off trials on February 28 on PC and then consoles will follow or we will do them all at the same time" ... "but basically, there is, you know, there are a lot of work -- the upkeep on them is particularly, you know, endless for three years, it seems every hotfix we have to have something in it. Every hotfix thread is just fix this, this, this, this, this"
       "it's low traffic as well -- so, what's the future of them? I think [if] I had to guess I think it would be more of a redesign to fit 'em better with maybe the core gameplay of Warframe? Right now they're kind of pushed to a section of, like: stand still on the spot, do this weird designer puzzle and it kinda doesn't really fit in the game anymore. So I think we're designing something that fits with the flow of the game better would be -- yeah"
     
     [some talk about the passionate player base trials have had and more about whether they'd come back]
     
       "I think the fact that Arcanes were cornered in a very hardcore market of the world was a kind of a mistake at the time, it soon needed a -- it seemed good because it was like the reward for challenge but I think since we didn't kind of grow that system and not put in an easier version of the trials, then I think it kind of just left that floating out there as a thing we weren't concentrating on, we weren't adding to, we weren't evolving. And I think it, yeah, it just kind of was rotting on the side and was going further and further away from what the core of the game was."
   • Interesting tidbit: if you continue watching that stream, turns out SO/ESO was supposed to be the successor of Dark Sectors (aka. Solar Rail Conflicts) initially, but as a PvE competition only.
      
3. Main points:
   • On Devstream 75, Scott mentioned “We are looking to repurpose existing Raid content to make the game mode accessible for lower-level players while also preparing them for this end-game content as they continue to progress.”
      
   • This is NOT the end to Trials. Our Designers have put in an incredible amount of blood, sweat, and tears into creating, fixing, and maintaining Trials. Not to mention the blood, sweat, and tears YOU as a Community have put into them! The upkeep of the Trials in a world where so many bigger plans are in motion are taking much needed brainpower and time.
      
4. Notes:
   • Summarising: there's talk in there about Trials bugs and issues, a comparison with Conclave in which the fabled Chart of Ages®️ makes an appearance, a sheet comparing number of patch note bullet points of Conclave to Trials, and a plea to get some attention from the devs which later got answered.
   • Opinion: It's a shame that it's another case of pitting the modes against each other, but definitely wouldn't want to argue with this quote, either: "Even if the Conclave content is done as a labor of love, the Trials should at the very least be expected to get attention on major bugs."

Now regarding the patch note bullet points and that sheet (4):

It's mentioned that it's total number of bullet points and also acknowledged that most are balance changes. However, I went and picked some random patch notes which seemed a bit meatier (18.4, 65 points) and had a look; it is mostly stat changes in there. "Features" you could call:

• Players can now create Private Matches in Conclave via the Matchmaking option. ...
• Head hits that have no damage multiplier will no longer show yellow/large font numbers in Conclave.
• Removed the Hard versions of the following Conclave Daily Challenges: Capture the Cephalon, Combo Kills, Headshot Kills, Multi-weapon Kills, Payback Kills.
• New Conclave Mod: Air Thrusters - +100% Slide Boost while airborne, -0.2 Mobility
• The Penta series, Castanas series, Kulstar, Talons and Angstrum's explosive damage no longer ignores cover in Conclave.
• The Double Tap Mod can no longer be equipped with the Hydraulic Gauge Mod in Conclave.

And there were also a few bug fixes. But I can tell you this much: the sentiment expressed there isn't new; because a lot of these stat tweaks got mentioned individually (but: there are also some bulk changes in a single bullet points), some people had the impression a lot of work went into everything. I mean it was great to see how much they got done, but in this case bullet points don't say anything about time invested, I hope you agree.

 

Regarding Conclave investment vs. engagement I could elaborate more by giving my own opinion on the state of things, but first I want to point this out:

The way I see it, Lunaro was supposed to be a sports game for people who don't like Conclave. And Arena modes, namely The Index and Rathuum, are supposed to be like Conclave for people who don't like PvP. I think we can agree that none of those were targeted at the core Conclave playerbase at the time, right?

Now the Index seems to be popular enough, but what about the other two? What's your explanation? Hypothetically, if anything were to be removed, should it be all of those? Or which ones?

 

On 2019-02-10 at 8:53 AM, Urlan said:

5. That is an interesting perspective, that the majority of players not liking something reflecting influencing others to not play. While this is of course a valid concern, I would look at those conclave threads around the time of Quick Steel.

(emphasis mine)

Just a quick few notes on this Snowday Showdown thread I've found: Cheery guy starts it, further down someone thinks Conclave regulars team up to "farm it" (uh what?), later grumpy guy (maddragonmaster) hates it. On page two I've found a post by "probably overly enthusiastic guy", who was myself.

 

Now let's talk about the linked Quick Steel thread:

I've read the some of it, mainly the first few pages, but uh, "the hotly debated aspect of fun with Quick Steel"? Ok, maybe you can call what was going on in there hotly debated, but what of that was useful, actionable feedback? I've seen quite a few posts of people who got upset because they felt like being forced into it over a cosmetic (imho not really special, doesn't look that great -- there's a screenshot in there). I mean, I believe them when they say they didn't have fun, when they say they felt forced. But they brought it upon themselves, no?

I've also seen quite a few agreeing on that there was a bit of a problem with the Nikana ground slam. Ok, that might have well been the case, I can't judge that. It was the first time around and might've needed some polishing?

Next, when you look in other places you see things like they should remove Conclave because there's nothing of value in there, and it's therefore a waste of time. Well, what are the devs supposed to make of that? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Sounds like with changing part of the rewards midway through the Quick Steel event (gleaned from some of the comments) they were listening, though? It really feels like I'm missing something essential here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No wait, you know what really happened? It wasn't the people who got forced because they felt like those cosmetics made them play the mode. It actually went like this: the people who wanted to play the event for what it was got unfairly forced to play it with those who thought it was alright to cheese/boost it solely for that meaningless reward.

 

 

P.S.:

On 2019-02-10 at 8:53 AM, Urlan said:

If the mode had players working like the Raid School Bus, like players helping new players in Co-op and teaching the basics and gear

You really have no idea who you've been talking to this whole time, right? But more on that in the next part.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Kontrollo
E1: formatting / E2: it was called Snowday Showdown, two typos

[(PSN)Erik890lol]

Just a thought why not make some sort of stalker mode in conclave on Halloween which the tenno is defenseless until a surten timer and the map is dark and spoke in a way. In your a opinion is that a bad idea if so why ?

[Kontrollo]

21 hours ago, (PS4)Erik890lol said:

Just a thought why not make some sort of stalker mode in conclave on Halloween which the tenno is defenseless until a surten timer and the map is dark and spoke in a way. In your a opinion is that a bad idea if so why ?

Why not, certainly worth a try. Should just use the same opt-in/-out feature that has been since been confirmed, though.