PvE+PvP Players are leaving the game :(

[Kontrollo]

11 hours ago, Dark_Chroma_Prime said:

Ever thought of the Idea that Warframe players exactly don't play any of these games BECAUSE those games are PVP focused and Wf players pretty dislike till hate PVP. Thats the reason why MANY MANY MANY players ignore conclave, THEY DON'T WANT TO PLAY PVP.

Conclave should be fully removed, just like the raids there is only a small minority who playes conclave, imo even smaller than the raid community. It takes to much capacity to keep conclave running, ...

11 hours ago, Dark_Chroma_Prime said:

11 hours ago, Aramil999 said:

This is just lie, back when Conclave had updates it was 2 DE employees who did job after hours. 

Now not a single DE member works on Conclave, there was no patch for it in few mounths.

just an other reason it should get removed

Look, it's clear you don't like it. So just ignore it.

But after these two posts your argument amounts to: "remove it because it takes too much time -- oh wait -- remove it because it doesn't get any dev attention at all." Or am I missing something here? Some people are still playing despite it, and that's a fact. It's low maintenance.

 

5 hours ago, MJ12 said:

Look at hard statistics:

Online players right now:

Warframe 54,000

Tribes Ascend 19.3

Lawbreakers 0.1

I'm sure Warframe will benefit from the 19.4 fans of high-mobility PvP shooters they'll get.

That's a strawman argument, and I think you know that.

 

18 minutes ago, Chappie1975 said:

No..its not a normal restraunt.  What it did was tried to add meat to a few vegan dishes and very few liked it.  It keeps them around because occasional customer come in and want them..but far for why people show up.   You haven't done anything to convince anybody...on the contrary...you have hardened the convictions against you.   Pretty sad when you played yourself...but knowing most people aren't that dumb...you are trolling.  

Can we refrain from ad hominems here? It doesn't help you making your point.

 

7 hours ago, Aramil999 said:

I love how exacly the same 5 players hate all PvP related content on this forum... someone pays you? Or it is some childhood related PvP trauma?

This is not helping, either.

[AshenHaze]

The main problem is that the power bloat in this game is so astronomically hilarious that if you actually had invaders you would almost certainly always have a situation where it becomes a game of "who gets one-shot first".

When you have shotguns that fire about 1/4th of the screen or other forms of energy/blast weapons it is basically no competition. Games have to have a fair/stable damage system before ANY kind of player v player content can even be dreamed of.

[zoffmode]

19 hours ago, Datam4ss said:

That is a tired and dumb argument already. There are already games which cater to these players much better than Warframe can ever do so. Making the Devs work on something they won't win another game at the expense of the rest of the game is a losing battle.

There are players that love PvP and games dedicated to purely that with no PvE content. Warframe Devs have to make PvE content as well. No matter what you do, the total man hours they can spare on PvP will be inadequate. There is no incentive for the PvP market to switch to Warframe.

In that case, why waste time trying to draw in a market that doesn't materialize?

No! People love Battle Royales so every game should have Battle Royale mode! Everyone will suddenly stop playing Fortnite, PUBG and Apex and become Warframe player if it gets Battle Royale! /s

[MJ12]

17 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

That's a strawman argument, and I think you know that.

It's not a strawman argument, it's illustrating that the comparisons being used by the OP are flawed because they're not in the same niche as some hypothetical Warframe PvP.

High-mobility shooter games are niche games and the only one which has managed anything resembling mainstream success is Titanfall. And Titanfall's movement mechanics were much more restrictive about how fast you could go outside of a ludicrously high skill level, Titanfall had the same problem of even small movement skill differentials leading to absolute one-sided blowouts. We can look at Quake Champions, even, which also had a peak average of 5k players. Or the futuristic Call of Duty games. It's actually very telling that the Call of Duty games introduced high-speed, Warframe-like movement in Advanced Warfare and in literally every single game past that they've been nerfing it to the point where the most recent games don't have any enhanced movement. Destiny 2 has semi-high mobility but still far less than Warframe or Titanfall and has very generous aim assist, even on PC.

Acting like you'll somehow manage to get a significant number of DoTA or Fortnite or Apex Legends's playerbase somehow simply by adding in a high-mobility PvP mode is folly.

Edited April 24, 2019 by MJ12

[Almagnus1]

9 minutes ago, MJ12 said:

Or the futuristic Call of Duty games. It's actually very telling that the Call of Duty games introduced high-speed, Warframe-like movement in Advanced Warfare and in literally every single game past that they've been nerfing it to the point where the most recent games don't have any enhanced movement.

Maybe there would have been better success if they would have started a different franchise instead of trying to change up the mechanics of an established franchise.  That's like buying StarCraft 3 and expecting an RTS and getting a HotS clone instead.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Aramil999 said:

I love how exactly the same 5 players hate all PvP related content on this forum... someone pays you? Or it is some childhood related PvP trauma?

Or maybe because the people regularly on the forum are few and far between.

I mean, it's the same few players always supporting you, no?

[(PSN)Ozymandias-13-]

PvP players aren't leaving this game. PvP centric players don't exist since it's a PVE game. 

I'm not opposed to the concept of PvP. I play Smite almost as often as I play this. I enjoy Ultimate Ninja Storm 😅 and Super Smash Brothers. But this...this is not a PvP game and no resources should be wasted on pretending it is.

[MJ12]

10 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Maybe there would have been better success if they would have started a different franchise instead of trying to change up the mechanics of an established franchise.  That's like buying StarCraft 3 and expecting an RTS and getting a HotS clone instead.

The futuristic Call of Duty games were commercial successes and did pretty well critically. They just had problems keeping multiplayer interest because of how the movement mechanics exacerbated skill gaps, whereas the boots-on-the-ground CoDs made it so that even a bad player had a decent shot of killing a good player once or twice a match. That accessibility is core to Call of Duty's popularity.

Again, the only high-mobility shooter which has managed mainstream penetration is Titanfall, which was an AAA game by the original devs of Modern Warfare specifically built around trying to make high-mobility, high-skill shooters accessible.

Why is it that the two most popular game modes in Titanfall, Hardpoint and Attrition, allowed a player to become MVP while losing every gunfight to an enemy player? Because Respawn wanted it to be possible for even players with poor gunfighting skills to be significant assets to the team.

Why did the Smart Pistol exist? Because it allowed players with poor gunfighting skills to threaten better players as long as they could get the drop on them.

Why did Titanfall have AI units everywhere? So that even if you were a bad player, you could feel like a badass by killing them, and because they could take objectives (slowly) and do other things that inconvenienced you, killing them was a good thing and a contribution to the team.

Edited April 24, 2019 by MJ12

[Kontrollo]

10 hours ago, MJ12 said:

It's not a strawman argument, it's illustrating that the comparisons being used by the OP are flawed because they're in the same niche as some hypothetical Warframe PvP.

High-mobility shooter games are niche games and the only one which has managed anything resembling mainstream success is Titanfall. And Titanfall's movement mechanics were much more restrictive about how fast you could go outside of a ludicrously high skill level, Titanfall had the same problem of even small movement skill differentials leading to absolute one-sided blowouts. We can look at Quake Champions, even, which also had a peak average of 5k players. Or the futuristic Call of Duty games. It's actually very telling that the Call of Duty games introduced high-speed, Warframe-like movement in Advanced Warfare and in literally every single game past that they've been nerfing it to the point where the most recent games don't have any enhanced movement. Destiny 2 has semi-high mobility but still far less than Warframe or Titanfall and has very generous aim assist, even on PC.

Acting like you'll somehow manage to get a significant number of DoTA or Fortnite or Apex Legends's playerbase somehow simply by adding in a high-mobility PvP mode is folly.

Even if we disagree, your posts are usually well-reasoned, but I don't think this argument is.

Of course it's still a strawman, because what you left out is that one of those two is essentially EOL and the other one is done since September 2018. At least in the OP he is making a comparison between games with stable or even growing playerbases.

The OP is open-ended in that regard (the part about players who don't strongly dislike PvP). Of course, Warframe can't be compared to the mentioned LoL (or later Dota), either. That should be clear to anyone. So I don't know where that last sentence is coming from, either. This game definitely doesn't compete for the Dota playerbase.

 

And well, if I were to actually take you seriously on that not being a strawman, I could just go and turn it on its head:

If we're going to take those two games as a baseline then the devs should invest in expanding on Conclave twentifold, because even though this game's main focus is PvE, its niche PvP mode has more active players than those two dedicated games together. (Although the joke here is that 20 times nothing is still nothing.)

 

But to bring it back to Conclave, because that's what I myself am here for: As mentioned earlier, I think no one is disputing that Conclave is a small part of the game or arguing it should be a focus. It's still Warframe, though, and it's not too much to ask to get fixes for the balance mess the devs themselves created. A part of that was addressed recently.

Also, I'd like them to reenable Opticor Variant (or one of the other variant modes), which was already in the game at some point.

Now for the OP: what part of the suggestions there are you guys opposing, anyway?

[MJ12]

3 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Even if we disagree, your posts are usually well-reasoned, but I don't think this argument is.

Of course it's still a strawman, because what you left out is that one of those two is essentially EOL and the other one is done since September 2018. At least in the OP he is making a comparison between games with stable or even growing playerbases.

The OP is open-ended in that regard (the part about players who don't strongly dislike PvP). Of course, Warframe can't be compared to the mentioned LoL (or later Dota), either. That should be clear to anyone. So I don't know where that last sentence is coming from, either. This game definitely doesn't compete for the Dota playerbase.

It's a facetious way of making a point, not a strawman. The point was that high-mobility shooters are super-niche because their design exacerbates skill gaps and is unfun for less-skilled players (or players who got rusty, and are coming back because new content exists, then get matched with players with similar rankings who aren't as rusty and get to be kicked around a bunch until they adjust or quit). It ties back into the core problem that PvP needs to be fun for the loser, otherwise the loser quits, and now you have one fewer player to match with.

Anyways, if you look at even the peak of Lawbreakers or Tribes: Ascend, you're not exactly seeing a massive player count here. Lawbreakers had a peak player count of 7.5k in June 2017, Tribes: Ascend had a peak of 3k in July 2012. Meanwhile, in June 2017, Warframe's average player count was 25.9k. The point still stands that the playerbase Conclave would be chasing is actually fairly small.

[Kontrollo]

Taking two practically dead games to make your point is a strawman. That's not up for debate.

[MJ12]

2 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Taking two practically dead games to make your point is a strawman. That's not up for debate.

A strawman is when you appear to refute another person's argument but actually are arguing against something the other person didn't say.

The OP's argument in that post was "PvP is so much more popular than PvE, therefore Warframe should spend more resources catering to PvP players." My argument was "those games you use as examples aren't high-mobility shooters, which are extremely niche because of their relative inaccessibility. As you can see from these two dead games." That isn't a 'strawman.' That's a direct refutation. It addresses the core assertion of the OP (that PvP is incredibly popular and therefore Warframe should spend resources catering to PvP players) by pointing out that none of those games are high-mobility shooters, and if you actually look at comparable games-PvP high-mobility shooters-they're all ridiculously niche products.

In fact, the games being dead (despite both being intended around F2P games-as-service models, like Warframe, PUBG, Fortnite, DoTA, and LoL) kind of makes my point even stronger. Every F2P PvP high-mobility shooter has practically died, despite the fact that there really isn't any alternative. And the only PvP high-mobility shooters that have seen success recently either traded on the brand name (Advanced Warfare, Black Ops 3) or traded on the dev name (Titanfall, which was made by the original developers behind Modern Warfare).

[Kontrollo]

To address the real arguments in your posts now:

Mobility: You should've led with Titanfall, although I can't compare because I haven't played it. But mobility is a matchmaking problem as much as aim is. It can and has to be trained. Here's me from back when they introduced the stop-gap that is Recruit Conditioning. The poster after me got it right, though. It probably helped a bit but also segregated the playerbase:

Spoiler

 

We had other posts asking for better matchmaking only shortly after the revamp in 2015, by the way.

 

45 minutes ago, MJ12 said:

The point still stands that the playerbase Conclave would be chasing is actually fairly small. 

I'm not sure how often I have to repeat that I don't dispute that it's a minor part of the game and it would still be. I am about getting stuff back in order. Talk to Aramil what he's thinking about bringing other people in. He's also the one talking about Stalker mode, not only Conclave, by the way.

We're not the same person.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Kontrollo
typos

[MJ12]

2 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Mobility: You should've lead with Titanfall, although I can't compare because I haven't played it. But mobility is a matchmaking problem as much as aim is. It can and has to be trained. Here's me from back when they introduced the stop-gap that is Recruit Conditioning. The poster after me got it right, though. It probably helped a bit but also segregated the playerbase:

Sure, in the sense that if you match people perfectly, mobility isn't a problem. But Warframe PvP is niche and will remain niche even if you make significant improvements to it. So you're not likely to have the massive playerbase that will be necessary to blunt mechanics that increase the skill gap significantly.

More likely, you'll have matchmaking that's more similar to Titanfall towards the end of its lifecycle, where there were relatively few players and most of the ones who did had mastered movement.

[Guest]

If warframe ever becomes forced pvp.
A lot of players will be leaving too.

It is not because battle royales are hot on twitch,
that many of us want a warframe royale... 

This is not that type of game.
Or else, I want to see some pacman royale in the future...

Not everything the masses like, applies to all human beings on earth.
Some fishes go against the flow.

The only fish going with the flow, is a dead one...

Edited April 24, 2019 by Guest
Typos, allways dem typos >.<

[Kontrollo]

7 minutes ago, MJ12 said:

Sure, in the sense that if you match people perfectly, mobility isn't a problem. But Warframe PvP is niche and will remain niche even if you make significant improvements to it. So you're not likely to have the massive playerbase that will be necessary to blunt mechanics that increase the skill gap significantly.

More likely, you'll have matchmaking that's more similar to Titanfall towards the end of its lifecycle, where there were relatively few players and most of the ones who did had mastered movement.

It doesn't take as much as you'd like to make us believe. Here's a video I stumbled on a while ago. It generally is quite a bit slower than what you could do because people have to slow themselves down to hit reliably.

Spoiler

 

 

It's really different from when you see veterans go against each other. But it's similar to e.g. when I play League of Legends compared to what you see pro players do.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Kontrollo
improved

[Kontrollo]

35 minutes ago, MJ12 said:

A strawman is when you appear to refute another person's argument but actually are arguing against something the other person didn't say.

The OP's argument in that post was "PvP is so much more popular than PvE, therefore Warframe should spend more resources catering to PvP players." My argument was "those games you use as examples aren't high-mobility shooters, which are extremely niche because of their relative inaccessibility. As you can see from these two dead games." That isn't a 'strawman.' That's a direct refutation. It addresses the core assertion of the OP (that PvP is incredibly popular and therefore Warframe should spend resources catering to PvP players) by pointing out that none of those games are high-mobility shooters, and if you actually look at comparable games-PvP high-mobility shooters-they're all ridiculously niche products.

In fact, the games being dead (despite both being intended around F2P games-as-service models, like Warframe, PUBG, Fortnite, DoTA, and LoL) kind of makes my point even stronger. Every F2P PvP high-mobility shooter has practically died, despite the fact that there really isn't any alternative. And the only PvP high-mobility shooters that have seen success recently either traded on the brand name (Advanced Warfare, Black Ops 3) or traded on the dev name (Titanfall, which was made by the original developers behind Modern Warfare).

Alright, and this for one last time. He makes an argument about popularity, that there are a lot of people who are not about PvE only -- in contemporary popular games (that are not even necessarily shooters). You bring up two (practically) dead games that are shooters with high mobility.

It's not rocket science.

[MJ12]

26 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Alright, and this for one last time. He makes an argument about popularity, that there are a lot of people who are not about PvE only -- in contemporary popular games (that are not even necessarily shooters). You bring up two (practically) dead games that are shooters with high mobility.

It's not rocket science.

Yes. I directly refute his point by pointing out those contemporary popular games are not comparable to Warframe and pointing out the games that are comparable and focused on PvP rather than PvE are dead. This is not a strawman. 

[Kontrollo]

3 minutes ago, MJ12 said:

Yes. I directly refute his point by pointing out those contemporary popular games are not comparable to Warframe and pointing out the games that are comparable and focused on PvP rather than PvE are dead. This is not a strawman. 

Alright, agree to disagree then.

It's not what this should be about anyway. Even the mobility discussion is only tangential.

[Almagnus1]

1 hour ago, MJ12 said:

It ties back into the core problem that PvP needs to be fun for the loser, otherwise the loser quits, and now you have one fewer player to match with.

**Looks at LoL**

Wait, what?

[MJ12]

16 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

**Looks at LoL**

Wait, what?

LoL has an infamously toxic playerbase which routinely blames everyone but themselves all the time as well. I don't think these two phenomena are unrelated, and I suspect that the reason that LoL manages high player retention despite losing being unfun is because it makes it easier to blame everyone but yourself and insist that you were somehow screwed out of the win, so you should play one more round, and finally you'll get matched with people who won't screw you over.

MOBAs are weird, but in general, 'the game should still be fun when you're losing' is kind of helpful for retaining players who lose.

[(PSN)BenHeisennberg]

On 2019-04-15 at 3:19 AM, Aramil999 said:

@SordidDreams maybe Stalker Mode will at least bring some good PvP into game. Besides it is decided. Steve, Rebbeca etc. have confirmed it multiple times.

If the Wolf taught us anything, it's that a lot of players *hate* unexpected tough enemies.

[Almagnus1]

1 hour ago, (PS4)BenHeisennberg said:

If the Wolf taught us anything, it's that a lot of players *hate* unexpected tough enemies.

There's a difference between tough because you need skill to kill, and something that's Adapation Inaros tough - Wolf was the latter, not the former.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Almagnus1

[Aldain]

7 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

There's a difference between tough because you need skill to kill, and something that's Adapation Inaros tough - Wolf was the latter, not the former.

Yep, nothing about the Wolf needs skill whatsoever, just smash bigger numbers into him while he flails about with a melee weapon, his mooks are more dangerous than him.

[Almagnus1]

2 minutes ago, Aldain said:

Yep, nothing about the Wolf needs skill whatsoever, just smash bigger numbers into him while he flails about with a melee weapon, his mooks are more dangerous than him.

And that's why the Wolf is a red herring with this discussion, as damage sponge =/= challenge.