Do you think PVP can be successful ?

(PSN)Medianik · May 18, 2020

I really wanted to come into this discussion because it's touching on a topic I think about very often.

I would love peoples suggestions on what I mention but I will layout the pro's and cons of the current system and then share my opinion on how we can have a successful system.

Current pro's of conclave:

Warframes movement system, I wanted to touch on this subject first because this is honestly what makes me whole heatedly believe we have a diamond in the rough. Warframe has quite a complex movement system but executes beautifully after years of work, from wall running to slide jumping and the amazing new melee combat system all look like bliss when executed correctly. The moves can be taken advantage of by beginners just starting in the game but true mastery comes from practice and this is where warframe has its number one comparison: GunZ The Duel. I don't know if many of you are old enough to remember gunz but that game had the most epic combination of guns and melee combat that in the early days was so fun to play, however over time the game evolved and players became so good at k-style that it had the adverse effect of making new people to the game feel unwelcome because they would get destroyed. However warframe has a chance to do what gunz didn't and that's have a beautiful movement heavy pvp system that might not have all the intricacies of gunz but still have a gap between good players and those who are new to the game. Do better and balance so not only one weapon type is dominating pro play *cough* shotguns.
Frames, this is something unique to warframe is this is going to be both a pro and a con but here I will discuss the pro side. Having multiple frames is exciting because you can potentially in a serious setting come up with different combos with your team and utilize each frames abilities to either your advantage or teams advantage.

Current cons of conclave:

Most annoying currently are the servers, peer to peer just doesn't work in movement heavy fps games. We need stability and increased speed of matchmaking. I'm sure currently the system is made the way it is however because there's just no incentive for DE to make it better, if they were profiting from conclave they would certainly hire staff and create dedicated servers for it.
Diversity this will be covered in 3 parts for frames, weapons and mods. Diversity is an issue in conclave because for a competitive environment to be exciting everyone needs to feel they are equally matched and the only thing that separates them from better players are their game play mechanics and behavior.

Frames; At the time I'm writing this there are 42 frames (I believe) not including prime and variants. It's a lot to swallow and in the beginning someone coming to warframe only has access to the 3 starter frames. Some of the frames can take weeks and months to obtain leaving new players with very little choice and forcing them to progress through the PVE to obtain them. Now don't get me wrong there is absolutely nothing wrong with the PVE and that is what this game is about, I don't want to change that but just from a perspective of someone who let's say see some cool videos of PVP combat in warframe and want to try it out. They get the game and get through the tutorials and everything and lets say they stay through that, remember this person signed up so they can play PVP with cool movement and awesome skills and then they are stuck with only 1 frame once they finally get to the first point in the game they can finally enjoy the PVP. I will summarize my solutions below. Believe me though this is a problem.
Weapons; I don't know if this is updated but here is a list I found on the wiki: There are a total of 436 weapons in the game: (BTW I know not all these can be used in conclave such as the Arch weapons and others)
133 primary weapons
108 secondary weapons
154 melee weapons
11 Arch-guns
8 Arch-melees
17 Robotic weapons

This is wonderful, it's an amazing diversity of weapons, we are so lucky that DE has designed so many cool weapons that do so many cool things when modded differently, it's honestly a pleasure. However lets talk in context of conclave, such a diverse pool of weapons can't be balanced and lead to clear weapons that have advantage over others. In addition to this there is also the same issue as for frames, weapons aren't easy to come by in warframe, I mean there comes a point when you are just forging 10 - 20 weapons at a time, mastering them and either upgrading them to the next weapon or selling them because you no longer have a use for it. This is not the point, when you are just starting you aren't doing this activity of having a surplus of weapons. I will summarize my solutions below. Believe me though this is a problem.
Mods; I'm not even going to figure out how many mods are out there for conclave but this isn't the issue. The problem is the rate you acquire conclave mods and also the need to level them. This goes back to what causes an issue for conclave at its core, players aren't on an even playing field. I will summarize my solutions below. Believe me though this is a problem.

Gameplay speed. (Not sure about this one) It feels like because of the high speed of movement the beautiful meta game that can really be built on is missing, teams don't utilize utility skills and defensive positioning effectively to what it should be at. If somehow the game-play was structured to make decision making more important I think this would slowdown the pvp and make it a lot more interesting.
Skills. I believe having 4 skills for each character to be overkill, every character has 1 or 2 abilities that get a much larger use than others and the rest are neglected either because they offer defensive or utility benefits that would only be best utilized if the team were working together.
There is more but I'm exhausted and would like feedback before continuing to pick my brain.

Solution

The solution is complex and honestly starting to sound like a whole new game, but DE is not a small studio and are capable of making these changes within the game.

Dedicated Server
This is to address diversity in all three of the categories. Draft Pick
What would draft pick look like? Either biweekly or monthly DE would update the roster and open ONLY 8 frames for that time. Those 8 frames will come pre-modded to ensure everyone is on a even playing field, they can be categorized as 2 offensive, 2 defensive, 2 utility and 2 support (another option is to make Support Utility a single roll and have either an extra offensive or defensive frame such as having a front-line offensive and a back-line sniper of some sort). These frames only have 2 abilities available and are modded to support those abilities. Weapons are also part of the roster and again come pre-modded by DE now there can be a decision to either offer 4 of each weapon type to the role such as 4 Primary, 4 Secondary and 4 Melee for the offensive role frames, or make the overall roster 8 weapons of each type for the whole team and let them draft their build pregame so there are not overlapping or everyone using the same weapon. I know this sounds like a huge change but this would honestly fix the major issue of there being a huge power difference and diversity of options for new and veteran players. This would also show new players how a frame like trinity can be built as a support or using the right mods can possibly be a source of main offensive. (This was just an example but I'm sure there are many frames that can be cleverly built to support a wide variety of roles and because there are only 2 abilities being used at a time from a frames total roaster of 4 it would be easier to ensure that frame is only being used for that function.
Gameplay speed this is another thing I'm most excited to discuss. I really think in order to slow down the speed of play and to make the game have increased appeal it should be switched to round based play. a match can be best out of 10 or 15 but each round you could only die once, this would make people work together and discuss strategies of offence or defense with the team and because there are now only 2 abilities per frame and roles are clearly defined.
Another gameplay option would be competitive matchmaking either clan vs clan or you can make your own team that once created would have its own stats and rank as a unit.
In addition I believe for league play on the highest competitive level, we can leave the full range of frames, weapons, mods and abilities available to that the pros who are putting on a show to have all possibilities available to them.
Monetization the big M, how can we make money $$$ to make all this work worth it.
Still working on this but I think the answer lies in cosmetics; and this lets me open the next part of the conversation regarding cosmetics.
How it works, players who own prime and other cosmetics features for certain frames and welcome to use them in the PVP variant as well at no cost but also not offering any additional stats or advantage over regular players. Now for players who are playing only the PVP and don't own that particular frame or cosmetics in PVE they can buy them individually or as a set for Plat exclusively for the PVP these would be at a smaller price compared to the PVE because they are only able to use them for this part of the game but if players want they can upgrade that set or cosmetic to be global for additional Plat, this cosmetic or cosmetic set can now be used for both PVE and PVP once they unlock that frame in PVE. The only downfall with this system is how it doesn't really combine well with the weapon and frame roster system but I'm out of brain juice for now.

I'm sure DE can thinks of other systems, another one that quickly came to my mind is Plat cost for teams to register to that particular months ranked league.

Looking forward to hearing feedback, and possibly thinking that once there's been enough discussion about this, possibly incorporating that feedback and making one big beautiful post dedicated to this on the general discussion that would hopefully get feedback from staff.

PS... Yes I loved gunz even if I wasn't good at it. It was an amazing vibe at the time it came out, once you knew how to wall cancel and perform other cool movements you felt like a boss.

Edited May 18, 2020 by (PS4)Medianik
Grammar

(PSN)Darth-Escar · May 19, 2020

12 minutes ago, (PS4)Medianik said:

This is to address diversity in all three of the categories. Draft Pick
What would draft pick look like? Either biweekly or monthly DE would update the roster and open ONLY 8 frames for that time. Those 8 frames will come pre-modded to ensure everyone is on a even playing field, they can be categorized as 2 offensive, 2 defensive, 2 utility and 2 support (another option is to make Support Utility a single roll and have either an extra offensive or defensive frame such as having a front-line offensive and a back-line sniper of some sort). These frames only have 2 abilities available and are modded to support those abilities. Weapons are also part of the roster and again come pre-modded by DE now there can be a decision to either offer 4 of each weapon type to the role such as 4 Primary, 4 Secondary and 4 Melee for the offensive role frames, or make the overall roster 8 weapons of each type for the whole team and let them draft their build pregame so there are not overlapping or everyone using the same weapon. I know this sounds like a huge change but this would honestly fix the major issue of there being a huge power difference and diversity of options for new and veteran players. This would also show new players how a frame like trinity can be built as a support or using the right mods can possibly be a source of main offensive. (This was just an example but I'm sure there are many frames that can be cleverly built to support a wide variety of roles and because there are only 2 abilities being used at a time from a frames total roaster of 4 it would be easier to ensure that frame is only being used for that function.

I think having high diversity is a major part of Warframe's appeal, in both PvE and PvP. Encouraging diversity is simply done through balance. Everyone would use one thing when that one thing is clearly the best choice. Balancing does become more difficult as more stuff is added, but conclave almost has a really good degree of it, and most of the obviously OP stuff comes from what are presumably bugs. The remaining few should then be easy changes. Good balance would have most things being used regularly, and even with the current imbalances, every Warframe is used regularly enough for a moderately actively player to see how they all work. Weapons are somewhat of a different story. It would definitely be much harder to balance them to the same extent, but I don't think they need to be or even should. Games with this level of gear variety often create an intentional imbalance to centralize a metagame. Overcentralization is an issue that many are familiar with, but undercentralization is also a potential issue, because that means that there's more which people have to account for. (I don't know who's familiar with competitive Pokémon, but imagine building a team accounting for every Pokémon, rather than just Pokémon with a certain usage rate.)

I also think a major appeal of Warframe is not being locked into a specific role or task with certain frames. I've been an Oberon main for the longest, he's pretty much the embodiment of that appeal. But there's also frames like Rhino, buffing himself with both damage and EHP while having wide-ranging CC. Volt, Harrow, Nova, Banshee, Equinox, Octavia, and other frames similarly also have those sorts of mixes.

42 minutes ago, (PS4)Medianik said:

Gameplay speed this is another thing I'm most excited to discuss. I really think in order to slow down the speed of play and to make the game have increased appeal it should be switched to round based play. a match can be best out of 10 or 15 but each round you could only die once, this would make people work together and discuss strategies of offence or defense with the team and because there are now only 2 abilities per frame and roles are clearly defined.
Another gameplay option would be competitive matchmaking either clan vs clan or you can make your own team that once created would have its own stats and rank as a unit.

I would really like a round-based game mode, but I don't think it's the method to slowing the game down enough for newer players. I'm not even sure if it necessarily needs to be slowed down. Weapons and abilities that are relatively easy to use are a huge help in that, as well as increasing EHP in exchange for mobility. Even after about 40k kills worth of experience, I need one or the other in order to play decently against someone with high mobility, so either I have something like Ogris, or I slow myself down, to use something like Dera Vandal. (I usually also need to keep people a certain distance from me among things. I made a whole play style that suits my low reaction speed and stuff.) That could maybe be expanded on, but I'm not quite sure about that. People rarely use low levels of mobility, which suggests that it's generally less viable than high mobility. Larger EHP modifiers on the mods might do the trick. (It's currently 25 for health and 30 for shield, so maybe 30 for health and 40 for shield.)

-BG-StormFighter117 · May 19, 2020

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

They did fail because the numbers show low attendance. They simply werent used by enough people and they caused issues for the game. There were reasons why the modes were removed. Upkeep costs and time simply didnt match the low attendance.

The resources that went into it when it was made. That is more than enough to spend on something that isnt used.

As I said in the first segment here, the attendance was too low to justify injecting the needed resources and time into it to fix it. Your idea of huge may be huge in isolation, but when you compare it to the total number of players it is a small clique that participated in those modes. They are definently not worth trying again. Even if they manage to pull twice the numbers in a new iteration it will still be an insignificant amount of the playerbase that actually participates in it. And this is by only thinking of the resources needed to develop it. For something like DS to be even remotely worth playing DE would also need to set up dedicated servers, both for PC and console so the experience is equal.

So where did you get those facts to propagate that information?
You take 50k-60k in the Raid discord. This does not include outside players either.

Then you consider Dark Sectors which was honestly larger than that. Then add console numbers lmao

Were you even here for Dark Sectors? No? Then who was here to tell you that? And what sources do they have? I'm one of the remaining leaders who sat at the table #WarframeBoomer. I knew all the clans in the controlling alliances, neighboring(Casual) alliances, and enemy alliances. I know the numbers. The public (rando individual player) was certainly a force to reckon with despite our mass, but let me tell you. Many of them participated in the rails. How would you like several millions credits? Fight for me and Ill give you the world.

Your entire ideology thus far from what you've posted is calling it a necessary loss for the sake of upkeep costs and expense. While also having no first hand experience. Under the same logic, I can say the same for many different parts of the game. Just delete everything because upkeep and low attendance. Ez

Complain about PvP? The Dark Sectors where once PvE. In fact, some may argue the PvE mechanics were better. No upkeep for DE as it used Void tilesets and required no balancing either. Want to talk about investing much needed resources into something? They made Lunaro.

Edited May 19, 2020 by -BG-StormFighter117

Felsagger · May 19, 2020

Don't waste your time typing chimeras.

This Is just wishful thinking. You want a PVP game? Then look elsewhere. DE is not interested seeking that route for War Frame.

SneakyErvin · May 19, 2020

13 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

I disagree entirely.

Failed how?

Terrible logic. Absolutely atrocious actually.

You do that.

It failed by not pulling the numbers of players. It had low participation. It was also riddled with issues. It got shut down.

Not terrible logic, because the things you bring up are pet projects with no actual dev time that has gone into them aside from Octavia's music, which is part of her mechanics and the extra music means extra revenue. And no, raids needed constant maintenance since things broke and they had to account for raids when releasing new things and balancing them. Defection needs no more fixing than any other mode that currently works. Defection worked and served the purpose i.e getting Harrow, just as Anthem is there in order to get Octavia or the Sacrifice to get Umbra. Modes that arent really ment for anything else. And now with arbitrations, Defection got a different use with little extra work put into it.

4 hours ago, -BG-StormFighter117 said:

So where did you get those facts to propagate that information?
You take 50k-60k in the Raid discord. This does not include outside players either.

Then you consider Dark Sectors which was honestly larger than that. Then add console numbers lmao

Were you even here for Dark Sectors? No? Then who was here to tell you that? And what sources do they have? I'm one of the remaining leaders who sat at the table #WarframeBoomer. I knew all the clans in the controlling alliances, neighboring(Casual) alliances, and enemy alliances. I know the numbers. The public (rando individual player) was certainly a force to reckon with despite our mass, but let me tell you. Many of them participated in the rails. How would you like several millions credits? Fight for me and Ill give you the world.

Your entire ideology thus far from what you've posted is calling it a necessary loss for the sake of upkeep costs and expense. While also having no first hand experience. Under the same logic, I can say the same for many different parts of the game. Just delete everything because upkeep and low attendance. Ez

Complain about PvP? The Dark Sectors where once PvE. In fact, some may argue the PvE mechanics were better. No upkeep for DE as it used Void tilesets and required no balancing either. Want to talk about investing much needed resources into something? They made Lunaro.

From the chart provided by DE in a stream a good while back that showed the participation percentage of each mode. The lowest 4 were DS, Raids, Conclave and Defection.

No I wasnt there for DS, which I hoped I was. It doesnt change that it literally failed and got shut down for one reason or another. It takes alot for a company to decide to shut something down. And when you see the low numbers, the obvious toxicity PvP brings along with several different issues and extra resources needed it isnt a mystery that DS got shut down. If you know the numbers you must be able to provide them aswell. Anything else would just be anecdotal.

You fail to realize that most of the other modes are things that just takes you further into the game. An endgame mode, which I'd consider DS and Raids, is ment to be played alot when there is nothing else to keep you progressing, they failed at that even though they were at the end of the line.

As I said in a previous post, if DS was turned into a pure PvE mode that involved different factions as a possible replacement for invasions I'd get behind it. No toxicity, no need to overly balance around clan sizes and eventual clan "bullying", no need for dedicated servers, it already has the maps (some the same as DS iirc) and it would slide into the PvE nature of the game.

Also, you say "Want to talk about investing much needed resources into something? They made Lunaro." yet you completely failed to understand when I said they wasted resources into PvP several times. Lunaro is part of that PvP, they injected time and resources several times over into different failed PvP modes. That is the whole reason I'm saying NO, because it has been tried in several different shapes already. I'm not saying no to a pure PvE DS-like system. I'm just saying stop wasting more attempts on PvP, it is a dead horse, let it rot in peace.

(PSN)UltraKardas · May 19, 2020

48 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Not terrible logic, because the things you bring up are pet projects with no actual dev time that has gone into them aside from Octavia's music, which is part of her mechanics and the extra music means extra revenue.

Yes terrible logic actually.

The raids were an experiment at the time. None of the raids had their major bugs fixed (Doors not needing people to stand on their buttons, Jordas needing the host to make certain rooms work right, huds vanishing, players manifesting as multiple warframes etc. After getting initial dev time to implement them, the raids were rarely touched again.

The raids also made money. You know how I know? 2000 plat doesn't come from nowhere. The arcanes were an item that were both really strong in certain conditions, and have been constantly upgraded at time has gone on.

(Arcanes going from specific syndanas to having dedicated warframe slots.)

The raids had 3 real problems.

#1 bugs. Warframe constantly has massive bug patches. Raids did not get the patch support the rest of the game gets.

#2 no incentive for early-mid game players. Arcanes are/were nice. But warframe needed to add something to the raid rewards pool that gave other players a real drive to do them. Destiny 2 gives raids special armor and weapons.

Monster hunter, WoW and other games give raids armor and other loot as a reward. Raids only had arcanes for the endgame players and when you got a rare arcane it was enough.

But to have more then a small amount of players do it, there has to be a better reason to do it. (Like a massive reward of random resources, massive endo, raid exclusive weapons etc.

#3 Lack of dedication.
warframe released 3 raids including the hardmode.
They all had the same base idea. All had the same rewards. DE could have made the raids work, but it wasn't what the general direction of the game was going towards. They couldn't pursue raids, with plains of eidolon, or fortuna.

You think defection and raids are different when not really. The main difference is one is a 3 part mission with 8 people. The other is a npc protection quest. Very few people have a reason to do either of those once you get the reward. After getting the arcanes you need/want the endgame players stopped doing raids. After getting harrow or just buying him, nobody has a reason for it.

Destiny 2 and warframe are two games very similar in concept and appeal to people.
Both games can have raids be successful, give loot and give players a good experience, it just depends on the quality of the raid, of if either are pursuing to take the game in that direction.

Warframe with its casual basis, is not until raids give something so significant that it helps with the farms, actively contributes to reduce the grind, or gives a reward so good that you are handicapped without it.

(Just a fyi btw. Eidolons, and Profit Taker boss fights are raid bosses. They are the evolution of raids. The Profitaker mission in fortuna to kill the profit taker is a raid in every sense except player count. Getting to use archwing weapons as a reward was a very good step in the right direction. If De pursues raids/raid bosses in the future, they need to make it fundamentally more rewarding or add a feature about it that makes it a viable option for game progress.

SneakyErvin · May 19, 2020

8 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Yes terrible logic actually.

The raids were an experiment at the time. None of the raids had their major bugs fixed (Doors not needing people to stand on their buttons, Jordas needing the host to make certain rooms work right, huds vanishing, players manifesting as multiple warframes etc. After getting initial dev time to implement them, the raids were rarely touched again.

The raids also made money. You know how I know? 2000 plat doesn't come from nowhere. The arcanes were an item that were both really strong in certain conditions, and have been constantly upgraded at time has gone on.

(Arcanes going from specific syndanas to having dedicated warframe slots.)

The raids had 3 real problems.

#1 bugs. Warframe constantly has massive bug patches. Raids did not get the patch support the rest of the game gets.

#2 no incentive for early-mid game players. Arcanes are/were nice. But warframe needed to add something to the raid rewards pool that gave other players a real drive to do them. Destiny 2 gives raids special armor and weapons.

Monster hunter, WoW and other games give raids armor and other loot as a reward. Raids only had arcanes for the endgame players and when you got a rare arcane it was enough.

But to have more then a small amount of players do it, there has to be a better reason to do it. (Like a massive reward of random resources, massive endo, raid exclusive weapons etc.

#3 Lack of dedication.
warframe released 3 raids including the hardmode.
They all had the same base idea. All had the same rewards. DE could have made the raids work, but it wasn't what the general direction of the game was going towards. They couldn't pursue raids, with plains of eidolon, or fortuna.

You think defection and raids are different when not really. The main difference is one is a 3 part mission with 8 people. The other is a npc protection quest. Very few people have a reason to do either of those once you get the reward. After getting the arcanes you need/want the endgame players stopped doing raids. After getting harrow or just buying him, nobody has a reason for it.

Destiny 2 and warframe are two games very similar in concept and appeal to people.
Both games can have raids be successful, give loot and give players a good experience, it just depends on the quality of the raid, of if either are pursuing to take the game in that direction.

Warframe with its casual basis, is not until raids give something so significant that it helps with the farms, actively contributes to reduce the grind, or gives a reward so good that you are handicapped without it.

(Just a fyi btw. Eidolons, and Profit Taker boss fights are raid bosses. They are the evolution of raids. The Profitaker mission in fortuna to kill the profit taker is a raid in every sense except player count. Getting to use archwing weapons as a reward was a very good step in the right direction. If De pursues raids/raid bosses in the future, they need to make it fundamentally more rewarding or add a feature about it that makes it a viable option for game progress.

It is terrible logic to compare something that did cost active dev resources and time to a bunch of pet projects that only had a cost of spare time tied to them. That is what you do when you compare raids to happy zephyr or framefighter for instance. You also have terrible logic when you start comparing content to mechanics of a frame. Kinda like those "duh why cant they stop making skins so we can get more content!?".

Nothing that was making money from raids got removed, it shifted to new content that was more worthwhile and less bonkers.

The problems you bring up for raids are things that would never be possible in raids in this game. The system isnt built like the games you mention, so hoping for armor sets etc. is a pipe dream. The game simply doesnt have the foundation to do actual worthwhile or interesting raids. Just as several othe games of the genre has tried and failed.

Defection and raids are different, defection was made in order to reward one specific thing. Just as the grendel missions or the several quests for frames. It just had the potential to be used for something else aswell. Raids were endgame and had potential replayability due to a longer grind for full arcane stacks.

Destiny 2 doesnt have 40+ playable characters that lack distninct roles. It is a game designed from the ground up with raids in mind for the type of game it is. WF was not. There is no real reason for raids in WF to begin with, since what can be done with 8 people can just as well be done with 4.

PT and eidolons would be bosses. There is nothing raid specific about them. A raid boss is something that requires a dedicated group setup to handle different mechanics throughout the fight that a smaller group or solo player cant handle. Like adds that need to be off tanked, phases that require stacking healers, correct positioning of tanks and dps, coordination between kills, correct split of damage types and so on. Nothing in WF has ever been an actual raid aside from the number of players that can participate in the content.

-BG-StormFighter117 · May 19, 2020

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

You do that.

It failed by not pulling the numbers of players. It had low participation. It was also riddled with issues. It got shut down.

Not terrible logic, because the things you bring up are pet projects with no actual dev time that has gone into them aside from Octavia's music, which is part of her mechanics and the extra music means extra revenue. And no, raids needed constant maintenance since things broke and they had to account for raids when releasing new things and balancing them. Defection needs no more fixing than any other mode that currently works. Defection worked and served the purpose i.e getting Harrow, just as Anthem is there in order to get Octavia or the Sacrifice to get Umbra. Modes that arent really ment for anything else. And now with arbitrations, Defection got a different use with little extra work put into it.

From the chart provided by DE in a stream a good while back that showed the participation percentage of each mode. The lowest 4 were DS, Raids, Conclave and Defection.

No I wasnt there for DS, which I hoped I was. It doesnt change that it literally failed and got shut down for one reason or another. It takes alot for a company to decide to shut something down. And when you see the low numbers, the obvious toxicity PvP brings along with several different issues and extra resources needed it isnt a mystery that DS got shut down. If you know the numbers you must be able to provide them aswell. Anything else would just be anecdotal.

You fail to realize that most of the other modes are things that just takes you further into the game. An endgame mode, which I'd consider DS and Raids, is ment to be played alot when there is nothing else to keep you progressing, they failed at that even though they were at the end of the line.

As I said in a previous post, if DS was turned into a pure PvE mode that involved different factions as a possible replacement for invasions I'd get behind it. No toxicity, no need to overly balance around clan sizes and eventual clan "bullying", no need for dedicated servers, it already has the maps (some the same as DS iirc) and it would slide into the PvE nature of the game.

Also, you say "Want to talk about investing much needed resources into something? They made Lunaro." yet you completely failed to understand when I said they wasted resources into PvP several times. Lunaro is part of that PvP, they injected time and resources several times over into different failed PvP modes. That is the whole reason I'm saying NO, because it has been tried in several different shapes already. I'm not saying no to a pure PvE DS-like system. I'm just saying stop wasting more attempts on PvP, it is a dead horse, let it rot in peace.

Provide me the graph that shows Dark Sectors were the least played. From what I recall those heat maps never got released during the Dark Sector times. New conclave, raids, and defection never existed until far later so having them on the same graph would be incredible inaccurate. Perhaps you mixed it up with the PvE variant which have become obsolete.

I also don’t know who you are and posting alliance rosters publically is not something I’d want to get in trouble for.

“ment to be played alot when there is nothing else to keep you progressing” then Dark Sectors succeeded it’s purpose much like defection succeeded its purpose to bring Harrow.

Edited May 19, 2020 by -BG-StormFighter117
No idea why that text is bigger. Phones weird

(XBOX)The Repo Man151 · May 19, 2020

43 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

It failed by not pulling the numbers of players. It had low participation. It was also riddled with issues. It got shut down.

It actually pulled a significant amount of players. Whole clans and alliances were centered solely around the Dark Sector Conflicts. You keep saying they had issues but you always fail to mention what exact issues the previous system had. I assume this is because you don't know what you are talking about and you are simply repeating what you have heard from others. That's very common when Dark Sector Conflicts are brought into the discussion.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

From the chart provided by DE in a stream a good while back that showed the participation percentage of each mode. The lowest 4 were DS, Raids, Conclave and Defection.

Well, where do I begin with this? Because there are many places where I can begin. First of all, any chart that showed the Dark Sector Conflicts at the same time as Raids, let alone Defection would be disingenuous and not based in reality. Defection released as a mode on March 2nd, 2017. Raids were introduced into the game on March 19th, 2015. Dark Sector Conflicts were put on Armistice the same update Raids were introduced. Are you genuinely trying to tell me that a chart would include player data from a singular mode that not able to be participated in for nearly two years? Really?

Okay. I began there. But there's even more wrong with your post. Let's examine the chart itself. warframe_activity_pie_chart.png?width=50

Not only is defection not on that chart, .
Not only are Dark Sector Conflicts not on that chart.
Not only do we not know the methodology of how DE chose those numbers.
Not only is the information taken from the length of a single weekend (a weekend over a year away from Dark Sector Conflicts, I might add)
Not only are DSCs, Raids, Conclave, and Defection not in the bottom 4 as you so wrongly declared they were.
The chart only includes the data from a singular platform. So it would only apply for PC players anyway.
In your argument, you imply that because so few players participated in the mode, they deserved to be removed. Does that mean you support Hive Sabotage, Pursuit, Dojos, Relays, Rush, Hijack, Arena, and the tutorial for the game itself should be removed because there was not a lot of player participation in them?

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

No I wasnt there for DS

And yet you claim to know all the intimate details of what exactly went wrong with them. I wait, breathless, for you to reveal these absolute game-breaking issues that I am unaware of. I was a Warlord of Arbiters Rage on Xbox One Warframe. We were an Alliance that controlled six Solar Rails. No easy feat. I have participated in Dark Sectors at every level. I played the mode as an MR2 with no experience before I was even in a Clan or an Alliance. I played as a player that was invested into the system because I was in a Clan that was a part of an Alliance. As an officer of said Alliance, I helped design the Schema for our Solar Rails. I grinded all of the resources and specters needed for the construction and armaments of a Solar Rail. I stayed up late nights with the rest of the leaders to make sure we got the optimal deployment times for our battles. I worked with other Alliances to improve our diplomatic relationships with and plot to destroy our enemies.

At every level of Dark Sectors I am extremely experienced and acutely aware of what the actual issues of the system were. I played the mode to its fullest extent. You can not say the same.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

It doesnt change that it literally failed and got shut down for one reason or another

What reason was that?

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

It takes alot for a company to decide to shut something down

No it doesn't.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And when you see the low numbers,

Not based in reality. Literally tens of thousands of players participated in that system every day.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

several different issues

What exactly are those issues?

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

If you know the numbers you must be able to provide them

You haven't provided your numbers. I'm going to remind you that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You made the claim that nobody participated in the system. Where is your evidence?

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

You fail to realize that most of the other modes are things that just takes you further into the game

Dark Sectors did take you further in the game, tremendously so in fact. A player could make tens of millions in credits from participating in the system in only a matter of hours. Clans and Alliances collected millions of resources and could distribute the resources so that clans in the alliance could finish their research much more quickly than non-participating clans at that point in the game's life.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

An endgame mode, which I'd consider DS and Raids, is ment to be played alot when there is nothing else to keep you progressing

Yes.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

they failed at that even though they were at the end of the line.

Both Raids and Rails succeeded tremendously at that aspect. I can't even imagine how anyone could claim they failed.

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

No toxicity

There'd be even more toxicity. People would claim they were missing out on the rewards simply because most of the community chose x instead of y. Just because it is PvE, doesn't mean it is not toxic.

SneakyErvin · May 19, 2020

2 hours ago, -BG-StormFighter117 said:

Provide me the graph that shows Dark Sectors were the least played. From what I recall those heat maps never got released during the Dark Sector times. New conclave, raids, and defection never existed until far later so having them on the same graph would be incredible inaccurate. Perhaps you mixed it up with the PvE variant which have become obsolete.

I also don’t know who you are and posting alliance rosters publically is not something I’d want to get in trouble for.

“ment to be played alot when there is nothing else to keep you progressing” then Dark Sectors succeeded it’s purpose much like defection succeeded its purpose to bring Harrow.

I'm not sure which graph it was.

How can you get in trouble for it, you arent naming and shaming?

But there are no stats indicating it was played alot. If it was as popular and populated as claimed here, there would be multitudes of easy to find old forum threads, fan sites and other things to support those claims. Most i see when browsing around is alot of old players saying it was a toxic pool with really no balance, or in the PvE only days a pointless activity. Maybe you were part of the dozen of clans competing, that however does not equal large activity.

1 hour ago, (XB1)The Repo Man151 said:

It actually pulled a significant amount of players. Whole clans and alliances were centered solely around the Dark Sector Conflicts. You keep saying they had issues but you always fail to mention what exact issues the previous system had. I assume this is because you don't know what you are talking about and you are simply repeating what you have heard from others. That's very common when Dark Sector Conflicts are brought into the discussion.

Well, where do I begin with this? Because there are many places where I can begin. First of all, any chart that showed the Dark Sector Conflicts at the same time as Raids, let alone Defection would be disingenuous and not based in reality. Defection released as a mode on March 2nd, 2017. Raids were introduced into the game on March 19th, 2015. Dark Sector Conflicts were put on Armistice the same update Raids were introduced. Are you genuinely trying to tell me that a chart would include player data from a singular mode that not able to be participated in for nearly two years? Really?

Okay. I began there. But there's even more wrong with your post. Let's examine the chart itself.

Not only is defection not on that chart, .
Not only are Dark Sector Conflicts not on that chart.
Not only do we not know the methodology of how DE chose those numbers.
Not only is the information taken from the length of a single weekend (a weekend over a year away from Dark Sector Conflicts, I might add)
Not only are DSCs, Raids, Conclave, and Defection not in the bottom 4 as you so wrongly declared they were.
The chart only includes the data from a singular platform. So it would only apply for PC players anyway.
In your argument, you imply that because so few players participated in the mode, they deserved to be removed. Does that mean you support Hive Sabotage, Pursuit, Dojos, Relays, Rush, Hijack, Arena, and the tutorial for the game itself should be removed because there was not a lot of player participation in them?

And yet you claim to know all the intimate details of what exactly went wrong with them. I wait, breathless, for you to reveal these absolute game-breaking issues that I am unaware of. I was a Warlord of Arbiters Rage on Xbox One Warframe. We were an Alliance that controlled six Solar Rails. No easy feat. I have participated in Dark Sectors at every level. I played the mode as an MR2 with no experience before I was even in a Clan or an Alliance. I played as a player that was invested into the system because I was in a Clan that was a part of an Alliance. As an officer of said Alliance, I helped design the Schema for our Solar Rails. I grinded all of the resources and specters needed for the construction and armaments of a Solar Rail. I stayed up late nights with the rest of the leaders to make sure we got the optimal deployment times for our battles. I worked with other Alliances to improve our diplomatic relationships with and plot to destroy our enemies.

At every level of Dark Sectors I am extremely experienced and acutely aware of what the actual issues of the system were. I played the mode to its fullest extent. You can not say the same.

What reason was that?

No it doesn't.

Not based in reality. Literally tens of thousands of players participated in that system every day.

What exactly are those issues?

You haven't provided your numbers. I'm going to remind you that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You made the claim that nobody participated in the system. Where is your evidence?

Dark Sectors did take you further in the game, tremendously so in fact. A player could make tens of millions in credits from participating in the system in only a matter of hours. Clans and Alliances collected millions of resources and could distribute the resources so that clans in the alliance could finish their research much more quickly than non-participating clans at that point in the game's life.

Yes.

Both Raids and Rails succeeded tremendously at that aspect. I can't even imagine how anyone could claim they failed.

There'd be even more toxicity. People would claim they were missing out on the rewards simply because most of the community chose x instead of y. Just because it is PvE, doesn't mean it is not toxic.

That would not be the chart. That is a very specific chart tied to one specific 4 day weekend. And for that matter I've already explained the biggest issue why people most likely stayed away in the first place, lack of dedicated servers. I'm not sure what kinda low standards are common on console, but on PC, P2P PvP tends to be a joke, something you may accept when playing with a few friends just to fool around. It is not something you accept and settle with in a competative environment, especially not when you play an international game where you can end up versus anyone.

Going by the rest of what you say I assume you are a zerger and not an actual PvPer, strength in numbers and all that. Which also explains why you settle with P2P for your "PvP". As it has been repeated several times on the forums since the shut down of rails, it was something dominated by big clans/alliances only. And you still ask me what issues it had. I mean, seriously?

It is the age old issue that several large scale PvP games suffer. Here it took the shape of alliances being able to help eachother, in other games it takes the shape of unlimited numbers on the active battlefield, so the faction, guild or clan with the biggest population always wins and has best coverage. GW2 had the issue, it was fixed by rotating the servers that faced eachother so eventually the strength between the 3 in each tier was near balanced. This along with limiting the number in the maps where the castle sieges took place. It has been an issue in ESO aswell, not sure if they ever bothered to fix it.

And no, toxicity wouldnt be higher in a PvE mode similar to DS/Invasions, because you'd get battlepay for participating, much like how invasions work now. But instead of being limited to doing 3 missions for X reward you'd be able to do more and more and more for further rewards when the conflict ends. Toxicity in PvP is unavoidable.

Also, regarding numbers, I wasnt the first one to claim any numbers, the people that claimed DS and Raids were successful did, when DE more or less says the opposite by shutting them down. The burden of proof is really on you since you say it is the opposite of what the actions from DE show.

Do the two of you in all honesty think DE would have shut down those two modes if there werent massive issues with them?

(NSW)Quarky · May 19, 2020

@(PS4)Medianik heeeeyyyyy, gunz bud! I'm going to be snipping your post because I don't necessarily intend to respond to it, but maybe look at some ideas you brought up and expand on them/add my take. I agree with some things you say and disagree with some things you say but don't necessarily feel the need to dissect your points.

16 hours ago, (PS4)Medianik said:

Do better and balance so not only one weapon type is dominating pro play *cough* shotguns.

In GunZ, you used two shotguns and a katana + the best HP/AP med kits you could get your hands on. Those were the top tier gear and everything except maybe dual revs were garbage tier gear. That said, it WAS possible to be good enough that you could walk into a team annihilation with a fresh lvl 1 character, the most garbage of garbage gear, and just stomp the whole pub match. (Obviously not the case with clan wars unless you were sandbagging.)

Looking at that a different way, since everyone used the same gear (or nearly the same gear, there were style variations with slight stat and hitbox variations) winning became merely a skill check. GunZ, in my opinion, is a weird example of a game where everything was so unbalanced that balance was not necessarily an issue - unless you thought being sort of soft-locked into a loadout is an issue. I didn't in the case of GunZ because the top tier loadout required the highest level of technical skill to use. Contrasting that with Warframe, if everyone was running Saryn+Telos Boltace it wouldn't be a skill check, it would be a who uses stormpath first check or maaaybe a "sike, got you with my molt"-check. That doesn't require skill or brains and is a boring gameplay loop for everyone involved. In the case of warframe, the unbalance is definitely still an issue because it doesn't promote intrinsic player growth because there's no need to invest time practicing your technical ability. Stormpath to victory out of the gate! Hurray! That's unhealthy for conclave.

Tangentially, it's my understanding there was a sort of meta honor code among Conclave PC players where warframe ability use was frowned upon. I'm not sure why since I haven't played with that group, but my reasoning for frowning on ability use would be "because not using abilities brings warframe pvp closer to a technical skill check than a game of rock-paper-i-have-the-warframe-that-beats-yours." In that sense, your draft pick idea resonates with me as it restricts player loadout in a way that pushes players to more of a skill check to claim victory than a "do I have telos boltace in my loadout? check."

16 hours ago, (PS4)Medianik said:

Gameplay speed. (Not sure about this one) It feels like because of the high speed of movement the beautiful meta game that can really be built on is missing, teams don't utilize utility skills and defensive positioning effectively to what it should be at. If somehow the game-play was structured to make decision making more important I think this would slowdown the pvp and make it a lot more interesting.

First, I just wanna say I disagree here and I want to expand on why.

As far as I can tell in PvP environments, decision making only arises as something crucial to get right when technical skill/gear are about equal between the competing players. If one player/team is just leagues better or has leagues better gear, what decisions do you need to make other than "Alright, when do I pull the trigger?" If skill is about equal and gear are about equal, that's when the players have to start looking for terrain advantages, looking for map control, looking for ambush opportunities, etc. I don't think game-speed has anything to do with the criticality of decision making in a PvP environment though I do believe increased game-speed means an increased rate of decision making which is more or less an increase in decision making difficulty. With less time available, you have less time to puzzle out the correct decision. I wouldn't say that's a bad thing but it certainly does contribute to the skill gap.

16 hours ago, (PS4)Medianik said:

Gameplay speed this is another thing I'm most excited to discuss. I really think in order to slow down the speed of play and to make the game have increased appeal it should be switched to round based play. a match can be best out of 10 or 15 but each round you could only die once, this would make people work together and discuss strategies of offence or defense with the team and because there are now only 2 abilities per frame and roles are clearly defined.
Another gameplay option would be competitive matchmaking either clan vs clan or you can make your own team that once created would have its own stats and rank as a unit.

This is interesting and caught my eye. Is this a different "gameplay speed" than I quote in my post above? This reads a lot like advocating for a round based team annihilation where "gameplay speed" is not necessarily a reference to player mobility but rather mission structure and implementation. Anyway, yes I would absolutely love to see this kind of system implemented - a "true" team annihilation mode and not just a "ffa with teams". This would be wonderful for a clan vs. clan system. I would love to see that implemented in warframe.

16 hours ago, (PS4)Medianik said:

Dedicated Server

Are they really necessary, though? The laymen wouldn't be able to tell you when they are in a P2P environment vs. a dedicated server environment. GunZ was p2p and it was fine - was and is my favorite game. I did have a chance to play on some private servers that weren't p2p, though, and that was surely nice af. I. Hate. Leading based on ping.

I dunno, I see people throwing this around as a reason conclave should be scrapped and I just don't see it. Peer to peer is totally fine. I've hosted 7-8 player conclave matches on my NSW without noticing any issues. I do play with almost all graphics settings at lowest, though I'm not sure how much that actually helps my poor lil NSW. That said, I would definitely expect dedicated servers for official tournaments though maybe not necessarily for clan wars.

----

To conclude, GunZ was a weird game that is certainly comparable to Warframe in some ways particularly being a TPS, being a gun/melee game but mostly the fluidity with which the player can move around the map. GunZ was marketed strictly as a PvP game and did have anti-hack systems in place during the beta and when it later moved to ijji. It was never a success like LoL/DotA or Starcraft but it was clearly a successful game as private servers still exist today. That said, there really was a massive lack of "exploit" fixing. That was fine, though, because the exploits required practice to be able to use and eventually became k-style, "korean style", due to the absolutely insane aps the was required to play at the highest levels. In Warframe, the exploits are easy to use and require zero practice or skill while not being patched out by the devs.

If PvP is going to be successful in Warframe, it absolutely needs DE attention more than twice a year. I feel there are no ifs-ands-or-buts here. Most weapons/frames seem relatively balanced and require similar amounts of technical and tactical skill to use well but there are a couple massive offenders that simply don't have practical workarounds that DE needs to spend dev time looking at consistently as they update their game - or they just need to strike them from the conclave list.

While new modes like a clan ranking match system or PvEvP types modes would be interesting, they'd all fall prey to the same problem. DE doesn't upkeep conclave. Why? I don't know but it's gotta be a plat problem. I wonder what would happen if conclave weapon skins were tradeable between players while still only being available through Teshin. I wonder how much plat would trade hands for those conclave skins and I wonder if that would allow DE to allocate resources to conclave.

#BanTelosBoltace #ClanWarsTeamAnnihilationStyle

Aldain · May 19, 2020

4 minutes ago, (NSW)Quarky said:

PvEvP types modes would be interesting

Is it sad that I actually REALLY like how Gambit works on Destiny 2?

PvP interactions for the most part are limited so curbstomps don't happen as often as in pure PvP and the focus is more on a goal rather than who can out-twitchfire who.

SneakyErvin · May 19, 2020

8 minutes ago, (NSW)Quarky said:

Are they really necessary, though? The laymen wouldn't be able to tell you when they are in a P2P environment vs. a dedicated server environment. GunZ was p2p and it was fine - was and is my favorite game. I did have a chance to play on some private servers that weren't p2p, though, and that was surely nice af. I. Hate. Leading based on ping.

I dunno, I see people throwing this around as a reason conclave should be scrapped and I just don't see it. Peer to peer is totally fine. I've hosted 7-8 player conclave matches on my NSW without noticing any issues. I do play with almost all graphics settings at lowest, though I'm not sure how much that actually helps my poor lil NSW. That said, I would definitely expect dedicated servers for official tournaments though maybe not necessarily for clan wars.

It makes a massive difference for the clients. With P2P the host will always have the upper hand and the performance for the others in the match can range from great to disaster. And when you then expand this to a gamewide and competative system it can lead to alot of cheese for the host. I could simply bottleneck others without being impacted myself by simply starting up all the computers in the house and start downloading something like movies or stream things on each one of them. That would give me a major upper hand since my heavily working connection would have no impact on my connection to the game in question.

Such things should just not be a possibility if a game is to introduce meaningful PvP. If I were to do the same in a game that ran on a dedicated server, the only one that would really suffer is me, since the connection to the server would be slower since alot of my bandwidth would be dedicated to downloading/streaming on other machines in the house.

MouadSaqui · May 19, 2020

People who think warframe PvP is chaotic and hard to master clearly never played a PvP game before, I mean srsly, when talking about PvP we are also talking about being skilled, and being skilled take efforts, and if you are used to mindlessly shoot brain dead enemies all the times OF COURSE PVP IS GONNA BE HARD FOR YOU 🙂

(PSN)Darth-Escar · May 19, 2020

12 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'm starting to think more and more that the people that want DS back arent actual PvPers at all, because you all show some severe lack of standards and expectations from such a mode. But then again, I see alot of console tags aswell next to several of the more rabid DS/conclave fans. You tend to settle for games running at 30fps aswell.

What would you consider an "actual PvPer" to be?

Auramaru · May 19, 2020

11 minutes ago, (PS4)Darth-Escar said:

What would you consider an "actual PvPer" to be?

The difference between someone who enjoys PVP for the gameplay and not a PVE player that players the match for the daily rewards / skin once. Basically someone who is a conclave regular. This was a common topic back when PVP 2.0 was announced and people who literally had 0 kills and 3 deaths (stats are visible to everyone) were posting threads on the forums requesting changes like they knew anything. It was really frustrated for those of us who actually played conclave daily when angry PVE people would shout and scream about what needs to be balanced in what ways.

Credibility should mean a lot when the devs look at making changes to the game - you wouldn't expect the devs to listen to an MR1 with 2 hours played about Eidolon encounter balancing, so why is it that the devs listen to MR28's that have 0 kills, 4 deaths, and 1 rage quite match under their belt?

My credibility: I am AuraMau, I was in Six Feet Under and Rising Angels back in Conclave 1.0.

EDIT: From my understanding, DE has done a lot better with conclave balancing. They brought in 2-3 "veterans" to help with balancing insight - not with the base system design. For the record, I think most guns are fairly balanced but mobility imbalance is atrocious.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Aura
clarification

SneakyErvin · May 19, 2020

9 minutes ago, (PS4)Darth-Escar said:

What would you consider an "actual PvPer" to be?

Someone that actually seeks PvP in games designed for PvP and not trying to have it implemented in the PvE part of a PvE game. Someone that looks for quality in the PvP he seeks, with the right fundamentals to make it worthwhile and enjoyable. Someone that expects a certain standard, someone that seeks a place where actual skill can be tested versus skill. Someone that does it for the sake of fighting other players and not the rewards around it.

There is a reason why WF didnt get big because of its PvP. Conclave may be enjoyable for some people, let it stay that way, but keep it there as a S#&$s and giggles mode.

Felsagger · May 19, 2020

3 hours ago, (XB1)The Repo Man151 said:

It actually pulled a significant amount of players. Whole clans and alliances were centered solely around the Dark Sector Conflicts. You keep saying they had issues but you always fail to mention what exact issues the previous system had. I assume this is because you don't know what you are talking about and you are simply repeating what you have heard from others. That's very common when Dark Sector Conflicts are brought into the discussion.

Well, where do I begin with this? Because there are many places where I can begin. First of all, any chart that showed the Dark Sector Conflicts at the same time as Raids, let alone Defection would be disingenuous and not based in reality. Defection released as a mode on March 2nd, 2017. Raids were introduced into the game on March 19th, 2015. Dark Sector Conflicts were put on Armistice the same update Raids were introduced. Are you genuinely trying to tell me that a chart would include player data from a singular mode that not able to be participated in for nearly two years? Really?

Okay. I began there. But there's even more wrong with your post. Let's examine the chart itself.

Not only is defection not on that chart, .
Not only are Dark Sector Conflicts not on that chart.
Not only do we not know the methodology of how DE chose those numbers.
Not only is the information taken from the length of a single weekend (a weekend over a year away from Dark Sector Conflicts, I might add)
Not only are DSCs, Raids, Conclave, and Defection not in the bottom 4 as you so wrongly declared they were.
The chart only includes the data from a singular platform. So it would only apply for PC players anyway.
In your argument, you imply that because so few players participated in the mode, they deserved to be removed. Does that mean you support Hive Sabotage, Pursuit, Dojos, Relays, Rush, Hijack, Arena, and the tutorial for the game itself should be removed because there was not a lot of player participation in them?

And yet you claim to know all the intimate details of what exactly went wrong with them. I wait, breathless, for you to reveal these absolute game-breaking issues that I am unaware of. I was a Warlord of Arbiters Rage on Xbox One Warframe. We were an Alliance that controlled six Solar Rails. No easy feat. I have participated in Dark Sectors at every level. I played the mode as an MR2 with no experience before I was even in a Clan or an Alliance. I played as a player that was invested into the system because I was in a Clan that was a part of an Alliance. As an officer of said Alliance, I helped design the Schema for our Solar Rails. I grinded all of the resources and specters needed for the construction and armaments of a Solar Rail. I stayed up late nights with the rest of the leaders to make sure we got the optimal deployment times for our battles. I worked with other Alliances to improve our diplomatic relationships with and plot to destroy our enemies.

At every level of Dark Sectors I am extremely experienced and acutely aware of what the actual issues of the system were. I played the mode to its fullest extent. You can not say the same.

What reason was that?

No it doesn't.

Not based in reality. Literally tens of thousands of players participated in that system every day.

What exactly are those issues?

You haven't provided your numbers. I'm going to remind you that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You made the claim that nobody participated in the system. Where is your evidence?

Dark Sectors did take you further in the game, tremendously so in fact. A player could make tens of millions in credits from participating in the system in only a matter of hours. Clans and Alliances collected millions of resources and could distribute the resources so that clans in the alliance could finish their research much more quickly than non-participating clans at that point in the game's life.

Yes.

Both Raids and Rails succeeded tremendously at that aspect. I can't even imagine how anyone could claim they failed.

There'd be even more toxicity. People would claim they were missing out on the rewards simply because most of the community chose x instead of y. Just because it is PvE, doesn't mean it is not toxic.

One of the best posts in this thread.

This is how Sneaky Ervin gets formally and publicly owned, with sound arguments and strict science.

Advice to Ervin. Please, play PVP first and then talk. If you are not a competitive player then this should not be a thread for you. I'm being honest.

(PSN)Darth-Escar · May 19, 2020

10 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Someone that actually seeks PvP in games designed for PvP and not trying to have it implemented in the PvE part of a PvE game.

This is roughly what I expected from you. It more or less says that people who want dark sector PvP aren't real PvPers, although it does possibly exclude people, like me, who also actively plays some primarily/exclusively PvP games. (Halo 5 is probably my best example.) Would I meet this part of your criteria?

20 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Someone that looks for quality in the PvP he seeks, with the right fundamentals to make it worthwhile and enjoyable.

This part is more subjective. The first half of that is basically fun, and it would be sad if someone didn't look for that in any game.

39 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Someone that expects a certain standard, someone that seeks a place where actual skill can be tested versus skill.

'A certain standard' could also be an add-on to the previous part, but it's also often used to put an objective judgement into a purely subjective factor. It's usually something very similar to, 'this is trash for X reason, (which may be a perfectly valid criticism, even if presented horribly,) so the fact that you like it means your view is invalid.' Again, this may or may not to be for the purpose of using the fact that, someone wants dark sector PvP, to invalidate their opinions of PvP in some way. I'll let you clarify.

The skill aspect is highly objective, except maybe for the "actual skill" part. That usually refers to the skills which certain people want to be tested, as opposed to the skills which makes a player optimally effective. The game defines what skill is, so for example, even if Warframe had a version of PvP which required minimal amounts of mechanical skill in order to play at a top tier level, much in the same way that Pokémon and Chess are. If you're not trying to exclude certain parts of a skill set as actual skill, the only aspect remaining would be the skill gap, specifically having a certain degree of skill gap, which is incredibly difficult to measure. Again, your clarification would be useful.

54 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Someone that does it for the sake of fighting other players and not the rewards around it.

I think this part is a given for most of us. I'm guessing I don't need to explain.

-BG-StormFighter117 · May 19, 2020

I just read a whole Bunch of information that is wrong or pulled out their butt.

Someone here not to name names... has a Max Rank Narrow Minded equipped.

Felsagger · May 19, 2020

1 hour ago, (NSW)Quarky said:

Look bud, aren't you embarrassed to spouting such nonsense? I'd ignore you if I didn't think you were going to influence the layman with your carefully constructed ignorance.

I'd ask you to drop the ignorance charade but that's apparently how you get off, huh? You resort to insults when you have no factual standing to back your claims. Classic!

Completely agree.

I think this is one of the few reasons why he should have restricted privileges using these forums. His character needs some tough slaps so he gets the point. He goes dismissive all the time with long misconstrued rambles and dribbles that leads the conversation to nowhere other than hearing his voice for a lift of his ego. He doesn't know the meanings of the words 'no', 'enough' and 'stop'.

I don't mind if he writes healthy conversation even if terms where a bit off shore. I don't mind some rambles either because conversing about the game is healthy. He learns, we learn and we enjoy the ride on the forums. What I find hard to deal with is when such person relies on insults that harps on personal snide and vitriol. I've seen him do this for spans of more than three years on these forums.

His behavior is almost toxic and somehow he drags people in while he ditches out few insults in his transactions. I honestly don't appreciate how he lambaste, snide and pester other users here with his condescending tone. His skewed vision of what a conversation is hampers the good use of these forums because this man is all over the place spreading everywhere talking about things he does not comprehend or has no experience.

I'm glad that people are getting noticed about his behavior.

Felsagger · May 19, 2020

16 minutes ago, -BG-StormFighter117 said:

I just read a whole Bunch of information that is wrong or pulled out their butt.

Someone here not to name names... has a Max Rank Narrow Minded equipped.

Perfect analogy.

I could not say it better.

(PSN)Darth-Escar · May 19, 2020

7 minutes ago, (NSW)Quarky said:

Something I think could help ease new players in might be a rental gear system. I'd adapt this from @(PS4)Medianik 's draft pick idea. What if newbies/lowbies could use rental gear from Teshin (pre-modded, no potato/forma) that they might not already own and that doesn't take a warframe/weapon inventory slot. I personally avoided conclave until MR18 or something when I thought I started to have enough gear variety to respond to threats with the right tools but even then, it still feels like I have some huge holes in my inventory and it's daunting. (Who the heck would keep regular baza or regular paris after max ranking them?! Sigh.) Lord, it'd also be nice if Warframe prompted them to update their conclave loadout before their first session or something. It can't feel good to load up your first conclave match and be stuck with like, excal+skana only.

I'd say that along with easier standing gain, a way to get weapons (and maybe slots) from conclave would be ideal. Imagine being able to buy a built Gorgon or something for pretty cheap, while not needing to be particularly effective to gain the standing for it. That doesn't just make it more accessible to newbies, but more rewarding too. You get mastery fodder, at minimum, which could also just be something good to use for as you progress in PvE, partly since while you're using it, you could be getting mods like Gorgon Frenzy, Double Tap, Skull Shots, ect.

SneakyErvin · May 19, 2020

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

This is roughly what I expected from you. It more or less says that people who want dark sector PvP aren't real PvPers, although it does possibly exclude people, like me, who also actively plays some primarily/exclusively PvP games. (Halo 5 is probably my best example.) Would I meet this part of your criteria?

This part is more subjective. The first half of that is basically fun, and it would be sad if someone didn't look for that in any game.

'A certain standard' could also be an add-on to the previous part, but it's also often used to put an objective judgement into a purely subjective factor. It's usually something very similar to, 'this is trash for X reason, (which may be a perfectly valid criticism, even if presented horribly,) so the fact that you like it means your view is invalid.' Again, this may or may not to be for the purpose of using the fact that, someone wants dark sector PvP, to invalidate their opinions of PvP in some way. I'll let you clarify.

The skill aspect is highly objective, except maybe for the "actual skill" part. That usually refers to the skills which certain people want to be tested, as opposed to the skills which makes a player optimally effective. The game defines what skill is, so for example, even if Warframe had a version of PvP which required minimal amounts of mechanical skill in order to play at a top tier level, much in the same way that Pokémon and Chess are. If you're not trying to exclude certain parts of a skill set as actual skill, the only aspect remaining would be the skill gap, specifically having a certain degree of skill gap, which is incredibly difficult to measure. Again, your clarification would be useful.

I think this part is a given for most of us. I'm guessing I don't need to explain.

I'd say it covers anyone hellbent on having DS added as a PvP mode (again). There is something deep down there where those that want it as a mode to branch over into PvE really are only looking forward to stomp PvE scrub bambis or simply effect those that do not enjoy it and wont participate (like being able to put taxes on nodes that those who avoid it still use). So you force it onto those with zero interest in it, since their rewards will be lower due to taxation. There simply wont be the choice for those wanting to avoid it to fully avoid it.

Quality = fun? I guess fun would be the sum of it all when everything connects as it should. There are several games where the fun has been lost due to a few poor choices in the design. Like ESO PvP. Really fun to skulk around, really boring to sit in zerg versus zerg with poor performance.

A certain standard for me would be expecting something to hit atleast the foundation points, like somewhat good balance, solid servers for a smooth experience and a good gameplay experience. The good gameplay experience often come through the other two along with a good combat system. No one enjoys lagging and losing because of it, or that there is a fotm that stomps everything else. If you settle with P2P, standard kinda takes a dive out the window since the quality can be night and day between sessions and matches. If DE were open to host dedicated servers I'd be more open for something like DS PvP. Currently I'm open for a DS PvE mode, since it could fill a role or improve on another current system. Heck, DS PvE done right could cover the needed revamp of invasions, bring back something similar to pre-PvP sectors and possibly fill the role for raids aswell through squad link.

Of course skill would be different between games. GW2 for instance is a heavy skill based game because gear differences are extremely minimal and all classes can beat every other if played at equal skill levels. WF has too many cheese things even when DE have tried to balance it. Auto-aim help like in the shape of Mag's skill, things that completely remove the need of personal aiming. Being allowed to use macros that can turn semi-auto rifles into full-auto among another things. That is one of the things that makes WF PvP kind of a joke since such things are allowed. Those things belong in tab target games where you may need to juggle several skills in order to pull of a certain rotations, they do not belong in a shooter where weapons are balance around damage, trigger type and fire rate. Such things would get you perma banned from most actual shooters.

Well if it is given, why want DS PvP where holding nodes for tax is a big selling point? Someone else in this thread boasted about how great it was for the massive credit and material rewards etc. If fighting other players is the main appeal, why have a mode that intervenes on PvE even for those that dont want to participate?

(PSN)Darth-Escar · May 19, 2020

58 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'd say it covers anyone hellbent on having DS added as a PvP mode (again). There is something deep down there where those that want it as a mode to branch over into PvE really are only looking forward to stomp PvE scrub bambis or simply effect those that do not enjoy it and wont participate (like being able to put taxes on nodes that those who avoid it still use). So you force it onto those with zero interest in it, since their rewards will be lower due to taxation. There simply wont be the choice for those wanting to avoid it to fully avoid it.

That's a possible mentality, but people enjoy PvEvP for other reasons. I like Minecraft anarchy/UHC and Halo 5 warzone, and as you can probably guess, it's not for the sake of having any effect on those who don't like PvP. I'll get back to the tax stuff.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Quality = fun? I guess fun would be the sum of it all when everything connects as it should. There are several games where the fun has been lost due to a few poor choices in the design. Like ESO PvP. Really fun to skulk around, really boring to sit in zerg versus zerg with poor performance.

Game quality is generally judged largely, if not solely, but the amount of fun provided.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

A certain standard for me would be expecting something to hit atleast the foundation points, like somewhat good balance, solid servers for a smooth experience and a good gameplay experience. The good gameplay experience often come through the other two along with a good combat system. No one enjoys lagging and losing because of it, or that there is a fotm that stomps everything else. If you settle with P2P, standard kinda takes a dive out the window since the quality can be night and day between sessions and matches. If DE were open to host dedicated servers I'd be more open for something like DS PvP. Currently I'm open for a DS PvE mode, since it could fill a role or improve on another current system. Heck, DS PvE done right could cover the needed revamp of invasions, bring back something similar to pre-PvP sectors and possibly fill the role for raids aswell through squad link.

Well conclave has dedicated servers on PC. My guess is that its possible to put them on console in the same way. I personally don't think it's necessary, but I doubt anyone would be against it. Balance would be a challenge, but I don't think it would be as much of a challenge as it seems. There's be multiple methods to do it which would either have little to no effect on PvE, or arguably make PvE more interesting.

I don't wanna be super vague, but I also don't wanna make paragraphs about each method, so in short it's either conclave balancing, rebalancing focused on energy economy and increased EHP, or general mod retuning to reduce ability reliance which doesn't necessarily involve making them less valuable.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Of course skill would be different between games. GW2 for instance is a heavy skill based game because gear differences are extremely minimal and all classes can beat every other if played at equal skill levels. WF has too many cheese things even when DE have tried to balance it. Auto-aim help like in the shape of Mag's skill, things that completely remove the need of personal aiming. Being allowed to use macros that can turn semi-auto rifles into full-auto among another things. That is one of the things that makes WF PvP kind of a joke since such things are allowed. Those things belong in tab target games where you may need to juggle several skills in order to pull of a certain rotations, they do not belong in a shooter where weapons are balance around damage, trigger type and fire rate. Such things would get you perma banned from most actual shooters.

They've tried to balance and been mostly successful. You can call it cheese, but for a lot of players it's a major interest factor, which better overlaps with PvE than something more focused on mechanical skill. Of course, there are a few outliers, which are currently too powerful to not be exceptions, but not many. Mag, for example, isn't one of them. Her Magnetize has a lot of counterplay potential, unless she has particularly good offensive positioning.

I don't have much to say about macros. I play on PS4 and XB1, and I don't think I've ever seen one. They might not be allowed by Xbox Live and PSN, so by extension, their versions of Warframe, but I don't know.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Well if it is given, why want DS PvP where holding nodes for tax is a big selling point? Someone else in this thread boasted about how great it was for the massive credit and material rewards etc. If fighting other players is the main appeal, why have a mode that intervenes on PvE even for those that dont want to participate?

It's a given, because most of us are playing a PvP mode which mainly has cosmetic rewards, and doing so way past the point of actually getting all of them. That is a good question though, which I can only partly answer. I'll leave the rest to someone else.

Even though I play conclave without a need for rewards, I think it needs to have decent rewards to be generally worth playing, because Warframe is very much about the grind. The rewards don't even have to be exclusive to conclave, nor does it have to reward something or some set of things more efficiently than other sources. There just needs to be better compensation for time investment. Similar applies to dark sector PvP, definitely in the case of personal rewards. Clan interactions are a major part of it though, so on top of that I think there'd need to be clan reward, which previously came from tax. I don't know about clan dynamics, so I'll leave it at that. Someone more focused on that aspect can add to and/or correct what I've said about it.

(An impactful dynamic between clans would help someone like me be more involved with other players though. it's not necessary for me, and from my perspective, it less so matter what it is, and more so what I can do to affect it. It would be a reason to be involved with and valued by major groups of players.)

Do you think PVP can be successful ?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Warframe

Account

Community

Support