Do you think PVP can be successful ?

[Felsagger]

I'm waiting for dedicated servers on consoles. If PS5 gets that treatment I'll deep dive into full PVE,. PvEvP. If nothing is left for content in War Frame the second safety net for DE is PVP. At least the option is there and I don't want to see it removed, IMO. 

 

 

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

That would not be the chart.

Okay. Feel free to provide your chart at any time. To the best of my knowledge, that is the only chart like that they have shown. I'll be waiting.

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Going by the rest of what you say I assume you are a zerger

How can I be a zerger when the mode is limited to 4v4? This isn't complicated man.

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

and not an actual PvPer

You have 0 kills in the PvP in Warframe. Here are your stats 

Very ironic that you are attempting to have a position on what PvP is and isn't.

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

strength in numbers

In a mode limited to a 4v4 engagement? Really?

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

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?

Only because those groups were the most organized. Those groups were also outnumbered by the community nearly 10-1.

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

It is the age old issue that several large scale PvP games suffer

Dark Sector Conflicts weren't large scale PvP.

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

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.

You weren't here for Gradivus Dilemma or Tubemen of Regor. People get really upset when their side doesn't win and they miss out on the rewards.

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

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.

You claimed that the system was removed because there was a lack of people playing it.

9 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

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

Yes.

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

14 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

It is terrible logic 

I'm sure you must get tired of everyone pointing out to you in the ways you are wrong, but here is one more. 

#1 After the trials were removed parts of them were salvaged and made into other content. You can see this as Arcanes have evolved over time. Something the raids introduced now went from arcane syndanas, to operator arcanes, to zaw arcanes. 

This is also the case for several mission types. Infested Salvage for example came straight from The Jordas Raid. It is a complete copy of the second mission in the Jordas raid. The only slight difference is purpose. One has you hack terminals to open a door, the other has you hack terminals for a reward. 

The Jordas raid likewise was built from the Jordas assassionation. Both Jordas and Vay Hek had pre-existing boss fights. The difference between the final fight in the assassinate and the raid are rooms you enter to make Jordas vulnerable, as well as shooting buttons on the side of his head to keep him from expelling the ground crew. 

The raids didn't get the love they needed, or the proper rewards for the vast playerbase to find it worth their time. For some people, arcane revives, arcane energize, and other such arcanes were worth getting YEARS, before anyone else did. 

14 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Nothing that was making money from raids got removed,

Almost like there was something about the raids that was worthwhile. If you thought about it hard enough, you would realize you just contradicted yourself. 

 

15 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

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.

Your reading comprehension is in fact terrible. Much like your opinion. Did you ever do the Warframe raids? The Jordas Raid was especially interesting. However, seeing as you have never done conclave, let alone get a single kill or death in conclave; I'm inclined to believe you have never done a Warframe raid yourself. 

I pointed out that Warframes raids don't have the usual incentive like other games. I am well aware that "armor" or stat boosting armor or gear in the traditional sense isn't something warframe can really do. 

However, getting weapons from Warframe raids Is possible. The Brakk, one of the most popular side arms in the game dropped consistently in LoR. So there is already an instance of Warframe giving weapons from a raid.

Warframe could easily make a successful and interesting Void, or Orokin raid. All it would take is something like where upto 8 players open several void relics upon successful completion of a raid, with 100% chance to obtain every reward within that relic. 

All it would take to make a good incentive, a way to reduce the farm, or lucrative rewards. I made amazing amounts of plat from the raids. 

15 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Defection and raids are different, defection was made in order to reward one specific thing.

Raids were also made in order to reward one specific thing. They were called Arcanes. Have you heard of them? 

That's exactly why Raids weren't popular. Arcanes weren't important enough for the mass casual basis of Warframe to sink their time into. Thus, made it not worth for the developers to continue long term. Hence Raids were turned into raid bosses. 

Would you kindly logic? K, Thx.

15 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Destiny 2 doesnt have 40+ playable characters that lack distninct roles.

It would help you a lot if you knew what you were talking about. Destiny does have roles, and several raids were unbeatable unless you had a certain role, or certain classes doing certain things. 

The kingsfall raid example really really needed a titan to shield the entire group, (Think of Titans like Frost. Having a frost shield the group with his snowglobe. ) Having hunters weaken the enemies with his arrow, titans shield the group, and warlocks do either damage or self revive themselves to act as the medics of the group. 

Please know what you are talking about before you say something. 

15 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

PT and eidolons would be bosses. There is nothing raid specific about them. 

And wrong. It must really be hard to be wrong all the time. 

To get max rewards on an Eidolon, and to kill all the eidolons in the time provided you actually need a team. Having a healer is great to keep the lures alive. You can kill eidolons with good damage setups, but that typically requires good amps. The only way to get good amps is by doing eidolons. 

The eidolons and profit taker share several of the main mechanics as raids do. 

#1 Raid bosses are completely immune to damage unless you fulfill a mechanic. Eidolons require you to take their shields down, target specific parts of them, and destroy them to kill it. 

Vay Hek required you to destroy his platforms to bring down his shield, Jordas required you to go inside him and blow up specific cores before killing him. Even Profit Taker requires multiple steps before you can just kill it. 

A raid boss, is any fight in the game that is designed to fight a group of players. Eidolons were made to fight groups of tenno. Same with Profit Taker. Same with LoR, Same with Jordas. 

15 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

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.

You mean like the smaller sentients that rush to the Eidolons aid and try to kill you and repair it? Or like the adds that try to give the Profit Taker cooling? Or how about the correct split of damage on Eidolons so that you have enough void damage on amps to take down its shield, so you can actually hurt it? 

How about healing teammates, and eidolon lures, so you get the maximum rewards, and the eidolon doesn't run away making the fight longer? 

You really have no credibility with me. In order for me to value your opinion, you have to actually experience the content you are criticizing. 

At this point, you're akin to criticizing riding a bike, despite never done it yourself. But hey, If you want to see my Conclave kills, kda or see proof I have done the warframe raids be my guest. I have the warframe sekhara's to prove it.
 

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

10 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Someone that actually seeks PvP in games

A PvP-er is anyone who enjoys competing against other players. It doesn't matter what the game is. Destiny and Warframe are both PvP, and PvE. 

A PvP player in warframe is anyone who enjoys, or engages in conclave, dark sector rail wars, or even Dojo Duels. 

You have many many notions, of what YOU and you alone think should be the case, but it isn't. 

PvP can even extend to things like races, lunaros or so on. 

You need to re-read everyone who disagrees with you, and realize that they have a point. As it stands, you have the weakest arguments here, and the facts are piling up. 

Cute how somebody shows you facts, like every mission type played over a weekened, and you ignore it cause it doesn't suit your narrative. Don't bother replying to me. I have better things to do then argue with you. You can go debate with somebody else. 

[Felsagger]

I honestly don't know how that individual continues posting here. I think he should try some PvP games first and then come in with a different perspective. 

[SneakyErvin]

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

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.

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 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.

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.

I'm sure those things are dedicated to PvP though and you need to sign up for them to participate in some way, much like PvP servers in MMOs. I always play on PvP servers in MMO since I know those that are on them have signed up for the thrill of PvP. That is why I dont like the old DS+Tax system, because people couldnt say no to it and avoid it.

Dedicated servers on PC are hosted by the players, so it wont be possible to make it work on console. DE at that point, or the players, would need to rent from already established dedicated server providers i.e those that handle games like CoD and Battlefield for clans on console. Unless console is S#&$ out of luck there too and have to rely on only official EA or Blizzard servers?

Macros I dont think are even possible on consoles. On PC they are done through 3rd party software or software native to the Kb/M you use when it comes to WF. So I get why console players miss alot of the potential issues for a good PvP mode.

I also have no issues that people want rewards when they play. I'm just saying it shouldnt be the main focus. That is why I highlighted the whole DS thing, which impacted others negatively even though they had no say in it. If DS PvP had no impact on those not willing to participate in it, there would be no problem with it. Clan rewards would be all ok if it came from direct participation and not from something that effects everyone afterwards negatively except for the clan owning it. They would also need to implement things that restricts big clans from having an advantage over smaller clans. Split it all into tiers so competition is even. 

[SneakyErvin]

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

Okay. Feel free to provide your chart at any time. To the best of my knowledge, that is the only chart like that they have shown. I'll be waiting.

How can I be a zerger when the mode is limited to 4v4? This isn't complicated man.

You have 0 kills in the PvP in Warframe. Here are your stats Very ironic that you are attempting to have a position on what PvP is and isn't.

In a mode limited to a 4v4 engagement? Really?

Only because those groups were the most organized. Those groups were also outnumbered by the community nearly 10-1.

Dark Sector Conflicts weren't large scale PvP.

You weren't here for Gradivus Dilemma or Tubemen of Regor. People get really upset when their side doesn't win and they miss out on the rewards.

You claimed that the system was removed because there was a lack of people playing it.

Yes.

I cant be bothered to dig it up.

Zerger is a wide term, in this case it would be someone that relies on a far bigger clan with much higher attendance as a product of that. It doesnt have to be on-field zerging like you see in something like ESO, GW2, DaoC or old Illum PvP in ToR.

I PvPed early on in WF for a very short while since it wasnt my cup of tea. It never even managed to keep me for the full games. I've PvPed in different forms since I was a kid with 8-bit nintendo. And the last 20 years have been dedicated to PvP on PC. WF PvP is not what I seek.

Again, strength in numbers as in bigger clans better attendance.

It doesnt matter if those groups were outnumbered by the community, they were still specific organized groups.

Yes it was in the sense of how clans and alliances work. Or atleast it suffered the same issues that mass scale games suffer where the bigger and more organized side always has the upper and. It is an issue that is again repeated in Black Desert, even though it tries to limit it and fail misserably at it.

No one missed out on rewards in those. Gradivus had a slight difference in the final reward, everything else was the same. Tubeman was 100% equal, the only difference was which reward was actually obtained.

I claimed a lack of people was one of the causes, not the only one. It probably took alot for DE to come to a conclusion to shut it down by weighing all the issues surrounding the mode. Toxicity, lack of players, upkeep costs, bugs etc.

If you think so, then why havent more things shut down, like say conclave?

[SneakyErvin]

8 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

A PvP-er is anyone who enjoys competing against other players. It doesn't matter what the game is. Destiny and Warframe are both PvP, and PvE. 

A PvP player in warframe is anyone who enjoys, or engages in conclave, dark sector rail wars, or even Dojo Duels. 

You have many many notions, of what YOU and you alone think should be the case, but it isn't. 

PvP can even extend to things like races, lunaros or so on. 

You need to re-read everyone who disagrees with you, and realize that they have a point. As it stands, you have the weakest arguments here, and the facts are piling up. 

Cute how somebody shows you facts, like every mission type played over a weekened, and you ignore it cause it doesn't suit your narrative. Don't bother replying to me. I have better things to do then argue with you. You can go debate with somebody else. 

I never said it didnt apply to those that enjoy the PvP of WF. My point was more towards those that wanna see it forced into something that has impact on those that dont wanna participate i.e DS and their tax system. Also never implied that lunaro or races cant be PvP.

And I can use your chart. But that would mean that DS has zero activity since it wasnt played during that weekend. NVM that it was shut down long before that specific chart was ever provided. That chart only shows the modes played during that specific weekend. And iirc it was released in connection to the talk about the removal of Trials at the time.

[Felsagger]

Ervin, really? 

Why you have this will of holding your ego that much? The problem is that you don't get the point. You keep posting, posting, posting, posting, posting being stubborn even if everybody owns you. 

 

Come on. The point is quite simple. Have some experience playing War Frame PVP, Have experience playing War Frame itself. You will see that many of the points these guys are typing makes sense. 

[(PSN)Medianik]

23 hours ago, (NSW)Quarky said:

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.

This is what I meant, you replied to the first the issue part then the solution part.

Maybe I'm not being clear but I did not mean to say that the actual speed of which we move and fight is to fast but more like the speed we choose to go into encounters. I would be awesome to see a more thought out engage such as having one team member go in to scout like banshee and shoot the sonar arrow that would expose position of the defensive team. Then have volt set up a shield while ember is throwing in some fire balls and eventually get into a full engagement. Now with good movement and expert aim maybe a valkyr can hook one of the frames and pull it towards her team. Or valkyr can jump to the flank and start pumping enemies with melee while the rest of the team is using suppressing fire. By slowing down the game speed what I'm really referring to is the point when players make the decision to go in. I think the nature of the game would fit better in a setting where teams work together in a round based game mode rather than a team deathmatch with respawning.

 

Second thing I wanted to address was SneakyErvin, you guys should not be responding to him as he is not adding anything positive to the discussion. We are here to discuss how we can make PVP both fun and viable for DE to make money on it.

We are not here to discuss should or should there not be PVP because if we are here then clearly we are all interested in having PVP. Those who come here to be negative can make their own forum post stating why PVP and Conclave should be removed from warframe. But seeing as they aren't doing that, they are just trying to take the positive minded people off the goal which is discussing HOW TO MAKE PVP BOTH VIABLE FOR COMPETITIVE AND PROFITABLE TO DE. Any discussion opposite to this point has no place here. We aren't to discuss if DE will or will not do it because we an never know and speculating is just a waste of everyone's time. Also arguing and responding to useless posts further takes us away from the main topic of discussion. It's a shame my post is already moved so far from the latest on this thread but I think from what I posted we should really work together to discuss and change the vision. That would be progressive.

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'd say it covers anyone hellbent on having DS added as a PvP mode

We don't care if it comes back as PvP or PvE. Either way, we just want meaning for Clans and Alliances.

5 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

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

This isn't the case at all. We want the territory control aspects of the Dark Sector Conflicts back in the game because we feel it gave Clans/Alliances meaning and provided an actual endgame for Warframe. It involved all aspects of the game and made Warframe feel more alive. You weren't around for them so you wouldn't know that. If they came back as strictly PvE it would be so far in our favor you couldn't possibly imagine the ramifications. PvP at least gave people the opportunity to win.
 

 

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

(like being able to put taxes on nodes that those who avoid it still use).

Where do I begin with this one? Taxes were only on those nodes because of the massive bonuses those nodes had. Often times they'd drop 20-30% increased resources on those nodes. A tax of 10% often times was minimal and the tenno that played on the nodes were making more money even with the taxes than they were playing on other nodes, pound for pound.
Secondly, they could always play on other nodes. Those nodes dropped the same resources as the Dark Sectors. In fact, some of those nodes were even better for experience than the dark sectors. Like Viver or Draco. 
Thirdly, the players who didn't participate could always try and lower the taxes through diplomacy or convince others to fight for them.
Fourthly, there were about 230 nodes in the game back in the day. 26 of those were Dark Sectors. 26 is just over 11% of the total nodes in the game at that time. Those 11% percent of nodes were completely avoidable. You never had to do a single mission on a dark sector (Conflict or normal play) if you didn't want to. And if the player did want to do it for the mastery he would get for clearing it, he would only have to play the node a single time. 

19 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

zerg versus zerg

Dark Sector Conflicts were 4v4 battles.

19 hours 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?

Back in the day there were really only two things to be accomplished about in Warframe. The first was owning a Primed Chamber. Now everyone has one. The second was owning a node. Now nobody has one. There is nothing left in Warframe to feel proud of. No sense of accomplishment. Just monotony.
The Dark Sectors breathed life into the game in such a way that if you weren't there for them, you would never understand. I'm fine with Dark Sectors coming back as PvE or PvP (and if I can be candid with you for a moment, the Dark Sector Conflicts were PvEvP and not purely PvP as many like to claim. In fact, they were entirely PvE at one point.) If they came back as PvE the same players would dominate the system far worse than they originally did. PvE is much more palatable over a long term session than PvP. As an avid Dark Sector Player, even I couldn't do more than one conflict back to back because fighting other players for that long is tiring. But I could most definitely semi-afk my way through it for days on end if it was solely PvE. Heck, I could probably sleep and conquer nodes if it was PvE.

[Sevek7]

21 minutes ago, (PS4)Medianik said:

Second thing I wanted to address was SneakyErvin, you guys should not be responding to him as he is not adding anything positive to the discussion.

Strong agreement on this, let's stop feeding the obvious troll 🙂

21 minutes ago, (PS4)Medianik said:

Maybe I'm not being clear but I did not mean to say that the actual speed of which we move and fight is to fast but more like the speed we choose to go into encounters. I would be awesome to see a more thought out engage such as having one team member go in to scout like banshee and shoot the sonar arrow that would expose position of the defensive team. Then have volt set up a shield while ember is throwing in some fire balls and eventually get into a full engagement. Now with good movement and expert aim maybe a valkyr can hook one of the frames and pull it towards her team. Or valkyr can jump to the flank and start pumping enemies with melee while the rest of the team is using suppressing fire. By slowing down the game speed what I'm really referring to is the point when players make the decision to go in. I think the nature of the game would fit better in a setting where teams work together in a round based game mode rather than a team deathmatch with respawning.

I like this idea a lot! (also referencing your original post on previous page) Generally slowing down the pace of the PvP combat could be really fun. Having a round-style match where two teams work together to take each other out sounds really fun to me. The main problem I think is that the current conclave maps are simply too small. I think it would work with something like the open world maps, perhaps with some target to destroy in the other team's base. We could have passive energy regen for players inside their team's base, and the other team has to hack a console inside the base to reveal the target, this would prevent teams charging in and would benefit a more tactical style of play. 

This would be really fun but I doubt DE can make it work, mostly because it would take a significant amount of development time that they have expressly stated they will not dedicate to anything PvP related. Nevertheless, this thread is about hopes and dreams, and this idea is awesome 🙂 

[-BG-StormFighter117]

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'm sure those things are dedicated to PvP though and you need to sign up for them to participate in some way, much like PvP servers in MMOs. I always play on PvP servers in MMO since I know those that are on them have signed up for the thrill of PvP. That is why I dont like the old DS+Tax system, because people couldnt say no to it and avoid it.

You have good reason to dislike the taxes, but they are really easy to fix in a newer system. I always talk about the Dark Sector Revisited because a lot of the problems you're pointing out are already known and should be addressed in a new system.

Edited May 20, 2020 by -BG-StormFighter117

[-BG-StormFighter117]

10 minutes ago, Sevek7 said:

Strong agreement on this, let's stop feeding the obvious troll 🙂

I like this idea a lot! (also referencing your original post on previous page) Generally slowing down the pace of the PvP combat could be really fun. Having a round-style match where two teams work together to take each other out sounds really fun to me. The main problem I think is that the current conclave maps are simply too small. I think it would work with something like the open world maps, perhaps with some target to destroy in the other team's base. We could have passive energy regen for players inside their team's base, and the other team has to hack a console inside the base to reveal the target, this would prevent teams charging in and would benefit a more tactical style of play. 

This would be really fun but I doubt DE can make it work, mostly because it would take a significant amount of development time that they have expressly stated they will not dedicate to anything PvP related. Nevertheless, this thread is about hopes and dreams, and this idea is awesome 🙂 

For something like Conclave, I do think the pace should be slowed down a little. I believe one of the reasons players dislike conclave initially after playing, is the new players are simply useless. If they cannot land a shot or deal enough damage to kill a player... to them it's simply die simulator. They stand zero chance and therefore won't come back. They won't take the required time to learn how to play or advance themselves properly in game mechanics in PvE. Most recently (as in the past few months) I've seen players MR 16+ only holding shift to run. No sliding, no bullet jumping, no momentum stacking, no animation canceling. Altho those last two I don't expect most people to know. Majority of players just spam bullet jump which imo running and sliding is faster due to how poorly timed they utilize bullet jumping.

Bottom line, New players need to have a fighting chance and slowing the pace down will help. This will keep them playing conclave longer and slowly learn.

[Felsagger]

21 minutes ago, Sevek7 said:

Strong agreement on this, let's stop feeding the obvious troll 🙂

 

 

Completely agree. 

Would be awesome if we get a PVP using Rail Jacks. I can't imagine how hectic that could be. 

[-BG-StormFighter117]

2 hours ago, Felsagger said:

Completely agree. 

Would be awesome if we get a PVP using Rail Jacks. I can't imagine how hectic that could be. 

I considered the possible implications of Railjack PvP and it would most likely be indirect if anything. I don't think its really possible due to how its created. For example, the connection between your inside ship, archewing, inside crewships etc are a teleport to a tileset. Notice when someone goes down or places a waypoint its 50k meters away. Then you have the size modification of the players and objects in relation while in archewing.

Really the only thing I think that could be remotely direct PvP is ship v ship and that will also have problems. Railjack would need to be completely overhauled and well... DE has problem alone just making it PvE. I think RJ could be a good indirect or PvE addition to PvP or PvE alternative to raids (if done well) IE possible squad link between a private relay and 2-3-4 squads of 4. All doing a particular mission simultaneously.. But thats PvE stuff not PvP.

Edited May 20, 2020 by -BG-StormFighter117

[Felsagger]

18 minutes ago, -BG-StormFighter117 said:

I considered the possible implications of Railjack PvP and it would most likely be indirect if anything. I don't think its really possible due to how its created. For example, the connection between your inside ship, archewing, inside crewships etc are a teleport to a tileset. Notice when someone goes down or places a waypoint its 50k meters away. Then you have the size modification of the players and objects in relation while in archewing.

Really the only thing I think that could be remotely direct PvP is ship v ship and that will also have problems. Railjack would need to be completely overhauled and well... DE has problem alone just making it PvE. I think RJ could be a good indirect or PvE addition to PvP or PvE alternative to raids (if done well) IE possible squad link between a private relay and 2-3-4 squads of 4. All doing a particular mission simultaneously.. But thats PvE stuff not PvP.

That's true. 

I want to have dedicated servers on PS4. PVP is empty in our PS4 servers. At least have a lobby. Right now the match making is automatic. PVP right now needs more care or at least dedicate few more game types to it. It has a lot of potential but with dedicated servers could be way better for us. I wish that some day we get cross save so I can move my account to PC and play PVP in PC. 

[Danielw8]

 

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

10 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

I'm sure those things are dedicated to PvP though

Wrong. You have a lot of personal notions that you falsely think everyone shares. 

I play PvE and PvP. Sometimes I want to see how I compare to other players so I hop into conclave, or if I'm playing with friends we will fight each other in dojo duels to do silly things or see who can 1 shot who first. 

Ever freeze a friend in a dojo duel? See them slow mo fall to the ground? How about ever do something really mean, like throw Castanas on them before the match starts, only to detonate them the moment it starts. 

Most of what you say is how you believe things should be, and you will always be wrong when you comment on something you haven't experienced yourself. Like Conclave. 

10 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

My point was more towards those that wanna see it forced into something that has impact 

In a farming game like Warframe, players want to be rewarded when they play well. 

PvP in other games like Destiny 2 has specific PvP rewards you can only get for PvP. There is a thing called Trials of Osiris, that specifically only has gear for PvP. 

This is so there is a reward for doing it, and to give players a reason to do PvP. If you don't want to do PvP, that's fine. You won't get the rewards. Not every thing in the game has to be made specifically for you. 

10 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And I can use your chart. But that would mean that DS has zero activity since it wasnt played during that weekend. 

"My chart?" You are confusing me with somebody else. I simply pointed to the fact that chart disputes your point, and you can't even admit that it counters your argument. 

Let's pretend that chart represents Warframe on an average day. Warframe typically has an average playerbase of 50,000 players on steam every day. Let's pretend that each of those players did a total of 10 missions. So 50,000 players, 500,000 missions a day, for three days. 

That's 1.5 million missions for the sake of this point. 

Assuming this is true, that means that the raid in this scenario would have been played 16,000 times roughly. The tutorials were played 2,700 times. You seem to support the fact that missions that don't get played enough need to be removed. 

Does DE need to remove the tutorial, arenas, and clan dojos? They were all played less then the raids after all. 

Of course not. Clan Dojos have a purpose, just like archwing missions, just like the tutorial. People who want PvP have every right to voice their opinion they want more PvP. Warframe has had PvP. And if you don't want PvP, you don't need to participate in it. 

Nothing in warframe is mandatory. You can skip events, ignore content and play the game how you want. If you are complaining that you would feel bad about missing out on content, that's entirely your fault. You choose to do it or not. 

[-BG-MagicalAbyss]

In short, yes!

PVP can be successful along side with PVE even if it is warframe's core focus, what better than 1 option? More options! Feeling that content drought hit deep into you? Well try PVPVE, indirect PVP where tenno can compete within PVE environment. Or just go straight into direct PVP actions. Not only you can play those while waiting for new contents in PVE, those exist as options to enjoy warframe.

Just giving out example here, you are not force or required to do PVP contents to progress, having more options within a game always better than none. Now imagine full on PVP/PVPVE between clan and alliance, not only will it bring in more tenno, it make clan and alliance to have a better purpose, thus more contents/options for player to enjoy warframe.

[SneakyErvin]

19 hours ago, -BG-StormFighter117 said:

You have good reason to dislike the taxes, but they are really easy to fix in a newer system. I always talk about the Dark Sector Revisited because a lot of the problems you're pointing out are already known and should be addressed in a new system.

If the system has zero impact on those that dont wanna use it you can have it all you want. That would mean it would have PvP related rewards only to make that part of the game have its own progression with zero connection to PvE. Unless they wanna branch over some parts so it is obtainable from both.

Lets say they add both DS-PvP and DS-Faction PvE. PvP part pins clans versus clans (ghost vs ghost, mountain vs mountain etc.) while the other is just an evolution of Invasions more or less but uses the same system as the PvP part. Special boss mobs instead of players, much like how index works. PvE would likely be better for farming rewards, but the PvP is a reward in itself since you can boast your victories aswell over other clans.

[SneakyErvin]

13 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Let's pretend that chart represents Warframe on an average day. Warframe typically has an average playerbase of 50,000 players on steam every day. Let's pretend that each of those players did a total of 10 missions. So 50,000 players, 500,000 missions a day, for three days. 

That's 1.5 million missions for the sake of this point. 

Assuming this is true, that means that the raid in this scenario would have been played 16,000 times roughly. The tutorials were played 2,700 times. You seem to support the fact that missions that don't get played enough need to be removed.

That would be 2000 times since it takes 8 people per run, while everything else is solo (tutorial) or up to 4 players.

edit: The same goes for conclave numbers, you need to split them in 8 aswell.

Edited May 21, 2020 by SneakyErvin

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

3 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

PvP part pins clans versus clans (ghost vs ghost, mountain vs mountain etc.)

No. Discounting Alliances is wrong. There's no way individual clan to clan balance could ever work due to how massive the differences in some clans are. I've seen moon clans with only 40 tenno in them. Should that same clan participate on the same level as a moon clan with 1000 players? I don't think so. Segmenting it by clan tiers leads to much abuse of the system in practice. One of the good things about the old system was that anyone could fight anyone. Mountain Clans could fight Alliances, Ghost Clans could fight Moon Clans and so on. While it usually led to the Alliance side winning, sometimes the underdogs did win. I know, because I've lost Alliance Rails to singular Moon Clans. 
Segmenting it by Clan Tiers sounds great on paper but it just doesn't work once you consider the mechanics of it and how different Clans in the same tier can be.

If you're interested in Dark Sector PvP, I'd love to explain the mechanics of the old system to you. It's very fascinating. An exceptionally verbose person such as yourself would probably have a lot of unique feedback about it.

[Kaotyke]

I FOUND a match 2 days ago... oh boy... let me tell you my experience. It wasnt a fun one.

The host was insane, capable of seeing me from the #*!%ing high ground, even if I was just looking at him fighting another dude.

He was able to do aimglide CIRCLES around me. Literally.

I got him by surpise? He would do some crazy bulletjump spin and roll in the air and kill me before I could track him.

I shot him 10 times with my Braton and he would have time to react and kill me...

Melee attacks would hit but then he would kill me using 1 combo while I was hitting him for 1 full second before he could start...

Many times I would run. But he would be right on my tail not matter how crazy manuvers I did or how random.

I'm... unsure if it was lag, skill or a combination of both.

But it wasnt fun, the difference was too much.

If this is what players who try PvP find... I can see why no one plays it. Either not matches or just get completly destroyed.

[SneakyErvin]

2 minutes ago, (XB1)The Repo Man151 said:

No. Discounting Alliances is wrong. There's no way individual clan to clan balance could ever work due to how massive the differences in some clans are. I've seen moon clans with only 40 tenno in them. Should that same clan participate on the same level as a moon clan with 1000 players? I don't think so. Segmenting it by clan tiers leads to much abuse of the system in practice. One of the good things about the old system was that anyone could fight anyone. Mountain Clans could fight Alliances, Ghost Clans could fight Moon Clans and so on. While it usually led to the Alliance side winning, sometimes the underdogs did win. I know, because I've lost Alliance Rails to singular Moon Clans. 
Segmenting it by Clan Tiers sounds great on paper but it just doesn't work once you consider the mechanics of it and how different Clans in the same tier can be.

If you're interested in Dark Sector PvP, I'd love to explain the mechanics of the old system to you. It's very fascinating. An exceptionally verbose person such as yourself would probably have a lot of unique feedback about it.

Maybe it is time for those moon clans to get some organization going then. Why be a moon clan with only 40 members? That would be a benefit of the system, getting clans to have a reason to actually be organized. I really dont care how it ends up though aslong as I'm able to just ignore it. I wont set my foot in PvP if it isnt supported by dedicated servers, which just wont be a thing in WF. Which mean WF PvP will forever be a joke.