Do you think PVP can be successful ?

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Everyone here has stated your opinion means nothing btw. People might care about what you have say after you play conclave a single time. 

 

That man went through more than twenty pages without getting the point. How many more pages he needs? 20 more? I feel sorry for him. 

[SneakyErvin]

13 hours ago, Felsagger said:

 

 

How can you formulate such opinion when you have ZERO experience about it? 

 

This is the same as asking an architect for the design of a structure when such job belongs to a structural engineer. 

 

How could you tell that PvP here is a joke? Wait, have you tried it? 

 

Wait, and this gets better, to boot you call us ignorant? So you think that we are fantasizing when we ask for a PVP rework?

 

 

MANG, stop trollin'.....lmao....

I have 20+ years of experience about the issue. People will not flock around P2P based PvP. It is a S#&$s and giggles mode without dedicated servers, hence why I said "seen as a joke". Serious PvP will not happen if people arent on equal terms, which even you said earlier, which I also pointed out and agreed with you on. And now suddenly you say the opposite? Make up your freakin mind. Do you disagree and turn the coat just in order to argue?

10 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Wrong- 

If you ever did a raid, 8 people is more of a suggestion. You can do it with a minimum of four, upto 8 people. The number is still accurate as upto 16,000 people did the raid. 

Don't bother me unless you know what you are talking about. Thanks, Bye!

That would be up to 4k tops then in your example, since you even say the minimum is 4 players. So somewhere between 2 and 4k in your example.

[SneakyErvin]

10 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Everyone here has stated your opinion means nothing btw. People might care about what you have say after you play conclave a single time. 

Yet some people in here have actually managed to have a productive discussion about it. So apparently the opinion matters to some. So everyone is now a synonym for some.

[Felsagger]

Ervin you have a forum compulsion that you can't control. I am not going to abuse, make fun or critique you for it. I'm not that type of individual. However I'll do the right thing. 

 

My suggestion to you is this: play War Frame PvP, let others who are actually interested in PvP use the thread and find other threads that can actually contribute something. You like War Frame, you enjoy having conversations on other topics. Stay there and add your two cents. 

 

 

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

On 2020-05-22 at 12:40 PM, SneakyErvin said:

That would be up to 4k tops then in your example, since you even say the minimum is 4 players. So somewhere between 2 and 4k in your example.

Nope. Because that list was a percentage of the total missions completed. Raids were a percentage of the missions done. Not a player percentage. You keep trying to reduce the number, in order to justify yourself, but its just wrong.

If the percentage was how many players did the mission, you would be right. But we don't know if 4 people were in a raid, 5, 6. 7. or 8 people participated in the raid. 

Seeing as some normal missions only allow 1 person, a raid with 8 people would easily skew the numbers. 
 

[SneakyErvin]

On 2020-05-22 at 2:08 PM, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Nope. Because that list was a percentage of the total missions completed. Raids were a percentage of the missions done. Not a player percentage. You keep trying to reduce the number, in order to justify yourself, but its just wrong.

If the percentage was how many players did the mission, you would be right. But we don't know if 4 people were in a raid, 5, 6. 7. or 8 people participated in the raid. 

Seeing as some normal missions only allow 1 person, a raid with 8 people would easily skew the numbers. 

No, that would likely be player activity, because you cant complete Relay or Dojo since there are no missions, and those two are on the chart.

[SneakyErvin]

1 hour ago, Felsagger said:

Ervin you have a forum compulsion that you can't control. I am not going to abuse, make fun or critique you for it. I'm not that type of individual. However I'll do the right thing. 

 

My suggestion to you is this: play War Frame PvP, let others who are actually interested in PvP use the thread and find other threads that can actually contribute something. You like War Frame, you enjoy having conversations on other topics. Stay there and add your two cents. 

 

 

So you want only yes sayers. That isnt how it works when a question is asked in public.

Maybe this thread should have been posted in uhm something like you know conclave feedback if it just wanted a certain crowd to reply to it.

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

10 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Why did they ever change it from pure PvE to PvP to begin with?

This is actually a really relevant question. And to give you an honest answer, I am not sure. The advantages of that incarnation of Solar Rail Conflicts was that both sides were able to do damage to each other's Solar Rail. The win condition for those conflicts was to have the highest integrity remaining at the end of the battle. That was fine. It worked well. Alliances/Clans that owned nodes had to stay on there toes for every single battle because even a Conflict that ends in 98% integrity for the defender and 99% integrity for the attacker led to the offensive side winning. This made "Block Rails" much more risky and overall forced Alliances/Clans to actually defend their territory every single time they were deployed on.

However, when the system was changed to PvEvP, they changed the mechanics of the Conflict itself. Now the new win condition was for defense to have >0% integrity left at the end of the battle. The offensive side only won if they fully destroyed the opposing Rail. This made "Block Rails" significantly more effective. Not only were they cheaply produced, but they effectively defended your node for 72 hours from any attack.
Now, was the change in mechanics in direct correlation with the change from strictly PvE to PvEvP? Yes. But was the change in mechanics CAUSED by that change? No. If the Dark Sector Conflicts had kept the previous win conditions AND implemented the PvEvP the same way, I am of the opinion that the Dark Sector Conflicts would be remembered much more fondly than they are.

[SneakyErvin]

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

This is actually a really relevant question. And to give you an honest answer, I am not sure. The advantages of that incarnation of Solar Rail Conflicts was that both sides were able to do damage to each other's Solar Rail. The win condition for those conflicts was to have the highest integrity remaining at the end of the battle. That was fine. It worked well. Alliances/Clans that owned nodes had to stay on there toes for every single battle because even a Conflict that ends in 98% integrity for the defender and 99% integrity for the attacker led to the offensive side winning. This made "Block Rails" much more risky and overall forced Alliances/Clans to actually defend their territory every single time they were deployed on.

However, when the system was changed to PvEvP, they changed the mechanics of the Conflict itself. Now the new win condition was for defense to have >0% integrity left at the end of the battle. The offensive side only won if they fully destroyed the opposing Rail. This made "Block Rails" significantly more effective. Not only were they cheaply produced, but they effectively defended your node for 72 hours from any attack.
Now, was the change in mechanics in direct correlation with the change from strictly PvE to PvEvP? Yes. But was the change in mechanics CAUSED by that change? No. If the Dark Sector Conflicts had kept the previous win conditions AND implemented the PvEvP the same way, I am of the opinion that the Dark Sector Conflicts would be remembered much more fondly than they are.

Interesting to know. Definently sounds like the old system with PvP added to it would have been the best middleground solution, just as you say. It seems to have been one of those typcial DE cases where the baby step approach gets discarded and replaced with massive sweeping changes. Often resulting in not knowing where the sweet spots actually ends up. And I can see why they wanted the PvP in there, since it adds an unpredictable layer that a bunch of A.I controlled units just cant provide. Elements of surprise and all that. Kinda like how there was this old MMO where you had what could have easily been mass scale PvP, but it was designed 100% for PvE instead. While this mass scale conflict was fun and ever present it got old since the enemy was very predictable and it was hard to lose when you had come up with a cheap tactic. So it quickly turned into something just feeling like regular dynamic events.

[Letter13]

6 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

So you want only yes sayers. That isnt how it works when a question is asked in public.

Maybe this thread should have been posted in uhm something like you know conclave feedback if it just wanted a certain crowd to reply to it.

There's a big difference between 'Yes Sayers' and constructive discussion. "Just remove it" is not constructive in the slightest. It doesn't add anything of value.

As for feedback, this thread isn't feedback. It's clearly meant as a thread to discuss PVP with other players, not to provide feedback to DE (though a feedback thread to DE is what this thread may ultimately produce as a result of the discussion).

If you don't like or don't want PvP, there's no real reason for you to respond or engage in discussion in this thread. Assume PvP is here to stay. Perhaps instead of "Don't like it would rather it be removed" you could think about something like 'What would make PvP more appealing to me?' and chime in accordingly? Unless of course the answer is still "Don't like it would rather it be removed" in which case it may be better to simply not engage in the discussion at all. Just because it's posted to General Discussion doesn't mean you have to view it and reply to it. 

[SneakyErvin]

29 minutes ago, Letter13 said:

There's a big difference between 'Yes Sayers' and constructive discussion. "Just remove it" is not constructive in the slightest. It doesn't add anything of value.

As for feedback, this thread isn't feedback. It's clearly meant as a thread to discuss PVP with other players, not to provide feedback to DE (though a feedback thread to DE is what this thread may ultimately produce as a result of the discussion).

If you don't like or don't want PvP, there's no real reason for you to respond or engage in discussion in this thread. Assume PvP is here to stay. Perhaps instead of "Don't like it would rather it be removed" you could think about something like 'What would make PvP more appealing to me?' and chime in accordingly? Unless of course the answer is still "Don't like it would rather it be removed" in which case it may be better to simply not engage in the discussion at all. Just because it's posted to General Discussion doesn't mean you have to view it and reply to it. 

I only ever said I'd be ok if it was removed, as in I dont care either or. I've provided actual input on what is needed if people want it to turn into that which they imagine could happen with it. As I said, if they were to add dedicated servers, real ones, I'd have a whole different view on it. Wouldnt that cassify as "what would make PvP more appealing to me?". Without that I simply wont see PvP here as something even bordering to serious. And there are several others from the outside that would have that same view if they were to flock to WF for a new or improved hyped up PvP system if it lacks servers to support it.

My actual words were "I'd be more than fine with having it removed". Which was an answer to "We need to become a community and demand options for us in our respective platforms. We have to organize ourselves and tell DE that PVP matters. If we do not do this then DE will probably take out this portion of the game.", which in turn had nothing to do with the post it answered to, which was about what DE have said prior regarding dedicated servers.

[Felsagger]

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

So you want only yes sayers. That isnt how it works when a question is asked in public.

Maybe this thread should have been posted in uhm something like you know conclave feedback if it just wanted a certain crowd to reply to it.

 

The thread was meant for people who want conversations about the success of PVP and the improvement of it. You expressed in one of your posts that you are not interested in the PVP aspect of the game. Then your own profile shows that you have no contact with a single PVP match in this game. What you can contribute if you are fine if DE removes PVP? You can stay as much you like but no one is going to consider any value on your posts or any assessment you may have. 

Don't waste your time in here if you are not going to contribute. You are always dismissive and argumentative. Instead of being stubborn, bring in solutions, show some interest, develop ideas. It's much better than imposing your point of view on everybody. We tried to tell you this for the last 20 pages and still you are here arguing with everybody.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Felsagger

[(PSN)sdaly96]

Here's a couple of things I think should be implemented. Conclave needs dedicated servers and balancing (as has been said several times here).

Dojo duels should be changed to allow players, possibly warlords to alter what weapons can and can't be used in a given match. This would help with doing in clan events, as everyone would just use brammas otherwise. I also think they should change back the going to a blank duelling room and allow clans to at the very least use anything they added to the room,  changing the dynamics of duels. 

[SneakyErvin]

13 hours ago, Felsagger said:

 

The thread was meant for people who want conversations about the success of PVP and the improvement of it. You expressed in one of your posts that you are not interested in the PVP aspect of the game. Then your own profile shows that you have no contact with a single PVP match in this game. What you can contribute if you are fine if DE removes PVP? You can stay as much you like but no one is going to consider any value on your posts or any assessment you may have. 

Don't waste your time in here if you are not going to contribute. You are always dismissive and argumentative. Instead of being stubborn, bring in solutions, show some interest, develop ideas. It's much better than imposing your point of view on everybody. We tried to tell you this for the last 20 pages and still you are here arguing with everybody.

 

Check the first few replies in the thread. The first post is a no with no actual support of the mode. Which says pretty much what I say in a slightly different and less specific way.

I'm not interested in it, not in any shape or form aslong as there arent servers to support the mode. It wouldnt matter if they implemented the idea me and others have had about a corpus vs grineer Battlefield styled game mode. I wouldnt play it if there arent servers for it. Pointing out the massive flaw that currently sits with PvP in WF is contributing and coming with ideas. Just as the mentioned Battlefield (or Planetside) mode would be a solution for those that enjoy more basic gameplay without parkour, aswell as wanting the possibility to use various vehicles on bigger maps. That is contribution.

I'm here and arguing with two people. The third one actually had good info and input, with some very insightful posts regarding DS.

10 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Na, you are just braindead. Going to the dojo and leaving is the same as doing an exterminate and leaving. 

More people did raids then dojo's which means more people in that 3 days did active missions then go to their home bases. Again, you are better off saying nothing at all, if you can't say something smart. 

But you have never done a raid, nor even tried conclave. I don't know why you have anything to say on the matter when its nothing you have interest it. You could just ignore the topic like a reasonable person, but you really must enjoy people constantly correcting you. 

There is no end of mission screen when you leave the dojo, relays or hubs.

And if you wanna go your way and claim more people did raids because it counts as missions to do hubs/relays/dojo. Well 1 hub instance would equal 1 mission in that case, 1 hub can also hold several times the player numbers of a raid. So it is no indication that more people did raids. 1 raid can hold up to 8 people, a hub can hold 100 (or more, SS was capped at 100 though) per instance and they never shut down in the manner of a normal mission either. So you can have thousands of players going through one single "hub mission" between it opening and closing.

So I'm still fairly sure it is based on number of players in each single cake slice.

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

Can we drop this discussion about the chart? None of us know the methodology behind the chart. We don't know how DE got those numbers. So, as far as we know, the numbers could just be made up.

The chart is also extremely outdated no matter how you look at it, as it is from 2016.

[Felsagger]

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

Can we drop this discussion about the chart? None of us know the methodology behind the chart. We don't know how DE got those numbers. So, as far as we know, the numbers could just be made up.

The chart is also extremely outdated no matter how you look at it, as it is from 2016.

Agreed. 

The classical spy versus spy game. 

 I was thinking of a PVP where the match is in the context of a spy mission. Opposing teams should hack two vaults protected by the Grineer. The team that loads the two codes in their respective database wins. When both codes are loaded on the database the match closes 1-0 in favor of the winning team. It can be two matches or three matches. If the Grineer manages to delete the data the penalty point goes for the team that tried to hack. 

The classical evacuation team. 

Two teams rescue respective platoons of Grineer against hordes of corpus on a high security base. Each team has a bay for their respective platoon rescue ship. Versus platoons don't fight each other but they can deliver damage to the opposing team who are trying to hurt them. The same platoons fight the corpus or the opposing team of frames. 

The classical interception PVP

Four satellites hovers in each area transmitting information. When the four satellites are dominated the team scores. However the Grineer is the opposing force for both teams that will make things hard for the competitors. 

 

As I said PvEvP are possible in this game. Almost all game types are already defined. 

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

On 2020-05-23 at 10:51 PM, Felsagger said:

The classical spy versus spy game. 

 I was thinking of a PVP where the match is in the context of a spy mission. Opposing teams should hack two vaults protected by the Grineer. The team that loads the two codes in their respective database wins. When both codes are loaded on the database the match closes 1-0 in favor of the winning team. It can be two matches or three matches. If the Grineer manages to delete the data the penalty point goes for the team that tried to hack. 

That's far too easy. Any person can just run Ivara or any other stealth frame (or even an operator) to hack the vaults with minimal difficulty.
 

 

On 2020-05-23 at 10:51 PM, Felsagger said:

The classical evacuation team. 

Two teams rescue respective platoons of Grineer against hordes of corpus on a high security base. Each team has a bay for their respective platoon rescue ship. Versus platoons don't fight each other but they can deliver damage to the opposing team who are trying to hurt them. The same platoons fight the corpus or the opposing team of frames. 

That isn't PvP.

On 2020-05-23 at 10:51 PM, Felsagger said:

The classical interception PVP

Four satellites hovers in each area transmitting information. When the four satellites are dominated the team scores. However the Grineer is the opposing force for both teams that will make things hard for the competitors. 

Yeah an interception or area control game mode would be cool in Conclave. The grineer wouldn't make things hard though.

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

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

That isn't PvP.

Actually it is. 

If you are competing against somebody else, it is PvP. Destiny had something quite similar method of PvP. 

(PvP is anything where you compete, race, or go against another person directly, or indirectly. If its a race to who kills the other ship faster, its still PvP.)

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

On 2020-05-26 at 12:39 PM, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Actually it is. 

If you are competing against somebody else, it is PvP. Destiny had something quite similar method of PvP. 

(PvP is anything where you compete, race, or go against another person directly, or indirectly. If its a race to who kills the other ship faster, its still PvP.)

So you would consider something like speedrunning as PvP?

[Aadi880]

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

So you would consider something like speedrunning as PvP?

Would depend on the context or the type of speedrunning it is, imo.

[Felsagger]

1 hour ago, Aadi880 said:

Would depend on the context or the type of speedrunning it is, imo.

Yep, pretty much. It depends on the context. It's sad that a game like this leaves PvP out when there are lots of game modes that PvP can sit on. There are many interesting ways to test PvP matches here. Some day DE will allow console players have dedicated servers without automatic match making. Would be awesome to have that features in consoles. 

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

On 2020-05-30 at 2:10 PM, Felsagger said:

Yep, pretty much. It depends on the context. It's sad that a game like this leaves PvP out when there are lots of game modes that PvP can sit on. There are many interesting ways to test PvP matches here. Some day DE will allow console players have dedicated servers without automatic match making. Would be awesome to have that features in consoles. 

I hope they add those features to consoles too. If it is able to be done on PC (as well as on other games on console), why can't it be done on consoles for Warframe?

[stormy505]

There really isn't a logical reason to invest development time into pvp content in Warframe. Imagine a vegan restaurant trying to design a burger to sell to it's consumer base. Regardless of how amazing the burger is, because the consumer base is made up of 99.9% vegans, they won't have any interest in the burger.

[Urlan]

On 2020-06-04 at 10:00 PM, stormy505 said:

There really isn't a logical reason to invest development time into pvp content in Warframe. Imagine a vegan restaurant trying to design a burger to sell to it's consumer base. Regardless of how amazing the burger is, because the consumer base is made up of 99.9% vegans, they won't have any interest in the burger.

When you said Vegan I of course thought PVP enthusiasts were the Vegan, to match the point of your humanity eating habits to gaming community in a PVE focused game.

[SneakyErvin]

On 2020-06-04 at 9:20 PM, (XB1)The Repo Man151 said:

I hope they add those features to consoles too. If it is able to be done on PC (as well as on other games on console), why can't it be done on consoles for Warframe?

If you refer to the lack of dedicated servers DE said in the dedicated server setup thread that it wouldnt be possible.

Quote

Due to the networking architecture of the console environment, for the foreseeable future, Dedicated Servers will be restricted to PC users and will not be brought over to consoles- sorry!

This is because DE arent hosting them, the players are. So in order for it to ever be a thing on console, either DE would need to pay for it or some server providers (like those used for CoD, Battlefield etc.) would need to provide the service and the clans/players would need to rent them. Which I'm not sure DE is onboard with since that would mean pure profit at no real cost for those hosting services since the game client is free.

Consoles do have rented servers for CoD and those other games right, you arent compeltely backwoods with cups and shoestrings only I hope?