A PvEvP option on INDEX

[Kadesfy]

I've been hearing a lot about implementing PvEvP on warframe, but almost always are people trying to create a new game mode to it. But, we already have games modes that can work in a PvEvP scenario: INDEX, ARENA and INVASION (these last two I will try to show another time...)
How does it work? (I will call it Dinamic investiment)

• Matches will work on a 4 vs Anyo Corp vs 4.
• Two matches start at the same time (duh...).
• Both teams fight Anyo Corp on separate arenas.
• The team who get to 100 points first, gets double the return cash.
• Loser team still gets the return, but not doubled...

 

With this, we have a incentive to be the more efficient as possible on index, making it possible to gain credits in a even faster rate. and have maybe the begining of some competitive gamemodes on warframe.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Kadesfy

[Phatose]

What exactly is going to prevent collusion?  I idle in the other team, do nothing, you play in the other arena.  You get to 100, match ends, you get double usual credits, and I get regular credits for doing nothing whatsoever?

[Kadesfy]

25 minutes ago, Phatose said:

What exactly is going to prevent collusion?  I idle in the other team, do nothing, you play in the other arena.  You get to 100, match ends, you get double usual credits, and I get regular credits for doing nothing whatsoever?

If you(or your team) loses the game agains the bots, you dont get the cash, just like a normal index, the competition is for geting the double cash on a victory agains Anyo.

Something like:

Team A vs Anyo: Team A wins on 3:25 sec << Gets the x2 on the prize.

Team B vs Anyo: Team B wins on 3:39 sec. << Gets the return cash but not the x2 multiplier.

and:

Team A vs Anyo: Team A wins on 3:25 sec << Gets the x2 on the prize.

Team B vs Anyo: Team B loses on 3:39 sec <<Does not get any credits.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Kadesfy

[Phatose]

13 minutes ago, Kadesfy said:

If you(or your team) loses the game agains the bots, you dont get the cash, just like a normal index, the competition is for geting the double cash on a victory agains Anyo.

Something like:

Team A vs Anyo: Team A wins on 3:25 sec << Gets the x2 on the prize.

Team B vs Anyo: Team B wins on 3:39 sec.

and:

Team A vs Anyo: Team A wins on 3:25 sec << Gets the x2 on the prize.

Team B vs Anyo: Team B loses on 3:39 sec <<Does not get any credits.

OK, so we alternate instead.  One round, team A idles and doubles team B's winnings, the next B idles and A gets the double.  Doesn't increase credit flow vs current Index, but does allow players to idle half the time. 

[Kadesfy]

4 minutes ago, Phatose said:

OK, so we alternate instead.  One round, team A idles and doubles team B's winnings, the next B idles and A gets the double.  Doesn't increase credit flow vs current Index, but does allow players to idle half the time. 

welp... you got me... if we reduce the bonus multiplier, we also redude the incentive to play this mode...

[BiancaRoughfin]

Anything that has Players fighting other players in this game is doomed to Fail, thankfully, i am one who opposes any PVP content in Warframe, Conclave was a major mistake in the first place, only introduced for a very small minority of players.

Also, the old Dark Sectors missions were sorta a PvEvP map as you had both Players VS Specters and VS other Players. Wile some players deemed it fun, the biggest issue was that we had only 1~3 clans keeping dominance over the whole starchart as they could easily bribe other players into doing missions in their favor and that really sucked.

[Miser_able]

8 minutes ago, BiancaRoughfin said:

Anything that has Players fighting other players in this game is doomed to Fail, thankfully, i am one who opposes any PVP content in Warframe, Conclave was a major mistake in the first place, only introduced for a very small minority of players.

Also, the old Dark Sectors missions were sorta a PvEvP map as you had both Players VS Specters and VS other Players. Wile some players deemed it fun, the biggest issue was that we had only 1~3 clans keeping dominance over the whole starchart as they could easily bribe other players into doing missions in their favor and that really sucked.

Yea. PvP systems in games with guilds/clans tend to be horribly unbalanced from what I've seen. Warframe just isn't a PvP friendly game. 

 

Ps. When lever I see your name I think it says ragamuffin zan do just now noticed it doesn't... 

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

On 2020-01-13 at 11:03 PM, Miser_able said:

Yea. PvP systems in games with guilds/clans tend to be horribly unbalanced from what I've seen. Warframe just isn't a PvP friendly game. 

 

Ps. When lever I see your name I think it says ragamuffin zan do just now noticed it doesn't... 

 

I've typed this same response up several times, but here we go again

Because you are ignorant of rails, I will explain them to you. In detail.
To construct a Solar Rail, a clan needs to construct an orokin lab. To construct an orokin lab, the players in the clan need to contribute 1000 Credits, 800 Ferrite, 350 Circuits, 350 Polymer Bundle, and 1 forma. Truly a herculean task, considering many peoples' reactions to the hema research costs. From this point forward, the clan could choose to research a Tower-Class Solar Rail. For clans to research a Tower-Class Solar Rail the players in the clan need to contribute 10,000 Credits, 500 Alloy Plates, 600 Circuits, 750 Ferrite, and a single forma.
Once the clan has the research completed, they can begin construction on the actual Solar Rail. To construct the Solar Rail, clan members need to contribute 500000 Credits, 25 Gallium, 15000 Rubedo, 15000 Plastids, and 25 Control Modules.You also would have to begin creating the schema for your solar rail, this is sort of like dojo decorating with energy shields and rocket turrets instead of rocks and floofs. The leaders of the clan could then choose to deploy their Solar Rail on the dark sectors. There are four possible states of a dark sector in which a clan will be unable to deploy on it.
1. If the node is in an armistice state after a conflict has taken place on the node. If the offensive rail that deployed on the node in the previous conflict was successful, there will be a 48 hour armistice period where no clans/alliances could deploy on the node. If the defensive rail was successful in holding off the attack, depending on the percentage of damage done to its health, there will be an armistice period ranging from 16 hours to 48 hours. This gave the defensive parties time to repair their rail. Do not confuse this with the armistice state that rails are currently in. 
2. If the node is already in conflict, a third rail can not be deployed. That would be stupid and would just lead to endless third partying. I respect DE's choice in this design. The conflict could last up to 12 hours. If the offensive rail successfully makes 750 attacks on the defending rail in that 12 hours period, the conflict could potentially end earlier. My alliance actually held the world record for the fastest successful conquest of a Solar Rail. Our record was destroying the Rail in just under 2 hours. Fun Fact, we did that conflict without battlepay as a display of power against a rival alliance. We did not whine on the forums about how it was unfair that the other alliance had taken our node. Instead, we martialed our forces in the game and subsequently fought the greatest assault in the history of the dark sector conflicts to retake our territory.
3. If a node is currently being deployed on by another clan/alliance. The deployment process lasts 24 hours. For example, if I deployed a Solar Rail on Coba at 6pm on a Thursday, then the conflict would begin that Friday at 6pm. This knowledge was essential to warlords such as myself because we could use it to set up times for conflicts where we would be able to bring the majority of our force to bear on a node. An understanding of mechanics such as these is what made the difference between victory and defeat.
4. If a node is already owned by that clan, they can not deploy on it. The same undeployable status also applies when the node is owned by the alliance that the clan is in. It also applies if the clan deploys on a node owned by another clan that in the alliance of the deploying clan. 
Now back to the main topic.
Once the clan/alliance has chosen a node that is able to be deployed on, they have to make the decision to invade it. Many factors have to be considered such as the strength of the opposing clan/alliance, the strength of their own clan/alliance, the resources that the node drops, the location of the node in the star chart(at that time, many players did not have planets like Eris, Pluto, or Ceres unlocked. Warframe was only on Xbox for a few weeks at that point so the level and location of the node in the star chart was a factor in our decision making),  the time of our deployment windows, and the overall readiness of our alliance. We also considered economic factors because the tribute that was collected from the nodes would also be collected from the eom credits reward, so planets that were higher up in the star chart would be much more valuable than the ones towards the bottom. (interestingly, this was inversely true in practice, we discovered. because so much of the Xbox community was still stuck in the lower end of the star chart, nodes like coba could be just as valuable as nodes like sechura even though there was a tremendous difference in the eom rewards.)
Another factor to consider was that because much of the community still played on nodes like coba, the potential number of players fighting in the rail conflicts on that node was much higher. So if you deployed on sechura, although there would be fewer players to fight you, those players would be considerably more powerful than the hordes of lower mastery ranked players that would have fought on coba(even though, you could still fight the higher level players.)
Once your leaders have deployed the rail, the 24 hour deployment process begins. This is the time where you want to prepare as many people as possible to fight in your war. This can include taxiing them to bosses so they can unlock planets and more nodes, mass messaging your members to make sure they are aware of the conflict, and having last minute credit donation marathons to your clan/alliance treasury. Once all of these preparations are complete and you have as many of your members ready to fight as possible, all that is left is to wait is for the deployment timer to reach 0. Once it reaches 0, you can begin the conflict
Once the conflict begins, you have to successfully destroy the core of the defending Solar Rail 750 times over the course of the conflict or your offensive rail will be destroyed and the node will enter a state of armistice. You will have 12 hours to achieve these 750 victories. I will not explain the actual battle mechanics because the schema of the solar rail could be customized so there were different types of objectives for every clan you fight so any explanation would have to span dozens and dozens of variations and peculiarities. I will also not discuss specter regiments for the same reason.
If you are successful in conquering the node, congratulations. You now have to deal with having a target on your back. But there were a huge number of benefits. Free advertising, for starters, because you can put your clan/alliance emblem on the node as well as a message to greet players when they select that node to play one. You also have the option of demanding tribute from the players playing on the node. Yes, even players in your own clan/alliance. Although, there were separate tributes you could set for people you were allied with.
If you are not successful, you can construct another solar rail and try again.

What part of this is imbalanced to you?

[MonsterOfMyOwn]

I have over 2k hours in tom clancy the division, and my experience is that pvpve will mostly bring mostly toxicity.

I'm ok with it as long as it's just another conclave mode with no exclusive rewards appart from a few cosmetics

[Chappie]

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

 You also have the option of demanding tribute from the players playing on the node. 

What part of this is imbalanced to you?

This...I am being force to indirectly be a part of PvP.   

The issue with people who like player is they can't understand the people who don't.   Not every game out there has a be an exercise is trying to beat somebody down to rationalize you being a "bad ass".   Even in a PVE where there is forced cooperation for ideal results things get crappy real fast (e.g. eidolons).   

It doesn't take a PhD in psychology to understand why some people just want a game where they can murder pretty pixels with poor AI with extreme gusto and just might gravitate towards this game.  But no...this population shouldn't have a home.  They must be shown the way to land and glory of PvP.    Again...proving my point people who like PvP just don't get it.

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

1 minute ago, Chappie1975 said:

This...I am being force to indirectly be a part of PvP.   

The issue with people who like player is they can't understand the people who don't.   Not every game out there has a be an exercise is trying to beat somebody down to rationalize you being a "bad ass".   Even in a PVE where there is forced cooperation for ideal results things get crappy real fast (e.g. eidolons).   

It doesn't take a PhD in psychology to understand why some people just want a game where they can murder pretty pixels with poor AI with extreme gusto and just might gravitate towards this game.  But no...this population shouldn't have a home.  They must be shown the way to land and glory of PvP.    Again...proving my point people who like PvP just don't get it.

They have the option of not playing on that node. Or they could talk to the clan/alliance leaders that own that node and convince them to lower the taxes. They could convince others to fight to lower the taxes. There are so many options to avoid paying tribute.

[Miser_able]

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

What part of this is imbalanced to you?

I was there during the dark sector conflicts. im not an idiot. if you ever looked at the dark sectors, most of them were owned by the same few alliances and just switched between them. and they tended to keep the taxes high. it was the top 1% of alliances controlling and extorting all the rails, because these alliances were so big they always had dozens if not hundreds of players active in all timezones, so they could fight at any time.

[(PSN)FriendSharkey]

Well since we're sharing ideas... I would go with two teams trying to break into three specific vaults that they can only see....First to trigger an alarm loses...Also I would have a massive unstoppable Infested monster roaming around and the more sound you make the faster it spawns in on you to ruin your team's chances.

 

The teams start in the center of the map with the vaults opposite of each other...Those who get all three vaults can escape and if they do..then the Monster is live and homes in on the other team who have to get to one specially marked vault to crack it and to escape as a last minute chance...

[Joe_Barbarian]

On 2020-01-14 at 2:52 AM, Kadesfy said:

I've been hearing a lot about implementing PvEvP on warframe, but almost always are people trying to create a new game mode to it. But, we already have games modes that can work in a PvEvP scenario: INDEX, ARENA and INVASION (these last two I will try to show another time...)
How does it work? (I will call it Dinamic investiment)

• Matches will work on a 4 vs Anyo Corp vs 4.
• Two matches start at the same time (duh...).
• Both teams fight Anyo Corp on separate arenas.
• The team who get to 100 points first, gets double the return cash.
• Loser team still gets the return, but not doubled...

 

With this, we have a incentive to be the more efficient as possible on index, making it possible to gain credits in a even faster rate. and have maybe the begining of some competitive gamemodes on warframe.

Isn't there a warframe partner that recently posted a youtube video that explained exactly this ?

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

1 hour ago, Miser_able said:

I was there during the dark sector conflicts. im not an idiot. if you ever looked at the dark sectors, most of them were owned by the same few alliances and just switched between them. and they tended to keep the taxes high. it was the top 1% of alliances controlling and extorting all the rails, because these alliances were so big they always had dozens if not hundreds of players active in all timezones, so they could fight at any time.

We faced those same issues on Xbox and we beat them. It just took some planning and effort. Nothing in life worth having comes free. Solar Rails Conflicts were super biased in favor of the attacking side. No idea how you guys could not defeat them.

[Miser_able]

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

We faced those same issues on Xbox and we beat them. It just took some planning and effort. Nothing in life worth having comes free. Solar Rails Conflicts were super biased in favor of the attacking side. No idea how you guys could not defeat them.

Yea, you'd beat them then they'd be right back asap. 

[khazlol]

what if we played as some of the NPC charecters!? against other npc's!? not just saying that becasue i want to play John Prodman.

 

_{i want to play as the prodman 😧}

[LSG501]

Yeah lets have DE waste even more time on the PvP part of the game.... nothing like beating a dead horse. 

There is such a small number of players in the game that bother with conclave that in all honesty DE would be better off removing it from the game, they can then use the resources saved on improving more popular parts of the game instead.

If I want to play PvP I will go play a game designed specifically around PvP, not some bolted on content that doesn't work in the game it's been added to.

[SilentMobius]

On 2020-01-14 at 4:53 AM, BiancaRoughfin said:

Anything that has Players fighting other players in this game is doomed to Fail, thankfully, i am one who opposes any PVP content in Warframe, Conclave was a major mistake in the first place, only introduced for a very small minority of players.

Also, the old Dark Sectors missions were sorta a PvEvP map as you had both Players VS Specters and VS other Players. Wile some players deemed it fun, the biggest issue was that we had only 1~3 clans keeping dominance over the whole starchart as they could easily bribe other players into doing missions in their favor and that really sucked.

All of this ^

I started playing this game before there was any PvP at all and I really, really wish it had stayed that way. I know that the devs are just gagging to add more because of their work on Unreal but they just don't have the people and time to keep adding weapons abilities and content while keeping all those variables in check for any form of PvP.

Also, co-op games make terrible homes for PvP because you really want to attract people who have no interest at all in interpersonal conflict and a low tolerance for that behaviour in others, whereas PvP thrives and draws in that stuff.

 

[k05h]

You could easily turn the Index into a twist on Destiny's Gambit mode and we would have PvEvP in Warframe. DE could reuse all maps from Index, Senda arenas and even Conclave. 

Whichever team banks a certain number of index points frist spawns an extra tough enemy (wolf of saturn) or a horde of extra tough enemies (sentiens, buffed G3) on the other side. You can pretty much work with assets already in Warframe. 

If DE wants to invest a bit more invasions of the other team could be a thing. DE could use again existing assets: Once a team reaches a threshold on random player can invade the other team in the form of stalker with his primary and the few abilities he posses. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by k05h

[Uber.Munchkin]

I'm firmly in the 'No Thank You' camp, PvP just doesn't have any place in Warframe, the game isn't balanced for it and never will be.  If you want SciFi PvP then I hear Destiny is a good option. 

That said, if DE want to go an implement something like the OPs suggestion but only on a specific opt in basis then that's fine, but it will be just wasted effort on another dead game mode that most of us are not interested in.

[Methanoid]

the incentive to play any of these game modes was originally to have "fun", not slapping in arbitrary rewards meant to entice players in but leave once they have that they need, pretty much all new warframe content is built around getting the new stuff then abandoning whatever they added like it doesnt exist anymore, mostly because what they add is tedious, boring and not fun in any way, you actually feel relieved when the grind is over knowing you never have to go back to things like disruption.

[Highlord83]

On 2020-01-13 at 8:52 PM, Kadesfy said:

PvEvP

We already have to deal with nolife meta spammers screwing over the game for everyone else, now you want to add in pvpers?

Christ, no.

[Kadesfy]

17 hours ago, Joe_Barbarian said:

Isn't there a warframe partner that recently posted a youtube video that explained exactly this ?

Not that I remember... you have the link for it?

[Kadesfy]

17 hours ago, (PS4)FriendSharkey said:

Well since we're sharing ideas... I would go with two teams trying to break into three specific vaults that they can only see....First to trigger an alarm loses...Also I would have a massive unstoppable Infested monster roaming around and the more sound you make the faster it spawns in on you to ruin your team's chances.

 

The teams start in the center of the map with the vaults opposite of each other...Those who get all three vaults can escape and if they do..then the Monster is live and homes in on the other team who have to get to one specially marked vault to crack it and to escape as a last minute chance...

Thats the idea that I was thinking for invasion, but I need to know how to put a balance into it. (this thread is giving me a lot to...)

Edited January 16, 2020 by Kadesfy