No one Plays.

[(XBOX)Flamesinger7109]

Is it just the North American Xbox Servers, or is there almost no one playing Conclave?

[(PSN)Quantaminum]

No one plays conclave.

Almost literally on consoles.

[trunks013]

13 minutes ago, (PS4)Quantaminum said:

No one plays conclave.

Almost literally on consoles.

Wait its just on console ???

[Guest]

Conclave is dead on all platforms.

[Ikusias]

Conclave, while retaining a very small vocal base of players, is de facto on life support due to low popularity, more pressing issues and the amount of extra maintenance balancing and scripting needed to make warframe powers and weapons "play nice" with PvP.

Considering the work needed compared to the playerbase i could dare say it's pretty much a lost cause.

[(PSN)Ozymandias-13-]

Conclave is dead. Period.

It's a relic of them attempting pvp in this game, long since failed. They tried to bring it back with Lunaro years ago, but I honestly can't even tell you what that is let alone if anyone plays it. People don't play this game for pvp.

[Stormdragon]

34 minutes ago, trunks013 said:

Wait its just on console ???

Idk, i keep finding lobbies consistently on PC when i want to play.

13 minutes ago, Ikusias said:

Conclave, while retaining a very small vocal base of players, is de facto on life support due to low popularity,

Makes sense to have a small community when a big chunk of the PvE playerbase keeps telling us "go play something else" whenever we ask for a bug to get fixed; the new player experience for PvP players is far worse than the PvE one (which already says a lot); progression systems are entirely based on an unchallenging and mind numbing PvE experience; and Devs don't anything to advertise it, fix it, let alone to improve it.

6 minutes ago, (PS4)Ozymandias-13- said:

People don't play this game for pvp.

I do, and that's mostly because the PvE side of the game got boring to me long ago for being too repetitive while every update seems to keep adding more and more of the same with a few steps changed and more layers of RNG because the devs keep failing to provide a challenge thanks to a powercreep that lets us clear anything game without ever learning warframe's (unique) mechanics. There is a community built around PvP and you can be sure that many others are on similar situation after getting spoiled by warframe's unique movement system.

But hey! I guess the game will keep going strong as long as the devs keep adding more shiny capes, fancy ephemeras and some skins since dress-up-frame seems to be enough to keep players happy.

[kwlingo]

8 hours ago, kwlingo said:

I believe lots of player stay away from Conclave because some players are just way too good when compared to their own skill level. With frustration even with myself, I just tend to give up after a while. The fun factor goes way low. To increase the fun factor while still having skills part of the mode, less skilled players should have a fighting chance even if its a false feel of hope (because ending results will still total to a lose). This is why games like Fortnite do so well, 3 year old somehow is one of the last on the map not to die.  Thus similar to how Index update works now, every kill will lessen the health/sheilds per orb collected, plus Arbatration your damage when trying to revive a fallen ally. Also instead of only one weapon per primary/ secondary/ melee brought into mode, everyone gets to choose up to 3 per category. All player weapons and mods will be mixed in a pool and randomly drops on map with only 5 shots per weapon with one extra magazine and melee's having a duration limit of use. As long as weapons are dropping it will keep everyone actively looking for weapons and shooting. This will give a possible chance to bring down the one guys who no one can bring down because if they run out of ammo or melee duration, you have a small window of opportunity.

But the ending results will always be who got the most so those lucky shots of victory will still be for false hope but will feel much more fun for lower ranking players.

 

[kwlingo]

2 hours ago, (XB1)Flamesinger7109 said:

Is it just the North American Xbox Servers, or is there almost no one playing Conclave?

There is no fun factor in Conclave for players who's skill level is not on par with real skillful players, who can 100% head shot kills and know every trick in the book of maneuvering and countering. Than this only becomes fun to the players who invested in lots of time learning this skill. That's why game modes like this cannot compare to other game in the market for "fun."

If people really wanted a PVP they have better games like CS, Halo, even Destiny.

Edited February 7, 2020 by kwlingo

[Player0187]

Conclave isn't dead, but DE is going to kill it soon if they don't remove the broken weapons

[SpringRocker]

44 minutes ago, (PS4)Ozymandias-13- said:

Conclave is dead. Period.

Incorrect, people do play conclave.

[(PSN)Ozymandias-13-]

7 minutes ago, SpringRocker said:

Incorrect, people do play conclave.

More people played raids. 

It's dead. 

[----Legacy----]

On 2020-02-07 at 8:13 PM, (PS4)Ozymandias-13- said:

More people played raids. 

Got some proof?

Quote

It's dead. 

Well, it's more alive than trials.

[IApollyonI]

People really overreact with this "Conclave is dead" nonsense. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People don't even give it a chance because everyone's saying it's broken.

Besides a handful of absolutely broken weapons Conclave is mostly fine. It's alive, at least on PC. Many players do not play with overpowered weapons and those that do get chastised by the community.

Over the last weeks I had no issue finding full lobbies at peak times and I've been having a lot of fun.

 

[NekroArts]

On 2020-02-07 at 8:25 PM, ----Legacy---- said:

Got some proof?

From Devstream #80, important quote from Rebecca,

Quote

The most played node is Akkad and that is an endless defense mode, but it's not most played for its endless, it's most played for its in and out lucrativeness for that minimum time spent in that mission.

Another thing to note is that rewards from Trials/Raid were once a day. So while conclave had reasons to repeatedly run it, Trials (at minimum) only needed 3 runs - Law of Retribution, it's Nightmare variant, and Jordas Verdict.

Looking back in update/patch notes all the way to the first one of September 2019 there's only been 6 mentions of Conclave.

Spoiler

• The Pennant has been removed from Conclave.
• Fixed Kuva Liches stealing Conclave Rewards.

• Fixed Tenshin missing description for his Conclave Loadout Slot.

• *Vauban and Ember have been removed from Conclave in the meantime for balancing.
• Fixed running on an angle when attempting to run straight in Conclave.

• Fixed Warframe running at a weird angle in Conclave.
• Fixed enemy Tenno minimap markers showing up as white in Conclave.

• Fixed crash when changing maps in Conclave (among other rarer cases).

As Stated in Update 25.7.0, the Universal Syndicate Medallion is now useable for Ventkids and Simaris Standing! After some internal discussion and player feedback, we decided against allowing the Universal Medallion to apply to Conclave. It didn't feel right to add a PvE path for a PvP gamemode, especially towards those you have actively played Conclave to get their Standing. Apologies for the chain yank!

 

During my look into this I also found comments that express unhappiness with lack of fixes in that same timeline (important: ones directly from update/patch note were from the first page).

Spoiler

These originated from this thread.

 

Looking at the upvotes and comments relating to this, it's clear that the Conclave community shows great concern for the game mode.

 

In the case of "...the removal of trials despite it being actually justified", it's like saying there was enough reasons to warrant it's removal. Looking back to the thread below expresses how much of time it took away from other projects.

Quote

...Our Designers have put in an incredible amount of blood, sweat, and tears into creating, fixing, and maintaining Trials...The upkeep of the Trials in a world where so many bigger plans are in motion are taking much needed brainpower and time.

Conclave has been fortunate with extremely little maintenance. This can be viewed in two ways when including the information above.

• Conclave has small amounts of maintenance that it doesn't take too much time away from big projects.
• The problems of Conclave are not big enough to warrant attention to fix in a desirable time.

[Kontrollo]

2 hours ago, NekroArts said:

*snip*

Surprise! Getting quote-pinged by yet another guy who is trying to playing one game mode against the other.

Oh and there's the Chart of Bad Habits and Taste^TM again, too. I swear, the devs will never live that one down. Have you noticed all the things wrong with it? For example, how that's a single weekend from back in 2016?

 

Have you also noticed, how they've confirmed that raids will return? And it's not like they haven't removed other things from the PvP crowd before, and without such a promise.

 

2 hours ago, NekroArts said:

Conclave has been fortunate with extremely little maintenance. This can be viewed in two ways when including the information above.

• Conclave has small amounts of maintenance that it doesn't take too much time away from big projects.
• The problems of Conclave are not big enough to warrant attention to fix in a desirable time.

Or behind door number three: Conclave would require an incredibly small amount of upkeep compared to the rest of the game, but doesn't even get that, despite them introducing now even map-breaking things into the game mode with their PvE changes.

And from the things you quoted, I'd wager the "running at an angle" and "minimap" problems they fixed were introduced because they're working on something unrelated and simply can't manage to properly separate the things they do. That speaks a lot more about their working environment/processes than about the game mode, to be honest.

[NekroArts]

2 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

Have you noticed all the things wrong with it? For example, how that's a single weekend from back in 2016?

The only time where there was side-by-side comparison of both Trials and Conclave since there's not current way to get definitive proof that Trials still has supporters without people ripping into it with claims such as "you weren't there, you would've hate it"; or those that hate it continue to make comments about how bad Trials were (some to extreme) influencing those that didn't experience it and thus skewing the results? No, nothing wrong with it. Plus that single weekend in 2016 tells enough.

• Conclave has remained the same with it's core foundation and hasn't had any hard reiteration (Dark Sector changing to Conclave).
• Trials only have incentive to run it 3 time, one for each kind, due to being rewarded once per day.
• Conclave has no such wall, the standing cap and daily challenges are the closest things to stop the player from playing until the next day.
  • Getting all the standing and challenges done is impossible in one game session.
• It's also the weekend, a time where people generally have a less stressful/work time than on the weekdays.

Knowing all that, Trials had a high percentage of players going in than those in Conclave.

2 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

Have you also noticed, how they've confirmed that raids will return? And it's not like they haven't removed other things from the PvP crowd before, and without such a promise.

Oh I knew that long before making my first post, the post was a response to ----Legacy----.

Trials were completely removed, how is that a fair comparison to Conclave that still exists?

2 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

Or behind door number three: Conclave would require an incredibly small amount of upkeep compared to the rest of the game, but doesn't even get that, despite them introducing now even map-breaking things into the game mode with their PvE changes.

That's basically the second point.

2 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

And from the things you quoted, I'd wager the "running at an angle" and "minimap" problems they fixed were introduced because they're working on something unrelated and simply can't manage to properly separate the things they do. That speaks a lot more about their working environment/processes than about the game mode, to be honest.

Both of those are directly related, if DE's environment/process lead them to fix minor things in Conclave then it's clear that Conclave doesn't have enough player support to pull workers from other projects to appease the Conclave community.

Edited February 8, 2020 by NekroArts

[Rubbertubtub01]

DE don't fix Conclave because nobody plays... And nobody plays because DE don't fix Conclave...

And around, and around, and around, and around we go...

[taiiat]

• Coniclave definitely has the highest density on PC, in the NA region, during prime time hours (i.e. ~1900-2300hrs EST)
• on all Platforms, Conclave has a low Playercount for various reasons ranging from:
  • a game that's normally about everybody wins before the Mission even starts and Et Cetera, while PvP is definitely not that.
  • some balance concerns here and there (though at any given time it's mostly fine)
  • has the absolute most ridiculously extreme time investment required to play. to actively play Conclave one has to also play the PvE side of the game, meaning to play Conclave on the regular you have to either progress much slower in PvE (which is where almost all of the stuff including the stuff you use in Conclave, comes from), or play the game a truly ridiculous amount.
    because Conclave has no useful Rewards, it requires Players to put in appallingly unreasonable amounts of playtime.

 

 

off topic:
please don't support/encourage bad Data Metrics strategies that are collected about Warframe by using the bad data yourself, you know who you are.

Edited February 9, 2020 by taiiat

[----Legacy----]

On 2020-02-08 at 3:25 PM, NekroArts said:

From Devstream #80

I was expecting this chart to be shown since it seems to be the only tool of PvE players against PvP despite being a 3 years and 5 months old poorly labeled pie chart. It's so poorly made that all it shows is percentages but offers no info about what was measured or how was that data taken other than when was this measure made.

Do you know how was the data shown there taken? (Mission success screens, sessions created, player count, time spent by player, etc) because depending of that answer there's a lot of things that could completely change the way you see that outdated chart

On 2020-02-08 at 3:25 PM, NekroArts said:

Looking at the upvotes and comments relating to this, it's clear that the Conclave community shows great concern for the game mode.

Did you expect people who enjoys conclave to stay silent when minor bugs that coould be fixed easily are still in the game after months of being reported? Should players show no concern over the content we enjoy and post nothing but "thanks" in patch notes so DE thinks that everything is perfect? 

On 2020-02-08 at 3:25 PM, NekroArts said:

In the case of "...the removal of trials despite it being actually justified", it's like saying there was enough reasons to warrant it's removal. Looking back to the thread below expresses how much of time it took away from other projects.

Removing trials was justified by DE with the promise of a return. The thread you linked explains good enough why trials were removed and if you keep looking at the low maintenance that DE gives to conclave, you can easily see why it was kept despite the toxicity from trial players who in that same thread were trying to save trials by asking DE to remove conclave instead.

On 2020-02-08 at 8:25 PM, NekroArts said:

The only time where there was side-by-side comparison of both Trials and Conclave since there's not current way to get definitive proof that Trials still has supporters without people ripping into it with claims such as "you weren't there, you would've hate it"; or those that hate it continue to make comments about how bad Trials were (some to extreme) influencing those that didn't experience it and thus skewing the results? No, nothing wrong with it. Plus that single weekend in 2016 tells enough.

If the measure had been 3 days during snowday showdown (for example) the conclave activity displayed there would have been a lot higher. would you still try to use *that* chart instead? If DE made another chart showing data taken during the deffection event, should it be used to claim that it's a really popular game mode until the end of times? stuff like that is why a single weekend says actually nothing.

[NekroArts]

1 hour ago, ----Legacy---- said:

I was expecting this chart to be shown since it seems to be the only tool of PvE players against PvP despite being a 3 years and 5 months old poorly labeled pie chart. It's so poorly made that all it shows is percentages but offers no info about what was measured or how was that data taken other than when was this measure made.

Do you know how was the data shown there taken? (Mission success screens, sessions created, player count, time spent by player, etc) because depending of that answer there's a lot of things that could completely change the way you see that outdated chart

Read the quote

Quote

The most played node is Akkad and that is an endless defense mode, but it's not most played for its endless, it's most played for its in and out lucrativeness for that minimum time spent in that mission.

 

1 hour ago, ----Legacy---- said:

Did you expect people who enjoys conclave to stay silent when minor bugs that coould be fixed easily are still in the game after months of being reported? Should players show no concern over the content we enjoy and post nothing but "thanks" in patch notes so DE thinks that everything is perfect? 

No I didn't. The point of the post was to point out for as small as Conclave is, it still it still has passionate player base. Much like the players of Trials/Raids that you call "salty" and "toxic". Yes, it's removed but that doesn't mean there aren't players that still support it.

 

1 hour ago, ----Legacy---- said:

Removing trials was justified by DE with the promise of a return. The thread you linked explains good enough why trials were removed and if you keep looking at the low maintenance that DE gives to conclave, you can easily see why it was kept despite the toxicity from trial players who in that same thread were trying to save trials by asking DE to remove conclave instead.

And I do not argue the justification and knew the promise made. The point of that post was to break the phrase down to it's most objective form - "it's like saying there was enough reasons to warrant it's removal". Thus, leading into "Conclave has been fortunate with extremely little maintenance". The whole point of my OP was to show that Conclave was just as close, if not already there, to being in Trials positions - dead. 

 

1 hour ago, ----Legacy---- said:

If the measure had been 3 days during snowday showdown (for example) the conclave activity displayed there would have been a lot higher. would you still try to use *that* chart instead?

Because people were playing it for the rewards, this is not the first time players played something they dislike purely for its reward; earned after 3 games, victory or loss. No, I wouldn't use it in *this* scenario because it's a time limit event. Conclave that was record on *that* chart is just Conclave; same rewards, no fear of ever missing out.

1 hour ago, ----Legacy---- said:

If DE made another chart showing data taken during the deffection event, should it be used to claim that it's a really popular game mode until the end of times?

No because that record would be new, it does not take into account after some time of being just there. The chart I posted was made over a year after Law of Retribution was released (March 19th, 2015), it's Nightmare version released 3 months later (May 12th, 2015), and Jordas Verdict released 5 months later after that (October 29th, 2015). So that's 19 months, 17 months, and 11 months, respectively, of how long Trials were present before that chart was made. In that time everything would've already normalized.

Edited February 10, 2020 by NekroArts

[Sevek7]

12 minutes ago, NekroArts said:

Read the quote

 

No I didn't. The point of the post was to point out for as small as Conclave is, it still it still has passionate player base. Much like the players of Trials/Raids that you call "salty" and "toxic". Yes, it's removed but that doesn't mean there aren't players that still support it.

 

And I do not argue the justification and knew the promise made. The point of that post was to break the phrase down to it's most objective form - "it's like saying there was enough reasons to warrant it's removal". Thus, leading into "Conclave has been fortunate with extremely little maintenance". The whole point of my OP was to show that Conclave was just as close, if not already there, to being in Trials positions - dead. 

 

Because people were playing it for the rewards, this is not the first time players played something they dislike purely for its reward; earned after 3 games, victory or loss. No, I wouldn't use it in *this* scenario because it's a time limit event. Conclave that was record on *that* chart is just Conclave; same rewards, no fear of ever missing out.

No because that record would be new, it does not take into account after some time of being just there. The chart I posted was made over a year after Law of Retribution was released (March 19th, 2015), it's Nightmare version released 3 months later (May 12th, 2015), and Jordas Verdict released 5 months later after that (October 29th, 2015). So that's 19 months, 17 months, and 11 months, respectively, of how long Trials were present before that chart was made. In that time everything would've already normalized.

Hi I'm confused about the pie chart a bit like others have mentioned. You seem to be an expert on it so perhaps you can explain? The quote you mention says that "The most played node is Akkad and that is an endless defense mode, but it's not most played for its endless, it's most played for its in and out lucrativeness for that minimum time spent in that mission." Which suggests to me that beginning missions or extracting from missions is what's being measured. 

This means that if one person played 5 waves of Akkad 20 times over the course of an hour, this would register as 20 defense missions played. But if one person played conclave for 5 hours straight (without extracting) this would register as a single PvP mission played. I think we can all agree that this would skew the data an enormous amount. 

Can you confirm that this is how the data was collected? 

[NekroArts]

1 hour ago, Sevek7 said:

This means that if one person played 5 waves of Akkad 20 times over the course of an hour, this would register as 20 defense missions played. But if one person played conclave for 5 hours straight (without extracting) this would register as a single PvP mission played. I think we can all agree that this would skew the data an enormous amount. 

Can you confirm that this is how the data was collected? 

Key word "if" and on top of that

Quote

...minimum time spent...

5 hours in that one Conclave mission is like those insanely long endless runs. Yeah, you can go that long, but don't assume that's the norm as a whole. Other factors of leaving:

• Wanting out of current lobby (reasons such as breaks, not wanting to play with this player)
• Challenges that are split among the other game mode

With those in mind, your "if" sits on the extreme. Something that shouldn't be used as counter when that chart encompasses the entire player base.

Edited February 10, 2020 by NekroArts

[Rubbertubtub01]

41 minutes ago, NekroArts said:

Key word "if" and on top of that

5 hours in that one Conclave mission is like those insanely long endless runs. Yeah, you can go that long, but don't assume that's the norm as a whole. Other factors of leaving:

• Wanting out of current lobby (reasons such as breaks, not wanting to play with this player)
• Challenges that are split among the other game mode

With those in mind, your "if" sits on the extreme. Something that shouldn't be used as counter when that chart encompasses the entire player base.

Since you don't know how the data was collected... then that makes the pie chart invalid in this argument. 

Until the data collection method used for that pie chart is confirmed, it can't be used reliably. 

[Sevek7]

28 minutes ago, NekroArts said:

Key word "if" and on top of that

5 hours in that one Conclave mission is like those insanely long endless runs. Yeah, you can go that long, but don't assume that's the norm as a whole. Other factors of leaving:

• Wanting out of current lobby (reasons such as breaks, not wanting to play with this player)
• Challenges that are split among the other game mode

With those in mind, your "if" sits on the extreme. Something that shouldn't be used as counter when that chart encompasses the entire player base.

Yeah, of course it's not the norm (I was providing an extreme example as an anecdote.) The fact that I used an extreme example doesn't invalidate the point though. If I had to guess at a median time spend in conclave missions I would guess 20 minutes (2 matches.) This in comparison to ~4 minutes for 5 waves of Akkad means the pie chart is off by a factor of 5. That makes for a seriously misleading pie chart!

Oops, just noticed the pie chart is only for three days! Yikes! Somewhere a statistician is furious at our attempts to draw conclusions from such a small sample size! The chosen time of year is also weird since it's right when a lot of students start new courses - so a lot of the playerbase would be absent at that time.

I suggest we forget the pie chart entirely since now it's clear that it's misleading at best.