add conclave missions to nightwave to revive the gamemode?

[Faulcun]

Conclave failed because DE insisted on trying to nerf skill, rather than fix what was wrong with conclave.

The first version of conclave was awesome. Was there some OP stuff? sure, but most of it was great.

The second version was just dumbed down to the current loadout.

Then they nerfed movement because players complained they couldnt hit other players who mastered the parkour system.

and it just kept getting worse from there. Now its just stupid, and nobody plays.

[Luciole77]

the hard mode can be another conclave 2.0 🙄

[(PSN)Stealth_Cobra]

I think a "play one conclave match" woudn't be such a bad thing if it's like a daily objective and not like a weekly objective. Who know , it might be enough to give the gamemode a couple of days of enough activity to actually get matches going... And in the worse case scenario you could skip it and lose only 1000 points, which is a couple of random glass encounters and not such a big deal.

Personally, I would use this occasion to maybe max my conclave and get a couple of guns going during the few days where people did their one match to get their NW done. Every time I actually tried to get a match going it's always waiting for like 30mintes for like two persons to show up then like the guys quits two seconds into the match.

Edited June 26, 2020 by (PS4)Stealth_Cobra

[Ulvra]

Until conclave is anything but a terrible experience that it takes months to recover from. No thanks. If there was actually playable alternatives then maybe, but most of the time the only thing that's remotely populated is 1vAll, filled with people running aimbots.

[Kontrollo]

On 2020-06-25 at 1:52 AM, Tyreaus said:

FWIW, I wouldn't mind having it as an alternative (e.g. get 6 Elite Weekly's, complete any 3). If it were built and emphasized in such a way, that'd probably be much more palatable. I'd rather do a few Conclave matches than go spear-fishing, after all.

The problem seems to be an assumption / misunderstanding that it wouldn't be a parallel alternative. I.e., people think "you can do Conclave tasks for more Nightwave standing", instead of "you can do Conclave tasks instead of regular ones for Nightwave standing". It's a subtle difference, but matters.

(Of course, I'm also talking from a general perspective of "I'd like to have options with Nightwave tasks so I don't have to do x specific task", so...)

That said, it's still unlikely to really revitalize Conclave like OP wants.

On 2020-06-25 at 1:53 AM, NekroArts said:

As someone who plays D2, including Conclave optional, alternative challenges isn't going to make things better because that will give of the vibe of having to do all the challenges someone doesn't like, PvE and PvP. Players here, just as there, can have an irrational mindset of "having" to do everything even though they don't need to. I don't like PvP, but I "have" to play PvP content because I need to level up my character as there are 5 engrams behind that content.

Here's my take on that optional and alternative Conclave challenges:

• Each week there will be two sets of Nightwave challenges, PvE and PvP, but it's impossible to finish both of them. 
• When a players completes a PvE challenge they must eliminate a PvP challenge of equal value, same thing vice versa.

This makes the PvP challenges truly optional and alternative while eliminating the irrational mindset of "having" to do everything.

My bad. I shouldn't have expected people to click on that and read the full post. Yes, optional and alternative challenges would mean exactly what you write, i.e. with two consequences:

• No one is forced into PvP for Nightwave, ever.
• It's impossible to get ahead of others by doing both PvP and PvE challenges -- doing one would remove the other.

 

If you do have some spare time and don't mind, go read the conversations in that earlier thread, which followed that proposal. They're enlightening, really.

 

 

Quote

I'd like to emphasize my "I'd like to have options with Nightwave tasks so I don't have to do x specific task" opinion.

A lot.

Because that's just...errh...

Just to frame why I wrote that: Before Nightwave it was easy to get the occasional potato even for people who prefer PvP over PvE, if they were around for the right alert. Nightwave has turned that into a significant time investment, and even the completely unrelated minigames now have received preferential treatment. I'm not against more options, per se.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Kontrollo
typos

[Tyreaus]

1 hour ago, Kontrollo said:

My bad. I shouldn't have expected people to click on that and read the full post.

I mean, I did read the first post and skimmed through a number of the follow-up replies, which is why I said the problem seems to be partly assumption (based on the other thread's title) and partly misunderstanding (of Remy's core goal), and also said "built and emphasized" to help stave off gut reactions to the proposition. On one hand, yes it sucks that people just snap to a reaction without reading things through. On another hand, y'gotta account for that. People are still people.

Just for example, Remy says: "Players who enjoy both PvE and PvP in a similar way see their progress sped up by playing the game as a whole", which pretty strongly implies that the PvP challenges would be in addition to the PvE ones and it would be possible to "get ahead of others by doing both PvE and PvP". That only gets cleared up later on the first page and the initial post is never edited. As you say, "if [we] do have some spare time and don't mind", we should read the entire thread. Most people don't have the time, so their reading likely goes as far as the title, the first post, and a scattering of posts at the beginning and the end. Well, if I skimmed like that - and initially, I did! - I'd miss that core clarification and get a pretty similar impression.

People have gut reactions and reading / skimming habits: the further down something is in a thread, the less likely it is to be seen. Knowing that, and having read through most of the thread, the reactions (and misunderstandings) aren't all that surprising. By what I could see, most people were reacting (see above RE: skimming), the second largest agreed with the clarified alternative (or re-proposed it), and only a couple demonstrably understood and disagreed with that "totally 100% sideways optional" alternative. That's pretty much par for the course.

_{Unless there's some specific enlightening part I missed...}

Edited June 29, 2020 by Tyreaus
Formatting is fun

[Kontrollo]

4 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

I mean, I did read the first post and skimmed through a number of the follow-up replies, which is why I said the problem seems to be partly assumption (based on the other thread's title) and partly misunderstanding (of Remy's core goal), and also said "built and emphasized" to help stave off gut reactions to the proposition. On one hand, yes it sucks that people just snap to a reaction without reading things through. On another hand, y'gotta account for that. People are still people.

Just for example, Remy says: "Players who enjoy both PvE and PvP in a similar way see their progress sped up by playing the game as a whole", which pretty strongly implies that the PvP challenges would be in addition to the PvE ones and it would be possible to "get ahead of others by doing both PvE and PvP". That only gets cleared up later on the first page and the initial post is never edited. As you say, "f [we] do have some spare time and don't mind", we should read the entire thread. Most people don't have the time, so their reading likely goes as far as the title, the first post, and a scattering of posts at the beginning and the end. Well, if I skimmed like that - and initially, I did! - I'd miss that core clarification and get a pretty similar impression. ...

Yes admittedly, I've probably been on these forums for too long. The general sentiment isn't something new, and the kinds of reactions got old back in 2015 already. (For some people, it's likely not a scattering at the beginning and end, either 😉)

 

Point of it all being, even a well meant and made proposition -- which sure, was molded into its form from the initial reaction -- is not able to garner widespread support. It was repeated several times after the linked post, too.

[Tyreaus]

4 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

is not able to garner widespread support.

TBF it's Conclave. By it's nature, it isn't going to gain wide-spread support. I think the more pertinent, and arguably more difficult, metric is: does it avoid wide-spread opposition? I think the clarified idea does and, in that sense, I'd say it's pretty well-supported. Perhaps not directly supported, but really: if your major opposition has almost nothing bad to say, isn't that a sign of support in and of itself?

[Kontrollo]

26 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

TBF it's Conclave. By it's nature, it isn't going to gain wide-spread support. I think the more pertinent, and arguably more difficult, metric is: does it avoid wide-spread opposition? I think the clarified idea does and, in that sense, I'd say it's pretty well-supported. Perhaps not directly supported, but really: if your major opposition has almost nothing bad to say, isn't that a sign of support in and of itself?

Are you for real now?

What I'd like it is for people to judge proposals based on their merits instead of kneejerk reactions and hopping on an old bandbagon, especially in the feedback subforums.

As a personal example: I'm not going into random Conservation feedback threads and post random negative reaction gifs, although I pretty much have zero interest in that part of the game.

And I'm not saying people have to agree with what I say, either. But at least put in some effort and try to keep it constructive.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Kontrollo
clarified further

[Tyreaus]

10 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

What I'd like it is for people to judge proposals based on their merits instead of kneejerk reactions and hopping on an old bandbagon, especially in the feedback subforums.

So would I. But ultimately, we're not able to control how people function. The only thing we can do is understand it and work around it.

Unless I'm supposed to say something else in response to "even good ideas for Conclave don't garnish wide-spread support"? Do you want me to tell you that pointing out knee-jerk reactions as "cheap excuses" will make people think twice, even if it won't? Should I say that inquiring why people say "no" might turn those initial reactions into constructive critique? What would actually help?

[Kontrollo]

4 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

So would I. But ultimately, we're not able to control how people function. The only thing we can do is understand it and work around it.

Unless I'm supposed to say something else in response to "even good ideas for Conclave don't garnish wide-spread support"? Do you want me to tell you that pointing out knee-jerk reactions as "cheap excuses" will make people think twice, even if it won't? Should I say that inquiring why people say "no" might turn those initial reactions into constructive critique? What would actually help?

Nono, this isn't about you. You actually went and read not only the post but even more of that previous thread, then tried to have a proper discussion. Can't ask for more. What would actually help: People taking this kind of exchange as an example. In the meantime I will keep pointing things out, I hope you understand.

Maybe it didn't come across as such, but I meant it when I said it was a mistake not to spell out the optional and alternative again here (and rely on that other post/thread alone). 🤔

 

P.S. Side note: Isn't it funny how I have another ping of yours from the GD thread but no way to actually see its content? This has been a common occurrence around here, too.

[Tyreaus]

27 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Nono, this isn't about you. You actually went and read not only the post but even more of that previous thread, then tried to have a proper discussion. Can't ask for more. What would actually help: People taking this kind of exchange as an example. In the meantime I will keep pointing things out, I hope you understand.

Ah, sorry - I misread the tone, and I apologize. I honestly thought I said something wrong. ><;

I do think it's good to point things out, and I fully encourage it. If I may give a little honest advice:
 

Spoiler

 

It's really easy to phrase things in a way that keeps the conversation shallow. For example, saying "these are cheap excuses" doesn't really provoke any stopping and thinking for how off-handed it seems, even if it's accurate. They're likely just to shrug and move on, giving neither the comment nor their opinion much of a second thought (and likely missing the entire point in the process). Heck, I wager we both do that to some degree with people saying "just remove Conclave". It's the same mental "path of least resistance" coming into play in both cases.

That's why, in the few cases I engage my own tiny bone-domed meat package, I ask questions somewhere. Step one to getting anyone to think is to stop the non-thinking - showing interest in what they believe doesn't hurt, either. Is that a pain in the rear? Probably. And it's not always appropriate either. But if you want to pop the proverbial car from neutral, you gotta give it a little nudge into drive.

Ultimately, everyone has different approaches. That isn't to knock how you approach things, just hoping to help refine it a touch.

 

28 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Maybe it didn't come across as such, but I meant it when I said it was a mistake not to spell out the optional and alternative again here

Unfortunately I think I completely missed the part about it being a mistake, so that's definitely my B...

29 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Isn't it funny how I have another ping of yours from the GD thread but no way to actually see its content? This has been a common occurrence around here, too.

I ... sigh I won't get too into it here, but there is something to be said about the revival of discussions in general. I've moderated forums in the past and the rule of thumb was, largely, "if the bumping post isn't spam, the topic's still relevant, and people aren't trying to kill each other, the horse ain't dead". Maybe the original thread was an issue under one of those and the reason was mis-cited, maybe games forums are just fundamentally different, IDK. Much as I love the community team, that's a bit of a head-scratcher.