Is Corpus Vs. Grineer PvP (Based on the New War) a Good Idea?

[EmberStar]

2 minutes ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

I think there might be multiple misunderstandings here.  First and foremost that while I might disagree, a fight is not what I want.

Second, didn't you reply to me as per the below?

I was saying that I didn't want what OP was talking about, which was a PvP Grineer-vs-Corpus game.  If you genuinely weren't advocating for OP's proposed PvP game, then I'm not sure what you were trying to say.  Feel free to clarify if you like.

I'd just be reposting my earlier intrusions into this thread.  None have been deleted (yet,) feel free to hit the page back button.

[(PSN)Unstar]

2 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. If you're prefer other people not get what they want, then you're saying they shouldn't get it. You would rather they not get it; you think it isn't something that should be added.

I guess I just see a very big difference between "should" and "want".  If I want ice cream, it would make me happy to have it.  But should I have ice cream?  That seems like a more complex question (perhaps even a philosophical one?), because to answer it we have to interrogate my values.  For example, if I think it's important to be "healthy", maybe I shouldn't have ice cream, even though I want it?  "Should" just seems so much more important than "want", and I don't think I have the knowledge or the authority to say what "should" happen with DE's game, especially as it affects a wide variety of players that I know very little about.

6 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

And yes, the bizarre self-importance that tends to crop up when people say DE shouldn't work on PvP ticks me right the heck off. So you wouldn't play it, who cares? It's not what you want to play, and that's fine. It's not about you. Let people ask for the things they want.

I bolded the last sentence because I agree with it 100%.  I would never, ever want OP's post to be deleted or hidden.  I want them to ask for what they want.  But I also want to ask for what I want, too.  I just want my vote to be counted, same as OP's; that's all.

[(PSN)Unstar]

6 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

I'd just be reposting my earlier intrusions into this thread.  None have been deleted (yet,) feel free to hit the page back button.

Gotcha, I didn't read your other posts, as I was only replying to the OP with my initial comment, and only replying to the exact words you wrote when I replied to you.

[PublikDomain]

13 minutes ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

I guess I just see a very big difference between "should" and "want".  If I want ice cream, it would make me happy to have it.  But should I have ice cream?  That seems like a more complex question (perhaps even a philosophical one?), because to answer it we have to interrogate my values.  For example, if I think it's important to be "healthy", maybe I shouldn't have ice cream, even though I want it?  "Should" just seems so much more important than "want", and I don't think I have the knowledge or the authority to say what "should" happen with DE's game, especially as it affects a wide variety of players that I know very little about.

Isn't there a slight difference, here? I like weird analogies so let's roll with it. This isn't about you wanting ice cream, this is about someone else wanting ice cream. Just because you prefer potato chips doesn't mean other people shouldn't get the dessert they prefer. Your values aren't relevant because it's not about you; either you're open to having ice cream and are welcome to discuss what flavor you'd like, or you're not open to it and are welcome to keep eating your chips as you have been.

13 minutes ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

But I also want to ask for what I want, too.  I just want my vote to be counted, same as OP's; that's all.

I don't think that matters when what you want is for someone else to not get what they want.

[(PSN)robotwars7]

I'll preface with the following: none of these ideas are totally original, there is a non-negligible quantity of Alcohol in my system and I'm actually not a PvP lover myself, but the more I think about this idea, the more I'm starting to come around to it and the more potential I think it could have. I'm well aware I'm the 97549454732035th person to talk about it, but i've decided to go more in-depth (I think). so with that in mind, introducing my idea:

Faction Wars! 

how it works:

- classic modes like free-for-all, TDM, CTF and Interception (our version of Domination), more modes can be added later assumign the mdoe is successful enoguh to warratn additional dev time.

- maps would be based on existing tilesets, but potentially could also have maps that use parts of the Open Worlds. 

- players would play as either Corpus or Grineer: the main difference is that while Grineer are tougher and take less damage thanks to their armor, Corpus have regen shields and shield gating, and ideally both sides would be relatively equal in terms of health. 

- players would have one of 4 different classes to choose from, each with fixed weapons and a gadget. the weapons would be balanced seperately from the ones we have in PvE of course, like how Kahl's wepaons in the Demo were unusually strong for gameplay purposes. the classes would be infantry, CQC, Heavy and Sniper. their loadouts would be as follows:

Grineer: Lancer (Infantry), Trooper (CQC), Heavy Gunner (Heavy) and Ballista (sniper).

Lancer gear: Grakata (primary), Stug (secondary), Sheev (melee), frag grenade (gadget)

Trooper Gear: Sobek (primary), Kohmak (secondary), Machete (melee), stun grenade (gadget)

Heavy Gunner Gear: Gorgon (Primary), Stubba (secondary), Twin Basolk (melee), Omni Ammo Box (gadget)

Ballista Gear: Vulkar (primary), Twin Gremlins (secondary), Krohkur (melee), Mark for Death (highlights player for team to see) (Gadget)

Corpus: Crewman (Infantry), Plasmor Crewman (CQC), Corpus Tech (heavy), Sniper Crewman (sniper)

Crewman gear: Dera (primary), Cycron (secondary), Prova (melee), Shield Osprey (gadget)

Plasmor Crewman gear: Arca plasmor (primary), Detron (secondary), Lecta (melee), Shock Grenade (gadget)

Corpus Tech gear: Supra (primary), Cestra (secondary), Arca Titron (melee), deploy MOA (gadget).

Sniper Crewman Gear: Lanka (primary), Plinx (secondary), Kreska (melee), Ratel Pad (gadget).

- as players get kills they work towards "reinforcements", which allow them to respawn as a more powerful unit on their next life, such as a Bombard or Bursa. it'd be up to DE to decide how to balance it, but the main way to win would be to start getting kills/points ASAP to unlock more powerful characters and use them to try and further your lead, or turn the tide if you're on the losing team!

- rewards could be in the form of "War Tokens", which can then be spent at Teshin for cosemtics to add to your classes. yes, the classes would be customizable! the gear would remain the same for balance reasons but you would be able to add cosmetics to your chosen class, such as:

- new colour schemes for armor/Crew suits, based on existing factions, as well as individual colours so you could make your own look!

- new helmet styles for corpus and grineer

- skins for your weapons, which *could* also be allowed in PvE if players wished and DE was ok with it. 

- armour and syandanas to bring a little of your tenno fashion into your Grineer/corpus experience!

- it is worth noting the tokens would be awarded just for completing matches, and maybe some daily objectives (kill a sniper player with headshot, get 10 kills in one match etc., that kind of thing), but obviously you'd get more for winning.

In conclusion, i feel like this mode would be able to stand on it's own away from warframe as it's own separate experience: warframe PvE is great, of course, I wouldn't be here if it wasn't, and I usually hate the idea of PvP, but unlike current conclave, this mode would be much easier to balance, and wouldn't needed to be treated as a grind by players: it would just be a casual bit of fun, a side attraction from the main game for players who want to take a break from the uber-powered Tenno experience and try something a little more grounded and gritty. now there's a way to do that without having to reach for another game with Faction Wars!

thankyou for reading if you made it this far, and let's keep discussion civil. suggestions to improve the mode are more than welcome! 😁

[(XBOX)Ampathetiic]

29 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Isn't there a slight difference, here? I like weird analogies so let's roll with it. This isn't about you wanting ice cream, this is about someone else wanting ice cream. Just because you prefer potato chips doesn't mean other people shouldn't get the dessert they prefer. Your values aren't relevant because it's not about you; either you're open to having ice cream and are welcome to discuss what flavor you'd like, or you're not open to it and are welcome to keep eating your chips as you have been.

I think it's important in this analogy to acknowledge that if I were to get my ice cream, that'd hinder the other person's ability to get as many potato chips (maybe we can't afford a bigger bag of chips after buying the ice cream). The general sentiment of the people that wouldn't want this mode has been that it'd take resources that they'd rather go to the stuff they like. So while they haven't expressed any distaste towards ice cream itself (besides disliking the particular flavor we got in the past), they do not want people to get ice cream because they'd get less potato chips. While that would seem like a very selfish point of view, many people also really like potato chips, and would be quite upset if they didn't get to have as many as they're used to.

My point of view is that, while I mostly like potato chips, I think ice cream would be very interesting to try, and I think if we don't give out a bad flavor, we could get some people in the potato chip camp to enjoy ice cream, as well as getting some new people that like ice cream into our little party that we have here.

(If anyone is confused, replace "ice cream" with "PvP content" and "potato chips" with "PvE content". Weird analogies are great)

[EmberStar]

3 minutes ago, (XBOX)Regxxh said:

(If anyone is confused, replace "ice cream" with "PvP content" and "potato chips" with "PvE content". Weird analogies are great)

But... I like potato chips.  And the only ice cream they've offered in the past is "Sardine and Lime" flavored.  T-T

[(PSN)Unstar]

26 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

I don't think that matters when what you want is for someone else to not get what they want.

But if we follow this, then we have a double-standard.  Because everything that any of us wants comes at the cost of resources (time/effort/money) that could have been used for something someone else wanted.  So if DE makes a large new amount of PvP content, it's because they're making less PvE content.  You can't say "I want more PvP content" without also saying "I want less PvE content".  I mean, I guess you can, but there's not a reality where fulfilling one of those desires doesn't also fulfill the other.

(for what it's worth I like your analogy and was writing some tweaks on it to try to make it more accurately reflect the situation, but I've realized that even in doing that the analogy I was writing was leading away from the actual subject matter i wanted to tackle and potentially doing more harm than good, so I've dropped it.  but i see you!)

 

[(XBOX)Ampathetiic]

3 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

But... I like potato chips.  And the only ice cream they've offered in the past is "Sardine and Lime" flavored.  T-T

Exactly. And just like real life, there's a small group of people saying Sardine and Lime is great, but the rest of us can't stand it. I think ice cream is pretty cool, but we need some vanilla or chocolate chip; something people can generally agree is good. I like my potato chips, but sometimes I get sick of eating them, so I'd like an addition to my palette that doesn't require me to stop shopping at my favorite local store (at least I think that's how the analogy would work). 

[Tachmag]

There's already 2 other active threads suggesting the same thing. 

[PublikDomain]

10 minutes ago, (XBOX)Regxxh said:

I think it's important in this analogy to acknowledge that if I were to get my ice cream, that'd hinder the other person's ability to get as many potato chips (maybe we can't afford a bigger bag of chips after buying the ice cream). The general sentiment of the people that wouldn't want this mode has been that it'd take resources that they'd rather go to the stuff they like. So while they haven't expressed any distaste towards ice cream itself (besides disliking the particular flavor we got in the past), they do not want people to get ice cream because they'd get less potato chips. While that would seem like a very selfish point of view, many people also really like potato chips, and would be quite upset if they didn't get to have as many as they're used to.

Yes, and it's also important to acknowledge the work that's already been done, and the work that would need to be done. The systems and mechanics to support PvP are already in place, and generally requests for more new PvP are based on improving what we've already got. It's not some monumental task that would take away much from the content we already get. The parts are all already there; we've got the base game modes and tech, plenty of tiles and environments to use as maps, dedicated server support, and with the stuff shown at TennoCon we've already got a Corpus and Grineer HUD ready to go.

It's like what EmberStar says:

7 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

But... I like potato chips.  And the only ice cream they've offered in the past is "Sardine and Lime" flavored.  T-T

We've already got ice cream, it's been on the menu in one form or another since 2013. But the taste is off. Maybe taking the sardines out of the batch and adding cherry instead would make an ice cream people like more? We've already got the ice cream machine set up and ready to go, and it's been churning out this wacky flavor for maybe a little too long. The people that like potato chips have been getting bags and bags of potato chips for years, and it's all any of us get anymore. The ice cream people aren't saying "no you can never have another bag of potato chips again it must all be ice cream forever", they're saying "maybe just give up one bag for an update cycle so we can fix the flavor?"

[(PSN)robotwars7]

6 minutes ago, Tachmag said:

There's already 2 other active threads suggesting the same thing. 

as I said in the OP, I'm aware of this. but nobody else to my knowledge has suggested things like modes, classes, rewards etc. if we genuinely want DE to consider adding something like this in game, you gotta at least try to tell people how it would/should work. if they want to make a megathread and merge everyone's call for the mode there, I'd be fine with that. 

 

[PublikDomain]

14 minutes ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

But if we follow this, then we have a double-standard.  Because everything that any of us wants comes at the cost of resources (time/effort/money) that could have been used for something someone else wanted.  So if DE makes a large new amount of PvP content, it's because they're making less PvE content.  You can't say "I want more PvP content" without also saying "I want less PvE content".  I mean, I guess you can, but there's not a reality where fulfilling one of those desires doesn't also fulfill the other.

And the cost has already been paid. Development for the underlying systems for PvP, from the underlying game mode to mods and abilities to even dedicated servers... Already exist. All of it. They've already put the time/effort/money into building this content. Recycling PvE content, like by adding a Grineer vs Corpus mode based on the Grineer/Corpus characters and HUDs, is the most cost effective way to do it. They've already made these characters and they've already made Conclave, so from there it's just putting 2 and 2 together. And the nice thing about competitive content is that outside of balance it doesn't really need much in the way of active development. People will beat each other up on the same maps and modes for years without needing much. Maybe a new map, maybe bring some more guns over, maybe make some more frames Conclave-compatible. It really isn't much.

Plus, you can put that double-standard on anything. If DE spends time building a massive single player campaign story mission, then they're making less of the content we play day to day. If they make more Railjack missions, then they have less resources to make more Warframe-based missions. If they work on Operators, they're working less on pets. It doesn't really make sense to worry about this, does it? They work on many different things at the same time regardless.

14 minutes ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

(for what it's worth I like your analogy and was writing some tweaks on it to try to make it more accurately reflect the situation, but I've realized that even in doing that the analogy I was writing was leading away from the actual subject matter i wanted to tackle and potentially doing more harm than good, so I've dropped it.  but i see you!)

lol I mean it was your analogy, I just went with it.

[vanaukas]

nah, I wish they'd never sown that gameplay, this flood on threads asking for game modes or new grineer/corpus chars are even more annoying than the "when crossplay" ones

[(XBOX)Ampathetiic]

12 minutes ago, vanaukas said:

nah, I wish they'd never sown that gameplay, this flood on threads asking for game modes or new grineer/corpus chars are even more annoying than the "when crossplay" ones

I think a lot of people asking for something does show an issue to be resolved. Crossplay was just an obvious feature Warframe needed to have to be technologically up to date. People wanting DE to expand on the playable characters is probably an indication that a lot of people want some variety in their gameplay. People asking for the new characters in pvp is indicative that pvp isn't in a good state.

[EmberStar]

15 minutes ago, vanaukas said:

nah, I wish they'd never sown that gameplay, this flood on threads asking for game modes or new grineer/corpus chars are even more annoying than the "when crossplay" ones

And now there's a "Crossplay Camel" wandering around in the tent.  So everyone else is trying to get their camel's nose in, just in case theirs can be the *next* one that slips in...

As I said, since they're already building the PVE mode for a mission, have already spent the time on "Play as Grineer/Corpus," I wouldn't object to seeing it as some kind of optional gameplay for *PVE* missions.  They've already done that much, they've spent the time and resources on animations and HUD and even working out the bare minimum of interesting powers.  It would be a waste to just use it as a throwaway gimmick on a single mission.  But... DE has done *exactly* that in the past.

The few times they've tried to do anything with PVP, they've also tried to bribe the wider playerbase into trying it (the two PVP-centric Alerts, Snowball Beatdown and the other one.)  PVE players mostly ranged from "meh, don't care, only here for the shiny" to "WAAAGHHHHH!  DO CARE, WANT THE SHINY, HATE PVP!"  Meanwhile, PVP players were mostly unhappy as well, because of the huge numbers of people who were ONLY there for the Shiny and literally quit even respawning the moment they had enough progress to get it.  So I really, really don't trust DE with a PVP mode.  They'll be too tempted to put *some* kind of reward behind it.

"Play As Corpus:  PVE Edition?"  Yes, sure, why not?  They already built it, they might as well try to do something interesting with it beyond a single story mission.  "Play as Corpus:  PVP Edition?"  Only if they can do it so that it doesn't take away from anything else, and they don't stick *anything* people might want exclusively behind it.  Can it have rewards?  Yes, fine, absolutely.  But not *exclusive* rewards - even any cosmetics should be available from some other source.  Or we're back to the "PVE who just want shiny, PVP who just want to play" thing again.

[(PSN)Unstar]

51 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Recycling PvE content, like by adding a Grineer vs Corpus mode based on the Grineer/Corpus characters and HUDs, is the most cost effective way to do it. They've already made these characters and they've already made Conclave, so from there it's just putting 2 and 2 together. And the nice thing about competitive content is that outside of balance it doesn't really need much in the way of active development. People will beat each other up on the same maps and modes for years without needing much. Maybe a new map, maybe bring some more guns over, maybe make some more frames Conclave-compatible. It really isn't much.

So here's the thing that I think is key that many people outside of game development don't realize: not all characters are made equal.  Generally, NPC's use much lower fidelity models and animations compared to player characters.  This is because you want to have a lot of enemies on the screen, so you make the models cheaper.  But you don't want a cheap model for your player model, because it's always close to the camera.  So you make a higher fidelity model there.  I guarantee that Kahl-175 and Seve (or whatever his name is) are not using standard NPC models; these are expensive models meant to be right in front of the camera.  Furthermore, it's quite possible that they might even be higher quality than Warframe models, since Warframes are made to be used in multiplayer, and hence up to 4 models have to be supported (maybe more depending on how Specters and clones are programmed).  If Kahl-175 was explicitly designed to look great in a single-player mode as the protagonist of that mode, the model may be too expensive to support multiple versions in a PvP mode. Similarly, the way that Kahl-175's combat features were programmed might not be multiplayer/network-friendly, because doing it with a focus on only the single-player, non-networked features might have been a way to reduce the costs of development; it really depends on how they programmed it.  All of which is to say that if DE didn't already plan ahead with the possible intentions of doing multiplayer, a lot of what was shown in the New War trailer likely can't be ported to work in a multiplayer setting without an unknown amount of additional work.  (and to be clear, none of this is to say  whether they should or shouldn't do that, I'm just talking about things to consider when measuring the time and labor of such a task)

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Plus, you can put that double-standard on anything. If DE spends time building a massive single player campaign story mission, then they're making less of the content we play day to day. If they make more Railjack missions, then they have less resources to make more Warframe-based missions. If they work on Operators, they're working less on pets. It doesn't really make sense to worry about this, does it? They work on many different things at the same time regardless.

I just 100% agree with you on that bold part there!  And while I wouldn't say I worry about it, I do take it all into account.  This is how I think of all Warframe content: any content DE makes is at the cost of other possible content.  It's just the reality of the situation, and as someone who's done some game dev in the past it's how I'm used to thinking about it as well.  It's part of why I've come to feel a certain measure of peace when I see bugs in the game that haven't been fixed, or if updates are slow to come out, etc.  DE is in the unenviable position of trying to please everyone and do everything, and unfortunately because of the constraints of limited resources, they have to pick and choose what they devote their attention to in an effort to hopefully provide the best experience possible to as many people as possible.  So yeah, more Operator content is less of everything else, same with pets, same with story missions, same with new types of missions, same with Railjack.  And if someone isn't interested in one type of content or is interested in another, I think it's actually helpful to DE if they say so.  The more voices that provide their feedback, the better DE will be able to create experiences that their players are happy with.  Personally, I think that's the best we can all do.  (though I do also enjoy just discussing the issues and hearing different perspectives as well)

[FrostDragoon]

The "people have different preferences" argument was already settled when we saw what happened with Conclave. There's no rational or financial justification to attempt PvP implementation or features further.

[(XBOX)Ampathetiic]

18 minutes ago, FrostDragoon said:

The "people have different preferences" argument was already settled when we saw what happened with Conclave. There's no rational or financial justification to attempt PvP implementation or features further.

If you create a feature poorly, people won't like it. That doesn't mean people don't want anything close to that feature, but people generally want things to be made well.

Conclave isn't in the state that it's in because people don't want PvP, rather Conclave is unpopular because it doesn't really work with Warframe's gameplay. the extremely wild mobility makes fights feel very random and confusing, and many of the Warframe abilities don't translate very well into Conclave. Grineer and Corpus can't bounce off the walls, jump through the air, and can have abilities designed exclusively for PvP, so they're more likely to work in a PvP mode than Warframes could by a long shot.

[PublikDomain]

3 hours ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

So here's the thing that I think is key that many people outside of game development don't realize

I'm a salaried game developer working in Unreal... 🤷‍♀️

3 hours ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

Generally, NPC's use much lower fidelity models and animations compared to player characters.  This is because you want to have a lot of enemies on the screen, so you make the models cheaper.  But you don't want a cheap model for your player model, because it's always close to the camera.  So you make a higher fidelity model there.  I guarantee that Kahl-175 and Seve (or whatever his name is) are not using standard NPC models; these are expensive models meant to be right in front of the camera.  Furthermore, it's quite possible that they might even be higher quality than Warframe models, since Warframes are made to be used in multiplayer, and hence up to 4 models have to be supported (maybe more depending on how Specters and clones are programmed).  If Kahl-175 was explicitly designed to look great in a single-player mode as the protagonist of that mode, the model may be too expensive to support multiple versions in a PvP mode.

Yes, DE would need to create new models - if they wanted to have nicer looking Grineer and Corpus units to play as. They'd probably be fine using the existing models. And even if they needed to make a few new models, I don't think this would be much of a problem given that they regularly add new playable characters already. I think they have their art production pipeline sorted by now...

And in regards to your concerns over rendering, why do you think they wouldn't use LODs? Rendering a few player characters should be the least of anyone's concern.

3 hours ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

Similarly, the way that Kahl-175's combat features were programmed might not be multiplayer/network-friendly, because doing it with a focus on only the single-player, non-networked features might have been a way to reduce the costs of development; it really depends on how they programmed it.  All of which is to say that if DE didn't already plan ahead with the possible intentions of doing multiplayer, a lot of what was shown in the New War trailer likely can't be ported to work in a multiplayer setting without an unknown amount of additional work.  (and to be clear, none of this is to say  whether they should or shouldn't do that, I'm just talking about things to consider when measuring the time and labor of such a task)

Which would be a consideration, if we're specifically talking about taking Kahl and having only Kahl vs Kahl lobbies where everyone is Kahl, where it specifically uses the Kahl pawn used for the various story missions. But if we're talking about taking the new HUD and the movement/combat system used and building a quick PvP mode using that and already-existing assets, then it's not really a problem. There's no reasons abilities like "throw a grenade" or "place a wall" shouldn't work in multiplayer, and the hardest part is asset creation which has already been done. Additional work? Sure, all of it is. That big of a deal? I can't see why it would be.

Though now that I think of it, the premise that there'd be any difference between the story mission abilities and abilities anywhere else in the game is kind of unrealistic. Like, why would DE have a separate non-networked ability system just for single-player campaigns? Or non-networked anything anywhere, for that matter.

[Sevek7]

4 hours ago, (PSN)robotwars7 said:

Faction Wars! 

Sounds good! Personally I enjoy Conclave for the really fast pace & acrobatics, but I would definitely give slower paced PvP a go. Even if it ends up not being my cup of tea, then I still support it because it's likely to bring in a new and more diverse crowd to the game which is always a good thing.

I think your ideas overall are pretty solid as a more fleshed out description of what has been suggested in other threads. However, I do have concerns about balance given the difference between the two factions in terms of weapons and defenses. Nevertheless, I think this is something that could be worked out at a later date. I'm viewing your post more as a "proof of principle" kind of situation.

By far the biggest concern I have has nothing to do with your suggestion, and everything about DE as its developer. DE has a strong history of neglecting & ignoring both feedback and bug reports for old content, as well as totally forsaking balance in favor of massive grind for extrinsic rewards instead of solid & balanced gameplay enjoyment as a reward in itself. I don't really blame them for these decisions - it's by far the easiest way to keep the game profitable - but this development strategy will not work for PvP.

A successful PvP mode needs an initial dev resource investment, followed by a minimal investment in maintenance for the future. Once the game-mode is up and running, it can probably be kept balanced and bug free if there was a single dev working on it for a few hours every week. This extended minimal investment is where I think DE will fail to meet the need, because it's exactly what happened to Conclave and turned it into the exploiter's heaven it is today. 

TLDR: Solid idea, somewhat concerned about balance, very concerned about DE abandoning it soon after release regardless of its popularity.

[----Legacy----]

8 hours ago, EmberStar said:

"Play as Corpus:  PVP Edition?"  Only if they can do it so that it doesn't take away from anything else, and they don't stick *anything* people might want exclusively behind it.  Can it have rewards?  Yes, fine, absolutely.  But not *exclusive* rewards - even any cosmetics should be available from some other source.  Or we're back to the "PVE who just want shiny, PVP who just want to play" thing again.

There's a bit of comment in your self entitlement.

[Kontrollo]

16 hours ago, Yamazuki said:

I have several thousands of hours pvping on multiple games.

I play Warframe purely for the pve experience as a break from pvping. If I want to pvp, I play a game that is dedicated to pvp. Most games that try the whole pvp and pve thing don't do a good job at pleasing both sides.   

That's fine, nothing wrong with that. And I like Warframe for its name-giving space ninja gameplay. And that entails PvP, as well.

This game has pretty much bent over backwards in recent years to please the PvE side, although by ~2017 (started in 2015) Conclave 2.0 was in a decent spot.

 

16 hours ago, Yamazuki said:

Probably because you have an extreme bias. These forums went through a period of non-stop complaints when Deimos was patched in with the forced animal/fishing/mining for progression; these complaints existed before. DE had to lower the requirements, and even took advantage of the situation by turning it into a plat sink to skip the activities people don't like.

People complained about K-Drives, people still complain about K-Drives. You can even look at complaints over the recent quest and Warframe for more complaints.

Railjack, despite still being something that's not a side activity, saw a lot of complaints. Look at how the corpus update amounted to turning Railjack into a glorified interactive loading scren where you "play" Railjack for a minute then proceed to your usual ground based mission. Even the sisters, is the same and transitions into your typical assassination mission. Scarlet Spear, the Railjack side was the same, literal taxi into mass kill or cc Sentients on the ground despite the fact the event already had the option of a ground based mission.

That was in feedback with threads made on these topics and specifically to voice against making these things mandatory. Please point me to threads where one of these is discussed and you always find comments along the line of "it should never have been a thing", "it should be removed entirely", "no one plays it", "but my dev resources!", etc.

There's a difference there.

 

16 hours ago, Yamazuki said:

The difference though, is "side activities" are rarely suggested, by comparison, pvp requests are posted frequently by the same handful of people. The first page after tennocon was full of the same threads about pvp. Meanwhile, the closest to "side activity" request was asking for playable Grineer/Corpus, which was met with people disagreeing with that.

Threads about PvP are not frequently made by the same handful of people, except in the Conclave Feedback subforum.

I know, because I've been on the forums for a long while. People who play current Conclave have generally moved away from the forums and GD specifically -- also Reddit -- because they're just not environments to facilitate meaningful discussions.

Some people still do comment on threads made by others, though. And my involvement here for example was initially just to give some input on how Dedicated Servers work.

[Kontrollo]

13 hours ago, EmberStar said:

Oh, I'm not advocating for a PVP mode.  I'm one of the "hardline PVE" players that the PVP fans don't even bother to respond to unless it's to swat down everything I say with "you like PVE, your post is invalid."

Just to be clear: I said hardline "PvE-only" and I don't think that's an unfair mischaracterisation. Also note how I didn't shoot down any of your other comments here. I like PvE, too. Otherwise I wouldn't be playing this anymore.

[Krankbert]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb Kontrollo:

Just to be clear: I said hardline "PvE-only" and I don't think that's an unfair mischaracterisation. Also note how I didn't shoot down any of your other comments here. I like PvE, too. Otherwise I wouldn't be playing this anymore.

It’s still insanely telling that you said the game has “bent over backwards to please the PvE-side” about a PvE game that at some point had some PvP added as an afterthought.