Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

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


NotQuixotic

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, EmberStar said:

It's almost like I was attempting to make a generalized statement about my experiences with PVP fans in general, and not aiming to single you out specifically.

Well, it looked like you were (mis-)quoting me from earlier, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to comment. But I hope you're aware that with the stance you're taking there isn't really much room for discourse with people who (also) like PvP.

 

22 hours ago, FrostDragoon said:

There's nothing that suggests they could manage that affair well, and server issues were still a problem even with dedicated servers. This game is just not built for it. ...

[Citation needed]

I've commented on that earlier already. The dedicated servers we have are great, and I'd encourage anyone to bring up the topic again not just for any form of PvP but also whenever the topic of new Trials arises.

The people who still say they're bad/not working/can only work if hosted by DE have probably either never played on one, no experience hosting one, or are simply moving the goalposts. (Or maybe they have a weird boner for host migrations. 😉)

And if the opposition to that feature in its current form is solely because it usually comes up in PvP threads, then that's honestly just shooting your own foot. It could be a thing in specific PvE missions, too. Just go read the official thread I linked earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, FrostDragoon said:

server issues were still a problem even with dedicated servers.

How would you know?

2 hours ago, FrostDragoon said:

I played it on PS4, but nice try.

PS4 doesn't have access to dedicated conclave servers, and your PC account has 0:0 conclave stats. 

Something doesn't add up.

Thinking Math GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Oh I bet I know where you got those stats!

  Reveal hidden contents

Conclave Meme - Video & GIFs | funny pets videos, cute pets videos, funny  animals videos, cute animals videos, funny dogs videos, cute dogs videos,  funny cats videos, cute cats videos

(Probably Quick Steel or something)

But seriously, I've tried reasoning things out with Frost, and they're not having it. It's a comically typical progression, too. It's always some new excuse or yabbut, or some iteration of "but what about me", followed up by ad hominems and insults when they can't come up with anything else. You seem much more reasonable and I'd be happy to go back to ice cream analogies, but Frost is about at the end of their rope. My only hope is that they can be a shining example for all of the kind of nonsense people have to deal with whenever they try to talk about PvP.

You are the perfect example of why PvP will never get the support you wish it would. You make ridiculous and unrealistic argument, deny the actual reasons for the state of things, and now you're reduced to pretending like you somehow have the better position because your own ad hominem failed to land. Pathetic. Enjoy your ice cream analogies, because that's as far as you'll ever get with these topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ----Legacy---- said:

How would you know?

PS4 doesn't have access to dedicated conclave servers, and your PC account has 0:0 conclave stats. 

Something doesn't add up.

Thinking Math GIF

The part that doesn't add up is your "logic." If I played it on PS4 and found it to be the trash it is, why would I have wasted any time/effort on it on my PC account? His attempt to profile stalk me failed and now the best you guys can come up with is, "We can't find anything to support our claims--just like Frost said in the first place." You'll have to do much better than that if your appeals to DE are to carry any valid reason for consideration, but I can't help but get a chuckle out of these sad attempts that just go in the same pointless circles that they have for the last half decade. You guys never seem to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FrostDragoon said:

The part that doesn't add up is your "logic." If I played it on PS4 and found it to be the trash it is, why would I have wasted any time/effort on it on my PC account? His attempt to profile stalk me failed and now the best you guys can come up with is, "We can't find anything to support our claims--just like Frost said in the first place." You'll have to do much better than that if your appeals to DE are to carry any valid reason for consideration, but I can't help but get a chuckle out of these sad attempts that just go in the same pointless circles that they have for the last half decade. You guys never seem to learn.

No, in fact that was correct and maybe you just missed the point there.

The dedicated servers we have here only work for PC players, not consoles. Also, they weren't a thing when Conclave 2.0 was first introduced, that happened quite a bit later.

Maybe that'll change with Cross-Play, at least the console players I've talked to are hoping they will be able to play on those, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, FrostDragoon said:

The part that doesn't add up is your "logic." If I played it on PS4 and found it to be the trash it is, why would I have wasted any time/effort on it on my PC account?

Idk why would you play something that you disliked at first, but that's just a strawman, something besides the point.

The whole point is that you were trying to make an argument based on dedicated servers failing to solve server issues despite never playing on them to begin with.

The more you post, more contradictions in your speech start popping up, like the one found by @Stormhawkaro a few messages above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ----Legacy---- said:

The whole point is that you were trying to make an argument based on dedicated servers failing to solve server issues despite never playing on them to begin with.

The servers weren't my objection(s) to PvP in this game. I never said they were. I am aware of them, but it changes nothing. I haven't contradicted anything, but nice try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FrostDragoon said:

The servers weren't my objection(s) to PvP in this game. I never said they were. I am aware of them, but it changes nothing. I haven't contradicted anything, but nice try.

You brought them up anyways:

On 2021-07-20 at 7:12 AM, FrostDragoon said:

server issues were still a problem even with dedicated servers.

But now when called out on those contradictions, all you do is to fall back to denial. "Nice try".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I guess we've spent enough time on the usual back and forth.

 

7 hours ago, (XBOX)Regxxh said:

Yea this paragraph brings up a great point. A Corpus vs. Grineer mode would be the opposite of what Warframe is advertised as, and while it might be fun to play, probably would have trouble fitting in. I think overall making another game would be the best outcome, as it would fix this issue while also letting DE expand a lot more on this idea.

I'd probably want something similar to what Ubisoft did with Rainbow Six Siege's Operation Outbreak: Introduce a smaller version of the idea in the main game (in this case a permanent Conclave mode), throw a little event around it to get players trying it, and develop the full game passively over a long period of time while working on the main game's regular content. Granted the final product should not be the same quality as what Ubisoft produced, but their failings seem like more of a developer fault than a fault with their strategy. Hopefully DE can do something like this over the next few years, assuming they continue to grow as a studio.

The rest of the post, which I didn't quote in whole due to its size, is entirely stuff I agree with. Well said, and thanks for the write up.

I don't know anything about Ubisoft and Rainbow Six Siege, but this kind of approach sounds a lot more realistic given the crowd we have here.

Because if the devs take the now-usual road of introducing something only to (somewhat) abandon it after a few months/years then it'll just stand and fall with the rewards they put behind that. And with the never-tiring opposition we have here, that's going to be a hard one.

It's the reason they removed potatoes from the Conclave reward pool, made the store's extras cosmetic-only (initially it was handled like other Syndicates, but Zylok never made it there).  They also handed out some reward of one of the mini-pvp-events back in the day by putting it in the market for credits, IIRC.

 

On the pro side is that almost all the things are in place now (though SBMM still missing and Recruit Conditioning doesn't cut it) and I hope there are some lessons learned about how to approach it (although I have the suspicion some relevant people left the company).

On the contra side: it's not Warframe anymore, and as someone who likes PvP, I don't see the appeal here, either. Well, except rewards. And maybe that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2021-07-20 at 2:13 PM, FrostDragoon said:

I usually avoid the franchise because I disagree with this so much. Vehicles ruin the experience for me. It's the same problem I have with COH2. The infantry-based combat is the appeal and its counters to vehicles are just not that good--especially in BF1, the one I played the most (mainly because my closest gaming buddies played it non-stop and sort of bribed me into it by buying me a copy). The closest thing to good balance I've seen in a shooter, especially one featuring vehicles, was probably Halo 2. Otherwise, I avoid shooters that feature them like the plague. Similarly, I hate kill streaks in COD. I just want some straight up gunplay with minimal gimmicks. The COD4 (MW1) perks were cool with me, but Frag x3 and noob toobs undermined it quite a bit, as did the kill streaks, which is why I mainly played on Hardcore in that game. It wasn't perfectly balanced, but outside a few particular issues, it did a reasonably good job. This is what I want in shooter PvP. Warframe will never be this, so I can't support the idea of devs even dignifying these kinds of threads with any level of actual consideration. Warframe is simply an entirely different game that scratches a very different itch.

Well I've been part of that frenchise since 1942 came out and loved them ever since. Of course vehicles should be scary for infantry, but both sides have vehicles so it evens out. I used to play hardcore engineer throughout all the games, then mixed it with support and recon when they got access to C4. It has always been my big love hunting down tanks or sabotaging air vehicles (Airburst was a hilarious counter to Loach choppers in BF4). Vehicles are more death traps in the BF games if you have just a few good hunters facing you, and there are so many unorthodox approaches those hunters can take to wreck your tank or air vehcile. Obviously it isnt for everyone, just as I never enjoyed the later CoD games due to the movement in them.

For WF I dont think they'd be able to make any balance at all since it kinda dies at the door due to armor versus shield between the two factions in question. There is also a massive gap between what the two use when it comes to weaponry, where one faction is heavily favored towards hitscan and the other projectiles. And in serious shooters hitscan weapons should be a big no-no.

And I definently wouldnt want them to waste time on some half assed PvP mode since it would steal time from the actual game. People already complain about how RJ "isnt WF" and so on. The S#&$storm and salt piles would be massive if they start working on PvP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

Well, it looked like you were (mis-)quoting me from earlier, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to comment. But I hope you're aware that with the stance you're taking there isn't really much room for discourse with people who (also) like PvP.

 

[Citation needed]

I've commented on that earlier already. The dedicated servers we have are great, and I'd encourage anyone to bring up the topic again not just for any form of PvP but also whenever the topic of new Trials arises.

The people who still say they're bad/not working/can only work if hosted by DE have probably either never played on one, no experience hosting one, or are simply moving the goalposts. (Or maybe they have a weird boner for host migrations. 😉)

And if the opposition to that feature in its current form is solely because it usually comes up in PvP threads, then that's honestly just shooting your own foot. It could be a thing in specific PvE missions, too. Just go read the official thread I linked earlier.

Just wanna point something out. The servers that are available now may be great, for 8 players... It is OK to have players run "dedicated" servers for that amount of players in a match and so few players interested in PvP in general. This thread is about "Battlefield" scale matches. Your player hosted "dedicated" servers wont handle that. There is a reason clans in BF and other similar games rent their servers, and why others play on official servers.

There is a massive difference between 8, 16, 32 and 64 players and what is needed from a server. There is also a massive difference between having a small community where a select few player handled servers may suffice and having a popular wide spread, multi-region PvP mode. Do you hostly think PvPers would be attracted to a hit-and-miss server setup where in one game you play on a great server and the next on one that barely gets by? No, people would move on and abandon it yet again, just like how people avoid certain servers in Battlefield because they arent stable. Here in WF that would be widespread, since there would be no actual baseline standard when it is player hosted.

Rented servers would be a good option though. And that is if this game can even handle anything above 8 players (doubtful, very doubtful).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Just wanna point something out. The servers that are available now may be great, for 8 players... It is OK to have players run "dedicated" servers for that amount of players in a match and so few players interested in PvP in general. This thread is about "Battlefield" scale matches. Your player hosted "dedicated" servers wont handle that. There is a reason clans in BF and other similar games rent their servers, and why others play on official servers.

There is a massive difference between 8, 16, 32 and 64 players and what is needed from a server. There is also a massive difference between having a small community where a select few player handled servers may suffice and having a popular wide spread, multi-region PvP mode. Do you hostly think PvPers would be attracted to a hit-and-miss server setup where in one game you play on a great server and the next on one that barely gets by? No, people would move on and abandon it yet again, just like how people avoid certain servers in Battlefield because they arent stable. Here in WF that would be widespread, since there would be no actual baseline standard when it is player hosted.

Rented servers would be a good option though. And that is if this game can even handle anything above 8 players (doubtful, very doubtful).

I remember you. Are you still convinced Akstiletto aren't hitscan? I wouldn't bring it up if it weren't for the fact that you doubled or even tripled down on it after having it pointed out to you, and all it would've taken is 5 minutes to go test it.

I'm leading with that because the same happened with this server topic. IIRC when we first had the conversation on dedicated servers you were also convinced they didn't exist and only the undeniable proof of the official thread made you move the goal posts to your current position. Guess that's where you're still stuck, even after -- I don't know anymore -- years?

 

How many people have you counted in this thread that are talking about 16, 32, and 64 player game modes? For 8 people they work fine. Trials worked fine for 8 people, too. Except if the game decided for some reason to make someone with a clearly not good enough machine/connection the host. Or it got migrated because something happened to the one hosting.

You usually don't have either problem because people who host for others here do it out of goodwill and with a beefy enough setup. Otherwise players can just point it out to them. Because the servers aren't anonymous, either, they're connected to an existing account (and its name shows up in the logs).  Also again, dedicated servers need fewer resources than running "both a server and a client" as is the case with a "normal" host. (That of course would enable bigger lobbies, but at the cost of causing problems for the usual fallback, so I don't think it's likely to happen.)

I've been farming some credits this weekend, and some machines/connection clearly have trouble with the Profit Taker fight already. I'd love to have these servers for that alone. But with this kind of irrational opposition you can bet your ass the devs have no incentive to make that happen, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking purely for myself and not for the community, my response would be, "Nah, I'm good, thanks."

Not a huge PvP player to begin with, and Warframe's pvp is...putting it as kindly as I can...meh. I'd much rather they take the development effort to further build up the core game, work on quests, improve tile sets, give some much needed makeovers to neglected frames, etc. rather than taking time to rejigger an already flawed pvp experience. Again, just my opinion, for what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kontrollo said:

I remember you. Are you still convinced Akstiletto aren't hitscan? I wouldn't bring it up if it weren't for the fact that you doubled or even tripled down on it after having it pointed out to you, and all it would've taken is 5 minutes to go test it.

I'm leading with that because the same happened with this server topic. IIRC when we first had the conversation on dedicated servers you were also convinced they didn't exist and only the undeniable proof of the official thread made you move the goal posts to your current position. Guess that's where you're still stuck, even after -- I don't know anymore -- years?

 

How many people have you counted in this thread that are talking about 16, 32, and 64 player game modes? For 8 people they work fine. Trials worked fine for 8 people, too. Except if the game decided for some reason to make someone with a clearly not good enough machine/connection the host. Or it got migrated because something happened to the one hosting.

You usually don't have either problem because people who host for others here do it out of goodwill and with a beefy enough setup. Otherwise players can just point it out to them. Because the servers aren't anonymous, either, they're connected to an existing account (and its name shows up in the logs).  Also again, dedicated servers need fewer resources than running "both a server and a client" as is the case with a "normal" host. (That of course would enable bigger lobbies, but at the cost of causing problems for the usual fallback, so I don't think it's likely to happen.)

I've been farming some credits this weekend, and some machines/connection clearly have trouble with the Profit Taker fight already. I'd love to have these servers for that alone. But with this kind of irrational opposition you can bet your ass the devs have no incentive to make that happen, either.

I never denied them exsisting. I simply said they arent real dedicated servers. And I also explained what I refered to as real. Regarding number of players per match, in this thread the "Battlefield" connection comes at post #2. And continues off and on from there.

And you are stuck on the small scale of things. Yes the hosting/servers work as it is now. But barely no one plays it. Add more player popularity and you'll need more acceptable servers to allow for them to play. There is zero value in making something like grineer vs corpus for the current PvP community, since it is so damn small it is lucky that DE didnt pull a "Trial" on conclave aswell. And who ever mentioned resource differences between server and listen servers? And that would only really be worth noting if dedicated servers restricted the use of other WF instances on the same machine, which it doesnt. So someone playing while also server hosting will use the same or more resources as if he was just hosting peer-to-peer (although the server option is better for the clients). But it just proves what I'm saying, they arent "real" dedicated servers. Not to mention that the one with the dedicated server so close also has great advantage over others. Which shouldnt be a thing in PvP settings.

And if a successful, well visited mode is what people want, then such hosting just isnt acceptable due to the shear scale of things and the need to cover the whole globe equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I never denied them exsisting. ...

Wrong answer, and so I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post.

Spoiler

xMGgBH0.png

And it's not the first time, either. Just clicking on one of those, my past self has this to say:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Wrong answer, and so I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post.

  Reveal hidden contents

xMGgBH0.png

And it's not the first time, either. Just clicking on one of those, my past self has this to say:

 

 

Way to pull it out of context. The game doesnt have dedicated servers in a real way. And like I said, I've explained what I ment with that. And people that understand the concept of real dedicated servers will not question it or nitpick when someone says something like "the game doesnt have dedicated servers". 

We have "dedicated" servers hosted by players, that is it. The game itself doesnt have them, or run on them. Which several of those hits are about. I'm starting to wonder if you've ever played games with actual dedicated server options, like those with rented or official servers. If you have I'm amazed with how you cant see the difference aswell as the massive issues with the server options in WF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Way to pull it out of context. The game doesnt have dedicated servers in a real way. And like I said, I've explained what I ment with that. And people that understand the concept of real dedicated servers will not question it or nitpick when someone says something like "the game doesnt have dedicated servers". 

We have "dedicated" servers hosted by players, that is it. The game itself doesnt have them, or run on them. Which several of those hits are about. I'm starting to wonder if you've ever played games with actual dedicated server options, like those with rented or official servers. If you have I'm amazed with how you cant see the difference aswell as the massive issues with the server options in WF.

Your posts are actually great examples for looking at the subtleties of some related logical fallacies in argumentation. So here's what I think:

  • <Warframe needs dedicated servers before PvP can work.> <Warframe PvP has dedicated servers on PC.> <needs dedicated servers owned and run by the company> 👉 'Moving the Goalposts'
     
  • <There are no dedicated servers in PvP.> <There are, see official thread.> <There are no real dedicated servers because X> 👉 That's a 'No True Scotsman'
     
  • <people talking about necessity of dedicated servers in PvP in a Warframe context> <can't work because not capable of hosting more than 8 players> 👉 'Strawman'
     
  • "And people that understand the concept of real dedicated servers will not question it or nitpick when someone says something like "the game doesnt have dedicated servers"." 👉 'Appeal to Authority' or depending on how you look at it 'No True Scotsman' directed at the one bringing up a point
     
  • "I never denied them exsisting." <evidence to the contrary> "Way to pull it out of context. <...>" 👉 uh hm, I guess in this form it could count as 'Tu Quoque'
     

  • ... (probably could do more, but what's even the point?)

 

And what is this even supposed to mean? Your usual doubling down again, but how did it even make sense to you when you wrote it?

We have "dedicated" servers hosted by players, that is it. The game itself doesnt have them, or run on them.

 

And here, I found a better one, Google is great like that:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FrostDragoon said:

You are the perfect example of why PvP will never get the support you wish it would. You make ridiculous and unrealistic argument, deny the actual reasons for the state of things, and now you're reduced to pretending like you somehow have the better position because your own ad hominem failed to land. Pathetic. Enjoy your ice cream analogies, because that's as far as you'll ever get with these topics.

Ah yes, the most ridiculous and unrealistic of arguments: using things we literally already have in game. 🤦‍♀️

And idk who I'd trust more about the "actual reasons for the state of things", people who have played Conclave or one guy who tried it once years ago and doesn't even know how it works. The "actual reasons for the state of things" are obvious to anyone that's actually given it a shot and used their critical thinking cap: Conclave is bad because it isn't developed. If it were developed, it wouldn't be bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

For WF I dont think they'd be able to make any balance at all since it kinda dies at the door due to armor versus shield between the two factions in question. There is also a massive gap between what the two use when it comes to weaponry, where one faction is heavily favored towards hitscan and the other projectiles. And in serious shooters hitscan weapons should be a big no-no.

I don't think that's a very big a deal. If it were necessary DE could give everyone the same health and armor and shields and guns, like they have in events like Quick Steel or the other one. They can give people whatever stats they want. The same with hitscan vs projectile: they can give all the Grineer projectile versions of Grineer weapons or they could give Corpus hitscan versions of Corpus weapons. In a lot of games (including Warframe) they do a funky hybrid where the shot is hitscan and a projectile particle flies after it just to make it look non-hitscan. Point is, it's a blank slate and they can do whatever they want with the balance. They could make it completely even, where the only difference is the sound and graphics, or they could make the factions uneven in places.

The latter would be harder to pull off, but could be a lot more interesting. For example, the Grineer might be beefier but the Corpus have proxies that follow them around. The Grineer have Dargyns and Thumpers, but the Corpus can place Minima MOA minefields and use Opticors - or get their own combat vehicles too, which would be cool. There'd surely be teething problems early on, but there will be for anything. As long as DE doesn't get distracted - which I know is unfortunately a pretty big ask - balance issues could be solved, and once they're solved the mode can basically run on auto-pilot like Conclave has for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

 Conclave is bad because it isn't developed. If it were developed, it wouldn't be bad.

But that leads back to the death spiral of fail.  I don't play Conclave, so I'll use an example (not a strawman) I am familiar with:

The Klingon Empire faction in Star Trek Online.  The game was initially very, very unfinished.  The developers got the license for it at basically the last minute when a previous studio lost it, but with a super restrictive deadline.  They *HAD* to launch something by X date or *ALSO* lose the license, apparently?  (Not a lawyer, do not know for certain.)  The overall result was that the Klingon faction was dropped from "Sci Fi 'The Horde'" to basically just a "monster play" faction where they existed in the game, but with barely any cosmetics and almost no in-game content except for PVP.

It took YEARS afterwards for them to get any real content, despite having a dedicated fanbase.  The devs offered a number of excuses, but their two main fallback (failback?) positions were "Most people play Starfleet characters" and "we don't want to spend time on Klingons when a majority of people don't play that faction."

I call this the death spiral of fail:  Devs released Klingons in a clearly broken and unfinished state.  Not surprisingly, most people didn't want to play something that was broken.  Devs use the lack of participation to justify leaving it broken.  Players point out that they'd be interested in playing as Klingons, but don't want to waste their time on a faction the devs are openly and deliberately ignoring.  Repeat.

Klingons didn't start seeing real fixes until after they added playable Romulans, who for complicated reasons that don't matter A) had complete story content and B) could choose to be in either faction.  (They had to pick one or the other to permanently ally with, but they could *choose* at a certain point in the story.)  Suddenly the number of "functionally Klingon Empire characters" went way up, because there was now a way to play that faction that bypassed the woeful state their PVE missions were in.  Which (eventually) brings us to now, where they just finished "The Year of the Klingon," and a major revision pass of most 'redside' content, and also an the ascension of a "one time bug" to "full feature" where they allow any captain to fly any ship from any faction.  (With a paid unlock, for free players.  Obviously.)

Warframe PVP is in a similar state, but even worse.  The participation is lower, the barrier to entry is much higher, and DE is *much* more obviously not great at multi-tasking.  Klingons didn't have players because the devs were openly neglecting the faction.  PVP doesn't have players because the devs are openly ignoring it, because it's so different from the rest of the game, and because it's not what many people want from the game.  (IE, "If I wanted PVP, I'd play Fartnite!" quips.)  Plus the playerbase has apparently openly resisted previous attempts to more widely introduce PVP.  There were two "Conclave Lite" events, the Snowball Beatdown and the other one.  People were loudly upset that completely irrelevant ship decorations were locked behind a PVP mode.  PVP players were upset that "PVE scrubs" were joining matches, doing the bare minimum to get the items, and actively sabotaging their team once they did.  I don't know the metrics, but I think a hint is that DE made two attempts at that kind of event, and hasn't repeated those in years.

And that's not even touching Stalker Mode, where just the *hint* from a Dev that it might turn into a "no-opt-out PVP mode" resulted in extremely vocal and aggressive pushback on the forums.  So vocal, and so aggressively negative, that the devs seem to have quietly dropped the idea and (to the best of my knowledge) haven't mentioned Stalker Mode since the forums completely freaked the hell out after the comment in the Tactical Potato video.

There are games where a mixed PVE/PVP community can function, with dev teams that are able to (sort of) balance maintaining both modes while NOT completely destroying the balance of one to correct the other.  I don't think Warframe has that kind of community or devs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS:  Two irrelevant additions to the above... whatever it is. 

First:  Star Trek Online has quietly mostly dropped any PVP support, due to overwhelming lack of interest from the players.  There was a forum thread, years ago, where a player started trying to bust the PVP dev's chops for not spending more resources on it.  His response was that PVP only existed at all by then because he was a huge fan, and basically spending his own time on maintaining it.  He further pointed out that if they did something that made every single person who was regularly active in PVP quit and never come back, it wouldn't have any significant effect on their daily concurrent player count.

Second:  Klingons did have PVE missions prior to playable Romulans, but even compared to the dreadful writing in some of the Starfleet missions there were quite a few that were just obviously rushed and bad.  It feels like part of the push for improved Klingons was actually Star Trek:  Discovery, which featured Klingons (as bad guys) prominently during the first season.  (Weird redesigned Klingons that looked like a totally different alien species, but "totally not the point.")  I don't have any dev quotes, but it feels like the push for expanded Klingon content was due to external factors.  The devs didn't suddenly start improving a faction they'd been quietly ignoring for years just because of sudden generosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

snip

This sounds like failings with development and not the content itself, no? It wasn't the Klingon's fault that the developers did a bad job, rushed content, and then ignored it. Nor is it Conclave's fault that DE is scatterbrained and abandons content. Nor is this exclusive by any means to just Conclave. And DE being scatterbrained and abandoning content isn't an excuse for them to continue to be scatterbrained and abandon content.

The one thing I'd take issue with is this, though:

23 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

Klingons didn't have players because the devs were openly neglecting the faction.  PVP doesn't have players because the devs are openly ignoring it, because it's so different from the rest of the game, and because it's not what many people want from the game.

DE isn't openly ignoring it because it's different, they're openly ignoring it because of neglect. PvP is the same as the Klingons here suffering from the same problems. Was this good for the Klingons? No. Is it good for PvP? No.

23 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

There were two "Conclave Lite" events, the Snowball Beatdown and the other one.  People were loudly upset that completely irrelevant ship decorations were locked behind a PVP mode.

And those people loudly upset are the same people loudly upset by anything being locked behind any content they don't like. It's the same people upset that "Railjack isn't Warframe" or "Necramechs don't belong in the game". There's no reason to pay them any mind, since they'll be upset no matter what.

Once you get past them, the Conclave events seem to have been pretty well-received as far as a PvP event can go. And DE not rerunning them makes absolutely no sense, because they've already the spent time making them. They already work but they're being left in a corner to gather dust for no reason.

23 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

PVP players were upset that "PVE scrubs" were joining matches, doing the bare minimum to get the items, and actively sabotaging their team once they did.

This doesn't sound like the Conclave community I've seen or experienced, though if it's true I can't really blame them. It seems to me that anyone would be upset that their teammates were actively sabotaging games. People got/get very upset about people leeching in Dog Days or Railjack as well. You even get people upset about not stabbing Liches/Sisters, even though it's a legitimate strategy. This isn't exclusive to Conclave.

23 minutes ago, EmberStar said:

There are games where a mixed PVE/PVP community can function, with dev teams that are able to (sort of) balance maintaining both modes while NOT completely destroying the balance of one to correct the other.  I don't think Warframe has that kind of community or devs.

And again, PvP is already balanced separately. Separate weapon selection, separate weapon stats, separate frame selection, separate abilities, separate mods. There's no reason or way for PvP to affect PvE balance. In fact, it's seems to be the opposite, where PvE additions affect PvP because - as we've seen - DE is neglectful and forgets to turn things off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kontrollo said:

 

  • <Warframe needs dedicated servers before PvP can work.> <Warframe PvP has dedicated servers on PC.> <needs dedicated servers owned and run by the company> 👉 'Moving the Goalposts'

Not really moving goal posts, it simply comes down to explaining it so a child would get the idea of what is conveyed, since apparently even those that are into it dont understand the difference (willingly or for the sake of argument I do not know). People shouldnt need to explain such things when the discussion is about what it is. Which is why I also question how much time you've spent in games with "real" PvP supported properly by actual dedicated servers. I've been playing such games since uhm... Tribes(?).

You want conclave to be more popular obviously, yet you settle with what would best be described as non-serious scraps when it comes to servers. You'd expect someone that is into it to not be happy with something halfassed if he wants improvements to what he likes, or wants to see it more successful so it appeals to people and may warrant development time and costs. No one is asking DE to directly provide servers, since all they need to do is provide third party hosts with the same thing they provided the players, it would cost them nothing in the end. Then the clans or private people could provide the players with proper servers by renting them. Right now there is no justification to do anything for conclave due to how unpopular it is.

 

46 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

I don't think that's a very big a deal. If it were necessary DE could give everyone the same health and armor and shields and guns, like they have in events like Quick Steel or the other one. They can give people whatever stats they want. The same with hitscan vs projectile: they can give all the Grineer projectile versions of Grineer weapons or they could give Corpus hitscan versions of Corpus weapons. In a lot of games (including Warframe) they do a funky hybrid where the shot is hitscan and a projectile particle flies after it just to make it look non-hitscan. Point is, it's a blank slate and they can do whatever they want with the balance. They could make it completely even, where the only difference is the sound and graphics, or they could make the factions uneven in places.

The latter would be harder to pull off, but could be a lot more interesting. For example, the Grineer might be beefier but the Corpus have proxies that follow them around. The Grineer have Dargyns and Thumpers, but the Corpus can place Minima MOA minefields and use Opticors - or get their own combat vehicles too, which would be cool. There'd surely be teething problems early on, but there will be for anything. As long as DE doesn't get distracted - which I know is unfortunately a pretty big ask - balance issues could be solved, and once they're solved the mode can basically run on auto-pilot like Conclave has for years.

Projectile weapons for all, that way they could still alow silly bullet hoses like Supra. Then they could keep weapons like Opticor in-game, but make it a pick up similar to the M82, full-auto shotty or railgun in Battlefield 4 while letting it keep the hitscan, same could be done for some other weapons too. I just dont think it will be worth doing it or thinking about it in the end, since it just wont be popular enough. Just a 4th or 5th strike that ends up wasting resources from the core game. I mean, third times a charm they say, well there has been no charm in 3 or so PvP attempts already. I doubt the next try would change that.

I mean, if i wanna play PvP I'd probably just buy the latest battlefield game or just reinstall Overwatch, depending what scale I'm looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

This thread is about "Battlefield" scale matches. Your player hosted "dedicated" servers wont handle that. There is a reason clans in BF and other similar games rent their servers, and why others play on official servers.

There is a massive difference between 8, 16, 32 and 64 players and what is needed from a server. There is also a massive difference between having a small community where a select few player handled servers may suffice and having a popular wide spread, multi-region PvP mode. Do you hostly think PvPers would be attracted to a hit-and-miss server setup where in one game you play on a great server and the next on one that barely gets by? No, people would move on and abandon it yet again, just like how people avoid certain servers in Battlefield because they arent stable. Here in WF that would be widespread, since there would be no actual baseline standard when it is player hosted.

This thread isn't about Battlefield scale matches, that was just something I agreed would be cool, but highly unrealistic. The OP is talking more about something similar to an arcade shooter like CoD with 8-12 players. Sorry that I didn't explicitly say that in the main thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...