Solar Rail Feedback

[Ronyn]

Quick note

-New game mode, potentially with vs. to make it more interesting and challenging to play contested sectors.

Not sure if by "vs" you mean pvp or some sort of competitive pve.

So let me make a statement. Your game is currently not balanced for pvp.

Your team is currently focused on fleshing out the pve systems.

Whatever you do don't try to bite off more than you can chew.

Don't try to make a pvp mode that is integral to the game until you have come to a more complete and stable pve system....

and then have the time to devote to fully making pvp work.

 

I run a small dev team so, like you, I understand the nature of working with the limitations of time, money and manpower.

You guys are on to something amazing here largely because you promised small and delivered big.

[Zubaz]

I understand your reluctance but I hope you're willing to give it a try before rejecting it sight unseen!

Maybe because PvP in this game doesn't go further then "Pick Ash, Press 4, Total Team Kill".

[Cemges]

Maybe because PvP in this game doesn't go further then "Pick Ash, Press 4, Total Team Kill".

You know what we need for PvP? Raise warframe hp and shield by 100x and so do for ai enemy damage: give pvp a longer duration while not having impact on co op. Also sentinel are must have to keep enemy from recollecting shield.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Cemges

[ZeroPhobic]

I understand your reluctance but I hope you're willing to give it a try before rejecting it sight unseen!

Why is PvP the sudden endgame? We (most the players) and you (devs) have been fighting hard to keep this a fun PvE game for so long, now the badlands or Dark Sectors are out, suddenly make them PvP? I didn't like the idea of these rails from the go and if PvP is the way of them, I will totally give up on them. This bad idea is getting worse...

[OniDax]

Sorry, 100% against making the rails PvP. Game isn't balanced for it at all (unless you want everyone running with the same frame and weapons). Don't shoehorn PvP in there because some players are whining. You want some other PvP mode, do PvP justice by making it separate from PvE stuff. PvP in Dark Sectors will make me stop playing the mode altogether.

Edited April 23, 2014 by AntoineFlemming

[Liminal]

-Use the Dojo building (with UI improvements) to make the gameplay spaces players attack (ala Dungeon Keeper) to increase variety and fun.

I hope that comes with some sort of "fast Dojo reset"... I'd hate having to wait 2 weeks to get it done!

[Shadebain]

Steve, I love all of those changes you listed, but allowing players to actually play on the Dark Sectors more is a big deal. We really just have to get lucky and happen to sign on when the area we want to play just so happens to be in the "deployment" phase.

 

How about this:

Allow players to fight in the regular Dark Sectors, even during a conflict, with a small % reduction in rewards, to still promote helping the conflict. Taxes would still apply, but would all be sent into a sort of "buffer" that would not be distributed to the controlling clan/alliance until the conflict was finished, at which point the entire buffer of taxes would be given to the winning clan, not the one who set the taxes.

What do you think?

Edited April 23, 2014 by Shadebain

[DiBBz]

all the feedback that you would need right here

 

and changes that need to happen ASAP

 

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/219651-alliance-fixing-and-features-that-could-be-helpful/

[PsychedelicSnake]

When I read through Steve's suggestion about "VS Mechanics" I didn't think of PvP.

 

In fact, I was thinking something more around the lines of PvEvP, or Player vs Environment vs Player, which is indirect PvP, and thus players would not be directly combatting each other. If it's PvEvP, I think it'll all turn out fine.

[OniDax]

When I read through Steve's suggestion about "VS Mechanics" I didn't think of PvP.

 

In fact, I was thinking something more around the lines of PvEvP, or Player vs Environment vs Player, which is indirect PvP, and thus players would not be directly combatting each other. If it's PvEvP, I think it'll all turn out fine.

 

Is it not currently PvEvP in that it's indirect PvP in which each side's players do damage to the other's rails? Pretty sure vs is used like it's always used, to signify PvP.

[PsychedelicSnake]

Is it not currently PvEvP in that it's indirect PvP in which each side's players do damage to the other's rails? Pretty sure vs is used like it's always used, to signify PvP.

You misunderstand. PvEvP is what we have right now for Solar Rails. What I think he is suggesting is adding depth to it. I could be wrong here, but so could the people saying it is PvP. We simply don't know, but considering the mechanics of the rails already, I find myself leaning more towards my assumption than the other assumption.

[MeduSalem]

Hopefully Steve means some improved and ambitious PvEvP...

 

Everything is okay as long as we haven't to aim for another real player... The balancing between weapons, warframes and mods is just laughable at best currently. Would never be a fair game-mode and if there's some dependency to do the stuff for Mods or other items all hell will break loose and madness everywhere.

 

But I welcome the other improvements... :D

Edited April 23, 2014 by MeduSalem

[ZeroPhobic]

Other than the PvP stuff, which sounds like pure hell. The rest of the ideas they are throwing around sound like they would be fun to expand the rails. They do need something more than they currently offer. The beginning of more unknown spots behind them sound good, but they will need to put timers on these after a while. The spots get hit by the first person that can click them atm, which throws them into another conflict, if they stack stuff behind them people will get a couple days a week to explore and play in these new zones before having to fight it out again. It should be the other way around, lock them up for a day or two and then have a week timer on them for the winners to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

[Thalahssalyst]

All of you dont like for more pve content,  we dont know if they have idea to make pvp more viable, we cant say something right now, because we dont know nothing, its like to say, new faction maybe is a SH$·%$%&, we still have not see that

All what we can do now is wait and see...

[BlueSilkMetallic]

@thread opener

 

all signed.

[unknow99]

Hey Mogamu! Thanks for this! I am totally with you on 1, medium on 2 and worry that 3 would defeat the purpose (it would just be reward 'creep' from the other nodes). I really appreciate this (and the tons of other feedback we've gotten).

 

We are working quickly to expand on this system - random stuff that is coming (that may miss the mark on some of your concerns but here goes):

-New game mode, potentially with vs. to make it more interesting and challenging to play contested sectors.

-Rail strategies in the from of types (nuke rail, as destabilizing force), as well as strength/weakness rail types to create some strategy in the planning and deployment phase.

-Troop preparation mechanics based on the rail strength/weakness you're attacking.

-Some amount of tactical responsiveness at rail level when being attacked (accessories you can build for your rail and deploy to bolster).

-Some grief reduction in battle pay baiting.

-Tenno Specter enhancements as well as the potential for individuals to build a 'simulacrum' object that captures their current load out and then is available by tacticians to deploy as Specters in a specific tower.

-Fix the damn 'first to click' as you mentioned.

 

Longer term, it goes wider:

-These Dark Sectors will become the Frontier when the new faction invades (dramatic music).

 

*-As with everything, these are ideas we are pursuing and do not constitute a guarantee, void in Ontario, etc. :)

New faction?? That means...New content?! :D I may go in a dark sector mission again : a little bit disappointed fighting the same foes in the same tilesets...(I hope these creatures will be as worthy as the future Infested Ships...I wonder when they will return though...)

[Cpl_Facehugger]

-Tenno Specter enhancements as well as the potential for individuals to build a 'simulacrum' object that captures their current load out and then is available by tacticians to deploy as Specters in a specific tower.

While I like that idea, I hope it doesn't include mods or certain weapons. I'm imagining everyone using perma-blessing trinities with pentas and I'm thinking how much it would suck to try and play with that. Such builds are great fun in PvE, but they're not fun to fight against in the least.

[notionphil]

I understand your reluctance but I hope you're willing to give it a try before rejecting it sight unseen!

 

Here's a few pages of discussion on introducing PvP to Dark Sectors without having to worry about conventional balance:

 

Dark Sectors Pvp - A Sane Perspective

[Llyssa]

Hey guys,

I have been gathering feedback from hundreds (yes literally hundreds) of players on the Solar Rail game mode in the game and before the devs changed anything I would like to offer some of that feedback I gathered into a nice little bullet point.  For those who know, I promised to post this days ago but I rarely spend much time on the Forum.

 

Also, I have noticed a "vocal few" who are suggesting things that don't represent the whole of the player base and it has reached the devs ears.  I have had the benefit of talking to many players and I can safely say I can summarize what the majority are saying.  anyway...away we go.  The Solar Rails have 3 major problems.  

 

 

1) Whack-a-mole contesting

Lets be honest here, there are only a couple dozen Dark Sectors across millions of registered players.  Contesting a Solar Rail purely based on the fact that you clicked it first is not good.  We need a realistic way to contest.  My suggestion,  first option to contest goes to the clan or alliance that does the most damage to the rail.  A list on the screen should show top 5 clans and how much damage they did to the rail of the losing* clan.  Then, that clan or alliance gets a 1 hour window to contest as a prize.

 

2) Cool-downs are bad...very bad

Once again, thousands of players.  Having a Rail cooldown just locks more players out.   Simple solution, eliminate them.  If a clan wants to wage perpetual war, why do we reward them with ice tea and a lawn chair?  If they want to stay on the solar chart, they should have to fight for it.  Burnout is good, it gives other clans the chance to capitalize on their fatigue.  I cant say it enough, no cool downs.  There are two type of people asking for cooldowns.  The clans/alliances who are battle weary and want a break, and the people who just want a chance to get the uncontested node rewards...which brings me to number 3...

 

3) Allow neutral gamers to play the regular mission.

3 buttons.  Play for Incumbent, play for challenger...play normal mission.  Many players grow angry even resentful at the attacking clan because they just want to play the node, and the attacking clan locking them out of a mission they want to play.  In turn, they rally to support for the Rail owner for the wrong reasons.  This is really bad.  Let casual players or people who just want to PVE have access to the node.

 

 

Summary

- allow players to run the regular missions while the rail is contested

- completely remove the cooldown.

- allow the clan/alliance that deals the most damage to the tower first opportunity to attack it next

- (extra) rails should have minimum tax rates and clan members should receive battle pay/rewards.

- (extra) uncontested rails should offer unique drops, not just increased amounts.  i.e. Oxium, Orokin Cells, Blueprints, etc.

 

*note

after much thought, reward the clan that does the most damage to both rails.  Rewarding clans to fight for the winning rail will just kill off any rail that has a percent less health.  Rewarding damage against both rails is more balanced.

Er, your after thought needs more thought.

 

It means that if a clan is attacking a rail, and loses, but does more than any one coalition member, they get to attack again immediately after losing. It also has awkwardness in some situations.

 

Examples:

Clan A wants to take a rail. Clan B, Clan C, and alliance X want to protect the rail. Clan A does 100 damage, whilst B, C, and X all do 80 damage. B+C+X win, of course, because 240>100. However, their win is for naught, as Clan A gets to attack AGAIN, the second the old rail is down, and all others are locked out.

 

Alliance E owns a rail. Alliance F, G, and H all attack said rail together(E is unpopular). Alliance E does 300 damage, whilst F, G, and H do 90 damage each. Alliance E wins and now has the ability to deploy a rail against themselves, which locks out anyone else for either an hour for for days while they contest themselves.

 

Alliance M and N decide to make a deal. M owns a node, and N attacks. The players from Alliance N help on the M side, allowing M to keep the node. Alliance N did the most damage, though, so they get the rights to contest the rail first. They do so, and repeat, forever locking the rail down, as no one but N can deploy against M, and N is purposely losing.

 

Alliance Q owns a rail. Alliance R fights on their behalf, and alliance Q wins. Alliance R has the rights to contest the rail, but they wanted Q to keep it anyways. Alliance R now either has to deploy to block out opponents of Q, or accept a 1 hour delay before they have to fight for the side they wanted in control to begin with.

Those all sound rather unpleasant.

 

So far as neutral players, that does make sense, but the missions should have a detriment when players ignore the battle going on. Engage the "has taken some hits" fire mode, the old Op:Arid Fear void radiation bursts, and perhaps some nightmare mode low gravity and no shields. That way, players can ignore the conflict if they want, but they suffer the effects of choosing to play in the middle of a war zone.

[Jordio99]

3) Allow neutral gamers to play the regular mission.

3 buttons.  Play for Incumbent, play for challenger...play normal mission.  Many players grow angry even resentful at the attacking clan because they just want to play the node, and the attacking clan locking them out of a mission they want to play.  In turn, they rally to support for the Rail owner for the wrong reasons.  This is really bad.  Let casual players or people who just want to PVE have access to the node.

I think this needs to be put it in as soon as possible. As a neutral player how rarely plays on the Dark Sectors (I did one survival, got life strike then left. Never played it again because they are always contested), this would be great for me since I would be able to play them whenever I want to, so I would have a higher chance to get the other new melee mods that are only in the Dark Sectors. 

Also, to the people saying things like "then why would you ever play the contested Dark Sectors?" There is a really obvious answer - the people who control and are contesting the node will constantly play it to defend/ capture it. Also, if the clans provide a high enough battle pay, many other neutral players would do a few runs of the conflict mission to get some extra credits (or maybe resources in the future?). Sure, there would probably be more people playing the regular missions than the conflict missions, but there isn't really a big amount of people playing the missions right now. In fact, giving players access to the regular mission might benefit the owners of the rails more because they would be giving resources to them, assuming they put a small tax on.

[Muminidas]

Quick note

Not sure if by "vs" you mean pvp or some sort of competitive pve.

So let me make a statement. Your game is currently not balanced for pvp.

Your team is currently focused on fleshing out the pve systems.

Whatever you do don't try to bite off more than you can chew.

Don't try to make a pvp mode that is integral to the game until you have come to a more complete and stable pve system....

and then have the time to devote to fully making pvp work.

 

I run a small dev team so, like you, I understand the nature of working with the limitations of time, money and manpower.

You guys are on to something amazing here largely because you promised small and delivered big.

 

 Remember that Warframe is still in OBT stage. Devs can implement any ideas they see fitting for the game, so we can play this and share our feedback to make those "ideas" even better at their final stages. 

 

Hmmmm, all that stuff DE_Steve wrote seems nice and fun, but ..... Steve, your team is now working on Proxy Wars, Focus system, hubs, Infested tileset and probably many new weapons, units and small additions. When can we expect any of those "future" changes to Dark Sectors/Solar Rails (except of new Faction). Update 14 or 14.x.x builds or maybe even 15.x.x builds? 

[Ronyn]

 Remember that Warframe is still in OBT stage. Devs can implement any ideas they see fitting for the game, so we can play this and share our feedback to make those "ideas" even better at their final stages. 

Wait...I'm not sure why you said this in response to my post.

I don't disagree with what you say there I just don't understand the connection to what I said...

Being in OB has no bearing on the simple truth that people can only do s much at one time.

[GuyonBroadway]

So I may have mentioned this elsewhere but a dirty "solution" to the solar rail problem to fix the dullness of the missions COULD work as follows.

 

The BASIC gametype is survival... blah blah blah distraction for tenno sabotage team blah blah....

 

However, while you are trying to survive you will occasionally get a new objective such as "Capture the rail engineer" or "go and destory a power substation" in short, bringing in objectives from OTHER mission types.

 

The idea being that the primary goal is to survive but these secondary goals would improve your final score at the end of the mission. This score would be used to determine how much damage your operation did to the rail.

 

Now yes, I'm not well versed in warframe level struce and how it all works, it may not be possible to have two types of objects concurrently... yes we can sometimes get an objective CHANGE but again, just thinking pragmatically here.

 

Then theres the issue of level generation code supporting more complex mission types concurrently... and so forth.

 

 

But it's be a neat idea.

[pinkelf]

Way to totally do what I did. >_< 

[JimiHendChris]

So I may have mentioned this elsewhere but a dirty "solution" to the solar rail problem to fix the dullness of the missions COULD work as follows.

 

The BASIC gametype is survival... blah blah blah distraction for tenno sabotage team blah blah....

 

However, while you are trying to survive you will occasionally get a new objective such as "Capture the rail engineer" or "go and destory a power substation" in short, bringing in objectives from OTHER mission types.

 

The idea being that the primary goal is to survive but these secondary goals would improve your final score at the end of the mission. This score would be used to determine how much damage your operation did to the rail.

 

Now yes, I'm not well versed in warframe level struce and how it all works, it may not be possible to have two types of objects concurrently... yes we can sometimes get an objective CHANGE but again, just thinking pragmatically here.

 

Then theres the issue of level generation code supporting more complex mission types concurrently... and so forth.

 

 

But it's be a neat idea.

 

THIS. This so much.

 

It's not that the infested dark sectors provide more xp, resources and credits than a contested rail. It's because contested rails are DULL. Weak xp, no resources, battle pay varies (still not as good as an uncontested rail), and the mission type is the same EVERY TIME. All you need is a Loki to just run past the enemies and activate the 4 consoles and head to the exit. You NEED to give a REASON for the players to stay and fight enemies, and I think the answer is a survival like game mode. I mean, I don't really need the credits and xp but the increased resource drop rate is the major selling point of the Dark Sectors IMO.

 

Maybe, along with battle pay the Alliance/Clan can also add Resources to the drop tables for their rails. Perhaps a rail that offers Neural Sensors and Orokin Cells as resource drops would motivate me to play the contested rails. That and if the missions were like what GuyonBroadway said. Then a contested rail would be a lot more interesting to play.

 

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it. Adding resources to contested rails wouldn't really persuade people which side to take since both sides will always use the most rare resources. But it will make Contested Rails more worth while to play as a whole.

Edited April 23, 2014 by JimiHendChris