Solar Rail Feedback

[LascarCapable]

These looks like nice ideas.

 

 

... I may be too curious, but I am seeing the OP as "banned". Is my firefox buggy or... ?

Edited April 23, 2014 by Einde

[Nkomo-Sama]

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:

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

-Faction invasions of Dark Sectors to widen the conflict.

-Some Lore and "ritualization" of all of these conflicts to address some of the 'Why are Tenno fighting Tenno'... expanding on Tenno as Warrior culture and making it easier for people to accept the cultural ramifications of this game mode.

-Road-building expansion of Dark Sectors (in that building a rail potentially reveals another Dark Sector beyond).

-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. :)

The love...the mighty mighty love....

[Nkomo-Sama]

These looks like nice ideas.

 

 

... I may be too curious, but I am seeing the OP as "banned". Is my firefox buggy or... ?

Just about to comment on that... I'd hope he wasn't banned because his Youtube vids are awesome and are a go-to when it comes to warframe info/advice

[FatViking]

Steve, I think you're seriously underestimating just how much the community is vastly against PVP

I agree with this statement.

[JimiHendChris]

Steve, I think you're seriously underestimating just how much the community is vastly against PVP

 

+1

[Nkomo-Sama]

Steve, I think you're seriously underestimating just how much the community is vastly against PVP

 

I agree with this statement.

Honestly I think you two underestimate just how adamant the community (excluding you and me) are FOR pvp. Why? I will never know. This game is not a pvp type of game...I guess people are thinking "we have swords and guns... lets use them on each other". I think we just need smarter, tougher, overpowered, punishing enemies and then for DE TO NEVER EVER NERF them. Endgame talks will die after that.

[Nkomo-Sama]

I agree with this statement.

 

 

+1

upvote the comment then? It's at 0 upvotes...ijs.....sorry   \O/

[Nkomo-Sama]

An extreme minority want PVP, and it is extreme. See the majority of replies to this = "no pvp".

man...you should have seen the forums before the conclaves....I would not be able to agree with you here sorry.

[JimiHendChris]

Honestly I think you two underestimate just how adamant the community (excluding you and me) are FOR pvp. Why? I will never know. This game is not a pvp type of game...I guess people are thinking "we have swords and guns... lets use them on each other". I think we just need smarter, tougher, overpowered, punishing enemies and then for DE TO NEVER EVER NERF them. Endgame talks will die after that.

 

You're probably right about that, I'm sure there is plenty of people who are for more PvP added to the game. PvP requires a very delicate touch to implement into a PvE game effectively. I'm against it because of my experience with the shooter mmo Defiance. I enjoyed the game mainly due to finding an awesome setup with my weapons and abilities (Cloak+Sawed off shotgun=Fun Times!). But people in PvP were using the same setup and it was unbalanced. So the developers nerfed the weapons/abilites and it effected PvE too! Ruined the game for me, I was having the time of my life with that setup, now rendered useless and bland due to PvP. Warframe would be a similiar case.

 

What I'm afraid of is if they implement more PvP into Warframe, a PvP system that allows the players to fully utilize their Weapons, Mods, and Frames then the game is going to be ridiculously unbalanced. People will complain about 'X' gun/frame/mod and then DE will nerf them and then PvE will never be the same.

 

I just don't want them to jump the gun on this and shoe-horn in PVP because the Dark Sectors are not living up to expectations. 

[SolidSp33d]

-snip-

 

Screw it, I'm making my own thread for this monster of a post.

Edited April 23, 2014 by SolidSp33d

[Schwood]

re: 3

 

This will break the design goal. Even though I'm on of those people who loathe the attacking force (I just want to play the regular mission), I don't think this is the solution. Perhaps... a way to delay the next contest would be a fit compromise. If enough neutral parties really push high level defense/survival, this could add hours or perhaps even days to the construction time of the contesters rail. 

 

P.S. keep up the good work! I check your channel often : )

Edited April 23, 2014 by Schwood

[Terrence_Knight]

I will not participate in any PvP. Period. I started playing and really enjoyed Warframe because it was focused on PvE so please keep PvP to a minimum such as conclave where it doesn't have any effect on the PvE experience.

[AuroraSonicBoom]

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

 

Wow... If this is introduced then I'll have to show myself out. Very disappointed that this is being seriously considered.

Thanks for the heads up, I guess.

 

You know full well that you're not going to remove PvP once you implement it, so the only thing we can do is protest it ever being introduced. Don't take us for fools. Once it's here it not going to stay away and only become worse for the community. PvP rewards, maybe even unique PvP rewads will be demanded, and given.

 

This is dishearting news, but there's still time to fight.

Edited April 24, 2014 by AuroraSonicBoom

[(PSN)PD_33]

I think you guys should listen to what this guy has to say, he is a pro.

Edited April 24, 2014 by (PS4)PD_33

[(PSN)NeoReaper82]

To the people crying. Get better at PvP.

[abaddun]

I agree on many of your points, but I have a few suggestions of my own. I personally believe that cooldowns should be reduced but not removed in order to grant the defending clan at least some respite. This will tie into the second suggestion, random draw selection. This offers an underdog a slim chance of getting a chance in the limelight without forcing them to sit waiting for the timer too end with fingers crossed. A three hour window should be available for clans/alliances to stake a claim (with a cap in order to prevent mass chance dilution). A challenger is randomly drawn, and the rail is deployed in the next 9 hours. This does have the problem of disrupting co ordinated attacks, which may be necassary for dealing with menaces like eclipse, but given time, the credit stashes of the defending clan will be worn down, and they will eventually have to abandon the Dark sector.

I would also like to see the option for the occupant to add nightmare conditions to the dark sector missions for specific rewards.

[Monolake]

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:

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

-Faction invasions of Dark Sectors to widen the conflict.

-Some Lore and "ritualization" of all of these conflicts to address some of the 'Why are Tenno fighting Tenno'... expanding on Tenno as Warrior culture and making it easier for people to accept the cultural ramifications of this game mode.

-Road-building expansion of Dark Sectors (in that building a rail potentially reveals another Dark Sector beyond).

-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. :)

Great news, cant wait. Thank you very much for considering feedback, addressing the issues and improving the system.

[mogamu]

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:

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

-Faction invasions of Dark Sectors to widen the conflict.

-Some Lore and "ritualization" of all of these conflicts to address some of the 'Why are Tenno fighting Tenno'... expanding on Tenno as Warrior culture and making it easier for people to accept the cultural ramifications of this game mode.

-Road-building expansion of Dark Sectors (in that building a rail potentially reveals another Dark Sector beyond).

-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. :)

 

Thanks for the response Steve!  It really means alot to the community that you guys actually read feedback.  DE always seems to do whats best for the game so I look forward to these features.

[Briar_Wolf]

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

 

*Little girl noises*

 

Sentients?

[ThePresident777]

worry that 3 would defeat the purpose (it would just be reward 'creep' from the other nodes).

 

I don't understand this.  What is the purpose of Dark Sectors and how does having rewards defeat it's purpose?  How does this contrast with the rest of the game?  Is Warframe heading towards being reward free?

 

Last time I played uncontested DS, a few days ago, all that dropped were common mats and the same old useless mods(fast hands, slash dash, etc.).  I played one round of contested DS yesterday and all I received was a few common mats.  I played 35 minutes of Elara yesterday and despite having killed tons of Fusion Moas, Anti-Moas, and Techs, not one Marathon(common), Rush(uncommon), or Pistol Pathogen(uncommon) dropped.  It's been like that for weeks.  Those basic mods, necessary for fast/fluid movement and Damage 2.0(and all it entails), are extinct now.  So, in light of this, the phrase reward creep is difficult to understand.

[Drewboy91]

I'm a fairly new and casual player, meaning I play when I get home from my 8-16 hour work day and on my days off. As a casual player I can't really see any meaning for the dark sectors to even exist? I get that the exp and resource boost are good, but damn near every night when I get home and log on they're always contested and I can never play the regular mission. I get that the tax system helps large clans or alliances formed from small clans, but not if it's continuously contested preventing the alliance in control to gain any tax's because the normal mission is locked while they're having to shell out battle pay just to keep it up only for it to be contested 30 seconds (made up number) after the previous attacker? Yes lore behind the dark sectors would help bring the philosophical "why these are here" and "why tenno must build these and fight for these" answers, but it still wouldn't bring an actual game mechanic aspect to them. The only game mechanic I see is extra exp and resources, and 90% (another made up number) we can't even get them.

 

1) Maybe the exp and resource boost should still be applied to the attacking/defending aspect? Maybe allow decent drops in the attacking/defending missions?

 

2) Maybe the defending alliance still receives tax's from the attack/defend mission (they are still in control even if they're under attack... just saying... could help increase battle pay). This also means resources and credits drop decently in the attacking/defending missions. 

        a) Yes I understand that allowing the defending alliance to collect tax's off of the attacking alliances missions to increase their battle pay thus inciting more players to run the defend missions, but shouldn't that be the risk of attacking someone else's rail? There needs to be a possible consequence of attacking someone's rail. Make it somewhat hard to do. Not just click attack, get your alliance members to run attack missions, and hope other players run your attacking missions. 

 

3) Maybe make them feel like they're worth the time? 

Edited April 25, 2014 by Drewboy91

[Ezren]

Hey guys,

I have been gathering feedback from hundreds (yes literally hundreds) of players on the Solar Rail game mode

 

If you don't have a recorded, reference-ready source for this "data", you don't have data. You have the claim of data, which cannot be directly addressed, and can say whatever you want it to say.

 

Because that's really not how feedback works. You could just be hearing whatever you want to hear. You are claiming people agree with you without any proof. Unless it's there to be analyzed by others, it's not "data". It's opinion. Don't present it otherwise.

[Ezren]

An extreme minority want PVP, and it is extreme. See the majority of replies to this = "no pvp".

Dismissing opinion by saying "that's a minority" isn't addressing it at all.

 

Pretending those who disagree with you are inconsequential is shining beacon of insecurity. "That opinion doesn't matter" is an awful, close-minded approach that completely stifles game design as a whole. You are basically offering the opposite of feedback.

[Ezren]

The Solar Rail should incorporate some level of external content, outside of just spamming missions.

 

The basic idea would be a deployable, somewhat similar to Extractors, but with a different purpose. They would be deployed at a Solar Rail to provide support to one side or the other. For me, the concept would fall along the lines of a Spacecraft joining a fleet for the conflict. But that general feel is only based on the concept I threw out in some other thread a while back, for personal vessels with customizable labs/engines to change its purpose (one of which being Clan-based conflict).

 

Overall, the concept is this: A deployed unit that attaches to a Solar Rail under conflict. If it sides with the victor, the vessel remains deployed until it is attacked again - this means it stays through the "Honor Armistice" period - but when it returns, a Battle Pay dividend is awarded. If it was sided with the defeated, it returns immediately, with no reward, but can be re-deployed to another location more quickly.

 

Either way. The specifics of it wouldn't be important; an assault drone, a personal craft, even some kind of player-managed assault team. But it would change a few aspects of the current Solar Rail conflicts.

 

Firstly, it would make it more difficult for one Alliance to dominate more than a few Rails. Their support would be spread over their nodes, forcing either a more focused approach, or a very, very large support base. The more successful their supporters are, however, the more ships are tied up during the defense period for that node, while the opposition force can move on.

 

Secondly, it would increase the rate at which the conflicts were resolved. Currently, they last a long, long time. This would increase that rate somewhat, allowing for more frequent, shorter conflicts.

 

Third, it would dampen the "bait and switch" BPs that some Alliances (cough Eclipse) employ. The ship being deployed to the rail will be set to receive a separate reward (split into Battle pay and Fleet pay) that will be accepted on deployment, and paid out upon victory and return (after Armistice).

 

Issues that could arise are easy to address. For instance, one alliance simply piling ships on to one node and "turtling" it out. As an approach to fix that, a "Tactical Fatigue" effectiveness could be employed, reducing the contribution from that ship as it remained (and recovering over time). This would prevent location-spamming; even a massive Alliance would become ineffective at defending its territory after several battles, so that control of planets would never be static.

 

"Tactical Fatigue" would only recover while not deployed at that location; this would mean that attackers would be more effective than defenders, and allow for a battle of attrition to unseat an alliance.

 

Another issue, which is one that plagues the Rails today, is that only one Alliance can attack a rail. It's basically first-come-first-serve, if you don't click first, tough luck. Deploying opposing Fleets could allow multiple (but still limited) attackers at once; this would benefit from the faster conflicts as well, staging down from Rail Deployments, assaulting in attack vs defense, to Fleet vs Fleet amongst attackers (if the defense loses), to capture for whoever is victorious.

 

Overall, a passive aspect to increase the speed and flexibility of the Rails, and break up the monotonous "clicked first" incumbent Alliances. Plus, something else for us to build - I'll have to find the thread I put together about the ships.

[Thirsty_Pickle]

TIL That Dark Sectors actually offer normal missions, not just Conflict / Sabotage missions

 

EDIT: Add a 5 day cooldown or something, so when the time comes for a rail to be contested, it's serious.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Thirsty_Pickle