All Competitive Content Needs To Be Entirely Optional, With No Detriment To Those Who Would Like To Opt-Out

[Tsukinoki]

The one thing I wish that clans that dont want to deal with the politics (or the unavailable DS nodes) is something along the lines of this:

-Clans/alliances can deploy a private rail.

-They cant tax it.

-They can only deploy a limited number based off of clan size(but never enough to reach all or even most DS nodes)

-They have to pay upkeep costs as it degrades over time/over use(Maybe dependant on clan size)

-No one else outside of their clan/alliance can use it.

That would allow clans who want to access certain DS nodes to always be able to and without having to worry about taxes or anything. They'll just need to pay upkeep to keep the rails working and able to access the nodes.

Since they cant deploy that many rails they would have to be careful in selecting the nodes they want to access, and when they want to change those nodes, because of the time required to deploy/remove a rail.

And this wouldn't kill the 'spirit' of DS nodes. If you want to access more of the nodes you either wait or use public rails.

If you want to collect taxes/have your name on the starchart you need to create a public rail and compete with other clans.

If you want to collect the specter mods you have to take part in rail conflicts.

That should make everyone happy.

The people who want to mess around in CvC/AvA can do it.

The people who want to avoid it can do it.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Tsukinoki

[PsychedelicSnake]

Just to make sure you get this, are your actions affecting other players? Yes? Guess what buddy....

I didn't want to get involved here, but this is some broken logic if ever I have seen one. You are saying that players' actions at the Dark Sectors make it PvP. Going by your logic, wouldn't this make regular Invasions PvP as well? You know, since players' actions make one side win and another side lose, changing the node for everyone.

 

Am I wrong? Or did I just misunderstand your very clear logic?

[Liminal]

As long as they don't intend to give special rewards to any future "classic" pvp modes I'm not worried.

I'm actually okay with Dark Sectors, despite the system being flawed imo. DS missions are very slight "pvevp", the politics are easily ignored and a single player barely makes a difference during attacks, so it definitely feels like pve without the vp.

 

The day they implement special syandanas, badges and mods for standard PvP is the day I'll be seriously disappointed.

[Saenol]

 

Then opt out.

Don't do those missions. 

 

Perhaps you missed every single post in this thread, but the entire point is being able to opt out without impacting PvE play, benefits, or rewards, in any way.

 

Just to make sure you get this. Player Vs Player is PLAYING against another player in competition. Are you PLAYING against a player in a dark sector mission?

 

Yes, I am.

 

You just don't know what abstraction is.

 

You are saying that players' actions at the Dark Sectors make it PvP. Going by your logic, wouldn't this make regular Invasions PvP as well?

 

Yes, and yes.

 

Invasions certainly have a PvP aspect to them, but I am less concerned with invasions because their effects are far less profound.

 

this is some broken logic if ever I have seen one.

 

Only if you flatly ignore a perfectly legitimate definition of player vs. player, or again, cannot comprehend things like abstraction, or cause and effect.

 

Or you know.... Just play the Dark sectors that are on armistice.

 

Which still limits one's options greatly, and still forces you to cough up a share of your proceeds that will either be absconded by the Rail owner, and/or used to influence future conflicts that many want no part in.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Saenol

[Arunafeltz]

I'm not sure what to think about all of this, but I never wanted politics and taxes in my stress-relief game personally. The nice exp rewards has me staying for Dark Sectors anyway though.

[S7ORM]

You know full well that Dark Sectors provide substantial bonuses to earned experience and resources, as well as pay more credits per minute than any mission outside of T3 captures.

[...]

Do you not realize that the winner of a conflict can start, or continue to, take a portion of your mission rewards?

 

What I'm reading here is "I want more credits from missions, but other people don't get more credits from those missions anyways." Maybe just run some more missions then.

Anyways several Dark Sector nodes offer 0%/0% credit and resource tax (yes, even now), or simply credit tax and no resource tax. In this case, you'd still be getting extra credits, resources and xp for running those missions anyways. They're not reaching into your wallet and taking the credits. You're just getting more than usual non-dark-sector nodes would offer.

Sure, someone else gets a couple hundred/thousand credits from your runs, but that's not Player VERSUS Player. That's player HELPING player - or rather, helping the entire Warframe community, since without any towers on Dark Sector Nodes you wouldn't be able to run them for the bonuses regardless.

"Damn those for building decorations in their dojo!" -- actually, I think alliance vault credits aren't usable like that, but whatever.

 

 

That the developers are putting more content exclusively into this new "feature" to force players to run those missions is really not helping.

That's literally how video games work: "Look new stuff! Cool!"

It's not "exclusivity," it's a new feature of the game. This is the kind of restrictive opinion that killed Galileo.

Look at any other Online Multiplayer game that has constant development while players play (I don't know all that many, but I'll take Runescape as an example): New stuff gets added all the time. New items are obtainable from those new things, or by trading. Again, that's how video games work. Exclusivity, is how members status require irl cash to buy - but even that is not entirely true anymore, since you can buy short-term memberships with ingame currency. Platinum in warframe does not require you to spend irl cash. Trading gives you the options to acquire LITERALLY anything in this game, save for founders stuff, without having to go to do the parts you don't like (unless that's the entire game, in which case why are you even here?).

Would you rather there be no rewards for anything you do, and all game modes to be exactly the same (spy missions ;p)? That way you don't have anything to complain about, since there's nothing exclusive to any game mode, right?

 

Please tell me where else do I get these, then:

 

-snip-

Don't want to do Dark Sectors? Do void and derelict then trade for them. I play Dark Sectors, but trading is how I got those mods anyways (Also, only life strike is really worth it anyways, but that's a different matter).

 

In summary, just because you don't want to play with the community, doesn't mean you're not involved in it. You can stick to the outside, or use it to your advantage. Your choice, your loss.

[S7ORM]

The one thing I wish that clans that dont want to deal with the politics (or the unavailable DS nodes) is something along the lines of this:

-Clans/alliances can deploy a private rail.

-They cant tax it.

-They can only deploy a limited number based off of clan size(but never enough to reach all or even most DS nodes)

-They have to pay upkeep costs as it degrades over time/over use(Maybe dependant on clan size)

-No one else outside of their clan/alliance can use it.

That would allow clans who want to access certain DS nodes to always be able to and without having to worry about taxes or anything. They'll just need to pay upkeep to keep the rails working and able to access the nodes.

Since they cant deploy that many rails they would have to be careful in selecting the nodes they want to access, and when they want to change those nodes, because of the time required to deploy/remove a rail.

And this wouldn't kill the 'spirit' of DS nodes. If you want to access more of the nodes you either wait or use public rails.

If you want to collect taxes/have your name on the starchart you need to create a public rail and compete with other clans.

If you want to collect the specter mods you have to take part in rail conflicts.

That should make everyone happy.

The people who want to mess around in CvC/AvA can do it.

The people who want to avoid it can do it.

No, because everyone would simply be making the private rails. That would ruin the entire point of dark sectors. It would be essentially the same as just adding a node on a planet that granted those bonuses, with no negative. It's really the only thing people would play, other than void/boss nodes for warframe/prime parts.

 

Just to make sure you get this, are your actions affecting other players? Yes? Guess what buddy....

I didn't want to get involved here, but this is some broken logic if ever I have seen one. You are saying that players' actions at the Dark Sectors make it PvP. Going by your logic, wouldn't this make regular Invasions PvP as well? You know, since players' actions make one side win and another side lose, changing the node for everyone.

 

Am I wrong? Or did I just misunderstand your very clear logic?

And also, you know, everything else you do ever in the game. Are your actions influencing DE's opinions? Yes. You run 'x' amount of 'x' and DE goes "taking in to account all the 'x' it appears the players like/dislike 'iabf23ibr203f8dh'." They then make changes/updates. These updates affect all players in much more a profound way than a clan asking for 20% credits on a node that gives you 200% regular credit output as a regular node.

[Satsaru]

Apparently I need to dumb it down a bit more.

 

Are your actions affecting other players directly? Yes? Then it becomes player vs player. Are we directly fighting each other, no, are we affecting players directly? Yes. How? Keeping a clan/alliance or removing it from a node, opening up or closing off a Dark Sector.

 

Whole point of this topic is that it's indirect pvp.

 

Hopefully I've made it simple enough.

 

 

 

 

See various topics about people calling on the community to take down Eclipse-held nodes.

 

This is some of the most backward logic I've ever seen in my entire life.  By this definition, all content in any game that is multiplayer at all is indirect pvp.  The most basic mission modes in this game are considered pvp by your definition.  If I jump into a pug and start blasting away with a nova, getting rid of the corpses, I'm taking away potential drops if there's a nekros.  That directly affects other players.  If I go into a pug as a squishy loki that doesn't know what they're doing, getting killed and possibly failing the mission, that directly affects other players. 

[Tsukinoki]

@S7ORM
It wouldn't 'ruin the point' of the DS as you put it.

Clans/alliances who want their symbol on the map (hint, the vast majority of them that are competing for nodes) would still be fighting over it.
A single clan wouldn't be able to deploy to all of the nodes, meaning they would have to to use the rails at some point.
And if they ever want to get the specter drops (Such as decisive judgement) they would have to compete in the conflicts.
They wouldn't be able to tax it AND it would degrade over time.  Meaning that even large clans wouldn't be able to keep that many rails running at once, and it would be cheaper and easier to just use the public rails and compete over them.

If the clan deploys all of its rails and a member goes "I need to farm X DS node but we cant make an extra rail there/I dont want to wait the 48 hours to redeploy the private rail there" they will have to use the public nodes.

So its not like they would prevent the public nodes from being used at all.

So how exactly would it kill the point of the DS?
People would use it exactly the same as they do currently.
There would be litterally NO change to the people who want public rails.
The people who dont care dont have to deal with that BS.

EDIT:
Hek, if you think that will still make people go "Never going to do any public rail ever again!!!!" then make it lower the bonuses given by a *small* amount on the logic that in order to remain hidden they cant deploy to the best locations on that node.
There, plenty of incentive to use the public rails but the option to not use them if you dont want to.

Further, if the majority of people stop using the public rails at all and all switched to private rails, I think that would be saying something about the current system and peoples like/dislike for it.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Tsukinoki

[Saenol]

 

And also, you know, everything else you do ever in the game.

 

For most of Warframe, and pretty much the entire game before the invasion events, your in-game actions have no impact on anyone not grouped with you or not in your own clan.

 

Developer tweaking and forum side feedback are not the same, as the devs are intelligent, free willed beings, who can come to their own conclusions. The game responds directly to player actions.

 

This is some of the most backward logic I've ever seen in my entire life.  By this definition, all content in any game that is multiplayer at all is indirect pvp.  The most basic mission modes in this game are considered pvp by your definition.  If I jump into a pug and start blasting away with a nova, getting rid of the corpses, I'm taking away potential drops if there's a nekros.  That directly affects other players.  If I go into a pug as a squishy loki that doesn't know what they're doing, getting killed and possibly failing the mission, that directly affects other players. 

 

If it's an in-game action opposes that of another player, it's most certainly a form of PvP, and yes, this would include some of the examples you specify.

 

However, you do have the option to play in private instances, and you lose nothing at all for doing so. There is no resource or experience bonus for "Online" mod vs. "Private" mode; and the rest of the content is completely identical. While people can avoid Dark Sectors, they cannot avoid on losing out on Dark Sector benefits at the same time.

[Pizzarugi]

I agree with OP on the grounds that I think this feature actually conflicts with the lore of the Tenno in the game. They're the peace keepers in a sense, trying to maintain balance between the two larger factions. It just seems oddly out of place for these same people to be turning on each other for power and dominance over solar rail placement. What's next, DE will release a pure Orokin-themed warframe only one player can have at a time, and other players have to challenge the owner to a battle to obtain it for themselves?

 

I will, however, disagree with OP on the grounds that dark sectors themselves are very easy and give the best rewards (exp and resources) out of anywhere else, period. These sectors should sometimes be locked down to keep people from flooding the areas.

[HolidayPi3]

If you think that is backwards logic, I'd hate to see yours.

No, not all content in multiplayer is indirect pvp, we are referring to this instance. Lrn2knowdifference.

His argument is pretty valid-- you made a universal claim which is, "if your actions affect another player... Guess what buddy... (it's PVP)" (reasonably implied given the context & topic)

You can't really back up and say "it's a universal claim but it only applies to this instance."

He took your universal claim and applied it universally and it was found to be way too general.

Your definition of PVP is too broad. By nature of this being an online game, the majority of our actions will have affects on other players.

Edited May 7, 2014 by HolidayPi3

[abaddun]

Dark sectors are not designed to make farming easier, they are not designed for freelancers. The Darksector update is solely for high tier players with little motivation to continue playing. It offers them an everchanging political battleground where they can leave a mark on the game. The dark sector bonuses are there to entice freelancers to enable conflict. You do not opt out of tax or conflict, as that defeats the entire purpose of the Darksectors and solar rails. It is not mandatory for you to play in the dark sectors, Infested can be found in derelicts and the channeling mods in the trading section.

[Liminal]

This guy ^ is completely right.

There's a reason for those xp multipliers and high credit rewards.

[gam3addict]

So if actions affecting others is PvP, does that not mean the feedback and suggestion forums are PvP? PvP forums OP, pls nerf.

[Cwierz]

Is there another player in your instance of the game?

No.

There is not. 

Therefor, you are not playing in a pvp environment.

The rewards you get from the game, and the things going on behind the scenes impact nothing in the actual game.

 

If we consider any obstructions to a player to be pvp, then we have to consider that players proposing changes such as a nerf, and it being acted upon is pvp. If you refuse to consider that abstraction, but wholeheartedly accept your own, you have an innate bias that its pretty obvious is not going to be going anywhere.

 

Why don't you go and show me how that pvp is providing gameplay elements that hinder your enjoyment. As in, how does your abstract pvp effect your game once you are inside of it? I would like to hear about it.

[Cwierz]

Are there several topics of players wanting other players to go attack a rail that is owned by x clan? Yes. Are your actions in the SR conflicts going to affect actual players? Yes.

 

The impact has been lessened with the updates, however it is still true that during conflicts, DS are locked out. Ergo - player actions against other players are impacting the game. Do you require this to be spelt out for you?

Conflicts are a part of the game. Once you are in that session, nothing from that conflict affects your experience. 

 

Unless you can conclusively prove that once you are in game, the SR conflicts actively influence your game (hint: they don't) because, in case you forgot, the part where you join a game session is the game, then I will consider this argument to be over.

[Rydian]

Are there several topics of players wanting other players to go attack a rail that is owned by x clan? Yes. Are your actions in the SR conflicts going to affect actual players? Yes.

 

The impact has been lessened with the updates, however it is still true that during conflicts, DS are locked out. Ergo - player actions against other players are impacting the game. Do you require this to be spelt out for you?

But PvP isn't about how the game is impacted, it's about how the players are impacted during the confrontation between two (or more) individual players.

[Rekkou]

I'm in a clan with solar rails and alliance. I never participate in a conflict to win the conflict, i just go to Dark Sector Conflict whenever i want just for farming. And 100% fine till now.

 

So i absolutely have no idea what you're talking about

[DocHolliday13]

 

Warframe is a heavily instanced, ostensibly co-op, PvE oriented game.

 

So, why are we forced to directly or indirectly participate in competitive PvP in order to experience all PvE content without interference?

 

Individuals, Clans, and Alliances should be able to opt out entirely of Dark Sector Conflicts. Those doing so should not pay any taxes for the use of a Rail and should not be able to challenge for/deploy rails of their own. When a Dark Sector is contested, those opting out should be able to play the Conflict missions normally, but their contributions should not be counted toward either side, and they should not receive any battle pay nor consume any battle pay tickets.

 

A system like this would allow those interested in the competition to play the game the way they like, without having to force those not so inclined to tolerate their existence.

 

Something similar should apply to other events where players are pitted against other players. Outside of things like leader boards, other statistics, and other superficial things, nothing else anyone ever does should have to impact an individual in a game like this.

 

Conclave battles were fine as no one gets any rewards or penalties that influence the rest of the game. However, some recent events and Dark Sector Conflicts cross a line into territory I do not find pleasant. If I wanted to fight other players, I could fire up any number of competitive PVP games I play, and get a better experience. Warframes strength is not PvP or competition. It has a niche of it's own; do not blur it any further.

 

 

Dark sector conflict/contest is easily the worst thing they've brought into Warframe so far. I personally have completely quit playing because of it, and because of the fact that they intend to add even more PvP into it. They are way too out of touch with their overall community. Very few players actually wanted any kind of PvP, yet they insist on putting it in to satisfy the loudly whining few. Well, too bad, I'm voting with my wallet. Adios, DE.

 

Warframe Pvp is great though.

 

No it's not.

[Joyfulmama]

PvP is fun IMO, but yea I do agree it ruins some of the essence of warframe..