Why Do People Hate Pvp?

[.Talia.]

You can fight players in conclave.

You can fight players in DS PvP.

PvP is bad.

Therefore, Conclave and DS are bad. 

 

Bam. Just did the work for you. I'm a genius.

 

Your opinion, and it's fine. I understand that the Conclave PvP is not for everyone, it's a very specific niche. But those who likes it, are very passionate about it. There are many players that plays there every day.

 

The Dark Sector Conflicts however, i feel like the only ones that actually plays it, are the ones in the alliances that currently holds most of the Dark Sectors.

[EChondo]

But...that's not true...

Prove it. Really, prove to me that the nerfs over the year haven't been because of PVP influencing the game.

[vaugahn]

Prove it. Really, prove to me that the nerfs over the year haven't been because of PVP influencing the game.

 

Someone isn't reading the patch notes...

[EChondo]

Someone isn't reading the patch notes...

Oh are there patch notes that specifically state that changes aren't influenced by PVP? If so, I would very much like to see and read these patches notes stating exactly that.

Edited October 21, 2014 by EChondo

[SmokinDevil]

Your opinion, and it's fine. I understand that the Conclave PvP is not for everyone, it's a very specific niche. But those who likes it, are very passionate about it. There are many players that plays there every day.

 

The Dark Sector Conflicts however, i feel like the only ones that actually plays it, are the ones in the alliances that currently holds most of the Dark Sectors.

 

I believe you misunderstood me, and that's my fault. I like the PvP. To be exact, I'm the exact opposite. I like DS PvP, and dislike Conclave. I'm waiting for it to be more polished. I was just stating what all the other people probably think, and how they lump the two together.

 

I'm passionate about the entire thing. Dark Sectors as a whole, not just the PvP. Although the PvP is nice. 

[Campaigner]

PvP has a place in every multi-player game looking to add a form of self-renewing content. If people don't like it then they're just deciding to leave part of the game aside.

[BloodKitten]

dont really have issue with pvp, i want to be able to choose if i want pvp conflict or bots only though.

 

i really want to play conflict and i dont want to deal with other players, just add option *A******s mode/ co-op mode* really that simple.

[Metal1520]

because the teambalance is nonexistent...rolling the dice to end up 1v5....no thanks

[Suthurn]

i dont care for pvp much in most games such as this. 

 

the gear is not equal, the frames are not equal, and so on and on.

 

if i am going to pvp i want things to be generally equal across the board so when i lose its not simply because 'they used a better frame' or 'they had more forma in their things' or similar excuses.

 

i like pvp in fps games where all the players are basically equal and it comes down to the better player.

 

however, even those games tend to be filled with cheaters and various hacks these days, so i have mostly given up on the idea.

[Evanescent]

I don't mind PvP, but due to some unfair and often underhanded tricks and abilities, it's just not fun. People use reflection, reflex guard, quick thinking, bladestorm , black energy invisibility etc too often. and melee is just about who can stunlock you first. Add to that the attitude: I'm not here to have fun, I'm here to win. Yeah, sure. Of course people don't come to a game to have fun. /sarcasm.

 

 

I really would PvP from time-to time, but right now it's just unfair. 

[vaugahn]

Oh are there patch notes that specifically state that changes aren't influenced by PVP? If so, I would very much like to see and read these patches notes stating exactly that.

 

Well, can't be bothered to page through the build notes. Feel free to do it yourself if you'd like exact specifics.

 

Weapons do a lot less damage in PvP, mainly due to damage mitigation attached to shields. Several weapons like the Acrid have different stats overall. CC abilities work differently, they apply a slow instead of locking you in place. Damage procs, especially bleed, are also a lot weaker.

 

Most of these happened post-U14, so you can start there. Man, I thought this was common knowledge by now.

[-..-]

Oh are there patch notes that specifically state that changes aren't influenced by PVP? If so, I would very much like to see and read these patches notes stating exactly that.

 

This is the kind of logic that is HORRIBLE for debates. It's the same logic that, using religion as a reference, some Christians use vs Atheists. "Prove that the Bible wasn't true. You can't therefore it is true."

 

It can be said the other way as well. Where in the patch notes does it state that changes ARE influenced by PvP? You can't therefore they weren't. See? It's just a horrible cycle of incorrect assumptions that spiral into arguments without concrete evidence. Do not use this kind of reasoning in debates. It's extremely flawed.

[EChondo]

Well, can't be bothered to page through the build notes. Feel free to do it yourself if you'd like exact specifics.

 

Weapons do a lot less damage in PvP, mainly due to damage mitigation attached to shields. Several weapons like the Acrid have different stats overall. CC abilities work differently, they apply a slow instead of locking you in place. Damage procs, especially bleed, are also a lot weaker.

 

Most of these happened post-U14, so you can start there. Man, I thought this was common knowledge by now.

Common knowledge for someone who actually plays PVP maybe? I don't touch PVP, I don't care about PVP, I don't want PVP, so why would I read into patchnotes about PVP since those don't effect me?

 

So I'll keep to my belief that PVP does influence changes for PVE until otherwise proven false.

 

 

This is the kind of logic that is HORRIBLE for debates. It's the same logic that, using religion as a reference, some Christians use vs Atheists. "Prove that the Bible wasn't true. You can't therefore it is true."

 

It can be said the other way as well. Where in the patch notes does it state that changes ARE influenced by PvP? You can't therefore they weren't. See? It's just a horrible cycle of incorrect assumptions that spiral into arguments without concrete evidence. Do not use this kind of reasoning in debates. It's extremely flawed.

Extremely flawed when he brought up patch notes in the first place? You have the roles reversed here, saying "It's in the patch notes" is the same as "It's in the Bible", so since it's in the patch notes, then please tell me which update it is in so I can read it and be proven wrong.

Edited October 21, 2014 by EChondo

[Tigersight]

Wasn't really interested in conclaves, can't say much about them. My problem with PvP in warframe centers around Dark Sector Conflicts. They lock off some of the most profitable missions in the game behind greedy alliances' 75+% tax rates. And these alliances cannot be taken down because they exploit the horrendously unbalanced conflicts to keep their rail.

 

Here's a copy-paste of the DS issues I found when it first came out. (Note: some of this has been fixed, a lot hasn't, and even more problems have been found since)

Ok, so I've been through just 4 8 9 11 12 missions, and there are a number of things that need to be fixed. BADLY.

 

1: Rhino skin. Did you really not see this coming?

2: Vauban's Bastille. Massive slow in a huge radius. Oh, and after you escape, you don't go back to normal speed. At least not that I can tell, since it's pretty much impossible to survive long enough to see. -Turns out you do return to normal speed.... eventually.

3: Defenders need more mobs to spawn with them. Why? Because the attackers need something they can actually kill to get the first couple levels on their gear. As it is now, defenders can mow down the attackers' mobs, level their gear to ~10 and then roflstomp attackers indefinitely.

4: Joining a mission in progress means you may as well just quit. Starting with level 0 gear halfway through the mission, when everyone on the other side is up at 15-20 is just suicide.

5: Protect player spawn points. Joined one mission, died before I'd even really spawned to a rhino spamming melee attacks on our spawn point.

6: Do something with players going down. As it is, we... sometimes go down for 20 seconds and... might be killable? I honestly can't tell, sometimes it looks like bullets go right through downed players, other times they seem to die. Whether you can finish them off or not, they usually continue to shoot at you the entire time. And then there are the other times we get killed, we just flop over dead instead.

7: No auras? We don't have our aura mods, which we rely on for the first couple points on our frames.

*8: No catalysts or reactors. On one hand it makes sense, to keep things even. But come on, everyone's bringing their best gear, of course they have them potatoed. It takes getting to level 14(mission is usually over before you reach that point) just to use your serration. Besides that, it means that gear is maxing out, but using half the mods that the players put on them. Which is... not good.

9: Turrets. Why are there turrets that soak huge amounts of damage, and can't even be hit from the front? And why on Earth are there 3 of them clustered around B?

10: Mag pull spam can keep you on your back forever.

11: Saryn Miasma kills everything. EVERYTHING.

12: Make mobs spawned at the beginning weaker. It takes more than 3 shots from a fully charged lanka to kill them. That doesn't work when they are ( or at least should be) there for the players to use to level. Cranking up their levels as the attackers push into defender territory makes sense, but they also need to give more exp, so any players lagging behind can catch up off the exp increase.

13: Increase exp share radius. Not entirely sure how exp sharing is working right now, but standing off in the back and sniping (as an attacker), when (if) my team takes B, I'll usually be down around level 5 or 6, making me nothing but a liability later on.

14: Make downed allies much more noticeable. It seems like more often than not, allies will run right past you without reviving you. That's a problem when you only have 20 lives to share between everyone.

15: Trinity Link also kills everything.

 

I'll keep updating with all the problems I run into, I guess.

 

*Not actually sure about this one. Looking back on it, I'd say it's no polarities causing it. 6 point serration in a polarity slot unlocking at level 12 seems to indicate as much.

[-..-]

Common knowledge for someone who actually plays PVP maybe? I don't touch PVP, I don't care about PVP, I don't want PVP, so why would I read into patchnotes about PVP since those don't effect me?

 

So I'll keep to my belief that PVP does influence changes for PVE until otherwise proven false.

 

 

 

Extremely flawed when he brought up patch notes in the first place? You have the roles reversed here, saying "It's in the patch notes" is the same as "It's in the Bible", so since it's in the patch notes, then please tell me which update it is in so I can read it and be proven wrong.

 

You're not understanding my point. What I'm saying is that your reasoning for PvP affected balancing is horribly flawed. In essence it's the chicken or the egg debate. It cannot be proven true or untrue. Just because you believe it is one way does not automatically make it true. You're adding nonexistent truth to your statement and attempting to elevate its authority over the other. 

Edited October 21, 2014 by -..-

[SmokinDevil]

Ignoring some of that nonsense up above.

 

 

dont really have issue with pvp, i want to be able to choose if i want pvp conflict or bots only though.

 

i really want to play conflict and i dont want to deal with other players, just add option *A******s mode/ co-op mode* really that simple.

 

This is the problem. If there was an option for people to help out without PvP, I think a lot of the PvP hate would subside. The thing that bothers me most is that there hasn't been any word about it. No one is THAT busy that they can say something of the forums. Unless it was mentioned on a devstream.

 

"We are working on it." That's all it takes. I would even accept a "There are no plans to make a PvE conflict." But nothing?

[Oriviagene]

so much stupid exp about pvp on games i've played before warframe

im glad this games isn't about pvp a lot

[EChondo]

You're not understanding my point. What I'm saying is that your reasoning for PvP affected balancing is horribly flawed. In essence it's the chicken or the egg debate. It cannot be proven true or untrue. Just because you believe it is one day does not automatically make it true. You're adding nonexistent truth to your statement and attempting to elevate its authority over the other. 

I understand your point, too bad you're not understanding mine. I stated my reasoning behind why I don't like PVP, someone replies and says I'm wrong and that I haven't been reading the patch notes. I ask for the patch notes so I can read them and be proven wrong, which still haven't been provided to me.

 

I can claim whatever I want, if someone disagrees then I expect to be provided an insightful rebuttal to my claim, and if applicable, backed up by a source, not expect "You're wrong dude, I don't have anything else to say other than you're wrong, so that's why you're wrong".

 

So until someone can explain to me that PVP doesn't influence changes made to PVE then by all means, keep saying I'm wrong and not providing any sort of information about the matter.

[.Talia.]

I understand your point, too bad you're not understanding mine. I stated my reasoning behind why I don't like PVP, someone replies and says I'm wrong and that I haven't been reading the patch notes. I ask for the patch notes so I can read them and be proven wrong, which still haven't been provided to me.

 

I can claim whatever I want, if someone disagrees then I expect to be provided an insightful rebuttal to my claim, and if applicable, backed up by a source, not expect "You're wrong dude, I don't have anything else to say other than you're wrong, so that's why you're wrong".

 

So until someone can explain to me that PVP doesn't influence changes made to PVE then by all means, keep saying I'm wrong and not providing any sort of information about the matter.

 

Changes made on PvP do not affect PvE. They can balance things separately. Every time something is changed on PvP, it's mentioned on the patch notes.

[vaugahn]

I understand your point, too bad you're not understanding mine. I stated my reasoning behind why I don't like PVP, someone replies and says I'm wrong and that I haven't been reading the patch notes. I ask for the patch notes so I can read them and be proven wrong, which still haven't been provided to me.

 

I can claim whatever I want, if someone disagrees then I expect to be provided an insightful rebuttal to my claim, and if applicable, backed up by a source, not expect "You're wrong dude, I don't have anything else to say other than you're wrong, so that's why you're wrong".

 

So until someone can explain to me that PVP doesn't influence changes made to PVE then by all means, keep saying I'm wrong and not providing any sort of information about the matter.

 

All the changes we've gotten are spread out over quite a few patches. They're not exactly easy to track down, and apparently you won't accept anything less.

 

While I'm looking for them, how about you check the wiki article on PvP? All the changes are listed there. 

http://warframe.wikia.com/wiki/Player_vs._Player_(PvP)

Edited October 21, 2014 by vaugahn

[EChondo]

Changes made on PvP do not affect PvE. They can balance things separately. Every time something is changed on PvP, it's mentioned on the patch notes.

You see here guys? A nice, quick explanation of what I'm asking for(although not providing patch notes, which I guess I'll look for over the weeks). Thank you Rex for not being a nitwit and bringing in a philosophical viewpoint in place to undermine my posts but not proving me wrong.

 

 

All the changes we've gotten are spread out over quite a few patches. They're not exactly easy to track down, and apparently you won't accept anything less.

 

While I'm looking for them, how about you check the wiki article on PvP? All the changes are listed there. 

http://warframe.wikia.com/wiki/Player_vs._Player_(PvP)

And thank you for the past examples in other post as well as a link to the wiki page.

Edited October 21, 2014 by EChondo

[-..-]

I understand your point, too bad you're not understanding mine. I stated my reasoning behind why I don't like PVP, someone replies and says I'm wrong and that I haven't been reading the patch notes. I ask for the patch notes so I can read them and be proven wrong, which still haven't been provided to me.

 

I can claim whatever I want, if someone disagrees then I expect to be provided an insightful rebuttal to my claim, and if applicable, backed up by a source, not expect "You're wrong dude, I don't have anything else to say other than you're wrong, so that's why you're wrong".

 

So until someone can explain to me that PVP doesn't influence changes made to PVE then by all means, keep saying I'm wrong and not providing any sort of information about the matter.

 

I'm going to quote your FIRST post in this thread right here (which you actually edited and added the last line):

 

I haven't really read everyone's response in this thread, so sorry if I am repeating someone else, but...

 

I've been around since Warframe was added to Steam, so over a year ago. When I started playing, there was no such thing as PVP, but ever since PVP was added it feels as if nerfs and "balancing" changes were made because of PVP and not because of PVE. So, in my opinion, PVP is what is the cause for a lot of the nerfs we've had over the year.

 

I love PVP in other games(Halo, CoD, BF), but that is not why I come to play Warframe. I come to play Warframe for coop between my clan and friends. To me, PVP does not belong in Warframe. I've tried it, don't like it, so I don't want it.

 

Oh and to clarify, I don't mean to imply that ALL nerfs are because of PVP, but it feels as if some or most are because of it.

 

 

Your thesis is "since PvP was added it feels as if nerfs and 'balancing' changes were made because of PVP and not because of PVE. [Therefore] PVP is the cause for a lot of the nerfs we've had over the year."

 

The response bolded your statement "PVP is the cause for a lot of the nerfs we've had over the year" and said "but it isn't true". Then YOU asked HIM to show you the patch notes that stated OTHERWISE. "Prove it. Really, prove to me that the nerfs over the year haven't been because of PVP influencing the game." Not the other way around as you are saying.

 

This is a direct quote from you and the replies. Your statement cannot be proven false, however it cannot be proven true either. Yet you are using it as the basis of all your arguments thus far. This is the flawed logic that I am referring to. Any arguments that are being attempted cannot prove your statement false, nor can any arguments that YOU make prove it correct. Not only this, but you are cherry-picking which nerfs are because of PvP and which are not. You are essentially attempting to create an ideal "truth" that doesn't exist, but caters completely to your thesis while ignoring the rest. What you have is an assumption with no rooted evidence. It's not true, nor is it false because it is solely an opinion. You say you want an "insightful rebuttal" to your claim when you have no basis to your claim in the first place. That's impossible.

 

 

thank you Rex for not being a nitwit and bringing in a philosophical viewpoint in place to undermine my posts but not proving me wrong.

 

Well done being the first to start calling names in an otherwise peaceful debate. However like I said previously, it's impossible to prove an opinion wrong.

Edited October 21, 2014 by -..-

[vaugahn]

You see here guys? A nice, quick explanation of what I'm asking for(although not providing patch notes, which I guess I'll look for over the weeks). Thank you Rex for not being a nitwit and bringing in a philosophical viewpoint in place to undermine my posts but not proving me wrong.

 

That's exactly what we've been saying all along. 

 

Here are the relevant patch notes, though these are only the post-U14 ones. 

 

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/311669-update-1470-operation-gate-crash/

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/308432-hotfix-1461/

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/295581-hotfix-1424-tactical-alert-hyena-facility/

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/284750-hotfix-1414/

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/273702-hotfix-1409/

[Suthurn]

Wasn't really interested in conclaves, can't say much about them. My problem with PvP in warframe centers around Dark Sector Conflicts. They lock off some of the most profitable missions in the game behind greedy alliances' 75+% tax rates. And these alliances cannot be taken down because they exploit the horrendously unbalanced conflicts to keep their rail.

 

Here's a copy-paste of the DS issues I found when it first came out. (Note: some of this has been fixed, a lot hasn't, and even more problems have been found since)

Ok, so I've been through just 4 8 9 11 12 missions, and there are a number of things that need to be fixed. BADLY.

 

1: Rhino skin. Did you really not see this coming?

2: Vauban's Bastille. Massive slow in a huge radius. Oh, and after you escape, you don't go back to normal speed. At least not that I can tell, since it's pretty much impossible to survive long enough to see. -Turns out you do return to normal speed.... eventually.

3: Defenders need more mobs to spawn with them. Why? Because the attackers need something they can actually kill to get the first couple levels on their gear. As it is now, defenders can mow down the attackers' mobs, level their gear to ~10 and then roflstomp attackers indefinitely.

4: Joining a mission in progress means you may as well just quit. Starting with level 0 gear halfway through the mission, when everyone on the other side is up at 15-20 is just suicide.

5: Protect player spawn points. Joined one mission, died before I'd even really spawned to a rhino spamming melee attacks on our spawn point.

6: Do something with players going down. As it is, we... sometimes go down for 20 seconds and... might be killable? I honestly can't tell, sometimes it looks like bullets go right through downed players, other times they seem to die. Whether you can finish them off or not, they usually continue to shoot at you the entire time. And then there are the other times we get killed, we just flop over dead instead.

7: No auras? We don't have our aura mods, which we rely on for the first couple points on our frames.

*8: No catalysts or reactors. On one hand it makes sense, to keep things even. But come on, everyone's bringing their best gear, of course they have them potatoed. It takes getting to level 14(mission is usually over before you reach that point) just to use your serration. Besides that, it means that gear is maxing out, but using half the mods that the players put on them. Which is... not good.

9: Turrets. Why are there turrets that soak huge amounts of damage, and can't even be hit from the front? And why on Earth are there 3 of them clustered around B?

10: Mag pull spam can keep you on your back forever.

11: Saryn Miasma kills everything. EVERYTHING.

12: Make mobs spawned at the beginning weaker. It takes more than 3 shots from a fully charged lanka to kill them. That doesn't work when they are ( or at least should be) there for the players to use to level. Cranking up their levels as the attackers push into defender territory makes sense, but they also need to give more exp, so any players lagging behind can catch up off the exp increase.

13: Increase exp share radius. Not entirely sure how exp sharing is working right now, but standing off in the back and sniping (as an attacker), when (if) my team takes B, I'll usually be down around level 5 or 6, making me nothing but a liability later on.

14: Make downed allies much more noticeable. It seems like more often than not, allies will run right past you without reviving you. That's a problem when you only have 20 lives to share between everyone.

15: Trinity Link also kills everything.

 

I'll keep updating with all the problems I run into, I guess.

 

*Not actually sure about this one. Looking back on it, I'd say it's no polarities causing it. 6 point serration in a polarity slot unlocking at level 12 seems to indicate as much.

 

this i do agree with. from what i have been told the dark sector areas offer much better drops than normal areas, but when you go to them they have giant taxes levied against them by the controlling party. 

 

every planet where i was forced to participate in these to unlock areas so i could finish the planet i had to solo the mission. there was never a single other person in queue for the mission. there were no names scrolling on the zone. there were no groups listed.

 

to me that says it all. regardless of any increased drop rates the community as a whole just ignores these zones to avoid the taxes. i know when i signed up for one i was forced to do to get to other missions for planet completion the tax rates were set at something around 75%. how can you blame people for not wanting to participate with that happening?

 

the zone taxation is just an extremely poor design as it is currently implemented. 

[SmokinDevil]

"I didn't read early in the thread, but I expect you guys to do the work for me."

 

Lmao wtf? I'm going to bed.