Conclave 1.0

[Phasedragon]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*sigh*

 

What I said is not intended to be taken as a generalization to all conclave 1.0 veterans.

 

It is a direct response to JonBenj claiming that all pvp 1.0 haters simply hate it because they were never good at it- that if you have a negative opinion of pvp 1.0 it is because you were bad at it.

 

This is a toxic superiority attitude and a reminder to all that a player 'skill' (and who's judging?) does not invalidate one's opinion.

 

There are of course toxic people and respectful people on both sides of the aisle. This should go without saying.

 

The problem isn't that lack of skill invalidates one's opinion, it's that lack of research does. A good portion of people who complain about daikyu have obviously never used it themselves. Those who haven't used it are on one side of the debate, those who end up being good with it are on the other side of the debate, while those who aren't good with it stop are usually respectful or even jealous, saying "good aim" and such.

 

I had an MR4 just this night screaming bloody murder about how I was hacking because I was drawing my bow too fast. I asked if he'd ever used it himself, and he said he wasn't going to buy a pay-to-win weapon just so he could be cheap like me. The problem with noobs isn't just that they're noobs. It's that they can't shut up. When someone who knows nearly nothing about the game starts *@##$ing about a feature that they don't bother looking up, I can't help but feel superior, especially when it feels like this is 99% of people *@##$ing about the daikyu.

 

On the other hand, there was an MR3 I was playing with a week ago shortly after 16.5 dropped who legitimately wanted to learn. He didn't have much, so I helped him run through a few PVE missions (tubemen realllly helped with credits) and get valkyr, daikyu, and bo. After he took the time to learn, he actually got very good at bows, and I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes one of "those" people that gets called a hacker.

[cary2010haha]

So, because 1.0 they are more respectful?

I don't think so :P as my standard of respect will only go to great legions, not a single assassin or killer. 

 

Combine manage and kill skills, none of these single rocks can stand in front of the tide of war. 

Release the sector conflict again, lets show who have the true powers

[JonBenj]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*sigh*

 

What I said is not intended to be taken as a generalization to all conclave 1.0 veterans.

 

It is a direct response to JonBenj claiming that all pvp 1.0 haters simply hate it because they were never good at it- that if you have a negative opinion of pvp 1.0 it is because you were bad at it.

 

This is a toxic superiority attitude and a reminder to all that a player 'skill' (and who's judging?) does not invalidate one's opinion.

 

There are of course toxic people and respectful people on both sides of the aisle. This should go without saying.

 

 

Apologies if this was taken as "toxic superiority" not my intention. Rather an observation.

 

I never really ventured onto the Pvp feedback forums until after PVP 2.0 dropped - it was then i noticed how much animosity (toxicity?) there was towards 1.0 and towards the regulars who played it.

 

This was due to the 1.0 players grieving for the loss of PVP as we knew it, And saying so on the Forums.

 

As for superiority, I was far from the top of the food chain in there, and always treated any player with respect, unless they were abusive or mod abusers. Speaking of abusive - it was almost always somebody who jumped into a public match (yes we had those despite it being called a ghost town) and was killed sub 8 secs. I can only assume that if you hated 1.0 then you must not have played it often enough to hold your own and not given it a chance.

 

And by chance i mean spent over a 1000 matches or more, Playing various player and playstyles, against players who are vastly better than you and not getting all &!$$y because you can't put a hole in them, all the while learning - it could be fustrating but also very rewarding.

 

I don't know of a player who has played a 1000 matches and hated it.

Edited May 21, 2015 by JonBenj

[Mastikator2]

The honor code DrBorris speaks of certainly did exist, I advocated for it often both here on the forums and in game. I also remember being in a minority.

 

In conclave 1.0 there were 2 kinds of players, those who wanted to fight and those who wanted to kill. The second type were in the majority and were more often found in the high conclave rating nodes, they virtually never cared about the honor code, in fact many of them even cheated, taking in high conclave value builds into low conclave nodes. They even bragged about cheating and somehow got support from players (scum) on the forums.

 

I remember that more often than not when I actually managed to find a non-empty node it was populated by at least one player who didn't have abide by the honor code and ruined it for everyone.

 

Some of the best people I've seen were the ones I met in the conclave 1.0. But it's time to take off the rose tinted goggles, it was only ever good when everyone abode the honor code and that was not in the majority of the cases.

[Thalahssalyst]

Snip-er-

So your point is, go play 1000 matches and come to forums?

Well the old node its gone so...

It was not necessary play more than 10 matches to see how unbalanced it was, some people enjoy it, a little portion of people... and we dont "hate it" because we cant win, we cant git gud... we dont hate it, we  are here on this sub forum, we are not the same people who asked for balance when 1.0 comes to warframes, we are not the same people asking for support on a game mode, asking for rewards, for attention, we just wait... and wait... and wait...

Now, you have your own syndicate, more people to enjoy a game mode balanced, now exist balance and support from DE, now you have rewards...

Now, as you can see, more people enjoy this new mode, more than the old mode, why? different tastes, We dont say to people, "hey you dont enjoy loki because you dont know how it works"... maybe he dont enjoy it, because is not his personal style... and that is what you are doing.

And on my personal experiences I can say, maybe more people was enjoying the old mode, if they can play as they liked, without being called "noobs", for use something different to what you used...

 

[Buzkyl]

I don't know of a player who has played a 1000 matches and hated it.

 

That is oxymoronic

 

 

No one is going to play 1000 matches of something they hate. At best, 10-15 matches will give enough foothold for you to base an opinion off anything. That includes  PvP. You don't have to be good at something to see it's flaws. I'm bad at cooking so does that means i don't know what bad food taste like?

 

 

PvP 1.0 had no restrictions, which was it's downfall. I absolutely despised 1.0 for this very reason-it had no form or regulation, unless it was self-imposed. "Skilled or Scrub" you don't need a PvP master to know that a punchthrough ignis was broken, or toxin damage was OP considering it by passes shields.  PvP is already a very niche part of warframe (where the staff won't blame you for hating it/ignoring it entirely) considering Warframes PvE roots, so i'm certain a poorly implemented PvP would leave very sour tastes in someone's mouth.

[Nlim]

No one is going to play 1000 matches of something they hate. At best, 10-15 matches will give enough foothold for you to base an opinion off anything. That includes  PvP. You don't have to be good at something to see it's flaws. I'm bad at cooking so does that means i don't know what bad food taste like?

 

Please try calling a cook bad because you don´t like the dish - I am sure it is going to go over well and the resturant will fire him over your qualified opinion. Point is that your personal opinion on what you like has no bearing on how it behaves in reality. Of course one can see flaws of something without being good at it but by extension it implies being good at objective critic which very few people are espescially regarding a topic they hardly have spend any time on.

So in essence yeah I am going to take claims of someone who has spend more time on something more serious than someone who spend hardly any time on it since chances are the first person is more likely to know what he is talking about.

By the way this is an independent issue from arguments - most people in pvp feedback only make claims "like x is op"  "or x is broken" with hardly any reasoning or evidence to back it - by this metric I would just straigth up dismiss the majority of people regardless of skill or time spend.

[Pythadragon]

Please try calling a cook bad because you don´t like the dish - I am sure it is going to go over well and the resturant will fire him over your qualified opinion. Point is that your personal opinion on what you like has no bearing on how it behaves in reality. Of course one can see flaws of something without being good at it but by extension it implies being good at objective critic which very few people are espescially regarding a topic they hardly have spend any time on.

So in essence yeah I am going to take claims of someone who has spend more time on something more serious than someone who spend hardly any time on it since chances are the first person is more likely to know what he is talking about.

By the way this is an independent issue from arguments - most people in pvp feedback only make claims "like x is op"  "or x is broken" with hardly any reasoning or evidence to back it - by this metric I would just straigth up dismiss the majority of people regardless of skill or time spend.

 

If 95% of customers don't like the chefs food and the restaurant isn't turning a profit, the chef will be fired and a new one hired. The restaurant management would not question how 'qualified' the former customers are at judging the food.

 

It is important to understand why pvp1.0 did not appeal to some people as well as why it appealed to others.

[Nlim]

If 95% of customers don't like the chefs food and the restaurant isn't turning a profit, the chef will be fired and a new one hired. The restaurant management would not question how 'qualified' the former customers are at judging the food.

 

It is important to understand why pvp1.0 did not appeal to some people as well as why it appealed to others.

 

This alone still has zero bearing on if he is a good cook or not (maybe the resturant just serves food which is not popular in that region for example) - running a business isn´t really about determining the truth (also by the way it is bad business to take complaints of costumers at face value -.more often than not the reason fo the complaints isn´t the same as the stated complaint)

 

Appeal certaintly is an important topic but again it doesen´t determine if something actually works or not.

[Buzkyl]

Please try calling a cook bad because you don´t like the dish - I am sure it is going to go over well and the resturant will fire him over your qualified opinion. Point is that your personal opinion on what you like has no bearing on how it behaves in reality. Of course one can see flaws of something without being good at it but by extension it implies being good at objective critic which very few people are espescially regarding a topic they hardly have spend any time on.

So in essence yeah I am going to take claims of someone who has spend more time on something more serious than someone who spend hardly any time on it since chances are the first person is more likely to know what he is talking about.

By the way this is an independent issue from arguments - most people in pvp feedback only make claims "like x is op"  "or x is broken" with hardly any reasoning or evidence to back it - by this metric I would just straigth up dismiss the majority of people regardless of skill or time spend.

 

You've completely ignored my following paragraph where i explained why Conclave 1.0 was hated by a majority of the game aside from the minority (which was even smaller than today) who actively played pvp.

 

You're cherry picking my statements.

 

 

Was i the best in Conclave? Absolutely not, but it doesn't take  a PvP veteran to figure out that the previous iteration of conclave had some very broekn things about it that turned people away from it and PvP as a whole. When dark sectors used the pvp system these problems became even more apparent.

 

My gripe is with the PvP system of conclave 1.0.

[Auramaru]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*sigh*

 

What I said is not intended to be taken as a generalization to all conclave 1.0 veterans.

 

It is a direct response to JonBenj claiming that all pvp 1.0 haters simply hate it because they were never good at it- that if you have a negative opinion of pvp 1.0 it is because you were bad at it.

 

This is a toxic superiority attitude and a reminder to all that a player 'skill' (and who's judging?) does not invalidate one's opinion.

 

There are of course toxic people and respectful people on both sides of the aisle. This should go without saying.

 

I think this ^^^ correlates to this vvv

 

 

There was one major weakness to Old Conclave though, the learning curve. You had to be dedicated to the game mod to be able to get past the two second lives at first. It was like being back at square one as far as skill in Warframe, the highest MR and most skillful PvE players would be destroyed if they took a step in Conclave. This is why the old Conclave communit was so low, not many could get past that initial hurtle. What Conclave 2.0 did was dumb down PvP so that it would be easier for people to get into Warframe PvP. So... PvP 2.0 is basically the easy version of old Conclave. However, once you leaned the ropes of Old Conclave, it was an amazing experience.

 

 

The steep learning curve from conclave 1.0 is what caused newer players to dissent. Unfortunately, a large majority of the players, who were quite reasonably unwilling to take the time to learn the game, took an aggressive and toxic approach towards their feedback. 

 

Rather than say: "Hey guys, I'm new to conclave and I'm having a hard time with this learning curve. The skill required to aim at players (who are moving this fast) is too much for me. Also, the parkour is a little insane. If DE could fix that, that'd be great"

 

We had players saying this: "Oh my god, Conclave 1.0 is so broken. These noobs just copter around with their stupid one-shot weapons and press 4 to win. No skill required. F*ck this game mode, and f*ck you!"

 

And it's right there in Dr.Borris' post... seriously: conclave 1.0 had a steep-as-balls learning curve and it even pushed me away for a long while. Not many players were willing to admit that game play, at those speeds, required skill or at least a lot of playtime in order to keep up with the playstyle.

 

Conclave 1.0 was great for players who had it figured out, but it was a pain in the &#! for those who didn't. And the difference between those two players was the sheer determination to be good at a game mode that, in the end, didn't even matter. You had to suck it up, die TIME AFTER TIME AGAIN, and then assess the information of why you were dying. It took at least 3,000 deaths for me before I realized that parkour was the key to success.

 

There is no way to persuade these people in this thread that Conclave 1.0 took some skill, and frankly, I don't give a damn what people think about "which players are more respectful"... who the hell cares? It's like a bunch of 4th year students saying that they are more respectful to their teacher than some 5th year students to their own teacher.... no one actually knows, and it's all pretty f*cking irrelevant:

 

Be a decent human being when you're playing with people and be perceptive of when you are tilting/raging at them.

[Nlim]

You've completely ignored my following paragraph where i explained why Conclave 1.0 was hated by a majority of the game aside from the minority (which was even smaller than today) who actively played pvp.

 

You're cherry picking my statements.

 

I wasn´t cherry picking - I simply have no strong stake (or knowledge) in the conclave 1.0 debat and therefor saw no need to adress the rest of the statement but I do object to part of your post that "10-15 matches gives enough of a foothold to form a opinion off anything" (question is how relevant that opinion is) and your food analogy which seems to imply that a single subjective opinion on taste has releavance for an objective merit such as cooking.

Just because I call out parts of your argument doesn´t mean that the rest is wrong.