Why Dark Sectors Should Be A Top Priority After The War Within

[-InV-Skitz0]

58 minutes ago, BornWithTeeth said:

Yeah, see, when I look at a post like this, what I hear is "I really, really, really, really want to use PvP mechanics to screw over players who aren't interested in PvP. I want to mess with their game and force them to get involved in PvP just to make me back off and leave them alone."

 

 

 

So what if DS where given it's own section in the star chart. And to access those nodes you would have to build a solar rail to connect to it. Then only those who opt into doing darksectors would be effected. and all current DS missions where converted to ordinary nodes.

[Sitchrea]

Just now, (XB1)Solargeo said:

*points to the xbox thing* how would I know what

Oh. Oops! XD You will soon! (tm)

[Sitchrea]

Just now, -InV-Skitz0 said:

So what if DS where given it's own section in the star chart. And to access those nodes you would have to build a solar rail to connect to it. Then only those who opt into doing darksectors would be effected. and all current DS missions where converted to ordinary nodes.

Also note that Steve said we are going out of the Sol System at Tennocon...

[(XBOX)Solargeo]

Just now, Sitchrea said:

Oh. Oops! XD You will soon! (tm)

it ok. and thank for being the test dummy for the updates . we of the xbox players thank you for that.  well i peak for maybe  ?% 

[J-tron]

5 hours ago, (XB1)BroadsideMobsta said:

I really hope to see Dark Sector Conflicts return as PvP again. That was mine, and many others, end game. Nothing felt better than taking a freshly forma'd weapon and seeing how it faired against others. And seeing so many people fighting underneath of a banner was truly amazing.

it was amazing when a bunch of tenno unite under one banner and fight night/day

[(PSN)CrackFoxLegend]

6 minutes ago, Sitchrea said:

 

Also note that "Dark Sectors" are not called "Dark Sectors" now in the recent update... They are just regular nodes.

I knew that lol, I had forgotten though. I think since its something that would effect everyone's game in one way or another though, I will ignore that and continue with the plural usage. Thanks for pointing it out though :)

[Sitchrea]

8 minutes ago, jess-DeathLegacy said:

it was amazing when a bunch of tenno unite under one banner and fight night/day

That was my favorite part of the conflicts - the camaraderie.

[Chroia]

8 hours ago, Sitchrea said:

My point here is that Dark Sectors are the perfect way to shatter the monotonous gameplay loop of Warframe. Instead of countless hours wasted just to use loot to get more loot, players would use their loot for a common goal - conquest.

1) You can take your new Braton Prime into Conclave.

2) Void Fissures at least have variety in type, in that the 'host mission' changes.
PvP Dark Sector Conflicts didn't even have that. 1 game-mode, 1 map, 1 enemy faction. The only difference was in how many resources the alliance architect had to throw into defenses.
And even adding more maps to it won't change the fact that you've got a strictly limited scope of variety, due to being a single game mode against the same faction all the time.

3) Except that snowballing is in full effect - the winners can afford better battle pay -> more people play on their side -> more wins -> more tax sources -> repeat.
So all you've done is replace the 'get loot to get more loot' cycle with a 'get taxes to get more taxes' which is less fun for most people (most people aren't here for PvP. Hence Lunaro.), fun for less people (Fun for the winners, not fun for the losers, and negatively impacts those who want nothing to do with it), and which offers less variety to boot.

and that's ignoring all the extraneous drama, complications, monopolies, conspiracies, DDoSes, etc.

[Sitchrea]

 

1 minute ago, Chroia said:

1) You can take your new Braton Prime into Conclave.

2) Void Fissures at least have variety in type, in that the 'host mission' changes.
PvP Dark Sector Conflicts didn't even have that. 1 game-mode, 1 map, 1 enemy faction. The only difference was in how many resources the alliance architect had to throw into defenses.
And even adding more maps to it won't change the fact that you've got a strictly limited scope of variety, due to being a single game mode against the same faction all the time.

3) Except that snowballing is in full effect - the winners can afford better battle pay -> more people play on their side -> more wins -> more tax sources -> repeat.
So all you've done is replace the 'get loot to get more loot' cycle with a 'get taxes to get more taxes' which is less fun for most people (most people aren't here for PvP. Hence Lunaro.), fun for less people (Fun for the winners, not fun for the losers, and negatively impacts those who want nothing to do with it), and which offers less variety to boot.

and that's ignoring all the extraneous drama, complications, monopolies, conspiracies, DDoSes, etc.

Number three is incorrect because of basic economics and history. Economically speaking, if taxes get too high players can come together and oust the high taxes out. History shows this - Anyone remember the rivalry of Ice and Fire?

[Chroia]

2 minutes ago, Sitchrea said:

Number three is incorrect because of basic economics and history. Economically speaking, if taxes get too high players can come together and oust the high taxes out. History shows this - Anyone remember the rivalry of Ice and Fire?

Nope, because 90% of the star chart isn't Dark Sectors, and individuals can't unseat someone.

The upshot of ICE was people simply writing off the Dark Sectors.
(p.s. Fire existed for around the last month(?) of Dark Sectors. And didn't make much headway. Kicked them out of 1 node, iirc?)

Edited July 14, 2016 by Chroia

[Sitchrea]

5 minutes ago, Chroia said:

Nope, because 90% of the star chart isn't Dark Sectors, and individuals can't unseat someone.

The upshot of ICE was people simply writing off the Dark Sectors.
(p.s. Fire existed for around the last month(?) of Dark Sectors. And didn't make much headway. Kicked them out of 1 node, iirc?)

I don't see how the ratio of Dark Sectors to regular nodes matters.

Even if it did, Dark Sector nodes are no longer known as Dark Sector nodes. They're just regular nodes now.

[Kaotyke]

47 minutes ago, (XB1)Solargeo said:

it ok. and thank for being the test dummy for the updates . we of the xbox players thank you for that.  well i speak for maybe  ?% 

Considering how the forums are fired up since last week because of bugs, changes, fix after fix and whatever else, I say you speak for all of them.

[(PSN)CrackFoxLegend]

6 minutes ago, Chroia said:

1) You can take your new Braton Prime into Conclave.

2) Void Fissures at least have variety in type, in that the 'host mission' changes.
PvP Dark Sector Conflicts didn't even have that. 1 game-mode, 1 map, 1 enemy faction. The only difference was in how many resources the alliance architect had to throw into defenses.
And even adding more maps to it won't change the fact that you've got a strictly limited scope of variety, due to being a single game mode against the same faction all the time.

3) Except that snowballing is in full effect - the winners can afford better battle pay -> more people play on their side -> more wins -> more tax sources -> repeat.
So all you've done is replace the 'get loot to get more loot' cycle with a 'get taxes to get more taxes' which is less fun for most people (most people aren't here for PvP. Hence Lunaro.), fun for less people (Fun for the winners, not fun for the losers, and negatively impacts those who want nothing to do with it), and which offers less variety to boot.

and that's ignoring all the extraneous drama, complications, monopolies, conspiracies, DDoSes, etc.

The fun of dark sectors for most players didn't come from just PvP, it came from the sense of accomplishment going in with friends and taking out our clans enemies. You're right that there was drama but there is always drama, it can't be escaped. The drama was just in the open but not for everyone, just the players that got involved or knew people that were involved. I personally dislike PvP in warframe very much, but an enormous portion of warframe players enjoyed the rail conflicts. Number three is incorrect because anyone with a well structured, storm to moon clan could in fact unseat other clans and alliances. It happened a lot but people with crappy, thrown together, recruit as many people as possible and hope for the best clans, never stood a chance. That's fine, most of those clans don't last more than a couple of months anyway before they disappear. Also, would you mind explaining how the conflicts negatively effected anyone's gameplay?

[Chroia]

1 hour ago, Sitchrea said:

I don't see how the ratio of Dark Sectors to regular nodes matters.

Even if it did, Dark Sector nodes are no longer known as Dark Sector nodes. They're just regular nodes now.

It doesn't, directly.
But the Armistice was in the 'world before Draco'.

What do Dark Sectors offer people who aren't in a combatting clan? Credits and exp.

Now that people are aware of the concept, there are better ways to gain exp than DS.
With keys gone, players who can't do sorties or raids have few source of credits. (High level non-DS give 4.5k-5k.) That said, there are high level missions that can be run very fast.

tl;dr - alternatives exist. Given future bullstories, how much of the playerbase will get all fired up and try and kick someone out vs. how much will simply say 'screw this' and do something that feels more like a game and less like a chore (for a single ousting, and a fulltime job if you want to keep them out)?

Dark Sector nodes do still exist as... idk, 'not normal' nodes, the UI just doesn't name them. They still have their own icons, reward pools, and tilesets/enemies.

 

55 minutes ago, (PS4)CrackFoxLegend said:

1) The fun of dark sectors for most players didn't come from just PvP, it came from the sense of accomplishment going in with friends and taking out our clans enemies. You're right that there was drama but there is always drama, it can't be escaped. The drama was just in the open but not for everyone, just the players that got involved or knew people that were involved. 2) I personally dislike PvP in warframe very much, but an enormous portion of warframe players enjoyed the rail conflicts. 3) Number three is incorrect because anyone with a well structured, storm to moon clan could in fact unseat other clans and alliances. It happened a lot but people with crappy, thrown together, recruit as many people as possible and hope for the best clans, never stood a chance. That's fine, most of those clans don't last more than a couple of months anyway before they disappear. 4) Also, would you mind explaining how the conflicts negatively effected anyone's gameplay?

1a) Cheese tactics and instakills everywhere. You're right, the fun didn't come from the PvP.
(In fairness, not everyone, but -in my experience- it was rarer getting a 'fair' match than a cheesy one.)

1b) Yes, which is fun for the people who are directly involved. How large a segment of the playerbase is that?

2) 'Enormous portion' - Citation needed. What do you base the claim on?
I'm not saying that people didn't like the Solar Rails, I'm asking whether their enjoyment is worth the inconvenience/displeasure they caused the people who wanted nothing to do with it.

3) From the last time I had this conversation: Looking at the last 10 Conflicts on all the solar rails

Quote

https://deathsnacks.com/wf/ -> 'Enable Dark Sectors'.

Browse some Solar Rail history.

 

Gabii Ceres: High credit, Orokin Cells.
Invictus have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.
With 1 exception, no battle pay was offered, and the Rail's health never dropped under 85%.

Seimeni Ceres: High credit, Orokin Cells.
It's also a node that PvEers actually use. Certain alliances actually contested it, others just cover.

Earth Coba: Another important node - Neurodes.
Orion have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.
More than half the Solar Rails were no-pay, and again certain names and no-pay, low attrition Solar Rails appear together.

Eris Akkad: Another important node - Neurodes.
Same deal: Lords otE have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.
With the exception of the last Solar Rail, no-pay, low attrition.
(The last is the exception because ICE are actually exploitative expansionists.)

Jupiter Cameria: Neural Sensors.
Synergy have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.
1 conflict with battle pay (12m total) which may not have been money laundering, still no losses under ~85%.

Jupiter Sinai: Neural Sensors.
Lords otE have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.
Maybe 1 conflict with non-money laundering, still low attrition.

Saturn Caracol: Orokin Cells
Lords otE have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.
2 conflicts with battle pay, one with over 4m total and actual Rail attrition.

Saturn Picsinas: Orokin Cells.
V have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.
2 Rails with some kind of pay, none with serious attrition.

So, where's the frenetic combat, the nail-biting suspense, the glory, the riches, the thrills and chills of this empire-building rollercoaster?

A well organized Storm/Moon clan can kick someone out. Awesome.
Except that, as we see, most people aren't organized - which enforces armistice, blocking new attackers (which, in a genuine conflict, is fair),
And the people that are, are already in one of the big alliances, and are bumping up against logistical limitations - They only have so many people, on for so much time, and therefore can defend or attack only so many nodes at any given time.

So we have a bunch of people who are unhappy with the reigning whoever and want to kick them out.
Individuals don't have enough of an impact to do anything about it.
But wait, there are enough people who want to do something to make a clan or alliance!
However, unless they have both enough people, and an organizer who knows what they're doing, they not only don't stand a chance of changing anything - they're protecting the rail from someone who might be able to do a better job...

4) ... And all the while, the base node is inaccessible to someone who just wants to play that specific enemy/tileset/game mode combination.
Extreme example: Unless I'm mistaken, there isn't a single non-DS Infested Excavation.

Admittedly, at this point that restriction on gameplay options is the main negative impact for established players - now that Spy missions, stealth multipliers and Draco-esque gameplay (or 'gameplay') exist to offer alternatives to just about everything else that Dark sectors offered.
Although, idk about exp, but I expect that gathering credits will have become a much larger issue for new-mid players, since low level missions grant ~1k and they can't just hop into any T1 key mission for 15k instead anymore.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Chroia

[(PSN)CrackFoxLegend]

24 minutes ago, Chroia said:

1a) Cheese tactics and instakills everywhere. You're right, the fun didn't come from the PvP.

(In fairness, not everyone, but -in my experience- it was rarer getting a 'fair' match than a cheesy one.)

1b) Yes, which is fun for the people who are directly involved. How large a segment of the playerbase is that?

2) 'Enormous portion' - Citation needed. What do you base the claim on?
I'm not saying that people didn't like the Solar Rails, I'm asking whether their enjoyment is worth the inconvenience/displeasure they caused the people who wanted nothing to do with it.

3) From the last time I had this conversation: Looking at the last 10 Conflicts on all the solar rails

A well organized Storm/Moon clan can kick someone out. Awesome.
Except that, as we see, most people aren't organized - which enforces armistice, blocking new attackers (which, in a genuine conflict, is fair),
And the people that are, are already in one of the big alliances, and are bumping up against logistical limitations - They only have so many people, on for so much time, and therefore can defend or attack only so many nodes at any given time.

So we have a bunch of people who are unhappy with the reigning whoever and want to kick them out.
Individuals don't have enough of an impact to do anything about it.
But wait, there are enough people who want to do something to make a clan or alliance!
However, unless they have both enough people, and an organizer who knows what they're doing, they not only don't stand a chance of changing anything - they're protecting the rail from someone who might be able to do a better job...

4) ... And all the while, the base node is inaccessible to someone who just wants to play that specific enemy/tileset/game mode combination.
Extreme example: Unless I'm mistaken, there isn't a single non-DS Infested Excavation.

Admittedly, at this point that restriction on gameplay options is the main negative impact for established players - now that Spy missions, stealth multipliers and Draco-esque gameplay (or 'gameplay') exist to offer alternatives to just about everything else that Dark sectors offered.
Although, idk about exp, but I expect that gathering credits will have become a much larger issue for new-mid players, since low level missions grant ~1k and they can't just hop into any T1 key mission for 15k instead anymore.

1a) Redundant, I did say i didn't enjoy the PvP.

1b) On ps4 and xbone at least, you could expect to see any chat tab littered with E-Gate esque numbers of posts about conflicts saying support this one, that one, or hosting. I have no actual numbers and stated no numbers which you know, making the question redundant.

2) The reason we no longer see this is because there is a conflict armistice in place. Also a big portion of the player base that was around then have forgotten, given up, or no longer play. I base these non existent numbers off of my friends list on Xbox and PlayStation, talking to hundreds of people in party chats and chat tabs in-game, and the general lack of chatter about the conflicts. You know, the chatter you never hear or see anymore.

3) Let's say I want to attack a rail. I get blocked, oh well there's always next time. I knew that going in. Let's say I manage to attack but lose, once again I knew that could happen going in. I don't care because it's my goal. If another has that same goal, fails, and gets mad about how it's set up, they won't succeed at much of anything in warframe anyway, so who cares. I say this because warframe is ALL about try, try, try, try again gameplay.

4) There might be someone out there that enjoys plutos dark sector excavation for something other than core farming (which there's still triton,) but I doubt there's more than one. But maybe..... Anyway, as you said, everything else they offer can be had somewhere else.

[1tsyB1tsyN1nj4]

5 hours ago, (PS4)CrackFoxLegend said:

The point of the dark sectors was for clans to control them. If a clan controlled it and jacked up the taxes, you had three options. Don't play those missions (they are meant for clans to control them and people aren't effected if they don't play them,) you could create a clan/alliance and duke it out, or you could join a clan/alliance that agree with you and want to duke it out. These conflicts did have an impact on most players and that's one of the reasons they were so great. It brought some players together and drove some players apart. Who gives a rats &#! about hugs and kisses? It's a game called warframe peeps. If you don't like war and conflict then you should probably just gtfo or something. I think it should continue to have an impact on players outside of clans that decide to get involved in these dark sectors because it brings the community together in much better ways than anything they're putting out currently and that's a fact. People got mad at clans with outrageous taxes and so clans and alliances came together to oust them. Players had a reason to be proud of their colors so to speak. Now people just join clans to meet new people, get weapons, or get an emblem. Pointless garbage when you could have those weapons in the market, you can go to region chat, and DE could let us have personal emblems.

Not all the clan tech weapons are in the market, you literally have to have a lab for the majority of them.

Edited July 14, 2016 by 1tsyB1tsyN1nj4

[Chroia]

7 hours ago, (PS4)CrackFoxLegend said:

1a) Redundant, I did say i didn't enjoy the PvP.

1b) On ps4 and xbone at least, you could expect to see any chat tab littered with E-Gate esque numbers of posts about conflicts saying support this one, that one, or hosting. I have no actual numbers and stated no numbers which you know, making the question redundant.

2) The reason we no longer see this is because there is a conflict armistice in place. Also a big portion of the player base that was around then have forgotten, given up, or no longer play. I base these non existent numbers off of my friends list on Xbox and PlayStation, talking to hundreds of people in party chats and chat tabs in-game, and the general lack of chatter about the conflicts. You know, the chatter you never hear or see anymore.

3) Let's say I want to attack a rail. I get blocked, oh well there's always next time. I knew that going in. Let's say I manage to attack but lose, once again I knew that could happen going in. I don't care because it's my goal. If another has that same goal, fails, and gets mad about how it's set up, they won't succeed at much of anything in warframe anyway, so who cares. I say this because warframe is ALL about try, try, try, try again gameplay.

4) There might be someone out there that enjoys plutos dark sector excavation for something other than core farming (which there's still triton,) but I doubt there's more than one. But maybe..... Anyway, as you said, everything else they offer can be had somewhere else.

1a) Yeah, that was just me being frustrated 1 year later.

1b) And I can just as easily say that I'd see less than a dozen messages like that a day on PC. So no, not redundant - though perhaps not productive.

2) Fair enough, but still anecdotal.
(Also, how does this address the second part of the question?)

3) So what you are saying is, if there's someone's doing something I don't like on a rail, I should attack them with my one man clan, because try and try again and I'll win sooner or later - and this is perfectly valid because that's how it works (and how it's intended to work)?
And anyone else who wants to challenge the node's ownership (if for conquest, if because they want to oust the current owners) should just be alright with it too, because that's how it works.
 

4) Hi. I like Infested Excavations - for the gameplay. (Though admittedly less since they were changed.)
And that isn't offered anywhere outside of Dark Sectors.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Chroia

[Sitchrea]

4 hours ago, Chroia said:

1a) Yeah, that was just me being frustrated 1 year later.

1b) And I can just as easily say that I'd see less than a dozen messages like that a day on PC. So no, not redundant - though perhaps not productive.

2) Fair enough, but still anecdotal.
(Also, how does this address the second part of the question?)

3) So what you are saying is, if there's someone's doing something I don't like on a rail, I should attack them with my one man clan, because try and try again and I'll win sooner or later - and this is perfectly valid because that's how it works (and how it's intended to work)?
And anyone else who wants to challenge the node's ownership (if for conquest, if because they want to oust the current owners) should just be alright with it too, because that's how it works.
 

4) Hi. I like Infested Excavations - for the gameplay. (Though admittedly less since they were changed.)
And that isn't offered anywhere outside of Dark Sectors.

I believe we are talking about what Dark Sectors were. Dark Sectors are going to be different than they were before.

[BornWithTeeth]

4 minutes ago, Sitchrea said:

I believe we are talking about what Dark Sectors were. Dark Sectors are going to be different than they were before.

Then you are now talking about complete speculation, with no hard data whatsoever. You are starting with one piece of information: You like Dark Sectors and want them to be a thing.

 

 

In the past, Dark Sectors and rail conflicts were.....an issue. I understand that they were apparently better on consoles, but on PC, they were basically cancer. When people have pointed out that Dark Sectors apparently just come with the toxicity baked into them, your response is to say that no, they will be better in future! I disagree, for a very simple reason: you cannot have ongoing, persistent PvP conflicts over game territory without horrible toxicity and mucking about. Because humans suck, and the monkey brain takes over and starts screaming for vengeance against that other troupe of monkeys. See also Eve Online.

 

In Warframe, this had the interesting effect of being an optional, dubiously balanced, poorly controlled PvP mode bolted onto a PvE game. This mode could then screw over players who weren't interested in PvP. 

 

People have said, over and over, that sure, you can have Clan PvP back, but it needs to stay way the hell away from PvE stuff, so that you don't have people who just want to play the game getting shafted by the eternal struggle between the e-peen warriors. The e-peen warriors will typically respond by saying that there has to be something to struggle over, and the cycle begins again, because when they say this, what they are saying is "There has to be something to fight over! And what we're fighting over is the ability to mess with PvE nodes!"

[Kitzun]

There is something I don't get with old dark sectors enthusiasts.

You know warframe is and will stay a mainly pve game, pvp is an afterthought at best, so why are you pushing for more pvp content in warframe instead of getting your pvp fix in a proper pvp game ?

Because it really seems to me that it would satisfy you a whole lot more.

[Tsukinoki]

14 hours ago, (PS4)CrackFoxLegend said:

but when a clan or alliance that controlled a dark sector raised taxes, it was fun for me (and let's be honest, most players) to support the clan or alliance that was trying to take them down.

 

13 hours ago, Sitchrea said:

Number three is incorrect because of basic economics and history. Economically speaking, if taxes get too high players can come together and oust the high taxes out. History shows this - Anyone remember the rivalry of Ice and Fire?

For the most part it was impossible to oust the high taxes because those mega alliances exploited the system massively.

Remember the DDOS that would occur when some of the 100% tax rate ICE nodes were contested?
Or what about all of the instances where clans allied with ICE would join the "attacker" side and then AFK in the nodes to allow easier destroying of the "attackers"?
Remember all of the contesting that came from a 1 member shadow clan and offered 0 battle pay against ICE?
And remember how many of those fake conflicts were thrown up within a second of the armistice coming down so regularly that it had to be a bot triggering them?
Remember all of the times when ICE offered "400,000 Credit Battlepay" and only turned out to have enough to pay one or two players only and yet used those large numbers to troll defenders?

Simple fact is that the old dark sectors were an exploited, abused mess that just pissed players off and was utterly impossible for others to unseat someone once they got setup.

They didn't offer anything of value to the game or community and DE put in a permanent armistice because of that.

13 hours ago, (PS4)CrackFoxLegend said:

Number three is incorrect because anyone with a well structured, storm to moon clan could in fact unseat other clans and alliances.

That just simply wasn't the case.
The system was heavily abused by the incumbents in ways that made it impossible to seriously contest a node, from things such as purposeful DDOSing, the joining the "attacking" side and then AFKing over and over again to allow the defenders to easily win, all the way to blatant abuse on the forums and other sites that caused a decent number of bannings, to even RMTing.

Simple fact was the old dark sectors were horrible and hurt the community in lots of ways and I'm glad they are gone.

If you want Clan V Clan action to return: Good for you.
Just ask it in a way that has absolutely zero effect on anything else in the game and is only for prestige and doesn't affect others in any way.

[RealPandemonium]

Being able to fight for the right to make important farming spots nonviable is stupid and detrimental to people who actually want to play Warframe.  Good riddance.  If clans want to fight for glory, they should be able to fight for glory on a clan pvp ladder without S#&$ting on my star chart.  

Edited July 14, 2016 by RealPandemonium

[VoidNomade]

One thing this game for sure doesn´t need is a community rivalry.

There are other games for that kind of taste.

[Tymerc]

17 hours ago, jess-DeathLegacy said:

it was amazing when a bunch of tenno unite under one banner and fight night/day

Oh please. It was incredibly unbalanced (acrid spam for example) and people only "cared" if the owner was offering loads of credits. The opposing rail always lost because of this thus causing one owner to remain on the node for a long time until a larger clan or alliance that was also much richer came along offering a bigger payout. I am sorry but you are delusional if you honestly think that was fun. 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Tymerc
Polished the post.

[smiddler]

id like to see more quests and other things to do as a solo player, i havnt really tried pvp but it doesnt look that great in this game and i was never one for raids and clans stuff so there goes most end game activities.