The Exponential Issue With Dark Sectors

[Moderius]

So here I am, sitting pretty and defending my alliance's Solar Rail. On the other side, there's the opposing Alliance. Rewards are being thrown out, back and forth. My alliance has had the node for a little while, with a decent tax, in a popular area. We can probably out-credit the opposition.

 

But that's how it will be; incumbent Alliances will always have that monetary advantage, won't they? People already see this with certain existing alliances. But let's explain the overall differences in the alliances, from their positions, and from their interactions

 

Established alliances currently have huge advantages over those that control no locations. Alliances collecting taxes will have resources that a newer alliance can hardly even approach. The more Rails controlled, the more resources available to attack and defend. For a fresh alliance, the possibility of overcoming that difference is tremendous. So the Alliances that got in on the Dark Sectors early have a huge advantage over others.

 

 

But these needed to be clearly established to continue with the point that follows, in examining issues with Dark Sectors: How could it be better?

 

Attacking

Currently, it's First Come, First Serve (FCFS). It is not a very flexible system; but what are the alternatives? How could you determine the attacker otherwise?

 

The main issue here is that any method you can think of, where multiple Alliances vie for the same target, gives the possibility for any established alliance to simply swoop in and bludgeon others with their resources. So resources cannot be a factor when deciding who can, or can't attack.

 

Alternatively, that leaves two options; When alliances are competing to attack a node, they can complete missions in favor of one of the attackers, to support their attack (which I will expand upon later). Or, an Alliance could only be allowed to hold one or two nodes at a time.

 

For the first, the easiest way to really explain would be the basic "fight for this alliance" option, separated from the Dark Sector, where you increase the "defense" of an attacking rail, supporting their chances to be the attacker. This could be done with a simple Defense (or Survival) game type, where each set of 5 waves increases the support given to an alliance's rail.

 

The other is much easier in implementation; restricting an Alliance's ability to attack rails. This could be explained by either requiring an "Alliance Dojo" (or ship, or station, or whatever) to be present, limiting their capacity to launch attacks while defending. Of course, current Alliances with multiple nodes wouldn't lose their positions automatically, but would not be able to carry out additional attacks. This would really open up the opportunity to change the method in which attackers can be chosen.

 

My concept for this idea would make use of this "Alliance Dojo/Ship" (Let's call it an Alliance Dreadnought for now) could move to a specific location, and stake out a specific planet as their "Territory". Once they've settled in a location, the Alliance can complete missions on that planet to increase the Alliance's "Position", which would enable them to attack a Dark Sector in the area. Other Alliances would be visible from the planet's menu - including their "Position", giving an idea of who is nearing attack-readiness. So "spam-attacking" would not be a possibility, and Alliances had a real "location" outside of a chat tab. This is, again, just additional fluff, the core idea is to simply restrict an established Alliance's ability to attack.

 

I personally feel this would be a stronger solution to this aspect (as well as a balance for some others). It would prevent any one alliance using resources collected from other locations to perpetually fund other nodes, or execute a monopoly. Of course, there are potential issues with that arrangement, but they are smaller in scope, and really fall under the overall purview of how Dark Sectors function as a whole.

 

 

Node Unavailable

 

The issue where you want to farm a resource, but the node is under attack. A simple solution is to simply add another node to each location/planet. A Mobile Defense mission would fit in just fine. This would also provide additional locations for alliances to control, giving slightly more chance for an alliance to hold a position. So this would, at least, offer a more variable rotation of attack-defense for planets, especially Jupiter, the only place to get Neural Sensors.

 

This is a minor issue, really, and with the recent changes to "Armistice" it at least gives some breathing time for farming.

 

 

Sick of Infested

 

Well, Dark Sectors are Dark because they're overrun by infested. 

 

 

Long-time Incumbent

 

An alliance can be dug in at a location for a long, long time. With enough resources, they could control a node indefinitely; they will continue to collect on a location, and that will allow them to continue to hold it. A popular location (like Jupiter) will forever be self-sustaining, offering a huge advantage.

 

A simple solution to this would be to increase the repair costs over time. The rail deteriorates after repeat attacks (why not) making repairs more and more costly. This (paired with limiting what an Alliance can hold) would give a better balance to Dark Sectors, creating some rotation.

 

Of course, you could really make it apply directly to the Tribute rate. 20% tax would equal a 20% increase in repair cost after an attack. After three attacks, that's 172.8% of the original cost. After six attacks, almost 300% increase in repair costs. But for a more modest tax rate, say, 6%, it's only 119% after three attacks, 141% after six. After enough time, it wouldn't be feasible to really maintain a high tax.

 

This would prevent a high tax long-term on a popular resource point, while not inflicting a high penalty on more modest tributes.

 

 

Underdogs

 

The 0-tax Dark Sectors are a fine work. Those Alliances provide a service for others, and it is appreciated by those who frequent them. But how to support them directly, aside from simply fighting during conflicts? Even a low-tribute rail is appreciated in the same capacity.

 

The option to elect to set your own, voluntary tribute would support these underdog Alliances. A very simple way to support these smaller Alliances, as well as direct some funds directly to your own Dark Sectors. 

 

 

Battle Pay, and your own Alliance

 

This has always been a bit of a conflict, and many have seen it. You could support your Alliance, or you could get paid 20,000+ credits for a run. You cannot get battle pay from your own alliance -  so there isn't really any advantage for the individual to run for their own alliance. I mean, yes, loyalty, but.. I mean, 20,000 credits. In everyone's mind, there's "it's only one run, right?"

 

Yes, it makes sense in a way. You should be free to choose who you support, or free to rake in a nice reward. And yes, you should fight for your alliance. But there should be some systemic support in place to encourage that. But, there isn't.

 

What can really make that better? What benefit could be given to those playing for their alliance? It's a rather minor thing, but it still has inconsistency.

 

 

These are just some simple observations, comparisons, and ideas in the effort to address the inherent imbalance that currently exists in Dark Sectors. As it stands now, Alliances that haven't held a node are at a real disadvantage. There have already been some changes in favor of clarifying the conflicts, but I believe that more can be done to really solidify the balance in the system.

 

Full disclosure: I am a member of a rather large alliance that has held a Dark Sector for more than a week, with a moderate tax. 

[MattHarrigan]

[low1991]

^what?

 

OP: pls provide a summary of what u type btw.

[CBAROG]

Great Ideas. These are the Dark Sectors we are looking for.

[Joyfulmama]

[Moderius]

 

If you don't want to read, get off of forums. I'm not going to dumb it down for you.

[Moderius]

Great Ideas. These are the Dark Sectors we are looking for.

 

I don't really have a reasonable solution for the "battle pay vs your own alliance" conflict. It's something that is small, but nagging, and can be addressed to improve the experience. It's polish on Dark Sectors, and polish is all that's needed to really make them engaging.

[RealPandemonium]

Dark sector costs can be recouped by a solitary player grinding Sechura or some other dark sector for a couple of hours.  500000 is not a lot of credits considering the number of players in an alliance or large clan.  The biggest flaw of the rail conflict system is that people are dumb and support Eclipse over the zero tax groups because of the conflict battle pay (and because Eclipse is huge and has its members run their own rail) instead of realizing that they will make a lot more money from that rail tomorrow due to the 0% tax if they support the challenger.  It's not about credit costs, only because of people acting against their own interests. 

[CBAROG]

Dark sector costs can be recouped by a solitary player grinding Sechura or some other dark sector for a couple of hours.  500000 is not a lot of credits considering the number of players in an alliance or large clan.  The biggest flaw of the rail conflict system is that people are dumb and support Eclipse over the zero tax groups because of the conflict battle pay (and because Eclipse is huge and has its members run their own rail) instead of realizing that they will make a lot more money from that rail tomorrow due to the 0% tax if they support the challenger.  It's not about credit costs, only because of people acting against their own interests. 

I don't see how they will make a lot more money without tax. Unless you count every credit you earn from the mission with tax or without.  And if that miniscule amount of creds taken by tax bothers you, well you can get more in the Void. But, you see, the battlepay is the money got from taxes. So people do not act against their own interest. But I agree, people are dumb. In general.

Edited May 13, 2014 by CBAROG

[CBAROG]

I don't really have a reasonable solution for the "battle pay vs your own alliance" conflict. It's something that is small, but nagging, and can be addressed to improve the experience. It's polish on Dark Sectors, and polish is all that's needed to really make them engaging.

Well, I'm not in any alliance, so I don't care. But, yeah, some reward is needed. Maybe you get a set sum of money for every run against rival clan (almost wrote enemy, hate this idea of Tenno enemy) if your alliance wins. It encourages to make as many runs as possible and makes you want to win. But right now there's nothing to strive for. Only name of your alliance on the star chart.

[Moderius]

I don't see how they will make a lot more money without tax. Unless you count every credit you earn from the mission with tax or without.  And if that miniscule amount of creds taken by tax bothers you, well you can get more in the Void. But, you see, the battlepay are the money got from taxes. So people do not act against their own interest. But I agree, people are dumb. In general.

 

My idea to allow for "Voluntary Tax" on 0% nodes would somewhat address this, by letting you contribute to those alliances.

 

Leaning on the "Alliance Dreadnought" concept, in lieu of restricting an alliance to one Dark Sector, it could be as simple as that your Solar Rail suffers double damage at a node where your Dreadnought is not deployed (for attack and defense). Create a simple "travel time" restriction to keep an alliance from moving the Dreadnought around.

 

This would force an Alliance who is attempting to hold multiple nodes to potentially pay double to pace other, focused Alliances. A measurable resource, aside from credits, that an Alliance needs to deploy carefully.

[CBAROG]

This just begs for some complex mission. First you have to pass that "Alliance Dreadnought" and only then you can damage the Rail itself. That will make defense of ONE node easier. But if you are attacking? How will it work? It boosts damage dealt or your Rail defense? Hmm, if there's only one per Alliance, then taking "Alliance Dreadnought" to attack will weaken your node defense. I like it.

[Loswaith]

Sounds like some good options for ways to go.

 

Battlepay within alliance could work in a few ways.

- let alliances set an in house battlepay (leaders that can set battlepay would not be able to earn this), though thats fairly exploitable

- if you are in the alliance the battle pay is 10% of the normal amount offered (ie if 10k is offered to outsiders, you would get 1k for a run for your alliance)

- reduction of Incumbant penalities (say a 1% reduction per mission), so if you mostly defend with your own members repairs will cost less than if your paying others to do it for you. (the downside is that may negate any incumbant penalities, though prehaps having some unrepairable damage from each successful battle would work there, maybe 10% of damage suffered in a battle is cumulativly unrepairable)

[the1Blind]

Didn't the devs state that they wanted a bit more EVE Online in Warframe? Well old money power is basically one of the pillars of EVE, so that went perfectly right.

[(PSN)Lord_Gremlin]

I like the idea of Solar Rail repair costs going up. Like, after second attack it's 2x, then 4x, 8x, 16x, 32x until inevitably every single rail always gets destroyed and overtaken by opposition. Basically this would mean that it is 100% impossible to hold the rail forever, you will lose it, and you have to plan around it (like, as a huge alliance for example you know that you'll be at 64x repair cost and deliberately don't repair the rail - you lose it and use credits you hogged to attack a new, different rail which itself is at 32x repair cost already). It'll also make the system really dynamic as every rail will be constantly changing hands and larger alliances will try and plan around it.