Jump to content

Dark Sector Mission Alternatives


Recommended Posts

Just a quick idea, I might edit to go further into detail, but for now:




How about an alternative way at going about Dark Sector Conflicts? Make each node a dual node: indicating control over the credit tax and control over the resource tax. This could then split up the conflicts into two segments: a PvE utilizing the old Solar Rail MD missions as one to fight for control of the credits / resources of the node and then the PvP segment to fight for control of the resources / credits of a node. 


Now an inherent problem: the sharing of the node. The system would have to be made so that it is hard to get this outcome. This would be done by implementing bonuses for winning on the MD side of the node to the defenders / attackers (whichever side is winning the MD part of the conflict) PvP team in the form of:


- leveled up spectres

increased affinity gain

- team wide auras that give bonuses like sprint boost, physique (minimally, not the full effect from the mod), a limited energy siphon

- increased hp / armor / shield on objectives for defenders or increased damage to structures for attackers, just to name a few.


These bonuses would deploy after either rail HP goes down past a % thresh hold, or a certain amount of time passes after holding the lead by a certain margin. There would have to be a buffer zone in which no bonus is given because neither team is ahead of the other by a great enough margin.


However, in its current state the PvP node can't really do something like this as there's no real tug and pull on the mission between the two clans / alliances. However if there were, the following could be implemented as bonuses for winning the PvP segment: 


- again, the same sorts of aura boosts to attackers on a node

- increased HP to terminals

- rail security emplacements being activated on the rail to harass attackers while defending

- hive style environment effects


The bonus could apply to and against attackers of the PvE segment, a detriment to attackers assaulting the winning team's node and a benefit to the attackers assaulting the losing team's node.


Battle Pay

Battle Pay can be distributed logically and normally between the two segments, allowing more focus to be on one segment rather than another. 


Snowballing Rewards

Now, a problem inherent in this is the snowballing effect that a winning team can get because of the rewards. This could be harmful to the process, or possibly help it, as it becomes an accurate representation of which team is "better" or has more support.

This also puts the losing team in a position to choose which segment to focus on in order to regain bonuses or nullify the enemies bonuses. 


Sharing the Node

If the outcome is a sharing of the node, then the cool-down period of the rail armistice would be the same, however instead of being open to mobilizing by another clan or alliance, the rails go into combat versus eachother at higher stakes.

The two sides will engage in the process again, but at a faster speed and lower rail health. This time, all missions contribute the same amount of damage to the other team's rail; the first rail segment to fall loses the node, and the node goes on armistice again. 


The Warframe community is mostly consisting of players that enjoy PvE; and enjoyed the old iterations of the Dark Sector Conflicts; but now the new rail PvP format might not be to their liking. As a compromise, reintegrate the PvE missions and run them along sides the PvP missions in a segmented Dark Sector Conflict, that can encourage tactics and give the players their option between running PvE and PvP. 



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...