Requesting An Official Response On The Validity Of Dark Sector Conflict Tactics.

[winedarksea_]

Could someone from DE or a representative thereof please tell me which of the following is a valid use of mechanics and which is considered an exploit in Dark Sector conflicts? 

 

a) To improve the attacker's position by hosting defender lobbies and closing the game at any time before it completes (in order to waste actual defenders' time and ensure that attackers can bypass defender squads and attack specter rigs directly).

 

b) To prevent other clans/alliances from attacking your node by occupying deployment time with "non-real" alliances that were exclusively or primarily created to prevent actual player alliances from challenging your sov.

 

Thanks very much,

wine

[PsychedelicSnake]

No. These are all clearly intended and very valid mechanics and are in no way exploits. Clearly.

[Kaliphear]

While I personally have absolutely no evidence of any alliance actually doing this, I think we can all agree that the punishment for such behavior should be quite severe, right? But no one would be so brazen as to attack their own rail with an alliance made up of their own alt accounts.

[Turnoverman]

While I personally have absolutely no evidence of any alliance actually doing this, I think we can all agree that the punishment for such behavior should be quite severe, right? But no one would be so brazen as to attack their own rail with an alliance made up of their own alt accounts.

Especially after they definitely didn't DDoS the servers to get it in the first place.

[winedarksea_]

There's no need to circlejerk and so far none of the responses have really added to the conversation at all.

 

This thread has a plural purpose: First, sure, to be cheeky; second, to actually see what the answer is; third, to find out how much of a political meta-game can and will exist in Warframe because it will affect the way I play now. 

 

The thing is, we don't have the authority to draw the line between clever strategizing and exploiting game mechanics; DE do. And though it seems obvious what the judgment here might be, a discussion about it would have the more interesting consequence of feeling out where the line should/will be drawn between meta-gaming and actual in-game combat and trading, and what the balance is in terms of how much those things can feed back to affect the rest of the game. You're forgetting that the possible answers to the question in OP aren't just "Yes/No + because", but also "Yes/No +but". 

 

And, in case you're wondering, I personally don't believe that a PvP system that's broken and can be easily gamed should have a substantial negative impact on tens of thousands of players that are only interested in PvE (by increasing the height of their grindwall for basically no good reason). But if we're going to have a system that's devious like dat, then I want to know now, because the people who want to protect the best interests of the community at large should start playing that game, too.

Edited July 29, 2014 by winedarksea_

[DSpite]

When a particular game mechanic is put into place, in this case being DS conflicts, they will have a very specific game design centered around it, in this case, being your average players simply joining random groups or making teams with the purpose of actually completing the mission within the parameters set by the mission, in our case, Lotus yelling at us what to do.

 

If you basically ignore what Lotus tells you and do your own thing, your are impeding the mission.

 

If I was DE, I'd send you an email asking you to stop being a naughty boy, and just play the game "as DE intended". Since there is no actual real gains or losses in this game anyway, being an &#! seems kinda counter productive.

[16Bitman]

Could someone from DE or a representative thereof please tell me which of the following is a valid use of mechanics and which is considered an exploit in Dark Sector conflicts? 

 

a) To improve the attacker's position by hosting defender lobbies and closing the game at any time before it completes (in order to waste actual defenders' time and ensure that attackers can bypass defender squads and attack specter rigs directly).

 

b) To prevent other clans/alliances from attacking your node by occupying deployment time with "non-real" alliances that were exclusively or primarily created to prevent actual player alliances from challenging your sov.

 

Thanks very much,

wine

a)The first attacker always hosts, if some guy hosts a defending lobby they're only going to connect to an attacker.

If the connection fails during an attack the defending side automaticly wins since the attackers haven't destroyed the core.

 

b) If V is actually a fake Alliance (all hints seem to work for that claim) DE will most likely notice and punish the players, hiding something like that from DE is impossible.

[winedarksea_]

a)The first attacker always hosts, if some guy hosts a defending lobby they're only going to connect to an attacker.

If the connection fails during an attack the defending side automaticly wins since the attackers haven't destroyed the core.

 

b) If V is actually a fake Alliance (all hints seem to work for that claim) DE will most likely notice and punish the players, hiding something like that from DE is impossible.

 

I understand the mechanic you're describing. I'm saying the troll host swallows three defenders against 4 attackers and crashes the game to waste their time in order to increase the chance that another squad of attackers will be able to attack back-line defenses only (specters etc.). It doesn't happen 1:1 like that but when carried out multiply it can have devastating effects given that defenders can't do "spontaneous" runs anymore. This method kills the rails a lot faster and since the weekend I've been reading multiple posts across multiple social platforms that confirm this was being done.

Edited July 29, 2014 by winedarksea_