Dark Sector Conflict Armistice Reduction Replaced With A Priority System

[(PSN)IIIDevoidIII]

As it stands, a clan or alliance who had previously attacked a rail, and damaged it, has a reduction in the time they have to wait to deploy their rail again after the conflict. This is a very bad mechanic. In fact, it should be very much reversed.

 

The problem lies in the ability for large clans and alliances to block their rails from all opposition. They are essentially able to grant themselves 100% immunity from anyone wishing to contest against them. This takes the point of the Dark Sectors away, and puts it more toward a corrupt monopoly.

 

In conversation with Blatantfool, we have agreed this system is broken, and he thought up a simple system that would help resolve this immediate issue, and that I very much like.

-

Simply, they are three priority statuses, and for ease of understanding we'll call them Red, Yellow, and Green.

Red is designated to the clan/alliance that had just attacked the node the last round.

Yellow goes to the attacker 2 rounds ago.

Green is applied to the rest of the attackers.

 

There will be a small window after an armistice has ended where clans/alliances can deploy rails. A Red rail can be overridden by a Yellow and Green rail. Yellow can be overridden by Green. Green cannot be overridden by anything.

The priority would now be given to the clan/alliance who had not attacked the rail beforehand, instead of the clan that had.

-

Thoughts? Feelings? Suggestions?

Is there any system you feel would be better than this system? Do you think the system is fine as is (providing justification)?

[Agent_Maine]

I agree.

[FREQ1989]

I made a thread about this a week ago here. https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/308589-clanalliance-priority-and-how-it-is-unfair/?p=3496818 This is a system that needs to be removed for reasons already stated. The fact that a few clans/alliances can close out a rail entirely ruins the entire ideology on having the dark sectors in the first place.

[(PSN)IIIDevoidIII]

I made a thread about this a week ago here. https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/308589-clanalliance-priority-and-how-it-is-unfair/?p=3496818 This is a system that needs to be removed for reasons already stated. The fact that a few clans/alliances can close out a rail entirely ruins the entire ideology on having the dark sectors in the first place.

Apparently I had been through there and had forgotten about it. Sorry about that.

[cyril1204]

Less and less people even bother with DS after Sechura downfall on PC. Now only the 3 alliances take control of it with rocket high tax 75%. I stop caring for DS after seeing such corruption. 

[Cleesus]

Yup it needs to be changed. This was one of those ideas that sounded kinda fine on paper but has been abused since being implemented.

[Blatantfool]

Less and less people even bother with DS after Sechura downfall on PC. Now only the 3 alliances take control of it with rocket high tax 75%. I stop caring for DS after seeing such corruption. 

 

 This is all the more reason that we should just be collecting the evidence of this problem quietly all while discussing ways to make this sort of behavior a bigger pain in the butt.

 

 The streetlight priority system I talked with Devoid about wouldn't be a complete fix - as it wouldn't make this sort of cheating impossible - but it would make it a bit harder. Not just that, it paves the way for DE to punish a clan in a way befitting of the crime.

 

 I believe that once a pattern of this type of behavior shows up clans participating in these lockout tactics should be forced to spend a penalty period as Red Priority. This would mean their clan would be overridden by anyone on any node.

 

 I also believe that Alliances that turn out to be repeat offenders using this tactic should be eligible for having their territory revoked.

 

 At some point the foot has to come down. Dark Sectors are supposed to be about fighting over territory, not splintering your clan up to make a personal hugbox.

[cyril1204]

 This is all the more reason that we should just be collecting the evidence of this problem quietly all while discussing ways to make this sort of behavior a bigger pain in the butt.

 

 The streetlight priority system I talked with Devoid about wouldn't be a complete fix - as it wouldn't make this sort of cheating impossible - but it would make it a bit harder. Not just that, it paves the way for DE to punish a clan in a way befitting of the crime.

 

 I believe that once a pattern of this type of behavior shows up clans participating in these lockout tactics should be forced to spend a penalty period as Red Priority. This would mean their clan would be overridden by anyone on any node.

 

 I also believe that Alliances that turn out to be repeat offenders using this tactic should be eligible for having their territory revoked.

 

 At some point the foot has to come down. Dark Sectors are supposed to be about fighting over territory, not splintering your clan up to make a personal hugbox.

How would you prove such behaviour to be guilty? Part of the problem lies within every player's inner greed as well. I once join the attacker side just to get pwned by 4 players on the opposite force without any help cuz the occupant offers 50k+ cred and that pretty much guarantee a win for the occupant.  

[Blatantfool]

How would you prove such behaviour to be guilty? Part of the problem lies within every player's inner greed as well. I once join the attacker side just to get pwned by 4 players on the opposite force without any help cuz the occupant offers 50k+ cred and that pretty much guarantee a win for the occupant.  

 

 DE has far, far more access to information and detail then any of us do.

 

 It isn't hard for them to take a look at exactly who is doing what and where. Hugboxing tends to leave a pretty clear pattern as well. It shouldn't be difficult at all to break up hugboxing cycles with the priority system as well.

[cyril1204]

 DE has far, far more access to information and detail then any of us do.

 

 It isn't hard for them to take a look at exactly who is doing what and where. Hugboxing tends to leave a pretty clear pattern as well. It shouldn't be difficult at all to break up hugboxing cycles with the priority system as well.

The offender might counter-argue that they just do their thing and rage that their territory is confiscated wrongly. This is a sensitive issue to deal with honestly. If there should be a reason to fight over a node than just creds and power...

[Blatantfool]

The offender might counter-argue that they just do their thing and rage that their territory is confiscated wrongly. This is a sensitive issue to deal with honestly. If there should be a reason to fight over a node than just creds and power...

 

 I think there is a certain level of misunderstanding over that bit of my post.

 

 It is my belief that under any normal conditions where it appears a hugbox pattern has started up that DE should knock the clans involved in the hugbox to Red Priority. The first time they do it maybe for two days or so. If they tend to come back to do it over and over then it'd be more and more. That much is simple and obvious. If DE has to address Clan B participating in Hugboxing Clan A four or five times in a month then Clan B ought to spend some time on the bottom of the pile to make them rethink their actions and Clan A ought to wise up.

 

 Though, with the Streetlight Priority system from the OP it wouldn't be feasible with two clans. You'd need 3 extra clans to hugbox. This would make it all the more easy to spot patterns of abuse.

 

I believe if it is found that a specific Clan or Alliance that owns a particular territory is up to no good regularly (I'm talking about serious repeat offense behavior here) then they should have their Territory taken and spend a short stint in Red Priority. If you want be a positive part of the system enjoy being flushed.

 

 The foot has to come down somewhere. This kind of thing DOES hurt the entire point of Dark Sectors. People do need to be held responsible when they participate in actions that do harm to the game for others, I believe this is true moreso in PvP then PvE as unlike in Cooperative play there is an opposing side who are forced to rely and trust in you to be fair or courteous.

 

 There are many, many problems in PvP in Warframe. This sort of change wont fix that. But it will start to punish people who're actively participating in damaging behavior.

[(PSN)IIIDevoidIII]

 There are many, many problems in PvP in Warframe. This sort of change wont fix that. But it will start to punish people who're actively participating in damaging behavior.

However, to be clear, this won't exactly be a PvP change, but more or less an interaction change. So this would help nothing on that end of the spectrum (besides allowing DS PvP to actually happen for once).

 

 

'Hugboxing', as Blatant puts it, is the most immediate problem that can be seen. Sure that clan/alliance has never lost a rail, whoopdie doo... wouldn't it be far more powerful and celbritory if that clan/alliance kept that rail over their own dedication rather than the fear of losing it (I say fear, as I don't know why else they'd want to forever hold it).