More Carrot, Less Stick - Improving Ds Interaction

[Chromosis]

So, I was discussing in raidcall with some clan mates about what we thought would add incentives for people to own/run dark sectors.  I pointed out that currently, they give bonuses in the form of credits, resource drop rates, and experience boosts from certain types of kills (IE, shotgun, rifle, melee, or secondary).  My thought was that this could be a way to improve the current dark sectors further.

 

First off, PVP is fun, even with some lag or bugs, it is beta, those happen, and I find it way more engaging than running the same MD mission 30 times.  Big thumbs up from me there.  Secondly, the only thing a clan/alliance controls currently on their rail is the tax rate.  That is where the carrot and the stick comes in.

 

Right now, a rail owner controls how much stick the community gets.  Do you tax 50% on your node or 25%?  Maybe you do not tax at all to attract popularity with the community and hope they defend you in an upcoming conflict.  This can be tough because you do not have a carrot (a benefit) besides low taxes to offer.

 

My thought was that using the current bonus structure, but allowing rail owners to "invest" into a rail for better bonuses would offer a great way to give back to the community.  Maybe you do tax Sechura-Pluto 50%, but hey, you also boost the EXP bonus up with those credits and other resources for all users by an extra 20% on top of the already existing bonuses.  This is also an effective resource/credit sink.  I know I have hundreds of thousands of alloy in my inventory, maybe I can use them to up the rare resource drop chance on a node my alliance owns?

 

My overall goal of this post is to bring to attention the design goal of carrot vs. stick.  It is fine to give the stick sometimes, but usually, everyone likes the carrot a lot more.

 

I would love to hear other's thoughts on this.

[Semshol]

Could be interesting :) But I'll withhold the +1 for now, to see what others day x'D

[SmokinDevil]

Damn...I really like this idea.

[Evanescent]

+1

[(PSN)IIIDevoidIII]

Moved to a more appropriate section.

[Vanguard4]

+1 - sounds good. Introducing another resources sink to gain otherwise useful benefits sounds good.

[Chromosis]

My apologies on the wrong section, but thanks for moving it to the correct one.

 

I hope to get more feedback and see how we can help DE make this a better game for everyone.

[(XBOX)ShapelessHorr0r]

The carrot is brought to you. There is no chasing. This is why most Dark Sectors with a tax above 15% are simply run by greedy individuals.

You literally just sit around and watch the credits and resouces come in.

[Chromosis]

The carrot is brought to you. There is no chasing. This is why most Dark Sectors with a tax above 15% are simply run by greedy individuals.

You literally just sit around and watch the credits and resouces come in.

I am not sure you fully understand my points here.  I am not saying the rail owners need a carrot, and you are right, the carrot for them is the income of credits and resources.  The issue I am discussing is more to do with players in general.

 

If your alliance or clan does not own sechura, and there is a tax on it, you may be inclined to run a different system since you do not want to be taxed.  The idea of offering a bonus that the rail owner can invest in to increase or alter in some form is a carrot for the other players.  It can help clans/alliances build strong PR with the community and show why they should be defended/aided in their attempted domination of the rails.

 

Also, this would allow less run rails with possible rare resources, like orokin cells or neurodes, to become more popular as investing in increased drop chance or a similar bonus would make them viable farming spots for players.

 

The carrot is for everyone, not just rail owners in this case.

[Phatose]

Dark sectors require a dedicated focus on timing just to even attempt to deploy a rail, then considerable extra effort to actually take the rail, and an even more massive effort, never-ending effort to defend the rail.  And that continuing defense is not easy - dark sectors are not on fixed timing schedules, and that means you will run into a situation where is 2am on a Tuesday for much of your alliance when the rail comes under attack. 

 

Though, perhaps I'm misinterpreting and you mean it's brought to you in the PvE sections.

 

 

For the central idea, I can maybe see a purpose, provided it's limited to the current maximum bonuses given out on Pluto, and had an upkeep cost.  That way rails that aren't Pluto could become roughly equivalent, potentially increasing the value of the rails in the rest of the Solar System and reducing the focus on those 2.  Beyond that though, I couldn't agree - dark sectors already tend to make all other missions in the planet obsolete, and we really don't need more of that.

[Chromosis]

Dark sectors require a dedicated focus on timing just to even attempt to deploy a rail, then considerable extra effort to actually take the rail, and an even more massive effort, never-ending effort to defend the rail.  And that continuing defense is not easy - dark sectors are not on fixed timing schedules, and that means you will run into a situation where is 2am on a Tuesday for much of your alliance when the rail comes under attack. 

 

Though, perhaps I'm misinterpreting and you mean it's brought to you in the PvE sections.

 

 

For the central idea, I can maybe see a purpose, provided it's limited to the current maximum bonuses given out on Pluto, and had an upkeep cost.  That way rails that aren't Pluto could become roughly equivalent, potentially increasing the value of the rails in the rest of the Solar System and reducing the focus on those 2.  Beyond that though, I couldn't agree - dark sectors already tend to make all other missions in the planet obsolete, and we really don't need more of that.

Right, I am saying the PVE portion of the dark sectors, not the rail defense.

 

In terms of limiting the bonuses, a kind of diminishing returns on investment could work.  Say 10 million credits for +1% affinity bonus, then 20 million for the next 1%, then 30, 40, etc...  So you could add to the current bonuses, keeping pluto a very desirable rail to own, but making others more desirable than currently.

 

Also, I find many missions get done and are avoided.  For example, I usually run bosses for resources (cells, sensors, etc.) and run MD for experience, and run interception for T4 keys.  Otherwise, I just help out clan mates or run the alerts.  Though my experience is very different from the "average player" since I am mastery rank 17, done all the missions on the star chart, and have all but 3 weapons (that I can reasonably acquire) ranked to 30.

[Phatose]

Yes, many missions get done and avoided.  That doesn't mean we should exacerbate the problem by adding further incentives to the missions that do get played.

 

I can't say I'd support an uncapped increasing bonus.  Just leads to creep, and obsolescence of everything else.

[notionphil]

My thought was that using the current bonus structure, but allowing rail owners to "invest" into a rail for better bonuses would offer a great way to give back to the community.  Maybe you do tax Sechura-Pluto 50%, but hey, you also boost the EXP bonus up with those credits and other resources for all users by an extra 20% on top of the already existing bonuses.  This is also an effective resource/credit sink.  I know I have hundreds of thousands of alloy in my inventory, maybe I can use them to up the rare resource drop chance on a node my alliance owns?

 

 

Very creative idea. Also, know that the avg player (ok, even many vets, such as myself) don't know the histories or legacies of these alliances...so you could be a jerk with tax rates one week and a saint with bonuses the next, and we'd never know.

 

Maybe your suggestion would go well with an 'avg taxation rate' and 'amount "contributed" to improvements' figure?

[Chromosis]

Yes, many missions get done and avoided.  That doesn't mean we should exacerbate the problem by adding further incentives to the missions that do get played.

 

I can't say I'd support an uncapped increasing bonus.  Just leads to creep, and obsolescence of everything else.

Isn't that just normal progression in most games?  As an example, high level World of Warcraft players do not worry go back to run low level dungeons unless they are getting gear for alt characters.  I do not think it is wrong or bad necessarily to cause dark sectors to become the end game.  Also, I am not saying you cap the bonuses in the sense of saying "you can only invest 200 million credits and that's it."  You make it exponentially more expensive to increase the bonus, at some point, it is impossible for them to pay for more bonuses.  It does allow an alliance to invest as much as they want though, so they can go above and beyond to increase a bonus.  If you want to drop 100 billion credits for affinity bonuses for your rail, you should be able to do it.

[Chromosis]

Very creative idea. Also, know that the avg player (ok, even many vets, such as myself) don't know the histories or legacies of these alliances...so you could be a jerk with tax rates one week and a saint with bonuses the next, and we'd never know.

 

Maybe your suggestion would go well with an 'avg taxation rate' and 'amount "contributed" to improvements' figure?

I thought of a tax history tab on the UI would help less involved players (those that do not visit the forums) to understand the way alliances run their rails.

[Phatose]

Isn't that just normal progression in most games?  As an example, high level World of Warcraft players do not worry go back to run low level dungeons unless they are getting gear for alt characters.  I do not think it is wrong or bad necessarily to cause dark sectors to become the end game.  Also, I am not saying you cap the bonuses in the sense of saying "you can only invest 200 million credits and that's it."  You make it exponentially more expensive to increase the bonus, at some point, it is impossible for them to pay for more bonuses.  It does allow an alliance to invest as much as they want though, so they can go above and beyond to increase a bonus.  If you want to drop 100 billion credits for affinity bonuses for your rail, you should be able to do it.

 

Warframe progression has next to nothing in common with most games.  You don't switch from a fighter to a cleric in WoW, but get to keep your sword of doom but otherwise go back to first level.  In Warframe, the you do the equivalent of that every time you forma or get a new weapon on frame.

 

If dark sectors covered a wide variety of content, it would be one thing, but they don't.  It's 3 mission types and 1 faction.   I don't want to be locked into fighting the infested all the time for best efficiency, and I'd be surprised if anyone did.

 

 

 

On further reflection, I'm going to have to say I cannot support this idea at all, and actively oppose it.  It's reward structure is entirely backwards - in this setup, clans and alliance who've already put in the considerable effort into taking and holding the dark sector in question are actively punished under this system, facing an ever increasing burden of credits for upgrades just to keep up with the other clans and alliances.  And since you're talking about affinity gains, they're not even gaining increased tax revenue from this.

 

Meanwhile, the uninvolved PvE players who haven't actually put in any effort towards that dark sector are constantly given larger and larger affinity boosts - for doing absolutely nothing.

 

It's a complete reverse of what it actually should be - the people putting in the work to hold the dark sectors should be the ones gaining the benefit from them, not the uninvolved players.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Phatose

[SergeiTheBeast]

interesting idea. Might help with the current greed problem we have with the clans taxing the %*#! out of their nodes, or it could potentially make it worse by making them invest in it, only to raise the taxes even more.

 

Who knows.. The only thing I'm certain of is just telling people "oh you're not happy with the tax? then you and your clan take it" isn't going to help or solve anything.

[Chromosis]

Warframe progression has next to nothing in common with most games.  You don't switch from a fighter to a cleric in WoW, but get to keep your sword of doom but otherwise go back to first level.  In Warframe, the you do the equivalent of that every time you forma or get a new weapon on frame.

 

If dark sectors covered a wide variety of content, it would be one thing, but they don't.  It's 3 mission types and 1 faction.   I don't want to be locked into fighting the infested all the time for best efficiency, and I'd be surprised if anyone did.

 

 

 

On further reflection, I'm going to have to say I cannot support this idea at all, and actively oppose it.  It's reward structure is entirely backwards - in this setup, clans and alliance who've already put in the considerable effort into taking and holding the dark sector in question are actively punished under this system, facing an ever increasing burden of credits for upgrades just to keep up with the other clans and alliances.  And since you're talking about affinity gains, they're not even gaining increased tax revenue from this.

 

Meanwhile, the uninvolved PvE players who haven't actually put in any effort towards that dark sector are constantly given larger and larger affinity boosts - for doing absolutely nothing.

 

It's a complete reverse of what it actually should be - the people putting in the work to hold the dark sectors should be the ones gaining the benefit from them, not the uninvolved players.

First off, let me say that I can really appreciate your feedback here.  This is the sort of critique that helps to mold and shape a so-so idea into a great one.

 

Anyway, I think allowing for some sort of way to switch dark sectors to a certain faction, or having it be random even, might not be a terrible idea.  After all, it makes sense that the Corpus or Grineer would attack your rail to claim that system for themselves.  They do not like us Tenno and only ask for help when battling one another or clearing out an infestation.  Also, while your point on how leveling works for Warframe is true, the point I was trying to make was more about how making the Dark Sectors a place for high end players to grind EXP or resources.  I hate having to run Alad V for Neural Sensors and essentially having no other reliable choices.  

 

To your second, and much larger point, I would agree to some extent, but the idea is that this allows a clan to give back to the community and attract better players.  I do not see any issue in changing the system because the game is in beta, changes will happen.  While there were growing pains with melee 2.0 and damage 2.0, people have adjusted and they work out for the better of the game.

 

I would also add that the idea behind increasing the bonuses was to make people want to run your rails.  Getting more runs = more taxes.  It is a return on investment, where you are able to put something into your rail to get more out of it.  Also, there is no reason you cannot increase credit drops, resource drops, or similar bonuses as well.  If you made everyone get 15% more credits from a run on your rail, but also taxed it 5% more, you get more credits.  You want people to run your rails, that is the point of owning them.  If you tax 0%, then yes, you will get nothing from this other than some good PR.  The point is more that you can now have a reason to tax 50% credits on your rail, because you paid to make it a speedier EXP grind, or resource grind for everyone.

 

Finally, since it is entirely optional, you would not have to do this, and could turn it off if you wanted to as well.   The best thing in many games is choice.  Do you want to be a stealth assassin or violent bruiser?  The choice to do different things makes a game exciting, and also provides players with more agency.  When you give players choices, you give them power and involve them more deeply in the game.  Look at Eve Online and how involved that game is.  It gives players almost free reign and is very complicated as well, but it is fun.

[sekushiiandee]

i like the idea....but now you are giving alliances and clans more of a reason to unfairly tax the community in order to get a mediocre boost

 

these clans and alliances may potentially maximize their taxes to only benefit those who are within their alliance....thus creating the vacuum alliances are doing now...sucking in weak clans and players who do not have a strong clan base into an alliance that has a chokehold on a well known and commonly used node....

 

by giving this added benefit....you are potentially giving more power to the alliances and clans that own the node.....it is great that they may be able to give more xp....but this also gives them justification to tax more as well

 

with higher taxes comes hardship for many players....which will cause them to join the alliance in order to reap the benefits that non-alliance members do not receive

[Archistopheles]

Dark Sectors need to include PvE'ers before any more benefit is awarded to them.

[Chromosis]

Dark Sectors need to include PvE'ers before any more benefit is awarded to them.

Perhaps make a PvE option during conflicts to "repair" your rail?

[HackShield]

it isnt a bit idea cause atm holding a darksector is only interesting to adversting cause who can old a rail dont need the money or resources out of it.

 

and set the tax to troll or just get the costs back in the rail repair costs.

 

next thing is the pvp isnt that bad BUT the rail pvp need improvement i was yesterday on a rail pvp spawnend and saw how the enemy team bombs my spawn base you got killed in the spawn and if you reached the outside 2 ashes bladestormed. the hell out of you.

 

so there need maybe more like gun game.

 

if one team is on "lv10" the other or later joining should gain a min lvl of 5 or something to have a chance by any kind and not just dead meat

[EvolGrinZ]

The idea sounds nice, but I have one big concern.
On most planets its difficult to find a group for mission nodes, other than the famous grind/farm planets. With something like these, even less people will play the mission nodes and just play dark sector missions.
Some system to make the other mission nodes more appealing would be much better, like instead of giving a bonus to the dark sector, give the bonus to all non dark sector missions on that planet.
This way the other mission nodes will be more active and new players will have an easier time working through the planets.

[Phatose]

You might actually be able to make this workable by involving the PvE side that's getting the benefit directly, instead of indirectly.

 

Remove the controlling clans from the process entirely.  They don't pay for it at all - rather, when a player starts a PvE mode conflict, they're given the option of donating a percentage of their credit take from the rail after taxes to the upgrade.  This goes into a general pool connected to the rail itself, which the controlling clan does not have access to.

 

Might be necessary to mandate a small percentage - say 1% - to prevent free rider problems.  But you should be able to donate as much as you have left after taxes, if so inclined.

 

Once the pool is large enough to cover an upgrade, it does so automatically.  Add in a slow, slight decay so as to prevent never ending creep or reaching a hard cap and just staying there - if there's not enough in the pool to cover maintenance, the rail loses some of the upgrade.

 

This way, the burden of improvements to the rail is put on the PvE players who will actually benefit from those upgrades, not the alliances who own the rail.  There's still metagame implications - the only way to upgrade your rail is to get people to run it, which means lowering taxes to get the ball rolling is still necessary.