Improvment To Dark Sectors (The Missions, Not Specific To Pvp)

[Chromosis]

I originally posted my thoughts on our clans new blog here - http://www.clancmp.com/?p=19

 

TL;DR version - give rail owners more control over mission/rewards on dark sector missions to attract players or add incentives to run them.  This acts as a resource/credit sink for clans/alliances and gives purpose to taxes or rewards.

 

So I was pretty excited to hear that dark sector conflicts were being improved (or changed anyway).  This also prompted me to dig up a post from a few months ago about improving dark sectors in general.

 

The issues I have with dark sectors basically boil down to two things.  First, the fact that they only way to participate in a conflict is through PVP is restricting.  Some people do not like PVP, and some people do not have the weapons or frames to participate at an optimal level.  If you recall when dark sectors first came out, many abilities were broken.  I am looking at you Ash and bladestorm.  Lots of players in order to compete then starting building Ash, going for damage builds, and spamming four.  It sucked.

 

Assuming that the new conflicts (from a PVP standpoint) involves the new conclave system, you still will have clans with PvPers that have the PvP mods.  Want your clan to do well?  Now everyone needs to do PvP just to be competitive.  Not to mention, say you do not have any of the frames that are allowed?  Sure many players have a lot of frames, and frame/weapon slots are one of the top purchases for platinum, but when it comes to moon, or even storm and mountain tier clans, you may have members who are more casual.

 

The simplest fix, and most likely not the perfect one, is that the PvE style conflicts could come back.  Basically, for those who didn’t get to, you would run a mobile defense with two terminals on an Orokin tile set.  Specters would attack along with heavy gunners and fusion moas, but they dropped rare mods like berserker, flow, or decisive judgement.  It took a set amount of time, was repetitive, and boring.  The idea would be that you could have a mobile defense mission where instead of a terminal or system, you have a repair bot or repair crew you defend (like rescue+defense) to repair your rail.  On the other end, you can do an offensive mission to damage your enemy’s rail.  How about survival that gives the same amount of damage as a single other mission type every 5 minutes?  You could do sabotage, exterminate, or even spy missions instead.  Choice breaks up tedium, and these options allow those who do not PvP to participate actively in rail conflicts.  Not a perfect solution, but it’s a step in the right direction.

 

 

 

Now, the second issue with dark sectors is what an alliance or clan does after they control them.  Currently, they get to tax it for resources and credits and that is about it.  This is what I like to call “the stick.”  You see, you are not going to attract people to your rail on Saturn because you have 0% taxes.  In fact, most people run Sechura on Pluto, and that is the only dark sector I really hear about.  You are punishing people for running your rail by taxing them.  So what makes a dark sector good?  What about those bonuses for more credits, resource drop chance, and affinity from specific kills?

 

The easiest way to make every rail better is to allow a clan to invest in a rail/dark sector and provide “buffs” to those who use it.  This would be what I call “the carrot.”  I bet people would run your sector on Earth if you gave them 20% more resource drop chance, increased credits, or bonus affinity on par with, or greater than Pluto.  The fact of the matter is, the sky is the limit on what bonuses a rail could offer.  Here is a quick list of possible examples.

 

-Change the mission type, make it a survival, defense, mobile defense, spy, excavation (where applicable), or any other mission type

 

-Change the faction attacking the rail. Not just infested, but the Corpus, Grineer, or even the Corrupted

 

-Attract a mini-boss, like Stalker, Zanuka, or the G3. Not an outright guarantee, but an increased chance

 

-Better rewards, upgrade a rail so that it drops better mods. Get rare stances like Tranquil Cleave or Crimson Dervish instead of provoke or intruder mods

 

-Offer some prime parts to spread out prime drops (take some pressure off the derelict and the void maybe?)

Increase bonuses to affinity/credits/resource drop chance

 

-Change of resources that drop (make Orokin cells into neural sensors instead, or neurodes)

 

The idea with all this is one thing.  Give rail owners a way to incentivize and attract playing on their rails.  Maybe I wouldn’t mind running a rail with a 75% credit tax if I knew I had a better chance at getting a stalker encounter or more neural sensors.  Overall, this is just a start, not an end all be all suggestion, but I bet it would give clans something to do with the millions of credits and extra resources they have once they own a rail.  Not to mention, I would be more apt to fight for an alliance that gives more back to the players than one that just taxes Pluto to death.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Chromosis

[(XBOX)LordPuck]

Interesting.

[Phatose]

I'm no huge fan of PvP, but there's very little point in having PvP conflicts at all if there's a PvE version.  Fighting other players is always going to be vastly more difficult that fighting AI bots, and so if fighting AI bots instead is an option, everyone will take it.  The PvP portion becomes irrelevant. 

 

Better to leave the conflicts PvP only and use the mechanism we already have - taxes and battlepay - to allow non-PvPers to make a contribution. 

 

 

Allowing holding alliances to make upgrades of the sort you're suggest seems reasonable - eventually.   Right now, we need to deal with the reality that there's not even a carrot to motivate people to want to hold a rail.   It's a large burden to defend one of the things, but income from the rail is quite literally locked in the alliance vault with no way for it to benefit members of the holding alliance at all.  We really need to have a carrot for the rail owners before we start making them give out more carrots to uninvolved players.

[Chromosis]

I'm no huge fan of PvP, but there's very little point in having PvP conflicts at all if there's a PvE version.  Fighting other players is always going to be vastly more difficult that fighting AI bots, and so if fighting AI bots instead is an option, everyone will take it.  The PvP portion becomes irrelevant. 

 

Better to leave the conflicts PvP only and use the mechanism we already have - taxes and battlepay - to allow non-PvPers to make a contribution. 

 

 

Allowing holding alliances to make upgrades of the sort you're suggest seems reasonable - eventually.   Right now, we need to deal with the reality that there's not even a carrot to motivate people to want to hold a rail.   It's a large burden to defend one of the things, but income from the rail is quite literally locked in the alliance vault with no way for it to benefit members of the holding alliance at all.  We really need to have a carrot for the rail owners before we start making them give out more carrots to uninvolved players.

I have to agree and say I did not think about the consequences for adding a PvE option, but it would be possible to balance the damage done through a mission type.  Since PvP is arguably more difficult, you could always make it deal a lot more damage.