Redesign The Sector Conquest System - IMPORTANT! READ THIS!

[Ketriaava 251]

So Koromac and I were having a discussion, where a bunch of ideas were floated around on how to improve the sector conquest system. This idea was brought up and somewhat hashed out, as it offers a fix to many of the existing problems in the sector conquest system. This wouldn’t affect the battles themselves in terms of balance, gameplay, etc. Just the sector conquest and control part.

 

I look forward to your feedback and interest in this discussion. The devs have said they are interested in feedback on this, as the system is still very new. They have said they are open to change. Let's get some support for this going and get them to take a look at what we have to offer them.

 

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. This is an open discussion, though centralized on these ideas.

 

So.

 

This redesign would include the following:

 

Change the Corporation Assignment contracts to issue the following:

5 Iridium to corporation upon victory (this remains as normal)
1 Influence to corporation upon victory [or victory of a dreadnought battle, see below.] (this replaces the 20 iridium for 3 wins contract)

 

Now instead of permanent sector control with sector defense percent, sectors cannot be captured mid-holding. Instead, sectors across the galaxy automatically cycle back into neutral holding after a set number of ‘cycles’, like the old Sector Conquest.

To go with this, Sector Conquest would be redesigned to have one of the following:

 

Option 1: Bidding
Go back to sectors having minimum bidding amounts, with VPs (or officers) able to bid. If so, corporations would now take their officer-hosted wings and their dreadnought into a ‘public’ queue, where they would be matched up against another dreadnought wing that was queued. Matchmaker would play no part, it would simply pair queued wings against each other randomly. This would be how corporations would get influence with which to bid. Rather than specific timezones, sector conquest would return to the previous ‘cycle’ system, and every 4 hours, players could wing up to queue into some number of battles. Note that this system would not go back to the old WX-# system. It would remain as-is with the galaxy map providing the sectors to capture.

This would solve the fake attack problem, but bidding on sectors removes some of the feel of taking a sector by force. It does, however, dramatically increase the number of dreadnought battles players get to participate in. I consider this a strong option, and better than Option 2, but not the best one.

 

Option 2: Neutral Tournaments
Once sectors become neutral at the end of their cycle count, attacking a sector would cost influence instead of iridium. This influence would be won through the current contract system, where 1 win of a PvP/PvE = 1 influence, replacing the 3 wins = 20 iridium contract. There would be no total limit to attacking a sector, but each corporation could only attack one sector per cycle and only launch one attack. All corporations would compete in the neutral tournament for sector control. The galaxy would still have timezones for attacks.

This would solve the fake attack problem and the no-show problem, but still restrict the number of dreadnought battles a corporation could play in. Tournaments may last a long time if there are too many corporations. It would also heavily favor the stronger corps, as they would likely win the average tournament far more often. Timezones would need to exist to allow multiple regions the ability to control sectors, but would therefore be subject to the current problems that system has. I consider this a good option, but not the best one.

 

Option 3: Tournament/Bidding Hybrid - Influence from PvP/PvE

This option is a fusion of the above two. Corporations would receive influence from regular PvP/PvE victory contracts, like in Option 2. Corporations would use that influence to bid on a sector, but rather than win the sector automatically, the top four bidders would be entered into a tournament to control the sector like in Option 2. If a corporation didn't show, they'd simply be out the influence they spent to get there. This would solve the fake attack system, and also penalize corporations for not showing. However, it would still restrict the number of dreadnought battles a player could play to a very low amount.

I consider this a stronger option than Options 1 or 2, but not stronger than Option 4. It is very much one to consider, however.

 

Option 4: Tournament/Bidding Hybrid - Influence from Public Dreadnought Queue
This option is a variant of option 3, with the prime difference being that rather than get influence from PvP/PvE, corporations would have to wing up during sector conquest hours to get it using the previously mentioned dreadnought battle queue. Bidders would then use their influence to bid on a sector, and the top four corporations would be entered into a tournament.

This gives players the best chance to play in a large number of dreadnought battles every day, with far less on the line per game. In addition, sectors would have protection against fake attacks and have a penalty if corporations didn't show to the tournament battles.

[Kazumi_ 34]

how would the #4 option work for weaker corps with less activity in PvE/PvP or dread battles (newer corps)?

[Ketriaava 251]

how would the #4 option work for weaker corps with less activity in PvE/PvP or dread battles (newer corps)?

The newest corps probably can't afford a dreadnought in the first place. Those that can will then hopefully have enough players to put a wing in the queue and fight a bunch of games, grind some influence here and there, and eventually put themselves in the running for a sector or two.

 

These corps aren't really the ones who can stand out early on, but if they have a dreadnought and run the queues then they can work their way up the ladder and make some accomplishments. If anything, Option 4 works better for them because they get to play more, train more without worrying about their only game of the day being a waste of time (no shows, stuck against a juggernaut corp), etc. Plus they get some exposure against other corps, since they'll be fighting and thus be getting the word out that they can fight in dread battles.

 

Though you may be using a different definition of "newer corps". I'm talking about a corp that has maybe 20 people in it. Did you have something else in mind?

[Kazumi_ 34]

The newest corps probably can't afford a dreadnought in the first place. Those that can will then hopefully have enough players to put a wing in the queue and fight a bunch of games, grind some influence here and there, and eventually put themselves in the running for a sector or two.

 

These corps aren't really the ones who can stand out early on, but if they have a dreadnought and run the queues then they can work their way up the ladder and make some accomplishments. If anything, Option 4 works better for them because they get to play more, train more without worrying about their only game of the day being a waste of time (no shows, stuck against a juggernaut corp), etc. Plus they get some exposure against other corps, since they'll be fighting and thus be getting the word out that they can fight in dread battles.

 

Though you may be using a different definition of "newer corps". I'm talking about a corp that has maybe 20 people in it. Did you have something else in mind?

I was thinking a corp new to dreads, which is vastly different from weak corp (a corp who has lackluster skill in dreads but has been doing dreadnoughts for some time now)

[Ketriaava 251]

I was thinking a corp new to dreads, which is vastly different from weak corp (a corp who has lackluster skill in dreads but has been doing dreadnoughts for some time now)

I think my answer is adequate, then. Do you think I missed something?

[Error18512 524]

Thanks for your input, we will discuss it.

[Kazumi_ 34]

I think my answer is adequate, then. Do you think I missed something?

 

Erm, you took "new corp" as a corp with about 20ish players, instead of a corp new to dreads, as stated here:

 

Though you may be using a different definition of "newer corps". I'm talking about a corp that has maybe 20 people in it. Did you have something else in mind?

[Ketriaava 251]

Thanks for your input, we will discuss it.

Honestly I was hoping there'd be more feedback before it went to the devs.

 

 

Erm, you took "new corp" as a corp with about 20ish players, instead of a corp new to dreads, as stated here:

A corp new to dreads would be able to play games without an entire sector on the line each time. It'd give them a chance to learn the mode and the field. It's not perfect since they may have to fight a juggernaut corp game one, but dreads are endgame-ish content anyway...

[Kazumi_ 34]

Honestly I was hoping there'd be more feedback before it went to the devs.

 

 

A corp new to dreads would be able to play games without an entire sector on the line each time. It'd give them a chance to learn the mode and the field. It's not perfect since they may have to fight a juggernaut corp game one, but dreads are endgame-ish content anyway...

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

[PrivateBrowsing 88]

What we really need is more players, filling Corps up with active members.

[StatueofLibroty 271]

What we really need is more players, filling Corps up with active members.

 

No, not really

[Aliskosan 188]

Good day!

We appreciate your input to this topic cz we are working on improving the Dreadnought Battles. :012j:

1) We are not planning to return to the previous cycle as you have suggested. The idea is to develop the current system in the proper way.

2)3)  So far implementing influence points is not in the plans.

4) in that way it will be really hard for less experienced corporations to take part in the battles.

 

And look the ideas are good don't get me wrong. Some part of our staff share them completely, but I've metioned the drawbacks which were found during our discussion.

[Ketriaava 251]

Good day!

We appreciate your input to this topic cz we are working on improving the Dreadnought Battles. :012j:

1) We are not planning to return to the previous cycle as you have suggested. The idea is to develop the current system in the proper way.

2)3)  So far implementing influence points is not in the plans.

4) in that way it will be really hard for less experienced corporations to take part in the battles.

 

And look the ideas are good don't get me wrong. Some part of our staff share them completely, but I've metioned the drawbacks which were found during our discussion.

1) Ah, I should clarify that I do not mean the exact same as the old cycle. The Wx-# sectors should stay gone. I am suggesting that sectors on the Galaxy Map - what we have now - should be held for a duration and then revert back to neutral after some time.

Can you confirm this is what the staff meant to address?

 

2)3) Fair enough, though I suggest you keep the resource in mind in case you need it. :)

 

4) Less experienced corporations already cannot take part in tournaments - they lose before they can play for sector control tournaments. Public queue option lets them play against more corporations, more frequently, with less at stake if they lose.

Perhaps we are not on the same page with this? Can you clarify?

[Big_Dirk_Energy 350]

In my opinion, I think that if anything needs to change with the current system, there needs to be a fix to the "fake attacks" and mega alliances that are able to shut out all real attacks from a sector so that the owner can hold on to it indefinitely with no struggle and miniscule iridium costs (corps with no sectors will pay a max of 40 iridium, which is earned back in 1 day from holding an iridium sector).

 

I mean, it is really a stupid system currently that doesn't put emphasis on games, and puts too much emphasis on politics. A balance needs to be struck so that small corps/corps with no interest in politics can get games, but the larger corps/corps that enjoy politics can still enjoy that aspect of the game.

 

2 options that I think could fix the fake attack/mega alliance block-outs are the following:

 

1) Allow several attacker launching stages. This way, if corps do not show up for an attack, other corps can launch attacks. I think it would be fair that once a corp has launched an attack and not shown, they cannot relaunch against the same sector. This will discourage fake attacks, as they will no longer have a purpose, but it will still encourage alliances, so that the corp who owns the sector can draw on allies to help them defend (which is how it should be done in this system, I mean, that is how the system was designed, with free defense contracting). 

 

This option is the one I think will work best in the current system ^

 

2) Put no limit to the number of corps that can launch an attack. Pretty simple really, any number of corps can launch an attack. Sure, this will increase the time it takes to draw out the tournament, but if this is incorporated in a system where sectors revert back to neutral and selected cycle intervals, then this will work quite well. This will also discourage fake attacks, as there would be no point to them as well. This wouldn't encourage alliances as much, but at the same time, alliance corps could all launch attacks to increase the chances of one of them taking the sector.