How to make sector conquest mean something.

This is lifted off the steel marauders forms, and so is a bit out of context:

Earlier today in teamspeak we were talking about this, and I suggested that when a corporation owns a sector they should recive a % bonus to their money and xp. Korai pointed out that this would lead to huge corps where everyone joins just for the bonuses.

I thought of a solution to that problem however. Each sector gives a massive bonus, say a 100% increase to money and xp. That percentage bonus however, is spread,between all members of the corporation. Take [sM] for example, at time of writing we have ~60 members so that 100% bonus would translate to 1.4% bonus each, which is significant. (Note: all numbers stated are off the top of my head and would need balancing before this actually happened.) if everyone joined into a large corp however and earned what the Feds currently have ~20 sectors, then that 2000% would be shared between the ~4,000 members that joined for the benefit, resulting in only a 0.5% bonus, meaning it would be better for them to join corps that are medium sized, and play well rather than just zerging it.

This is by no means the ‘solution’ to sector conquest, eventually I want to see mechanics such as each sector being a specific map each time, corporation owned space-stations that give buffs to them when they are the defenders, and other really meta-game things.

Please post your opinion/comment/own ideas down below.

Its really not worth it when you have 130 members in a corp. Each player would get less than a 1 percent gain. 

I actually agree with your post. Just like a large pirate gang has to split up the loot into smaller shares, larger corporations should have to split their sector rewards amongst themselves.


I would like to take your idea one step further.




Defensive, Offensive, and Economy Territory Bonuses


Defensive: Proximity to Capitol Bonus

Sectors become harder and harder to capture the closer they get to the Nation’s capitol, as the defending nation’s ships gain more defensive bonuses the closer they are to the capitol. So in the current situation between the Federation and Jericho, Federation corporations will be feeling the strain of capturing new territory due to their forces being “stretched thin” from their massive blitzkreig. This is because Jericho corporations would be recieving a +5-10% bonus to shield strength and regeneration as well as a +10% beacon and bomb capture speed due to their capitol being close by.


Offensive: Temporary Capture Bonus

Each time a corporation successfully captures a sector, they gain a brief offensive bonus that lasts for 8 hours before expiring (that way multiple offensive bonuses don’t stack to make an unstoppable juggernaut nation). For example, Federation corporations would recieve an 8-hour 5% damage boost to their main weapons for capturing a sector from Jericho.


Economy: Corporation Investment Shares Bonus

Here is where your original idea of splitting territory rewards among members comes in.


Every territory has an economic boost that is awarded to the controlling corporation, provided it is held for a specific number of days. For example, a territory captured by PULSE 48 hours ago no longer gives them a 5% damage boost, but instead gives them a 100% increase in credit rewards (split among all members of their corporation). Other territory rewards could include boosts to reputation and loyalty gain.


Capitol Battles: Dreadnaughts and Galactic Standards

Should a corporation successfully reach the capitol of an enemy nation, the ensuing battle should pay the winning side in Galactic Standards instead of Credits. Additionally, corporations defending the capitol should have the option of flying their corporation dreadnaught into the battle.

The issue I see with this solution, as with others, is that it quickly creates a Monopoly mindset. I’ve seen it on other games where you effectively cannot participate in the top-tier elements of the game (capturing regions, accessing rarest materials, etc) without being a member of one of the Big Three.


I really do not want to see all of Sector Conflict dominated by three Corporations. The landscape is far more interesting when its split up between 30+ corporations.


Plus, right now, the bulk of the player base does not appear to be corp-aligned. I think a lot of people are going to get pissed off if they’re told “sorry, but you have to be in a corporation if you actually want to get anything resembling a decent xp / cash / loyalty income.”


As a simple measure, I think aligning Sector Conflict based on the factions is a better idea - you can be part of a Vanguard Corporation, large or small, or just an independent Vanguard pilot.


With the current model, I do think a defender bonus is a good way to go; the bigger the size difference between the two factions, the bigger the boost the defender gets. This would, if nothing else, mean that it actually requires a lot of work to acquire a massive empire, not just a half-decent team with Skype in the background fighting randoms.

Plus, right now, the bulk of the player base does not appear to be corp-aligned. I think a lot of people are going to get pissed off if they’re told “sorry, but you have to be in a corporation if you actually want to get anything resembling a decent xp / cash / loyalty income.”


As a simple measure, I think aligning Sector Conflict based on the factions is a better idea - you can be part of a Vanguard Corporation, large or small, or just an independent Vanguard pilot.


Quinn, I’m going to try to be as civil as possible about this, but you have made it very clear in the past that you are anti-corporation (going so far as to call me and my buddies scum). In fact, you are pretty much anti-guild for any MMO. The point of MMO’s is to encourage grouping up and playing as a community.


That being said, your idea for making bonuses apply to sub-faction allegiance is not a bad one. And you did point out a potential flaw that the map could turn into a “Big Three” scenario with only the biggest corporations recieving Economy Bonuses.


I could see the potential for making Offensive and Defensive bonuses apply to corporate and independent pilots alike, as they do influence combat effectiveness which is core to gameplay. But not the Economy bonuses. The simple reason being that they do not directly affect the pilots ability to fight, but rather reward community effort and should be used to encourage corporations.


While creating a corporation is not free, joining one is free. It doesn’t cost an independent pilot a single credit, galactic standard, or cash payment to join an established corporation. As such, if an independent pilot wants to recieve an Economy bonus, he needs to join up with a corporation. There really is no excuse to be mad about something that encourages community and is free; unless the pilot in question just hates people in general.

Nice suggestions, but they don’t really solve the fundamental problem of zerging/goonswarming/(call it however you want). All these bonuses - well *so what*? How exactly do they influence the core issue of, to use the direct expression, dyn/dyn2 flooding the game with n+stupid# amount of not-so-good players? I really don’t see anything here that would actually level the ground in any way between 150/150 dual-flowing corp and a 50-srong single corp.


And - all due respect, which is to say none - but no, there is an excuse to get ‘mad’, because encouraging a juggernaut situation, with two-three corps holding an oligopoly on the entire world is not ‘encouraging community’. It’s discouraging, if anything. See, you are talking from the dyn perspective, and for you, all it makes sense - more ppl in dyn means larger dyn community, etc. etc. What about non-dyns, then? Is your suggestion to them “sign up to dyn2/dyn3 or keep quiet?”.

Here’s the thing that you don’t follow, Soldiers, which is damn ironic given your name…


Given the game’s current layout - three races, each with two subfactions, each further subdivided into corporations - the Independent Pilots make a lot of sense. They are mercenaries, dogs of war, and some of us like that. As much as I might enjoy the notion of flying for the Empire, I find it far more enjoyable to simply fly for whoever is going to net me the biggest rewards.


You talk about loyalty to Corporations, and you want to follow the Capitalist model of “the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.” You want your Corp to be able to become so powerful nobody else can topple it. The rest of us don’t want that, because odds are we’re the ones who will have to attempt the toppling.


What I am interested in is the individual. Yes, I am very much against Corporations  in standard missions! I believe in fair play, and it annoys the hell out of me to see games where one player has an unfair advantage over his opponent. This is why I despise Killstreak bonuses in Call of Duty, but approve of Uncharted 3’s “power plays” (which make things harder for your team if you pull more than 1-2 kills ahead of your opponents). It’s why I approve of Space Marine’s ability to ‘steal’ a loadout from whoever killed you. I like games where they actively assist the under-dogs and weaker players, rather than rewarding the no-lifers. I’ve been in the “no-lifer” camp on a few games. I remember how insanely good I was on Resistance 2 at my peak, and I sure as hell did not need the game giving me anything to increase my killing power.


I am not, as some people have wrongly stated, against teamwork. I don’t particularly like games where everyone spawns with a pistol and it’s “first to the rocket launcher wins”. I like games with classes, where everyone has a role. Battlefield 1943, having just 3 maps, 3 classes and 3 vehicles to its name, was an awesome example of this. No levelling, no skill tries, no optional loadouts, yet every class felt like they had a reason to be there. Snipers, for example, could stay back with their rifle or get up close and plant demo-charges to cause insane damage to vehicles.

What I am against, to make this clear, is  ganging up on random players.


If there are no corporations in a match, I am happy. If there are solo-corps, I am happy. If there are two more or less equally sized  corps on either side of a match, I am also happy because they should balance each other out. If the Corporations are playing in a private match where only they are involved, I am happy.

When you have a team of players who are likely in voice communication, working together against players who probably don’t even speak the same language, I draw the line. That I am not happy with. The worst thing you can have happen in a game is to lose before the match has even begun, and when Corporations or Clans or whatever name you give them are involved in one side of the match without an equivalent force on the other, that happens all too often.


If you actually paid attention to my posts, Soldier, you would have noticed something interesting:  I have proposed unfair battles! I have made suggestions that are literally “My Corp + everyone I can get vs Your Corp + everyone you can get.” I have suggested games where you could mix tiers freely, where the richest Corp has an advantage, and that encourage you to exploit every advantage you can to achieve victory.


But let’s just look at the simplest of concepts; the goal of every player. This is what ultimately drove me away from Puzzle Pirates, and if we adhered to your idea I am sure Star Conflict would suffer the same problem. The problem is this: You can’t take part in top level play without permission.

What does that mean? Well, imagine the following scenario: A group of friends join Star Conflict, work their way up the tiers, and become really good at the game. They have a lot of money (relatively speaking), some maxed out tier 2 ships, maybe even a paid-for premium ship or two. They decide to form a Corporation and side with the Empire. Time to make inroads on Sector Conflict!


…only they can’t. They can’t because every adjacent sector belongs to Dyn, whose pilots get massive bonuses due to all that territory they won months and months ago, and so this one little Corp with no territory hasn’t got a hope in hell of breaking them.

Those players have just been denied the endgame content of Star Conflict. They aren’t allowed to form a Corp and create an empire. The only way to do that is to join the big Corporations and fly on their behalf… but that’s not the same. That’s building an empire for someone else.


That is why you penalise the big guys. That is why you make it harder and harder for them to grow. If you make it easy for a corporation to turn up and steal territory off the big corporations, they will. Do you know what that would do to the game? It would  improve it! Think about it; if DYN pilots and everyone flying on their side suffered penalties for every territory DYN owned over the first two or three, DYN would not hold more than 2-3 territories for long. They would be taken from them by up and coming Corporations, and the same would happen to the other big boys.

So what would you do, Soldier? How would you respond to your precious Corporation being ripped apart? Would you ragequit and join a corporation that looked to be doing well, or would you rally the troops and push out, hell-bent on proving you could build an empire despite the odds being stacked against you?

Think about that. Think also how much more exciting the map would look if the landscape was ever changing; one week a Corporation is on the rise, the next it is erased from history, it’s holdings divided into three up and coming Corps. Next week they might be gone just as quickly, either destroyed by their conquered Corp or by yet more newcomers.


The final, “tl;dr” point to take away is this: strong players don’t need any more help. You shouldn’t reward players for winning by making it easier to win; you should challenge them by making it harder to win. Every single player game we play does this; you start easy, it gets harder, you get better, it gets harder again, you get better again, etc. This is what keeps us playing, and if Sector Conflict could do this, making the “reward” for having a large empire the bragging rights of pulling it off despite the handicaps the game inflicted, I think you’d find a lot of people were willing to test their might.

Also, adding this on a separate post…


Star Conflict is not an MMO. That stands for “Massively Multiplayer Online”.


Star Conflict is online, yes. It is multiplayer, yes, but since when is 8v8 considered massive? Most FPS games manage 12vs12, Resistance 2 did 30vs30, and MAG did something insane like 128vs128.


I don’t have a problem with guilds/clans in MMOs. I am part of a clan on Runescape; a clan that focuses primarily on PvE or non-combat aspects of the game, who formed because we collectively get rewards for building and maintaining a Clan Citadel. I have no problem with that, just as i have no problem with your corp or any other corp getting together for a PvE mission. Why would I?


My problems with Corporations is the negative impact they have on Multiplayer PvP games, which is what Star Conflict is. Clans have effectively rendered Killzone 3 unplayable at this stage (a problem exacerbated due to non-existent team balancing), and people were complaining about being farmed by Corps long before I became active on this forum.


I remain forever curious why you choose not to acknowledge these complaints…