Sector Conquest Balancing

Game Discussion Game Modes & Maps Discussions
21

Just to give a little perspective…

 

I’m a fairly new player… I have recently begun fitting my T2 ships with semi decent mods. Most are still mk1, with a smattering of mk2 an greens, a few blue’s when I can afford it. I currently own 1 T3 ship that’s outfitted with mk1 as I have not unlocked blue’s at T3 levels, an I do not have greens. For info sake it’s a fed engy frig. I mostly use it to run PvE as I find being a low geared engy in T3/4 matches rather… well if you’ve reached that point or past, you know what it’s like allowing some variance for playstyle and random or grouped play.

 

All that said… I joined DYN due to having met a generally friendy, laid back, mature crew of people to play with. At the time of choosing no other corp was advertising, and those that were I’d spent days watching general chat behavior enough to deduce I wouldn’t be a good fit with them. Many were either hunting for upper tier players, or asking for rather large commitments of time an mandatory use of voice com.

 

Since joining DYN, I’ve been far more active as the game is suddenly a lot more fun because of the ability to coordinate in a laid back group… My experience is not a singular occurence. DYN did nothing special to gain mine, or others attention, beyond having done the above. Perhaps if other corps followed suit they’d be more numerous in size as well as more active. It’s rather short sighted to heap hostility on the achievment of any one group formed of volunteers over any other. No one forced anyone into any of these. If one should attract more membership then another, the others should perhaps take note an consider adjusting their recruitment accordingly.

 

By virtue of how the Sector Conflict game is set up, it’s rather silly to think that one faction or another wouldn’t eventually being taking a loads of territory. It’s setup that way, and the main issue being human nature an free choice. While not a direct comparison between this an Planetside 2, but worth mentioning, in that game they allow for full captures of the “playing field” with rewards, it’s expected. The only point being that Sector Conflct, mechanics wise, is VERY similiar in so far as it is very possible for a faction to hold most, if not eventually ALL sectors with luck an superior pressure. It’s an organic thing driven by leaving the choice of faction alignment voluntary. If you happen to pick an unpopular faction, it’s rather difficult to scream it’s unfair. No, it’s not your fault, but neither is it anyone elses.

22

Sector conquest is just a new ranking system calculated by a glorified arcade mode… I don’t see what is the big deal of it.

 

I don’t want to sound harsh, but it was poorly thought out but I suppose their focus at the time was the ship roles, but since they released this, thing… Meh, I heard they are now finding ways to fix it up or something…

23

I am sorry, but I cannot listen to this guy any more. Soldiers, I’m sure you have a good time with your corp, but you are the kind of scum who ruins every multiplayer experience out there.

 

Corporations, Clans, Guilds, etc. are bad for games. I am not the only one who has logged into a match and seen [ALPHA] or [DYN] or whatever next to half the enemy team’s names and given up any hope of a good match.

 

If you want to get your Corp together and take on another Corp, then more power too you. If you want to get your Corp together and take on a bunch of players who’ve never met and have no means to communicate directly, and probably can’t even co-ordinate via chat due to language barriers… you are scum.

 

Sector Conquest is a fine example of this. Players like me are not only left feeling like they can’t make a difference because victory is decided by which side the Corporation is placed on, we also get no credit for the work we put in. I have slogged my guts out in matches, amassing 10+ kills, 10+ assists and 3-4 beacon captures all in a single match. I was a xxxx God of War that match and, whilst I would certainly not claim the whole match hinged on me, we wouldn’t have won if I’d been sat at the back in an LR frigate. I felt like I made a real difference. That difference meant xxxx-all; your corporation got all the credit for taking the sector.

 

As a favour to the rest of us, try to keep your little farming missions off Arcade mode so the rest of us can play without having to put up with you. That goes for all Corps, by the way; DYN is just the most prominent example.

24

@JasanQuinn

 

No arguement from me, as I can definitely understand how fustrating it is to put out effort and perceive little to no reward. With the changes to ship rolls, mods, and balance, striking out solo is a rather risky proposition. More so now then it was when you could fit a ship to do a little of everything. I was in the same boat till I joined a corp. For all intents an purposes, Sector Conquest appears to be rather corp centric, at least in it’s current incarnation, and likely as it grows. Many of it’s features cater to organized groups, and from what I read an hear, that’s only going to increase. So, I’m wondering why a lone person would expect to make an impact? Don’t get me wrong here… I’m not saying that you shouldn’t, as I think it’d be nice if there was a way for a solo player to join into this part of the game an get rewarded for their effort beyond what you could have earned playing arcade. As it stands now it appears only corps are rewarded beyond arcade level loot in some small part by having sectors tagged. That said, I think it’s a bit much to expect, as it stands now, to have a meaningful impact as just one pilot, or even a group of random pilots.

 

Personally when I fly solo, it’s in arcade or PvE. As a solo pilot I know that my chances of being on the losing team increase exponentially even before any effort on my part is introduced. I don’t think anyone should be restricted in what they do, but it’s clear the current setup upsets you. It appears that this comes from an expectation that you should or could be able to compete vs a game mode that is going to be full of organized teams, many rather large.

25

I am sorry, but I cannot listen to this guy any more. Soldiers, I’m sure you have a good time with your corp, but you are the kind of scum who ruins every multiplayer experience out there.

 

Ironically I was done with this topic and had moved on with my life before you posted…

 

I joined Dynamis a grand total of 8-9 days ago. Before that I was very much anti-corporation and determined to be a lone wolf. Currently I am actually on a leave of absence from Dynamis so I can focus on finals.

 

I joined because I got a random message from a Dynamis member saying they had been watching me during the past few games I had played and they thought I’d make a good addition to their corp. I was flattered and decided to give it a shot, and I found that I really enjoyed flying with them. Not because we won every match (because we definately don’t), but because of the community. Because I finally had voices and personalities to go with the names.

 

Corporations (clans) are simply a natural occurence in multiplayer games. It’s like your friend list on Facebook. If you have a problem with that, blame the developers for putting clan support in their game.

 

Sector Conquest was designed around the idea of corporate warfare. That’s why corporations get credit for territory captures. You are personally blaming me (and calling me scum to boot) for the inclusion of this game mode, as if I somehow developed it just to ruin your day. I have no control over the content the developers put in this game.

 

There is currently no way to tell if our squads are going to be pitted against another corporation or a bunch of public players. Again, this is the developer’s fault. If it were up to us, Dynamis squads would only play against other corporations. But currently we have no choice in the matter. We don’t even have control over whether we will end up fighting our own corporation half of the time.

 

In conclusion:

 

You do not know me. You do not know the people in Dynamis. Yet you have just called us scum and blamed us for ruining every single MMO currently on the market. Take your anger elsewhere and stop blaming people you don’t even know for problems we have not caused.

 

P.S. And you might want to look into getting some professional therapy for that anger issue.

26

The core issues with the Corps, sadly, extends beyond Sector Conflict. Frankly, it extends to almost every game out there. As much as it pains me to say it, Call of Duty got something right with mercenary mode; no groups, no clans - you are assigned your team randomly. I think, from the offset, that Arcade Mode needs to do the same. If you are going to create a mode that actively punishes people for drop-in play, then you really need a mode that nurtures it by removing the barrier of Sector Conflict.

 

Another point worth making is that, directly or not, the Devs implied that everyone makes a difference in Sector Conflict. You can align your Corporation with a specific faction, or you can be a lone wolf and fight for whoever is currently handing out your contracts. If independents don’t matter in the big picture, why go that far at all?

 

The sad thing is, Sector Conflict could be fixed by one very simple change; ditch the Corps, promote the Contracts. If I could play a few games a week and see that the Techs, or Vanguard or whoever I’m currently flying for is gaining ground, it feels like I am a part of that. You could even do little tweaks so that Legion, Vanguard or Raid players get a bonus when they win attacking enemy sectors, whilst the others get a bonus when they win defending. This not only encourages the idea that Contractors are more than just a blank-slate money generator and gives their political group some identity, but it makes it all the more rewarding when a “defender” faction manages to take a sector, or an “attacker” faction holds the line despite being the under-dog.

 

If the Corporation model is going to remain, then there is another option; hard cap how much a Corp can do. If one Corp has control of 4-5 sectors, they can’t take any more. Their games still count, but they won’t get the credit. Instead, it’ll go to the next most active Corp. This solution only masks the problem rather than solves it, but it raises a lot less bile when it appears that the Federation is winning because of 5-6 Corps all doing well, instead of one huge group of T2 farmers.

 

Sector Conflict is always going to be sullied with griefer Corps and farming Corps and general scum who are ever eager to assure us that they believe in fun and good sportsmanship, but with some minor changes the rest of us can feel like we matter as well.

27

Sector Conflict is always going to be sullied with griefer Corps and farming Corps and general scum who are ever eager to assure us that they believe in fun and good sportsmanship, but with some minor changes the rest of us can feel like we matter as well.

 

:fed014:

 

I give up.

 

Go play the game and have fun, dammit.

28

:fed014:

 

I give up.

 

Go play the game and have fun, dammit.

I do have fun… sometimes. Since 0.8.0 though it’s clear that random matchmaking is producing more bi-polar results. Rarely do games seem to be back and forth affairs; far more often one side obliterates the other. It is hard to have fun in that environment - you either get bored of being in games you cannot win, or get bored of being in games you cannot lose…

 

But I can already see where this game is going to go. It’ll end up like Killzone 3; large, long-established clans who play to farm, or on the off chance they actually run into one another. I don’t want that to happen. This game has a lot of potential, and I’ve found that (providing the corporations stay the hell away) Realistic battles show a lot of untapped potential. They are, to my mind, slow-paced, nerve-wracking and intensely addictive affairs even when 3/4 opponents are bots.

 

That’s another topic entirely though. This is about Sector Conflict. Even if we ignore the games where clans set out to farm Tier 2, there’s a lot of other issues. The main ones to my mind are:

 

  1. My team can lose the match for no reason other than three people picked LR Frigate and wouldn’t change to a class that is actually useful. LR Frigates are terrible ships in the context of how the game is generally played (ie: swarming beacons), and steps should be taken to either make them useful in capture modes, or removing them entirely.
  2. As mentioned, Sector Conflict is unrewarding for independents, small Corps, and anyone who isn’t in the Top 3 Corps in general. Steps should be taken to make everyone matter.
29

You know that the game is still in beta right? Also a little more than a week ago a major patch (that made alot of people unhappy) overthrew the entire “balancing”.  I put balancing in quotes because it wasnt balanced at all. (i remember my t1 interceptor with stasis generator and ion emitter)

 

Now why dont we all sit back, quietly post constructive criticism and see what the developers will make of it.

30

@[ABlueParakeet](< base_url >/index.php?/user/240938-ablueparakeet/)

That is the point of my initial post. [SoldiersFortune](< base_url >/index.php?/user/240330-soldiersfortune/) just decided to bring his corporation into this. All I said was this is what I think should happen and he came along and claimed I’m angry at Dynamis.

 

 As I said, I’m all for constructive criticism, and appreciate you giving your opinion on how you think Sector Conquest could be improved. My comment about DYN-bashing was more directed at @nLx.

 

Personally, I think having separated tiers in Sector Conquest is silly, and think the game could benefit from modeling SC after AvA from Global Agenda.

 

In Global Agenda, you could play its equivalent of Sector Conquest (AvA) at level 25, but as it was open to any level, your squad could be matched up with level 60 toons in end game gear.

 

To put it in Star Conflict terms, I would support them making Sector Conquest a single “open” tier where you could fly any level of ship. This would steer the highest ranked/most coordinated corps to Sector Conquest, and would make arcade mode more fun for lone wolves/pugs by lessening the amount of low-tier “pug stomping”. 

 

As it stands, I also think that they should change the allowed squad size for Sector Conquest to 8 or 12 while keeping the max squad size for arcade mode at 4 (or even lessening it to 3), which would further filter out pug-stompers from Arcade Mode and steer the big corps. towards Sector Conquest. 

31

Dynamis is not at all 'skilled". They are destroying the leaderboard because they have 150 active members, 80 percent of which are farming T2. I have only seen 4 DYN members in T3, and NONE in T4. 

32

All I can say is I am surprised. For corporations who claim such skill why is it such a problem for you to beat us? To be completely honest here after the update a lot of my T3 setups were changed so I went to T2. This was the same case for many of our members. I apologize if you think we are just feeding on “low skilled T2 players” but we are not. We’ve even started to get back into T3, and have been for a few days now. All I can find here are excuses to why Dynamis is doing well, it could never be our active players and teamwork doing that, just us feeding on new players. You guys want to prove your good then do it and shut up.

33

so i see everybody has an opinion, nice

 

this is what the game designers do good they developed a game we feel worth discussing about.

 

my point with sector conqeust is that the fun fights are in T2, big fights with good ships and no difference in influence to sector conqeust and we ( dynamis) happen to be good at it.

 

I play t3 and t4 myself (as a member of dynamis) and I like it, but i like t2 to, my corp mate in the post above this is right. 

due to our playing in t2 we also have the time to train new players and our active players keep getting better.

 

my suggestion is:

 

Make T3 and t4 more inmportant for pvp ranking so a t3 match will say give 10 % more points and t4 15%, this way we will have to play t4, bet your will be suprised how many dynamis you will see in both tiers, 

 

like my corpi said 'you want to prove your good then do it and shutup"

 

WE ARE DYNAMIS!!

 

for king and country, 

 

luav 

34

The core issues with the Corps, sadly, extends beyond Sector Conflict. Frankly, it extends to almost every game out there. As much as it pains me to say it, Call of Duty got something right with mercenary mode; no groups, no clans - you are assigned your team randomly. I think, from the offset, that Arcade Mode needs to do the same. If you are going to create a mode that actively punishes people for drop-in play, then you really need a mode that nurtures it by removing the barrier of Sector Conflict.

 

Another point worth making is that, directly or not, the Devs implied that everyone makes a difference in Sector Conflict. You can align your Corporation with a specific faction, or you can be a lone wolf and fight for whoever is currently handing out your contracts. If independents don’t matter in the big picture, why go that far at all?

 

The sad thing is, Sector Conflict could be fixed by one very simple change; ditch the Corps, promote the Contracts. If I could play a few games a week and see that the Techs, or Vanguard or whoever I’m currently flying for is gaining ground, it feels like I am a part of that. You could even do little tweaks so that Legion, Vanguard or Raid players get a bonus when they win attacking enemy sectors, whilst the others get a bonus when they win defending. This not only encourages the idea that Contractors are more than just a blank-slate money generator and gives their political group some identity, but it makes it all the more rewarding when a “defender” faction manages to take a sector, or an “attacker” faction holds the line despite being the under-dog.

 

If the Corporation model is going to remain, then there is another option; hard cap how much a Corp can do. If one Corp has control of 4-5 sectors, they can’t take any more. Their games still count, but they won’t get the credit. Instead, it’ll go to the next most active Corp. This solution only masks the problem rather than solves it, but it raises a lot less bile when it appears that the Federation is winning because of 5-6 Corps all doing well, instead of one huge group of T2 farmers.

 

Sector Conflict is always going to be sullied with griefer Corps and farming Corps and general scum who are ever eager to assure us that they believe in fun and good sportsmanship, but with some minor changes the rest of us can feel like we matter as well.

 

…or you know… you could maybe ease up on the organized group player hating an try joining one. It’s still rather clear that most of your anger is coming from a view that you alone cannot compete vs a group of dozens or more. I blame CoD an other such random spawn, no possible line of battle, every man for himself hero games, for instilling any gamer with the idea that the lone man can rule the battlefield. Which by the way is SO far removed from how combat in any real sense could ever be effectively conducted. CoD an it’s clones are fictionalized combat in the extreme, with as much in common with actual combat tactics, as Lord of the Rings does to modern history. It’s simply not true unless someone puts effort into coding the game that way. Now sure, being the lone god of battle sure strokes the ego, and makes for some -personal- fun. However in a game that involves MANY people, that sort of playstyle isn’t really much fun for everyone else that doesn’t enjoy it. So, thankfully the world has provided us with games like CoD that cater to the lone man who can make all the difference, and on the other hand also provided us with games like this one where developers feel TEAM PLAY is going to be more rewarding. They feel inclined to also offer one to go it solo in the abscense of a convenient team. Worth noting that there is not ONE SINGLE MODE in this game where you are ever truely solo. So here is where any idea of an implication that the solo player is primary or equal focus gets lost on me. Even in a arcade random game that has NO squads or communication, the winning outcome primarily goes to the side that coordinated in some fashion, even if it was due to blind dumb luck.

 

I don’t see anyone forming a one man NASCAR team and railing against the powers that be about their inability to field a car, or effectively race… it’s simply not possible, or expected. There’s no one man NFL, or NBA teams. Oddly there are sports for the solo man to excel… have you tried golf, tennis, or shuffle-board… maybe some online poker?

 

There is no misleading implication here from dev’s or anyone else. The dev’s said lone players and corps can participate… this is true. The dev’s have provided rewards for both the individual and the corps… this is true. No where did they state, or imply, that rewards for both would be equal. Again it’s rather self misleading to think your going to solo join a game mode focused primarily for large organized group play, an some how have an EQUAL impact on the situation.

 

If you want individual reward commensurate with individual effort, try PvE or arcade PvP. Both of those modes are better suited, though since group play in PvP is not forbidden your likely to have ups an downs. I get your fustrated with facing large organized groups all alone, fair enough, so don’t. However I’m not sure what you envision the gain to be by railing against them in the very forum’s such play styles have been catered to. It’s unlikely your going to suddenly make the dev’s, who are building an running a business, suddenly decide that they should alienate a facet of said business that is MOST likely to garner them the consistent return income they hope for. I mean sure you can hope for such things, but you must accept that view is selfish, entitled, and rather short sighted. It’s a shame you choose to feel somehow slighted by the participation of organized groups in a place specifically for them. I’ll be sure to shower off that dirty feeling the next time I -sully- a sector with my organized presence.

 

If you choose to go it solo, take personal responsibility for that, don’t blame those that did not. If you find yourself stuck that way, and simply cannot get others to join up with you, ask yourself why. If there is no impediment to you joining a group beyond personal choice, well, it’s simply a personal choice you made. No one forced that on you.

 

After saying all that, I would still like to say that it would be great if both solo an corp players could participate an feel rewarded. I think the dev’s would like that as well. However it’s unlikely everyone is going to feel the same about the issue. I’m not sure such disagreements require anything like the personalizing an hostility that’s been seen so far.

35

my suggestion is:

 

Make T3 and t4 more inmportant for pvp ranking so a t3 match will say give 10 % more points and t4 15%, this way we will have to play t4, bet your will be suprised how many dynamis you will see in both tiers, 

 

 

luav 

 

 

Something like this sounds pretty damn good actually . Maybe a tad more like 15% ,  20%  . 

 

I hope a dev/mod sees this and passed it along

36

Machinech,

 

Your blaming of Call of Duty is kind of sad, since it shows a lack of gaming pedigree. The majority of PvP FPS games prior to CoD have been all about one man army style play. A lot of games full stop have focused on that.

 

But that is not the issue. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that I believe a lone player should be able to rock up into a group of 3-4 enemies and wipe them out. I am not. I am well aware that this game more than most discourages the Lone Wolf combatant in favour of group play. That isn’t the issue.

 

The issue is this. Let’s assume Star Conflict has a voice chat system put in next patch. I immediately don my headset and say “Okay, let’s make a plan guys!” And I get two out of eight players replying to me; one in French, one in German. The rest stay dark and, at best, occasionally ping a beacon or target of note.

On the other side of the field are 3-4 people in a group, all with chat enabled, who have flown together a lot. That’s a big advantage to their side, and more often than not that can win games. In fact, it wins a lot of games on here; Star Conflict isn’t a game where one player can turtle on a base and hold off a numerically superior force without support.

 

This kind of occurrence is hugely frustrating to deal with, and the answer of “become part of the problem” is frankly insulting. It is also untrue to an extent to state that Sector Conflict is focused on Corporations; it has no method for setting up inter-Corp battles, challenging opposing Corps, or providing any of the functionality I would expect in a dedicated team based competition. No, Sector Conflict is simply a visual way of telling us all which clan won the most Arcade battles today. That is a truly sad waste of potential for the game mode.

 

If Sector Conflict is meant to be about Clan Battles, there should be mechanics to do that. The best game I can recall that did that was, of all things, Puzzle Pirates; you’d get notices days in advance along the lines of “the flag Dies Irae intends to blockade Tyr’s Own for control of the Island of Luthay!”, and when the battle came it was a massive clash where both factions threw in their ships and unleashed hell. Other players could get involved by “jobbing” for one faction or the other, or else raising a few ships and crews and sending their own flag into the fight.

 

With regard to Star Conflict, here is an idea of how to achieve a similar end:

  1. Jericho Corp Evolution [EVO] attacks a Federation Dynamo [DYN] sector. This is announced on the map screen so all players can learn of the battle about to take place.
  2. The game allows a 3-4 hour “prep time” before the game rocks up. Corporations can sign up to join in the fight, and are assigned based on their faction, or the faction of their corporation. In this case, all Jericho default to EVO, all Federation default to DYN, and Empire are mercenaries; they can pick and choose their side. In the event of a civil war (ie: Fed Corp vs Fed Corp), everyone is deemed to be a mercenary.
  3. Both factions involved in the conflict are then required to “buy” their faction. A Corp can purchase various upgrades including a Dreadnought (very expensive, very powerful command ship), Jump Beacons (grants their faction more ‘lives’), orbital defenses and so on. The more money a Corp spends on the battle, the longer they can take part and the more chance they have of winning.
  4. When the clock runs out, it’s game on! The objective is solely to wipe out the enemy Corporation! Team Deathmatch all the way! Well, not quite…

 

Rules of the Sector Conflict Scenario:

Each team has 500 lives.  Lose a ship, lose a life. Simple.

The following upgrades provide additional lives for the team: Dreadnought (+100 Lives); Jump Beacon (+10/20/30/40/50, depending on type); Corporate Sponsorship (+10 if your side has the most Corporations fighting for it); Dogs of War (+10 if your faction has the most non-Corp pilots on its side).

Lives are lost as follows:

Loss of a Dreadnought / beacon loses the bonus it gives; if you disable a +30 beacon, the enemy loses 30 lives!

Kills lose lives by tier. Shoot down a tier 1 ship, the enemy loses one life. Shoot down a tier 3 ship, they lose three.

Killing a member of the ‘leading’ Corporation (EVO or DYN in this example above) nets an extra kill.

 

Here’s the kicker though; no tier restrictions, no team size restrictions (or if there are, it’s big!). These games are intended to be the “MMO” battles the game claims to be about. Battles take place on huge maps, with Dreadnoughts being the central focus but with plenty of scope for players to fly around the edges and make surprise attacks on vulnerable installations.

 

 

 

More importantly to my mind… this mode would slow everything right the hell down. If your Corporation needs to throw a hundred mil into invading an enemy territory, you won’t be doing it every day. You’ll want to make sure your entire Corp, or as much as possible, can get online. You’ll want to know you’ve got allied Corps watching your back, and you’ll want to convince every Independent out there why they should be flying on your side of the battle. Could this result in a game where 8 Tier-2 pilots get swarmed by 20+ Tier 4? Yes, but that’s the point; if you were only willing to send up a few Tier-2 ships, you clearly didn’t want that sector very badly!

 

THIS is the kind of game mode where Clan play belongs; not sullying Arcade, and not in the current “Arcade by another name” Sector Conflict.

37

The issue is this. Let’s assume Star Conflict has a voice chat system put in next patch. I immediately don my headset and say “Okay, let’s make a plan guys!” And I get two out of eight players replying to me; one in French, one in German. The rest stay dark and, at best, occasionally ping a beacon or target of note.

On the other side of the field are 3-4 people in a group, all with chat enabled, who have flown together a lot. That’s a big advantage to their side, and more often than not that can win games. In fact, it wins a lot of games on here; Star Conflict isn’t a game where one player can turtle on a base and hold off a numerically superior force without support.

 

This kind of occurrence is hugely frustrating to deal with, and the answer of “become part of the problem” is frankly insulting.

 

 

I’m sorry I did mis-understand. I get it now… you find it “fustrating” for a group to have the advantages that come with practice and familiarity of playing together. In every sport or game there is, the team that has more practice is more likely to win over a team of random players, even given a high degree of skill. The view that it’s a problem, or insulting to be required to put forth the same organization an effort is… well yep I’m done here, there’s flatly no way at all to come to any sort of understanding with someone that has an issue with such things. Best of luck, I look forward to seeing you out on the field. Oh by the way… CoD called…it misses you. :slight_smile:

38

Not actually played CoD in… err… I honestly don’t remember the last time I played, so I’m going to say 12 months. Maybe you should try accusing me of playing too much Halo instead. I’m sure that’d make your comments far more credible.

39

But that is not the issue. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that I believe a lone player should be able to rock up into a group of 3-4 enemies and wipe them out. I am not. I am well aware that this game more than most discourages the Lone Wolf combatant in favour of group play. That isn’t the issue.

 

The issue is this. Let’s assume Star Conflict has a voice chat system put in next patch. I immediately don my headset and say “Okay, let’s make a plan guys!” And I get two out of eight players replying to me; one in French, one in German. The rest stay dark and, at best, occasionally ping a beacon or target of note.

On the other side of the field are 3-4 people in a group, all with chat enabled, who have flown together a lot. That’s a big advantage to their side, and more often than not that can win games. In fact, it wins a lot of games on here; Star Conflict isn’t a game where one player can turtle on a base and hold off a numerically superior force without support.

 

This kind of occurrence is hugely frustrating to deal with, and the answer of “become part of the problem” is frankly insulting. It is also untrue to an extent to state that Sector Conflict is focused on Corporations; it has no method for setting up inter-Corp battles, challenging opposing Corps, or providing any of the functionality I would expect in a dedicated team based competition. No, Sector Conflict is simply a visual way of telling us all which clan won the most Arcade battles today. That is a truly sad waste of potential for the game mode.

 

I’m quite confused by your criticism — superior numbers, organization, and coordination will always outperform a single person, no matter how good of a player they are. This is true across every multiplayer game (and in real life as well). 

 

Even in the hypothetical puzzle pirate-esque mode you suggested, a coordinated group will almost always beat an unorganized team. I don’t really see how that “problem” would go away even if Gaijin adopted every single one of your suggestions, as there is no way to “nerf” teamwork.

 

A possible solution to your criticism would be to have separate pools/modes for solo players vs. those in groups, which I would fully support. You could have one mode that had a max squad size of 1-2 and one that required a squad of 4+. Alternatively, the addition of a FFA deathmatch mode would cater to someone like you as well.

40

I don’t think this game really works in a FFA Deathmatch mode. A Team Deathmatch definitely; it seems strange they’ve not done it already to be honest.

 

The Puzzle Pirate example is a bit of an odd one really because of how the mechanics work; that is a game where everyone plays alone, but your performance impacts everyone else. For example, if you are working the sails, then the better you do the faster your ship generates movement points, which in turn means your ship’s navigator can move about the map faster. If you are loading guns, then the faster you load guns the more often the navigator can fire those guns. As such, the “teamwork” is not really about co-ordination and everyone working together, it’s about each person focusing on one job and doing it to the best of their ability.

 

Problems creep into multiplayer, in my opinion, when designers stop taking that view. As much as I might complain about clans farming tier 2, the majority of games don’t have a major clan taint. You might get a game with two members of a low-ranking, obscure clan and they just don’t do enough to turn the tide. You might see 5-6 people all from different clans, so they’re clearly just matchmaking randomly.

All of this points to a fairly obvious observation; most ‘teams’ are not planned. They are random people thrown together, and the game should really keep that in mind.

 

To return to the sector conflict issue, I doubt that any of the Corporations actually won the territories the map claims they did. If you counted independent pilots as their own faction, there wouldn’t be any Corp space. This is where I feel like my suggestion has more merit. Right now, Corps are basically stealing all the credit for the work of everyone else. If you rejig the system so the Corporations have to organise and fund an attack on a sector, it becomes a communal event. Yes, NASA might be the Corporation with their name on the sector, but everyone who took part was working for them at the time, and knows that it was their victory, especially if there was some sort of battle log to list every pilot that fought in the conflict and their achievements.

 

…Actually, that would be awesome! Come on, imagine how good it would feel to have a record stating that you shot down a Tier IV Frigate in a Tier 1 Interceptor! I’m sure there’s a fair few people out here who would love Sector Conflict a lot more if they could pull off that kind of feat.