Sector Ownership Rewards are Pathetic.

The first thing I should say, is that It is a great thing to have a way to obtain gold in game from sector conquest. If a reasonable amount of gold can be obtained in game, there’s no such thing as pay to win. But the amount of gold awarded is not reasonable. It’s enough that GE say that gold can be obtained in-game, but not enough for members of even the best corps to do anything useful with it.

For those of you that don’t know the rewards, they are based on the size of the sector, and they are:

 

3-4 hex sector: 6 gold or 60,000 credits or 3 artifacts

5 hex sector:12 gold or 120,000 credits or 6 artifacts

6 hex sector:18 gold or 180,000 credits or 9 artifacts

7 hex sector: 24 gold or 240,000 credits or 12 artifacts.

The rewards listed are given to every member of the corp that holds it, every cycle (12 hours), for ~7 to 14 cycles. So the daily rewards are double that and last 3-7 days.

 

I’ve been actively playing sector conquest for about 2 months, being a member of NASA for most of that time, and I have earned a grand total of 398 gold.

 

Credit Rewards:

the daily credit rewards of even the biggest sectors are laughable. Even when when holding the “Pot of Silver” sector WX-20 you earn 480,000 credits per day. I admit, that’s enough to make a difference when buying expensive ships, but when you can get 500,000+ credits in 10 minutes doing a T3-5 PVE mission. I guess this would be a fair reward for a 5-hex sector, but the single best silver-sector needs to be something significant.

 

Artifact rewards:

In my opinion, It doesn’t really feel like i’m getting any reward at all when my corp owns an artifact sector. The small artifact sectors are pretty much just garbage sectors for those who are pursuing the leaderboards. A mk4 upgrade at tier 5 costs an average of 250 artifacts. At that rate, It would take 41 days of uninterrupted ownership of a small artifact sector to make a single upgrade. if you are able to hold the “Precursor Artifact Dump” sector WX-46 you can do it in 11 days, which requires you to own the sector more than once in a row which is practically unheard of for the 7-hex sectors. Considering the fact that you get 20+ artifacts a day from your daily PVE rewards, plus an average of ~10 artifacts for every tier 3+ PVP or PVP match, the artifact rewards from sector conquest are stunningly bad.

 

Gold Rewards:

The cheapest non-ammo transaction in the game is to paint a tier-1 ship, which is 100 gold per color. The small gold-sectors award 12 credits per day. At that rate it would take 25 days to fully paint a rank 1 ship, or 60 days to paint a rank-15 ship. It would take up to 240 days to have a fully painted team of ships for sector conquest. It would give a day of licence every 25 days or a month of licence every 250 days. The “Pot of Gold” sector WX-40 gives a total of 196 gold, over its 4 day duration. That’s not enough to fully paint a rank 1 ship, that’s not enough to change a single color on a rank 15 ship. That’s not enough to get a single day of license. However, there is not a SINGLE corporation that has achieved an uninterrupted control of a gold sector. Even ESB goes without a gold income from time to time. If you are in a top corp, double all of the previously mentioned times. If you are in a good corp, multiply them by 5. if you are in an average corp, don’t expect to ever get anything useful from your sector conquest gold income.

 

"Gold" rewards in other games:

In World of Tanks, You earn gold from participating in clan wars, their equivalent to sector conquest. Every single territory on their clan wars map gives gold. There are hundreds of territories to control. probably over a thousand on their Russian server. The top clans in WoT earn enough gold to give their members a premium account 100% of the time plus any needed premium vehicles. There are thousands of players who earn such rewards.

In EVE online, you can use ingame money to purchase your license. I’m going to say right now that that would be a TERRIBLE idea for star conflict. but the point is, in EVE, ANY good player can maintain a license without paying money.

When I was closed-beta-testing World of Warplanes, I was earning over 1,000 gold per week from their weekend events, one week I earned 2,250 gold to my Wargaming account. they lowered the rewards as the beta expanded, in open beta you were earning 50 gold per day. I used my earnings to get a tier-8 premium tank in WoT (equivelant to star conflict’s rank 12).  Wargaming gold and star conflict are roughly the same value. Wargaming really did reward their beta testers in a big way. Which makes them look a lot better than Gaijin Entertainment who is instead using the open beta for their own profit + get some input which they don’t have to listen to. (warehouse space). I think it would be fair for the testers to have the ability to earn a useful amount of gold, they DO wait through the artificially-long pre-game-release queues after all.

 

Imbalance in the sector conquest map:

If you want to earn as much gold as possible from sector conquest, you better not be in federation. there are very few gold sectors located near the federation homeworld and those that are are just tiny 4-hex sectors. The Empire, on the other hand, has the “Pot of Gold” sector WX-40 plus 4 other sectors located in relatively safe areas. Jericho also has a lot of gold sectors but they are generally smaller than the empire ones. the biggest issue if the sector imbalance, would be the three 7-hex sectors that dominate each of their respective sides. one gives the most gold, one gives the most credits, one gives the most artifacts. I feel that the 7-hex sectors should be changed to each include a moderate all three types of rewards. And the less elusive 6-hex sectors should become the best for a single resource. Certain sector rewards should be changed so that each team should have a 6-hex gold sector near their homeworld, and where possible, a 6-hex sector of each of the other 2 resources. I would propose these changes to sector reward type:

 

The Solution:

for now, increase the rewards to at least:

3-4 hex sector: 20 gold or 200,000 credits or 20 artifacts

5 hex  sector: 35 gold or 300,000 credits or 30 artifacts

6 hex sector: 50 gold or 400,000 credits or 40 artifacts

7 hex sector: 35 gold AND 300,000 credits AND 30 artifacts.

 

the 7-hex sectors WX-20, 40, and 46 should give a 5-hex sector equivalent of all 3 resources. So that no side can have the best sector for a single resource.

change WX-26 and WX-49 to gold sectors, so each side has a relatively-safe gold horde sector.

give the feds 1-2 additional gold sectors.

 

This could be a temporary solution that will give us a useful amount of rewards, although it still low compared to WoT. I somewhat doubt that this will be enough, but I chose a fairly small increase in order to preserve my credibility. but in the long term, when the game goes live there will have to be either a substantial increase in rewards as sectors become harder to obtain, or preferably, a massive increase in the number of sectors available. and perhaps a tweak in systems in which sectors go up for auction, how long sectors are held, or a complete rework altogether would be a good thing.

 

Sorry about the long essay post. We’ll see based on the comments how many people actually read it.

If you managed to make it to the end, Thank you, have a sweetroll.

 

-Smooticus

Quite a long post indeed. First of all, thanks for the feedback and the suggestions for making the game better. We need exactly these sort of structured and thought-out posts, which help build the community. Constructive criticism helps to see various aspects of the game from different angles and perspectives. So again, thanks for the time to write all of this.

 

Now let’s get to it =)

 

 

The first thing I should say, is that It is a great thing to have a way to obtain gold in game from sector conquest. If a reasonable amount of gold can be obtained in game, there’s no such thing as pay to win. But the amount of gold awarded is not reasonable. It’s enough that GE say that gold can be obtained in-game, but not enough for members of even the best corps to do anything useful with it.

You are implying that Star Conflict is a “Pay2Win”-game. But it is not… Whatever you can purchase with Galactic Standards doesn’t give a distinctive advantage in battle. Let’s split it all up a bit:

  • License : This will get you a bonus on credits, synergy and Loyalty
    • This feature will help you speed up your development, if you want to access higher tiers faster. But it doesn’t help you win. In the battle itself, you don’t deal more damage, due to your license.
  • Boosters : The Boosters which give damage bonus and better resistances are available for credits only. You don’t need Gold Standards for them. The Gold Boosters simply give little extras, to speed up synergy gain.
  • Colors : They are just show-off. No advantage whatsoever in any gamemode.
  • Premium modules and rockets : They are not better than the Mk.3 modules. They are not even of highest quality, since Mk.4 is still higher. Purchasing them, once again, only speeds up your development. With a few hours of gameplay, eventually everyone will be able to equip his ship with these modules. Especially in Tier 1 and 2, it doesn’t take too long… Only “Tier-rushers” will have problems, if they don’t buy premiumstuff, since they don’t take the time to develop their tiers, the way it was intended =)
  • Premiumships : They don’t need repairs and give more free synergy. But flying the in battle doesn’t give you an advantage over the other players. Skill is, what matters. A skilled pilot with standard ships will win over you, no matter what premiumship you fly.

To sum it up, this game is not pay2win. You get advantages with premium currency, which allow you to progress in the game much faster. But eventually every player will be able to get there. Also, in the battles itself, the only thing that matters is skill, since all the modules are available to all players. Sure, players investing money might have access to better modules earlier than others. But again, this is only a time issue. Once the ships are equally equipped, skill detmines the outcome of the battle.

The Pay2win principle, however, is based on the fact that you can buy premium items, which allow you to dominate non-premium players. Meaning, special weapons and modules with higher damage/stats which are only available to the paying clients. Thus really giving a special bonus in battles.

Star Conflict doesn’t do this. Some pilots invest more time to reach the same level as premium players, but in the end, it all comes down to skill.

 

 

Now, for Sector Conquest:

 

 

Credit Rewards:

the daily credit rewards of even the biggest sectors are laughable. Even when when holding the “Pot of Silver” sector WX-20 you earn 480,000 credits per day. I admit, that’s enough to make a difference when buying expensive ships, but when you can get 500,000+ credits in 10 minutes doing a T3-5 PVE mission. I guess this would be a fair reward for a 5-hex sector, but the single best silver-sector needs to be something significant.

I totally agree with you that credit rewards are insufficient. Considering that Sector Conquest is an endgame-mode for highly developed and experienced corporations, this little sum of credits is not even worth the effort. This money might come in handy, if you were still stuck in Tier 1. But really, someone playing Tier 4/5 - what are 500k credits? That’s like nothing…

 

 

Artefacts: At that rate, It would take 41 days of uninterrupted ownership of a small artifact sector to make a single upgrade.

The same goes for the artefact rewards. Again, I agree that the rewards are, in relation to what T5 players need to upgrade modules, not really helpful. This should be improved.

 

Overall, I’d say that it is necessary to improve all the rewards in sector conquest, though I’d not go as far as to suggest proper rewards. I am not sure about this. On the one hand, the rewards you suggested, seem a bit too exaggerated to me, like a total contrast to what it’s like now. On the other hand, sector conquest needs a proper appeal for corporations to take part in it. And the way it is now, only the gold sectors really are interesting, even though they don’t give much.

A skilled pilot with standard ships will win over you, no matter what premiumship you fly.

Seriously? I’m not on the pay2win train but when premium ships like e.g. the Sai are a rank or two higher than non-premium ships in their tier and thus have 1 or 2 more module slots (and arguably the best ship bonuses) you would have to be pretty bad to lose over the non-premium ship.

As to the rest, the Clan Wars in WoT are skill based, whereas the SQ in SCon is rather zerg based, so it does make sense that WoT would reward more I guess. But yes, Wargaming always struck an excellent balance in their f2p model, certainly one of the reasons the became so successful.

At the current state of the game I see no need to increase income in SecCon.

 

Reasons:

  1. Only a small part of the (small) community is able to play it, no need to give them a bigger advantage. 

 

  1. SecCon still propagates Zerg-Corps. They may be “on ice” at the moment since they have no T4s… but just wait 2 Weeks.

Also SecCon does not reflect the strength of a corporation. 

 

  1. Due to the recent cycle-changes the trade of sectors to an other faction has come to a halt (no more dynamic at all). 

 

  1. If you are that close to Endgame you already have the biggest part of the grind behind you… There will be no incentive left.

 

 

On the other hand:

Yea, I´d love to see better rewards too. But I dont see a reason why I should feed Zerglings by pulling them, so they can outbid my corp on a sector… 

WoT has a by far superior SecCon Dynamic since corps fight each other. Conclusively you really get what you achived. 

So, unless SecCon-Mechanics dont change its all too random. At the moment were getting closer to the “SecCon Season 1”

were you fought for seeing your Corps flag on the screen… now with some little bonuses. 

Its not hard enough at the moment to get control of a sector. Change that and you can give out better rewards.  

Seriously? I’m not on the pay2win train but when premium ships like e.g. the Sai are a rank or two higher than non-premium ships in their tier and thus have 1 or 2 more module slots (and arguably the best ship bonuses) you would have to be pretty bad to lose over the non-premium ship.

The Sai doesn’t have more module slots than other ships of the same rank. It is a rank9 Ship, so it has 7 module slots. Just like any other rank 9 ship.

The Sai doesn’t have more module slots than other ships of the same rank. It is a rank9 Ship, so it has 7 module slots. Just like any other rank 9 ship.

I compared it to non-premium T3 recons. If you want the “best” T3 recon you have to buy it with real money. That’s what I said.

 

You are implying that Star Conflict is a “Pay2Win”-game. But it is not… 

Actually I did not imply that this is pay to win, not sure how you got that out of my first paragraph. but since you brought up the topic. . .

To say this game is FTP or P2W. . . both statements are incorrect. any online game of this type is somewhere between the two definitions. Star conflict is closet to the FTP side than WoT, which says a lot. The amount of P2Wness in this game is greatly exagerrated. one of two things keeping this from being perfectly FTP is being able to sidegrade to premium ships which are better at some roles than their counterparts, while worse in other ways. The existence of these extra platforms to most different builds on, allows you go gain more build flexibility at the cost of your money or a half-year of GS income.

the second, is that you have to get certain premium ships to be effective at tier 3 because there is no rank 9 ship for the desired role.

I would like to see a non-premium empire tier 9 gunship, its an important role for that tier and you kind of have to buy the desert eagle or nukem in order to be able to have a good gunship at T3.

same goes for a tier 9 fed tackler. tier 3 has some holes that prevents certain roles from being competitive, nobody wants to use a silent fox or phobos with a rank 9 squad.

 

EDIT: this thread is about the sector rewards, I dont want the topic to be dragged too far off. the FTPness of this game is at a satisfactory (but not perfect) level.  Please continue the discussion about the pathetic sector rewards.

Who needs Rewards? 

If removing the rewards in SQ can Stop the Zergs Corps, I will remove them.

 

The recent change in SQ about Capturing beacons / Defending beacons just made Teams that are loosing swarming the map with Recons/Covert Ops.

And you want better rewards for doing that?

 

Nope. 

 

The Sectors Conquest allready worships “Quantity over Quality”. Good Corps are not rewarded as they should be.

  1. Rewards are necessary to create incentive. I would even remove gold, but as it’s not too much, it’s ok. Rewards are fine.

  2. Quantity with quality is the keyword. You want to win against 150 people with 15. Won’t work, and shouldn’t work, no matter your skill. The corps are incentivized to gather the most amount of skilled players. Obviously skill is relative to the other players. If you want to play a small elite circle, you can, but don’t expect the game to cater to you.

Who needs Rewards? 

People who dont want to spend money on gold

If removing the rewards in SQ can Stop the Zergs Corps, I will remove them.

 This would also increase the queue times by 500%

 

The recent change in SQ about Capturing beacons / Defending beacons just made Teams that are loosing swarming the map with Recons/Covert Ops.

And you want better rewards for doing that?

Play ships that counter interceptors to farm rating/kills.

 

The Sectors Conquest allready worships “Quantity over Quality”. Good Corps are not rewarded as they should be.

I agree somewhat, but the more zerg corps play SC, the higher the winrate goes up for the quality corps. Let them come!

and if they was a way to give a influence point multiplier based on your winrate from each phase of sector conquest, it would allow the skilled corps to stay on top of zerg corps.

Seriously? I’m not on the pay2win train but when premium ships like e.g. the Sai are a rank or two higher than non-premium ships in their tier and thus have 1 or 2 more module slots (and arguably the best ship bonuses) you would have to be pretty bad to lose over the non-premium ship.

As to the rest, the Clan Wars in WoT are skill based, whereas the SQ in SCon is rather zerg based, so it does make sense that WoT would reward more I guess. But yes, Wargaming always struck an excellent balance in their f2p model, certainly one of the reasons the became so successful.

 

That’s not pay 2 win, that’s an incorrect ship tree. As I see it, Kite should be the r7 Cov Ops, Black Bomber the r8 Recon and Eagle-M the r9 Cov Ops.

Same happes with Phobos, wich should he rank 6 Gunship, with Prom as rank 7 Gunship, Prom X as rank 8 Command and Prom Fire as rank 9 Gunship.

Once the ship trees are fixed (primary role low and top rank, secondary role mid rank) that “pay2win” will be non existant. 

Just look at T4, there is no pay to win, because primary role ships have their ships at the top rank, in fact, most of the premiums are weaker than their counterpacks.

So, thanks to the incorrect ship tree, it IS pay to win in T3.

  • Colors : They are just show-off. No advantage whatsoever in any gamemode.

Hey-hey now, red ships fly faster…

Hey-hey now, red ships fly faster…

Da red wunz go fasta!

And blue ones are luckier. Maybe that’s why Legion ships are so hard to kill…