BrazilianJoe Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) I think that there is a large enough pressure to justify doubling the number of Dark Sectors. Why? Scarcity. The smaller the number of nodes, the easier it is for a monopoly/oligopoly/cartel to form. By doubling the number of Dark Sector Nodes on each planet, you make it twice as hard to form. But on the current rules, that would not be enough to solve it, it would be twice as many nodes to complain about in the forums. But going on the hypothetical scenario of having 4 nodes on each planet, there could be a less extreme limit of one alliance/clan owning only up to 1 node on each planet. That would already force the insertion of more players in the equation. Having escalating upkeep costs for ownership of multiple nodes would also discourage megacorps. But the conflict mechanics is ultimately broken and needs a deeper review. I am a proponent of a weekly tournament model, which I have already posted in a dedicated thread. Edited September 15, 2014 by BrazilianJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinDevil Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 I think that there is a large enough pressure to justify doubling the number of Dark Sectors. Why? Scarcity. The smaller the number of nodes, the easier it is for a monopoly/oligopoly/cartel to form. By doubling the number of Dark Sector Nodes on each planet, you make it twice as hard to form. But on the current rules, that would not be enough to solve it, it would be twice as many nodes to complain about in the forums. But going on the hypothetical scenario of having 4 nodes on each planet, there could be a less extreme limit of one alliance/clan owning only up to 1 node on each planet. That would already force the insertion of more players in the equation. Having escalating upkeep costs for ownership of multiple nodes would also discourage megacorps. But the conflict mechanics is ultimately broken and needs a deeper review. I am a proponent of a weekly tournament model, which I have already posted in a dedicated thread. It just means I'm going to invite more people to my cartel... Not really worth doubling the numbers, since the purpose of the amount was scarcity. Better grab some land quick while everyone else is trying to. Unfortunately everyone has been brainwashed into believing they can't do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-VS-AtLasVegas Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 Unfortunately everyone has been brainwashed into believing they can't do anything about it. ^Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varzy Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 DE should implement a rule where an alliance has to wait a week or two before they can challenge that node or that alliance again. Additionally, attackers who don't offer battle pay get their attack time drained twice as fast, while defenders who don't offer battle pay have their rail's health depleted twice as fast. DE could implement auto-checks every 30mins or something to the system. DE shouldn't interfere with political shenanigans but they should absolutely make it so the system is downright impossible for a single entity to be capable of controlling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilianJoe Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 It just means I'm going to invite more people to my cartel... Not really worth doubling the numbers, since the purpose of the amount was scarcity. Better grab some land quick while everyone else is trying to. Unfortunately everyone has been brainwashed into believing they can't do anything about it. There are plenty of clans, even if you double the numbers you still have them as a scarce thing. The larger a cartel is, the more unstable also, so if it ever builds up, the odds are it will ruin because of selfishness and greed, which are also its source. Doubling the number of Dark Sectors would do little with the current rules, but along with other rule changes it would improve matters. ownership of max. 1 node per planet, doubling upkeep costs for each node owned after the first. add these together and you already have a strong mitigation against the cartelization of Dark Sectors. The final ingredient is to make a fair e-sports tournament model for invasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)ShapelessHorr0r Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) How about only one or two nodes per clan? Lower node upkeep cost. Effect: Low taxes to attract players and no need to tax high to support the node. Competition at its finest. Edited September 16, 2014 by (XB1)ShapelessHorr0r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S0REAN9 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Tried sechura and.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)sgtskinz Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 LMFAO PC players want to rely on DE to fix the DS that they let happen. Get off the forums and stop it from happening then. Same thing happended on PS4 but only difference is that our community overcame all the high taxes. You know what happens on PS4 when you go on a power trip and try to high tax the community, you get your node taken from you lol.Thats why if you go on PS4 no tax is higher than 20%, maybe even 15% on the DS, Sad to see PC players crying on the forums about something their community can eventually fix with hard work and dedication. Good luck with your DS PC players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suweeka Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 And then there's hasty generalizations. Just so you know, alliances are fighting back in PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)sgtskinz Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 And then there's hasty generalizations. Just so you know, alliances are fighting back in PC. And it didnt take the PS4 community numerous amounts of trys to take down the monopolys lol? Idk what DS you play on but i think all alliances/clans fight for their rail. Even on the newer XB1._. But for all the XB1 people who read this, dont let the DS get as bad as it is on PC, let them suffer and cry to DE to fix it for em instead of doing it themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Raiklar_ Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I've not heard this but wouldn't be surprised. My thing is if you want people to play in your sector why have the tax rate so freaking high as to make ppl not want to even bother. and on the other hand I've had this happen to me more than once you see a conflict with a high battle pay and think hell yeah so you join the conflict. Then when your done you find out that while you were fighting for them the reduced the battle pay to zero. so yo wasted your time and didn't get anything out of it but when they win the conflict they set the tax up to near impossible to get anything from doing the sector when its not in comflict. it makes no since to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-VS-AtLasVegas Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) -snip- What if you are simply too slow according your estimation of the current reserve? As a pure mercenary you could loose a match if you notice that it takes too long, to maximize the chances to get at least a part of the money. What if the nodes create the sense by granting a significant XP buff for leveling stuff? What if you simply don't look at the DS as a political game as it should be? Think about it - do you want to use a system as intended or do you want to force a system to be something that you want it to be? Edited September 16, 2014 by -ExT-AtLasVegas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokkania Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) -- do you want to force a system to be something that you want it to be? didn't understand, you mean about DE putting some restriction or something? Edited September 16, 2014 by Mokkania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Raiklar_ Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 What if you are simply too slow according your estimation of the current reserve? As a pure mercenary you could loose a match if you notice that it takes too long, to maximize the chances to get at least a part of the money. What if the nodes create the sense by granting a significant XP buff for leveling stuff? What if you simply don't look at the DS as a political game as it should be? Think about it - do you want to use a system as intended or do you want to force a system to be something that you want it to be? not sure what your refuring to due to the snip and the comments not making since in reguard to your quoting me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-VS-AtLasVegas Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 -snip- Read it again and think about it, maybe you will get the meaning^^ The terms, that are dealt with, are: the sense of existing credit tax; not getting the reward after the mission; the sense of DS and why you should not misuse it. As you see, I referred to your whole comment - this is when "snip" is used normally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Raiklar_ Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Read it again and think about it, maybe you will get the meaning^^ The terms, that are dealt with, are: the sense of existing credit tax; not getting the reward after the mission; the sense of DS and why you should not misuse it. As you see, I referred to your whole comment - this is when "snip" is used normally. how am i misusing it when i'm doing it to support one group or another and then get screwed on the promised battle pay. and how am i missing using it if i refuse to do it because I don't want 75% of my credits and in rare occations of my resources deducted from what i earn in dark sector mission. Thats not misusing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinDevil Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 how am i misusing it when i'm doing it to support one group or another and then get screwed on the promised battle pay. and how am i missing using it if i refuse to do it because I don't want 75% of my credits and in rare occations of my resources deducted from what i earn in dark sector mission. Thats not misusing it. You didn't finish the battle in time. Hence, no pay. It wasn't taken from you, the alliance ran out of tickets for that specific amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Raiklar_ Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) You didn't finish the battle in time. Hence, no pay. It wasn't taken from you, the alliance ran out of tickets for that specific amount. how do you not finish in time when the conflict is not complete when you finished the mission. as the missions themselves are not usually time sensitive. and the battle pay when you attempt to do it again has changed but the conflict is still on going. and while you finish the mission successfully Edited September 16, 2014 by Ookami_Nihonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-VS-AtLasVegas Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) how do you not finish in time when the conflict is not complete when you finished the mission. as the missions themselves are not usually time sensitive. and the battle pay when you attempt to do it again has changed but the conflict is still on going. and while you finish the mission successfully Now I know why you don't understand my first questions. You don't really know how the Battle Pay system works... In a nutshell: The alliances set up a battle-pay X for a Y amount of runs. They can't change it til it is not used completely. To check how many runs are still left, you have to divide the reserve through the actual reward. If you have less than 30 runs left, it is likely that you won't receive anything, course lots of other groups will finish it faster than you (the groups that are already in-game aren't displayed by the reserve). As you can see - it is everything up to you. However I gave you an advice in my first comment, concerning this mechanic. Edited September 16, 2014 by -ExT-AtLasVegas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somedude1000 Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 If you don't believe theyre purposely breaking into twos to gain perma-control off nodes... Preventing the competition from even having a chance to battle makes me kinda unsure how enjoyable it for many alliances who invested into building rails Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdei Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 didn't understand, you mean about DE putting some restriction or something? almost every game forum poster, brings up the argument "the developers intended so and so" for about almost everything. People are actually for once playing as intended by developers with dark sectors. Its left up to the players to decide on what they do. Dark sectors are NEVER intended to be treated like a normal mission node that liters all the other planets/moons. So stop treating like it is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aimop95 Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Technically, if players don't play the nodes while they aren't in conflict (due to high tax), doesn't that mean that it becomes a battle of attrition between players and the rail holders? I mean, the alliance can make it's members pay out of their own pocket to help their rail by playing in the high taxed rail, but isn't that counter-intuitive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ePilgrim Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 I'm actually totally fine with this.Capitalism is only okay on video games. If these people are trying to be clever about it then crap man, leave off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight053 Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Still haven't DE's sight for how the Dark Sector is going to be handled. Would DE chose Monopoly or controlled Oligopoly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-VS-AtLasVegas Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Still haven't DE's sight for how the Dark Sector is going to be handled. Would DE chose Monopoly or controlled Oligopoly? The more intrigues - the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now