I Heard That All The Big Alliances Fix The Dark Sector Fights And Do Favors For Each Other Behind The Scenes To Have Monopolies And High Taxes.

[(XBOX)ShapelessHorr0r]

1. Limit one ot two DSs per clan/alliance max.

2. Lower upkeep costs for rails

3. Limit of 30% taxes, 15% resources (can't go higher)

Increases competition for players

#fixed

[-VS-AtLasVegas]

#fixed

 

#totally broke for ever.

[(XBOX)ShapelessHorr0r]

1. Limiting DSs makes sure to remove the possibility of a monopoly

2. Lower upkeep costs means that supporting the rail is no longer a valid reason for high taxes

3. Lower upkeep means that you earn cash/resources for breathing air.

Everybody wins

[-InV-Skitz0]

1. Limit one ot two DSs per clan/alliance max.

2. Lower upkeep costs for rails

3. Limit of 30% taxes, 15% resources (can't go higher)

Increases competition for players

#fixed

 

1. Limiting DSs makes sure to remove the possibility of a monopoly

2. Lower upkeep costs means that supporting the rail is no longer a valid reason for high taxes

3. Lower upkeep means that you earn cash/resources for breathing air.

Everybody wins

1. limiting the amount of nodes a clan/alliance  can own will do nothing but force them to go underground and create alt alliances. Do you want to know there is a clan/alliance trying to create a monopoly or do you want to see more shadow alliances in the future?

 

2. upkeep cost has nothing to do with high taxes as we know them in DS. The amount it cost to repair is usually far less then it is to build the rail to began with. Taxes are set high to stockpile credits. stockpiling credits is done to fund defense/ attack.

 

3. limiting tax only takes away the odds an alliance has of keeping that node. It does nothing to address the issue of low traffic nodes that are near impossible to sustain with anything below 50%.

 

Nobody Wins

 

 

1. Restructure the rewards of DS farming in armistice, create different tiers with of planets from low to high and create more of a uniform reward for credits on all of them. Now it's possible to sustain on a low tax.

 

2. Create direct benefits and caveats in a sliding tax scale. (the more tax you charge the more XP you obtain.) This way the player always has some benefit no matter what the tax is.

 

3. NEVER limit the amount of nodes one clan/alliance can own. If they are willing to put in the hard work and dedication. Let them.  You dont like it? create/join/support someone else who represent your ideas of what should be instead. That is the point.

 

Everyone Wins

Edited September 19, 2014 by -ExT-Skitz0

[Deccode]

I see on this page 2 guys with an -EXT- prefix in their names and can't help myself, but realize they have a heavy bias towards the current DS system. Lemme ask are you controling one of the most used nodes in the system so far? If yes are your taxes high?

Edited September 20, 2014 by Deccode

[(PSN)D4rk50ul-v2]

It's always going to be this way, changing the system won't change anything as gamers are pro at finding a workaround.

If you want to see a change, make it happen. Hard work, dedication, grind, and stomp out the current throne holders and never forget what it took so you never let it happen again.

[-InV-Skitz0]

I see on this page 2 guys with an -EXT- prefix in their names and can't help myself, but realize they have a heavy bias towards the current DS system. Lemme ask are you controling one of the most used nodes in the system so far? If yes are your taxes high?

yes we are in the same clan. So naturally we may see things alike more times then not. Bias toward this system tho is a stretch to say the least. If you have read any of my post about DS I suggest crap loads of ways to actually improve upon what we have in DS, and not just for the tax happy either .

 

And to answer your question, No. We do not currently own any high traffic node. But if we did it would be are right to charge any tax we like from 0 - 100. Just as it is your right to take it and reset it to your liking.

 

Please reread the above post or perhaps take the time to go look at my feedback post in general and PvP. I promise your find that all I want is to try and help tweak the ds that we have to something everyone can benefit from.

[(XBOX)ShapelessHorr0r]

1. limiting the amount of nodes a clan/alliance  can own will do nothing but force them to go underground and create alt alliances. Do you want to know there is a clan/alliance trying to create a monopoly or do you want to see more shadow alliances in the future?

 

2. upkeep cost has nothing to do with high taxes as we know them in DS. The amount it cost to repair is usually far less then it is to build the rail to began with. Taxes are set high to stockpile credits. stockpiling credits is done to fund defense/ attack.

 

3. limiting tax only takes away the odds an alliance has of keeping that node. It does nothing to address the issue of low traffic nodes that are near impossible to sustain with anything below 50%.

 

Nobody Wins

 

 

1. Restructure the rewards of DS farming in armistice, create different tiers with of planets from low to high and create more of a uniform reward for credits on all of them. Now it's possible to sustain on a low tax.

 

2. Create direct benefits and caveats in a sliding tax scale. (the more tax you charge the more XP you obtain.) This way the player always has some benefit no matter what the tax is.

 

3. NEVER limit the amount of nodes one clan/alliance can own. If they are willing to put in the hard work and dedication. Let them.  You dont like it? create/join/support someone else who represent your ideas of what should be instead. That is the point.

 

Everyone Wins

Against my suggestions:

1. No, the idea is to create a much larger clan base. In other words, the amount of clans that own DSs will dramatically increase. This would murder shadow operations as it would force the higher ups to control many more people.

2. Well duh, I'm saying a clan can no longer say that they have high taxes because the upkeep is high.

3. Low traffic nodes are low traffic for two very obvious reasons: low reward (compared to other DSs) and/or tyrannical clans. The former is simply something DE will have to address. However, lowering taxes (no more tyrants) will increase node traffic. Also, lowering upkeep will keep the costs down to 5-10% of that 30% tax max.

Conclusion:

The whole point is to increase capatilism and competition. Players will come and go from your node depending on the surrounding nodes' rewards, taxes, and difficulty. Good nodes (because they are not all equal) will be fought over more; this forces ckans to work for that increased traffic. Bad nodes will simply lower taxes. Limiting the number of nodes a clan can maintain will dramatically increase the number of DS holders. This will destroy any form of large scale monopoly. Lastly, lowering upkeep allows the limiting of tax rates. Low traffic nodes are low traffic for a reason. If you set up in one, that is your fault. Don't build a flower shop in the desert.

DE tried to implement a "Laissez-faire" economy. It failed as it will every time.

[Mirrorminx]

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.

 

The issue here is rail-blocking, not the ability of the community to take back the rails. By exploiting fake attacks, they can protect the rails from the community, as if you topple the rail, the puppet alliance gets it instead, which is no better. If mechanics allowed for unlimited number of attacking rails, or a ladder that didn't lock out other attackers or have a safe timer, then your point would stand fine.

[MichaelSD]

This while Dark Sector idea was bad from the beginning, which I said than and my opinion did not change. PvP is simply not the forte of Warframe and it it is good so. I play Eve, just to name one, if I want PvP.

 

With 75% taxes, there is not much reason to go to Dark Sectors. Tower missions are good for levelling too and resources can be acquired in other missions too. Gameplay is not very interesting either.

 

As it is, it carters to huge Alliances. If this is intended fine, but I have no interest in it. If unintended fix it.

 

I think 1 Rail per Alliance would be a nice idea.

[Judgebanks]

Is there any evidence, or is this just another poorframe thread?

[TankHunter678]

In my opinion just remove the whole tax system from the nodes. They can fight over displaying their flag over the node. If need be remove the upkeep costs.

 

This way everyone can benefit from the nodes, shadow alliances will not be bothered with. Since all a dark sector tower at that point will be for is displaying your flag and bragging rights on the nodes you own. That competitive aspect: pride, honor, glory to the clan, is what really should be the driving point of dark sector conflicts anyways.

 

Not which dummy clan is being deployed against the controlling alliance to lockout any actual competition in order to wring out the pockets of whoever even wants to attempt the nodes.

[(XBOX)ShapelessHorr0r]

Is there any evidence, or is this just another poorframe thread?

All the rails rose to high taxes at roughly the same time.

It'd be pretty dumb to rise your one or two rails to 75% while all the others remained much lower.

[BrazilianJoe]

DE is aware of this, they are not saying anything because they will not rush out any information until they have a very clear picture of what they will do, and what will change. 

 

Personally I think that not only the game implementation needs to change, but also the ame EULA.

 

There must be EULA provision(s) in that Players, Clans and Alliances must engage in good faith. Proven anticompetiive behaviour, such as playing to lose, Entering ghost alliances, rail blocking, creation of cartels & other exploitations of the system which create unfair advantages and/or detract from the player experience, especially on PvP, are subject to punishment with temporary suspension of access to PvP up to instant loss of node ownership.

[VergilDT]

Saints, Sinners, and Devil's Advocates. hell this is more entertaining than the Dark Sectors themselves.

[MichaelSD]

In my opinion just remove the whole tax system from the nodes. They can fight over displaying their flag over the node. If need be remove the upkeep costs.

 

 

Or this. They can have a flat 10% tax I do not mind. But this is ridiculous as it is now. And I do not care if there is a conspiracy or not.

[Ritchel]

idk whats the sense in this dark sector money sht

you couldnt get the money from the vault =_= 

Edited September 20, 2014 by Ritchel

[-VS-AtLasVegas]

idk whats the sense in this dark sector money sht

you couldnt get the money from the vault =_= 

 

Everybody forgets about the battlepay and the upkeep of the war-power potential (cold war tactic) - if you are simply interested in DS as a credit-farm node, then you are wrong there. Avoid this system as you did it before.

 

All in all, it works fine and -as intended- it is rich of intrigues. A bunch more tweaks, like those that Skitz0 worked on very intensive*, and we are on our destination of the first endgame part of warframe.

_______________

*) For those who are interested, bring some time with you and read it:

Part I and II - The Purpose and Politics of DS

 Part III - The PVP

Edited September 20, 2014 by -ExT-AtLasVegas

[MichaelSD]

Your suggestion resolve the problem of the big clans and that of the PvP players only.

 

I do not care about battlepay, upkeep and war-potential. That is the problem of the PvP players. For the majority of us it is just a thorn in the side. We farm in DS to make money for others. As farming would be such fun in itself...

 

The whole concept of DS is wrong, it is an attached subsystem which does not feel organic to the game, nor does foster the games core competencies. Mixing PvP and PvE inclined players can not go well. It would have been better to make DS a sandbox for PvP player.

 

BTW, nor does it fit into the lore very well.

Edited September 20, 2014 by MichaelSD

[-VS-AtLasVegas]

Your suggestion resolve the problem of the big clans and that of the PvP players only.

 

You understood it very well.

Everybody else is not welcome in the DS system - as easy as that. No sense to complain about something that is not created for you.

[-InV-Skitz0]

Against my suggestions:

1. No, the idea is to create a much larger clan base. In other words, the amount of clans that own DSs will dramatically increase. This would murder shadow operations as it would force the higher ups to control many more people.

2. Well duh, I'm saying a clan can no longer say that they have high taxes because the upkeep is high.

3. Low traffic nodes are low traffic for two very obvious reasons: low reward (compared to other DSs) and/or tyrannical clans. The former is simply something DE will have to address. However, lowering taxes (no more tyrants) will increase node traffic. Also, lowering upkeep will keep the costs down to 5-10% of that 30% tax max.

Conclusion:

The whole point is to increase capatilism and competition. Players will come and go from your node depending on the surrounding nodes' rewards, taxes, and difficulty. Good nodes (because they are not all equal) will be fought over more; this forces ckans to work for that increased traffic. Bad nodes will simply lower taxes. Limiting the number of nodes a clan can maintain will dramatically increase the number of DS holders. This will destroy any form of large scale monopoly. Lastly, lowering upkeep allows the limiting of tax rates. Low traffic nodes are low traffic for a reason. If you set up in one, that is your fault. Don't build a flower shop in the desert.

DE tried to implement a "Laissez-faire" economy. It failed as it will every time.

low taxes on any node beside the most lucrative of nodes does not increase traffic there. Furthermore high taxes on unpopular nodes does not decrease the traffic there.  I have witnessed this first hand.

 

Owning one of these low traffic node with a 10% earned a little over 10 million in armistice.

This same node then earned a little over 100 million during the next armistice with 100%.

 

NO one is running that node for credits. Therefore, changing credit tax does not significantly have an impact on traffic.

Edited September 20, 2014 by -ExT-Skitz0

[-InV-Skitz0]

Your suggestion resolve the problem of the big clans and that of the PvP players only.

 

I do not care about battlepay, upkeep and war-potential. That is the problem of the PvP players. For the majority of us it is just a thorn in the side. We farm in DS to make money for others. As farming would be such fun in itself...

 

The whole concept of DS is wrong, it is an attached subsystem which does not feel organic to the game, nor does foster the games core competencies. Mixing PvP and PvE inclined players can not go well. It would have been better to make DS a sandbox for PvP player.

 

BTW, nor does it fit into the lore very well.

I believe this system both has potential and does indeed belong in this game.

 

And I can understand how being cornered into participating or being adversely effected by a game sub system that you did not opt into participating in would negatively effect you.

 

Most of these stems from lack of other endgame options. This will come naturally over time as the development of the game progresses.Then all you will have left is the direct effect of taxes on nodes.

 

This is one of the major flaws in the system that could use a great bit of rework in balance.

 

Reworking the system to where the more tax you pay then the more of something else you become rewarded with changes this situation.

 

Now if there is 0% tax on a node you can farm it for credits. You receive no xp boost.

Now if there is 100% tax on a node you receive tipple the XP. But no credits.

 

Now you always have something to gain. Play the low taxes for credits.Pay the high taxes for xp.

Low credit tax means more 5 and outs. Which means more traffic on your node which leads to more money.

 

High taxes mean people run it for XP which means they stay usually around 20+ survival and 15+ defense. Which means less repeat business for customers. But with the high tax still means more money.

Edited September 20, 2014 by -ExT-Skitz0

[(XBOX)ShapelessHorr0r]

low taxes on any node beside the most lucrative of nodes does not increase traffic there. Furthermore high taxes on unpopular nodes does not decrease the traffic there.  I have witnessed this first hand.

 

Owning one of these low traffic node with a 10% earned a little over 10 million in armistice.

This same node then earned a little over 100 million during the next armistice with 100%.

 

NO one is running that node for credits. Therefore, changing credit tax does not significantly have an impact on traffic.

I also mentioned resources.

Not to mention the node may not be good.

Not to mention 10 mil credits for doing nothing but breathing air is great.

[-InV-Skitz0]

I also mentioned resources.

Not to mention the node may not be good.

Not to mention 10 mil credits for doing nothing but breathing air is great.

Resources are balanced the same way, but instead of kill xp now kill with X now gets boosted.

 

you do realize that there are only 4-5 nodes considering good right?

 

And while 10 million looks good on paper, it isn't enough to pay for supporters. Even the 100 million could not pay for a successful defense in any semi serious offensive.

[-VS-AtLasVegas]

Not to mention 10 mil credits for doing nothing but breathing air is great.

 

Never debate with a naive person^^.