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.

[(PSN)JacktheBlack47]

And I thought we had it bad on PC.

[birdei]

You cannot attack yourself as an alliance of 1000 people, but that same alliance of 1000 people can split into two alliances of 500 people and attack each other to block the node so other people can't compete over it.

Do you honestly think that's intended? Why would DE implement the rule of not attacking yourself if they didn't care if players found a way to bypass it? Players having the ability to bypass a rule of the game IS a bug. They are literally exploiting a bug by rail blocking. Using this exploit they have earned the most money, and in the old system were able to leverage that to attain the most control. They leveraged that control to strong arm other players and alliances into either joining them or losing their nodes on the star chart. They can't be stopped by normal players at this point because:

1. No one really realizes it's even happening, just look through this thread.

2. Everyone who remotely cares about dark sectors are already in the shadow alliance

3. They have so many credits for being uncontested for so long, it's not even funny.

4. To beat them you'd have to utilize the same exploits they are, which isn't exactly appealing to players who are trying to oppose people exploiting the system.

 

CCP has rolled back exploiters in the past, too.

 

that is political shenanigans. They are not exploiting a code in the game. DE should not go about "policing" the dark sectors just because people  want to keep their farming spots.

[Blatantfool]

 Political shenanigans are allowed. The system isn't perfect, there will always be room to improve and further deepen how we interact with Dark Sectors on that level, but that is all a matter of time and feedback.

[VegetableBasket]

that is political shenanigans. They are not exploiting a code in the game. DE should not go about "policing" the dark sectors just because people  want to keep their farming spots.

Why did DE put a 1000 player limit and code that prevents you from attacking yourself or your allies if they were fine with players bypassing those rules?

 

If it's not intended by the game designer, and it gives an advantage over other players, it's an exploit. DE has given that definition and made changes to event scoring using that definition three times now.

I'm not asking anything of DE, but maybe they should remove the 1000 player limit on alliances, the 2.147 billion credit limit on vaults, the restrictions against attacking yourself and your allies so the system is at least consistent. But you'd also need a way to make it look like you're not attacking yourself so no one suspects anything.

Edited August 31, 2014 by VegetableBasket

[SmokinDevil]

Now in your same logic, did you really think that DE wanted there to be people that completely take out all competition of their PvP system (which is solely meant for competition). Do you think these players think that this is an intended practice, or fair? The difference here, is that they are purposely playing the game that way in order to gain an advantage, whereas in the event, the players didn't have to do anything different but yet play normally and it happened naturally. People don't naturally set up fake fights so they don't have to fight other alliances. They do it on purpose. It's abusing a flaw in the system.

 

 

Two seperate things. How you are comparing two is beyond me. Enemies are always suppose to spawn. This is why we have warning labels on everything. You know enemies are suppose to be spawning.

 

The two are hardly relatable. We can go on about the definition of flaws and exploits all day. Nothing is natural about enemies not spawning. I bet if all the DS were free no one would complain right? I'm sure DE just created two spots on every planet just for increased credits and farm and no other reason.

 

 

I think DE should limit the number of Rails owned by each Alliance by 1 at a time. 

 

Going to disagree. If an alliance/clan can hold 1, 2 or 10 nodes then they should be able to. The same way people can put up any tax they want.

[birdei]

Why did DE put a 1000 player limit and code that prevents you from attacking yourself or your allies if they were fine with players bypassing those rules?

 

If it's not intended by the game designer, and it gives an advantage over other players, it's an exploit. DE has given that definition and made changes to event scoring using that definition three times now.

I'm not asking anything of DE, but maybe they should remove the 1000 player limit on alliances, the 2.147 billion credit limit on vaults, the restrictions against attacking yourself and your allies so the system is at least consistent.

 

once people break off a clan/alliance they are NOT consider part of the clan/alliance anymore. They can make treaties with other clans/alliances to do what they want. That is politics. Watch the news sometimes, this is happening all the time around us.

[VegetableBasket]

once people break off a clan/alliance they are NOT consider part of the clan/alliance anymore. They can make treaties with other clans/alliances to do what they want. That is politics. Watch the news sometimes, this is happening all the time around us.

You didn't answer my question. Why did DE make those rules? To incentivize not being in one big alliance but instead cutting your alliance into several small ones so you can attack yourself because that is the most profitable option? Do you think that's good design? And if you want to bring in real-life, consider anti-trust laws which exist in real life but not this game.

These people have been working together for months now, just look at deathsnacks conflict history. It's the same people fighting each other over and over and over again.

Edited August 31, 2014 by VegetableBasket

[-XeqtR]

Two seperate things. How you are comparing two is beyond me. Enemies are always suppose to spawn. This is why we have warning labels on everything. You know enemies are suppose to be spawning.

 

The two are hardly relatable. We can go on about the definition of flaws and exploits all day. Nothing is natural about enemies not spawning. I bet if all the DS were free no one would complain right? I'm sure DE just created two spots on every planet just for increased credits and farm and no other reason.

Right, it's not natural for enemies to not spawn. But the players did not do something special to yield those results. Simply playing too many missions ramped the levels that high. Therefore, they were guilty of only not stopping when they saw that. 

 

As for this case, people are purposely going out of their way to conduct something that is not intended. It doesn't naturally happen, and they are well aware of what they're doing. How you somehow think that creating 100 alt accounts with random clans and having all your friends click a rail to prevent anyone from ever attacking you is right, is beyond me. 

[birdei]

You didn't answer my question. Why did DE make those rules? To incentivize not being in one big alliance but instead cutting your alliance into several small ones so you can attack yourself because that is the most profitable option? Do you think that's good design? And if you want to bring in real-life, consider anti-trust laws which exist in real life but not this game.

These people have been working together for months now, just look at deathsnacks conflict history. It's the same people fighting each other over and over and over again.

 

dude you still don't get it, that is politics. Obviously you can't attack your own rails, that would be stupid. If the alliance wants to break off into smaller groups that is politics they are playing. They are not breaking the game rules. As far as the game goes, they are treated as different groups. There is no rule to said who you can and can't be friends with.

[Blatantfool]

Right, it's not natural for enemies to not spawn. But the players did not do something special to yield those results. Simply playing too many missions ramped the levels that high. Therefore, they were guilty of only not stopping when they saw that. 

 

As for this case, people are purposely going out of their way to conduct something that is not intended. It doesn't naturally happen, and they are well aware of what they're doing. How you somehow think that creating 100 alt accounts with random clans and having all your friends click a rail to prevent anyone from ever attacking you is right, is beyond me. 

 

 Do you have evidence of that level of Alt abuse? Real evidence? Hearsay isn't enough.

[SmokinDevil]

 

As for this case, people are purposely going out of their way to conduct something that is not intended. It doesn't naturally happen, and they are well aware of what they're doing. How you somehow think that creating 100 alt accounts with random clans and having all your friends click a rail to prevent anyone from ever attacking you is right, is beyond me. 

 

Because no one is creating 100 alt accounts with random clans to click on rails. 

 

You didn't answer my question. Why did DE make those rules? To incentivize not being in one big alliance but instead cutting your alliance into several small ones so you can attack yourself because that is the most profitable option? Do you think that's good design? And if you want to bring in real-life, consider anti-trust laws which exist in real life but not this game.

These people have been working together for months now, just look at deathsnacks conflict history. It's the same people fighting each other over and over and over again.

 

Because it'd be dumb attacking yourself. For an example, Skit0z was banned for dumping the credits out the vault. But people were happy about that right? So in his case it's just ok? No, it's not. Skit0z had the power to change battle pay, which is intended. Dumping it because you don't like where things are going is not intended. You join the alliance, you are suppose to be helping each other. Dumping the vault is not helping. He was banned. He sent a ticket in, it was explained why he was banned. He was unbanned and he knows better. The next person won't be so lucky.

 

Skitz is an example of what not to do. Breeding Grounds is an example of what not to do. The DS? No. At least not yet. I do think they should say something about it, but at the same time I feel like they won't because of the exact reason given in the thread. It's up to the players to actually do something. Not talk about it on the forums.

[vicwarrior]

Here we have the Tenno, attacking the Corpus and Grineer claiming that they are doing it for the "balance" yet here we are competing with the corpus in levels of greediness and political shadiness.

[Blatantfool]

You didn't answer my question. Why did DE make those rules? To incentivize not being in one big alliance but instead cutting your alliance into several small ones so you can attack yourself because that is the most profitable option? Do you think that's good design? And if you want to bring in real-life, consider anti-trust laws which exist in real life but not this game.

These people have been working together for months now, just look at deathsnacks conflict history. It's the same people fighting each other over and over and over again.

 

 I don't think Attack Denial was the goal, no.

 

 But DE did want to make it perfectly possible from truces between Alliance to lead to massive overtakings. "Don't like that bigger alliance? Can't beat em? Make allies." as a mindset is fine.

 

 Just like it's fine to offer another Alliance the support of your manpower in return for assistance from them when defending.

 

 

 I said above - the system ain't perfect. It's all about time and feedback. The fact that this discussion is occurring right now is part of contributing to the evolution of a better, fairer Dark Sectors mode.

[VegetableBasket]

dude you still don't get it, that is politics. Obviously you can't attack your own rails, that would be stupid. If the alliance wants to break off into smaller groups that is politics they are playing. They are not breaking the game rules. As far as the game goes, they are treated as different groups. There is no rule to said who you can and can't be friends with.

 

Because it'd be dumb attacking yourself.

If I understand you correctly it's okay for Alliance A to fight itself over and over and over again because they fought themselves under the name Alliance B and Alliance C? Because that's "politics."

 

 Do you have evidence of that level of Alt abuse? Real evidence? Hearsay isn't enough.

Do you have the tools to look through logs or IPs or pursue any of this stuff? I know of specific examples of alt abuse and you can PM me if you're willing to look into it.

Edited August 31, 2014 by VegetableBasket

[SmokinDevil]

Here we have the Tenno, attacking the Corpus and Grineer claiming that they are doing it for the "balance" yet here we are competing with the corpus in levels of greediness and political shadiness.

 

Tenno aren't exempt from balance. 

[Dasmir]

1) put 25% taxes in all planets

2) offer nothing in conflicts becouse all the alliances are just a big one family

3) Get tons of mat and resources

4) ?????????????

5)  Proffit ? of what ? credits ? really i dont understand this annoying mafia thing.

 

I will like to De Force them to put a 20k Payout as minimal to begin a dark sector conflic..

Edited August 31, 2014 by Dasmir

[MaverickZero]

We do not know. 

I already know. We've been approached by multiple parties to form 'unofficial alliances'. It is in fact, true.

[ElHefe]

That's unfortunately realistic. You lead a popular movement to overthrow a tyrant, and then eventually you're the tyrant getting overthrown. Humans suck I guess.

 

 

 

As long as they're not manually tipping the scales with exploits or otherwise breaking the game, usually nothing happens. It's not technically against the rules to conspire with fellow alliances. 

 

As always, a soundly thought out position ... 1+

Reminds me of how McDonalds grew from a single burger joint owned by two brothers in San Bernardino in 1940 to a $35B international franchise with the help of a milk shake machine maker (Ray Kroc)

 

My question is unless there was a true populist movement amongst disenfranchised clans and alliances - in other words a massive grass roots campaign - how would a Peoples Revolution succeed?

 

[Abenoki]

That's unfortunately realistic. You lead a popular movement to overthrow a tyrant, and then eventually you're the tyrant getting overthrown. Humans suck I guess.

 

Its not innately human, its weakness on the part of a leader not to sink to that level and of the people to not do something about it. It just unfortunate that those with the charisma/ability to band together a group dont have the moral fortitude to stick to their guns/word..Thats why this complaining over it isnt going to solve much, we need to form some sort of alliance to combat them, be it formal in game or an informal outside the game alliance. One that is run by a collective of the people and has checks for this kind of immoral behavior.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Echoa

[SmokinDevil]

Its not innately human, its weakness on the part of a leader not to sink to that level and of the people to not do something about it. It just unfortunate that those with the charisma/ability to band together a group dont have the moral fortitude to stick to their guns/word..Thats why this complaining over it isnt going to solve much, we need to form some sort of alliance to combat them, be it formal in game or an informal outside the game alliance, one that is run by a collective of the people and has checks for this kind of immoral behavior.

 

Nah. It's better you make a thread and hope DE does something about it.

[Abenoki]

Nah. It's better you make a thread and hope DE does something about it.

 

I feel strong sarcasm in this post......not positive because its text xD

[Blatantfool]

Do you have the tools to look through logs or IPs or pursue any of this stuff? I know of specific examples of alt abuse and you can PM me if you're willing to look into it.

 

 I do not possess them myself, no (It'd be a little overboard if DE gave us Commods that kind of power.) but I can very easily ensure this information ends up where it gets seen.

 

 If you want to PM me the story here and I'll try my best.

[Rompido]

those that keep saying "no such thing is happening" I hate to break it to you. it is.

[Blatantfool]

those that keep saying "no such thing is happening" I hate to break it to you. it is.

 

 Hearsay is useless. Gotta start building a case if you want to make DE move on the issue.

 

 I'm gonna say this right here, right now. Spread it among people you know who care to see this change.

 

 Round up something substantial. Screenshots showing the trend in action would be acceptable. Show the problem in action and build an argument off it there. Makes it really, really easy to relay to DE and get something done.

 

 

 PM me for advice if you want help presenting the info or something. It's part of why I'm a Commod, helping you guys out in this way. But it's gotta be better then he-says she-says stuff when it comes to accusing groups of players of abuse.

[SmokinDevil]

 Hearsay is useless. Gotta start building a case if you want to make DE move on the issue.

 

 I'm gonna say this right here, right now. Spread it among people you know who care to see this change.

 

 Round up something substantial. Screenshots showing the trend in action would be acceptable. Show the problem in action and build an argument off it there. Makes it really, really easy to relay to DE and get something done.

 

 

 PM me for advice if you want help presenting the info or something. It's part of why I'm a Commod, helping you guys out in this way. But it's gotta be better then he-says she-says stuff when it comes to accusing groups of players of abuse.

 

This is in regard to blatant cheating right?