Cat_Jam Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Why does this community like to misuse the term "monopoly" so much? If these alliances are working together to control everything, it's called collusion. I think they're referring to how the game "Monopoly" is played. As for Dark Sectors of a whole: they need balancing. Currently the only way for the defense to win is for them to have a 75% tax rate to give high battle pay. If they don't have said battle pay then the attacking clan/alliance will wipe them off the star chart faster than light (as shown with ICE and Space Confederation on the battle for Sechura). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatPhoenix Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Anyone whom cannot get some x number of players to play their dark sectors because of high taxes should have their amnesty day removed. If they're preventing players from playing game content, they should have no rights to keep on holding these nodes. Or maybe players should always be able to do an attack on a dark sector, instead of only during that 12 hour window, something has to be done. And personally, I would like to see what sort of impact I had on the thing afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phooney Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 DE needs to set the max amount to 25%, not 75%. That is stupid. If you give people the option, they will use it and abuse it. The bonus from the dark sector with the tax is less than the amount you get from a regular mission not taxed. Where is the reason to pay the tax? The $&*&*#(%& alliance needs to realize that in order to get players to restock their clan banks, the tax has reflect the bonus an make it worth it to the player. As I see it, the player pays more gets alot less back. It's pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcryseria Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 75% is just way too high. I'm not touching these nodes until they lower it down to something more reasonable like 5-15%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazzamo Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 DS stopped being worth playing when the conflicts went to PvP only, lowering the number of players interested in the conflicts. Throw in ways for alliances to rig the system by having people go in for the other side and throwing the match and so on it's just not a good way to go. Another PvP mode in and of itself would of been fine, but making pvp that effects everybody else in a game is distasteful to me. Make tournaments of honor, award special visual items and skins, have seasons ect. Then you have your competitive PvP. Dark Sectors should rather of been like massive community projects with taking thousands of players donating resources, money, clearing missions, and so on to build the massive super structures that solar rails would be to expand the map and go beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrathAscending Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I think it's fair to say that Dark Sectors have become problematic. On one hand, you have the players who want credits. It is all very well and good to say "just go do Void runs," but the problem there is that to do the higher Void missions you need better weapons and frames (which cost 100k+ between the blueprint and the crafting) and highly-ranked mods (which will set you back hundreds of thousands of credits) in order to tackle them effectively. So to get to the high-tier Void missions and make lots of money, you need lots of money. It's a vicious circle. On the other hand, you have the players who are less interested in credits than they are in XP. It is an immensely frustrating experience to go to Sechura, with its high global XP bonus and the Rifle Kill bonus, only to see at least two squad members extracting at wave 5 every time. As a related concern, the XP grind for Mastery points and/or the use of Forma on equipment meant that running Dark Sectors was the most effective way to get XP, but those players wanted to get back to other nodes as swiftly as possible. Likewise, the players in search of credits wanted theirs as fast as possible, which lead to over-representation of frames like Nova and Vauban and weapons like the Ogris, Penta, and Angstrum. Such combinations are highly effective in Infested Defences, but have resulted in balance changes that effect the 80+ percent of the game that is not Infested Defence in an attempt to curtail that behaviour and encourage more diverse play styles, which is having an impact on players who use those Frames or weapons outside that environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stygiax Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Another issue is that it's highly unlikely that non-alliance-affiliated people care about anything other than the battle pay; and of course the clan with the insane taxes can pay the most. Out of curiosity is there a limit as to how/when a clan can change taxation rate on a rail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storchenbein Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Out of curiosity is there a limit as to how/when a clan can change taxation rate on a rail? Tribute changes have a 24 hour cooldown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHOCKED Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I stay away from Dark Sector conflicts as I refuse to pay a tax on anything greater than 30%. So, because the way this is structured in the game, I simply don't play any of that content. There's plenty of other stuff to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Big_Rig_Brently Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 PS4 is doing better but not much. We have a 10% at Sechura, but no Battle Pay during Conflicts due to Clans having unofficial Alliances.More like PVP sucks and no ones playing so why put up battle pay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kubbi Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Thats what happens when alliences get infinite options at controlling nodes. Seriously there are so many. Everyone deserves a chance no? Sure everyone probably wants to get greedy but that chance is less if more alliences get the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 i really dont understand where all that tax goes. whenever a check a node in conflict its usually 0 battle pay on either side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)DesecratedFlame Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Seriously tho, is there a reason why every single dark sector is at 75% right now? I just noticed it like 30 minutes ago when I decided to browsearound. Because you haven't bothered to over throw them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatose Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) Much more serious question: Why would the taxes ever be lower? To be blunt: High taxes don't stop a considerable portion of the playerbase from running the rails anyway. Considerable numbers of players will happily run a rail at 75% tax for the XP and resources. Even players who are in it for the credits are prone to simply re-running that 75% tax pluto rail instead of going to 10% tax rail on a different planet. You're not going to increase your net profit by lowering taxes. Players aren't going to run your low tax rail instead of the high tax rail on Pluto. They're not going to help you defend it when it gets attacked. And unless your rail is on Pluto, they're unlikely to even notice your low tax rail - they'll just go right back to Pluto, maybe with a quick stop by the forums to complain about taxation. But when your rail comes under attack, the battle pay seeking mercs will pay attention to what you're offering. Why would anybody ever run a rail with low taxes? The community at large is completely unwilling to do anything beyond the occasional whine on the forums. They won't avoid the rails, won't defend the rails, won't help overthrow the rails. They won't even run rails with low taxes so those minimal taxes can be used to fund defense and expansion. As the saying goes, "Every nation gets the government they deserve." And so it goes in Warframe. Edited September 12, 2014 by Phatose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)DesecratedFlame Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Much more serious question: Why would the taxes ever be lower? To be blunt: High taxes don't stop a considerable portion of the playerbase from running the rails anyway. Considerable numbers of players will happily run a rail at 75% tax for the XP and resources. Even players who are in it for the credits are prone to simply re-running that 75% tax pluto rail instead of going to 10% tax rail on a different planet. You're not going to increase your net profit by lowering taxes. Players aren't going to run your low tax rail instead of the high tax rail on Pluto. They're not going to help you defend it when it gets attacked. And unless your rail is on Pluto, they're unlikely to even notice your low tax rail - they'll just go right back to Pluto, maybe with a quick stop by the forums to complain about taxation. But when your rail comes under attack, the battle pay seeking mercs will pay attention to what you're offering. Why would anybody ever run a rail with low taxes? The community at large is completely unwilling to do anything beyond the occasional whine on the forums. They won't avoid the rails, won't defend the rails, won't help overthrow the rails. They won't even run rails with low taxes so those minimal taxes can be used to fund defense and expansion. As the saying goes, "Every nation gets the government they deserve." And so it goes in Warframe. I used to help the Rail Owners I liked, but then they made it PvP so I stopped caring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinDevil Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 -snip- Going to create 10,000 alts and upvote this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yatin_117 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 we could just cripple the big clans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiegraf Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) Anyone whom cannot get some x number of players to play their dark sectors because of high taxes should have their amnesty day removed. If they're preventing players from playing game content, they should have no rights to keep on holding these nodes. Or maybe players should always be able to do an attack on a dark sector, instead of only during that 12 hour window, something has to be done. And personally, I would like to see what sort of impact I had on the thing afterwards. Better yet, have each successful defense of a node cut X number of hours off the armistice and/or the challenger's deploy time. Sounds like it would cut down the time the node becomes 'farmable' but it also leads to the controlling faction to have less and less time to gather revenue. Once the ownership changes hands, it would reset the armistice timer. It would also (hopefully) encourage clans to leave the rail alone for a time if they find the rates right. And to partially answer the problem of collusion : make it so a rail can only be challenged once by a clan or alliance until it changes hands so you can't have the same clan / alliance always trying to lock down the conflict since they'd be locked out of the loop until the owner gets replaced. Edited September 12, 2014 by Wiegraf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilianJoe Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Its a MONOPOLY! It is called a CARTEL. Monopoly is a single company taking over the market. A cartel is a group of companies (in our case clans) colluding to fix prices so that they can profit more and keep their dominance, at the detriment of the whole market/economy. In the real world it's a crime. Being just a game, punishing the clans could be very harmful to the player base, so what is likely to happen is to just have the rules changes and we'll see the balance get regained over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xethier Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Much more serious question: Why would the taxes ever be lower? To be blunt: High taxes don't stop a considerable portion of the playerbase from running the rails anyway. Considerable numbers of players will happily run a rail at 75% tax for the XP and resources. Even players who are in it for the credits are prone to simply re-running that 75% tax pluto rail instead of going to 10% tax rail on a different planet. You're not going to increase your net profit by lowering taxes. Players aren't going to run your low tax rail instead of the high tax rail on Pluto. They're not going to help you defend it when it gets attacked. And unless your rail is on Pluto, they're unlikely to even notice your low tax rail - they'll just go right back to Pluto, maybe with a quick stop by the forums to complain about taxation. But when your rail comes under attack, the battle pay seeking mercs will pay attention to what you're offering. Why would anybody ever run a rail with low taxes? The community at large is completely unwilling to do anything beyond the occasional whine on the forums. They won't avoid the rails, won't defend the rails, won't help overthrow the rails. They won't even run rails with low taxes so those minimal taxes can be used to fund defense and expansion. As the saying goes, "Every nation gets the government they deserve." And so it goes in Warframe. i can't speak for everybody, but i don't run dark sectors once the tax exceeds 25% or so. and i won't touch a rail with a resource tax above 5%. i'm certain there are many out there like me. and just because an alliance has a low-tax rail doesn't mean i'm going to forgive their behavior on another. if sechura is at 75% and they're advertising their ceres rail @ 10%. i'm not going to run over there and support them at 10%. they've already irritated me by their behavior on sechura... at this point, i'm just ignoring dark sectors and running void for credits anyway. i like the idea of player controlled nodes. but in practice this is a trainwreck that needs to be totally rethought. but as for increasing net profit by lowering taxes... well, that's why i mentioned earlier in this thread the concept of finding out at what point the player base stops supporting because of high taxes. you're correct in stating that a large portion just don't care. they're in it for the resources & affinity. i'm mr17, i have so many resources that they're coming out of my ears and every weapon & warframe maxed. so affinity isn't a big deal for me. credits aren't either, but dark sectors offer a quick and dirty way for me to quickly cover my kubrow costs. plus, i like running the dark sectors. but as a conscientious person, i refuse to support alliances that are taking advantage of the situation. finally, i don't really blame the alliances, they're working with a completely absurd system that doesn't seem to have been well thought-out. i'd like to see DE go back to the drawing board entirely with the concept and try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboDoge Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 i can't speak for everybody, but i don't run dark sectors once the tax exceeds 25% or so. and i won't touch a rail with a resource tax above 5%. i'm certain there are many out there like me. and just because an alliance has a low-tax rail doesn't mean i'm going to forgive their behavior on another. if sechura is at 75% and they're advertising their ceres rail @ 10%. i'm not going to run over there and support them at 10%. they've already irritated me by their behavior on sechura... at this point, i'm just ignoring dark sectors and running void for credits anyway. i like the idea of player controlled nodes. but in practice this is a trainwreck that needs to be totally rethought. but as for increasing net profit by lowering taxes... well, that's why i mentioned earlier in this thread the concept of finding out at what point the player base stops supporting because of high taxes. you're correct in stating that a large portion just don't care. they're in it for the resources & affinity. i'm mr17, i have so many resources that they're coming out of my ears and every weapon & warframe maxed. so affinity isn't a big deal for me. credits aren't either, but dark sectors offer a quick and dirty way for me to quickly cover my kubrow costs. plus, i like running the dark sectors. but as a conscientious person, i refuse to support alliances that are taking advantage of the situation. finally, i don't really blame the alliances, they're working with a completely absurd system that doesn't seem to have been well thought-out. i'd like to see DE go back to the drawing board entirely with the concept and try again. There is simply and effective way on how DE can deal with alliances monopolizing rails. You can only repair one rail per day, and after the attack you can only repair it for 25 %. Rail taxes go into specific bank, and 50 % of money in there is automaticly offered as battlepay. By doing this, you would limit alliance to one of two rail as they would be to stretched and wont have enough resources to control more nodes. And that would give other alliances more options of owning rails. My thoughts are: If you stretch yourself too much, you can lose everything. Either go safe and own one rail, or become greedy and risk losing everything. High risk, high gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinDevil Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 There is simply and effective way on how DE can deal with alliances monopolizing rails. You can only repair one rail per day, and after the attack you can only repair it for 25 %. Rail taxes go into specific bank, and 50 % of money in there is automaticly offered as battlepay. By doing this, you would limit alliance to one of two rail as they would be to stretched and wont have enough resources to control more nodes. And that would give other alliances more options of owning rails. My thoughts are: If you stretch yourself too much, you can lose everything. Either go safe and own one rail, or become greedy and risk losing everything. High risk, high gain. What about rails that have 0% tax and get attacked? And those that have low tributes and pay out less? What if little pink pony clan attacks next and I don't think they are a threat? Why should I have to throw out money for them? And when super mega evil alliance comes by and I have nothing because I was forced to waste it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboDoge Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 What about rails that have 0% tax and get attacked? And those that have low tributes and pay out less? What if little pink pony clan attacks next and I don't think they are a threat? Why should I have to throw out money for them? And when super mega evil alliance comes by and I have nothing because I was forced to waste it. If you dont have any tax, you risk losing your rails. Point of tax is that you should use it smartly, not greedy. And if you are greedy, you will lose 50 % of your money. Whats the point of having tax if you wont use it as battlepay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovamorne Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Does DE realize how broken this is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nethaufer Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Does DE realize how broken this is? I assume they do, it's just getting a change for it is taking a while. 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