Who Else Noticed That Owning Ds Nodes Currently Has An Incentive?

[Buzkyl]

hold on, i got this for DE... better nerf trinity? :D

 

It's surprising Viver was fixed before Dark sectors

[RoboDoge]

It's surprising Viver was fixed before Dark sectors

Easier to do than fix DS.

[D0ubleFE]

So this thing of DS are actually a mafia... not surprised about that... but i'm surprised there is currently no counter to this cheap tactic...

[Buzkyl]

Easier to do than fix DS.

 

 

No one cared about viver until syndicates hit, viver was any normal node. Dark sector "politics" have been here for what? 3 updates now? Not a single mention on a devstream about changing mechanics when it has been ranted on constantly.

 

They didn't even fix Viver, they altered the node and gave fixes to syndicate overall (which was better mind you).

[InfinityArch]

Easier to do than fix DS.

 

The biggest problem with rail conflicts is the deployment cool-down reduction that allows the same handful of alliances to indefinitely blockade dark sectors. I'd happily join up with a "Freerail Fellowship" if they had any real chance of usurping control of any of the major nodes, but as things are, all the desirable dark sectors are run by a handful of clans.

 

Alliances which have recently attacked a node should get a global cool-down before they're able to launch another attack on any other dark sector node. Do that, and it's significantly harder for Cartels to monopolize all of the dark sectors. In addition, I'd also suggest giving incentives for alliances to hold dark sectors for long periods of time, and make it significantly more expensive for large alliances and clans to make and deploy solar rails compared to smaller clans. Furthermore, battle pay should be "reserved" for players upon joining a DS conflict, to be paid out upon completion of the mission or returned to the pool should they abort.

Edited November 26, 2014 by InfinityArch

[RoboDoge]

No one cared about viver until syndicates hit, viver was any normal node. Dark sector "politics" have been here for what? 3 updates now? Not a single mention on a devstream about changing mechanics when it has been ranted on constantly.

 

They didn't even fix Viver, they altered the node and gave fixes to syndicate overall (which was better mind you).

 

 

The biggest problem with rail conflicts is the deployment cool-down reduction that allows the same handful of alliances to indefinitely blockade dark sectors.

 

Alliances which have recently attacked a node should get a global cool-down before they're able to launch another attack on any other dark sector node. Do that, and it's significantly harder for Cartels to monopolize all of the dark sectors. In addition, I'd also suggest giving incentives for alliances to hold dark sectors for long periods of time, and make it significantly more expensive for large alliances and clans to make and deploy solar rails. Furthermore, battle pay should be "reserved" for players upon joining a DS conflict, to be paid out upon completion of the mission or returned to the pool should they abort. 

Biggest issue with DS is that whole conflicts are run by players without any DE control.

[[DE]Momaw]

i'm surprised there is currently no counter to this cheap tactic...

 

There is. Don't play dark sectors.  They're laundering the money they make off taxes and the taxes come from people playing the missions.  If they want credits, make them earn it themselves.

[Buzkyl]

Biggest issue with DS is that whole conflicts are run by players without any DE control.

 

This is Murphy's Law in full effect. DE wanted to create a political environment between clans/alliances, but it grew into this. I'm certain DE can wipe DS and lock them until they fix it, but they have not. But, like archwing, i'm going to assume they're working on it but they're being tight-lipped.

[InfinityArch]

Biggest issue with DS is that whole conflicts are run by players without any DE control.

 

 

I disagree; player driven PVP is a good feature in my book, the issue is that its design inherently favors the formation of oligopolies, as seen in game.

 

Making armistice time significantly longer between alliances/clans that have fought previously and giving a fixed incentive to support new attackers would, at the very least, force the big alliances to split into smaller subdivisions in order to maintain their oligopoly, which creates significantly more opportunities for new entities to become involved in the conflicts.

Edited November 26, 2014 by InfinityArch

[RoboDoge]

I disagree; player driven PVP is a good feature in my book, the issue is that its design inherently favors the formation of oligopolies, as seen in game.

Its the same as any big companies, without proper laws they will go out of control.

[-InV-Skitz0]

The biggest problem with rail conflicts is the deployment cool-down reduction that allows the same handful of alliances to indefinitely blockade dark sectors. I'd happily join up with a "Freerail Fellowship" if they had any real chance of usurping control of any of the major nodes, but as things are, all the desirable dark sectors are run by a handful of clans.

 

Alliances which have recently attacked a node should get a global cool-down before they're able to launch another attack on any other dark sector node. Do that, and it's significantly harder for Cartels to monopolize all of the dark sectors. In addition, I'd also suggest giving incentives for alliances to hold dark sectors for long periods of time, and make it significantly more expensive for large alliances and clans to make and deploy solar rails compared to smaller clans. Furthermore, battle pay should be "reserved" for players upon joining a DS conflict, to be paid out upon completion of the mission or returned to the pool should they abort.

If a clan/alliance is not strong enough to do enough damage during a conflict to reduce the time for them to deploy first then they have no possible hope of actually defeating the occupants in battle. So in fact it would be nothing but a block either way.

 

The system as it sits now is anything but unfair. If you want to deploy the next go around do more damage to the rail then anyone else. IE you want it work for it.

[RoboDoge]

If a clan/alliance is not strong enough to do enough damage during a conflict to reduce the time for them to deploy first then they have no possible hope of actually defeating the occupants in battle. So in fact it would be nothing but a block either way.

 

The system as it sits now is anything but unfair. If you want to deploy the next go around do more damage to the rail then anyone else. IE you want it work for it.

Cut the crap. We all know how alliances are working and what tactics they are using on high traffic nodes.

 

 

You scratch my back, ill scratch yours. Isnt it?

[InfinityArch]

If a clan/alliance is not strong enough to do enough damage during a conflict to reduce the time for them to deploy first then they have no possible hope of actually defeating the occupants in battle. So in fact it would be nothing but a block either way.

 

The system as it sits now is anything but unfair. If you want to deploy the next go around do more damage to the rail then anyone else. IE you want it work for it.

 

Origin actually lost one of its DS nodes, albeit a relatively low value node, to a completely random and relatively small clan recently, presumably because their friends in V and Ice forgot whose turn it was to attack. They managed to get enough players to support them to bring down the rails through the recruiting channel of all things, and while it's probably back in the hands of one of the big players by now, that event shows that David and the Goliath scenarios are possible when you allow such match-ups to occur.

Edited November 26, 2014 by InfinityArch

[-InV-Skitz0]

Even so if another clan/alliance did more damage then the backscratchers they would get to deploy before them. Making this tactic useless. The only Reason this tactic is successful is because no one is organizing against it.

 

 

It's very simple to stop it. And has been said many times by many different people.

 

Gather your Alliance during Every attack on the target node you wish to deploy on. Support the attackers through out the entire battle.

Commit your self to doing this every chance you get. All you have to do is earn it.

[InfinityArch]

Even so if another clan/alliance did more damage then the backscratchers they would get to deploy before them. Making this tactic useless. The only Reason this tactic is successful is because no one is organizing against it.

 

 

It's very simple to stop it. And has been said many times by many different people.

 

Gather your Alliance during Every attack on the target node you wish to deploy on. Support the attackers through out the entire battle.

Commit your self to doing this every chance you get. All you have to do is earn it.

 

If there was a higher number of independent players in Dark Sector conflicts, that might work. As things stand, dark sector conflicts are almost entirely "fought" between members of the same handful of alliances.

Edited November 26, 2014 by InfinityArch

[RoboDoge]

If there was a higher number of independent players in Dark Sector conflicts, that might work. As things stand, dark sector conflicts are almost entirely "fought" between members of the same handful of alliances.

Because alliances are the only ones that care about DS, or so it seems.

 

 

Other players dont want to have any business with them.

[-InV-Skitz0]

Even so one alliance can not help another gain a reduction in armistice. Only the damage done by your alliance can decrease your time.

If your telling me the only people willing to organize and do the work to deploy on a DarkSector are already doing it I dont see the problem there.

 

Why should someone deserve the right to deploy a solar rail if they are unwilling to organize and do the exact same work anyone else in the game must do to deploy there?

 

I think the problem lays with motivation of owning a dark sector more so then a mechanic to deploy that is equal for everyone.

[RoboDoge]

Even so one alliance can not help another gain a reduction in armistice. Only the damage done by your alliance can decrease your time.

If your telling me the only people willing to organize and do the work to deploy on a DarkSector are already doing it I dont see the problem there.

 

Why should someone deserve the right to deploy a solar rail if they are unwilling to organize and do the exact same work anyone else in the game must do to deploy there?

 

I think the problem lays with motivation of owning a dark sector more so then a mechanic to deploy that is equal for everyone.

And whos fault is that? We had bunch of people trying to own rails 2 or 3 months ago.

 

And what happened? If smaller clans/alliances managed to beat big ones, every other alliance converged on their node completely "forgetting" that other nodes can be contested. Shady business is shady and no one wants to be part of that.

 

What your are saying sounds like: "Mobsters should keep their business as they are willing to fight for it, and they are organized to fight for it!". DS conflicts were never fair, simply because alliances had shady dealing among themselfs.

[-InV-Skitz0]

What your doing is over simplifying the entire situation and casting the blame on one exclusive group of individuals ( or association of).

 

3 months ago ICE had 5-6 clans in it, with a cap at around 400. Today that number is close to 40 clans and 3000 player cap. Many of those smaller clans/alliances joined us and are still interested as they always have been. I assume the same for V or any other alliance holding onto Dark Sectors.

 

Again the problem is MOTIVATION. There is absolutely zero incentive for any new clan/alliance/player to own this Dark Sector Territory. Most of the one's crazy/stupid/bored enough to commit most of there in game time for holding these rails already do so.

 

This isn't even taking into account the many players who quit supporting DS solely on the reason it was changed from PvE to PvP.

[Faulcun]

OP is right. The problem with the new conflicts is that non-clan players don't have an incentive to play anymore. Previously (i.e. before new design), I would go for conflict to get the rare mods dropped by specters. And the side I support is dependant on battle pay + proposed taxes. 

 

 

This type of attitude is what ruined the dark sectors. The selfish attitude to only take the credits. "give me give me give me", thats the warframe community attitude. Instead of standing up for something you believe in and having a real purpose, you take the easy way out and then cry about it when you put those people in control of that node.

 

I stopped caring about DS conflicts when they made them PvP. If I want PvP, I'll play Destiny use my The Last Word.

 

So you want to pick a OP weapon to use that not everybody has access to, so that you have a clear advantage over your opponents and claim you are winning because of skill? Or is it that you are afraid to lose when the playing field is even?

 

Meh, Sechura for credits is all I do.

 

Thats the silliest thing in these 4 pages. Play on sechura for less credits than you can obtain elsewhere.

 

Not our fault you're all terrible at strategy.

 

Your strategy is comprised of taking advantage of a broken system with no competition. Thats like running in a race, and you are the only person on the track. Then you get all excited and proud, claim to be the best, and pat yourselves on the back. If fact, there is nobody even waiting at the finish line to greet you there.

 

So if your strategy is to dominate over.... nothing, then good job?

 

By the end of the year, Solar Rail conflicts will be dead. Nobody will play them as Alliances completely ruined part of the game with their shady politics.

 

It wasnt the alliances. It was the community that let it go to crap. The solar rails have been dead since a month after their initial introduction. The power has always been in the community's hands. If you arent happy with the current situation, you have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

It's surprising Viver was fixed before Dark sectors

 

No its not. Its purely a money thing. Dark sectors have little effect on the cash flow to DE. There is nothing to play for, no motivation to participate other than credits which realistically only get you so far. Viver on the other hand, would net THOUSANDS of mods, rares and all, stances, materials, xp, rep points.... basically everything in the game that you normally have to farm for, very quickly. It vastly reduced the time needed to acquire things normally, which under normal circumstances would motivate people to spend platinum rather than spend the time to do it otherwise.

 

Even so one alliance can not help another gain a reduction in armistice. Only the damage done by your alliance can decrease your time.

If your telling me the only people willing to organize and do the work to deploy on a DarkSector are already doing it I dont see the problem there.

 

Why should someone deserve the right to deploy a solar rail if they are unwilling to organize and do the exact same work anyone else in the game must do to deploy there?

 

I think the problem lays with motivation of owning a dark sector more so then a mechanic to deploy that is equal for everyone.

 

As much as I dont like you, I have to agree with the core of your statement. The community is selfish, and lazy at best. The effects of battle pay, and Viver alone, prove that.

 

 

The real problems arent with the alliances. In fact, they arent with the community either. The largest issue is there is no motivation for the community to participate in the dark sectors to begin with. In order to fix this, the entire system would need to be wiped and recreated.

 

Eclipse has taken an active roll in trying to address the motivational aspect a while ago. We submitted some ideas on a few occasions, one being the following: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Kl5Q9SwJA58TCIA0RNyP1H-TeCdR8FCnDgS9aSGyF8

 

The only people who still participate in the dark sectors are the ones who enjoy competition. I can probably count those people on two hands. If there was something really worth fighting for, there would be enough competition for the system to clean itself up on its own. However, this does not mean that the system doesnt need to be changed.

 

I apologize to anybody I may have offended, but its the same crying over the same stuff over and over. There have been MANY opportunities to change the outcome of the current situation, and there are not enough people out there who are willing to tell the truth as to why, and thats that the community has taken the selfish way out every single time. If you dont like the taxes, if you dont like the owners of the node, if you want the system to change, then get in there and FIGHT! Stop taking the battle pay, stop putting those people in control, and take responsibility for your actions. If you show an interest in the system, DE will have to change it. They focus their work on the areas that generate the most income for them.

 

I dont like ICE. Nobody does. But they are right..... If you dont like it, then do something about it. Dont sit here and whine and cry to DE, cause they arent going to do it for you.

 

Their system can be beaten. All you have to do is participate, and ignore their battle pay.

 

But as its been said, thats easier said than done when there is no motivation to participate in the first place. So what are you all going to do about it?

[Buzkyl]

 

Their system can be beaten. All you have to do is participate, and ignore their battle pay.

 

But as its been said, thats easier said than done when there is no motivation to participate in the first place. So what are you all going to do about it?

 

Wait for DE to adjust how pvp is set up.

 

Now you see, this would work. If it wasn't pvp based. When it was PvE you could easily amass 50+ people to help do your runs.

 

Dark sector conflicts boils down to which team uses cheaper tactics. I can easily go in with my oberon and stunlock players then whip out my ichors and murder them until they rage quit.

\

[Faulcun]

Wait for DE to adjust how pvp is set up.

 

Now you see, this would work. If it wasn't pvp based. When it was PvE you could easily amass 50+ people to help do your runs.

 

Dark sector conflicts boils down to which team uses cheaper tactics. I can easily go in with my oberon and stunlock players then whip out my ichors and murder them until they rage quit.

\

 

Yes, but inaction only breeds more inaction. I also disagree with you on the PvE thing. I had masses of people bored with speed running the same mission over and over again. Honestly it wouldnt matter if it was PvE or PvP. If there is enough incentive to play, people will.

 

Obviously the system needs to be changed on multiple levels, but the cheap tactics can be dealt with, as long as there is an interest to support it in the first place.

[Buzkyl]

Yes, but inaction only breeds more inaction. I also disagree with you on the PvE thing. I had masses of people bored with speed running the same mission over and over again. Honestly it wouldnt matter if it was PvE or PvP. If there is enough incentive to play, people will.

 

Obviously the system needs to be changed on multiple levels, but the cheap tactics can be dealt with, as long as there is an interest to support it in the first place.

 

You counter cheap tactics through more cheap tactics..

 

Many people do not play dark sectors because it PvP, strip away the politics and what not, alot of people do not like it because it's pvp. Because pvp is handled so poorly.

[democrator]

 

Their system can be beaten. All you have to do is participate, and ignore their battle pay.

 

But as its been said, thats easier said than done when there is no motivation to participate in the first place. So what are you all going to do about it?

Ofc no one is going to ignore battle pay and fight against ICE..And you are right about motivation..That's exactly my point..

 

Currently, the only motivation is battle pay. In PvE, we had other incentives (primarily, rare mods). So our "crying" (as you put it) is so that DE will realize what's happening and change the system. And yes, the system can be beaten but unless DE fixes it and somehow "motivates" me, I am just going to avoid doing these missions rather than try to stick it up to one of these alliances.

 

Imagine the amount of credits they amassed, there is no way any new clan/alliance will survive a conflict against them and even if you fight them, they will offer way more rewards than you and you can't ask everyone in warframe to support you since you are good compared to ICE.

[Faulcun]

You counter cheap tactics through more cheap tactics..

 

Many people do not play dark sectors because it PvP, strip away the politics and what not, alot of people do not like it because it's pvp. Because pvp is handled so poorly.

I disagree. Cheap tactics can be fixed by DE. Thats easy to do. What is difficult is creating a system that promotes proper incentive without crazy loopholes that allow people to take advantage of the system, like viver for example.

 

Again, if the core system, be it PvP or PvE is handled properly, the players will participate. Maybe not everybody, but if the system is well made and attended to, problems can be fixed.

 

Ofc no one is going to ignore battle pay and fight against ICE..And you are right about motivation..That's exactly my point..

 

Currently, the only motivation is battle pay. In PvE, we had other incentives (primarily, rare mods). So our "crying" (as you put it) is so that DE will realize what's happening and change the system. And yes, the system can be beaten but unless DE fixes it and somehow "motivates" me, I am just going to avoid doing these missions rather than try to stick it up to one of these alliances.

 

Imagine the amount of credits they amassed, there is no way any new clan/alliance will survive a conflict against them and even if you fight them, they will offer way more rewards than you and you can't ask everyone in warframe to support you since you are good compared to ICE.

 

I still disagree here as well. I know exactly how much credits they have. Im telling you the credits dont matter. Eclipse has defeated them on their prized node without spending a single penny. If the same people here who are crying about their taxes, or whatever, would stop taking their battle pay, you wouldnt be fighting their credits, you would be fighting the system. At this point, the system can be fixed.

 

If Eclipse launched a rail on Sechura right now, the community wouldnt care, and nobody would participate. If the community would get off their butts and do something about it, then DE would give it attention. Unfortunately seeing the same posts here day in and day out about the same stuff that isnt bringing them income, isnt going to change anything right now. And if the community isnt willing to do the unselfish thing and ignore battle pay, then things will stay as they are, and again, there is nobody to blame but yourselves.