Remove The Dark Sectors Armistice

[(XBOX)Xodus03]

@Lore - Rails have been gone 

 

@LordCloud00 - Everything that is your reasoning for disliking Dark Sectors, are controlled by variables and yourself.

 

 1) Everyone has equal opportunity to do the exact same things in Warframe, from PvE to PvP to even the Dark Sectors. It is on the individuals themselves to either accomplish or fail the task at hand. If you want to be a protagonist, then be one. Put the work in to build an army and be a hero to your community... obviously they are in desperate need of one lol. But IF you fail, don't blame the system, DE, the community or your enemies... blame yourself for not committing yourself to putting in enough work, and never stopping, because that is what it takes. 

 

 2) Don't like the taxes? As said above, do something about it, or just don't play the node. Of course you prefer no taxes... EVERYONE prefers no taxes lol. Even if the taxes were all at a 1% Max Cap, people would still prefer no taxes. 

 

 3) The Alliances people aren't the only toxic personalities in your community, just like ours on Xbox 1. There are toxic people everywhere, more of them than there are Alliances, period. The difference is, people inside of dominant Alliances start becoming recognizable, and therefor a target for more than just an individual 1 on 1 squabble. As much as you guys hate the "toxic" behavior of Alliance Leaders, I can say as an Alliance Leader myself, I hate the toxic behavior of some individuals in the community. I have recieved 100's of PM's that serve no other purpose than to insult me, or label me a puppy killing, old lady purse snatching, steal candy from a baby reincarnate of Hitler... all because I both enjoy and excel at a game mode... so don't act as if the "community" is innocent and not a contributor to the toxic behavior. 

 

There is no way to make your last statement into reality because you contradict yourself literally within the same sentence. How could it even be possible to have a competitive game mode in which clans/alliance compete against each other for territory, and still have everyone have a "chance to rule"? The point of the mode is exactly what it is, Organizations build themselves up and then compete for control over a territory. I don't understand how you would have it? 2 Organizations fight for a Dark Sector and no matter what, both teams win? Or Tax that is collected is distributed to everyone in the game... even to those who don't compete? What would be the point of the game mode at all? Sounds like what you are asking for is something along the lines of what every single PvE mission already is in this game already... We don't need more of something that is the same as everything else.

[Chroia]

For the purposes of this conversation, let's make a distinction.

Dark Sectors are the base PvE nodes.

Solar Rails is the whole meta surrounding the Conflicts.

Conflicts are the Solar Rails' PvP gamemode.

And let's say that 'under attack' is a node that has an enemy rail deployed.

You talk about about Dark Sectors and Alliances as if this were real life and not a video game...

Yes, because with no limits or regulation in place, Solar Rails (at least on PC) work like Monopoly, not like EvE.

https://deathsnacks.com/wf/ -> 'Enable Dark Sectors'.

Browse some Solar Rail history.

Gabii Ceres: High credit, Orokin Cells.

Invictus have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.

With 1 exception, no battle pay was offered, and the Rail's health never dropped under 85%.

Seimeni Ceres: High credit, Orokin Cells.

It's also a node that PvEers actually use. Certain alliances actually contested it, others just cover.

Earth Coba: Another important node - Neurodes.

Orion have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.

More than half the Solar Rails were no-pay, and again certain names and no-pay, low attrition Solar Rails appear together.

Eris Akkad: Another important node - Neurodes.

Same deal: Lords otE have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.

With the exception of the last Solar Rail, no-pay, low attrition.

(The last is the exception because ICE are actually exploitative expansionists.)

Jupiter Cameria: Neural Sensors.

Synergy have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.

1 conflict with battle pay (12m total) which may not have been money laundering, still no losses under ~85%.

Jupiter Sinai: Neural Sensors.

Lords otE have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.

Maybe 1 conflict with non-money laundering, still low attrition.

Saturn Caracol: Orokin Cells

Lords otE have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.

2 conflicts with battle pay, one with over 4m total and actual Rail attrition.

Saturn Picsinas: Orokin Cells.

V have controlled that node for at least the last 10 conflicts.

2 Rails with some kind of pay, none with serious attrition.

So, where's the frenetic combat, the nail-biting suspense, the glory, the riches, the thrills and chills of this empire-building rollercoaster?

and yes the point of Dark Sectors is fun, for those who enjoy the type of game play and obstacles it offered.

Please clarify, what are you referring to? (See top)

For those who don't, there is many other places to play the game where you don't have to deal with PvP, taxes, quality of game changing bugs, ect...

And when certain alliances set 75%+ taxes, guess what people did?

but I do know that a majority of 3 full Alliances and about 5 or 6 half full Alliances that are all itching for Solar Rails to come back on console.That is over 20,000 people who did find it fun... just that I know, just on console.

And Warframe has what? 12m registered users?

Could go on to mention the 9 Alliances holding nodes on PC, and 10+ holding on PS4.

You just did.

Haven't looked into PS4, but take a look up. The 9 Alliances holding nodes on PC? With maybe one exception, none of them has lost a node in at least 10 conflicts.

So, do they care about the Solar Rails, about Conflicts, or about the taxes?

You also keep hinting at Monopolies, which have yet to happen on WF

Let's clarify: Outside-of-game backroom deals between alliance heads.

I have no first-hand information, but... let's just say that the Solar Rail histories are suspicious.

and the closest it has been to happening the last 2 times it was on Xbox 1, except both times taxes never went beyond 20% on our console, so you don't hear much about it.

Then you've been lucky. *shrug*

Even if someone did manage to monopolize the Dark Sectors, it wouldn't even be a complaint from the "non-pvpers" unless their taxes were too high... don't kid yourself.

'Don't kid yourself'? Again, I don't care who owns what in the Solar Rails. I assume that most pure-PvEers don't.

And, again, I have no problem with taxes on Dark Sectors.

So... I'm not clear on what point you're trying to make here.

Anyone who comes here and "doesn't care for or about PvP", is only here because they don't want to see taxes reinstated.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself.

So: No, I don't care about the taxes. Haven't cared since 50%+ (let alone 100%) became a thing, because I just play other stuff.

Also,

Dark Sector PvP wasn't "non-regulation" PvP,

I'll clarify:

Non-regulation PvP means 'come as you are', with whatever gear you're using outside PvP.

Yes, Dark Sectors are non-regulated.

it was the most unique PvP game mode that has ever hit a console. It offered a mode that was as involved PvP-wise as PvP 2.0 or any other, combined with an aspect much like risk in the form of conquering... except instead of little plastic pieces, you needed to actually have enough people skills to gather a large army of real people. There was nothing else like it, and dojo duels or even PvP 2.0 doesn't compare.

Please distinguish between Solar Rails and Conflicts.

About Conflicts: Fair enough, I have no problem with that.

About Solar Rails: If it was like that, that'd be fine. As it is, I don't care what it is.

1) Then it sounds like you need to respond to or make a thread in which they are asking DE to add more nodes and request the type of node you are looking for. This problem of yours could be applied to ANY node that isn't infested... 2) This problem of yours isn't even a problem with the this PvP mode, doesn't even relate to the PvP mode directly... just saying.

1) Possibly you're right, and I should. We'll see what Star Chart 3.0 brings.

2) As far as this thread goes, I've never said that I have a problem with Conflicts. Just with the current implementation of Solar Rails.

1) They aren't in conflict all of the time because that is the way DE designed it... with armistice? 2) I don't know what to tell you here... it was probably an effort in balancing in a system they had yet to test? 3) Having no Armistice time would do nothing but serve the Alliances already in power though so even though that does describe my Alliance, I wouldn't recommend it. I say that because if there were no armistice time, EVERY SINGLE CLAN AND ALLIANCE IN THE GAME would be throwing down rails everywhere, all the time, and very few of them can actually conquer, even completely unopposed... so all it would do is provide indefinite cover for controlling Alliances until some actual competition managed to win the "click war" to lay their rail down. 4) It would also serve against strategically coordinating attacks on a single Alliance on multiple nodes at the same time, since rarely would timers ever line up for deployment.

1) The fact that that's how it is now doesn't mean that that's how it should be.

If the point of Dark Sectors is the Solar Rails, there's no need for Armistice.

2) Fair enough, I don't either. My guess is that Armistice is the only time that PvEers can actually access the node. :P

3) Explain, please?

You can't deploy a Rail to a Dark Sector that's already being attacked.

And the 'click war' to deploy new rails already exists. Removing the Armistice lockout won't change that.

4) On the one hand, this may be a good argument, I'm not sure because I'm not sure I understand it.

On the other, it means that the people actually attacking the rail (when it goes down) are the ones who know for sure when the current attack ends - so they have an advantage to deploy the next one.

I wouldn't fight against it if DE decided to change the game in this way though, I would adapt to it and work with it like I have done to learn the system in the first place, rather than whine and moan that a system isn't what I want it to be.... that is how you win. Also as "trivially easy" it would be to put no armistice, or any other features on Dark Sectors that they deemed fit, it would be equally easy to just duplicate the node and put it's PvE form somewhere else (without the Dark Sector bonuses of course)... which is what this topic carried off of, something not even related to the mechanics of Solar Rails,

I agree with all of this, especially that last bit.

1) but the crying need for the node in which a Solar Rail covers just some of the time. 2) I wonder if you react this way when you find an Alert with a tileset you really like? Do you ask that the Alert become permanent? 3) Or how about when there is an invasion on a certain planet you really like... That must really get you to blow up the forums huh?

1) Solar Rails without a winner are... I forget if 8 or 12 hour limit.

Armistice is the same.

Which means that, more often than not, a Dark Sector is 'out of commission' for PvE between half and two-thirds of the time.

So glad I have 24 hours a day of free time to play, I guess?

2) No, because A) Alerts are expressly designed to be temporary and B) you can still play the base node that's under an Alert.

3) See 2.

Besides which, neither of these feels like there's something I want to play and can't because someone else decided.

1) Ok first of all, thanks for reiterating my point? Yes bonus are there so PvE players may have a reason to care for Dark sectors over regular nodes, 2) but when an Alliance over-taxes them, and players get nothing, then they drive people away from their own cause of building finances and resources to sustain conquering or defending their own nodes because no one will play their current holdings to give them funding. 3) I also want to say that I support that there should be a tax cap, but a tax cap doesn't take 10 months to code. Now you presented two options to me, so here are just two of many for you

1) You're welcome. :P

2) Which is exactly what happened before Solar Rails were disabled.

3) Agreed.

1) You said you would be ok if they took the PvE away from Dark Sectors altogether, so let me quote myself here since it follows along the same lines...

See above; works for me.

LOL

Post too long.

1/2

Edited November 24, 2015 by Chroia

[(XBOX)Lorewalker1022]

@ MrGorealler - you already know I've voted. I didn't spend all this time discussing here for nothing lol.

[Chroia]

2/2

2) If you REALLY don't like the taxes on a node, and still REALLY want to play it for some reason, then strap yourself in for a ride and build an Alliance to change the way things work.

Sure, because gathering and organizing enough people for (what was it?) 10k victories, particularly from among people who don't care about Solar Rails, and then upkeep it every time the armistice ends is trivially easy to do...

You want to keep quoting real life instances like Monopolies and Megarich companies, well in real life when you don't like something, you can either walk away and ignore it, or you can do something about it... and I hardly classify coming onto a forum and complaining about the situation whilst not offering much constructive feedback... "doing something".

Let's see:

Solar Rails are currently unregulated, and broadly are being handled like monopolies in a capitalist market.

Combating unsporting business practices is done through regulation.

Which I'm asking for, in a game, so there's actually a point in trying to participate in the Solar Rail part of the metagame.

Further, I'm content with a tax cap - which would be implemented by DE, a.k.a. the regulators.

And having posted about it when it was relevant, and posting about it now, I am doing what I can about it.

And when nothing changes, I stop playing Dark Sectors.

How is this not constructive? How is this anti-constructive?

Draco is highly exploited and I doubt that it remains the way it is now forever... much like Stephanos. Hey look at that! PvE is being exploited! Let's shut EVERYTHING PvE down for a year so we can fix 1 small problem! lol

Nah, they don't shut down PvE, they just nerf the offenders to crap.

See (in reverse chronological order) Saryn, Mesa, GMag, Pilfering Swarm (when the problem wasn't the ability, it was a borked drop-table FFS), Excavation and anti-afk, Trinity/Mag/Excalibur (reverted, thankfully), Interception, Viver, and I could go back further but what's the point.

So yeah, they may not have SHUT DOWN ALL OF THE PVE, but they do shut down whatever's being exploited (or 'exploited'). And it's generally done in under 3 days.

As far as Void Captures, you just proved my point. Yeah the capture itself may be better credits and faster, but add the time to farm a capture key to the mix and it becomes drastically less efficient.

Which, as I said, is the only reason people use (high level) DS instead of keys.

Also, people fail to account for that IF a node is under real conflict (not from an incapable clan/alliance, or a cover rail), the battle pays and how fast you can collect them (from the attacking side mostly) far exceed the amount of credits you can get from a Void Capture or the Dark Sector while it is not in conflict, even if it was at 0% tax. 50k Battle pay is an average and once you get good, you can average 5 minute runs, or could anyway. I would make millions daily from the actual Solar Rail Conflicts.

I am accounting for it.

Anecdotes aren't proof. Look above at the pay-history on PC.

Battle Pay's (potentially) much more lucrative than Void Caps, sure. When there is any.

The problem is that most people have had a bad experience with Solar Rails (I have too) and are too stubborn to call it an anomaly and refuse to play it again.

"Once is an accident.

Twice is coincidence.

Three times is an enemy action."

-- Goldfinger.

It's only an anomaly if it's not the norm. Again, see above pay history. Also, shall I dredge up one of the many (many many) cheese-tactic/balance complaint threads from before the enforced Armistice?

(also, pay-baiting, before DE disabled it.)

Thanks for the slur, though.

More times than not, Rails function decently well while in conflict, and I know from more experience than even some of your dominant PC Alliance leaders (over 25 successful conquers).

Anecdote. Give me facts please.

The one exception PC has that Xbox doesn't is direct WF DDOS attacks.

Oh yeah, and then there was those. >_<

I could care less about private lobbies, and I am sure most "Solar Rail" players will say the same.

Citation needed.

That's about as bankable as my saying that 'I'm sure most of the players think that a pink Trinity is the most powerful PvP frame'.

We want the conquering aspect, that is what a vast majority of us play for.

Until you have (for example) a petition with upvotes, there's no 'we', there's 'you'.

1) PvP 2.0 is played far less than Solar Rails ever were, and dojo duels is a joke. 2) I know for my Alliance, taxes are not even close to a reason why we conquer, we only collect our small share of them to help sustain and pay for more wars... we conquer for the satisfaction of winning a 12 hour WAR.

1) That's your opinion, which is fair. All I can tell you is that no matter what hour of the day or night I start a PvP 2.0 session, there's always at least one running.

Which is more than I could say about Conflicts that didn't have pay.

2) Even assuming that that's completely accurate... Good for you (and I mean that sincerely), but your alliance aren't the only ones playing Solar Rails.

lol Your right about PvE not cutting off PvP, but rather for those who only played Solar Rail PvP (there are quite a few), the ENTIRETY of what we enjoyed about this game has been cut off, and not for some short 12 hour cry fest, but for almost a year strait.

Which, as I said, is a fair complaint.

What do you think the community's reaction would have been if when they put indefinite Armistice up, they also completely cut off the PvE missions to the Dark Sectors?

I have no idea.

I imagine some people would complain a lot.

I suspect that after 2-3 weeks, people would stop complaining and play other things.

*shrug*

That's how it's worked for all sorts of changes.

But I can't provide proof.

1) I know for a fact that people would be asking for their special nodes with the bonus xp, credits and resources back and there would be an insane uproar about it, 2) but all everyone wants is the bonuses without the mode for which the bonuses were meant to support... in the form of tax.

1) Citation needed.

Based on what do you 'know this for a fact'?

Because everything I've heard anyone say on the subject is 'Dark Sectors? Eh, who cares.'

2) A) Ad Hominem. B) and, again, I have no problem with the fact of taxes. I have a problem with 50%, 75%, 100% taxes. That's not taxation, that's abuse of power.

Edit: Some bonus materials

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=353968377

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/362814-sechura-and-ice/

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/362314-struggle-for-power-ice-vs-fire/

Both threads are rather short. 2 pages, 20something replies.

Take a look at people's responses and count the number of 'Meh, Dark Sectors, I don't care' .

Edited November 24, 2015 by Chroia

[(XBOX)Lorewalker1022]

@ Chroia - lol. You know everything you are saying can be turned around don't you?

 

I'll just use one example because you guys are crazy with the post length :)

 

When Xodus03 says Rails functioned decently while in conflict...and you said anecdote. Give me fact. I can reverse that and ask you to give me fact. Maybe not 'you' specifically but all these people complaining about the functionality of the Rails.

 

In fact 'you' should be the one giving me fact, because I'm not complaining about old rails.

 

Tell me precisely, and factually how many times rails functioned well versus rails didn't function well? You are trying to put him on the back heel, but we're not the ones complaining about Rails. I loved it.

So if you don't think rails functioned well, then you provide us with facts. How many times did it not function well? How many times did it function well? I'm curious to know.

Btw this last comment is for the both of you. I like the spirited debate, but the length of it is making it really, really, really hard to keep up. lol. Can you guys record yourselves in an audio and link it here so I can listen to it lol. jkjk.

Edited November 24, 2015 by (XB1)Lorewalker1022

[Chroia]

@ Chroia - lol. You know everything you are saying can be turned around don't you?

Not clear on what you mean by that, sorry.

When Xodus03 says Rails functioned decently while in conflict...and you said anecdote. Give me fact. I can reverse that and ask you to give me fact. Maybe not 'you' specifically but all these people complaining about the functionality of the Rails.

For reference: we're talking about Solar Rails where there's an actual contest, and people are fighting and offering pay for otherse to fight, yes?

I did. Look at the spoilered text in part 1 or check the deathsnacks link.

Tell me precisely, and factually how many times rails functioned well versus rails didn't function well? You are trying to put him on the back heel, but we're not the ones complaining about Rails. I loved it.

So if you don't think rails functioned well, then you provide us with facts. How many times did it not function well? How many times did it function well? I'm curious to know.

Check the top of post 1. Are you talking about Solar Rails or Conflicts?

That said: I can't give you # of matches, because I don't have that data. Only DE does, and they're not sharing.

BUT I can give you Rail health% and Battle Pay/Reserve quantities-over-time. Which I did, in (again) the spoilered text, as well as giving you a link to deathsnacks, which has Solar Rail history (as well as tax history) for the entire duration of the Solar Rails.

(Probably for XB1 and PS4 too, but I haven't checked.)

Btw this last comment is for the both of you. I like the spirited debate, but the length of it is making it really, really, really hard to keep up. lol. Can you guys record yourselves in an audio and link it here so I can listen to it lol. jkjk.

Yeah, sorry about that... :P

[HellDevil]

If you really need to gut the soler rail wars again. Make the  tax permenrly 0-25%. Getting tire dof famouse greedy milker clans milking the hell ou to fthe commuinty!!

 

Now i want to see imrpovments or differnt version and rails you can make, one for pvp, one for pve and one that uses capture the cephlon.

 

Pluse De will spend alo tof time balancieng all frames, wepons, and the mods for the return of soler rails since many peopel spam limbo, mesa, rhino, and few other frames.

 

Now i would love to see a conflict reward so no matter what a person dos 0 battle pay gets somthign imporant. That or always give us 25-50k for 3-5 conflict fights.Either that or limuit the cap with a base defult of 25.

[(XBOX)Papa Requiem]

Again, you're complaining about taxes which are something that community can fight against as a whole. There's a lot of complaining going on and very little in the way of real solutions.

 

And to you guys posting an entire essay in reply, shorten that stuff up would you? Its getting hard to read and you really don't have to reply to each point because EVERYONE, myself included, are reiterating points we have already stated. This entire argument is circular and going over the same issues which I think are the following:

 

1) Taxes

2) balancing issues

3) glitches

 

 

In my opinion those are the biggest issues and each has a solution to it, as I have stated before.

 

1) tax cap, even a 25% tax cap would still provide decent resources to clans and alliances to repair rails and it not a huge tax on the community. AoW only ever put taxes around 10-15% for example so that cap wouldn't even hurt us.

2) if we use something similar to PVP 2.0 currently then there aren't balancing issues. plus these can be worked on while rails are around.

3) glitches can affect everyone and once again DE can work on them as well. there are PC specific issues but as far as I know, they affect the entire game, not just solar rails. (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

There are a lot of people who want rails back. Why shouldn't we get it back? Warframe loses a lot of people every day rails are gone.

Edited November 25, 2015 by (XB1)RequiemOfReason

[(XBOX)MrGorealler]

Why is that everyone wants to take the fun out of the game because they can't beat someone how the game is you killed mesa and mag and now syran is next dude what is it with the your warframe is to strong so we need to kill it no more killing the warframes please that is not needed to bring back dark sectors please stop killing warframes you are going to really make the game boring because you cant kill nothing stop with the lame excuses because you just can't play with any skill I use all my warframes even the ones I don't like because they don't fit my playing style but I can kill any frame have done it....

[(XBOX)Papa Requiem]

Please don't bring in the recent changes to warframes Mr.Gorealler and keep your posts constructive.

[(XBOX)Master4733]

Yeah, they really couldn't handle that responsibility.

Still, hard stop on the taxes would be an amazing addition.

Some on Xbox kept it low, I think DE

Should 1st give every clan small resource gain, rail or not, and 2nd cap taxt around 5%

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

Some on Xbox kept it low, I think DE

Should 1st give every clan small resource gain, rail or not, and 2nd cap taxt around 5%

I agree with this 100%.

[(XBOX)MrGorealler]

@RequiemOfReason I was not trying to bring up warframes I was just pointing out something someone else made a point about. Further more I was not being negative I was just stating what I took out of the post I was reading and responding to it in general. Constuctively speaking since that was not correct speaking for you. Please people who have a problem getting your warframes that you like to beat the other gamers warframe learn how to mod and play with all warframes you an learn how to beat them. also when you say the warframes need rework they get killed and rendered almost unusable in high level end game functionality you can't kill anything or anyone because you got the powers nerfed same goes for weapons it is not fair to the gamers who put in the time and effort to be able to kill and destroy others to have our frames reworked or nerfed aka the death sentence in most cases now is that a better choice of words?

[M3st]

You have my vote 

[(XBOX)Master4733]

Also to the people saying stuff like powers are broken think about how they are changing it so the abilities can't be mindlessly spammed, solar rails would be great now, besides just magnetic proc somone if you don't want to deal with powers

[(XBOX)Xodus03]

@Everyone else - Sorry for the walls of text...
@Chroia - I am not going to quote and will try to keep this response as short as I can this time due to our posts growing with each pass back at eachother lol.

 Deathsnacks - I live there. Have had it opened on my PC since around November of last year and haven't even closed it through armistice lol. You can quote conflict history and talk about how often the nodes don't change hands, but that is all because the vast majority of battles were not "real". Very few of attacking factions were either capable or serious... you can tell from either the % they took away, or the Battle pay they put up. I am guessing a few of the Alliances were working together on PC and alot of those battles were simply strategic "cover rails" to prevent other people from attacking. Even if factions didn't work together to do this, the battles would still look similar because there will always be more Alliances than there are nodes... and the majority of them go into Solar Rail unprepared. That is one of the biggest problems with Solar Rails that people neglect to mention... THEY ARE HARD. Some people approach the situation thinking that they are ready, and get rudely awakened... then proceed to think that it is the game modes fault.

 I said that more often than not, Solar Rails functioned fine and you asked for proof... even though my proof was already stated as my personal experience. I have seen for myself and have more data to test from than majority of the WF community on ANY platform. You find me someone who has lead serious deployments on upwards of 40+ nodes and conquered roughly 25-30+ nodes and I would take their large amount of personal experience into consideration at the very least. Out of the 40+ attempted conquers, less than 5 had serious problems, and maybe 2 or 3 with problems beyond our control. Now the defense side of the game was a tad bit more glitchy with connection problems, and for a time they were very common but other than that period, the defenses operated on scale that maybe a 1 out of 10 had connection problems... I would call all of that, "more often than not".... also with the problems being more on the defensive side of the conflicts, this would also support that IF Alliances were ready to conquer, they would have had an easier time conquering than the ones in power would have had defending.

Active Population - Sure WF has 12m registered users... how many of them actually log on and play every single day/week? I test our active population from time to time on Xbox by only getting a single kill (or as little as possible) during a match and holding that number for atleast 4 or 5 days and then check where you are on the leaderboard.... lets just say I would be happy to see 120k active players, let alone over a million. If you happen to do the test, I would be very curious to know PC's active population.

Dominant Alliances - I would say they care about all of the above, Solar Rails, Conflicts, and taxes... and much, much more. I mean I think they would have to if they were going to be able to conquer in the first place, work out the Inter-Alliance politics, and hold nodes. I don't understand the point of this question? Sorry.

Backroom Alliance Politics - I would bet my bottom dollar that there are agreements between atleast some of the dominant Alliances... As despised as it is, politics and agreements are part of the game, and add a factor that requires a skill set you can't learn from a controller or keyboard... Diplomatic / people skills... and I find this part of the game to be both enjoyable and realistic. The problem with the idea is that anyone who uses it, has a severe advantage over those who prefer not to and a good portion prefer not to. I don't know if it has to do with personalities or pride, but if anyone wants to be successful, you better check what ever it is at the door and open your mind to it otherwise you will be destroyed by it.

 People also deem these "Multi-Alliances" as anything from cheaters to invincible... and in the majority of cases they are wrong (aside from actual exploitation that has ever been used). I have been on both sides of multi-alliances multiple times. On the defensive... our 2 Alliances vs 5 that had lined up against us, and on the offensive... our 2 Alliances vs multiple Alliances (3 or 4) that were not united... and won both times. It is all how you plan, prepare your alliances, and strategize your moves.

Taxes and Community - Maybe we were lucky... sorry if this seems like a shot at your community, but whats wrong with the PC ppls? We had a dominant Alliance called The Order, and because our taxes were sitting at 20%, the community banded together to birth 2 basically full Alliances and a 3rd on it's way just to "liberate" our community from our evil tax level. And with some of your Alliances taxing 75-99%, people still lack the motivation to come together? No offence to you or many of the other decent individuals I have come across from PC, but sounds like the "PC Master Race" needs to take a look at itself.

Solar Rail / Conflict Mechanics - Your information about Solar Rail mechanics was a little bit off. You were implying that Solar Rails were "out of commission" nearly half of the time, which is incorrect. Actually each solar rail could only be deployed on twice per week at max. This is how it worked: 24 hour deployment + 12 hour conflict time + 24 hour Armistice + 24hours x % of health remaining = 1 Conflict. Roughly 84 hours if the Solar Rail was left undamaged, 72 hours if it is brought to half health, ect.... also the Node is only under conflict during the 12 hours that the battle actually takes place, so the node was free for atleast 6 days out of a week.

 Also you implied that a successful conflict takes 10,000 victories, which thankfully is no where near the reality. A Solar rail as a whole has an actual health bar containing 75,000 health... and each time your run a Conflict mission, that "Solar Rail Core" in the last room has a health bar, and for every 1% of that health bar you take away, you do 1 damage to the entire Solar Rail's health, so with each successful run you do 100 damage to the whole health bar of the Solar Rail. That being clarified, to take a Solar Rail down, it only takes 750 successful solar rail runs. Also having 4 people in a single run still only counts as 1 run or 100 health being removed. Asking for 750 victories out of 4000 people (at max potential) is a farcry from impossible... go one step further and have a Coalition of 2 or more Alliances and 750 victories is divided between 8000+ people. I am no mathematician, but I am pretty sure that equals less than 1 victory per person, even if it is just 1 Alliance attempting to conquer...lol. With those statistics, Battle pay should actually be a non factor if an Alliance is actually serious about conquering.

  I know you mentioned the ease in which taking down a Solar Rail offers... sarcastically lol. I have to agree with you though, it is not easy at all. Infact it is exactly the opposite of easy, and/or fun. It is work, a job, a task, and a big one at that. 1000's of hours go into it, and most don't fully see it through properly. It takes the right group of people with the right mentality to pull it off, and I doubt that anyone is doing it solo... but that is part of the reward... never has anything been so satisfying to complete successfully on a console video game for me(or maybe any video game actually), and I bet anyone who does make it to that point would agree.

I think we can agree on some things that are needed for Rails:

-Tax Cap
-More reward from running the conflict.
   -Set amount of credits in addition to Battle pay offered.
   -Resources
   -Solar Rail Weapon droptable (could make them exclusive to rails and even add a new WF to it)
-WF Weapon and power balance, not PvP 2.0 restriction.
-Connection Stability (Dedicated Servers)
-Minor Glitches/Bugs to be fixed
-Extreme circumstances measures (ie DDOS attacks, Server Crashes, ect)

Everything else beyond that will most likely be a personal problem with either personalities or groups who are in power.


Other Ramblings - Now the Solar Rail Community has been without Rails for 10+ months now... And there are plenty of ppl on this and other forums out there requesting for Rails back that aren't me. Just scroll back through the 11 pages on this forum to start lol. Now the Solar Rail community is also far smaller than the PvE community and we are still complaining nearly a year later... you really think PvE community would stop complaining after 2-3 weeks if Dark Sectors were taken away from them? The reason you see alot more people speaking negatively about the Solar Rails than positively, is because negativity always rings louder. When people feel "wronged" by something, we have a natural urge to complain about it. Nothing wrong with that, but when people are content, they are more likely to do nothing and just carry on being happy, rather than come complain. Most pure Solar Rail players have either left WF temporarily or permanently due to finding other games while "waiting". That being said, the apparent fact that you see numbers as small as 20 or even 100 different people complaining about a system in a game that apparently has 12m registered users, would be more of a sign that it did work for more people, than didn't... wouldn't it?

Edited November 26, 2015 by (XB1)Xodus03

[(PSN)obsidiancurse]

The rail conflicts were broken beyond redemption and that's why there were taken away.

They won't come back until the Devs have something solid and non exploitable in place.

How anyone can expect them to end the armistice when the reasons for the armistice haven't been resolved is beyond me?

[(XBOX)Master4733]

The rail conflicts were broken beyond redemption and that's why there were taken away.

They won't come back until the Devs have something solid and non exploitable in place.

How anyone can expect them to end the armistice when the reasons for the armistice haven't been resolved is beyond me?

Tell me what parts were so broken that still remains?

[Cpt.Koraxis]

I see lots of kids are afraid play pvp solar rails?, because player is harder kill then npc?, really? 

My opinion bring back solar rails pvp alaways be harder then (very easy, no challenge) pve

[(PSN)obsidiancurse]

Tell me what parts were so broken that still remains?

No regulation, no servers, no way to stop the defenders members joining the attacking team and all the other things already mentioned in this thread that made a mockery of it being an actual competition.

Pvp only works with balance, until DE can find a way to bring it back without the previous problems it won't come back. It wasn't removed on a whim, it had problems, pretending it didn't is just being an ostrich.

[(XBOX)Master4733]

No regulation, no servers, no way to stop the defenders members joining the attacking team and all the other things already mentioned in this thread that made a mockery of it being an actual competition.

Pvp only works with balance, until DE can find a way to bring it back without the previous problems it won't come back. It wasn't removed on a whim, it had problems, pretending it didn't is just being an ostrich.

I'm talking about abilities

[(XBOX)Xodus03]

No regulation, no servers, no way to stop the defenders members joining the attacking team and all the other things already mentioned in this thread that made a mockery of it being an actual competition.

Pvp only works with balance, until DE can find a way to bring it back without the previous problems it won't come back. It wasn't removed on a whim, it had problems, pretending it didn't is just being an ostrich.

 

 Servers were desperately needed for sure but I actually enjoyed having a place that didn't limit the potential of your character. Some efforts to stop certain behaviors like a cool down time for powers to stop OP power spamming I think would be a good idea, but fully regulating PvP and turning it into the same thing PvP 2.0 is... would be redundant at best. 

 

 Another thing to think about is there are a few different levels that you can separate and would require different efforts to balance. The individual matches themselves do require quite a bit of tweaking and tuning to become something that an everyday players could just pick up and play, but the scale at which Wars are fought and won on WF, with 1000's of people, is something that can't be Balanced without separating the tiers of all the Clans and Alliances... A Storm of any quality is never going to be able to fight against a high efficiency Moon Clan, and the same goes for that Moon Clan vs any well built or properly established Alliance. Even IF that were to happen, the same thing that happens now will happen then, the clans that dominate their tiers will dominate their respective Solar Rails the same way, except it would be even harder for the community to band together and fight for each other if needed because everyone will have their own battles to worry about. My guess is it wouldn't end up changing much of the way things work now. There would just be more names on nodes and it would just take time for the community to realize that new Clans have just done the same thing that old Alliances were doing.

 

 No matter how you cut it, when you are pitting Clan/Alliance vs Clan/Alliance, and the wars are based off of a win counter, the same methods are going to win whatever version of that war your put out there. The Clans/Alliances with leaders who work harder, recruit more, train better, are better prepared, and are more adept at strategizing are going to win these wars. 

[(PSN)obsidiancurse]

Servers were desperately needed for sure but I actually enjoyed having a place that didn't limit the potential of your character. Some efforts to stop certain behaviors like a cool down time for powers to stop OP power spamming I think would be a good idea, but fully regulating PvP and turning it into the same thing PvP 2.0 is... would be redundant at best. 

 

 Another thing to think about is there are a few different levels that you can separate and would require different efforts to balance. The individual matches themselves do require quite a bit of tweaking and tuning to become something that an everyday players could just pick up and play, but the scale at which Wars are fought and won on WF, with 1000's of people, is something that can't be Balanced without separating the tiers of all the Clans and Alliances... A Storm of any quality is never going to be able to fight against a high efficiency Moon Clan, and the same goes for that Moon Clan vs any well built or properly established Alliance. Even IF that were to happen, the same thing that happens now will happen then, the clans that dominate their tiers will dominate their respective Solar Rails the same way, except it would be even harder for the community to band together and fight for each other if needed because everyone will have their own battles to worry about. My guess is it wouldn't end up changing much of the way things work now. There would just be more names on nodes and it would just take time for the community to realize that new Clans have just done the same thing that old Alliances were doing.

 

 No matter how you cut it, when you are pitting Clan/Alliance vs Clan/Alliance, and the wars are based off of a win counter, the same methods are going to win whatever version of that war your put out there. The Clans/Alliances with leaders who work harder, recruit more, train better, are better prepared, and are more adept at strategizing are going to win these wars.

You have basically just highlighted a lot that was wrong with the old system and why t was taken away. It was flawed from the ground up. It was always going to deteriorate into a numbers game and is one of the reasons I don't think it will ever be back in its current form.

It's meant to be a competitive game mode but it stopped being that, it basically lost its purpose for existing.

Just spit balling here so feel free to pick holes but I guess they could do something like the following:

Cap alliances.

Say something like 2000 members max, so 2 moons or the equivalent.

Only affiliated members can participate and only for their respective sides.

Reduced win counter to lessen the inconvenience to non participants.

1 month cool down for clans switching between alliances

Preferably on servers to lessen shenanigans

That should keep it a bit more competitive. It obviously won't stop the back room deals and other shadiness but it's a step in the right direction while still keeping the alliance against alliance feel.

All taxes preset at 15%. All DS' to give + 30%, so non affiliates still receive an extra 15% incentive for playing the node and the holding alliance receive 15% to give the rail a benefit beyond kudos.

Personally I would like them to take it further, with each clan offering up a certain number ( not exceeding 10 so even the smallest clans can participate and have a chance) of champions. These champions would go head to head in an objective based rails arena. First team with the required amount of wins take the rail. Highlights from the matches could even be played on the nodes, the best players becoming famous within the community and maybe being "signed" by other alliances for their skills, like current sports stars.

[(XBOX)Xodus03]

You have basically just highlighted a lot that was wrong with the old system and why t was taken away. It was flawed from the ground up. It was always going to deteriorate into a numbers game and is one of the reasons I don't think it will ever be back in its current form.

 

 While I do believe we need servers and agree with a Tax Cap, I think Tax Cap should be a bit higher than 15% even though that is what we use. Variable Tax cap with a range up to 40 or 50% I think would both be managable and also provide the room for Alliances to play a role that hey saw fit... such as the Villians you are seeing on PC.... going beyond tax caps, I think a "fixed rate income" for all nodes would be more fair. So it doesn't matter which node is being held, it always aquired the same credit tax... maybe leave the resource tax variable with a cap on it due to all planets having different resources and the resources dropping in bundles of different sizes and usefulness.  

 

 What I don't think should be changed, or atleast not much is the scale at which wars are fought. I really liked the idea of pitting large armies against eachother in long battles to decide an outcome. Also I layed out the numbers in one of the recent past posts... it really isn't that hard at all to conquer a node numbers wise, 750 match victories for 4000 people,  just takes individuals willing to put the hours of work in to recruit, train and prepare/organize.

Edited November 28, 2015 by (XB1)Xodus03

[(XBOX)Papa Requiem]

Large scale battles are the whole point of rails. And still the same solutions can be used to fix the problems you're bringing up @obsidiancurse. Rails are supposed to be hard to keep and control and they're meant to be these huge conflicts. I think most people complain about the taxes and the imbalanced Gameplay most and DE has both balanced the game and has the ability to set a tax cap. That would solve everyone's problems. If you don't want to be part of the politics that a war involves then you shouldn't be trying to control a rail. That however, doesn't mean you can fight for one alliance or the other. But politics are integral to rails and gave the game more depth. They shouldn't be removed simply because some players don't have motivation to engage in them.