Remove The Dark Sectors Armistice

[vrdwrst]

Suddenly, thread.

[Chroia]

 @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.

Quite.  :P

 

"Solar Rail deployments functioning properly" - Could you specify what you mean by that? I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

 

"Your personal experience" - The question isn't 'how many serious deployments you have lead', it's 'how many of the total deployments are serious'.

Dark Sectors were up from U14 to ... idk, U16 iirc? which comes out to ~11 months, I believe.

There are 26 Dark Sectors.

How many Solar Rail deployments happened during that time?  I'm betting it was a lot more than 40, 80 or even 200.

 

"Active population" - DE don't give out the numbers, best I can offer you is Steam's player count, which is ~32k at this moment, but you don't need to run Steam to play Warframe. (I don't.) So that's only part of the picture.

 

"Dominant Alliances" - I can't frame this properly.

There's a difference between caring about the PvP (Conflicts), caring about the meta-combat (who wins the Solar Rail), and caring about owning the node (YOU win the Solar Rail).

There is a relationship between them, obviously, but which is more important to you dictates all sorts of things.

If you care primarily about the PvP, you might care about the metafight ('I/We won, we're awesome), and probably don't particularly care about owning node. What you're looking for is a good fight.

ofc, what defines a 'good fight' depends on other things, but we'll not go into that here. (tl;dr - the difference between Conclave 1.0's having the 'code of honor', and DSC's lack of one.)

If you care primarily about the meta-fight, you might care about owning the node (caring who wins isn't the same as caring that you win), and you might care about the PvP.

Caring about the metafight isn't its own goal.

If you care primarily about owning the node, you don't care about the metafight (You just want to win) and you don't care about the PvP (because a fair fight is one you might lose).

 

What does owning the node give you? Your alliance name on the UI, if someone happens to choose a DS, and the taxes you get from said DS.

 

And given the conflict history archived on Deathsnacks, at least as far as PC is concerned, it seems fairly evident that most of the 'dominant alliances' don't care about anything beyond owning the nodes (which is why 'cover rails' exist).

 

"Backroom Alliance Politics" - 'That's nice, dear'.

The larger the coalition, the larger you need to be to attack it. Coordination can mitigate this, to a point.

All of which directly counters the argument that 'if you don't like how things are, get off your @$$ and fight'.

The required effort to 'buy in' to get big enough to stand a chance in fighting the 'big boys' is unfeasible.

Much simpler, particularly when you don't like PvP (which is who this is usually aimed at), is to say 'fuk it' and pretend that Dark Sectors don't exist.

 

"Taxes and Community" - See above.

Also, what's the point in fighting against the alliance that owns a node if the only attacking deployments are cover rails?

 

"Solar Rail / Conflict Mechanics" - Thanks for the info, didn't know that (unsurprisingly).

 

 

  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 play Warframe to, you know, play. I have a job, and it's not a lot of fun.

So, I can spend hundreds to thousands of hours to try and kick someone off a rail. Once.

Or I can write the whole thing off and just play.

 

I'm glad that you find it satisfying. Truly.

But - by your own words - it's what you're here for.

I can... unenjoy? disenjoy? Dark Sectors - and everything around them. Or I can pretend that they don't exist, and at worst I've lost nothing.

(And at best, I'm enjoying the time I spend playing Warframe.)

It's not a very difficult decision.

 

So.

If something in Solar Rails was changed so that they no longer impact on PvE at all, that'd be fine by me.

I have no problem with you having your Solar Rails. I just don't want them impacting on my experience.

That being the case, if Solar Rails were given a PvE mode, so PvEers could participate without having to deal with the pure joy that is toxic, win-by-any-means PvP, that'd be wonderful, imo.

If Dark Sectors were removed from PvE, period, well, I'd be fine with that too.

 

 

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

-Tax Cap Yes.

-More reward from running the conflict.

   -Set amount of credits in addition to Battle pay offered.

Honestly, won't change anything unless it's way more lucrative than just running Void missions.

   -Resources Rares? Yeah, that'd work, but only for certain planets.

   -Solar Rail Weapon droptable (could make them exclusive to rails and even add a new WF to it)

Um, no. Locking PvE content behind PvP grindwalls is not cool. (If it's PvP-only, that's fine.)

-WF Weapon and power balance, not PvP 2.0 restriction.

Agreed that PvP needs some kind of different balance from PvE. e.g. getting my teeth pushed in by a Shuriken/Bladestorm every time I enter a game isn't my (or, I assume, anyone (except the person playing that Ash)'s) idea of a good time. It can be PvP 2.0 or not, I don't know that I care.

-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.

Yes, but that's not such a small deal that you can just brush it off, since it's (as best as I can tell) part of the reason for the forced armistice. Also, that also includes 'behind the scenes alliances'.

Responses inline.

 

"Other Ramblings" - Or that the vast majority of the (theoretical) 12m players do not care about it at all.

Which is likelier?

Edited November 30, 2015 by Chroia

[AreWeHuman]

I think solar rails should come back but they have to be different. The way it was was... just built to be exploited. The deck is already stacked at the top on this game so to speak, and that's fine and in a way that's the only way the game can function with any of its RPG elements intact.

Solar rail conflicts take this to an absurd extreme. Letting players influence the game isn't a bad thing. Giving players the opportunity to influence the game in a way that exploits the community is terrible.

The conflicts themselves are fine. They need some anti-snowball mechanics or something in place to make it more engaging and rewarding to participate in any phase. The balance also isn't quite there, especially as common as it was for solar rail conflicts to be pugs vs organized squads. But that can be an ok thing too.

The concept is good. PvP variety is welcome. Over the top PvP that solar rail conflicts can potentially be is something that I do think can be fun and engaging and could have a place in the game. That all said; the execution and reward scheme MUST CHANGE.

Edited November 30, 2015 by AreWeHuman

[Cloud]

@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.

Variables must be contained, few things depend merely on players will, cause the system must permit to exercise the will.

 

1) I don't want to be an hero, or a special snowflake , but me, as any other player who has a bit of brain understand that you play a game to enjoy yourself , not to be a working puppet who follows other orders. Then if someone enjoy to play like that, it does not concern the community in the whole. You are between the heads (or maybe the head) of an alliance so I understand cause you like that mode so much :P

 

2)So I should lose several hours(or days or months) in a mode I don't like , create a super alliance alone in few days and combact someone which has the economic power of a nation and system mechanics from his side? And all this for what ? To decrease taxes for a node that I play but not that much. Yeah sure... or I can just upvote to keep Dark Sectors down :)

 

3) I've played many mmo and every kind of game possible , Warframe community is one of the best I ever found. I was never insulted or harassed, so if you got all those things 2 are the possible causes : 1) You found 100+ candy crush guys (hard to belive) or you did something extremely unpleasent as unfair actions or raise taxes or all the other examples previous pc Alliances showed us.

 

I don't contradict my self in any way possible, you don't understand, it's different. Being Competitive it's not the same to neglect others to have a chance to get "your Throne". And I never mentioned to let win all the clan/alliances, i don't know from which magic hat you got it lol. What I'm looking for is a system which permits a cyclic government, and gives to every organization a chance to rule cause in the previous system once you got the "throne" you get the big money imposing absurd taxes and use a part of that money to keep the power , make agreements with other big alliances of mutual help to restrict to only few elected the chance to rule and no matter which efforts you do, you will no more be able to counteract cause players don't help those with good purposes but only those who pay them better. In this way the mode dies and we get what we had.

 

edit for typo

Edited November 30, 2015 by LordCloud00

[(XBOX)Xodus03]

@LordCloud00 - If you don't want to be the hero, that's fine, then don't lol. If this mode does not concern you, then don't let it concern you. Said it before, go play on some of the other 250+ nodes out there and forget Dark Sectors ever existed because this thread is for people who are concerned about Dark Sectors and want to see them return. You should do what makes you happy, but don't be a hypocrite and try to take away what makes others happy. I layed out the nubmers a couple of times now but here we go 1 more time, to take a Solar Rail it takes 750 match victories. For a full Alliance of 4000 people, that is less than 1 win per person, or if it was completed with 4-person squads the whole time, it would take 3000 people all playing a single match. I also know that a single match from the attackers side can be completed within 5-10 minutes... and with a 12 hour battle, if it was an average of 1 win every 10 minutes, it gives enough time for a player to possibly (not probably)complete up to 72 matches on their own. With those numbers, a Solar Rail is actually able to be defeated in a combination of different ways... by 11 people grinding their faces off for 12 hours, by 700 people each doing 1 individual match, by 3000+ people all working together, or by a combination of all of the aforementioned strategies. Also, between our Alliance and another Alliance, both of our Alliances have conquered nodes in under 3 hours time, and one of them being Secura - Pluto, against an Alliance holding 16 nodes and credits far beyond our own... so there are no factors that are impossible to overcome. 

 

 As for "what I did", I was a leader in the first Dominant Alliance on Xbox 1, "The Order", and in a short time, we conquered and held 16 nodes. Taxes were 20% solid across all nodes for a while... and everyone hated us because of it... because of 20%! We held there for a while but eventually a discussion came up and Taxes were to be raised to 25%. Our clan did not approve with that and combined with some other interior political disagreements, caused our Clan and a 3 others to walk away from that Alliance... an Alliance that held 16 nodes and had credits in the Billions. January of this year, the 4 clans that walked away from "The Order" formed "Art of War" Alliance... and by March, we held 9 Solar Rail nodes and The Order held 2. During this whole process we had put a 15% Credit tax on our nodes and a 2-5% Resource tax and never strayed far from that... and yet as soon as we overtook the previous "tyrannical" Alliance, we were next in line to be hated... no matter how "fair" we tried to be with the Community. I recognized alot of the people who "hated" us as just former enemies that belonged to other Alliances and have come to realize that it doesn't matter how "fair" we are, we are always going to be hated by the one who want what we have and that is where a good portion of the complaints come from in general that most others don't recognize... People who do actually like the mode but tried and failed against someone else. It should have nothing to do with our outrageous tax number (sarcastic). 

 

 You are the one who said "give all organizations a chance to rule"... I was just trying to figure out what that actually meant and how it would even be possible... and as far as having a system that permits a cyclic government... explain how that would even work while also keeping a war over territory at the same time? Cyclic government is basically democracy without a voting system that feeds off of the "mentality of the masses", so to speak. So we are to somehow just place people in power based off the region chat ramblings of angry former Alliance leaders and 12 year old trolls? Even if you were to instate a true democracy, why in the hell are we going to turn a video game into actual politics? People already complain enough about the politics of Dark Sectors/Solar Rails as it is lol. Also for some reason I imagine the voting days looking something like this... "Attention Everyone! The vote is about to begin! Get ready to check off those boxes ladies and gents! Letsssss get ready toooo VOOOOOOOOOOOTE. Wooo!" lol

[(XBOX)Xodus03]

@Chroia - 

 

"Solar Rail Deployments functioning properly" - While I can't find that exact quote, I do find "(more of than not) Solar Rails funcitoned fine", and I believe I am referring to the whole conflict in general from deployment to the battle to the outcomes... and how often bugs or glitches got in the way or outright prevented Wars.

 

"My personal experience" - The point of bringing up my personal experience is because nearly all of our deployments intended on being legitimate attacks, were actually successful attacks... and have relevant data while if you were to pull up 100 different "conflicts" and checked the stats, you would realize that 5 or maybe 10 of those were attacks that either had real effort put into them, or were made by fully formed Alliances that were actually ready for the battles. Majority of Solar Rail deployments are literally irrelevant unless they are a Cover Rail of some sort (which like it or not, was an available strategy, not that I am condoning it), or you pull up the "Health/Pay History" and seen atleast 750+ people payed out on the attacking side... although 750 is the bare minimum of victories for solo runs and I would consider it an "honest effort", it is still highly unlikely that you would win with exactly 750 attackers paid out. It would likely be 2000-4000 people payed out due to most running in squads of 2-4. Any deployment or attempted attack that didn't fall under those categories are simply irrelevant and would mean about as much as a Ghost Clan deploying on your strongest Alliance on PC... nothing. 

 

"Active Population" - I gave you the method to actually physically check without much guesswork, you have the means to do it so there is no use only providing a "part of the picture" when you can get the full 1000 words that every picture is apparently worth. And even using what you have...  32k on steam is a rather long way off from the 12m registered users... you really think that 11.968m players are just... "not on steam?" I will tell you that our total population at last check capped out at around 50-60k active users and that was quite a bit before CoD and Fallout 4 came out even... probably far worse now. From that total population, I can account for roughly 20-30k of them that would be in both our Alliances as well as enemy Alliances gearing up for Solar Rails as they return. That may or may not be the majority of "active" players, but it is a big part of the "active" community none the less.

 

"Dominant Alliances" - I don't know what you are getting at here. All I am seeing here is the underlying "if's" of human nature? Truthfully it doesn't matter "why" anyone is doing anything on Solar Rails. Everyone is different and while some may want to enjoy a side of the game that is unique, other may actually want to play a villain to the community. Bottom line is it really doesn't matter "why" anyone plays... that is their business. The only thing that matters are that they stay within parameters set by the game creators themselves, not by us. From there, we have the choice to fight for, fight against, or ignore... more than fair enough... but what isn't fair is the people who want to have a choice in the first place who don't get one at all now because they took the mode right away from us... atleast while it was here, you could have and probably did choose to ignore them, but we don't have that luxury. And when Solar Rail players don't have the conflicts, a good portion of them don't just ignore that and move on to a different part of the game, a good portion just move on to a different game. Probably part of the reason why steam only registers about 32k active users. 

 

"Backroom Politics" - "The larger the coalition, the larger you need to be to attack it. Coordination can mitigate this." While this is half true, it makes it seem as if there is only 1 option to winning these Solar Rail wars, which is not true. I have layed out the Solar Rail mechanics and math and pointed out directly that it doesn't take much from each individual to win a Solar Rail, just have to have alot of individuals, or on the opposite end of the spectrum, individuals willing to play alot. Check the numbers in the post before to LordCloud00 and see that it is even possible for a handful of people to win a Solar Rail war IF dedicated and hardworking enough. If you want to be serious, recruit clans who actually spend time recruiting people, rather than just any clan that wants to join, and spend time learning the (old)systems so you can use them to your full advantage.

 

 Oh one note about the "click war" comment from way back, that is also a variable in which players have control over. DE never released the information to the public but it is possible to manipulate armistice time to an extent. The way it worked was during any attack, the Clan or Alliance who did the most damage to the node, had something I would like to call "priority deployment opportunity". Which meant that, the Clan / Alliance who did the most damage, had an Armistice timer that ended before anyone else's clan who did not participate in the wars... so Click wars were there but they were also manipulable for those willing to put the extra work in.

 

 "Taxes and Commuinity" - There is plenty of point to attacking a Cover rail, one of which I stated above as manipulable Armistice times. If done countered properly, a rail can only be "covered" once before it is open for an attack on the next armistice cycle, in which you would have priority deployment. Also do you really think that the controlling Alliances want their rails to be taken even by one of their own Cover rails? That alone could cause alot of problems for an Alliance that require a coordinated effort to fix... such as spending money to re-attack their own node because very few fight for free, even for their own Alliances. 

 

"Solar Rail Mechanics" - No problem... most don't know a whole lot about Solar Rail mechanics which is a big part of the problem. That you can blame DE for. But as I have proven, it wasn't impossible to figure out the deeper mechanics of Solar Rails even without the information being fed to us. We experimented and figured it all out for ourselves for the most part.

 

I play Warframe to, you know, play. I have a job, and it's not a lot of fun.

So, I can spend hundreds to thousands of hours to try and kick someone off a rail. Once.

Or I can write the whole thing off and just play.

 

I'm glad that you find it satisfying. Truly.

But - by your own words - it's what you're here for.

I can... unenjoy? disenjoy? Dark Sectors - and everything around them. Or I can pretend that they don't exist, and at worst I've lost nothing.

(And at best, I'm enjoying the time I spend playing Warframe.)

It's not a very difficult decision.

 

So.

If something in Solar Rails was changed so that they no longer impact on PvE at all, that'd be fine by me.

I have no problem with you having your Solar Rails. I just don't want them impacting on my experience.

That being the case, if Solar Rails were given a PvE mode, so PvEers could participate without having to deal with the pure joy that is toxic, win-by-any-means PvP, that'd be wonderful, imo.

If Dark Sectors were removed from PvE, period, well, I'd be fine with that too.

 

 

 You keep bringing up the point of not enjoying so you ignored it, but why can't you actually just ignore them if you don't actually like them? You seem adamant on coming to the forums and fighting against them like many others who "didn't enjoy them". Truly ignore them then. That is an option you said you have clearly chosen before... so why not just let the people who enjoy them, enjoy them... while you ignore them and go onto one of the vast amount of other nodes that outnumber Dark Sectors/Solar Rail by more than 20 times? If you want to bring up how you "like that specific tileset, but don't like the taxes", well to me that is still a problem with not having a tileset you want rather than a problem with the mode. Start advocating your fight for specific tile sets rather than against Dark Sector Solar Rail conflicts. Dark Sectors don't have to remove themselves from PvE, you just have to remove yourself from Dark Sectors and your whole problem is solved... can't say the same about the people who want Dark Sectors back. We can't just ignore the fact that they aren't here the same way you could ignore them when they were here and continue playing when the rest of the game is likely not entertaining to the people this forum is directed at, people who enjoy Solar Rails... especially when they are deep into MR already like many of us are.

 

 

(XB1)Xodus03, on 25 Nov 2015 - 3:02 PM, said:

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

-Tax Cap Yes.
-More reward from running the conflict.
   -Set amount of credits in addition to Battle pay offered.

Honestly, won't change anything unless it's way more lucrative than just running Void missions.
   -Resources Rares? Yeah, that'd work, but only for certain planets.
   -Solar Rail Weapon droptable (could make them exclusive to rails and even add a new WF to it)

Um, no. Locking PvE content behind PvP grindwalls is not cool. (If it's PvP-only, that's fine.)
-WF Weapon and power balance, not PvP 2.0 restriction.

Agreed that PvP needs some kind of different balance from PvE. e.g. getting my teeth pushed in by a Shuriken/Bladestorm every time I enter a game isn't my (or, I assume, anyone (except the person playing that Ash)'s) idea of a good time. It can be PvP 2.0 or not, I don't know that I care.
-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.

Yes, but that's not such a small deal that you can just brush it off, since it's (as best as I can tell) part of the reason for the forced armistice. Also, that also includes 'behind the scenes alliances'.

 

  -Set amount of credits in addition to Alliance Battle pay - could have a massive impact on Solar Rail activity. Credits alone were the difference between success and failure a good majority of the time on Solar Rails in the first place and that was at credit increments of 50-100k per battle. If there were a 20-30k (or more) guaranteed credit rewards ontop of battle pays set by the Alliances, I believe it would garner much more activity than it ever has.

 

 -Resources - I was thinking more of some of these extremely hard to get resources like Nitian, Tellerium, or Argon Crystals. The drop rate would still have to be rare of course, but having a chance at getting these resources would boost Solar Rail participation undoubtedly.  

 

 -Exclusive Droptable - I would be perfectly fine with them releasing Weapons/Mods/Warframes that are locked to PvP but I am pretty sure the rest of the "PvE" community would be even more frustrated that these Weapons/Mods/Warframes would be restricted to only PvP... also there would still be the problem of leveling up the content when it is not available in PvE in the first place since Conflicts don't offer XP that actually levels you up outside of the conflict. I don't see the problem with a system adopted by a number of extremely popular MMORPG style games... in which there are PvP grinds to attain specific gear that after you get, is still usable in PvE.  Mods are already offered though PvP 2.0 and must be leveled up through playing PvE as it is so it really would not be much of a different aspect. Also... everything in WF is a grindwall already anyway, why not add some for the Solar Rail players while also adding more incentive for the non-Solar Rail players to get more involved?

 

"Other Ramblings" - Actually the point I was more trying to make was that there isn't actually 12m active players but you made another fine point... Doesn't matter if it is 12m, 1.2m, or 120k... the fact is the vast majority didn't care enough about it at all to even have an opinion so that being acknowledged it actually shows it really didn't affect them enough to make a difference one way or another, so if they were still here, it most likely wouldn't have bothered the vast majority one way or another the same way it doesn't bother them that they are gone. That to me sounds like they could have let the ones who enjoyed it, keep playing, while they kept working on them and the rest would have continued on doing what they were doing now or then anyway without being affected positively or negatively.  

 

 All of the problems with the "system" that have been brought up, are actually problems with players "abusing" community expectations (aside from wide scale instances such as DDOSing)... more than with the actual systems themselves. We have established that some very minor tweaks to that system could turn community expectation into a concrete parameter setting and then there would be very little left to complain about other than what was missing that could make it even better, rather than what was wrong with it. 

Edited November 30, 2015 by (XB1)Xodus03

[Chroia]

"Solar Rail Deployments functioning properly" - Ah.

You're talking mechanically - nothing broken, nothing bugging out.

I'm talking meta - "Are Solar Rails doing what DE intended them to do?", "How many Solar Rails have been 'serious' (to use your term)?", etc.

 

 

"Active Population" -

Just set a single kill (147,641 shows as last in kills atm), will check again when U18 drops.

 

 

"Dominant Alliances" - Alright, I'll try again.

If the purpose of Solar Rails is to let the dominant (multi-)alliances monopolize the Dark Sectors, then sure - everything's just fine.

If, on the other hand, Solar Rails are supposed to be a contest, competition which is

<snip>

Although we originally approached Dark Sectors with the intention of re-opening the Clan vs Clan competition as quickly as possible, it became clear that doing so was not falling in line with our intent for Conclave-related gameplay.  Simply put, it wasn't as balanced as we liked and capturing such a lucrative objective as a Solar Rail wasn't as fun as it should have been. 

 

Since then we've set to working hard on delivering a new competitive experience. Dark Sector 2.0 is a total reinvention of the game mode, and we ask for your continued patience while working towards refining and improving this concept.  These new Dark Sector Conflicts will be globally inclusive to all Tenno.

<snip>

then no, something is not functioning properly.

 

"Backroom Politics" - There are 2 things in play here.

1) By your stats, yes, a full Alliance (or two) who are serious about taking a rail should be able to achieve it.

Why they haven't (on PC, at least,) is because they're buddy-ed up to maintain their control an interesting question.

2) An individual (or even a group) doing 750 full wins is rather less achieveable (and that's before factoring in Specters, defenders, etc.).

2b) Said individual gathering an alliance-worth of people, from now to now, to contest a rail? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this can feasibly happen.

 

3) The numbers you give in your previous post seem reasonable. But they're a best-case scenario.

You happen to be in a full alliance. (See 2b)

Most people in the alliance are active and willing to run the dark sector. (*shrug*?)

They have a perfect win streak. (No cheese-location defenses, no 'win-by-any-means' defenders, no Force Specter squads roflstomping you on spawn.)

How realistic is this scenario?

 

 

"Taxes and Commuinity" -

"There is plenty of point to attacking a Cover rail, ... manipulable Armistice times. If done countered properly, a rail can only be "covered" once before it is open for an attack on the next armistice cycle, in which you would have priority deployment."

Yes, but I don't want to deploy a rail. I don't want to own a DS. I don't want to have to bother with the Solar Rails.

I want to kick out the people who are there, and I'll run Conflicts to work towards that.

(And, unless I - and everyone else who's running it - are in the same alliance, that priority can't even be utilized to begin with.)

 

"That alone could cause alot of problems for an Alliance that require a coordinated effort to fix... such as spending money to re-attack their own node because very few fight for free, even for their own Alliances."

Wait.

So you're saying that it's completely reasonable to expect a small group of players to more-or-less solo a rail on their own; but Alliances that participate in Solar Rails will have trouble organizing a 'takeback' on a cover rail that wins?

Either something doesn't add up, or I'm missing something.

 

"You keep bringing up the point of not enjoying so you ignored it, but why can't you actually just ignore them if you don't actually like them? You seem adamant on coming to the forums and fighting against them" - Can I ask what you base that on?

There's this thread, which I'm posting on because you're replying to me, sure.

But where, exactly, in my post history is there this crusade to deprive people of Solar Rails about any aspect of Solar Rails?

 

Off the top of my head, the only things I recall posting about it are the occasional cheese being exploited by 'win-by-any-means' players, my eventual conclusion that Solar Rails and Dark Sectors aren't worth the effort, and (more recently) this:

 

 

Thank you for your patience, Tenno.

Take all the time you need, make this a PvP mode worth doing.

Dark Sectors free from overtaxing for at least a while longer! \o/

These.

 

tl;dr - I may be wrong, but I believe I have "just have to remove yourself from Dark Sectors and your whole problem is solved".

And back in... my 2nd reply to you, maybe? I've agreed that Solar Rail-centric players completely losing the Solar Rails is a valid complaint. There's nothing more I can really say beyond that, since they were removed for a reason, and DE still aren't pleased with the state of them - so they're not back yet.

 

 

Set amount of credits in addition to Alliance Battle pay

Maybe. Again, though, you're talking like they always offer 50k-100k credits. They don't.

When they do, however, they do (as far as I can tell) see a lot of activity.

*shrug* Still, no harm in trying.

 

Resources

Ah, I see.

idk, but again - no harm in trying.

 

Exclusive Droptable

Eh.

Frames and weapons, maybe, since they're worth Mastery.

But PvP exclusive mods already exist in Conclave 2.0, and the closest I've seen to "PvE community frustration" about them is primarily that the damage conversion mods should replace the PvE damage mods.

As to leveling them: Conclave 2.0 does give exp. Sure, it's not Conflicts, but it's still PvP.  Why's that not an adequate solution? (Worst case, an 'end of match PvP-exp reward for them ought to be code-able'.)

 

"a system adopted by a number of extremely popular MMORPG style games" -

1) Alright. But how often are these pieces of gear worth using in PvE?

In my - admittedly limited - experience, between different balance systems, and different modifiers being important, the answer is 'not often'.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

2) What % of the non-PvP player base go through the PvP grind to get the gear?

2b) Do they miss out on anything (beyond the actual gear), should they choose not to grind for it?

In Warframe - as opposed to (afaik any) MMO, 'gear' is more than just gear, it's also Mastery.

How often do people complain (more or less bitterly) about having missed some or other retired/time-limited piece of gear (that usually isn't even all that good)?

I still see it as a problem, idk.

 

"why not add some for the Solar Rail players while also adding more incentive for the non-Solar Rail players to get more involved?"

Because it'll backfire.

How beneficial to the 'Solar Rail community' (if such a thing exists) are an influx of clueless newbies going through "mandatory" grind?

How likely are said newbies to stick around once they get their 'one and done' grind-goal?

(How likely are they to stick around long enough to get that far to begin with, when they enter a match and get repeatedly cheesed to death by people who are playing to "win by any means"?)

How happy are these people going to be with the experience?

 

 

 

1) you really think PvE community would stop complaining after 2-3 weeks if Dark Sectors were taken away from them?

In a word? Yes.

 

2) 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?

 

-----

 

the fact is the vast majority didn't care enough about it at all to even have an opinion so that being acknowledged it actually shows it really didn't affect them enough to make a difference one way or another, so if they were still here, it most likely wouldn't have bothered the vast majority one way or another the same way it doesn't bother them that they are gone.

And again, there's a difference between Conflicts, Solar Rails and Dark Sectors.

It makes perfectly good sense that the "vast majority" wouldn't have an opinion about the PvP portions of Warframe. Warframe isn't primarily a PvP game. Never has been (though idk about the future), and so is not what the vast majority is here to play.

Sure, some will try it. Of them some will like it - some won't.

But the 'vast majority' still doesn't care about Solar Rails or Conflicts.

Dark Sectors, on the other hand, are something that they (might) care about.

 

And "letting the ones who enjoyed it, keep playing, while they kept working on them"...

They're working on Solar Rails (theoretically). They're working on Conflicts (certainly).

They are not, to the best of my knowledge, working on Dark Sectors.

 

And, again - PvP affecting people who want to play PvE. That does (or, at the time, did) affect people negatively.

How big a deal it'd be at this point, idk.

 

 

Here's a thought:

If - right now - the Armistice was disabled, but taxes remained locked at 0%, and when choosing a DS in conflict, players would have the option to ignore it and play the base PvE node; would that work for you?

 

-----

 

 

1) All of the problems with the "system" that have been brought up, are actually problems with players "abusing" community expectations (aside from wide scale instances such as DDOSing)... more than with the actual systems themselves. 2) We have established that some very minor tweaks to that system could turn community expectation into a concrete parameter setting and then there would be very little left to complain about other than what was missing that could make it even better, rather than what was wrong with it.

1) Again, you're talking mechanically. 'Things don't crash'.

But the system in place allows people to 'abuse community expectations'. I'd call that a problem with the system.

2) Agreed.

 

By the way - food for thought:

What are a person's priorities if they think that DDOS-ing DE in order to win a Solar Rail is acceptable?

What does that say about (some) of the people who are controlling the Dark Sectors?

 

 

 

--------------------

 

P.S.

For whatever it's worth, Nov 20th Community Hot Topics, prompted by this very thread:

Are you eager to get back to fighting Solar Rail conflicts?

1. Yes! (537 votes [27.69%])
2. Kind of.. (470 votes [24.24%])
3. No. (605 votes [31.20%])
4. Solar Rails? (144 votes [7.43%])
5. No opinion on this topic. (183 votes [9.44%])

    

Edited December 1, 2015 by Chroia

[(XBOX)Xodus03]

"If the purpose of Solar Rails is to let the dominant (multi-)alliances monopolize the Dark Sectors, then sure - everything's just fine."

 

 -Alright then... let's just put measures in place for sports so that no team can have a perfect record... and a handicap on the Olympics so USA can only win say 10 medals per year rather than the 103 they won in the 2012 Summer Olympics... because we don't want domination / monopolization in competition... right? Wrong. In almost every competition setting in the world, there is an opportunity for most teams to not lose -ever-... yes it is highly uncommon usually because of the level of competition, but possible none the less.

 

 

"Backroom Politics" - It sounds like you are talking about mechanics and likelihood of a win more than the politics themselves. Honestly when it comes to the attacking side, it doesn't matter if you are going up against 1 Alliance or 5 Alliances... all that matters is that you have enough people and resources to win for your side because it doesn't matter if there are 20,000 people lined up to defend, a defender can only enter a match against an attacking team. So the excuse that "they are buddied up to maintain their control", is just that... an excuse... and why the PC community keeps complaining that they "can't" do this and that, maybe a sign that the Dark Sectors are already in the hands of those who do deserve them most. The ones who did and continue to work to hold them, while everyone else just whines about it.

 

  Multi-Alliance benefits are more on the side of attackers.... yeah if you have 2 Alliances attacking you, it is much harder to defend against than 1, but if you are attacking a node that has a "multi-alliance" defending it, it still only lets 4 people in per match per side and takes the same amount of wins to take down the rail. As far as Specters go... if they caused you problems, you either didn't play enough learn their behaviors or were just too reckless. After teaching tactics to our Alliances, if ever we face a Specter regiment, all it does is serve to level up our squads faster, thus leading to a faster win.... and no one can "roflstomp" anyone in spawns for a couple of months before Rails shut down since DE put a barrier that resets a defender if they pass it for too long... Defenders were really the only thing that could slow down a squad that knew what they were doing, and even then, only a really good squad could manage to slow one of our squads, let alone stop them. All of the problems mentioned above, are personal problems and have been overcome one way or another with hard work, organization and strategy.

 

"Yes, but I don't want to deploy a rail. I don't want to own a DS. I don't want to have to bother with the Solar Rails."

 -This is not a counter argument to anything to do with Dark Sectors/Solar Rails... this is a personal feeling and problem that you can keep to yourself. If you don't want to do it, then just keep on keepin on. lol

"I want to kick out the people who are there, and I'll run Conflicts to work towards that."

 -Can't have your cake and eat it too... lol. Don't want to deploy a Rail or own a DS, but you want the power to control it in the means of kicking everyone off of them haha... Do I even have to point out the irony? Woops just did. 

 

 "Wait.

So you're saying that it's completely reasonable to expect a small group of players to more-or-less solo a rail on their own; but Alliances that participate in Solar Rails will have trouble organizing a 'takeback' on a cover rail that wins?

Either something doesn't add up, or I'm missing something."

  -No. I am saying it is completely reasonable to expect people who want to play this style of the game, be prepared to engage themselves in efforts outside of just "winning a rail for themselves". That means recruiting to become something more than a "small group". Also Solar Rail "Wars" aren't one and done situations, they are wars of attrition that combine multiple battles to wear down your enemies in many ways. Anything from resources to morale.. every bit that you can take away from the enemy strengthens your own cause. Another common mistake... thinking that because you have won one, that the rest will be easy and it's already over... There is alot more to it and the ones who are able to take aspects of the game that are being "exploited" so to speak, and turn it against the ones trying to use it while also keeping to their schedule of planned conquest, are the ones who will have the biggest advantage and best chance of winning. Once again it all comes down to work ethics. Are you willing to put in the extra work to get the pay off? Or are you just content with "half-assing" it and potential / inevitable failure? If you are content... then I am happy for you, but don't try to pawn off a legitimate strategy as not feasible because it requires a little extra work without an immediate pay off. 

 

Set amount of credits in addition to Alliance Battle pay

What I have learned is that if they aren't paying around 50k, then it was probably an unprepared clan/alliance, a cover rail, or a mistake made by someone who doesn't know what they were doing and ended up laying down a rail "just because". 50k on Xbox 1 easily gets enough attention to conquer the rail you are attacking, 100k can create a pretty good frenzy. We have seen Solar Rails taken in under 3 hours when there is a 12 hour limit... so anyone who doesn't win just wasn't prepared to put the required efforts to win.

 

Exclusive Droptable

 You don't see people complain about the PvP mods because the PvP mods are not good lol. I can't think of 1 PvP mod I would use to replace a PvE mod on my WF setups. If they were to add more feasible mods to PvP then there might be an argument here but aside from that, there is no reason to use PvP mods in PvE. All PvP mods are meant for is small bonuses while trying to keep the game mode "balanced". 

 

1) Generally the highest tier PvP gear is best for PvP and highest tier PvE gear is best for PvE, but in those MMO's, there are tiers to gear and the highest tier PvP gear can actually surpass some of the PvE gear that is not of the highest tier... The situation would be differen for Warframe though because of how Warframe is designed...

 

 Let me ask you this... What is the best Warframe? Now let me answer that question for you also... is it depends on what you are doing in game because each Warframe excels at different things in game, feel free to disagree if you want. So that being said, I imagine that they would design the PvP drops to have a purpose in the same sort of idea. Some things may be good for specific instances, some may not... and some might just depend on your play style and what you enjoy. I know there are many different "kinds" of players from the melee lovers, to power spammers, to shotgun smashers, and even to the rare sniper users... but in the end Warframe is meant to be played how the user enjoys playing it. You can stealth your way through missions and enjoy yourself or you can use a 1-cast power like Ember WoF and just walk through a mission without seeing much resistance... I imagine that if PvP exclusive drops were introduced, they would align themselves with that mentality that already exists in the game. 

 

2) This argument is funny and can be completely flipped around on to PvE with the same affect as you are trying to make it have on the PvP aspects. The % is irrelevant. If they want the gear, they will play whatever is require to get it, or they won't get it. Same goes for ANY gear in the game... the way you try to separate "Solar Rails, Dark Sectors, and Conflicts", we can do in PvE with each game mode. What % of people who don't enjoy "Survivals" still play them to get the Ash Prime part? Does it really matter? No. If someone wants it bad enough they will do what they have to in order to get it, other wise they wont.

 

2b) People complain constantly about missing limited time items in game but... the theoretical drops from the Solar Rail Conflicts would be made more available than the limited time stuff that comes with events or the Void Trader because Solar Rail wars happen more often than both events and Void Traders even when you don't you include the "non serious" deployments, and the drop table would still be accessible during those "non-serious" deployments also. If this isn't true, try to find a 2 week period in which Solar Rails were active that there wasn't atleast 1 deployment. I would also argue that Solar Rail Conflicts (when not in Armistice of course lol) are more common then any 1 specific Alert such as something like the Vauban Chasis Alert. So.. same argument as in 2), If they want it bad enough, they grind to get it, if they don't then they don't. That is on players attitudes. Simple as that. 

 

As far as "Clueless newbies" being forced to grind their way through Solar Rails, also related to PvE and the way it works. We all start off as "Clueless Newbies" in WF and we are all forced to grind for basically anything and everything that we want in this game... so how does this differ in any way? The likelihood of anyone sticking around after completing the grind is MUCH higher if they are actually being forced to try Solar Rail Conflicts during the grind, than if not. Even if it is only 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 100, it is still adding to the Solar Rail community... and for the ones that don't, they are just as likely to stick around and play Solar Rails as the rest of the community is likely to stick around and play Sedna's "Kela de Thaym" boss over and over after they are done their "one and done" grind of getting Saryn... or am I wrong?

 

 "Solar Rails / Dark Sectors / Conflicts" - You keep trying to separate them like they are different entities when they aren't. Yes each term refers to a different specific aspect of them, but they are layers of the same entity and are all only in existence in relation to eachother. We do separate the layers to analyze (and debate) them, but it doesn't change the fact that what makes a "Dark Sector" what it is, is the bonuses received and the possibility of a tax, and those bonuses and taxes are only there in direct correlation with the "Solar Rails"... and the nature of "Solar Rails" is competitive, thus "conflicts" arise. I don't even know what point you are trying to make when trying to separate the three lol... If they are working on one, it most likely effects them all in some way.

 

 

"Here's a thought:

If - right now - the Armistice was disabled, but taxes remained locked at 0%, and when choosing a DS in conflict, players would have the option to ignore it and play the base PvE node; would that work for you?"

 

  If Armistice were disabled, Taxes could not be locked at 0% or there would be no way to sustain costs of holding a Dark Sector. As I have mentioned, the bonuses and taxes go hand in hand with there even being Solar Rails / Dark Sectors in existence. Sure we could lock taxes at 0% but then we should also take the bonuses of extra credits, resources, and exp away also. What is a Dark Sector after that? Just a normal node? What is the point of playing Dark Sectors after that? To play infested on nodes of planets where infested generally aren't found? They already have that, they are called invasions. 

 

1) Again, you're talking mechanically. 'Things don't crash'.

But the system in place allows people to 'abuse community expectations'. I'd call that a problem with the system.

 

 I don't know why you keep bringing this up as if we are fighting about it... I already said I agree and support a Tax cap lol... Any other "abuse" of the system aside from "mechanical" stuff like DDOSing, is just using the system to it's full potential to gain an advantage... not saying it is "honorable", but I am not saying it is wrong either and the same advantage anyone can choose to take for themselves except some just use it as an excuse for their losses and to act all "high and mighty" insteand.  

 

By the way - food for thought:

What are a person's priorities if they think that DDOS-ing DE in order to win a Solar Rail is acceptable?

What does that say about (some) of the people who are controlling the Dark Sectors?

 

 What DDOSing is saying on Warframe is the exact same thing that it says on any other majorly popular online game that has to deal with the exact same problems: They are not intelligent enough to win legitimately, they are most likely an immature sore loser, they are dishonorable, ect, ect... it goes on and on and I agree fully but, last I recall, no one can direclty DDOS a Solar Rail conflict... they actually DDOS your entire game servers so using the DDOS as an excuse to take away Solar Rails isn't a fair argument when they have left every other aspect of the game intact after it has suffered the same abuse. Warframe needs to beef up it's security measures or do whatever it is that you can do to prevent DDOS attacks period... and also put some fail safes in place to protect the conflicts such as a battle reset in which it would replace resources lost and they can try again... but I think the best option if possible would be a timer that would stop the battle and resume it at the exact same time the next day starting right where it left off. Or assuming that the DDOS attacks are most likely coming from the defending side, it could hold the battle for a full week to start off on the same day it was in the previous week and start it right where it left off (timer and % damage wise) and during the whole week following up to the "make up" battle, it would neglect to collect any taxes until the battle resumed on so there could be no benefit from the defender side to DDOSing aside from actually just having their name on the node.

Edited December 5, 2015 by (XB1)Xodus03

[(XBOX)Lorewalker1022]

^ Preach!

[YasaiTsume]

I just want to raid someone's panty closet for a good bounty reward.
 

[(PSN)rengence]

As long as you can't::

A) join the opposing side to purposely lose.

B) to maintain balance would require dark sector tiers...like low level planet only ghost and shadow can control and high level like Pluto only moon clans. I could see some problems though, but with access to downsizing it may be okay.

C) as for weapon and gear balance, it would have to go off of conclave builds.

D) after control for a period of time, let's say a week(by then you will be rich) You would lose control for 1-2 days due to a "lockout" mechanism. Maybe the rail overheated or you have to pay electricity bill lol

[Chroia]

"My personal experience" (previous post) - And yet, these 'simply irrelevant' deployments locked a rail to their current owner for ~84 hours (is I believe the number you gave?).

Which means that, even if all they do is 'gum up the works', they do affect the Solar Rail contestation.

Your deployments were meant to be serious, and they were mostly successful. I'm glad to hear it.

But your experience doesn't appear to be representative, at least as far as Solar Rails on PC go.

"Active Population" - btw, it was up to 271,764 players a few hours before U18 dropped.

"If the purpose of Solar Rails is to let the dominant (multi-)alliances monopolize the Dark Sectors, then sure - everything's just fine."

Bad analogy.

You can't "monopolize" the olympics. At most you could have one team win a large ratio of their events.

And even then - and here's the point - it's an isolated event which hasno snow-ball effect. In other words, even if one team manages to win every single one of their events, this has no effect on the results next competition (Taxes -> Battlepay), nor does it have any impact on the other events.

Say we're talking about the US Men's race team. This has no effect on the Women's, on track-and-field, on swimming, pole-vaulting, etc. etc. etc. (Someone wins -> Extortionate taxes -> PvE effectively locked out of a node.)

And yes, we agreed on a tax cap - which would mitigate at least part of this issue.

"Backroom Politics" -

"all that matters is that you have enough people and resources to win for your side" Yup. So please stop throwing around that 'so do something about it'.

Disorganized assault is useless, since we don't outnumber them.

"So the excuse that "they are buddied up to maintain their control", is just that... an excuse... " - Except that that gives them much larger numbers than they would have otherwise.

Can you tell me, with a straight face, that that makes no difference against a smaller, disorganized opponent?

"maybe a sign that the Dark Sectors are already in the hands of those who do deserve them most" - ... Please read that sentence again, and pretend that you're not part of a successful Solar Rail-centric alliance.

"The ones who did and continue to work to hold them, while everyone else just whines about it" - Ad hominem.

Anecdote -

How often do you participate in Dark Sectors Conflicts?

> Never.

I'm sitting on 8+ mil credits.

While this will all (and then some) be needed to max mods, I've nowhere near enough fusion fodder.

By the time I do, I'll no doubt have enough and more than enough credits for anything I need.

That being the case, I don't even bother with DSC for battlepay.

I did when they were initially changed, to check them out. I was displeased with the situation and provided feedback to that effect.

The situation's unchanged, and so I've no reason to return.

I did, for a couple days, do nothing but DSC to try and oust tax-extortionists.

And was that an exercise in frustration.

Won some battles but lost every single war.

Battlepay and cheese-frames win the day. (And SURPRISE! 75%+ taxes on a popular node means you'll have battlepay.)

Thanks, no thanks.

No return on the effort.

Not worth the time.

Certainly not worth the gnrfl.

Would you participate more if any of the following suggestions were implemented?

> Changes to equipment/warframes/weapons.

> Changes to matchmaking for Conflicts.

Why can't I choose more than one option?

Chose other.

An example showing both issues:

Being solo defender vs some combination of 4 Ashs/Valkyrs gunning for 100k battlepay = not my idea of a good time.

There's a limit to how much effort anyone will put in to anything when it makes literally no impact.

"Yes, but I don't want to deploy a rail. I don't want to own a DS. I don't want to have to bother with the Solar Rails."

-This is not a counter argument to anything to do with Dark Sectors/Solar Rails... this is a personal feeling and problem that you can keep to yourself. If you don't want to do it, then just keep on keepin on. lol

"I want to kick out the people who are there, and I'll run Conflicts to work towards that."

-Can't have your cake and eat it too... lol. Don't want to deploy a Rail or own a DS, but you want the power to control it in the means of kicking everyone off of them haha... Do I even have to point out the irony? Woops just did.

Clearly, I was unclear or you misunderstand.

I have no problem putting time and effort into someone else's rail, in order to make a change.

So no, I don't want 'the power to control it' etc. And again, thanks for the slur.

I just want to be able to make any kind of difference.

"That means recruiting to become something more than a "small group"."

In case you've lost track, I said that about kicking someone off a rail needing a lot of people, you said it's not needed. And yet...

"Once again it all comes down to work ethics. Are you willing to put in the extra work to get the pay off? Or are you just content with "half-assing" it and potential / inevitable failure? If you are content... then I am happy for you, but don't try to pawn off a legitimate strategy as not feasible because it requires a little extra work without an immediate pay off. "

I have a job. I don't want another one that I actively dislike doing.

Which is why I'm fine with fighting for other people's rails.

And which is why, when all the rails I saw were clearly pointless, I wrote the whole thing off.

We're agreed that Solar Rails aren't 'one and done'.

And what 'legitimate strategy' are you referring to? I've been saying that a small group can't have an impact on a Solar Rail. You said they can. Then you say that - because they're not 'one and done' - they'll need to grow.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick an argument.

Set amount of credits in addition to Alliance Battle pay

Legitimate rails that fail are just the price of doing business, as it were. Learning the ropes, etc.

But still means that cover rails do nothing but gum up the works.

So yeah, maybe added credits would help here, idk.

Exclusive Droptable

1) In abstract, I can live with that.

2) "The % is irrelevant. If they want the gear, they will play whatever is require to get it, or they won't get it."

Yup. But what if, in your MMO example, your max level was capped by your gear, as MR is?

"the way you try to separate "Solar Rails, Dark Sectors, and Conflicts", we can do in PvE with each game mode."

Disagree. As opposed to the PvP part, the PvE is all fundumentally the same. All of it uses the same set of mechanics.

Are you at all familiar with any 4X games? (Master of Orion, Heroes of Might and Magic, Sins of a Solar Empire, Galactic Civilization, Sid Meyer's whatever, etc. etc.)

Yes, the exploration, the resource management, the strategy and logistics and the combat are all part of the same overaching game (in enour case: PvP), but they are fundumentally different.

Same as Solar Rails, Conflicts (and Dark Sectors).

"What % of people who don't enjoy "Survivals" still play them to get the Ash Prime part? Does it really matter? No. If someone wants it bad enough they will do what they have to in order to get it, other wise they wont."

And, again, not really. Because trading is a thing.

2b) "So.. same argument as in 2)," - Fair point, kinda, but that'll really depend on the drop chances. A Vauban alert is the same as any other, except for being a much lower chance. If these 'exclusive drop's have a similar chance... *shrug*

"As far as "Clueless newbies"... or am I wrong?"

I have no idea. It wasn't a rhetorical question.

"Solar Rails / Dark Sectors / Conflicts" - They are different entities. They are part of the same overarching aspect of the game. See my above.

These things aren't mutually contradictory.

"it doesn't change the fact that what makes a "Dark Sector" what it is, is the bonuses received and the possibility of a tax, and those bonuses and taxes are only there in direct correlation with the "Solar Rails"... and the nature of "Solar Rails" is competitive, thus "conflicts" arise."

Agreed. I'm not arguing that.

Say they change the DS bonuses. Will this have any effect on Conflicts or Deployments?

Say they change how Conflicts work. Yes, this will impact on Deployments, but it won't really change much about them - nor will it change anything about Dark Sectors.

Say they change how Solar Rails work. Will this have any effect on each individual Conflict? Or on Dark Sectors at all?

Hope that made why I distinguish between them clearer.

" If Armistice were disabled, " - Answered half the question.

You have this huge alliance dedicated to Solar Rails. Will you honestly tell me that they can't afford an alliance-wide collection to upkeep the rails?

This is not a rhetorical question, as I don't know how much it costs.

Also, what about Conflicts not disabling the PvE node?

" I don't know why you keep bringing this up as if we are fighting about it... "

There seems to be some miscommunication about this topic, but I don't quite understand it atm (need to reread the whole discussion, I think), so let's set this aside for now.

"Food for thought" - Works for me.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Chroia

[(PSN)obsidiancurse]

Guys the horse is dead.

Like really, seriously dead.

It's been flogged into Belgium hamburger and still you keep going.

You are through the race track and on your way to China.

They are not coming back as they were, Devs confirmed this.

They will not come back until something new has been worked out.

I think we need to accept this and move on, get some closure.

[(XBOX)Solargeo]

Add A tax limit  it is a huge problem. Also make it so if a whole team disconnects the rail takes some damage either way. And if it goes poof because of it then well the attacking team gets the rail. what do you guys think of those few balances.

[TennoPain]

Return the taxes on Sechura.  Everybody will love that.

 

 

You do not understand what it takes to hold a sector do you ?