(XBOX)Lorewalker1022 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 @ Noamuth - But then I'm confused. How do allliances deploy rails on a 100% PVE environment? Do some deploy rails against PVP oppoenents and some deploy rails against PVE? Then how to you pie out the DS based on that?Maybe I'm just not understanding, but if you separate PVE and PVP you will have some alliances fighting each other while others don't??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 @ Noamuth - But then I'm confused. How do allliances deploy rails on a 100% PVE environment? Do some deploy rails against PVP oppoenents and some deploy rails against PVE? Then how to you pie out the DS based on that? Maybe I'm just not understanding, but if you separate PVE and PVP you will have some alliances fighting each other while others don't??? Not if the separation of PvP/PvE ISN'T just based on the Rail itself, but rather is the player's choice of how they want to participate - see my above suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 @ Noamuth - But then I'm confused. How do allliances deploy rails on a 100% PVE environment? Do some deploy rails against PVP oppoenents and some deploy rails against PVE? Then how to you pie out the DS based on that? Maybe I'm just not understanding, but if you separate PVE and PVP you will have some alliances fighting each other while others don't??? Player choice - PvP set up conclave style (I guess, I don't venture there) and PvE would be Sab/Spy style missions. Like Morec0 posted, the PvP option would do more damage to the rails and conflicts would take less time, while the PvE option would do less damage and take more time. The benefit to this is that you have more people participating in the playstyle they enjoy and opens the Dark Sectors up to others instead of the PvP oriented groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)Lorewalker1022 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) So you want 2 sets of rails. PVPers play each other PVErs play PVE.I see. I'm not sure how that would work in practice but I see what youre saying. So do PVErs still have to spend resoruces to deploy rails? Or do they get to fight for free? Edited November 20, 2015 by (XB1)Lorewalker1022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 So you want 2 sets of rails. PVPers play each other PVErs play PVE. I see. I'm not sure how that would work in practice but I see what youre saying. So do PVErs still have to spend resoruces to deploy rails? Or do they get to fight for free? Not two rails, just two mission options - like you choose between Nightmare mode and regular gameplay on a planet mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) So you want 2 sets of rails. PVPers play each other PVErs play PVE. I see. I'm not sure how that would work in practice but I see what youre saying. So do PVErs still have to spend resoruces to deploy rails? Or do they get to fight for free? Not at all. I want ONE kind of rail that goes up against another rail. But when you pick your side, you are then prompted to make a choice. Will you: "Strike at the Main Core" (PvP) or "Attack the Auxiliary Generators" (PvE) The Main core option gets more damage done to either rail, but the Auxiliary core option is the easier and quicker of the two. Edited November 20, 2015 by Morec0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)Lorewalker1022 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 and how would you recourse out the winnings? we still get to tax and you guys just straight up get the resource rewards? How would DE evenly split out how PVE versus PVP is rewarded? Should PVP get more for fighting against real players? There's too many issues with this. @ Morec0 - I get it now. Disregard last comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 and how would you recourse out the winnings? we still get to tax and you guys just straight up get the resource rewards? How would DE evenly split out how PVE versus PVP is rewarded? Should PVP get more for fighting against real players? There's too many issues with this. @ Morec0 - I get it now. Disregard last comment. Why have different rewards for different modes at all? PvP or PvE should be done for enjoyment, not rewards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)Lorewalker1022 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) because if I spend resources to deploy a rail and battle pay to hold it up. I need something in return for that Edited November 20, 2015 by (XB1)Lorewalker1022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) and how would you recourse out the winnings? we still get to tax and you guys just straight up get the resource rewards? How would DE evenly split out how PVE versus PVP is rewarded? Should PVP get more for fighting against real players? There's too many issues with this. Why have different rewards for different modes at all? PvP or PvE should be done for enjoyment, not rewards. ^ There's no need for different immediate rewards because the ultimate reward of having your chosen Alliance own that node is what you're after. Is the current Alliance holding their taxes too high? Boot them out quickly through the PvP matches. Ultimately it will be the player's preference of "do I want to do the PvP or PvE bits?" and that will be based on which they find more fun and what their ultimate goal is. If they JUST want the immediate reward they'll do PvE, if they want to help keep or put an Alliance in power they'll run the PvP - or if they just prefer one game mode or another they'll run that particular game mode. because if I spend resources to deploy a rail and battle pay to hold it up. I need something in return for that The taxes. Edited November 20, 2015 by Morec0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 because if I spend resources to deploy a rail and battle pay to hold it up. I need something in return for that. I'm a little confused as to what you're talking about. It's been a loooong time since I was in a conflict but I don't remember getting resources as battle pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)Lorewalker1022 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) @ Morec0 - taxes is what I meant by a reward. I assumed she was saying we wouldn't be getting any reward for our effort. @ Noamuth - there's no confusion I used reward as a general term and you took it as something else. I was talking about if I deploy a rail and spend my vault money I need to get taxes as a reward in return. Edited November 20, 2015 by (XB1)Lorewalker1022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 @ Morec0 - taxes is what I meant by a reward. I assumed she was saying we wouldn't be getting any reward for our effort. @ Noamuth - there's no confusion I used reward as a general term and you took it as something else. I was talking about if I deploy a rail and spend my vault money I need to get taxes as a reward in return. I've been supporting taxes this entire time. .-. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)Lorewalker1022 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) @ Noamuth - it's like this. I thought Morec0 was saying there's a separate PVP rails from PVE rails so I said on PVP we still get taxes and on PVE do you guys get just resource rewards or what. Because I wasn't clear on what he was saying. And then I got it and I said to him,"disregard my last statement". And then you jumped in and asked about this reward thing. And it was no longer an issue because I got it now that he doesn't want 2 separate Rail modes. Anyways the conversation should have stopped when I said disregard my last statement but it didn't.And I know you've been supporting taxes this whole time. I've been here through and through in this discussion so I know what everyone has been arguing. Edited November 20, 2015 by (XB1)Lorewalker1022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)my_soldier Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I don't see how any of that fixes the problems that were present during dark sectors, which is alliances monopolizing nodes and friendly politics going around to ensure the nodes stay in their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I don't see how any of that fixes the problems that were present during dark sectors, which is alliances monopolizing nodes and friendly politics going around to ensure the nodes stay in their hands. To me that just seems to be the nature of the thing. If there are enough players that want to work against that then they'll team up to stop it, but otherwise there's zero way to remove that aspect from Dark Sectors. That's just their nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)Lorewalker1022 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) Successful allliances make successful inter-alliances. Unsucessful alliances find a way to stay that way. If you're not good with dealing with people and getting them to side with you that's on you. I always say build relationships with other alliances. Edited November 20, 2015 by (XB1)Lorewalker1022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I don't see how any of that fixes the problems that were present during dark sectors, which is alliances monopolizing nodes and friendly politics going around to ensure the nodes stay in their hands. Give more players a better reason to fight for the Dark Sectors and the Alliances wont have the upper hand anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)my_soldier Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 To me that just seems to be the nature of the thing. If there are enough players that want to work against that then they'll team up to stop it, but otherwise there's zero way to remove that aspect from Dark Sectors. That's just their nature. Successful allliances make successful inter-alliances. Unsucessful alliances find a way to stay that way. Well that system definitely doesn't work from my point of view. There should be a neutral party of something overlooking things to ensure things don't get out of hand. Although in all honesty I don't miss the rail conflicts at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Well that system definitely doesn't work from my point of view. There should be a neutral party of something overlooking things to ensure things don't get out of hand. Although in all honesty I don't miss the rail conflicts at all. And who determines when the neutral party gets out of hand? Who keeps the neutral party from becoming biased? There's no solution to this kind of scenario, only the hope that the fear of losing everything will keep prices fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)Lorewalker1022 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 @my_solider - virtual conflicts like real-life conflicts rarely have "fair" arbitrators. it's the nature of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)my_soldier Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 @my_solider - virtual conflicts like real-life conflicts rarely have "fair" arbitrators. it's the nature of it. And who determines when the neutral party gets out of hand? Who keeps the neutral party from becoming biased? There's no solution to this kind of scenario, only the hope that the fear of losing everything will keep prices fair. So the basic problems can't be fixed? We should just leave it like it is then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)Lorewalker1022 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) @ my_soldier - It's like real conflicts right? We can all say this doesn't work or this works or this isn't fair and this is, but just like in real life it's an on-going process that will probably never end. So it's also true for virtual warfare because afterall it's still operated by real people. The guy behind the Tenno is a real person. So essentially you have real people dealing with real people in a conflict environment. How do you propose we solve the question then? There probably isn't any 100% satisifying solution. Does that mean we should all just stop everything and not have these Rails? Maybe...and I would argue maybe not. You want someone to step in and arbitrate this concept of "fairness". Let me tell you in life its very hard to actually define what is "fair". It's easy to talk about and bring up, but very hard to actually implement in practice. You say we haven't addressed this issue...well if you are so enlightening then you address it and give us all a satisfying answer. Edited November 20, 2015 by (XB1)Lorewalker1022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) So the basic problems can't be fixed? We should just leave it like it is then. And what does that accomplish rather than stagnation? I'd rather see the Dark Sectors be opened back up with a few tweaks, even if the flaws that exist because of the nature of the players that you just CAN'T program around still exist, rather than just shut it down entirely. You can't fix this without limiting the playerbase, and that will only make people even angrier. I mean, what would be the point of it in the first place if a Clan could only have one or two Rails at a time? Better to let capitalism do its work here, and if the players decide they've had enough of an Alliance controlling a Rail then they'll stop defending it when it gets attacked. Edited November 20, 2015 by Morec0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts