Why Dark Sectors Should Be A Top Priority After The War Within

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

45 minutes ago, RealPandemonium said:

This is what I was referring to, thank you.

As long as it nerfs a farming spot while stealing money from hundreds of players, it's stupid.  If Clan PVP comes back, it should be just that and nothing more.  

>Stealing Money from hundreds of players

>0% taxes

I'm confused here. How can they steal something from players by taking nothing from them ? Can you help me out and explain this to me ? It just seems impossible that one can steal currency from players and yet they receive nothing. It's almost as if they were not taking anything at all! How silly would that be ? Everyone knows that to own sectors, you have to have 150% taxes and behead puppies.

[Corvid]

When are you going to get it through your head that the taxes were different between the platforms?

[Sunset_Thief]

On 7/13/2016 at 11:15 PM, (XB1)BroadsideMobsta said:

I really hope to see Dark Sector Conflicts return as PvP again. That was mine, and many others, end game. Nothing felt better than taking a freshly forma'd weapon and seeing how it faired against others. And seeing so many people fighting underneath of a banner was truly amazing.

dude, i feel the same way

[(PSN)B0XMAN517]

On 7/13/2016 at 2:33 PM, spiralmenace said:

they took away dark sector conflicts because the old system was unsatisfactory and they wanted a better one for it. you know this, right?

There was a lot more to that decision than people think. Clans and Alliances found exploits to win control of Dark Sectors without having to fight a single match. We were in contact with DE during this whole mess. They let us know that they were aware and monitoring these exploits and it proved to be enough for them to remove Conflicts altogether. This is why Conflicts and Dark Sector taxes were completely removed, rather than reworked like we've seen with other unsatisfactory areas of the game.

To touch on the OP, I too miss Solar Rail Conflicts. In a game full of mindless slaughtering (which is fun please don't get me wrong), you had to really think about your setup and strategy. They also made the game feel more alive. It brought clans and alliances together to fight for their territory and place their mark on the game. It brought purpose to clans and alliances. You had alliances formed to control all Dark Sectors with the goal to raise taxes and "get rich" in their mission of solar domination. You had alliances formed to take back control of Dark Sectors so they could keep taxes low. Some sought to control Sectors for promotional reasons. There were problems with conflicts that needed to be worked on, but it's a shame they removed them completely.

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

12 minutes ago, (PS4)B0XMAN517 said:

There was a lot more to that decision than people think. Clans and Alliances found exploits to win control of Dark Sectors without having to fight a single match. We were in contact with DE during this whole mess. They let us know that they were aware and monitoring these exploits and it proved to be enough for them to remove Conflicts altogether. This is why Conflicts and Dark Sector taxes were completely removed, rather than reworked like we've seen with other unsatisfactory areas of the game.

Ok. Ive fought in rails on the rail itself and managed the systems for deployment/battlepay/specter regiments, I have never encountered this exploit before. In fact, Im not sure anyone has encountered that exploit before. If it was there, we would have found it. Im not saying it doesnt exist, just that it didnt happen on Xbox. Could you explain how it worked ?

Edited September 2, 2016 by (XB1)Solar Rails

[(PSN)B0XMAN517]

46 minutes ago, (XB1)Solar Rails said:

Ok. Ive fought in rails on the rail and managed the systems for deployment/battlepay/specter regiments, I have never encountered this exploit before. In fact, Im not sure anyone has encountered that exploit before. If it was there, we would have found it. Im not saying it doesnt exist, just that it didnt happen on Xbox. Could you explain how it worked ?

There were some that are easy for me to explain and some that aren't. A smaller exploit was clans/alliances finding a way to glitch the credit rewards, this didn't have a huge impact. Some Alliances found ways to block the opposing side from joining Conflict matches. We and DE look at the statistics of these Conflicts and found that this was really happening and not an excuse for loosing. Some found ways to exploit the "win or lose" system so no matter how many matches you won, the Alliance holding or attacking the rail won. While this was going on, we were in contact with DE and they looked at the statistics and found that this was really happening and not a tinfoil hat theory. This all happened in a relatively short amount of time. DE let us know that they were aware of these exploits and that they were working on it. Shorty after, Conflicts were removed altogether.

I'm not saying this was the sole reason that DE decided to rework Conflicts, but it was a reason why the Conflicts were removed entirely instead of being reworked like we normally see in this game.

Edited September 2, 2016 by (PS4)B0XMAN517

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

Just now, (PS4)B0XMAN517 said:

There were some that are easy for me to explain and some that aren't. A smaller exploit was clans/alliances finding a way to glitch the credit rewards, this didn't have a huge impact. Some Alliances found ways to block the opposing side to join Conflict matches. We and DE look at the statistics of these Conflicts and found that this was really happening and not an excuse for loosing. Some found ways to exploit the "win or lose" system so no matter how many matches you won, the Alliance holding or attacking the rail won. While this was going on, we were in contact with DE and they looked at the statistics and found that this was really happening and not a tinfoil hat theory. This all happened in a relatively short amount of time. DE let us know that they were aware of these exploits and that they were working on it. Shorty after, Conflicts were removed altogether.

I'm not saying this was the sole reason that DE decided to rework Conflicts, but it was a reason why the Conflicts were removed entirely instead of being reworked like we normally see in this game.

No. Provide some proof that the exploit you mention is post #154 legitimately happened. You didnt even bother explaining any of it.

[(PSN)B0XMAN517]

4 minutes ago, (XB1)Solar Rails said:

No. Provide some proof that the exploit you mention is post #154 legitimately happened. You didnt even bother explaining any of it.

I explained it to the best of my ability. I don't have screenshots of the messages from DE because I was more concerned of the issue that was at hand rather than proving something to everybody. I'm just letting you know what happened. I don't know why someone would make up a story like this (I even went out of my way to not mention any alliances because I'm not trying to drag anyone through the mud), but if that's what you think, there's nothing I can say to change your mind (which is not what I care to do). This may have not happened on xbox, but it did happen on ps4. Like I said, if you want to believe I'm making all this up for attention or something, go right ahead.

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

1 hour ago, (PS4)B0XMAN517 said:

I explained it to the best of my ability. I don't have screenshots of the messages from DE because I was more concerned of the issue that was at hand rather than proving something to everybody. I'm just letting you know what happened. I don't know why someone would make up a story like this (I even went out of my way to not mention any alliances because I'm not trying to drag anyone through the mud), but if that's what you think, there's nothing I can say to change your mind (which is not what I care to do). This may have not happened on xbox, but it did happen on ps4. Like I said, if you want to believe I'm making all this up for attention or something, go right ahead.

You are making the assumption that nothing will change my mind. Evidence will change my mind. People make up stories about stuff they dont like all the time. Some even start lying to themselves that they dont want it in the first place. I think Aesop wrote a book about it.

[(PSN)B0XMAN517]

@(XB1)Solar Rails

I've read your previous posts and it's clear how this conversation will go and I don't want to fall down that rabbit hole with you so I'll leave it at this,

1 hour ago, (PS4)B0XMAN517 said:

if you want to believe I'm making all this up for attention or something, go right ahead.

Edited September 2, 2016 by (PS4)B0XMAN517

[RealPandemonium]

26 minutes ago, (PS4)B0XMAN517 said:

@(XB1)Solar Rails

I've read your previous posts and it's clear how this conversation will go and I don't want to fall down that rabbit hole with you so I'll leave it at this,

The degree to which he is shilling, to the point of even making an account named "Solar Rails," makes him hard to take seriously.  

Edited September 2, 2016 by RealPandemonium

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

30 minutes ago, RealPandemonium said:

The degree to which he is shilling, to the point of even making an account named "Solar Rails," makes him hard to take seriously.  

an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

Taken from google.

Who exactly am I an accomplice of ? Ive been blacklisted from the alliances I mention and speak with them not very often. Trust me, if CFE wanted to throw an event to make dozens of rail threads and thousands of posts about rails, they would have done it already. I actually tried funding an event like this but I didnt receive any verbal or logistical support from the other people. I changed my name to Solar Rails because I know I can better draw attention to the issue. Seeing people like you notice it has already made it worthwhile.

Edited September 2, 2016 by (XB1)Solar Rails

[-InV-Skitz0]

2 hours ago, (PS4)B0XMAN517 said:

I explained it to the best of my ability. I don't have screenshots of the messages from DE because I was more concerned of the issue that was at hand rather than proving something to everybody. I'm just letting you know what happened. I don't know why someone would make up a story like this (I even went out of my way to not mention any alliances because I'm not trying to drag anyone through the mud), but if that's what you think, there's nothing I can say to change your mind (which is not what I care to do). This may have not happened on xbox, but it did happen on ps4. Like I said, if you want to believe I'm making all this up for attention or something, go right ahead.

Dark Sectors where originally frozen when conclave got it's rework. The reason given was to focus all PvP feedback on that game mode. Later it was decided to keep them locked until the entire system received an overhaul for many different reasons.

[RealPandemonium]

22 minutes ago, (XB1)Solar Rails said:

Ive been blacklisted from the alliances I mention and speak with them not very often. 

We can see why, now.

[-InV-Skitz0]

Honestly this entire thread is completely derailed at this point. What started as ''Why Dark Sectors Should Be A Top Priority After The War Within'' Has devolved into pro rail vs anti rail rhetoric with no real feed back being exchanged between the two. And now we are starting too borderline on personal attacks about name choices. I refuse to waste time taking part in such an argument that has degraded into nitpicking insignificant points, such that it has become too tiresome and unproductive to continue.

The sad part in all of this is the wasted potential of cooperative feedback concerning Dark Sectors 2.0 .We already know they DE are working on the re-release at some level and Instead of offering ways to change or rework the bad or broken parts of the last system so that it actually might be better rewarding or not too negatively impact other portions of player experience we waste time defending/attacking a meta that no longer exist.

If anyone wants to actually post or comment on anything good or bad about the old system an offer a way to improve or rework it for future release, then I am all ears.

[owendawgx]

This 100% needs to be the next step. Without a doubt.

[(PSN)CrackFoxLegend]

4 hours ago, (PS4)B0XMAN517 said:

There were some that are easy for me to explain and some that aren't. A smaller exploit was clans/alliances finding a way to glitch the credit rewards, this didn't have a huge impact. Some Alliances found ways to block the opposing side from joining Conflict matches. We and DE look at the statistics of these Conflicts and found that this was really happening and not an excuse for loosing. Some found ways to exploit the "win or lose" system so no matter how many matches you won, the Alliance holding or attacking the rail won. While this was going on, we were in contact with DE and they looked at the statistics and found that this was really happening and not a tinfoil hat theory. This all happened in a relatively short amount of time. DE let us know that they were aware of these exploits and that they were working on it. Shorty after, Conflicts were removed altogether.

I'm not saying this was the sole reason that DE decided to rework Conflicts, but it was a reason why the Conflicts were removed entirely instead of being reworked like we normally see in this game.

I would love to know any clan or alliance name that held a node the entire time the conflicts were happening. But you can't do that unfortunately because it doesn't exist. The only exploits for conflicts were people deploying "block" rails and exploiting credit gains from mods and such to fund battle pay. Determined players dethroned every clan and alliance that held a node more than once on playstation. Not saying it didn't happen on xbone or pc, just playstation.

[(PSN)B0XMAN517]

11 minutes ago, (PS4)CrackFoxLegend said:

I would love to know any clan or alliance name that held a node the entire time the conflicts were happening. But you can't do that unfortunately because it doesn't exist. The only exploits for conflicts were people deploying "block" rails and exploiting credit gains from mods and such to fund battle pay. Determined players dethroned every clan and alliance that held a node more than once on playstation. Not saying it didn't happen on xbone or pc, just playstation.

Clearly I opened a can of worms that I shouldn't have. Here's the thing, I'm just some guy on the internet. There's nothing I can say that would prove anything and I can see how my previous posts may discredit this statement, but I don't want to prove anything. I never should have replied in the first place. You want me to tell you thE Alliances that used these exploits, but even if naming and shaming wasn't a rule, I don't want to drag anyone through the mud. To put this to rest, why don't we just consider me a troll looking for attention.

To the OP I apologize for derailing this thread for a bit.

[(XBOX)The Repo Man151]

1 hour ago, (PS4)CrackFoxLegend said:

I would love to know any clan or alliance name that held a node the entire time the conflicts were happening. But you can't do that unfortunately because it doesn't exist. The only exploits for conflicts were people deploying "block" rails and exploiting credit gains from mods and such to fund battle pay. Determined players dethroned every clan and alliance that held a node more than once on playstation. Not saying it didn't happen on xbone or pc, just playstation.

It didn't happen on Xbone. Shadow clans rekt alliances sometimes.