Forums » General
Aye, Its a good move, go for it.
I guess I really will have to hire people to bring me cargo I need when I need a sub-faction fixed. I guess me trading in UiT space while KOS in a Moth was kind of an exploit in itself.
[edit]
Ahhh, you cannot stop a Serco docking at the Biocom station in Dau. He may be chased by UIT SF, but why would Biocom refuse a Serco pilot?
[edit]
Ahhh, you cannot stop a Serco docking at the Biocom station in Dau. He may be chased by UIT SF, but why would Biocom refuse a Serco pilot?
any idea when I could become unaligned?
I was going to ask to become Serco, but I'd really like to repair my Serco standing, wich would mean i can't shoot Serco's. I defiantly don't want to be Itani, just the thought of it sickens me. And staying UIT would mean that I can't hurt UIT players if I were to up my standing with them.
Or could I become Corvus aligned?, I know I won't be able to hurt Corvus ships, but I can live with that.
I was going to ask to become Serco, but I'd really like to repair my Serco standing, wich would mean i can't shoot Serco's. I defiantly don't want to be Itani, just the thought of it sickens me. And staying UIT would mean that I can't hurt UIT players if I were to up my standing with them.
Or could I become Corvus aligned?, I know I won't be able to hurt Corvus ships, but I can live with that.
Ahhh, you cannot stop a Serco docking at the Biocom station in Dau. He may be chased by UIT SF, but why would Biocom refuse a Serco pilot?
Because TPG is watching.
LNH, considering this is a step towards the removal of FF, why would it matter? You'll be able to shoot anyone anywhere, irregardless of your faction standing.
It's geographically Convenient to me to be able to home in Dau, Nyrius could also be acceptable, except the ship selection at the TPG stations in Nyrius, sucks. So to continue docking in UIT space (Dau and Arta for now, but I'm sure it will spread to the rest of UIT, as noobs complain about getting whacked at the Nyrius side of the WH, then Verasi) I need to repair my UIT standing.
Hrm. Guess headed to the strip club in level 2 of Azek Mining might be a little tougher now...
I don't think 'ol Leebs has anything stashed in UIT space, cause I saw this coming like, 12 months ago.
I don't think 'ol Leebs has anything stashed in UIT space, cause I saw this coming like, 12 months ago.
Ah, progress. :D
Incarnate, I have mentioned this in game to notify people this weekend and the general feedback is happy and a good positive step.
Yoda TGFT would be more than happy to haul trade goods for you to rebuild standing. A mere 1.5 million credits per 20 cu's should cover everything.
Yoda TGFT would be more than happy to haul trade goods for you to rebuild standing. A mere 1.5 million credits per 20 cu's should cover everything.
Only 1.5 Million? And I thought TGFT were business type folks.
Hey, you're an old-timer yoda. A little shaky-shaky pat-pat under the table is all good. Nepotism never goes out of style.
By the way, why stop at just the UIT capitols?
Deny Itani with good Serco standing the ability to dock in Sol and Pyronis, and deny Serco with good Itani standing the ability to dock in Eo, Itan, and Divinia. This won't do a whole lot, but will help prevent some of the knuckleheads who dupe newbs into tanking their standing with their own faction.
Deny Itani with good Serco standing the ability to dock in Sol and Pyronis, and deny Serco with good Itani standing the ability to dock in Eo, Itan, and Divinia. This won't do a whole lot, but will help prevent some of the knuckleheads who dupe newbs into tanking their standing with their own faction.
That'd be pointless given the changes to the faction system that are coming up.
Sorta neuters the main difference between UIT space and Serco/Itani space. Also strays from the backstory's flavor re: UIT being less of a strongly secured nation.
Perhaps limiting this to two capitol systems is an acceptable compromise. However, overall, this is a game weakening move.
Perhaps limiting this to two capitol systems is an acceptable compromise. However, overall, this is a game weakening move.
Game mechanics > backstory.
I don't see why from game mechanics perspective UIT noobs should have harder time
I don't see why from game mechanics perspective UIT noobs should have harder time
Game mechanics > backstory
Look, we're not playing three-team space quake; each nation's n00bs should have a harder time at some things, while having an easier time at others. Serco, Itani, and UIT are all supposed to have different strengths and liabilities, even from the get-go. One of UIT's trade offs is supposed to be easier access to lucrative trade items and routes, but coupled with a more dangerous, only quasi-nation controlled space.
Of course, I had the same opinion about the long-standing monitoring weakpoint in Metana (Itani have lots of systems, but that same large scope means they have one where they can't fully monitor the WHs). After years of it existing, making perfect sense, posing little to no threat to genuine n00blets due to its location, and providing some much needed texture between the nations . . . the Devs claimed they never knew it was like that, that it was an accident, and that they'd fix it right away.
Genius.
Look, we're not playing three-team space quake; each nation's n00bs should have a harder time at some things, while having an easier time at others. Serco, Itani, and UIT are all supposed to have different strengths and liabilities, even from the get-go. One of UIT's trade offs is supposed to be easier access to lucrative trade items and routes, but coupled with a more dangerous, only quasi-nation controlled space.
Of course, I had the same opinion about the long-standing monitoring weakpoint in Metana (Itani have lots of systems, but that same large scope means they have one where they can't fully monitor the WHs). After years of it existing, making perfect sense, posing little to no threat to genuine n00blets due to its location, and providing some much needed texture between the nations . . . the Devs claimed they never knew it was like that, that it was an accident, and that they'd fix it right away.
Genius.
It's odd, seeing lecter complain..
I agree with the doc on this completely.
I've been talking about securing capitol systems for what, a year? Two? This is not a game weakening move, this makes new people less likely to be killed during their initial moments of gameplay (flying around their starting station, or doing tutorials), thus becoming so frustrated that they abandon the game without further inspection. This has been a common complaint for a long time (both emailed to me and posted on review sites), and may be increased by the removal of friendly fire restrictions. We have a terrible turnover rate with new people, and this is part of the reason (definitely not the only reason, and almost certainly not the largest reason, but still: a factor, worth addressing as part of the larger scheme). The fact that we have a tough time retaining players long enough to make it through their trial is certainly a game weakening issue.
I've made a tradeoff by limiting it to only capitols in UIT territory for the moment, and I intend to modify the UIT nation-selection text to better describe the added danger, as well as write a UIT-specific tutorial to further elucidate. But let me be clear: I am going to be making a strong effort to protect capitol systems. I am not going to make them perfectly "safe", just better protected. I think this is one aspect of the best overall solution, given our philosophy of "no safe place" and the propensity for newbie team-killers that we are going to be getting in the near future.
[EDIT]: For context, some might want to review the "Friendly Kill" (and later) areas of the Removal of Friendly Fire RFC (which will likely be changed some, but still outlines the concept). Character deportation is essentially futile without some sort of defense system for "lawful" areas. It may prove futile in general, or require considerable revision, but some mechanic for dealing with griefing team-killers is going to be necessary.
I've made a tradeoff by limiting it to only capitols in UIT territory for the moment, and I intend to modify the UIT nation-selection text to better describe the added danger, as well as write a UIT-specific tutorial to further elucidate. But let me be clear: I am going to be making a strong effort to protect capitol systems. I am not going to make them perfectly "safe", just better protected. I think this is one aspect of the best overall solution, given our philosophy of "no safe place" and the propensity for newbie team-killers that we are going to be getting in the near future.
[EDIT]: For context, some might want to review the "Friendly Kill" (and later) areas of the Removal of Friendly Fire RFC (which will likely be changed some, but still outlines the concept). Character deportation is essentially futile without some sort of defense system for "lawful" areas. It may prove futile in general, or require considerable revision, but some mechanic for dealing with griefing team-killers is going to be necessary.