Forums » Suggestions
meow.
ok dagged, I'm assuming you haven't played long enough to realize that pirates make NO money in the current system. We only do it to add a danger etc.. to trading that you guys wouldn't have otherwise. To make it into a game, as it were.
Pirate: Gains: Pk (you'll get these faster dueling), cargo....
HA, if you catch cargo worth anything, you'll
A) be in a ship unable to carry it, and if you leave to get a new one, the cargo will time out.
B) be lucky, since on average, I can catch maybe 1 out of 10 traders (they all fly moths), and I'm being generous.
C) with all that, the trader makes 10 times as much as I do, even if they lose a shipment.
I make zilch, I make ends meet because I don't die all that much and I fly cheap ships.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see there be more value in living and dying.
But, in grey space, which is the only place that piracy takes place, there is currently NO danger to traders. Why should I have to worry about the jackass that spends all his time getting every faction known pumped? Its going to make piracy less common than it already is.
Grey space was made unmonitored for a reason, its a place where there are few consequences beyond those that you can extract with a blaster.
Now, I wouldn't be against making certain areas in nation space unpoliced. Areas where players recieve faction hits for kills, but where they're not going to get rushed by a strike force the second they enter a sector. A bit like Verasi C2 is now, but monitored.
Those would offer the possibility of real cash for pirates, at the expense of their factions.
The best trade routes should STILL be in grey though, since there is, THEORETICALLY, the most danger there.
Pirate: Gains: Pk (you'll get these faster dueling), cargo....
HA, if you catch cargo worth anything, you'll
A) be in a ship unable to carry it, and if you leave to get a new one, the cargo will time out.
B) be lucky, since on average, I can catch maybe 1 out of 10 traders (they all fly moths), and I'm being generous.
C) with all that, the trader makes 10 times as much as I do, even if they lose a shipment.
I make zilch, I make ends meet because I don't die all that much and I fly cheap ships.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see there be more value in living and dying.
But, in grey space, which is the only place that piracy takes place, there is currently NO danger to traders. Why should I have to worry about the jackass that spends all his time getting every faction known pumped? Its going to make piracy less common than it already is.
Grey space was made unmonitored for a reason, its a place where there are few consequences beyond those that you can extract with a blaster.
Now, I wouldn't be against making certain areas in nation space unpoliced. Areas where players recieve faction hits for kills, but where they're not going to get rushed by a strike force the second they enter a sector. A bit like Verasi C2 is now, but monitored.
Those would offer the possibility of real cash for pirates, at the expense of their factions.
The best trade routes should STILL be in grey though, since there is, THEORETICALLY, the most danger there.
"Make some special no-damage weapons for the purpose (of varying speeds and RoFs)" -- Cunjo
No. Add a command and/or UI option (checkbox) for "Simulation Mode", that turns all weapon damage off until toggled back.
/sim [0|1|off|on]
No argument toggles state.
No. Add a command and/or UI option (checkbox) for "Simulation Mode", that turns all weapon damage off until toggled back.
/sim [0|1|off|on]
No argument toggles state.
Paintball mode!
"Paintball mode!"
YES!
.
Dagged, he is correct. Pirating is not a particularily lucrative business, and as such you'll find that many pirates resort to mining or trading to make ends meet or fuel their combat budget. The risks in pirating are much higher than in trading, and reward is never a sure thing... and even then most won't have the means to claim the pickings of their work.
Good pirating ships and weapons are expenbsive, and engaging a target is much more dangerus than running from it - they're lost often.
when you're trading, cashflow is almost always a sure thing, and it ALWAYS outweighs the risk of making the run (since not every run is hit by pirates, and ven when they are, its possible to escape the pirates.)
YES!
.
Dagged, he is correct. Pirating is not a particularily lucrative business, and as such you'll find that many pirates resort to mining or trading to make ends meet or fuel their combat budget. The risks in pirating are much higher than in trading, and reward is never a sure thing... and even then most won't have the means to claim the pickings of their work.
Good pirating ships and weapons are expenbsive, and engaging a target is much more dangerus than running from it - they're lost often.
when you're trading, cashflow is almost always a sure thing, and it ALWAYS outweighs the risk of making the run (since not every run is hit by pirates, and ven when they are, its possible to escape the pirates.)
I have for 2.5 of the three years i have been around been all for destroying FF!
I would like to be able to blast anyone that looks at me cockeyed
Newbs dont have anything really to worry about as they tend to hang around in their own space which is heavily monitored. newbs straying into grey space are meant to die.
Civil wars and other fun stuff make life human so down with FF
I would like to be able to blast anyone that looks at me cockeyed
Newbs dont have anything really to worry about as they tend to hang around in their own space which is heavily monitored. newbs straying into grey space are meant to die.
Civil wars and other fun stuff make life human so down with FF
okay, I think that FF should stay in effect for anyone with under ll3 combat ONLY WHILE THEY'RE IN THEIR OWN NATION'S SPACE.
My reasons for this is as follows:
Reason for not eliminating FF entirely:
Noobs shoot things... if they shot a station guard before they had a chance to realize it was bad for their faction, they's be in for a world of hurt, and would probably never come back after they get KOSed in their own space, and are SF fodder in their freebus.
Reason to remove FF unconditionally outside of nation space:
genka
'nuff said.
Reason to remove FF for anyone with ll3 or higher combat:
At this point, FF hurts more than it helps. everywhere. Reasons for this are stated all throughout this thread. FF is EVIL. FF is BAD. and FF STOPS ME FROM SHOOTING EVIL BASTARDS!
thank you.
My reasons for this is as follows:
Reason for not eliminating FF entirely:
Noobs shoot things... if they shot a station guard before they had a chance to realize it was bad for their faction, they's be in for a world of hurt, and would probably never come back after they get KOSed in their own space, and are SF fodder in their freebus.
Reason to remove FF unconditionally outside of nation space:
genka
'nuff said.
Reason to remove FF for anyone with ll3 or higher combat:
At this point, FF hurts more than it helps. everywhere. Reasons for this are stated all throughout this thread. FF is EVIL. FF is BAD. and FF STOPS ME FROM SHOOTING EVIL BASTARDS!
thank you.
Friendly fire is a total artificial boundary, harmful to role-playing and group combat, and exploitable in various ways. There is absolutely no upside to it that I am aware of. I have personally introduced two new players to Vendetta recently and neither of them found friendly fire protection useful at all. To the contrary they found it very confusing that they could fire blindly at blue ships but doing so at a gold ship suddenly cost them a huge amount of standing.
*BUMP*
Another suggestion for the Friendly Fire thing.
Most noob make use of Auto Aim for a while. Some actually never flip it off. It's a conscious decision to do so. I have myself only recently begun to toggle it on/off during a battle (with questionable but increasing success).
Perhaps it would be more natural to get rid of the *current* friendly fire thing and actually link that functionality to the Auto Aim. Aka, if Auto Aim is ON, and you've selected an aligned target, then the Auto Aim simply would keep you from firing on that target.
The alignment is similar to radar settings. Aka, an in-duel target is non aligned. An otherwise hated target is non-aligned. A Itani-Admired UIT target is aligned and (new) a grouped target is aligned.
Therefore, if you have a multi-national /group going on, there are less chances of you firing at a team mate by accident.
So, by turning Auto Aim OFF, a pirate of a given nation could still hit a target of the same nation without having to bork his nation status (of course, in unmonitored space).
If linking the Friendly Fire to Auto Aim is too problematic (I can see where auto aim at OFF might suck for some weapon), we could have another "kill switch" (oh that name is so appropriate).
Another suggestion for the Friendly Fire thing.
Most noob make use of Auto Aim for a while. Some actually never flip it off. It's a conscious decision to do so. I have myself only recently begun to toggle it on/off during a battle (with questionable but increasing success).
Perhaps it would be more natural to get rid of the *current* friendly fire thing and actually link that functionality to the Auto Aim. Aka, if Auto Aim is ON, and you've selected an aligned target, then the Auto Aim simply would keep you from firing on that target.
The alignment is similar to radar settings. Aka, an in-duel target is non aligned. An otherwise hated target is non-aligned. A Itani-Admired UIT target is aligned and (new) a grouped target is aligned.
Therefore, if you have a multi-national /group going on, there are less chances of you firing at a team mate by accident.
So, by turning Auto Aim OFF, a pirate of a given nation could still hit a target of the same nation without having to bork his nation status (of course, in unmonitored space).
If linking the Friendly Fire to Auto Aim is too problematic (I can see where auto aim at OFF might suck for some weapon), we could have another "kill switch" (oh that name is so appropriate).
I don't like it if triggering two (or more) functions were joined in one 'switch', so to speak. It would force me to choose something I don't want, only to gain another advantage. While that works for some things, from what Incarnate said about PvP (in this post and earlier ones), it would not coincide at all in this case.
Let's keep Autoaim and FF toggles separate, shall we? I might want to use autoaim because it sometimes helps me hit the target better, regardless of who that target is, so why should I want it to impose limits on whom I may attack?
That being said, I fully agree with Cunjo's idea of making FF protection available to players below a certain level, and I am against taking it away altogether.
Andreas, it is exactly the fact that you introduced new players to Vendetta makes them something else than a completely new player, who is possibly oblivious to such concepts as all-out PvP, since he has not had an introduction by a veteran. I think it would hurt Vendetta more than help it if FF were removed entirely. Make it an option, something you are able to toggle on or off, whilst still below a certain level. If you want to have it the 'hard' way, turn it off in the settings panel. If you are a new player, and don't even know about the settings panel, it should stay in effect until you are at least not a toddler anymore.
Even if you warn people about the fact that they will be fair game, a new player rushing in (as I did, way back when), might be easily scared off. And the answer "S/He should have read it" certainly works here, but it is not how I think this should be handled. If you find a new game, you want to try it out, not read about how to go about trying it out. The tutorial mission is already a huge step in that direction, since it lets the player gain experience by directly interacting with the game system.
All of the above is my own personal opinion.
Let's keep Autoaim and FF toggles separate, shall we? I might want to use autoaim because it sometimes helps me hit the target better, regardless of who that target is, so why should I want it to impose limits on whom I may attack?
That being said, I fully agree with Cunjo's idea of making FF protection available to players below a certain level, and I am against taking it away altogether.
Andreas, it is exactly the fact that you introduced new players to Vendetta makes them something else than a completely new player, who is possibly oblivious to such concepts as all-out PvP, since he has not had an introduction by a veteran. I think it would hurt Vendetta more than help it if FF were removed entirely. Make it an option, something you are able to toggle on or off, whilst still below a certain level. If you want to have it the 'hard' way, turn it off in the settings panel. If you are a new player, and don't even know about the settings panel, it should stay in effect until you are at least not a toddler anymore.
Even if you warn people about the fact that they will be fair game, a new player rushing in (as I did, way back when), might be easily scared off. And the answer "S/He should have read it" certainly works here, but it is not how I think this should be handled. If you find a new game, you want to try it out, not read about how to go about trying it out. The tutorial mission is already a huge step in that direction, since it lets the player gain experience by directly interacting with the game system.
All of the above is my own personal opinion.
Toshiro said:
"Make it an option, something you are able to toggle on or off, whilst still below a certain level. If you want to have it the 'hard' way, turn it off in the settings panel."
This sounds like an EXCELLENT way of handling it, thanks!
Modified proposal then:
1) Have game default to FF-on for new players and characters under level 3/-/-/-/-.
2) Player could choose to disable or re-enable FF early if they want, in the settings panel
(NOTE: There must be a clear warning shown when you attempt to disable it to prevent noob mistakes that could cost them their game experience - "WARNING: FIRING ON NATION-FRIENDLY VESSELS WITHIN THEIR NATION SPACE WILL AFFECT YOUR NATION STANDING - YOU COULD BE DECLARED KILL-ON-SIGHT")
3) If a player leaves their own nation's space, their FF-protection is revoked until they re-enter it. (they are given a warning as they leave)
4) once a player has reached level-3 combat, Friendly Fire protection is turned off, and their option to use it is disabled. It is assumed that by then, they know what to shoot and what not to shoot, so the choice to kill responsibly is on their own shoulders.
.
Amongst other things, the tutorial mission should cover the basics of FF and the consequences of killing protected characters.
"Make it an option, something you are able to toggle on or off, whilst still below a certain level. If you want to have it the 'hard' way, turn it off in the settings panel."
This sounds like an EXCELLENT way of handling it, thanks!
Modified proposal then:
1) Have game default to FF-on for new players and characters under level 3/-/-/-/-.
2) Player could choose to disable or re-enable FF early if they want, in the settings panel
(NOTE: There must be a clear warning shown when you attempt to disable it to prevent noob mistakes that could cost them their game experience - "WARNING: FIRING ON NATION-FRIENDLY VESSELS WITHIN THEIR NATION SPACE WILL AFFECT YOUR NATION STANDING - YOU COULD BE DECLARED KILL-ON-SIGHT")
3) If a player leaves their own nation's space, their FF-protection is revoked until they re-enter it. (they are given a warning as they leave)
4) once a player has reached level-3 combat, Friendly Fire protection is turned off, and their option to use it is disabled. It is assumed that by then, they know what to shoot and what not to shoot, so the choice to kill responsibly is on their own shoulders.
.
Amongst other things, the tutorial mission should cover the basics of FF and the consequences of killing protected characters.
iBump
iRemind: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=friendly%20fire
If Friendly Fire is ON, then you are able to shoot "friendlies".
If Friendly Fire is OFF, then you are not able to shoot "friendlies".
In VO, FF is considered to be off by all standard definitions of the term, except in the case of people from the other two nations being admired with your own. In that case and that case only, FF is on.
If Friendly Fire is ON, then you are able to shoot "friendlies".
If Friendly Fire is OFF, then you are not able to shoot "friendlies".
In VO, FF is considered to be off by all standard definitions of the term, except in the case of people from the other two nations being admired with your own. In that case and that case only, FF is on.
MSKanaka, the proper definition of Friendly Fire is, while pertinent to the topic, completely irrelevant.
The point is, that the restrictions imposed by friendly fire regulations in this game need to be changed.
I would also presume that when people speak of removing or disabling, Friendly Fire 9 times out of ten, they're talking about the 'feature' itself, which would imply the protections such regulations generate for players friendly to ones own nation.
The point is, that the restrictions imposed by friendly fire regulations in this game need to be changed.
I would also presume that when people speak of removing or disabling, Friendly Fire 9 times out of ten, they're talking about the 'feature' itself, which would imply the protections such regulations generate for players friendly to ones own nation.
Then they should say "Friendly Fire Protection", now shouldn't they? Because what is enabled is not Friendly Fire. It's the protection from it.
Dear devs... (and MSKanaka)
Please remove Friendly Fire Protection SOONER rather than LATER...
I just spent an entire hour trying to fight people who I couldn't hurt and who continually refused to duel me. I do not want to tank the only good faction I have just so I can stop the Akanese insurgent bastards from harassing people in B8.
Friendly Fire restrictions are getting old... very old.
Please remove Friendly Fire Protection SOONER rather than LATER...
I just spent an entire hour trying to fight people who I couldn't hurt and who continually refused to duel me. I do not want to tank the only good faction I have just so I can stop the Akanese insurgent bastards from harassing people in B8.
Friendly Fire restrictions are getting old... very old.
Agreed, AT.
<I-C> Yeah, I wanna blast the Akanese terrorists as well. They should provide some light exercise. </I-C>
<I-C> Yeah, I wanna blast the Akanese terrorists as well. They should provide some light exercise. </I-C>
I wouldnt mind it off to kill Akanese and whatnot, but I dont want my own country-men shooting at me so... =\
in all honesty the true Akanese, should have bad Itani standing, so they should be fair game.
any Akanese with good itani standing is just a closet akanese and shouldn't be taken seriously.
any Akanese with good itani standing is just a closet akanese and shouldn't be taken seriously.
any Akanese with good itani standing is just a closet akanese and shouldn't be taken seriously
erhm no, any akanese should be taken seriously, they may want a good itani standing to get itani ships.
Its better to make the akanese a new faction and have their own standing towards other factions.
erhm no, any akanese should be taken seriously, they may want a good itani standing to get itani ships.
Its better to make the akanese a new faction and have their own standing towards other factions.