i made a new thread about this issue to eliminate the usage and viewing of the other off-topic one.

look, friendly fire is a real problem. i can understand the importance in station-sectors, but it is a crutch that VO doesnt need. station or none.

another issue is KOS. if i am grouped with 7 other ppl and one of these ppl are eliminated by another person (not npc), the attacker should instantly be concidered KOS to ALL remaining group members. for the length of time that the group is together.

we cant really defend our group if the attacker is the same nation standing or higher than ours.

imo, i dont think that the group should be penalized for being a multination-group.

i'll give you an example so that this isnt taken out of context:

group of 8 -- 7 UIT's and 1 ITANI
attacker is UIT. can only damage ITANI member.
group cannot protect this char due to FF barriers.

this now is group's problem to deal with? how? why?
this attacker can do what ever they want with their new found glory.

this really needs to be fixed.

I am in complete agreement with drdoak007. There's nothing realistic about lack of friendly fire. Not only is his example a good illustration of the problem, but risk of friendly fire would make things interesting tactically in a battle involving several players. Maybe if you're worried about shooting your wingman accidentally, a safety switch could be implemented that would cause the computer to intervene and prevent your weapon from firing when an ally is directly in your way. This could be turned off to prevent the problem described by drdoak, or to pirate someone of your own nation if you're that evil. If this is abused by someone deliberately killing someone of their own nation for no good reason, or for piracy, then a bounty would be placed on their head (I know, there's no funcioning bounty at the moment), and whatever police force is around will put them on their Kill On Sight list. The problem with this is that death doesn't really mean much in this game right now, but that's something for the permadeath thread, if there is one.

What I think we need is the ability of players (or even guilds?) to set their standing to factions, guilds or other players. So if I set my standing to somebody as KOS we will always marked as red on each other's radar.

This really has been discussed for quite a while and I'm pretty sure the majority of players agree that FF needs to go. Can we get word from a dev on whether this is do-able, or fitting into your plan?

I've responded a couple of times already, to previous threads, saying that FF will go, but I have to add certain other gameplay before I can do so.

We really need to improve our messageboard search mechanism one of these days.

Heh, yea I've tried to use the search button.
But I never find anything I want....
Probably user error tho :)

Actually, I think the problem where you never find anything you want is more related to the fact that the search engine only returns the first 50 or so hits and nothing more.

Hehe, sorry inc. For the record, I did try to search for other FF threads that a dev had replied to. =)

*skanes itno Gilud Sforwtae's ofcife and ranreegras ervnyoee's poitreiers scuh taht finxig the sarceh fictounn is nebumr one*

EDITed for (slightly sarcastic) humor, the misspellings are intentional.

Why Mih, I think you officially blew that myth out of the water. While I could tell what you were talking about, it took me a few tries to figure out the actual words. I wonder if that's because I'm so used to people mispelling things (I thought skanes was supposed to be skates) on forums.

Gav,

I know what you mean. I think I'm spending too much time online. I had to read that sentence twice before I noticed anything was misspelled.

~D.
"Nigel"

Heheh.

I think for some of the (longer) words it works better if you keep them closer to their original spelling than I did. I was more random about it.

I got most of it the first go through, but "poitreiers" baffles me. Is it supposed to be 'pointers', 'priorities', or something else?

Priorities.

The full sentence is "*sneaks into Guild Software's office and rearranges everyone's priorities such that fixing the search function is number one*".

As I said, on the longer words, the more you depart from the original form of the word, the harder it is to get on the first read-through. Someone started a thread once where that was all we did... it'd be in Off-Topic and way way back. I'll go root around for it and bump it if I find it.

this is why the search feature doesnt work.

YOU PPL CANT STAY ON TOPIC LONG ENOUGH FOR A THREAD TO HAVE MEANING!!!!!!

i myself have a tendancy to want to add 2 topics in one thread, but take a look throughout these forum threads, and you'll see that every single one of them go off topic at some point.

Holy shit! Check this out!

http://www.fallbrookca.org/AVOFEST.htm

I can't believe it.... I am soooo there.

Actually, my response was rather on topic, if you look past the humor.

If we want them to fix the search engine now, they'd have to rearrange their priorities. Hence, you have to search through the rearranged letters to get the meaning of what I said.

It was kinda a sarcastic retort at everyone asking the devs to shift their priorities around. The devs have them already, and honestly, they know what they're doing. A lot of the fixes people want that they think are "first priorities" will be easier to implement and code/recode/debug/fix once some of the currently-in-development features are finished.

Um, Mih, the topic of the thread is Friendly Fire, not the search engine.

Look at Ghost's first post, Incarnate's post, Kix's post, my post, and then Ghost's next post.

1) Ghost asks for a dev statement regarding the feasability of removing the FF restriction.

2) Incarnate responds that he's responded to similar queries before in multiple threads that the restriction will go, then mentions the search function needs to be fixed. (Implication of priority.)

3) Kix responds, concurring that the search function doesn't do as one would expect.

4) I respond, stating *why* one rarely gets useful results out of the search engine.

5) Ghost responds saying that he'd looked for other dev responses in other FF threads. Hard to find because of the (as Incarnate said) broken search function.

6) I make a sarcastic comment about rearranging priorities to fix the search function as a poorly-done satire of all the posts where people list their personal versions of what the devs' priorities should be.