Forums » Suggestions
Enemies list
A text file in my vednetta client directory that I can add character names to (one per line or comma separated), and these characters would always appear in red on my radar. That way characters that normally attack without hesitation and who are normally green dots can at least be seen approaching.
It would be nice if the radar could be customized to show any target as either friendly, neutral, or enemy, either based on faction standings, or a personal list. I would definitely set mine so that each pilot came up as neutral, and then make changes where I see fit. With such lists, players might group their information together, and certain individuals would become notoriously disliked throughout the universe, such as Roda Slane, privateer extraordinaire. Can't imagine a single UIT that wouldn't (and shouldn't) have him marked down as an enemy.
I envision a day when traders would dock at a busy commercial station to download the latest data regarding trade prices, new wormholes, and dangerous individuals.
I envision a day when traders would dock at a busy commercial station to download the latest data regarding trade prices, new wormholes, and dangerous individuals.
Even better, a GUI to allow you to add players ingame without resorting to hacking up a text file and then putting in WGAF or whatnot. Just click the pilot in the sector sensor screen, then select "Make Enemy" or whatnot. Then they always appear red until you remove the "Enemy" Flag.
I hope stuff like this is part of the whole friendly-fire revamping.
[APPROVED]
I hope stuff like this is part of the whole friendly-fire revamping.
[APPROVED]
self managed IFF. Awesome Idea! I hope it wouldn't be too hard to create.
I really hope this is implemented.
Also, there should be temporarily friend/enemy lists, for events like Nation War (or for "suspicios" persons)
Different lists for each character of the account of course.
These lists could be generated and managed dynamically. Let me explain.
Step one would be the command line. Something akin to the /load bindfile.cfg command. It could even be included as part of the binds system.
E.G.
set enemy="Dr. Lector"
set friend="Cunjo"
set neutral="LeberMac"
Step two would be some kind of GUI in the PDA that does these changes for you. Perhaps three columns with the move arrows that work like the load/unload screen.
Add in a fourth column, and you could have it record to file specific characters settings, for things like the nation wars. Then with a selection list, you simply pick the set up you want to load, and presto, your friends/enemies list changes.
Step one would be the command line. Something akin to the /load bindfile.cfg command. It could even be included as part of the binds system.
E.G.
set enemy="Dr. Lector"
set friend="Cunjo"
set neutral="LeberMac"
Step two would be some kind of GUI in the PDA that does these changes for you. Perhaps three columns with the move arrows that work like the load/unload screen.
Add in a fourth column, and you could have it record to file specific characters settings, for things like the nation wars. Then with a selection list, you simply pick the set up you want to load, and presto, your friends/enemies list changes.
why would you have to "set neutral"
just friend on/off, enemy on/off.
all other states are neutral already
just friend on/off, enemy on/off.
all other states are neutral already
I DEMAND to not be neutral!
Otherwise good idea PsyRa. :)
Otherwise good idea PsyRa. :)
Dude that Leber guy? Yeah, I always feel so neutral about him. ;)
I can think of a number of reasons for Neutral, provided that the radar colors change to say orange, or some other non-red/green (not the show) color.
One:
Nation war, and Itan out numbers the Serco 2-1. Serco doesn't want to waste time on UIT until Itan numbers are down. All players set UIT players to neutral. Target nearest enemy therefore ignores UIT.
Once the tides have changed, a hot key loads new configuration file, and suddenly the UIT are enemy.
Two:
I am running in a BP, and I know that Ghost is the biggest threat. As such I set up a hot key that makes him my only enemy, thus preventing me from locking onto the wrong target. I use a key for each player that makes this switch, so now I have keys that target a specific person, regardless of distance or faction or whatever.
One:
Nation war, and Itan out numbers the Serco 2-1. Serco doesn't want to waste time on UIT until Itan numbers are down. All players set UIT players to neutral. Target nearest enemy therefore ignores UIT.
Once the tides have changed, a hot key loads new configuration file, and suddenly the UIT are enemy.
Two:
I am running in a BP, and I know that Ghost is the biggest threat. As such I set up a hot key that makes him my only enemy, thus preventing me from locking onto the wrong target. I use a key for each player that makes this switch, so now I have keys that target a specific person, regardless of distance or faction or whatever.
Yes. Friendly, Enemy, and Neutral are just the names that would be given to the three different colors, Green, Red, and Yellow, respectively. If setting your enemies to be green was your cup of tea, then it's totally an option. Why three colors over two? Why stop there? It'd be fantastic if you had complete control over the IFF system, such that you could create any number of groups, and set colors and names for those groups as you please.
However, it would be difficult to share information with others if you modified your system too much. So, that's why the green/red/yellow combination. It provides enough variability for most people's easy understanding, while keeping the principles simple enough, for most people's easy understanding. For examples, Traders in governed space would be used to seeing greens or yellows. A red would stand out, and draw special attention, as it's someone who probably has deliberate intentions of killing you. Pilots fighting in Deneb would be used to seeing greens or reds. A yellow would indicate someone that has not shown their loyalties yet, and in some cases could be considered more dangerous than a red.
However, it would be difficult to share information with others if you modified your system too much. So, that's why the green/red/yellow combination. It provides enough variability for most people's easy understanding, while keeping the principles simple enough, for most people's easy understanding. For examples, Traders in governed space would be used to seeing greens or yellows. A red would stand out, and draw special attention, as it's someone who probably has deliberate intentions of killing you. Pilots fighting in Deneb would be used to seeing greens or reds. A yellow would indicate someone that has not shown their loyalties yet, and in some cases could be considered more dangerous than a red.
Aramarth said: Dude that Leber guy? Yeah, I always feel so neutral about him.
LOL. I don't think ANYONE ever says that about me. I tend to be a like him or hate him kind of character, methinks.
Anyway, Can a dev comment on whether things like this will be part of the overall Friendly-Fire/IFF redeux? I'd really like to see something like this and if they're working on fixing the broken faction system and the friendly-fire setup, NOW is the time to work on this as well, I'd think.
LOL. I don't think ANYONE ever says that about me. I tend to be a like him or hate him kind of character, methinks.
Anyway, Can a dev comment on whether things like this will be part of the overall Friendly-Fire/IFF redeux? I'd really like to see something like this and if they're working on fixing the broken faction system and the friendly-fire setup, NOW is the time to work on this as well, I'd think.
It would be nice to add players that should always be listed as friend on your radar. Everyone should have LeberMac show up as friendly, because even if he is trying to kill you, he is still pretty much harmless. This would be a great way for me to sort out the serious threats (like ghost).
Think of the scripts we could create for fun:
Today I will attack everyone whose name starts with G, L or Q...
Today I will attack everyone whose name starts with G, L or Q...
set neutered="LeberMac"
;)
;)
We've been kicking around ideas for user-modified radar status for many years. It just hasn't made it to the top of the implementation pile yet. I'm *not* going to roll this into the current FF/Faction modification project, it's growing quite monstrous as it is, and I'd like it to actually be implemented before we all die of old age. However, please keep the ideas coming.. this is something we want to do.
There've been some internal ideas within the last few years for user-defined datasets that could be passed around in-game and stuff: trees that change your valuation of players based on the status that you give your immediate links. So, if Lecter attacks LeberMac, and Leber decides he's an enemy and defines him as such, and I have Leber defined as a friend and a high respect level for his definitions, Lecter's enemy status propogates into my friend/foe display as well. Status changes from further out in trees (friends of friends) could potentially have differently weighted impacts the further they went from you (and respect metrics on individual connections).. so more people would have to make decisions about an individual en masse before they would add up to enough to change settings in my radar, and so on. It's an interesting idea (Michael's), although not without some caveats and potential implementation complexity.
There've been some internal ideas within the last few years for user-defined datasets that could be passed around in-game and stuff: trees that change your valuation of players based on the status that you give your immediate links. So, if Lecter attacks LeberMac, and Leber decides he's an enemy and defines him as such, and I have Leber defined as a friend and a high respect level for his definitions, Lecter's enemy status propogates into my friend/foe display as well. Status changes from further out in trees (friends of friends) could potentially have differently weighted impacts the further they went from you (and respect metrics on individual connections).. so more people would have to make decisions about an individual en masse before they would add up to enough to change settings in my radar, and so on. It's an interesting idea (Michael's), although not without some caveats and potential implementation complexity.