Forums » Suggestions
I was attacked twice in Azek before I reached combat level 2.
Is this such a bad thing? I think I was blasted by bots more than twice before I first reached combat two...
Figuring out how not to die is a puzzle. Enjoy.
Is this such a bad thing? I think I was blasted by bots more than twice before I first reached combat two...
Figuring out how not to die is a puzzle. Enjoy.
"This low-candlepower idea misses the point of having separate factions."
Hmm, methinks the good doctor fears losing easy noob kills....
Hmm, methinks the good doctor fears losing easy noob kills....
""""This low-candlepower idea misses the point of having separate factions."
Hmm, methinks the good doctor fears losing easy noob kills....""""
what youre not grasping is that in a loose grouping of competitors, ...action A may be considered bad by entity 1, where as if action B hurts entity 2 it may help entity 1, action C may be good for entities 1,2,3,4,5,6, and bad for entities 7,8,9 and 10...etc...etc...realisticly speaking a loose confederacy of corparations would be difficult to moniter effectivly and faction points would be very different than the other two nations.
there for...."Clearly this is unrealistic; the factions in UIT are a loosely linked confederation. Action which causes faction loss at one UIT faction should have consequences with all UIT factions."
makes little logical sense.
Hmm, methinks the good doctor fears losing easy noob kills....""""
what youre not grasping is that in a loose grouping of competitors, ...action A may be considered bad by entity 1, where as if action B hurts entity 2 it may help entity 1, action C may be good for entities 1,2,3,4,5,6, and bad for entities 7,8,9 and 10...etc...etc...realisticly speaking a loose confederacy of corparations would be difficult to moniter effectivly and faction points would be very different than the other two nations.
there for...."Clearly this is unrealistic; the factions in UIT are a loosely linked confederation. Action which causes faction loss at one UIT faction should have consequences with all UIT factions."
makes little logical sense.
I say that it shouldn't necessarily lower the actual corporation faction standing across the board, but should definitely affect general UIT standing in addition to the associated standing. And if your UIT standing tanks, then the non-gray corporations should wash their hands of you (i.e. You have to be liked by both the Union at large, as well as the station faction in question in order to dock/not get shot at).
A pilot with POS with a given corporation might be able to get around this restriction, albeit be treated as 'hated' instead of actually POS until they get their standing back up.
A pilot with POS with a given corporation might be able to get around this restriction, albeit be treated as 'hated' instead of actually POS until they get their standing back up.
Don't start off as UIT. Choose either Serco or Itani, preferably Serco.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Problem not solved.
"I say that it shouldn't necessarily lower the actual corporation faction standing across the board, but should definitely affect general UIT standing in addition to the associated standing. And if your UIT standing tanks, then the non-gray corporations should wash their hands of you (i.e. You have to be liked by both the Union at large, as well as the station faction in question in order to dock/not get shot at)."
I think this is sort of how Incarnate eventually intends to handle this (according to some of his posts scattered around the place, that is):
If a player X incurs a standing loss at a particular faction, they lose standing for not only that particular faction, but also the faction that 'owns' (read: claims sovereignty over) that particular solar system. So if X kills a player in Dau D-9 and loses some Orion standing, they will *also* lose UIT standing. However, if they were to repeat the action in Latos N-2, they would only lose Orion standing as no faction claims sovereignty over any of the systems in greyspace.
I think this is sort of how Incarnate eventually intends to handle this (according to some of his posts scattered around the place, that is):
If a player X incurs a standing loss at a particular faction, they lose standing for not only that particular faction, but also the faction that 'owns' (read: claims sovereignty over) that particular solar system. So if X kills a player in Dau D-9 and loses some Orion standing, they will *also* lose UIT standing. However, if they were to repeat the action in Latos N-2, they would only lose Orion standing as no faction claims sovereignty over any of the systems in greyspace.
If I were to kill an innocent civilian in Iran, and then flee to Israel, I'd still be a murderer. Israel would, if not arrest me, probably watch me.
Or, if I were to kill someone in the UK, and try to get to the States, I would be detained, and imprisoned or returned to the Authorities.
If you kill someone who isn't inherently attached to any specific faction, you're still a killer.
Or, if I were to kill someone in the UK, and try to get to the States, I would be detained, and imprisoned or returned to the Authorities.
If you kill someone who isn't inherently attached to any specific faction, you're still a killer.
However, if you were to kill an innocent civilian in Israel, then return to Iran, you'd be hailed as a hero by Iran.
The post I was thinking of in particular can be found here, under the section titled "Expansion of KoS discussion and possibilities for changing Player-faction."
Because everyone hates jews -_-
yeah right, if people weren't so selfish and thought that what they thought was the right thing, and someone else's was wrong, none of this would be happening.
It's even in VO and the effects are visible on 100, I'm guilty of it, too.
yeah right, if people weren't so selfish and thought that what they thought was the right thing, and someone else's was wrong, none of this would be happening.
It's even in VO and the effects are visible on 100, I'm guilty of it, too.
Actually if you killed an innocent civilian in Iran and fled to Israel, you'd probably be an IDF...
Well, this went in the shitter fast.
I like Incarnate's proposals (cf: MSKanaka's link). So, let me explore the consequences as would apply had these proposals been implemented.
Both pirates were already labelled "red" when encountered, so already had poor standing with UIT & were appropriately labelled as "unsafe to be around". Clearly, the friendly fire rules are not applicable here; but the "Temp KOS" rules would apply.
If I follow Incarnate correctly, then for attacking a new player at the Azek/Dau wormhole a pirate would immediately acquire a "Temp KOS" at all stations in UIT space for attacking a ship with high UIT standing in a UIT monitored sector -- including those stations of other corporations which are located in UIT space (but not the stations of those same factions located in grey space). They also get a specific reduction of their UIT standing (likely already pretty sorry). From what I have seen, this is more consequence than currently applies. I like that it addresses the problem raised by Snax_28 that KOS (UIT) would still allow people to dock somewhere in most UIT systems.
I do not see a great urgency for the safe tutorial space described in the early part of Incrnate's (& blacknet) post. A newbie hunting rat has no need to scan empty sectors in Dau or Arta Celestis for new players, as these players will sooner or later follow the mission tree for UIT (1) "We need Miners at Osteem Orbital" --> (2) "Please mine resources for processing & delivery to stations in Azek".
Because a new player could be on this route as early as their 2nd mission (Water Purifier Needed), I would think that my concerns could be met if, additionally, an effective barracks station were build near this wormhole to upgrade it to "Guarded". Or, if the barracks were at the Latos wormhole, at least the rat, later, would need to pass a strike force to repair their ship.
The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of strike forces is an entirely different matter (cf: posts by Snax_28 & stackman122). I agree that such forces should be beatable by a skilled player in top form. But I am also in favour of a strike force using the best algorithms available for cooperative attack -- the SF are, after all, intended as proxies for more human beings.
Both pirates were already labelled "red" when encountered, so already had poor standing with UIT & were appropriately labelled as "unsafe to be around". Clearly, the friendly fire rules are not applicable here; but the "Temp KOS" rules would apply.
If I follow Incarnate correctly, then for attacking a new player at the Azek/Dau wormhole a pirate would immediately acquire a "Temp KOS" at all stations in UIT space for attacking a ship with high UIT standing in a UIT monitored sector -- including those stations of other corporations which are located in UIT space (but not the stations of those same factions located in grey space). They also get a specific reduction of their UIT standing (likely already pretty sorry). From what I have seen, this is more consequence than currently applies. I like that it addresses the problem raised by Snax_28 that KOS (UIT) would still allow people to dock somewhere in most UIT systems.
I do not see a great urgency for the safe tutorial space described in the early part of Incrnate's (& blacknet) post. A newbie hunting rat has no need to scan empty sectors in Dau or Arta Celestis for new players, as these players will sooner or later follow the mission tree for UIT (1) "We need Miners at Osteem Orbital" --> (2) "Please mine resources for processing & delivery to stations in Azek".
Because a new player could be on this route as early as their 2nd mission (Water Purifier Needed), I would think that my concerns could be met if, additionally, an effective barracks station were build near this wormhole to upgrade it to "Guarded". Or, if the barracks were at the Latos wormhole, at least the rat, later, would need to pass a strike force to repair their ship.
The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of strike forces is an entirely different matter (cf: posts by Snax_28 & stackman122). I agree that such forces should be beatable by a skilled player in top form. But I am also in favour of a strike force using the best algorithms available for cooperative attack -- the SF are, after all, intended as proxies for more human beings.
Personally I don't think SF's should be beatable (?) by anything less than a full squadron of players. One player should not be able to take out 5 or more SF units alone. Escape them, sure. But not actually win. From an RP standpoint, these should be the cream of the crop of that Nation's combat pilots.
As a parallel suggestion would it be possible in the long term to have monitored space "monitored" by a nations players as well as the pve authorities?
I am thinking of something along the lines of ctc channels. Subscribe to channel xxx and any player with good UIT standing would get a message " player A is under attack in Dau E 15 " . Assistance could then be provided by friendlies in the area .
Clearly it would have to discriminate between players and npcs or else it would just become bogged down , and extended to serco and itani too .
Anyway , just a thought , might liven up the pvp side of things as the game becomes more populated .
I am thinking of something along the lines of ctc channels. Subscribe to channel xxx and any player with good UIT standing would get a message " player A is under attack in Dau E 15 " . Assistance could then be provided by friendlies in the area .
Clearly it would have to discriminate between players and npcs or else it would just become bogged down , and extended to serco and itani too .
Anyway , just a thought , might liven up the pvp side of things as the game becomes more populated .
I really like both of these replies.
Snax: I must admit, that when I was thinking of "beatable" I was imagining only ONE dollop of SF. Further, as a habitual trader, I customarily consider "escaping alive" to be a victory.
DaveJohn: I really like this too -- if monitored space posted notice of an attack to all admired/pillars of that nation, then the players of that nation could much more effectively take up the defence of their boundaries.
Realistically, though, I suspect that there would be an easier (& more effective way) to implement this. Suppose that this channel merely posted the arrival & departure of a Hated/KOS in a monitored or guarded sector to all currently logged in Admired/Pillars of that nation. Then:
(a) New players would be regularly updated that hostile activity is going on in places where they might need to travel & can make their own (now much better informed) decisions to make the trip.
(b) experienced players would be able to track the interloper while that ship remains in "their" space. It does not force an engagement, but it makes a player initiated response much easier.
Both of these would be very appropriate consequences to an enemy-of-the-people invading the родина (homeland). It would also fully address my initial concern, especially if suplemented with portions of Incarnate's development plan from 2007 April.
Snax: I must admit, that when I was thinking of "beatable" I was imagining only ONE dollop of SF. Further, as a habitual trader, I customarily consider "escaping alive" to be a victory.
DaveJohn: I really like this too -- if monitored space posted notice of an attack to all admired/pillars of that nation, then the players of that nation could much more effectively take up the defence of their boundaries.
Realistically, though, I suspect that there would be an easier (& more effective way) to implement this. Suppose that this channel merely posted the arrival & departure of a Hated/KOS in a monitored or guarded sector to all currently logged in Admired/Pillars of that nation. Then:
(a) New players would be regularly updated that hostile activity is going on in places where they might need to travel & can make their own (now much better informed) decisions to make the trip.
(b) experienced players would be able to track the interloper while that ship remains in "their" space. It does not force an engagement, but it makes a player initiated response much easier.
Both of these would be very appropriate consequences to an enemy-of-the-people invading the родина (homeland). It would also fully address my initial concern, especially if suplemented with portions of Incarnate's development plan from 2007 April.
an idea. instead of blaring the trespasser/pirates name give the under attack in location. and sf was launched to investigate border infringement in location.
In regards to the AI, I've noticed a pattern they follow; they attempt to maintain a specific position while firing. Sometimes during a BP mission, I've noticed a specific level of maturity in my wingmate's skill as a pilot, when they do the same thing. (Seriously watch, the newbies will just open up a steam of fire, regardless of their position; the pros close in and fire from about the same distance and therefor position every time.) All well and fine. So, when I have a cooperative wingmate, I give the instruction to come at the enemy from above or below. This one simple method causes our fire to cross, so no matter which way the NPC uses its force magic to dodge, it gets hit.
Could the SF use this method when grouped? I'm sure it'd increase their overall effectiveness. They'd merely need to change their destination to one that made a right triangle between the other destinations of their group, with the hostile in the center.
Could the SF use this method when grouped? I'm sure it'd increase their overall effectiveness. They'd merely need to change their destination to one that made a right triangle between the other destinations of their group, with the hostile in the center.
The fundamental problem with griefers in VO (and they are there, pouncing on newbies even at stationed sectors in Dau) is that it's bad for GS's business. Too hard to get started, new players will stay away (or drop out). Reds should be KOS and aggressively patrolled for by the local nation.
When the Barbary Pirates were harassing trade in the Atlantic, the governments sent out their navies to attack them. They didn't say "it's dangerous, stay home"; they knew that their nation's success relied on safe trade lanes. The nations in VO (and their programmers) don't seem to have grasped that yet (or have not found a solution).
When the Barbary Pirates were harassing trade in the Atlantic, the governments sent out their navies to attack them. They didn't say "it's dangerous, stay home"; they knew that their nation's success relied on safe trade lanes. The nations in VO (and their programmers) don't seem to have grasped that yet (or have not found a solution).