Unless two pilots are in the same guild, prevent them from joining the same group if their factions are at war.

If you guys want to team up, make a new guild for it.

I'm pretty sure that's putting the cart before the horse. The actual redux will be complicated, and little things like this are at the distal ends of logical branches.

-1

-1

Other ways of enforcing faction rules that would prevent ONE and ITAN (for instance) from teaming up are welcome...

See, good ideas will always be shot down by small minds.

+1

I don't see anything wrong with this.

Other ways of enforcing faction rules that would prevent ONE and ITAN (for instance) from teaming up are welcome...

In the particular instance you're referring to ONE and ITAN were on the same channel, but not actually in the same group.

Not to mention there is always the issue of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Game mechanics do not and should not interfere with that principal.

Your proposal also prevents Serco CHRN from teaming up with Itani CLM. How does that make sense?

Actually, the way I envisioned it would be that guilds declare a faction alignment (including unaligned) which would carry the new consequences with it. CLM and CHRN would both be (at least CHRN) unaligned and no longer be restricted in that way. I'd assume VPR and PA, for instance, would also go unaligned. (consequence of unaligned = loss of the ability to get POS and other things?)

In either event, I don't have a problem not grouping with CLM. I have a problem with supposed nationals grouping.

As for this specific example, I don't see how some rabble rousing pirates bickering in gray is going to trump several thousand years of war between the Itani and Serco especially now that it's the faction pilots who are causing war convoys to appear on the other's doorstep.

Oh, and whistler, I think the devs have been taking the small-step approach to things for a while now. Starting with small implementations toward somethingn where, you know, a faction choice ACTUALLY MATTERED (gasp!) might be in keeping with this paced approach.

Beyond the obvious fault (that the people you assumed were grouped were in fact, not), this particular implementation simply takes peoples choices away, rather then making any consequences. Despite that fact that you may not like it that, because your group attacked both ONE and ITAN pilots that all of them turned on you... Does not mean that they grouped, nor does it mean that they shouldn't be able to if they decided too (an unlikely event to begin with). All that would serve to do is give YOU a tactical advantage (VC) over your opponent. Perhaps if you instead tried to enlist one side against the other, rather then just alienating both, you'd have more luck and less "problems".

Again this is all rather pointless, as the two pilots in mention were never in the same group to begin with.

I feel like you are angry about something, endercp12. DivisionByZero is talking about a chronic problem, not one incident, though it is obvious that this is something that game mechanics cannot reasonably solve. Can we channel our frustrations elsewhere and let this thread die quietly please?