In nation space, no matter the faction standing,
You cannot damage a player if he's below combat 4.
You cannot take damage from a player if he's below combat 4.
Unless you /duel.
In grey space, no combat level limitations.

: )

And people say you're heartless... I'd say combat 3 and limit it to capitols, but either way it would likely keep some from whining.

Jesus tapdancing christ, we just got away from this magical shields crap.

Also, it's theoretically possible to be an XC qualified trader without combat 4.

Once you leave the training sector, there is no safe place in VO.

-umptymillion

But anyway, you'd need to have it kick in if any level gets that high, not just combat, for the problem Dr. Lecter mentions. And it isn't just hypothetical; I have seen and shot down moth pilots who were at combat level 2.

I'd like some more restrictions, or penalties, for killing newbies.

But instead of Combat 4, I would go with (ANY license above 3 AND no PK), only inside his own nation space. So, itani/serco players are not protected in UIT, and vice-versa.

I guess any license <=3 imposes a much better "noobie cap" than combat 4 alone. And PK=0, maybe PK<=1.

But instead of "magic shields", make harsher consequences for those transgressions, like ever-increasing Freeze time, when player's account cannot respawn for 2min, 4min, 8min...

Also double the penalties when aggressor and victim are in same nation.

The things that are being suggested are largely how things used to be.

Why is ANY license above 3 AND no PK... only inside his own nation space a terrible idea? Let me paint a picture of VO from several years ago for you: there are "noobs" (really alts of vets) in IBGs with hive posis and or LENBs and UCs. They cannot be killed without penalty, so long as they haven't earned a PK. All they do is harass people, though not killing them, knowing they themselves cannot be killed without penalty.

It sucked. It was changed. It is not coming back.

-1 to OP.

ye guys are SOOOOOO easy : )

Instead of magical shields(god mode) on players, how about a no kill stat on ships(with reputation drops with not only the faction, but the home faction as well) with any license levels 3 and under in Monitored, and Guarded space? Or players who's never killed a player(with an exception of being shot at first, then killing the player in defense) in the same space?

Would this idea work in this game?
You could still kill players but not get a kill stat out of it.

I don't think that this should happen. I'm only at combat lvl 1 and have already gone to battle against the Serco and the Hive. It's kind of unfair for us. Plus, how are we going to get to combat lvl 4 if we can't damage other players?

I disagree with this idea as well, but:

Plus, how are we going to get to combat lvl 4 if we can't damage other players?

Beginner combat practice, and later Advanced Combat Practice, Hive Skirmish, and Border Skirmish will all increase your combat license.

a no kill stat on ships(with reputation drops with not only the faction, but the home faction as well) with any license levels 3 and under in Monitored, and Guarded space? Or players who's never killed a player(with an exception of being shot at first, then killing the player in defense) in the same space?

Yes, please implement this. Then we can all enjoy--again--the effects of a pilot who only wants to ruin your gameplay by severely damaging/but not killing you, and whom you cannot kill without extreme penalties. I'll even volunteer to make the first alt necessary for demonstration of this point :)

Just don't nerf VPR. They seem to be quite active recently which seems to help. Look here.

No reason for not more honorable guilds.

Player-driven.

So... now it's ok to "nerf" any guild you deem dishonorable? Just not the guilds you like. Right... that'll fly. I'm sure the Devs will start handing out preferential treatment based on an abstract concept.

Once again...

So...

1. Back off until you are more familiar with VO.
2. Until you join a few guilds, stop assuming.
3. Now and then entertain the idea that vets might not be idiots.
4. Gain experience.
5. Hone your skills.
6. Observe Ch. 100 to get an idea what direction things are going.
7. Learn that its just a game and not everyone will like you.
8. Explore the existing universe and what exists already before you start talking about fixing it.

Where exactly should I have said it would be ok to nerf any guild?

"Just don't nerf VPR. They seem to be quite active recently which seems to help. Look here.

No reason for not more honorable guilds."

"Just don't nerf VPR."
Implies that it is ok to "nerf" other guilds (which again, the Dev CANNOT DO).

"No reason for not more honorable guilds."
Also seems to implies that it is ok to "nerf" other guilds (which again, the Dev CANNOT DO).

Phaser, you seem to be a Mod these days... or some one who guessed a Mod's password to the forums or something.

Can you or Inc or Ray or someone for fucks sake... PLEASE explain that short of disabling the ability to form guilds that the Devs have ABSOLUTELY NO ******* CONTROL OVER GUILDS?

Please?

How can I imply to nerf anything by not suggesting to change anything?

Calm down. The devs could theoretically change the standing system to a degree that severely hampers / weakens UIT and multifactional guilds, as was precisely pointed out numerous times. VPR is only one example for a guild that would be affected; as I said before it would also apply to a multifactional pirate guild.

Don't get a heart attack over the question whether "nerfing" can be used as a short synonym for "hampering / weakening in a game context by a change to the game mechanics". I think yes, period.

The term "nerf" usually implies that the downgrade was intentional, unless otherwise qualified. For example:

"Don't nerf multinational guilds!" <-- this implies the nerfing is intentional

"Don't do X, Y, and Z, because it would nerf multinational guilds!" <-- this does not imply that it is intentional

Also, I'd like to point out that once somebody causes the forum to think he is an idiot, the forum tends to be more critical toward subsequent posts by that person than they would be if they had no preexisting knowledge. The forum would do well to keep that in mind. I think it was fairly obvious in this case that he did not intend to say that VPR should be given special treatment.

Though the "No reason for not more honorable guilds" part is poorly written. It is hard to understand what it is saying. I read it as meaning "There is no reason we should not have more honorable guilds", but I can see how it could be read as saying "There is no reason to not nerf guilds that are not honorable", when you consider the statement that preceded it.