Forums » Suggestions
As WAF said, the turrets are to protect the station not the owner. I never have this issue as I defend in fighters not mass swarming capships.
I do think we should have more control over how station defenses work. How much they prioritize attacking interlopers vs. the risk of friendly fire, how willing they are to turn against friendlies, which sorts of targets they prioritize, etc. Letting people adjust this to their preference would yield more variety.
However, if the devs implement those options, I am going to laugh at anyone who enables them and then starts complaining about people hiding behind them to scare the turrets into ceasing fire so they can fight with impunity.
And note that tricking automated defenses, homing missiles, and even human opponents into hitting or turning on themselves (or paralyzing themselves over fear of collateral damage) is a time honored technique. And I don't mean within the VO community. I mean in general. Games, movies, books, martial arts, even real life warfare. This is normal, expected behavior.
However, if the devs implement those options, I am going to laugh at anyone who enables them and then starts complaining about people hiding behind them to scare the turrets into ceasing fire so they can fight with impunity.
And note that tricking automated defenses, homing missiles, and even human opponents into hitting or turning on themselves (or paralyzing themselves over fear of collateral damage) is a time honored technique. And I don't mean within the VO community. I mean in general. Games, movies, books, martial arts, even real life warfare. This is normal, expected behavior.
I dont understand how such a blatently exploitative tactic is not recognised as such - the turrets fire being used like that is clearly not whatit is intended for - especially the temp kos behaviour.
You guys are just too heavily entrenched in the "troll" behaviour to recognise that this is not an acceptable tactic - the turrets are on your side, NOT the opponent, this is ridiculous to consider being able to basically take the entire defensible station mechanis and making a mockery of it this way...
Frankly id rather be dealing with a station with NO defenses than one that is gonna inhibit my ability to protect the space.
And for the record, in a true situation, in real life, causing an enemy to shoot their own men WILL NOT result in the entire army then shooting the person who was tricked... Thats my concern! The temp-kos setting off is stupid.
Frankly i dont care what you say, what you try and say is some time honoured technique is just a heavily used exploit of the turret's behaviour, one that is used by single pilots to cause trouble and mayhem because they dont possess the power to attack directly. I seriously think you guys are too much stuck in the troll mindsets - griefing behaviour and the constant usage of questionable tactics like this is why people leave vo... How can you expect new players to stay when the communitysp directly supports such ridiculous thoughts...
This is the simplest example of an exploit you can imagine... But no, you all deny it, just because you all use it. Maybe not all, but a sure number of you. I just watched wash die repeatedly attempting todo this. He failed consistently almost ten times...
You want the game to grow? Stop abusing its mechanics so naturally.
Maybe the devs would have more time to make good new content and spend less time fixing exploits found by players.
Oh, and pizzasgood's comment about hiding behind you so the turrets dont fire? Thats acceptable, thats even sensible, the point i am concerned with is the ability to use the turrets to fire against the person who own's the station's keys.
You guys are just too heavily entrenched in the "troll" behaviour to recognise that this is not an acceptable tactic - the turrets are on your side, NOT the opponent, this is ridiculous to consider being able to basically take the entire defensible station mechanis and making a mockery of it this way...
Frankly id rather be dealing with a station with NO defenses than one that is gonna inhibit my ability to protect the space.
And for the record, in a true situation, in real life, causing an enemy to shoot their own men WILL NOT result in the entire army then shooting the person who was tricked... Thats my concern! The temp-kos setting off is stupid.
Frankly i dont care what you say, what you try and say is some time honoured technique is just a heavily used exploit of the turret's behaviour, one that is used by single pilots to cause trouble and mayhem because they dont possess the power to attack directly. I seriously think you guys are too much stuck in the troll mindsets - griefing behaviour and the constant usage of questionable tactics like this is why people leave vo... How can you expect new players to stay when the communitysp directly supports such ridiculous thoughts...
This is the simplest example of an exploit you can imagine... But no, you all deny it, just because you all use it. Maybe not all, but a sure number of you. I just watched wash die repeatedly attempting todo this. He failed consistently almost ten times...
You want the game to grow? Stop abusing its mechanics so naturally.
Maybe the devs would have more time to make good new content and spend less time fixing exploits found by players.
Oh, and pizzasgood's comment about hiding behind you so the turrets dont fire? Thats acceptable, thats even sensible, the point i am concerned with is the ability to use the turrets to fire against the person who own's the station's keys.
They’re there to protect the station but the station is indestructible lmao. So clearly they are indeed there to protect the station... on behalf of its owner.
The turrets immediately turning on their owner because of one incidental explosion in a cramped 3-dimensional firefight flooded with missiles and spacecraft makes 0 sense. Friendly fire happens — it’s a component of all modern warfare, VO being no exception. There is definitely room for more nuance regarding how it is handled by the game system to bring it more in line with realistic expectations of how AI behaves.
Anyone who thinks AQLA has plugins that make station defense easier is flattering the guild but ultimately incorrect and probably a victim of either ignorance or deliberate misinformation. This whole thread reeks of politics getting in the way of common sense.
The turrets immediately turning on their owner because of one incidental explosion in a cramped 3-dimensional firefight flooded with missiles and spacecraft makes 0 sense. Friendly fire happens — it’s a component of all modern warfare, VO being no exception. There is definitely room for more nuance regarding how it is handled by the game system to bring it more in line with realistic expectations of how AI behaves.
Anyone who thinks AQLA has plugins that make station defense easier is flattering the guild but ultimately incorrect and probably a victim of either ignorance or deliberate misinformation. This whole thread reeks of politics getting in the way of common sense.
If you think it is an exploit, you should report it through a support ticket as such. Calling out anyone on the forums as an exploiter will just cause forum drama that none of us need.
Pretty sure ships and turrets aren't supposed to be flown/aimed via plugin but it apparently happens. care to comment on that?
+1
They clearly are if it’s capable via the API.
Then by your argument, getting shot after shooting your own turrets is valid as well as that is how the game is programmed.
You can’t sit in a capship and swarm with impunity.
It’s really easy, don’t use missiles in an area where you could hit your own side.
You can’t sit in a capship and swarm with impunity.
It’s really easy, don’t use missiles in an area where you could hit your own side.
I'm a 100% sure no one has quit VO because of this one "exploit". Try the alternative, which is not using capswarms in the sector OR sending a support ticket.
Please refrain from personal attacks and comments - it detracts from otherwise good discussions. I have edited some responses to meet the posting expectations for Suggestions. Thanks.
The difference is the API is full of functions expliitly included by the devs, whereas the TempKOS feature of station defenses is clearly just inherited NPC behavior that hasn’t been polished or rounded out. Nysc is asking for more detail to be applied to station defenses as it’s pretty clearly incomplete.
Since the commands needed for that plugin suite to run properly only work in windows, I would say that those so called API commands were unintended.
"And for the record, in a true situation, in real life, causing an enemy to shoot their own men WILL NOT result in the entire army then shooting the person who was tricked..."
Unfortunately, you are very wrong. Just ask this guy. It's also not unheard of for equipment to be hijacked, for soldiers to change sides or reveal themselves to be sleeper agents, or for somebody to just plain crack. When somebody starts shooting at you, you don't necessarily have the luxury of waiting around to see if it was a mistake. It depends on the scenario.
I do agree that VO's model is simplistic. I've consistently argued that the hostility determination and penalty systems should work with thresholds or threat gradients instead of being either hair-trigger or non-existent. And if somebody wants to take the risk that other keyholders will abuse their blind trust to slaughter their turrets, more power to 'em. But there's no need to imply that players who enjoy the ability to win conflicts through trickery and deception are trolls or otherwise bad people. Those are huge elements of real warfare, and tricksters and rogues are very popular character archetypes. Han Solo, Loki, Bugs Bunny, etc. I can understand if you don't personally approve of that play-style. We should have some sliders to adjust in order to fine tune station defenses, but that's because having options is good, not because the people who take advantage of the dumb AI are immoral cheats who must be opposed. Any AI -- or human, for that matter -- is going to have flaws, and people are going to take advantage of those flaws. There's nothing wrong with that.
People toss around the word "exploit" too lightly. A real exploit would be something like discovering that blocking a shot with the shield turret at the same time you bump an asteroid makes the AI ignore you. That is what cheating looks like, not making your opponent get penalized for friendly fire by tricking them into committing friendly fire.
Unfortunately, you are very wrong. Just ask this guy. It's also not unheard of for equipment to be hijacked, for soldiers to change sides or reveal themselves to be sleeper agents, or for somebody to just plain crack. When somebody starts shooting at you, you don't necessarily have the luxury of waiting around to see if it was a mistake. It depends on the scenario.
I do agree that VO's model is simplistic. I've consistently argued that the hostility determination and penalty systems should work with thresholds or threat gradients instead of being either hair-trigger or non-existent. And if somebody wants to take the risk that other keyholders will abuse their blind trust to slaughter their turrets, more power to 'em. But there's no need to imply that players who enjoy the ability to win conflicts through trickery and deception are trolls or otherwise bad people. Those are huge elements of real warfare, and tricksters and rogues are very popular character archetypes. Han Solo, Loki, Bugs Bunny, etc. I can understand if you don't personally approve of that play-style. We should have some sliders to adjust in order to fine tune station defenses, but that's because having options is good, not because the people who take advantage of the dumb AI are immoral cheats who must be opposed. Any AI -- or human, for that matter -- is going to have flaws, and people are going to take advantage of those flaws. There's nothing wrong with that.
People toss around the word "exploit" too lightly. A real exploit would be something like discovering that blocking a shot with the shield turret at the same time you bump an asteroid makes the AI ignore you. That is what cheating looks like, not making your opponent get penalized for friendly fire by tricking them into committing friendly fire.
The reality is that you fight to take "control" of a station, then pilots use the system put in place to take the station from you.
Seriously, the friend/foe behaviour is a pain in the ass that shouldnt exist. The people attacking should have todo the work of attacking themselves, by owning the key to the station, you should have the defenses on your side, period.
No automated defense system created by anyone would have this flaw. ANY automated systemwould be designed with the idea of "if in doubt, hold fire". Computers are not trusted to make decisions in war, only to enact them, so why do these turrets get to decide who their enemies are? It doesnt make sense.
Seriously, the friend/foe behaviour is a pain in the ass that shouldnt exist. The people attacking should have todo the work of attacking themselves, by owning the key to the station, you should have the defenses on your side, period.
No automated defense system created by anyone would have this flaw. ANY automated systemwould be designed with the idea of "if in doubt, hold fire". Computers are not trusted to make decisions in war, only to enact them, so why do these turrets get to decide who their enemies are? It doesnt make sense.
The turrets fire based on A) does target have key & B) does the target have KOS with the sector. If your shots hit a turret or a station guard you are set TempKOS thus the defenses would fire on you. You are asking that key holders not be able to have TempKOS if their weapons hit defense assets.
Here is why that is worse then how they operate now.
1) Owners who are about to lose the station to attackers could kill last turrets and then dock and retake station. Using this a group could in fact maintain a long stranglehold on stations. That is a real exploit.
2) Someone who has obtained the current key could easily go into a sector and rapidly kill turrets and take the station for themselves with no effort and no return fire. How pissed would you be if that happened?
Those are 2 Major ways stations could be exploited were the behavior to be changed. Do you really want to open up the game to bigger exploits because you are too lazy to use energy weapons in defense of your stations?
Here is why that is worse then how they operate now.
1) Owners who are about to lose the station to attackers could kill last turrets and then dock and retake station. Using this a group could in fact maintain a long stranglehold on stations. That is a real exploit.
2) Someone who has obtained the current key could easily go into a sector and rapidly kill turrets and take the station for themselves with no effort and no return fire. How pissed would you be if that happened?
Those are 2 Major ways stations could be exploited were the behavior to be changed. Do you really want to open up the game to bigger exploits because you are too lazy to use energy weapons in defense of your stations?
Eh, Scenario 2 is his own damn fault for trusting people he shouldn't. If he wants to take that risk, it's up to him. As long as the rest of us have the option to not take that risk, it's fine.
Scenario 1 is easy to fix. Just have the turrets always flag you as Temp-KOS if you deliver the killing blow or do more than 50% damage to a turret, and then leave it up to the owners for whether doing less than 50% should also trigger Temp-KOS, and whether it should care about the station guards.
Scenario 1 is easy to fix. Just have the turrets always flag you as Temp-KOS if you deliver the killing blow or do more than 50% damage to a turret, and then leave it up to the owners for whether doing less than 50% should also trigger Temp-KOS, and whether it should care about the station guards.
+1 can't believe it's not fixed yet
I would like to point out that being made tkos for attacking a turret you "own" is intended behavior.