Spidey, Biretak: If you want to contribute to the thread, consider reading the first sentence of the OP, and the related threads that it directly links to.

This topic didn't just appear out of thin air. See Rule #6.

we can revisit this when the development team has the ability to resolve it properly.

I don't know what that means? You aren't in a position to determine our resource allocation on this. I'm not doing your sector-wide thing for design reasons, not resource limitations.

Inc, it was my dent this suggestion is about. The strike force violated the nfz when they shot at my dent. The strikeforce should be kos to each other at that point and kill each other since they shot a friendly dent.

Make the strikeforce kill each other or /explode when they damage a friendly in NFZ. Make is so inc, if there is not another solution... I would rather just face the shooter in the dock and not worry about the strikeforce in the NFZ killing friendly dents. why not fix it? I'm sure they code could be written to see what the stupid sf is hitting.

if strikeforce_target (hit != target) then explode

(EDIT: Haxmeister apparently deleted yet another post, to which this was responding; edits/deletes will soon cease to be an option on these forums, after 15 minutes from initially making the post).

As a part of your paying player base who sees the rate of development in this game, and sees that you seem to dodge real solutions to go for "low hanging fruit" I am precisely in the right position to determine your resource allocation.

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was making a terse but factually accurate statement:

You are not in a position to judge our resource allocation, period, full-stop.

Resource allocation is based on the future, not the past. I was speaking about development capabilities and availability, and that has nothing to do with whether I "like" your idea.

All I did was make the comment that declining your idea was design-driven, not resource-driven. So your statement about our not having the "ability" to implement it didn't make much sense; I thought maybe you had misunderstood.

I decided to bow out of this conversation when..

No, you didn't. "Bowing out" would be "not posting". Instead you posted a confusing and (now, with retrospective clarity) a somewhat snarky retort implying that the "development team" lacks the "ability" to resolve the issue "properly". With, you, of course, being the judge of all that is proper, apparently.

Then you deleted your prior posts, which makes the rest of the historical thread more nonsensical to read, now (retaining discussion on Suggestions is part of the point of the forums, we often reference these debates years later).

I was genuinely confused by what you wrote, I wasn't upset. Your "suggestion" was not difficult to implement. It was just.. bad, and massive gameplay-hack overkill, and not something I'm inclined to do.

I tried to be more diplomatic in my earlier responses, and explain some of why (with very limited time), but apparently anything short of a breathless embrace of your viewpoint is.. unacceptable..?

It is a disappointment that you bother to get involved in these threads after you have already decided what you were willing to do in the first place.

I hadn't "decided" anything for sure. But artificially preventing all weapons-fire throughout the entirety of every sector containing a station is definitely not something I'm interested in doing at the present time.

Once you made it clear that you didn't want to address all those other things in the OP and you just want to focus on guns not firing in the NFZ..

Have you actually read the OP? Nowhere in there does it mention people firing into NFZs to taunt newbies from outside the NFZ, which was apparently the issue you had a burning need to address. But, it isn't actually there. Nor is it in either of the linked threads.

But, you did make a post (which you've since deleted) wherein you called-out my design for being flawed because it didn't deal with your particular distance-based concern, outside of NFZs, that you believed mandated making entire-station-sectors into zero-weapons-fire locales.

I wasn't upset by your criticism, but I made the point (twice) that that was not an issue I was trying to solve (nor.. was anyone else trying to solve, probably because NFZ-outer-edge taunting-problems with newbies can probably be resolved without shutting off all weapons fire in the entire sector).

It is a disappointment that you bother to get involved in these threads after you have already decided what you were willing to do in the first place. Perhaps such posts belong in an "ongoing development" forum instead of a suggestions forum.

It's a waste of my time that you post without reading the fundamental rules of how this forum works. Everything I have done and said here is outlined in Rule #2. Which seems pretty early in the Rule-list, and pretty self-evident, and has been a well-known underpinning of interaction on this forum for 20 years.

Your suggestion hard-deviated from a decade of game development goals and work. I'm working towards THE POLAR OPPOSITE of not allowing weapons-fire in Station Sectors.

I'm thread-muting you for wasting my time. There was nothing wrong with making your Suggestion: that was appreciated. But when I say "No", you need to not pitch a hissy fit, or just stay off of Suggestions entirely.

if strikeforce_target (hit != target) then explode

You.. don't see any problems with that idea?

No, we aren't doing that.

I am under the impression that the two main problem needing solutions are as follows

1) Strike forces being used as weapons against ships that are not their target

2) Players, mainly new ones being decieved into tanking their standing by being shot at with 0 damage or negative damage weaponry, currently PCB's and Repair weapons.

Have I accurately described the problems that really need solving?

For those problems I have two suggestions.

Perhaps the idea I mentioned about having SF (or ALL npc's in station sectors) give friendly fire protections to all but their targets and local KOS pilots would help with players hiding in capitol ship docking bays? It's kinda magic-hackey I know, so less then ideal, but it's the best idea I've got right now.

As for problem 2

Could friendly fire protections be in place for ALL non hostile players inside NFZ's. That way Jakp could chose to attack Harpo (just an example) at whatever station sector, inside the nfz as Harpo being Itani will be marked as hostile for Jakp.

This would make it difficult however for some random Serco newb from being baited into killing a UIT character at a Serco station unless they already have the self-defense flag. There should be some way to turn this 'safe mode' off if you so chose I think, however it should default to ON.

That does hinge on my assumption that only damaging hits will flag a pilot as hostile, which I have not tested.

I believe the current system in place is already good enough. No need to fix what is not broken.

-1 to the original subject.

if a player is attacked in the NFZ and gets the self defense flag, make them immune from killing or damaging SF as well. This will take some of the danger out of responding.

csgno1,

So you'd make the victim immune from killing the sf but the sf could still kill them? That sounds worse. And what if the victim trys to defend themselves and instead misses and hits an innocent bystander? You are basically suggesting a system where the only choice of victim is to die. I would rather have a small nfz where shooting does not work. And the idea of smuggled weapons is highly appealing.

From INC:
Kennyb: if strikeforce_target (hit != target) then explode

INC: You.. don't see any problems with that idea?

INC: No, we aren't doing that.

my reply... how about sf stop shooting and let me launch and kill the guy hiding in the dock of my dent with my taur instead of letting the strike force kill my dent? I always have a light and heavy fighter in my dent... I could kill the guy better than the stupid NPC that killed my dent!!!

I think some people are slightly confused on how nfz violation capship kills are actually an issue. I just made a demo video of me doing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEZ7bE-Bn9U

Time to kill the trident was about 95 seconds. Or about 10526.3 damage a second.

I think we can all agree that this is over powered. Forcing an aggressor to fire from outside the NFZ into into the nfz means this kind of sustained damage is less likely to take place. Not impossible though. Because no place is truly safe in VO space.

my reply... how about sf stop shooting and let me launch and kill the guy hiding in the dock of my dent with my taur instead of letting the strike force kill my dent? I always have a light and heavy fighter in my dent... I could kill the guy better than the stupid NPC that killed my dent!!!

That pre-supposes that "you" are in the Trident in question. It could be a Trident that someone parked, and is across the galaxy. ("Suggestions" is about generalized solutions, not just something specific to you).

We should probably also not generically have a way to make the strike force stop-attacking. That seems like it would be pretty exploitable.

As I previously mentioned elsewhere there are challenges to trying to detect if there's a ship in the way. We may explore this eventually, but it's much more technically complex.

This is (partly) why this thread exists, in which people suggested disabling shooting entirely in the NFZ, as a measure of mitigation: not wholly solving the problem, but reducing the chances.

We were having a useful, on-topic discussion, until this was dragged off-topic by "other ideas" (like: "sector-wide NFZ", "SFs should explode if they hit the wrong target", etc), along with a peanut gallery who wants to just pop on to claim "this isn't a problem because I say so, and I can't be bothered to read the thread, or other linked discussions".

That's all been pretty unhelpful.

If you have further feedback about THE TOPIC: "Disable shooting in the NFZ" (for reasons stated in the OP, as well as newbie training, that's welcome in this thread. Other topics should go in other-threads.

I suppose just changing the NPCs attack mode to intelligently NOT fire upon a target if there is a friendly in the way is out of the question? Or tweaking it in some fashion that largely removes the potential for a neutral capship to be affected?

That would solve the hiding-in-the-docking-bay issue.

Another idea would be a defense beam that stuns / immobilizes an offending ship so they CAN'T go hide in a docking bay. Maybe a three strikes rule, where first two offenses just immobilize a ship, and the last one immobilizes and then destroys it with SF.

The beam thing might make the SF overpowered greenwall. I get the impression that Incarnate does not intend to create more safe places in the game.

As for the first, that sounds like it'd be idea, but I don't know how possible it'd be for Incarnate to do it, at least not with the game still being real time. It's too easy for ships to suddenly change course and accidentally intercept shots not meant for them, or for ships to dodge incoming fire, causing missed shots to impact unintended targets.

i posted an alternate solution in another thread.

@look

I see what you are saying but I was thinking mostly of capital ships being lost. A couple unintentional shots aren't going to take out a capship.

I suppose just changing the NPCs attack mode to intelligently NOT fire upon a target if there is a friendly in the way is out of the question?

I directly answered that in the post you were responding to..

As I previously mentioned elsewhere there are challenges to trying to detect if there's a ship in the way. We may explore this eventually, but it's much more technically complex.

Thanks... I missed that

I like the kos strike force idea. More booms and not 100% safe 👍

i think starblazzz and I might get along more.