Forums » Suggestions
Title looks like word salad but let me explain.
Background: This came to me while I was flying in hostile nationspace. From a lore perspective, what would stop me from firing my weapons next to a station? You could say the station is broadcasting some sort of jamming field that's blocking my weapons from firing at all, but that's shaky because Law Enforcement can fire through it. And both Incarnate and players have talked about the logistics and balancing of some sort of system allowing players to bypass the NFZ. The system I've seen discussed is one relating to the weapons themselves, but why not tie it to reputation (in a sense)?
Suggestion: When you are in a nationspace NFZ, you are essentially keying your ship's transponder to the station. The station sends a signal to your ship saying "do not fire your weapons, please" and to be on good terms, your ship must comply. Nothing is actually stopping you from firing other than wanting to stay within the good graces of whichever nation through which you're flying. You could disable the transponder, thus allowing you to fire with reckless abandon within a station's NFZ, but by doing so you have essentially committed a felony, instantly dropping you to hated status (maybe TKOS?) for doing so. In short: You can fire in nationspace NFZs, but it's going to cost you a ton.
You can go further with this, because taking damage from someone in a nationspace NFZ will alter your transponder to "weapons free" status, letting you return fire if a bot or player strikes you while you're within its limits.
Benefits: There are a few I can think of off the bat.
1. A lore explanation for your weapons' controls being physically decoupled from the start. It even makes sense that gray stations wouldn't exercise this control over your ship because it's the wild west out there.
2. Maybe you have to type a command or access a menu to disable your transponder. Maybe a mission in grayspace is required to allow you to do it in the first place. This keeps newbies from accidentally getting into deep trouble, but allows more experienced players to access the ability in a lore-friendly way.
3. Gives a big consequence to flaunting nationspace NFZs, which there should be. Keeps space safer for newbies from all but the most deadly and quick of pirates.
4. With the "weapons free" status, a player can fight back against someone edging the NFZs to mess with them.
5. Related to the above, a "duel" status could also allow players to fire in NFZs, with similar repercussions for firing upon a non-duellist target. Thus keeping nation-space duels from devolving into cheesefests.
Drawbacks: One and only one, as far as I'm concerned - experienced players can and will kill newbies. That's why the consequences need to be ridiculously high.
Cost in development time: Not insignificant, but hopefully not too much? If you utilize the mission system to "break" your transponder, it seems like it could be implemented without adding any new menus or options. If you do add a menu or button, obviously that's more costly to set up across platforms.
There are a lot of things you could tie to this transponder system, too, but again - one suggestion per post!
Background: This came to me while I was flying in hostile nationspace. From a lore perspective, what would stop me from firing my weapons next to a station? You could say the station is broadcasting some sort of jamming field that's blocking my weapons from firing at all, but that's shaky because Law Enforcement can fire through it. And both Incarnate and players have talked about the logistics and balancing of some sort of system allowing players to bypass the NFZ. The system I've seen discussed is one relating to the weapons themselves, but why not tie it to reputation (in a sense)?
Suggestion: When you are in a nationspace NFZ, you are essentially keying your ship's transponder to the station. The station sends a signal to your ship saying "do not fire your weapons, please" and to be on good terms, your ship must comply. Nothing is actually stopping you from firing other than wanting to stay within the good graces of whichever nation through which you're flying. You could disable the transponder, thus allowing you to fire with reckless abandon within a station's NFZ, but by doing so you have essentially committed a felony, instantly dropping you to hated status (maybe TKOS?) for doing so. In short: You can fire in nationspace NFZs, but it's going to cost you a ton.
You can go further with this, because taking damage from someone in a nationspace NFZ will alter your transponder to "weapons free" status, letting you return fire if a bot or player strikes you while you're within its limits.
Benefits: There are a few I can think of off the bat.
1. A lore explanation for your weapons' controls being physically decoupled from the start. It even makes sense that gray stations wouldn't exercise this control over your ship because it's the wild west out there.
2. Maybe you have to type a command or access a menu to disable your transponder. Maybe a mission in grayspace is required to allow you to do it in the first place. This keeps newbies from accidentally getting into deep trouble, but allows more experienced players to access the ability in a lore-friendly way.
3. Gives a big consequence to flaunting nationspace NFZs, which there should be. Keeps space safer for newbies from all but the most deadly and quick of pirates.
4. With the "weapons free" status, a player can fight back against someone edging the NFZs to mess with them.
5. Related to the above, a "duel" status could also allow players to fire in NFZs, with similar repercussions for firing upon a non-duellist target. Thus keeping nation-space duels from devolving into cheesefests.
Drawbacks: One and only one, as far as I'm concerned - experienced players can and will kill newbies. That's why the consequences need to be ridiculously high.
Cost in development time: Not insignificant, but hopefully not too much? If you utilize the mission system to "break" your transponder, it seems like it could be implemented without adding any new menus or options. If you do add a menu or button, obviously that's more costly to set up across platforms.
There are a lot of things you could tie to this transponder system, too, but again - one suggestion per post!
I'm not sure we need to allow NFZ firing in nationspace, but if we ever do, This method is both lore-related and seems balanced, with potential for future expansion. I'd say that capitol systems should have advanced signal enforcement, however, that either bypasses this bypass, or summons a strike force if it even detects this bypass (gradient of safety, capitol systems remain very safe against pirates like how they are now).
I'd also suggest that a pilot with this bypass enabled should probably either appear a darker shade on the radar, or maybe a HUD notification when targetted mentioning "Illegal bypass detected", maybe?
I'd also suggest that a pilot with this bypass enabled should probably either appear a darker shade on the radar, or maybe a HUD notification when targetted mentioning "Illegal bypass detected", maybe?
Personally I find the current system very hacky, and iirc it's admittedly so - basically, newbies were getting confused by the NFZ system regularly and got messed with a ton as a result. The original system felt just fine to me, and this has the benefit of keeping it straightforward to newbies while allowing the "original" system to come back for players who are experienced enough to grasp the rules.
As you say, there is a lot you could do for this unrelated to NFZs. Maybe you don't instantly get a hated status for breaking your transponder, just once you fire in an NFZ. You could also forgo rep penalties for people who attack you, because as far as the government is concerned - whoever shot you just shot a ship with no transponder. I think it's a really cool idea - but of course, I'm biased!
As you say, there is a lot you could do for this unrelated to NFZs. Maybe you don't instantly get a hated status for breaking your transponder, just once you fire in an NFZ. You could also forgo rep penalties for people who attack you, because as far as the government is concerned - whoever shot you just shot a ship with no transponder. I think it's a really cool idea - but of course, I'm biased!
Don't engage in PvP around stations. Particularly in Nation Space.
Several other players have managed to kill other players capships in nation space after the recent NFZ changes which happened few months ago.You can already pick fights outside nation space NFZ if you adapt the tactics, get organized & work in a active group.
-1
Several other players have managed to kill other players capships in nation space after the recent NFZ changes which happened few months ago.You can already pick fights outside nation space NFZ if you adapt the tactics, get organized & work in a active group.
-1
That’s the point. People still do it regardless and game newbies who don’t understand the current system. Some players will fire missiles from outside the NFZ, allowing them to hit confused newbies in the NFZ who can’t shoot back. Others have challenged new players to duels and then just sat in the NFZ, forcing the other player to either sit there or forfeit the duel. I understand the purpose of the new system but it is similarly gamed. Hell, some missions don’t properly work with the current settings. At the very least, allowing players who have been illegally shot to fire back would be a great improvement.
"Some players will fire missiles from outside the NFZ, allowing them to hit confused newbies in the NFZ who can’t shoot back.
It takes a while for a missle to reach their target, you get notified on radar/via sound as well. It notifies players & give them a chance to run or dock.
"Others have challenged new players to duels and then just sat in the NFZ, forcing the other player to either sit there or forfeit the duel."
You get a notification which ask you to Accept or Reject duel.(Hint: If you believe someone is purposely luring new players to get duel rating, you can always open another suggestion thread & request developers something like "Don't allow players to participate in duel until they reach certain license levels or only allow them to duel in greyspace") but that's completely different suggestion.
"At the very least, allowing players who have been illegally shot to fire back would be a great improvement"
You can always undock and leave NFZ to shoot them back, Current NFZ system stops the practice of station camping new players or tricking them to shoot in NFZ, to ruin their faction standing.
It takes a while for a missle to reach their target, you get notified on radar/via sound as well. It notifies players & give them a chance to run or dock.
"Others have challenged new players to duels and then just sat in the NFZ, forcing the other player to either sit there or forfeit the duel."
You get a notification which ask you to Accept or Reject duel.(Hint: If you believe someone is purposely luring new players to get duel rating, you can always open another suggestion thread & request developers something like "Don't allow players to participate in duel until they reach certain license levels or only allow them to duel in greyspace") but that's completely different suggestion.
"At the very least, allowing players who have been illegally shot to fire back would be a great improvement"
You can always undock and leave NFZ to shoot them back, Current NFZ system stops the practice of station camping new players or tricking them to shoot in NFZ, to ruin their faction standing.
Re:missiles: We’re talking about newbies here. People in slower ships who may have never even heard the missile lock sound before, or who can barely fly and have no hope of getting away from them. The range isn’t much of a difference here.
Secondly, there can be a middle ground of being experienced enough to accept a duel but new enough to not realize someone’s taking you for a ride. I’ve seen it happen.
And thirdly, re: tricking newbies to fire in NFZ, if you read the suggestion you’d see that newbies would not be able to fire unless someone violated the NFZ and hit them. No possibility of losing standing unless the player starts indiscriminately shooting other ships, which they could do in or out of the NFZ.
And as far as station camping goes, if you violate the NFZ you have a strike force on you. I’ve seen some slick flying dodging the strike forces, but I’ve not seen someone able to dodge them well enough to continue to murder players. If they’re that good they’ll probably catch them on the outside of the NFZ anyway. If you’re saying some group of players are organized enough to keep the strike force dead/occupied, then I’d say the proper fix would be to buff strike forces as they get taken out. And once again, it’s a point against the current NFZ change already, because once again, I’m sure those players would be able to kill newbies regardless. Incarnate, again, has already suggested some sort of way to bypass it in the future. Why not have it be tied to something that can have secondary benefits, too?
Secondly, there can be a middle ground of being experienced enough to accept a duel but new enough to not realize someone’s taking you for a ride. I’ve seen it happen.
And thirdly, re: tricking newbies to fire in NFZ, if you read the suggestion you’d see that newbies would not be able to fire unless someone violated the NFZ and hit them. No possibility of losing standing unless the player starts indiscriminately shooting other ships, which they could do in or out of the NFZ.
And as far as station camping goes, if you violate the NFZ you have a strike force on you. I’ve seen some slick flying dodging the strike forces, but I’ve not seen someone able to dodge them well enough to continue to murder players. If they’re that good they’ll probably catch them on the outside of the NFZ anyway. If you’re saying some group of players are organized enough to keep the strike force dead/occupied, then I’d say the proper fix would be to buff strike forces as they get taken out. And once again, it’s a point against the current NFZ change already, because once again, I’m sure those players would be able to kill newbies regardless. Incarnate, again, has already suggested some sort of way to bypass it in the future. Why not have it be tied to something that can have secondary benefits, too?
"if you read the suggestion you’d see that newbies would not be able to fire unless someone violated the NFZ and hit them. No possibility of losing standing unless the player starts indiscriminately shooting other ships, which they could do in or out of the NFZ.
If you read the old threads & some old 100 "Ranting" you would understand why NFZ update was added in the first place.
You would understand :-
1) How some players provoked "New players" to shoot them first in nation space to tank their faction standings.
2) How some players damaged "New players" for fun in NFZ and when said new player went to shoot them - they purposely brought a different ship with low health in middle of shooting to tank their standing.
3) How some players purposely mined/camped station undock port back in the days to get easy kills & camp new players.
"If you’re saying some group of players are organized enough to keep the strike force dead/occupied, then I’d say the proper fix would be to buff strike forces as they get taken out."
Some players also have exploited the strike force to damage other players or their capships sitting in NFZ..
Most of those Victim/New players left the game after ranting in game channels , discord , support tickets (possibly) & gave bad reviews for the game.The current Nation Space NFZ system is balanced : it allows players to pick fights outside of NFZ and gotten rid of most exploits which certain players was using to harass others because it was fun for them.
If you read the old threads & some old 100 "Ranting" you would understand why NFZ update was added in the first place.
You would understand :-
1) How some players provoked "New players" to shoot them first in nation space to tank their faction standings.
2) How some players damaged "New players" for fun in NFZ and when said new player went to shoot them - they purposely brought a different ship with low health in middle of shooting to tank their standing.
3) How some players purposely mined/camped station undock port back in the days to get easy kills & camp new players.
"If you’re saying some group of players are organized enough to keep the strike force dead/occupied, then I’d say the proper fix would be to buff strike forces as they get taken out."
Some players also have exploited the strike force to damage other players or their capships sitting in NFZ..
Most of those Victim/New players left the game after ranting in game channels , discord , support tickets (possibly) & gave bad reviews for the game.The current Nation Space NFZ system is balanced : it allows players to pick fights outside of NFZ and gotten rid of most exploits which certain players was using to harass others because it was fun for them.
It sounds like we all agree the current NFZ rule does not work and the original was better.
@incarnate let us have better instead of live with worse for now. We'll settle for ravens ;) joke (maybe not so jokingly)
@incarnate let us have better instead of live with worse for now. We'll settle for ravens ;) joke (maybe not so jokingly)
>1) How some players provoked "New players" to shoot them first in nation space to tank their faction standings.
Fixed in the suggested system.
>2) How some players damaged "New players" for fun in NFZ and when said new player went to shoot them - they purposely brought a different ship with low health in middle of shooting to tank their standing.
Fixed in the suggested system.
>3) How some players purposely mined/camped station undock port back in the days to get easy kills & camp new players.
AI shoot mines first and foremost, so already moot.
>Some players also have exploited the strike force to damage other players or their capships sitting in NFZ..
Sounds like something else that can be fixed and not an inherent issue with the prior NFZ system (or the new suggested one). Same as with the mines - it's something that can be adjusted for without locking out every single player pulling the trigger at all times, no matter the reason.
Anyway, I'm clearly not going to convince you. I'll leave this at that, and if anyone else wants to discuss or suggest changes I'm happy to.
-------
>It sounds like we all agree the current NFZ rule does not work and the original was better.
I understand the issue with new players possibly being confused by the original NFZ system, especially with the upcoming localizations meaning it has to be explained properly in several different languages. I understand why the current system is there. I just think it can be improved!
Fixed in the suggested system.
>2) How some players damaged "New players" for fun in NFZ and when said new player went to shoot them - they purposely brought a different ship with low health in middle of shooting to tank their standing.
Fixed in the suggested system.
>3) How some players purposely mined/camped station undock port back in the days to get easy kills & camp new players.
AI shoot mines first and foremost, so already moot.
>Some players also have exploited the strike force to damage other players or their capships sitting in NFZ..
Sounds like something else that can be fixed and not an inherent issue with the prior NFZ system (or the new suggested one). Same as with the mines - it's something that can be adjusted for without locking out every single player pulling the trigger at all times, no matter the reason.
Anyway, I'm clearly not going to convince you. I'll leave this at that, and if anyone else wants to discuss or suggest changes I'm happy to.
-------
>It sounds like we all agree the current NFZ rule does not work and the original was better.
I understand the issue with new players possibly being confused by the original NFZ system, especially with the upcoming localizations meaning it has to be explained properly in several different languages. I understand why the current system is there. I just think it can be improved!
I mean, this isn't fundamentally much different from the idea of having specific black-market weapons, which have been modified to allow them to function in NFZs. Which is the originally-stated, long-term plan.
However, the black-market weapon idea requires players to think through the idea of equipping a given piece of weaponry in advance, and then proceeding into nation space with that weapon, potentially past border scans and security who may negatively react to its presence.
The "black-market weapon" design is far more limited, restrictive, and intentional than just being able to selectively disable your "no-fire status". And.. that's a good thing.
Fundamentally, I do not want combat inside of NFZs. Certainly not as a common-case. For a whole wide variety of reasons. So, if the idea is to make that "easier".. that is not a goal of mine.
There is the entire rest of space in which you can shoot people.
However, the black-market weapon idea requires players to think through the idea of equipping a given piece of weaponry in advance, and then proceeding into nation space with that weapon, potentially past border scans and security who may negatively react to its presence.
The "black-market weapon" design is far more limited, restrictive, and intentional than just being able to selectively disable your "no-fire status". And.. that's a good thing.
Fundamentally, I do not want combat inside of NFZs. Certainly not as a common-case. For a whole wide variety of reasons. So, if the idea is to make that "easier".. that is not a goal of mine.
There is the entire rest of space in which you can shoot people.
I agree that combat in NFZs in nation-space should not be a common thing. What I like about my suggestion is that if it took, say, a black-market grayspace mission, to disable your "transponder" could be time or money locked so as to make it non-trivial and keep it from being a common thing. It could only last for 30 minutes, or an hour.
My suggestion is certainly not to make it easier across the board. There could be similar security sweeps that detect that you do not have an "active transponder", and other limitations. This would have the added benefit of not calling for the development of a certain weapon or set of weapons. And most of all, I don't want it to be a switch you flip in the menus! It would definitely be more involved than that.
----
At the very least, I think far and away the most important aspect is the edge cases (duels, getting shot by another player within the NFZ under either my suggestion or the original planned system). Centering all this around a feature will allow for easier understanding, too. "Oh, that guy's transponder is disabled, mine now says 'weapons-free' because he shot me!". It would feel very consistent as a game system.
My suggestion is certainly not to make it easier across the board. There could be similar security sweeps that detect that you do not have an "active transponder", and other limitations. This would have the added benefit of not calling for the development of a certain weapon or set of weapons. And most of all, I don't want it to be a switch you flip in the menus! It would definitely be more involved than that.
----
At the very least, I think far and away the most important aspect is the edge cases (duels, getting shot by another player within the NFZ under either my suggestion or the original planned system). Centering all this around a feature will allow for easier understanding, too. "Oh, that guy's transponder is disabled, mine now says 'weapons-free' because he shot me!". It would feel very consistent as a game system.
What I like about my suggestion is that if it took, say, a black-market grayspace mission, to disable your "transponder" could be time or money locked so as to make it non-trivial and keep it from being a common thing.
A manufacturing mission to create a weapon that had these permissions would also be similarly flexible.
I guess, what I'm not seeing is how this differs much? Conveying the idea of a generalized transponder-locking system, and the conditions thereof, to new players, across 20 different languages, is not inherently "easier" than just saying it requires a very-rare special weapon that has to be manufactured somewhere.
Plus, it ends up being kind of semantic? Whether it's a "new" weapon with an inherent benefit, or an "existing" weapon with a switch flipped, if it's genuinely equally-limited in usage.. I'm just not seeing how relevant the difference is?
I'm not going to be enabling "weapons free" status in NFZs, simply because you took damage. Because, again, I don't want combat in Nation NFZs.
You also end up with hacky crap where one guy shoots the other, and gets "weapons-free" and then the other guy shoots him back, and gets "weapons free", and now they both go confuse some newbie, or bait the Strike Force into attacking a random capship. The current system uses "simple absolutes" for similar reasons.
So, I guess my point is.. on the areas that are relevant and truly comparable.. I'm not seeing a lot of benefits to this?
Other respondents, like Biretak, don't actually want the systems to be comparable, they want an increase in ease-of-combat around Nation NFZs.. which just flatly isn't going to happen.
So, anyone should proceed with the understanding that this proposal would be just as limited as the system I already said was part of the long-term goal.
A manufacturing mission to create a weapon that had these permissions would also be similarly flexible.
I guess, what I'm not seeing is how this differs much? Conveying the idea of a generalized transponder-locking system, and the conditions thereof, to new players, across 20 different languages, is not inherently "easier" than just saying it requires a very-rare special weapon that has to be manufactured somewhere.
Plus, it ends up being kind of semantic? Whether it's a "new" weapon with an inherent benefit, or an "existing" weapon with a switch flipped, if it's genuinely equally-limited in usage.. I'm just not seeing how relevant the difference is?
I'm not going to be enabling "weapons free" status in NFZs, simply because you took damage. Because, again, I don't want combat in Nation NFZs.
You also end up with hacky crap where one guy shoots the other, and gets "weapons-free" and then the other guy shoots him back, and gets "weapons free", and now they both go confuse some newbie, or bait the Strike Force into attacking a random capship. The current system uses "simple absolutes" for similar reasons.
So, I guess my point is.. on the areas that are relevant and truly comparable.. I'm not seeing a lot of benefits to this?
Other respondents, like Biretak, don't actually want the systems to be comparable, they want an increase in ease-of-combat around Nation NFZs.. which just flatly isn't going to happen.
So, anyone should proceed with the understanding that this proposal would be just as limited as the system I already said was part of the long-term goal.
>Plus, it ends up being kind of semantic? Whether it's a "new" weapon with an inherent benefit, or an "existing" weapon with a switch flipped, if it's genuinely equally-limited in usage.. I'm just not seeing how relevant the difference is?
A status is a lot easier to backport new weapons into, for one. And it being a "status" rather than piece of equipment seems easier to my mind to implement on a shorter time frame? Unless the functionality already exists to, say, make a weapon delete itself after a certain period of time or some other limitation. Obviously I'm not privy to the codebase so that's not my determination.
>I'm not going to be enabling "weapons free" status in NFZs, simply because you took damage. Because, again, I don't want combat in Nation NFZs.
I'm curious about the planned black market weapons, then - is the intent simply to allow players to get away with a few surprise ganks without retribution every now and then? I'm not asking this as a rebuke - it's just not clear to me. My read on the intent was that it was to allow for combat but only for people who were prepared to accept the consequences of initiating it.
>You also end up with hacky crap where one guy shoots the other, and gets "weapons-free" and then the other guy shoots him back, and gets "weapons free", and now they both go confuse some newbie, or bait the Strike Force into attacking a random capship. The current system uses "simple absolutes" for similar reasons.
I see this as six of one, half dozen of the other; the system is getting gamed either way. Lord knows I've seen some janky moves pulled with the new system recently. And, as I said before, edge cases like the capship exploit are something that can be fixed. Proverbial bathwater.
Now, at the end of the day, I understand all of this is dev-time. I certainly don't want to come off as going "just fix it lol" - I just think that down the line some of the prior system could come back without giving experienced gankers free reign in nation-space. (plus, every time i leave grayspace i am sadly deprived of shooting the dock for no reason :c)
A status is a lot easier to backport new weapons into, for one. And it being a "status" rather than piece of equipment seems easier to my mind to implement on a shorter time frame? Unless the functionality already exists to, say, make a weapon delete itself after a certain period of time or some other limitation. Obviously I'm not privy to the codebase so that's not my determination.
>I'm not going to be enabling "weapons free" status in NFZs, simply because you took damage. Because, again, I don't want combat in Nation NFZs.
I'm curious about the planned black market weapons, then - is the intent simply to allow players to get away with a few surprise ganks without retribution every now and then? I'm not asking this as a rebuke - it's just not clear to me. My read on the intent was that it was to allow for combat but only for people who were prepared to accept the consequences of initiating it.
>You also end up with hacky crap where one guy shoots the other, and gets "weapons-free" and then the other guy shoots him back, and gets "weapons free", and now they both go confuse some newbie, or bait the Strike Force into attacking a random capship. The current system uses "simple absolutes" for similar reasons.
I see this as six of one, half dozen of the other; the system is getting gamed either way. Lord knows I've seen some janky moves pulled with the new system recently. And, as I said before, edge cases like the capship exploit are something that can be fixed. Proverbial bathwater.
Now, at the end of the day, I understand all of this is dev-time. I certainly don't want to come off as going "just fix it lol" - I just think that down the line some of the prior system could come back without giving experienced gankers free reign in nation-space. (plus, every time i leave grayspace i am sadly deprived of shooting the dock for no reason :c)
I see this as six of one, half dozen of the other; the system is getting gamed either way. Lord knows I've seen some janky moves pulled with the new system recently.
Not.. really? Your "weapons free" proposal explicitly creates new ways for the system to get gamed.. which is not attractive to me.
If the underlying system is less complex, then fixing issues where it can be gamed is also generally less complex.
A status is a lot easier to backport new weapons into, for one.
I don't value that, as I don't want new weapons showing up that have these capabilities. Because I don't fundamentally want combat there in the first place.
And it being a "status" rather than piece of equipment seems easier to my mind to implement on a shorter time frame?
Not really. It's basically just the concept of an addon that expires or disables itself in some way, or has a limited usage per unit time. All of which are generally useful concepts to apply to any addon.
Either case has the same functionality. The "status" is actually more complex, because now you have to have ways of indicating "status" and, as I mentioned before, it's harder to articulate the concept to new players.
I'm curious about the planned black market weapons, then - is the intent simply to allow players to get away with a few surprise ganks without retribution every now and then?
Not exactly, but it is to create a small amount of controlled "uncertainty", under which certain types of missions and content (smuggling, assassination, espionage, etc) might be able to take place in otherwise-protected locales.
I mean, the very usage of black-market weapons would immediately KoS the character from the space, regardless. But, again, in the context of other types of gameplay (border-infiltration, for instance) it could provide some value and interest.
But again, the concept I laid out has a lot of prerequisites. You have to make the addon, the addon may be specific only to one particular nation, you have to equip the addon (somewhere that will let you equip a black-market weapon, either your own capship or some kind of non-lawful station), you have to traverse a considerable distance with the item equipped, and cross borders where you will be scanned. You will lose all your standing with the given faction when you utilize the weapon.. etc etc. All of these prerequisites place downward pressure to not treat this as a trivial, throwaway experience, because of the preparation time involved. And, all of the parameters can be limited in a wide variety of ways, even across the entire game population (number of black-market weapons in the universe, for instance).
I just think that down the line some of the prior system could come back without giving experienced gankers free reign in nation-space.
I just don't see the point? Who cares? If you want to PvP, fly outside the NFZ, or go to grayspace.
Not.. really? Your "weapons free" proposal explicitly creates new ways for the system to get gamed.. which is not attractive to me.
If the underlying system is less complex, then fixing issues where it can be gamed is also generally less complex.
A status is a lot easier to backport new weapons into, for one.
I don't value that, as I don't want new weapons showing up that have these capabilities. Because I don't fundamentally want combat there in the first place.
And it being a "status" rather than piece of equipment seems easier to my mind to implement on a shorter time frame?
Not really. It's basically just the concept of an addon that expires or disables itself in some way, or has a limited usage per unit time. All of which are generally useful concepts to apply to any addon.
Either case has the same functionality. The "status" is actually more complex, because now you have to have ways of indicating "status" and, as I mentioned before, it's harder to articulate the concept to new players.
I'm curious about the planned black market weapons, then - is the intent simply to allow players to get away with a few surprise ganks without retribution every now and then?
Not exactly, but it is to create a small amount of controlled "uncertainty", under which certain types of missions and content (smuggling, assassination, espionage, etc) might be able to take place in otherwise-protected locales.
I mean, the very usage of black-market weapons would immediately KoS the character from the space, regardless. But, again, in the context of other types of gameplay (border-infiltration, for instance) it could provide some value and interest.
But again, the concept I laid out has a lot of prerequisites. You have to make the addon, the addon may be specific only to one particular nation, you have to equip the addon (somewhere that will let you equip a black-market weapon, either your own capship or some kind of non-lawful station), you have to traverse a considerable distance with the item equipped, and cross borders where you will be scanned. You will lose all your standing with the given faction when you utilize the weapon.. etc etc. All of these prerequisites place downward pressure to not treat this as a trivial, throwaway experience, because of the preparation time involved. And, all of the parameters can be limited in a wide variety of ways, even across the entire game population (number of black-market weapons in the universe, for instance).
I just think that down the line some of the prior system could come back without giving experienced gankers free reign in nation-space.
I just don't see the point? Who cares? If you want to PvP, fly outside the NFZ, or go to grayspace.
(as a preface, things I'm not directly responding to are things I'm either conceding or accepting as differences in view)
>If the underlying system is less complex, then fixing issues where it can be gamed is also generally less complex.
Not that I'm arguing for this, but isn't that an argument in favor of the original NFZ system as well?
>The "status" is actually more complex, because now you have to have ways of indicating "status" and, as I mentioned before, it's harder to articulate the concept to new players.
In a sense, I agree. But in another, might that not be more valuable? If there is some sort of indicator, a new player has more a way of visually determining that a player has that special ability (as Luxen suggested, maybe a dark red name or some sort of "transponder disabled" tag when they show up in the proximity alerts) that allows them to fire in the NFZs - or failing that, at least understanding that the person who just blew them away did so by design. Not "wtf this guy just came in and blew me up in the zone I physically can't fire in". That said, I guess it could be something applied to a weapon, too. So there's my impromptu secondary suggestion!
>Not exactly, but it is to create a small amount of controlled "uncertainty", under which certain types of missions and content (smuggling, assassination, espionage, etc) might be able to take place in otherwise-protected locales.
In that case I'm all for it. If a player is willing to tank their rep completely and spend a lot of money time doing so, a newbie getting destroyed with no recourse every so often reinforces the "no safe spots" without allowing for indiscriminate combat in nation NFZs. I guess I was just under the impression that it was considered better to let newbies fire back in the case someone used these weapons on them. If not, that's brutal and I'm a fan.
>(border-infiltration, for instance)
As a Serco nationalist that's my dream.
As for the prerequisites and consequences I could argue that the transponder modification could fall under the same limitations. Maybe it actually takes up an add-on slot and allows you to use your other weapons at the cost of a decrease of overall output?
>I just don't see the point? Who cares? If you want to PvP, fly outside the NFZ, or go to grayspace.
Again, it was more that I thought that players under attack would be able to respond. But again, if the intent is that they should keep their eyes open, that's cool too!
------
As an aside, I feel like the "transponder" functionality could have some uses beyond NFZ-skirting, so it might be worth the dev time. (Masking yourself as having different rep for a short time? Or a different name? I can think of some cool ideas with this)
>If the underlying system is less complex, then fixing issues where it can be gamed is also generally less complex.
Not that I'm arguing for this, but isn't that an argument in favor of the original NFZ system as well?
>The "status" is actually more complex, because now you have to have ways of indicating "status" and, as I mentioned before, it's harder to articulate the concept to new players.
In a sense, I agree. But in another, might that not be more valuable? If there is some sort of indicator, a new player has more a way of visually determining that a player has that special ability (as Luxen suggested, maybe a dark red name or some sort of "transponder disabled" tag when they show up in the proximity alerts) that allows them to fire in the NFZs - or failing that, at least understanding that the person who just blew them away did so by design. Not "wtf this guy just came in and blew me up in the zone I physically can't fire in". That said, I guess it could be something applied to a weapon, too. So there's my impromptu secondary suggestion!
>Not exactly, but it is to create a small amount of controlled "uncertainty", under which certain types of missions and content (smuggling, assassination, espionage, etc) might be able to take place in otherwise-protected locales.
In that case I'm all for it. If a player is willing to tank their rep completely and spend a lot of money time doing so, a newbie getting destroyed with no recourse every so often reinforces the "no safe spots" without allowing for indiscriminate combat in nation NFZs. I guess I was just under the impression that it was considered better to let newbies fire back in the case someone used these weapons on them. If not, that's brutal and I'm a fan.
>(border-infiltration, for instance)
As a Serco nationalist that's my dream.
As for the prerequisites and consequences I could argue that the transponder modification could fall under the same limitations. Maybe it actually takes up an add-on slot and allows you to use your other weapons at the cost of a decrease of overall output?
>I just don't see the point? Who cares? If you want to PvP, fly outside the NFZ, or go to grayspace.
Again, it was more that I thought that players under attack would be able to respond. But again, if the intent is that they should keep their eyes open, that's cool too!
------
As an aside, I feel like the "transponder" functionality could have some uses beyond NFZ-skirting, so it might be worth the dev time. (Masking yourself as having different rep for a short time? Or a different name? I can think of some cool ideas with this)
>Other respondents, like Biretak, don't actually want the systems to be comparable, they want an increase in ease-of-combat around Nation NFZs.. which just flatly isn't going to happen.
Why not just keep it simple? magic weapons lock was not a great idea, with all do respect. I know what you want to accomplish, but we love new players. Baptism by fire can get others addicted to VO like I was before vo was neutered.
Why not just keep it simple? magic weapons lock was not a great idea, with all do respect. I know what you want to accomplish, but we love new players. Baptism by fire can get others addicted to VO like I was before vo was neutered.
@incarnate... put yourself in one of your players positions... you follow a guilded enemy through WH's and finally catch up to them at a station they are neutral at in nation space outside of their nation... and your weapons magically stop working... fun or not so fun...??? Then they enjoy and taunt it in the NFZ? They should be blown to dust. Even the station guard wanted to shoot him ;)
Not that I'm arguing for this, but isn't that an argument in favor of the original NFZ system as well?
The problems with the original NFZ system are well documented in the threads discussing it.
I guess I was just under the impression that it was considered better to let newbies fire back in the case someone used these weapons on them.
The tutorials have told newbies not to fire in NFZs, if fired upon, for.. as long as we've had such tutorials. The standard has been to retreat, and let the station defenses deal with the attacker.
The suggestion has never been to defend yourself, in a NFZ. Otherwise, we would be advocating "firing" in a "no-fire zone".
@incarnate... put yourself in one of your players positions... you follow a guilded enemy through WH's and finally catch up to them at a station they are neutral at in nation space outside of their nation... and your weapons magically stop working... fun or not so fun...???
I mean, you could just as easily complain that they docked, and you were unable to blow up the station. Either way, you would be equally unsatisfied in your pursuit. Perhaps you need to improve at running down your prey?
Otherwise, my impression is that you either haven't bothered to read the lengthy threads about why the NFZ system was changed, or you just don't care what they say. Either way, no offense, but I don't have spare time to re-explain the issues. Feel free to search and read about them.
You may well disagree, with my decisions.. you're welcome to do so. But I don't make decisions solely for the benefit of a few opinionated users. I try to make the best decisions I can for the entire game as a whole, which also includes all the silent newbies who will never show up on Suggestions, and the future direction of the game.
Similarly, I'm also working with a lot more analytics and data than is available to the player-base.
The problems with the original NFZ system are well documented in the threads discussing it.
I guess I was just under the impression that it was considered better to let newbies fire back in the case someone used these weapons on them.
The tutorials have told newbies not to fire in NFZs, if fired upon, for.. as long as we've had such tutorials. The standard has been to retreat, and let the station defenses deal with the attacker.
The suggestion has never been to defend yourself, in a NFZ. Otherwise, we would be advocating "firing" in a "no-fire zone".
@incarnate... put yourself in one of your players positions... you follow a guilded enemy through WH's and finally catch up to them at a station they are neutral at in nation space outside of their nation... and your weapons magically stop working... fun or not so fun...???
I mean, you could just as easily complain that they docked, and you were unable to blow up the station. Either way, you would be equally unsatisfied in your pursuit. Perhaps you need to improve at running down your prey?
Otherwise, my impression is that you either haven't bothered to read the lengthy threads about why the NFZ system was changed, or you just don't care what they say. Either way, no offense, but I don't have spare time to re-explain the issues. Feel free to search and read about them.
You may well disagree, with my decisions.. you're welcome to do so. But I don't make decisions solely for the benefit of a few opinionated users. I try to make the best decisions I can for the entire game as a whole, which also includes all the silent newbies who will never show up on Suggestions, and the future direction of the game.
Similarly, I'm also working with a lot more analytics and data than is available to the player-base.
@incarnate (off topic only since inc brought it up)
I respect our ability to disagree. I didn't love the old nfz system, either. I thing both have their drawbacks. I thought my example might sway you.
>Perhaps you need to improve at running down your prey?
wasn't that neutered as well? I seem to recall something along those lines in the past. I seem to end up farther from my prey at each jump even though I was catching up in a hound. Although, it could be due to vectoring or something else I haven't mastered, yet. I would think small light ships would get closer to heavier ships, not farther.
I respect our ability to disagree. I didn't love the old nfz system, either. I thing both have their drawbacks. I thought my example might sway you.
>Perhaps you need to improve at running down your prey?
wasn't that neutered as well? I seem to recall something along those lines in the past. I seem to end up farther from my prey at each jump even though I was catching up in a hound. Although, it could be due to vectoring or something else I haven't mastered, yet. I would think small light ships would get closer to heavier ships, not farther.