Forums » Suggestions
There need to be some sort of control placed on a player that intentionally goes n00b hunting. Either a loss of faction, or penalty experience. New players, tho an easy target, should never be punished just for wanting to play the game.
I level limit on player to player combat should be inacted.
something to curb the need to n00b slay.
I level limit on player to player combat should be inacted.
something to curb the need to n00b slay.
it should only effect noobs with 0/0/0 but when they gain a level in any of the three then the safety is over, same as if the leave there factions sector.
Yeah. I was thinking of a "diplomatic immunity" flag that could help noobs.
For as long as the noob isn't leveled in either combat, ligh or heavy weapon, the diplomatic immunity holds. It also would automatically break if noob knocks out any aligned bots or another player (fat chance a noob can kill any player but we never know).
I've introduced two personal friends of mine to the game (and now they're hooked), but this noob killing is something that has bothered them as much as it bothered me in the past.
For as long as the noob isn't leveled in either combat, ligh or heavy weapon, the diplomatic immunity holds. It also would automatically break if noob knocks out any aligned bots or another player (fat chance a noob can kill any player but we never know).
I've introduced two personal friends of mine to the game (and now they're hooked), but this noob killing is something that has bothered them as much as it bothered me in the past.
Is the noob killing occurring in gray or nation space? If they're noobs in gray space, then that's just asking for trouble.
lol, thats why i say that if they enter Gray space, or another nations space then there Noob safety is gone.
Perhaps a BIIIG warning fading onto your screen if you try to enter grey space the first time? With a serious warning that you leave monitored/protected space?
The game has some built in protections for players in their home nation.
If you kill a player who has very low levels and has not participated in CtC the higher level player gets a warning about an XP loss if they kill the lower leveled player.
If a new player is in a nation monitored sector and are attacked by a higher leveled player, a strike force of defense bots are sent to attack the killer.
If a higher level player is killing lower leveled players repeatedly they eventually get a bounty placed on their head.
The system where the new player starts the game is usually very safe from noob killing becuase the agressive players has to pass through many nation monitored systems, which would trigger a strike force attack, to get to the center system.
The adjacent systems are usually safe but the closer to the border a player travels the more the danger increases.
Gray areas on the system map are described as unaligned and a known hideout of priates. So players who venture into gray space for any reason (blackmarket or otherwise) are considered viable targets.
If you kill a player who has very low levels and has not participated in CtC the higher level player gets a warning about an XP loss if they kill the lower leveled player.
If a new player is in a nation monitored sector and are attacked by a higher leveled player, a strike force of defense bots are sent to attack the killer.
If a higher level player is killing lower leveled players repeatedly they eventually get a bounty placed on their head.
The system where the new player starts the game is usually very safe from noob killing becuase the agressive players has to pass through many nation monitored systems, which would trigger a strike force attack, to get to the center system.
The adjacent systems are usually safe but the closer to the border a player travels the more the danger increases.
Gray areas on the system map are described as unaligned and a known hideout of priates. So players who venture into gray space for any reason (blackmarket or otherwise) are considered viable targets.
Unfortunately Sarah, UIT space is not even remotely safe. There are lots of places a Pirate/griefer can dock inside UIT space other than UIT stations, and there are quite a few unmonitored WHs there
Yes, I guess that is one of the disadvantages of being UIT. So if you are wary of being killed then take an Itani ro Serco character.
I once encountered a n00b coming out of Azek... gave a warning over sector chat about the dangers of gray space. Seconds later a pirate warped in and blasted him. Hopefully that n00b learned his lesson.
-:sigma.SB
-:sigma.SB
Solra... you actually sold the noob to a pirate didn't you? ;-)
Gray space-- noobs need less protection
Nation space-- noobs need more protection.
n00bs are getting PKed all the time in nation space. Solra Bizna outran the UIT defbots in an EC88 yesterday if i remember correctly.
Nation space-- noobs need more protection.
n00bs are getting PKed all the time in nation space. Solra Bizna outran the UIT defbots in an EC88 yesterday if i remember correctly.
LOL the Xp loss is only 1000.
I think it is very low for a higher lv player to attack an any player lower than lv 3, it just shows lack of good form, but if it makes you feel more like a Man/woman to kill a low lv ppl no matter what space your in their just exploring , let them be, you will soon get your chance to kill them.
Syberfly Out
I live for the one, I die for the One
I think it is very low for a higher lv player to attack an any player lower than lv 3, it just shows lack of good form, but if it makes you feel more like a Man/woman to kill a low lv ppl no matter what space your in their just exploring , let them be, you will soon get your chance to kill them.
Syberfly Out
I live for the one, I die for the One
I would suggest the XP loss be increased to 5000 for a player with 0 levels, and reduced by 500 points for each level the player has. such that a player with 1 light, 1 heavy and 1 combat would be worth 3500 XP loss (5000 - (500x3)).
At level 4 anything, the XP loss would dissapear. (it would also go away if a player reached a total of 10 levels between all skills)
HOWEVER: to prevent exploits for this the XP penalty would HAVE to be changed so that it only applies when the new player is inside one of the systems claimed by the nation s/he belonges to. If that player exits nation claimed space, the penalty should go away. If you are in grey space or the nation space of another nation, there should be no XP penalty if you are killed. Leaving your own nation at low level is dangerous after all.
At level 4 anything, the XP loss would dissapear. (it would also go away if a player reached a total of 10 levels between all skills)
HOWEVER: to prevent exploits for this the XP penalty would HAVE to be changed so that it only applies when the new player is inside one of the systems claimed by the nation s/he belonges to. If that player exits nation claimed space, the penalty should go away. If you are in grey space or the nation space of another nation, there should be no XP penalty if you are killed. Leaving your own nation at low level is dangerous after all.
What is to be done about the new players who go to grey space to PvP? You say don't punish them for exploring, what do I do about someone in a cent following me around with a phase blaster? It's happened quite a few times now.
uhh, shapeenaji, if that comment was directed at me, read the HOWEVER.
IMO any player in any space except thier nations should have NO xp penalty.
If they return to thier nation space and are eligible for it, the XP penalty applies there.
IMO any player in any space except thier nations should have NO xp penalty.
If they return to thier nation space and are eligible for it, the XP penalty applies there.
I like the idea of varying XP penalties based upon the level of the person being killed. I would, however, prefer to see something in addition to that.
As an example, one of our guild people was playing the first part of this week and was mining and carrying the ore back to the station in Odia M14. A certain player (who at this point shall remain nameless) sat outside the exit dock and blasted this guild person into teeny tiny pieces. Not once mind you, but three times on three separate occasions.
Now... it is to say this guild person's levels are in the 2s and 3s, and the person doing the killing has levels in the 8 to 10 range. Now before everyone gets out their "But the guild person was in grey space, they are a fair target" speech, read on...
Needless to say, after this guild person's monthly subscription runs out, she is not going to renew it. And of course, her boyfriend is not renewing his either. All because of these three incidents. All the guild person wants to do is mine. No PvP, no botting, she just enjoys the heck out of mining, and that's why she subscribed to the game. Losing two players in the game seems a pretty high price for all of us to pay due to one person's actions.
I talked to this certain player last night, and asked why the player was doing such things. The answer I got was "because it's fun to see if I can escape from the station bots". Which, to me is a poor excuse for causing such grief to a relatively low level player. No concern was expressed that the guild person was now leaving the game, no concern was expressed for her feelings.
After talking about this situation in the guild for a while, it was suggested that players need "tags"... in other words, a tag for "I'm doing PvP". Any non-tagged player would be considered a non-combatant and should be left alone by the players who choose to PvP. I'm sure that the penalties for a tagged player killing a non-tagged player should be quite severe. I would imagine, that at some point some of the non-combatant folks would want to put on their tag and go hunting people, while others would never put on a PvP tag.
There are those who play this game, not for the PvP, but for the fun of running around space, exploring, mining, and botting - and could care less about how many player kills they have. There needs to be room in the galaxy for both sides of this question, the ones who could care less about PvP, and the ones who want to blow others out of the sky.
I appreciate your thoughts... Regards to all.
WC
As an example, one of our guild people was playing the first part of this week and was mining and carrying the ore back to the station in Odia M14. A certain player (who at this point shall remain nameless) sat outside the exit dock and blasted this guild person into teeny tiny pieces. Not once mind you, but three times on three separate occasions.
Now... it is to say this guild person's levels are in the 2s and 3s, and the person doing the killing has levels in the 8 to 10 range. Now before everyone gets out their "But the guild person was in grey space, they are a fair target" speech, read on...
Needless to say, after this guild person's monthly subscription runs out, she is not going to renew it. And of course, her boyfriend is not renewing his either. All because of these three incidents. All the guild person wants to do is mine. No PvP, no botting, she just enjoys the heck out of mining, and that's why she subscribed to the game. Losing two players in the game seems a pretty high price for all of us to pay due to one person's actions.
I talked to this certain player last night, and asked why the player was doing such things. The answer I got was "because it's fun to see if I can escape from the station bots". Which, to me is a poor excuse for causing such grief to a relatively low level player. No concern was expressed that the guild person was now leaving the game, no concern was expressed for her feelings.
After talking about this situation in the guild for a while, it was suggested that players need "tags"... in other words, a tag for "I'm doing PvP". Any non-tagged player would be considered a non-combatant and should be left alone by the players who choose to PvP. I'm sure that the penalties for a tagged player killing a non-tagged player should be quite severe. I would imagine, that at some point some of the non-combatant folks would want to put on their tag and go hunting people, while others would never put on a PvP tag.
There are those who play this game, not for the PvP, but for the fun of running around space, exploring, mining, and botting - and could care less about how many player kills they have. There needs to be room in the galaxy for both sides of this question, the ones who could care less about PvP, and the ones who want to blow others out of the sky.
I appreciate your thoughts... Regards to all.
WC
Do I think station camping is bad?
Yes.
Do I think a person leaving the game is bad?
Yes.
Do I think this is anywhere near a valid reason to leave?
HELL NO.
Listen, if you can't handle being killed a few times without having a nervous breakdown, then there is NO video-game for you. None.
You might as well throw your computer out the window.
Yes.
Do I think a person leaving the game is bad?
Yes.
Do I think this is anywhere near a valid reason to leave?
HELL NO.
Listen, if you can't handle being killed a few times without having a nervous breakdown, then there is NO video-game for you. None.
You might as well throw your computer out the window.
Odia is a rather dangerous place to go mining... It may be morally reprehensible to kill new players, but this game is about choice. It's big risk, mining in Odia. Persistent PKers should get an extended bounty, however. One that stays with them for three deaths or something.
Just for the record, it is 'couldn't care less,' not 'could care less.' Think about what you're saying, and you'll find that the former is correct.
Just for the record, it is 'couldn't care less,' not 'could care less.' Think about what you're saying, and you'll find that the former is correct.
I will reply just a bit:
The solution to the problem isnt to make players "tagged" for PvP or non-PvP, its to actually impose a penalty for killing someone inside the no-fire zone.
If EVERY time you killed someone in a no fire zone, you lost a permanant 100 reputation points with that faction, the actions you describe would go away in a very large hurry. stationcamping is something that needs to be dealt with at any level, not just the new player level.
As to this
"-There are those who play this game, not for the PvP, but for the fun of running around space, exploring, mining, and botting - and could care less about how many player kills they have. There needs to be room in the galaxy for both sides of this question, the ones who could care less about PvP, and the ones who want to blow others out of the sky.-"
the place for those players is inside of the nations. While loosing 2 players is undesireable, the developers have stated on many occasions that they do not want a game where you are "SAFE".
There are areas that are SAFER, and players who are not interested in taking part in the higher risk aspects of the game can remain there, for the most part unbothered. Specifically the serco and itani nations, as they are the safest for non-combatant players due to the larger areas and the fact that there are no corporate stations within them.
IMO there have been far too many perfectly good games ruined by the desire to cater to people who feel that just because they are paying for the game, they should be able to do anything they want in the game, no matter what the original design of the game intended. In some ways that mentality has merit, in others, it breaks up the feeling of immersion in the game.
Players running around inveunerable because they dont wish to participate in PvP is rediculous(a common suggestion), and your proposal to provide penalties for killing a player that doesnt want to participate seems almost as silly to me.
Grey space is just that, Grey. Its unclaimed, dangerous, and chaotic. While the stationcamping element of what occured DOES need to be dealt with, the fact that the player was in grey space means that he or she made a concious choice to enter a dangerous area. It's not really any different than your proposed "tags", the choice is just a little less obvious.
I will grant you that there probably needs to be more warnings built into the game about grey space being dangerous however.
The solution to the problem isnt to make players "tagged" for PvP or non-PvP, its to actually impose a penalty for killing someone inside the no-fire zone.
If EVERY time you killed someone in a no fire zone, you lost a permanant 100 reputation points with that faction, the actions you describe would go away in a very large hurry. stationcamping is something that needs to be dealt with at any level, not just the new player level.
As to this
"-There are those who play this game, not for the PvP, but for the fun of running around space, exploring, mining, and botting - and could care less about how many player kills they have. There needs to be room in the galaxy for both sides of this question, the ones who could care less about PvP, and the ones who want to blow others out of the sky.-"
the place for those players is inside of the nations. While loosing 2 players is undesireable, the developers have stated on many occasions that they do not want a game where you are "SAFE".
There are areas that are SAFER, and players who are not interested in taking part in the higher risk aspects of the game can remain there, for the most part unbothered. Specifically the serco and itani nations, as they are the safest for non-combatant players due to the larger areas and the fact that there are no corporate stations within them.
IMO there have been far too many perfectly good games ruined by the desire to cater to people who feel that just because they are paying for the game, they should be able to do anything they want in the game, no matter what the original design of the game intended. In some ways that mentality has merit, in others, it breaks up the feeling of immersion in the game.
Players running around inveunerable because they dont wish to participate in PvP is rediculous(a common suggestion), and your proposal to provide penalties for killing a player that doesnt want to participate seems almost as silly to me.
Grey space is just that, Grey. Its unclaimed, dangerous, and chaotic. While the stationcamping element of what occured DOES need to be dealt with, the fact that the player was in grey space means that he or she made a concious choice to enter a dangerous area. It's not really any different than your proposed "tags", the choice is just a little less obvious.
I will grant you that there probably needs to be more warnings built into the game about grey space being dangerous however.