Forums » Suggestions

On the Removal of Friendly Fire: Request for Comment

Apr 30, 2007 yodaofborg link
You want him to speed up strikeforce spawns? Great!

/me goes to plot filling up a sector with 13371337 SF bots, muhahaha!

I kinda like the sound of the rest thought, not too care bare-ish, but with some protection for newblets. Hmm, I guess i'll have more to say on it when the system is in place, I can already imagine some issues, but maybe thats just my imagination.

The unaligned thing sounds ok also. My only thought right now is maybe concerning the newby sector and newby killers, would it be possible to generate a mission if an experienced player kills a newb in the newb sector? Shows up for the faction of the dead newb, something like *Roda Slane is at it again, please help remove him from *System/sector** which works simaler to the old bounty system (so you can message the marshals, and get his last known location in the past 5 minutes), when successful(Roda Slane is destroyed) the player who got the kill gets a nice cash reward (obviously not too high) maybe a lil xp, and a *Defender* badge/marker which could maybe be expanded on to offer stuff to people who defend the newbs regularly. This mission would disapear from the station if the attacker (Roda Slane in this example) left the nation's space of his own free will, and nobody has the mission active. Just a thought, i'll wait till I see it in action before I comment further.
Apr 30, 2007 smittens link
Looks good so far Inc (only about half way through, and I suppose my comment may be addressed later, but I scanned and didn't see anything on it), my only concern is, as you briefly mentioned, the "Forgive?" option page. Making the menu different is a good start, but IMO there should be absolutely no way to "accidentally" misread or misuse this. IE, the person you're forgiving's name should be in big bright letters, and there should be NO hotkeys such as enter!

(edit) You've probably already thought of those sorts of things...but still...
Apr 30, 2007 moldyman link
"* Forgiveness of Friendly Kills

Due to the combative nature of VO, the existence of high splash-damage weapons and the inevitability of accidents, a "forgiveness" system should be created to prevent the above negative repercussions stemming from accidental scenarios. When a character is destroyed by a friendly in Monitored or Guarded space, and sent back to their home station, before they get a "buy back last ship" pop up, they should get a special popup asking if they believe their death was an accident, and if they would like to forgive the character who killed them. This pop-up should be graphically unique enough that it gets attention and is not mistaken for the "ship buyback" interface.. for instance, a bright red-and-clear 45-degree striped background. It should look unlike other menus, and perhaps only be used for certain "high importance" questions like this."
Apr 30, 2007 thurisaz link
...just a thought; make sure there's a chat box in the UI any time you give an option to "Forgive?" !
Apr 30, 2007 genka link
As best as I can tell, the only problem here is that the thread is way too long for any sane person to read, so all you're getting is crazy-talk from crazy people.
Apr 30, 2007 Ghost link
Inc, if you're worried about experienced players flying into newbie zones and griefing them, why not just beef up nation space wormhole defences? If you're throwing in station turrets, you could throw in several turrets around wh's from grey to nation space in order to keep those who might come in to grief out. Not to mention, keep those who choose to grief in until the strike force can deal with them. Nation space has needed some defensive buffs for a long time anyhow. Of course this doesn't solve the problem of players creating new accounts to terrorize new players, but it does take one scenario out. You could just adopt a strict, no griefing new players, policy and apply consequences such as temporary game suspensions.
Apr 30, 2007 mr_spuck link
yah .. something like beam turrets placed around holes in such way that there's say .. a 50% chance of them landing at least one hit would be nifty.

With the current trade missions moving the cargo on getting hated would make getting corvus standing up fun! ;)
Apr 30, 2007 Finster link
Personally, I like all that you suggested and I know you are trying to protect new players and get them up to speed on playing the game, BUT...

New players hardly even want to do the tutorials as they are now. With these new ideas they will have three levels of tutorials to complete. (I can hear the bitching already!) "Why do I have to do xx mission aren't there any fun missions? blah blah blah"

If you do implement this plan I think you should also limit channel access to only channel 1 until they finish the "Nation Space" missions and can fly anywhere. That way people who want to help can monitor channel 1 and answer questions and people who don't can just leave channel 1.

Sorry to seem negative, but as soon as I read the plan this jumped in my head...
Apr 30, 2007 FatStrat85 link
I've always liked the idea of being able to power down your weapons. It would take a few seconds (maybe 5 or 10?) to power them up and other players would be able to see that on their radar.

You should also be able to put weapons into a sparring mode, where your shots don't do any damage, but the computer keeps track of what the damage would have been, so you can see who won. This would allow for friendly PvP without ship loss. Then you could jack up the prices of ships and equipment. Death and real PvP combat would then have real meaning in VO.
Apr 30, 2007 samuel.penn link
Interesting ideas.

To expand on what Roda was saying, a griefer doesn't even have to fly into the fire of a newbie. If a newbie sees messages along the lines of "DIE NEWBIE SCUM!!!" and sees a ship firing at them, then, even if the attacker doesn't actually hit the newbie, the newbie will probably fire back and get marked as the aggressor. Hell, most people would probably fire back at that point.

If somebody fires swarms or rockets at you, and you successfully dodge, you can't fire back until they actually hit you unless you want to be marked as the aggressor, which is a bit silly. Maybe an SOS option?

I'd prefer a 'file a complaint' option rather than a 'forgive' option. Also, it shouldn't be limited to immediately after you die - you might want to chat with people and think it over before deciding on whether it was an accident or not.

Will there be limits on where you can set a home station to (e.g., only setting it at places where you are at least neutral, assuming you can dock at Disliked stations)? Would a home station get changed if you have temporary KOS?

I agree that equipment should be confiscated (or at least, 'held') rather than moved. What about bank accounts? People's cash must be being held somewhere, and nation banks (with the ability for players to move cash around) would seem a sensible idea, and would allow a nation to freeze your assets completely, or impose fines.

The idea of weapon platforms at certain wormholes seems like a good idea.

The response of the local defences should vary based on the type of station. A research station at the edge of nation space should give less protection than a capitol or barracks station. Maybe add a capital ship to the major station sectors?
Apr 30, 2007 PsyRa link
On the forgive screen, I would like it to go one step farther.

The big issue with getting killed for people could very well be the ship they are flying, and the equipment they are using or stock they are hauling.

First in the case where this could apply, all items on the ship are no-drop.

Then in the case of an player selecting "don't forgive", I would allow the character "free" replacement of the destroyed ship and all cargo for the player, with the funds coming from the offending players account. This could be explained as re-reimbursement from the local government, and as a fine to the offending player.

This replacement should happen regardless of item availability at their homed station.

Thus a player who hauled an XC half way across the galaxy, doesn't have to deal with the grief of acquiring and hauling a new one.

If the aggression is "forgiven", then normal losses apply, but the equipment is still no-drop.
Apr 30, 2007 Ion link
"You could just adopt a strict, no griefing new players, policy and apply consequences such as temporary game suspensions."

Please, no. While I'm no friend of griefers of the manic kind, I by far prefer to try and resolve in-game issues through in-game mechanisms. Such as those proposed by Inc. here. It does wonders for immersion and roleplay. (My memory still tries to forget when my WoW-playing friend told me that players can be banned for lying about item prices in WoW, even on roleplaying servers! While VO will never, ever take even one step in that direction, I still prefer to cling to the "no magical defenses" line of thought)

Suspensions of players might be practical, but suspension of disbelief is wonderful.
Apr 30, 2007 LeberMac link
I like Roda's idea of "filing a criminal report." If you're killed by someone in a guarded or monitored sector, the default setting is that the report will be filed, and the user has to take action to prevent the report from being filed, kind of like asking them if they wish to press charges.

I agree with moldy that, if you are exiled, the government just keeps your stuff (frozen assets) until you make nice again. In fact, I think if you're permanently exiled, that whatever government should just SELL all your stuff and keep the money for themselves.

I don't agree with JackScream, I think that you should be able to shoot someone in your own group. Just keep your finger off the trigger, soldier!

Making it harder to create "disposable" characters is an important aspect of this that Incarnate brought up. By enforcing a strict mission set in the beginning, I can see how making the disposable characters would be discouraged. You'd first be limited to your sector, then to the system, then to your nation, and only after you pass tougher tests, to the galaxy.

Turrets or floating weapon barges with their own shields would be awesome. I suppose we'll have to stop short of Ion Cannons but, heck new stuff that shoots is always neato.

I like Finster's "limit n00bs to channel 1" idea as well.

I think the point here is to put yourself in the shoes of an annoying newb-killing player, someone who finds loopholes in the rules and exploits them in order to ruin the game for others. Like samuel.penn's example of "tricking" a n00b into firing at you, not "forgiving" their error, and then allowing the game mechanics to promptly banish the poor n00b to grayspace. That would suck.

That's what this is really about. Giving the players what they've wanted for so long (eliminate FF) while at the same time preventing a-holes from ruining the game for new players.
Apr 30, 2007 yodaofborg link
Ok, its like you all did not read Inc's post.

Upon being tricked for the first time, the *aggressor*, is this case a hapless newb, will be informed in detail about what just happened, and told how to not get 2 more strikes, or they will be exiled to grey space, its a three strikes n your out, with a *detailed* explination. The first time a newby gets tricked, should be he last time he will fall for it(unless he is REAlLY dense). I do not agree with making *first time* offenders temp KOS, but maybe make the second time a lot harsher (fines ect). But a report idea could also be abused. Take this example, I fly up to a Serco, and initiate combat, but manage to make them hit me first, and then maybe even let them pwn me, OK, so im not saying i'd do this, but at this point, I could make you KOS for defending yourself. I find that MUCH more abusable than Incarnates suggestion.
Apr 30, 2007 Ghost link
Yes, I think once friendly fire is removed it needs to be removed from everyone, this includes groups and guilds. It forces pilots to pay a little more attention to when they're firing, which I think will make group combat much more interesting. No more flare spamming!
Apr 30, 2007 Roda Slane link
You are designing a complete pk system. While player killing is considered to be the very definition of pvp, the term pk is normally reserved for non consensual combat, and I will apply the term in that context.

I think you should begin by defining a more complete consensual combat system. The current consensual combat system is limited to the /duel command, and only allows two players. I will leave consensual combat issues to another thread.

I have extensive previous experience with both sides of the pk'er/pk'ed relationship in reasonably sophisticated pk systems.

A system will commonly track specific states, often refered to by players as "flags". Programmers can think of these "flags" as bit flags, while sports fans can think of these as referee calls. I say flags in plural, because a sophisticated system may contain many states. examples flags:
Aggressor: Causing damage will trigger an aggressor flag. Exceptions can be allowed for self defense, basically limiting an aggressor flag to the first responsibly party.
Criminal: Violating a local law will cause a criminal flag.
Outlaw: Repeat or serious offenses may result in an outlaw flag, which in turn could effect the the inheritance of other flags.
Defender: killing outlaws or criminals could earn you a special status, that may or may not include special privileges/liabilities.

Some of these flags may be short term flags, canceling themselves within one or more minutes of last occurrence. The aggressor flag is commonly a short term flag, but with the special consideration that it may be extended not only by further occurrence, but possibly also by retaliation from the victim. The aggressor flag may also be considered an exclusive flag, where the victims retaliation does not qualify as an aggression. The criminal flag is sometimes a separate flag, because some systems allow that not all aggressions are criminal, and there may be criminal actions besides aggression. This is in addition to the consideration the aggression and criminal flags may impose separate penalties for the duration of the flag. An aggressor flag may be perfectly legal in a given situation, but still impose a specific penalty such as disallowing the party to leave the system or dock at the local station. Whereas a criminal system might only apply to a factions monitored space, an aggression system might apply across all space. Some note should be taken that not every thing should be handled by a flag system, or even a pk system. Requiring you to power down your turbo drive in order to power your weapons would fall under an over all combat system, and the pk system would simply be subject to the root system (as an example). Some flags may have significantly longer terms, such as the outlaw or defender flags. These flags may represent penalties/rewards, and may be represented as badges/warrants, etc...
Flag systems are almost always broken down into two party systems, where a flags instance is in reference to two specific parties. A third party entering the fray would create completely new sets of flags.
There may also be the issue of observability. Using a repair module on a player that is considered an outlaw in a given faction's space may be considered a criminal flag, but if no third party sees it, should it count?
Flags are a true/false state, and some systems wish to track greater detail, and may implement counters in place of or in addition to the flag system. Recording how many times a player is convicted of a crime, and the last recorded incident, would need more information that a simple flag.

It should also be noted that pk systems register the kill only as the final action to begin processing of penalties. The penalties are generally applied to all offending players. i.e. every player that contributed damage would be subject to penalties. This is to prevent players from forming strike groups with a designated fall guy. e.i. five players all shoot a player to near death, and a single (expendable) pk registers all the kills.

Having an easy to understand system can often be far more important than having a sophisticated system. No system is perfect, and the best systems place a majority of the burden on the player to know what the rules are, and act accordingly. Players are far more sophisticated than any pk system could ever be, but have a far inferior ability of recall. The current faction system is a fine example of a limited feature set that the player base can appropriately account for.

It can also be very important that any system implemented present a minimum of distraction to the playability of the game. In this case, any screen offered to a victim to enforce the penalties, should have a default state, so the victim can quickly clear it and resume play. To make it more convenient to rapid dismissal, assign hot keys, or have the default be the least consequence, so that players can get back to game play in short order.

On a final note: Under no circumstances should a player be allowed to communicate with any other party in game when they are presented with the option to enforce penalties. This will almost always result in some form of extortion, whether it be a demand for an apology, compensation, or bold faced blackmail, and will generally result in a dramatic increase of reported infractions.
Apr 30, 2007 jackscream link
How about a different tack ... unwarranted attacks should result in a high cash penalty. And I mean HIGH ... the greater of 20% of credits or 20 mil. If player has not enough cash to pay fine, restrict them to trade and mining only ships and weapons till fine is paid off.

If you REALLY want to make this 'painful' then the proceeds of the fine (or part of ) go to the victim.

Since death is not a deterrant, hit them where it hurts ... their pockets. Or even XP - drop a level off their license .... now THAT would hurt. All this talk about banishment etc is just crap and nothing more than a hack to get around the problem instead of solving it.

Thats it. Easy. If you want to kill other players, do so, but make sure you are very cashed up or willing to backwards in the game. At a 20% rate, you wouldnt feel like killing noobs after the first few.

Oh, and for those who stockpile goods to circumvent 20% penalty, factor the value of those goods into the overall 'value' of the player. So, when they sell the goods, the creds are confiscated till you pay off your fine.

You can work the faction standing and 'forgive me' ideas on top of this.
Apr 30, 2007 zamzx zik link
That's too extreme. How about a KoS penalty for about a week by nearby nations?
Apr 30, 2007 jackscream link
Well, balance the penalty amounts till they are fair, but if you want to stop killing of friendlies, then you HAVE to do something drastic.

Include an escalation scale into it ... the more you kill the higher the penalty and %, XP etc.

Use the duel type calculation to determine penalty ... the greater the difference in the victim/aggressor levels, the higher the penalty - killing a noob is a greater crime than killing someone on your own level. Killing someone on a higher level may be deemed as 'forgivable' and good luck to them.

Besides, if I got KoS for a week, I would just not log on for a week. Big deal.
Apr 30, 2007 slime73 link
Not everyone with low levels are newbs.