If you're attacking traders of a given nation, your standing with that nation should drop, regardless of where you are. Possibly it should drop less in some areas than in others, but it doesn't make sense for standing to be completely unaffected.

If you could do it without leaving any witnesses, then you could get away with it. However, in Vendetta getting killed just means you teleport back to home station, where you can immediately report who killed you. The flip side of this, is that since death is only temporary, 'killing' someone is closer to vandalism than murder, so a big drop in standing is probably uncalled for, and accidents are more forgivable.

Mr. Penn, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having viewed it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Welcome to the concept, vital to Vendetta's being what it is, of "Gray Space."

Billy Madison much?
edit: It does fit that response though >.>

edit: It does fit that response though

And that's all that matters.

> Welcome to the concept, vital to Vendetta's being what it is, of "Gray Space."

I'm well aware of Gray Space. Exactly how does pirating causing your faction standing to drop by (for example) a few points if it's currently better than neutral invalidate the concept of Gray Space?

Sam.

You again made no sense, sorry to agree with lecter, but basically police dont monitor grey space, like they still don't monitor things that are out of their jurisdiction (well, sometimes they do) but yeah, grey space is not monitored by the law, so.

[edit]

OK, so you want a RP reason, or something? Cos insta-teleport at death makes no sense, you could still die, so maybe when you die a clone is remade of you at yer home station, minus the memory of death, because if you remember that bit, yer clone goes crazy n dies, you get told about it, cos its easier for the brain to accept it that way.

My opinion on FF removal is, well, you can remove it yourself...

sorry to agree with lecter, but

Six of my favorite words.

Oh yeah, and make me grey already!

My impression is that friendly fire removal would be a sort of limited endeavor. Remove it for people above a certain combat level. Turn it on for groups, etc.
Other than that, I support it.

Edit: Does this mean that PC capital ships are NOT the next big thing, as I had suspected?

PC Capital ships are red herrings

Turn it on for groups

Uh, no dice asshat. You don't get to help your buddy out by pouring a shitton of flares into him and his opponent, and cause no damage to him.

Oops, typo. Turn it on for groups means turn on friendly fire protection. Not friendly fire.

No, I understand what you meant. What I'm telling you is that you don't get to decide that players X, Y, and Z all suddenly cannot harm eachother just because they're grouped.

When players A and B are ganking the shit out of player X in a tight furball, if Y and Z come along and fire a mess of flares into that furball, A, B, and X should all take equal damage (assuming all are hit equally, which would of course almost never happen), even if X, Y, and Z are all in the same group.

Last I checked, explosions already worked like that...

If they don't, forgive me. I'm not exactly what you would call a PvPer.

Last I checked, explosions already worked like that...

Interesting path this thread likes to go.

Um, FF in all aspects of VO sounds good in terms of realism. Although, one aspect should change while in groups and that is proximities of rockets/missiles/mines and what triggers them.

For example, Player A and B are in a group chasing after Player C and D. Player A fires rockets at Player C but Player B is within the proximity range of the rockets. Player A fires the rockets but they fly past Player B without exploding and head straight toward Player C's direction.

The jist is that all proximity triggers are negated for grouped members. This can be explained with a RP scenario akin to your on board ship computer registering all grouped pilots and sets proximity triggers to not trigger when a grouped player ship is in proximity range. But if the rockets detonate and your group pilot is in blast range, they will take damage.

I agree, and take it a step further. If you screw up, and actually hit the target dead on with the projectile, they should take partial damage (to reflect that, while the device may not have detonated, a direct hit by a high-velocity projectile would still do some damage to whatever it strikes)

For instance, if you shoot towards your wingman accidentally, with a guided proximity missile, and said missile has IFF capabilities, it will not detonate and will harmless pass by, however, that will not stop it from impacting your wingman's vessel, if he does not maneuver quickly enough to avoid it, and could still do some serious damage to your wingman's vessel.

Are (rocket rams aside) most of the explosive projectiles in VO really (a) that high velocity and (b) that high in mass?

Honestly, though, from a gameplay standpoint I think if your rocket or missile impacts on a group-member's hull, it should just explode and do full on normal damage to him. I like the "no prox detonation from group members due to IFF" idea, tho.

I see no reason why flares and jacks should have friendly fire protection. There is, however, an argument for energy weapons. If, for instance, you told the members of your group the exact frequency and phase of your energy pulses, they might modulate an energy field at the same frequency but pi-shifted phase to cancel (or at least lessen) your damage to them. Since screamers are part energy, I could by having friendly fire protect in full, or at least in part, damage from screamers.

Do I support group friendly fire? Not for any group in which there's a member higher than Combat 5, but is there a sensible explanation for why it could be there? Perhaps.

I'll generally agree with those points, though I still think groups shouldn't provide immunity from weapons fire of any kind for gameplay reasons.

However, who said Screamer plasma rockets are "part energy"? All we know is that it requires juice to fire the weapon from the launcher.

Regarding strike force levels...

If the Dread Pirate Niki survives levels 1 and 2 of a launched strike force, why would anyone launch level 2 at him in the future? It is already proven that it will be ineffective. Level 1 still makes sense, because the immediate launch is just a matter of pilots being ready. Every level a player achieves beyond the first launch, however, could be recorded. If Niki survives until a level 6 strike force, he should be presented with one in place of a level 2-5 the next time he incurs the wrath of the faction in question.

In this way, strike forces would be tailored to the size of the threat. Even if he earns his faction back, I don't see the authorities forgetting how capable he is of defeating them.