Forums » Suggestions
As per Inc’s request here and here, I am starting this thread.
The problem:
There are three primary issues players run into. The first being the PCB and Rep modules can be fired at unsuspecting players to attempt to trick the victim into fire in the NFZ. With the PCB blaster, the victim has a self defense flag, but if they if they miss their attacker and hit something else, they themselves end up with a 15 minute temporarily kill on sight flag.
The second is with the Repair module, the victim gets zero self defense flag. VO is a twitch based combat game, and when faced with incoming purple fire, many players will fire back after getting hit. Even though the hit flash is green. If they hit the rep module shooter, the rep shooter now gains a 15 minute self defense flag on the victim AND the victim violates the NFZ.
The third issue is when an attacker sinks into a victim’s capship dock while hate/kos. The strike force attempt to shoot the attacker, which deshields and kills a capital ship with limited penalties to the attacker. The victim can’t defend this kind of attack because if they attempt to shooter the attacker, they risk shooting the strike force as well. If the victim shoots the strike force, the victim also becomes temporarily kill on sight with the station. This means they can lose their capital ship even faster. The victim also risks losing permanent standing.
The victim's only defense is to use repair modules to repair the capital ship, but normally the victim can’t keep up with the damage being done.
The Solution:
Make nothing shoot in the no fire zone. This is the solution non of us want, but it seems to be the only one that can be implemented easily with the least resources expended. Mines already can’t be dropped in the NFZ, so this is the most obvious path to fixing most of these issues.
The problem:
There are three primary issues players run into. The first being the PCB and Rep modules can be fired at unsuspecting players to attempt to trick the victim into fire in the NFZ. With the PCB blaster, the victim has a self defense flag, but if they if they miss their attacker and hit something else, they themselves end up with a 15 minute temporarily kill on sight flag.
The second is with the Repair module, the victim gets zero self defense flag. VO is a twitch based combat game, and when faced with incoming purple fire, many players will fire back after getting hit. Even though the hit flash is green. If they hit the rep module shooter, the rep shooter now gains a 15 minute self defense flag on the victim AND the victim violates the NFZ.
The third issue is when an attacker sinks into a victim’s capship dock while hate/kos. The strike force attempt to shoot the attacker, which deshields and kills a capital ship with limited penalties to the attacker. The victim can’t defend this kind of attack because if they attempt to shooter the attacker, they risk shooting the strike force as well. If the victim shoots the strike force, the victim also becomes temporarily kill on sight with the station. This means they can lose their capital ship even faster. The victim also risks losing permanent standing.
The victim's only defense is to use repair modules to repair the capital ship, but normally the victim can’t keep up with the damage being done.
The Solution:
Make nothing shoot in the no fire zone. This is the solution non of us want, but it seems to be the only one that can be implemented easily with the least resources expended. Mines already can’t be dropped in the NFZ, so this is the most obvious path to fixing most of these issues.
I think the essential element of risk in this game demands the players be given the ability to misbehave. There can be consequences for such actions, but the ability should remain.
I think one of the most interesting parts of this game is that you CAN be hunted down and killed anywhere. Making magical safe zones, I think is fundamentally against the spirit of 'no safe places' and would be detrimental to the risk aspect of the game to a degree that would outweigh any hypothetical benefits.
The issue with SF abuse can be I think solved (assuming it is developmentally feasible) by my suggestion here https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/37544
The main issue I thought with the mines was that they tend to make the AI do stupid or annoying stuff. Most notably people setting up L mine nets around the docks to harvest LENB's. The only other issue with dropping mines inside NFZ's that I see is that players inevitably get caught in the L mine net, with no way to defend themself. Automatic, certain death with no useful player input possible I think is not in keeping with the spirit of 'no safe places' and crosses a line into 'this is broken' territory.
I think one of the most interesting parts of this game is that you CAN be hunted down and killed anywhere. Making magical safe zones, I think is fundamentally against the spirit of 'no safe places' and would be detrimental to the risk aspect of the game to a degree that would outweigh any hypothetical benefits.
The issue with SF abuse can be I think solved (assuming it is developmentally feasible) by my suggestion here https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/37544
The main issue I thought with the mines was that they tend to make the AI do stupid or annoying stuff. Most notably people setting up L mine nets around the docks to harvest LENB's. The only other issue with dropping mines inside NFZ's that I see is that players inevitably get caught in the L mine net, with no way to defend themself. Automatic, certain death with no useful player input possible I think is not in keeping with the spirit of 'no safe places' and crosses a line into 'this is broken' territory.
I agree with look... no hands on this, I like shooting in the nfz I like the risk it has, the suggestion look... no hands as linked is a fine one, also telling me to not fire in the nfz is like telling a fish to breathe out side of water, it just doesn't work. I'm willing to take a faction hit to shoot someone in the nfz. If no one else doesn't have what it takes then not my problem.
We could think about this in a different way..
Basically, one could consider that Nation-sanctioned weapons might have Nation-based "remote safeties" placed on them, which could be engaged by NFZs and the like. This would automatically disable the vast majority of weapons.
However, alternative weapons might be manufactured without said safeties (or with the ability to manually turn your weapons back-on), by pirates and other players outside of Nation control, and sold to the highest bidder, including would-be assassins.
There could be risks about getting these kinds of weapons across a Nation border (like being scanned, goes to my prior "smuggling mechanic" discussions on here, from years back, obviously still not implemented), and if one was found to be carrying or using them, they might incur a very unpleasant KoS status (like "a linear-month or a game-time week, whichever is longer"), with no option to buy your way out of it.
The "gradient of safety" could be increasingly challenging to bring such a weapon deeper into Nation space, with increasingly numbers of scans as you hit Capitol systems and the like, furthering the protection of relative newbie sectors and areas that are "robustly lawful".
But, grayspace stations might not bother to ever scan for such things, or intentionally not scan (Corvus).
In this way, some element of "no safe place" is preserved.. there remains the possibility of being ganked anywhere, anytime. But the relative challenge of doing that is increased, and there are gameplay tuneables for adjusting that level of challenge (scanning NPC patrols, scanning turret-bots in major Nation wormholes, etc).
It could be coupled with gameplay that specifically rewards those who are willing to really "run the gambit" on this kind of thing.. like rare, high-level assassination missions to take out dignitaries deep in Nation space, for instance.
But, the average newbie would be more protected, most of the time. The average situation would be less complex to explain (weapons vs PCBs vs repair-guns), and the average capship would be able to take refuge in most NFZs, most of the time.
If the components to manufacture the "illegal" weapons were sufficiently scarce, then pirates probably wouldn't carry them all the time.. they die too much; they would save them for special cases.
This is just one of various solutions that's been knocking around my brain for like 15+ years. Anyway, it's the one that comes to mind right now.
Basically, one could consider that Nation-sanctioned weapons might have Nation-based "remote safeties" placed on them, which could be engaged by NFZs and the like. This would automatically disable the vast majority of weapons.
However, alternative weapons might be manufactured without said safeties (or with the ability to manually turn your weapons back-on), by pirates and other players outside of Nation control, and sold to the highest bidder, including would-be assassins.
There could be risks about getting these kinds of weapons across a Nation border (like being scanned, goes to my prior "smuggling mechanic" discussions on here, from years back, obviously still not implemented), and if one was found to be carrying or using them, they might incur a very unpleasant KoS status (like "a linear-month or a game-time week, whichever is longer"), with no option to buy your way out of it.
The "gradient of safety" could be increasingly challenging to bring such a weapon deeper into Nation space, with increasingly numbers of scans as you hit Capitol systems and the like, furthering the protection of relative newbie sectors and areas that are "robustly lawful".
But, grayspace stations might not bother to ever scan for such things, or intentionally not scan (Corvus).
In this way, some element of "no safe place" is preserved.. there remains the possibility of being ganked anywhere, anytime. But the relative challenge of doing that is increased, and there are gameplay tuneables for adjusting that level of challenge (scanning NPC patrols, scanning turret-bots in major Nation wormholes, etc).
It could be coupled with gameplay that specifically rewards those who are willing to really "run the gambit" on this kind of thing.. like rare, high-level assassination missions to take out dignitaries deep in Nation space, for instance.
But, the average newbie would be more protected, most of the time. The average situation would be less complex to explain (weapons vs PCBs vs repair-guns), and the average capship would be able to take refuge in most NFZs, most of the time.
If the components to manufacture the "illegal" weapons were sufficiently scarce, then pirates probably wouldn't carry them all the time.. they die too much; they would save them for special cases.
This is just one of various solutions that's been knocking around my brain for like 15+ years. Anyway, it's the one that comes to mind right now.
Inc,
That would be a very cool variant. The concept of illegal weapons is very appealing to me. More things to manu means more ships flying around, and if the new weapons require special items, then there is more chances for people to make credits via player to player transactions. Everything snowballs from there.
Sneaking around with weapons and risking long game time kos's to get a kill is super cool. This could add some very fun challenges.
I can already envision nationalist guilds handing out special weapons for special ops in enemy territory.
Huge +1 to this variant
That would be a very cool variant. The concept of illegal weapons is very appealing to me. More things to manu means more ships flying around, and if the new weapons require special items, then there is more chances for people to make credits via player to player transactions. Everything snowballs from there.
Sneaking around with weapons and risking long game time kos's to get a kill is super cool. This could add some very fun challenges.
I can already envision nationalist guilds handing out special weapons for special ops in enemy territory.
Huge +1 to this variant
I'm thinking more strongly about doing this. I'm in the middle of reworking the game tutorials, and training people about the functionality of the NFZ has always been a massive hassle.
It would be a lot easier to simply have weapons not work, except for potentially some unusual and rare weapons.
It would be a lot easier to simply have weapons not work, except for potentially some unusual and rare weapons.
Well can you keep/make corvus a special case? We need some place where we can still misbehave...
"the average capship would be able to take refuge in most NFZs, most of the time"
That is a large part of what I don't like in a practical sense about the idea. I think the amount of safety in the game is higher then I'd personally like.
I do understand that a lot of people do not understand the functionality of the NFZ. I don't precisely know what to do about it at this time. Maybe some bots in the training sector that violate the NFZ, attacking new players with 1 damage weapons, then get killed by the strike force? It'd have to only happen once per character, or else it would get annoying though.
That is a large part of what I don't like in a practical sense about the idea. I think the amount of safety in the game is higher then I'd personally like.
I do understand that a lot of people do not understand the functionality of the NFZ. I don't precisely know what to do about it at this time. Maybe some bots in the training sector that violate the NFZ, attacking new players with 1 damage weapons, then get killed by the strike force? It'd have to only happen once per character, or else it would get annoying though.
Well can you keep/make corvus a special case? We need some place where we can still misbehave...
I'll think about that. I want to make it as consistent as possible, to avoid the training problem. But Corvus alone might be a reasonable special-case. Or, perhaps remove NFZs there entirely.
That is a large part of what I don't like in a practical sense about the idea. I think the amount of safety in the game is higher then I'd personally like.
Does it really matter all that much? I mean, when we're talking about this, it's mainly cases that led to the "weapons disabled in NFZ" suggestion in the first place: People hiding in capship docking bays to exploit SF attacks, or people station-camping launch bays. Neither are particular "good" for the game. Camping at the NFZ border? Go nuts.
Similarly, my comment about capships being able to take refuge in most NFZs, most of the time, might be a bit of an oversimplification? You would already be able to bomb a capship from outside the NFZ. The advent of more torpedo type weapons would make this more probable, not less. I don't currently plan to make all weapons-fire magically disappear or explode when it enters a NFZ.. I'm just preventing shooting within the zone. So, for a really large ship, the overall margin of safety is "better" but still not exactly "safe".
I do understand that a lot of people do not understand the functionality of the NFZ. I don't precisely know what to do about it at this time. Maybe some bots in the training sector that violate the NFZ, attacking new players with 1 damage weapons, then get killed by the strike force?
Unfortunately, this kind of training system is near-useless in the common-case scenarios for onboarding new players. I really need a simple concept, like "No one can shoot in a NFZ". That basically "teaches itself".
We have a strong interest from international, non-English-speaking players (hence the push for Localization); plus a substantial percentage of new players are transitional people, going from midcore "mobile" type games, to trying their first hardcore PC title.. it's a lot to take in, and it's a complex game to begin with. Things like the basics of who-can-shoot-whom around stations should be relatively simple to convey.
This is also not a "mobile market" issue: there's been a generational shift in all gamers, because the younger players often didn't grow up playing complex, hardcore titles. It's been tough all-around in the MMORPG world, at least in the West: EVE has been struggling to retain new players as well as existing ones, WoW has had some prominent challenges, etc. Their traditional player-bases are starting to "age out" in various ways.. WoW's strongest recent market play has been for "nostalgia" (the "Vanilla" and "Classic" type launches).
So, it's important to do what we can to be "accessible" to newer generations of 20-somethings who think "MMORPG" means "Animal Crossing", and have never encountered a game like this.
That doesn't mean fundamentally sacrificing what makes VO.. VO. But, simplifying NFZs would reduce the text-wall burden.
Ultimately, we could have another discussion later about whether outlying stations should have NFZs at all, because that's still easier to explain to someone conceptually, compared to the current situation.
I'll think about that. I want to make it as consistent as possible, to avoid the training problem. But Corvus alone might be a reasonable special-case. Or, perhaps remove NFZs there entirely.
That is a large part of what I don't like in a practical sense about the idea. I think the amount of safety in the game is higher then I'd personally like.
Does it really matter all that much? I mean, when we're talking about this, it's mainly cases that led to the "weapons disabled in NFZ" suggestion in the first place: People hiding in capship docking bays to exploit SF attacks, or people station-camping launch bays. Neither are particular "good" for the game. Camping at the NFZ border? Go nuts.
Similarly, my comment about capships being able to take refuge in most NFZs, most of the time, might be a bit of an oversimplification? You would already be able to bomb a capship from outside the NFZ. The advent of more torpedo type weapons would make this more probable, not less. I don't currently plan to make all weapons-fire magically disappear or explode when it enters a NFZ.. I'm just preventing shooting within the zone. So, for a really large ship, the overall margin of safety is "better" but still not exactly "safe".
I do understand that a lot of people do not understand the functionality of the NFZ. I don't precisely know what to do about it at this time. Maybe some bots in the training sector that violate the NFZ, attacking new players with 1 damage weapons, then get killed by the strike force?
Unfortunately, this kind of training system is near-useless in the common-case scenarios for onboarding new players. I really need a simple concept, like "No one can shoot in a NFZ". That basically "teaches itself".
We have a strong interest from international, non-English-speaking players (hence the push for Localization); plus a substantial percentage of new players are transitional people, going from midcore "mobile" type games, to trying their first hardcore PC title.. it's a lot to take in, and it's a complex game to begin with. Things like the basics of who-can-shoot-whom around stations should be relatively simple to convey.
This is also not a "mobile market" issue: there's been a generational shift in all gamers, because the younger players often didn't grow up playing complex, hardcore titles. It's been tough all-around in the MMORPG world, at least in the West: EVE has been struggling to retain new players as well as existing ones, WoW has had some prominent challenges, etc. Their traditional player-bases are starting to "age out" in various ways.. WoW's strongest recent market play has been for "nostalgia" (the "Vanilla" and "Classic" type launches).
So, it's important to do what we can to be "accessible" to newer generations of 20-somethings who think "MMORPG" means "Animal Crossing", and have never encountered a game like this.
That doesn't mean fundamentally sacrificing what makes VO.. VO. But, simplifying NFZs would reduce the text-wall burden.
Ultimately, we could have another discussion later about whether outlying stations should have NFZs at all, because that's still easier to explain to someone conceptually, compared to the current situation.
"The advent of more torpedo type weapons would make this more probable, not less."
That would be cool to see. Is there any chance that both the NFZ changes and some new things to attack hiding capitol ships with could be rolled out together? What I worry about is a large scale change in the overall risk level of the game, especially in gray space.
I was unaware of the change in market towards simpler games requiring less analytical thinking. I really enjoy poking at stuff to see what happens and learning. Having the answers in advance kinda takes a lot of the fun out of it for me. I find that to be unhappy news, as it likely means less new games that I'll find really engaging.
That would be cool to see. Is there any chance that both the NFZ changes and some new things to attack hiding capitol ships with could be rolled out together? What I worry about is a large scale change in the overall risk level of the game, especially in gray space.
I was unaware of the change in market towards simpler games requiring less analytical thinking. I really enjoy poking at stuff to see what happens and learning. Having the answers in advance kinda takes a lot of the fun out of it for me. I find that to be unhappy news, as it likely means less new games that I'll find really engaging.
Is there any chance that both the NFZ changes and some new things to attack hiding capitol ships with could be rolled out together?
Well, can't you use an Avalon to do this already? Or maybe even Swarms? The NFZ isn't very large. As far as I know, people simply haven't being doing this purely because they didn't need to.
What I worry about is a large scale change in the overall risk level of the game, especially in gray space.
What specific situations are you concerned about? Can you give me some examples?
Well, can't you use an Avalon to do this already? Or maybe even Swarms? The NFZ isn't very large. As far as I know, people simply haven't being doing this purely because they didn't need to.
What I worry about is a large scale change in the overall risk level of the game, especially in gray space.
What specific situations are you concerned about? Can you give me some examples?
Some stations have VERY large NFZ's I forget which at this time, maybe WAF can name them though.
Avalons are cool and all, but it would be nice to see more weapons that fill a similar niche to give us variety. For example some kind of long range plasma cannon, maybe an L-port version of the cap gauss, which I think the behemoth heavies already use.
As for specific situations.
I'm thinking of like when the border turrets were introduced, with the intent of adding content to draw people into grey space later. This created, at least for a time a situation where many traders simply stuck to nation space, as they were unable to get profits in grey space that were higher enough to justify the risk. After a while, the new content was added, but there was pretty good period between the two.
That's the general kind of thing I'm worried about, a temporary imbalance, which given how limited your development resources are, might well last longer then you intend.
That is not meant as a dig at you. I understand that you are doing all you can and that unexpected fires come up that require your immediate attention.
The risk level in grey space specifically has remained as far as I can tell, largely static over the years. Sure there are unrats, but most storms are not chock full of high level bots anymore, so it balances out.
I may well be worrying over nothing. I am after all actually a rather cautious individual, and prone to look first at 'how badly can this go wrong'.
Avalons are cool and all, but it would be nice to see more weapons that fill a similar niche to give us variety. For example some kind of long range plasma cannon, maybe an L-port version of the cap gauss, which I think the behemoth heavies already use.
As for specific situations.
I'm thinking of like when the border turrets were introduced, with the intent of adding content to draw people into grey space later. This created, at least for a time a situation where many traders simply stuck to nation space, as they were unable to get profits in grey space that were higher enough to justify the risk. After a while, the new content was added, but there was pretty good period between the two.
That's the general kind of thing I'm worried about, a temporary imbalance, which given how limited your development resources are, might well last longer then you intend.
That is not meant as a dig at you. I understand that you are doing all you can and that unexpected fires come up that require your immediate attention.
The risk level in grey space specifically has remained as far as I can tell, largely static over the years. Sure there are unrats, but most storms are not chock full of high level bots anymore, so it balances out.
I may well be worrying over nothing. I am after all actually a rather cautious individual, and prone to look first at 'how badly can this go wrong'.
That's the general kind of thing I'm worried about, a temporary imbalance, which given how limited your development resources are, might well last longer then you intend.
No, I get that, and I don't take offense or anything. I'm just asking for more specific examples of cases that you're worried about. But, from the sounds of it, you have more of a generalized, theoretical concern here, as opposed to anything specific?
People are pretty adaptive, I suspect that tactics will evolve pretty quickly, and it's certainly possible to mitigate NFZs that are excessively large. I suspect they're calculated automatically by station-size, but I honestly don't remember.
While making some change, and then being derailed on following-through on "finishing" the implementation, is certainly a possibility.. it's also a reality that the most pragmatic feedback will come from testing the actual change itself.
No, I get that, and I don't take offense or anything. I'm just asking for more specific examples of cases that you're worried about. But, from the sounds of it, you have more of a generalized, theoretical concern here, as opposed to anything specific?
People are pretty adaptive, I suspect that tactics will evolve pretty quickly, and it's certainly possible to mitigate NFZs that are excessively large. I suspect they're calculated automatically by station-size, but I honestly don't remember.
While making some change, and then being derailed on following-through on "finishing" the implementation, is certainly a possibility.. it's also a reality that the most pragmatic feedback will come from testing the actual change itself.
Such that the entire station sector is an NFZ.
To be clear, that isn't what I'm looking at doing. We're just looking at making the existing NFZ, around stations, into a region where weapons don't work (aside from, perhaps, some specialty smuggled items).
It should be a pretty easy idea to convey, because I can simply explain when they cross an NFZ boundary; instead of making it tutorial-driven, and having to explain different response-cases.
To be clear, that isn't what I'm looking at doing. We're just looking at making the existing NFZ, around stations, into a region where weapons don't work (aside from, perhaps, some specialty smuggled items).
It should be a pretty easy idea to convey, because I can simply explain when they cross an NFZ boundary; instead of making it tutorial-driven, and having to explain different response-cases.
Some stations have VERY large NFZ's I forget which at this time, maybe WAF can name them though.
I've got some real anecdotal evidence(and lazy) here, as i don't have a ton of time to measure all the sizes. But my feeling is that the smaller the station the larger diameter of the nfz. Corvus stations all seem to have very small NFZs in comparison ot all other factions.
I can't give really good data until i know for sure about something: Is the NFZ a sphere or does it follow the contour of the station? I get two different radius measurements usually when i measure 90° away from my first measurement. So that would suggest not a sphere, but my center could be wrong.
A few quick measurements(distance from center):
Sedina L-2: ~ 2500/2800m
Sedina K-13: ~ 2000m
Sedina D-14: ~ 950m
Dau L-10: ~ 2100m
Dau G-2: ~ 2700m/3100m
Itan J-11: ~ 2452m/2243m
I've got some real anecdotal evidence(and lazy) here, as i don't have a ton of time to measure all the sizes. But my feeling is that the smaller the station the larger diameter of the nfz. Corvus stations all seem to have very small NFZs in comparison ot all other factions.
I can't give really good data until i know for sure about something: Is the NFZ a sphere or does it follow the contour of the station? I get two different radius measurements usually when i measure 90° away from my first measurement. So that would suggest not a sphere, but my center could be wrong.
A few quick measurements(distance from center):
Sedina L-2: ~ 2500/2800m
Sedina K-13: ~ 2000m
Sedina D-14: ~ 950m
Dau L-10: ~ 2100m
Dau G-2: ~ 2700m/3100m
Itan J-11: ~ 2452m/2243m
Yeah I just thought it would do away with a lot of other things that have to be managed. Like people firing from outside of the NFZ with certain weapons and that leaves new players open to provocation outside the NFZ that can get them TKOS'd easily.
Okay, but to be clear, again, that is a different issue that I was not trying to address.
My goal here has been to reduce the "hiding in player capship docking bays" issue, and mitigate some other challenges around people firing too easily or haphazardly within NFZs. Also, simplifying the explanation of the nature of NFZs.
The smuggled weapon idea is really cool but it's useless if we can fire in sector from outside the NFZ anyway.
Not really, there are many alternatives to what you suggest. For instance, anyone who fires within a station sector could immediately have a TempKoS-exclusion flag placed on them, for a minimum of some fixed period of time + however long they're in the sector (without dying/respawning). Then attacks on that individual would no longer provoke TempKoS (basically giving "anyone" self-defense against those who fired in a station sector). People could still try to work in teams to provoke TempKoS (one person actually firing, the other getting the newbie to shoot at them), but it would be a bit more involved.
But that's just one random idea, off the top of my head. There are a lot of different potential solutions, with varied tradeoffs and degrees of mitigation. Just because it's simplest to "completely prevent PvP" (which we could do, easily) doesn't mean that we should.
The remaining suggestions/ideas assume the entire sector is NFZ.
The problem with making the entire sector into a zero-weapon zone is that sectors are a massive area of space, and the intention is to use more of sector space to do more interesting things (as opposed to, say, having one station sitting in it, and a few asteroids).
Similarly, removing all weapons fire would remove any possibility of botting in a station sector, training in a station sector (anywhere at all), or possible future gameplay, like defending a station from a Hive incursion, or even PvP interaction (like attempted conquest of a station).
We do have a lot of other concepts, like Guarded space and so on, and we can certainly alter and improve the nature of factional responses to different scenarios (and their longevity), as well as Strike Forces and such, without having to resort to "no one can ever shoot".
Okay, but to be clear, again, that is a different issue that I was not trying to address.
My goal here has been to reduce the "hiding in player capship docking bays" issue, and mitigate some other challenges around people firing too easily or haphazardly within NFZs. Also, simplifying the explanation of the nature of NFZs.
The smuggled weapon idea is really cool but it's useless if we can fire in sector from outside the NFZ anyway.
Not really, there are many alternatives to what you suggest. For instance, anyone who fires within a station sector could immediately have a TempKoS-exclusion flag placed on them, for a minimum of some fixed period of time + however long they're in the sector (without dying/respawning). Then attacks on that individual would no longer provoke TempKoS (basically giving "anyone" self-defense against those who fired in a station sector). People could still try to work in teams to provoke TempKoS (one person actually firing, the other getting the newbie to shoot at them), but it would be a bit more involved.
But that's just one random idea, off the top of my head. There are a lot of different potential solutions, with varied tradeoffs and degrees of mitigation. Just because it's simplest to "completely prevent PvP" (which we could do, easily) doesn't mean that we should.
The remaining suggestions/ideas assume the entire sector is NFZ.
The problem with making the entire sector into a zero-weapon zone is that sectors are a massive area of space, and the intention is to use more of sector space to do more interesting things (as opposed to, say, having one station sitting in it, and a few asteroids).
Similarly, removing all weapons fire would remove any possibility of botting in a station sector, training in a station sector (anywhere at all), or possible future gameplay, like defending a station from a Hive incursion, or even PvP interaction (like attempted conquest of a station).
We do have a lot of other concepts, like Guarded space and so on, and we can certainly alter and improve the nature of factional responses to different scenarios (and their longevity), as well as Strike Forces and such, without having to resort to "no one can ever shoot".
This is a stupid catch all solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
-1
we can revisit this when the development team has the ability to resolve it properly.
we can revisit this when the development team has the ability to resolve it properly.
incarnate.. do the people your chatting with even play? a lot of what is being discussed here I have not seen as an issue. It's a waste of time to sit in a capship at an nfz. And, I could do it, if it would be worth while.
biretak,
Yes it happens. Someone made a bug report just last month about the issue. You can read about it here: https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/2/37523
Yes it happens. Someone made a bug report just last month about the issue. You can read about it here: https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/2/37523