also incentivize players by having concord bounties on high level griefers. this will fuel the bounty hunter class.

Have you somehow missed the issue of "fuckhead drives over your REs and sets them off for ***** and giggles"?
Direct FF is a trivial issue. But player interaction isn't trivial. You missed the second half with the issue.

Friendly fire in an FPS is different from point and click space combat. The abuse is on the side of the victim, not on the attacker.
Yes, the attacker will be kicked. Because otherwise the attacker might use it for griefing.
But when you kick the attacker to prevent griefing, you allow the VICTIM to grief.

Please tell me how you want to avoid that. We are talking about pub matches. About random blueberries in a free to play game with infinite accounts.

There are logical and valid reasons to kill your teammates in the sandbox or even organized play, which actually add depth to the game. That is different for pub matches.


It's already both. Contracts are lobbies, looting is sandbox.

Is that so hard to understand?

Yes, it is. Because that's not a sandbox.

"I want FF always on, but we need to have concord." This is going to be a **** game if that is the case. All you people sound like a bunch of sissy marys. FF should always be on in open world and concord should not exist for mercs. If aren't man enough to go out and face possible death everywhere then go back to your lobby shooters.

To me a sandbox is one that involves interaction on between all facets of the game. Where one part (though separate somehow) affects the other. Case in point, mission running in Eve.

In Eve Online you talk to an NPC agent who gives you missions (from Level 1 to Level 4 IIRC) with highest level being literally in low-sec space and requiring a small gang to finish through. These mission sites are somewhat like a lobby since the agent gives you the bookmark to warp to. But the lobby is not 100% closed to everyone else. Those who are outside of your gang can scan down the mission site if they have the appropriate tools.

If these outsiders manage to scan down your site, then depending on what security system your site is in, they can either attack you or steal the loot from your wrecks. Often times they loot the wrecks because NPC agents ask you to bring back a certain piece of loot like a security key, tags, or even some hostages. If the outsiders take that then they will likely ransom you to pay them or put it up on the local market to make you pay for it anyways. If you're unlucky, they will seize your ship and force you to pay up through the nose if you happen to have a very shiny ship blinged out with modules that are worth more than the ship itself.

I would one day like to see something like this in Legion where players doing solo missions can be interrupted by outsiders in the same fashion. Salvage missions are of particular interest especially since everyone will know what to expect in those sites. If a salvage site can be scanned down by outsiders who aren't part of the contract, this will really add to the sandbox.

We can go one step further and tie that salvage site to a regular battle that occurred. I mentioned this before. Let's say that a regular match concluded about a few minutes earlier and players left behind loot in that area. The battlefield turns into a wreckage or ruined city that is available via the NPC contracts for salvaging operations. Whatever stuff the players left behind ends up becoming fair game for looting to anyone accepting the new contracts. Outsiders who never accepted the contracts can scan down the sites and wreck havoc on those trying to loot the area.

It's either lobby based or sandbox.

CCP can't promote it as both. They need to choose.

And really, what's wrong with Concord showing up GTA style? That'd be funny as hell.

I can already see the feedback loop forming. Corps that run into people's line of fire until they are kicked out of the battle, then stalk them until they have a chance to kill the reverse-griefed person and collect the bounty.

People, you should start thinking your ideas through. This isn't an ideal world. Not even human-run systems are capable of always judging the situation correctly - How do you expect a simple automated system like this to do the job?
How the **** is the game supposed to detect "yes, this guy totally threw himself into his mate's forge gun to create a bounty that he intends to collect!" and differentiate it from "this guy has been running around with a forge gun, and shooting his mates in the back whenever they were focused on an enemy"?

CCP has two options - Find a magical way to solve the reverse griefing issue or disable friendly fire entirely in pub games.
I would support the former, but the latter is far more rational.

I can already see the feedback loop forming. Corps that run into people's line of fire until they are kicked out of the battle, then stalk them until they have a chance to kill the reverse-griefed person and collect the bounty.

People, you should start thinking your ideas through. This isn't an ideal world. Not even human-run systems are capable of always judging the situation correctly - How do you expect a simple automated system like this to do the job?
How the **** is the game supposed to detect "yes, this guy totally threw himself into his mate's forge gun to create a bounty that he intends to collect!" and differentiate it from "this guy has been running around with a forge gun, and shooting his mates in the back whenever they were focused on an enemy"?

CCP has two options - Find a magical way to solve the reverse griefing issue or disable friendly fire entirely in pub games.
I would support the former, but the latter is far more rational.

But as people keep saying, Legion/Dust isnt EVE, the mechanics differ and accidental TK`s will happen. Giving the team mates the power to judge it foul or accident would smooth the gameplay.

I can already see the feedback loop forming. Corps that run into people's line of fire until they are kicked out of the battle, then stalk them until they have a chance to kill the reverse-griefed person and collect the bounty.

People, you should start thinking your ideas through. This isn't an ideal world. Not even human-run systems are capable of always judging the situation correctly - How do you expect a simple automated system like this to do the job?
How the **** is the game supposed to detect "yes, this guy totally threw himself into his mate's forge gun to create a bounty that he intends to collect!" and differentiate it from "this guy has been running around with a forge gun, and shooting his mates in the back whenever they were focused on an enemy"?

CCP has two options - Find a magical way to solve the reverse griefing issue or disable friendly fire entirely in pub games.
I would support the former, but the latter is far more rational.

actually do u even play shooters? what ur describing is so low percentage that its not worth discussing. run into peoples fire? do u know how difficult it is to decide who kills u? its more likely ur killed by an enemy on the battlefield trying to prostrate yourself for FF. couple that with the fact that 1 FF kill wont equal a bounty. so? irrelevant.

We are talking about a game with associated meta effects.
If someone runs into your gun in a normal lobby shooter, you just join the next lobby after being kicked.
If it happens in Dust, you can potentially gain a bounty (Yes, you will - That's what the guy whom I quoted proposed), lose your current gear and, as someone suggested, lose the ability to respawn.
Stop seeing the game out of context. There is more to it than shooting people. There's also actually winning the match and meta repercussions.