2. If you kill a neutral, CONCORD pulls the plug and suicides your clone, drops your sec status, and imposes a suspect timer for the next x minutes (during which you can be killed by anyone). Basically, any of the Eve timers and flags and mechanics can be ported to Eve.

I've wanted this since forever.



This sounds like a good solution for controlling griefing in high-sec.

I'd like to know why this wasn't already implemented.

I've wanted this since forever.



This sounds like a good solution for controlling griefing in high-sec.

I'd like to know why this wasn't already implemented.

Because in EVE friendlies can't run out in front of your gun, or insist that on top of your grenade is absolutely the best place for them to stand - not all FF is the fault of the guy who did the killing.

I like this idea! And it's giving me some evil ideas...

For example. If I hire a bunch of people to fight with me, instead of paying them at the end I put a bullet in their brains!

Agreed, but make sure the unintentional death doesn't warrant a concorddoken.

One of the main draw cards of Eve is its different approach to player killing.

One of the great disappointments of Dust is its failure (or charitably, reluctance) to break from the mould of a generic lobby shooter.

Legion has the chance to avoid that.

From what I can gather so far, the 'even teams lobby' aspect has been removed in favour of a DayZ-style open world approach, nothing pleases me more. However, the thorny issue of friendly fire is something that must be considered.

I propose that friendly fire is always enabled in legion, with caveats.

Why?

1. It strongly differentiates Legion from generic lobby shooters
2. It aligns the game with other open-world sandbox games like DayZ
3. It further aligns the game with the Eve universe.
4. It opens up player interaction.

How would it work?

tldr; very much like Eve.

Each player has a security status from +5 to -10.

In null sec districts, anything goes, kill anyone you find without sec status change.

In low sec districts, killing people with low sec status, and whatever PvE content there is, will increase sec status. Killing anyone outside of your corporation lowers it. If you go on a murder spree, so be it, your sec status will tank.

In high sec, players with low sec status are forbidden from entering. Team killing (outside of corp mates) is frowned upon; a number of ways of modelling CONCORD control could be chosen:

1. Perhaps (direct-fire) weapons cannot fire when pointing at other players? (seems extreme)
2. If you kill a neutral, CONCORD pulls the plug and suicides your clone, drops your sec status, and imposes a suspect timer for the next x minutes (during which you can be killed by anyone). Basically, any of the Eve timers and flags and mechanics can be ported to Eve.

Thoughts?

I think it's important that we offer both FF and no FF gameplay. The latter being particularly important for newcomers to the game.

In MAG you could kill friend or foe.
And you could talk to both.

And its servers just shut down so using a failed game is proabably not a great example :-P

I think it's important that we offer both FF and no FF gameplay. The latter being particularly important for newcomers to the game.

I think it's important that we offer both FF and no FF gameplay. The latter being particularly important for newcomers to the game.

One of the main draw cards of Eve is its different approach to player killing.

One of the great disappointments of Dust is its failure (or charitably, reluctance) to break from the mould of a generic lobby shooter.

Legion has the chance to avoid that.

From what I can gather so far, the 'even teams lobby' aspect has been removed in favour of a DayZ-style open world approach, nothing pleases me more. However, the thorny issue of friendly fire is something that must be considered.

I propose that friendly fire is always enabled in legion, with caveats.

Why?

1. It strongly differentiates Legion from generic lobby shooters
2. It aligns the game with other open-world sandbox games like DayZ
3. It further aligns the game with the Eve universe.
4. It opens up player interaction.

How would it work?

tldr; very much like Eve.

Each player has a security status from +5 to -10.

In null sec districts, anything goes, kill anyone you find without sec status change.

In low sec districts, killing people with low sec status, and whatever PvE content there is, will increase sec status. Killing anyone outside of your corporation lowers it. If you go on a murder spree, so be it, your sec status will tank.

In high sec, players with low sec status are forbidden from entering. Team killing (outside of corp mates) is frowned upon; a number of ways of modelling CONCORD control could be chosen:

1. Perhaps (direct-fire) weapons cannot fire when pointing at other players? (seems extreme)
2. If you kill a neutral, CONCORD pulls the plug and suicides your clone, drops your sec status, and imposes a suspect timer for the next x minutes (during which you can be killed by anyone). Basically, any of the Eve timers and flags and mechanics can be ported to Eve.

Thoughts?

Oo long time no see :-P

Are you working on legion too?

Yes, he is I also agree with Wolfman here - I think it's important to offer both aspects of gameplay. 'High Sec' space should be less daunting to newbies!

friendly fire is on in HIsec in EVE, and it's pretty tame there.... unless you AFK in space. Then you're asking for it

Yes...but just because something works in EVE doesn't necessarily mean it would work in another game of a different genre and type. We don't want to encourage newbies to be griefed straight out of playing because of friendly fire happy trolls that can easily kill them!

Yes...but just because something works in EVE doesn't necessarily mean it would work in another game of a different genre and type. We don't want to encourage newbies to be griefed straight out of playing because of friendly fire happy trolls that can easily kill them!

Yes...but just because something works in EVE doesn't necessarily mean it would work in another game of a different genre and type. We don't want to encourage newbies to be griefed straight out of playing because of friendly fire happy trolls that can easily kill them!

To do that you would need a system that allows the abillity to choose in what security systems we play in, thus forcing allot of battlefields to be empty and others over full. Meaning all will flock to there own type of battlefield. As it is now we cannot choose and are forced into one type or the other.

A major part of Legion will be the star map, where players choose exactly where to deploy.

A major part of Legion will be the star map, where players choose exactly where to deploy.

I highly disagree with always-on friendly fire, especially with just basic matches. A few points of umbrage:

1. "Make the game more like EVE!" is something that I simply do not understand. They are different products; why should they work the same? That kind of reasoning would have people yelling at Blizzard that World of Warcraft isn't closer to Warcraft 3 or that Portal is more lighthearted-fun than the intense action of Half-Life. They both exist in the same universe but it is okay for them to be quite different.

Yes, he is I also agree with Wolfman here - I think it's important to offer both aspects of gameplay. 'High Sec' space should be less daunting to newbies!

I think it's important that we offer both FF and no FF gameplay. The latter being particularly important for newcomers to the game.

My take:
- Friendly fire for Sandbox and organized matches (i.e. Corp battles and PC)
In the sandbox, this adds a gameplay of risk/reward, due to the dangers of doing an ad-hoc team-up.
In Corp Battles it adds tactics, because firing lines have to organize properly in order to not shoot each other in the back of the head. It also allows spies to sabotage corp battles.
When you have hand-picked your team and comms are implicitly expected, it makes sense to enable friendly fire.

- No friendly fire for modes where you are forced to work with blueberries
Blueberries are lobotomized chickens with a grudge.
I do not like the idea of starting a pub game, taking out my AV weapon and being greeted by a blueberry tanker who accidentally thought that I was a red.
I also do not want some ****** to punch my REs and get my kicked
And I don't want to be the guy who's carrying the entire team, with half of the team having given up and doing situps in the MCC, only to get shot in the back by a bored blueberry, which causes a loss of expensive gear that could have given my team a win despite the bad odds.
The kind of ****** griefing that is created by FF in pubs should not exist in this game. It adds no value. There is no fun in starting a 15 minute match at the end of the day for some relaxation, only to have some ******** punch you in the nose because he likes to annoy people. And the griefer doesn't get anything out of it, except for annoying people, which is a horrible motivation for this specific game mode.
Yes, this is New Eden. But pubs are contract battles. I'm pretty sure that employers would want a mechanism to prevent the mercs from going AWOL and shitting on everything, considering how unstable these individuals are.
It would be hard to justify in lore, aside from "weapon locks up when looking at a blueberry", which only covers direct fire weapons. But this is a case where the gameplay is simply more important.
You will have many fuckheads ruining the game for new and casual players if you can't enforce a clear-cut sense of safety (or at least "he can't kill me directly!") around blueberries in pub matches.

P.S.
Have you thought about making a game mode that is tied to a faction?
I don't mean faction warfare. I mean a mode where one side can only consist of Amarr players (Or players with Amarr gear), for example. I would love to see the effect of asymmetric gameplay, if you go all the way and make drop uplinks Amarr-only, nanohive Caldari-only, etc.

Yes...but just because something works in EVE doesn't necessarily mean it would work in another game of a different genre and type. We don't want to encourage newbies to be griefed straight out of playing because of friendly fire happy trolls that can easily kill them!

Votekicking a person out of space in eve would be a hilarious proposition.

If Legion is trying to be sandbox, it shouldn't have to rely on that kind of stupid structuring.

wrong topic area.

Votekicking a person out of space in eve would be a hilarious proposition.

If Legion is trying to be sandbox, it shouldn't have to rely on that kind of stupid structuring.

Yes...but just because something works in EVE doesn't necessarily mean it would work in another game of a different genre and type. We don't want to encourage newbies to be griefed straight out of playing because of friendly fire happy trolls that can easily kill them!

I assume you mean that you posted in the wrong area. If you mean that the thread is in the wrong spot, that is false.

Except, its not space in EVE and its a match that will, probably, be lobby based.

So basically, your clone access for that match would be locked. And you would need to seek another match to grief.

Or give the commander this power. Whatever the method, griefing in high sec should be countered, but also FF shoule be on, because FF is hilarious.

It's either lobby based or sandbox.

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

Because Bust 514 is a bad product and EVE is a good product. It is therefore natural to want Legion to be more like EVE and less like Bust.

Its only a problem if you design the game to allow it to be a problem.

Enable votekick based on FF. Every friendly kill lowers player status. Being votekicked because of FF lowers the status even more. FF voteckick kicks in automatically if player kills more than 3 players. Killed players can forgive the TK if it was an accident.

They can do both actually. No, I'm serious. It's technically possible. But in the case New Eden, instead of being like PvP and PvE separately, it would be like PvPvE. Eve Online does that perfectly by allowing mission running in high-sec systems but allow outside players to scan down the system and steal the loot that the mission runner is after. It allows for a more emergent style of gameplay. The same for incursion running.

They COULD do both, but they shouldn't. Trying to split the gameplay in a major way diminishes the devtime they attribute to it. They have already had their staff crippled in terms of size. Cutting resources further isn't a good option.

That is facile.

Call of Duty is a good product. It is therefore natural to want Legion to be more like Call of Duty and less like DUST.
Team Fortress 2 is a good product. It is therefore natural to want Legion to be more like Team Fortress 2 and less like DUST.
Papers, Please is a good product. It is therefore natural to want Legion to be more like Papers, Please and less like DUST.
Assassin's Creed is a good product. It is therefore natural to want Legion to be more like Assassin's Creed and less like DUST.

The first two make sense to an extent because they are the same genre and type of game, First Person Shooter, but the others are entirely different beasts. EVE and DUST/Legion share just as much in common with each other as Hearthstone shares with World of Warcraft. They share similar concepts because they exist in the same world but don't share much gameplay as they are different types of game. It is okay for DUST/Legion to have its own identity without having to take it from his big sister.

In that case, they could still achieve both if Dev time is a concern to you. If they want to PvPvE experience, they could go with PvP first and focus on that for a long while and make sure they smooth out any rough edges they find along the way. Once the PvP aspect has been settled, they can then implement the PvE aspect of the game and merge it with the PvP to make PvPvE. They already have experience doing that with Eve Online. The only difference is that in Eve it's point-n-click while in Legion it's aim-n-click. It's still doable and it allows Legion to have something no other first-person shooter has which is an emergent New Eden style gameplay.

Its only a problem if you design the game to allow it to be a problem.

Enable votekick based on FF. Every friendly kill lowers player status. Being votekicked because of FF lowers the status even more. FF voteckick kicks in automatically if player kills more than 3 players. Killed players can forgive the TK if it was an accident.

Allow also players to form squads with minimum ~standing~, or a honour score, whatever, that will allow them to filter off griefers.

Only allow players to join high-sec pubs if they are also in good standing.

Its only a problem if you design the game to allow it to be a problem.

Enable votekick based on FF. Every friendly kill lowers player status. Being votekicked because of FF lowers the status even more. FF voteckick kicks in automatically if player kills more than 3 players. Killed players can forgive the TK if it was an accident.

Allow also players to form squads with minimum ~standing~, or a honour score, whatever, that will allow them to filter off griefers.

Only allow players to join high-sec pubs if they are also in good standing.

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.

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.