| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 66 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
6134
   |
Posted - 2014.07.02 14:27:00 -
[361] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:Kevall Longstride wrote:CCP Wolfman wrote:if a neutral kills a threat the neutral player stays neutral. Well that would make sense. However I'd like to add a wrinkle to that. I think it would be interesting for neutrals to be rewarded somehow for consistently taking out threats. It should be fairly obvious that should a neutral be taking out threats they are in fact acting as a protector/bounty hunter role and should be rewarded in some way for acting as a Marshall in a lawless region. The reward could be ISK based or perhaps even an increse in his/her chances of getting the rarer salvage items. By doing this we've just added a new role and increased the chances of emergent behaviour. Perhaps a corp of dedicated protectors for salvage only based players working to a contract system? There is huge scope for increased participation here I feel. I had a little think about this and I'd be interested in putting a reward of that type in the hands of the players. For example at the end of or during a session you could gift people with stuff. Thanks Mr Policeman! That in turn could end up creating a lot more possible roles and could be done on an ad-hoc basis managed by players without the need for us to create specific game systems to support it. Could also lead to protection rackets...
Could, but probably won't xD
Lot of people expected that Eve Online's new bounty system -could- allow for that same behavior but it's either not happening or simply isn't heard of. Kinda hard to set that sort of thing up in the middle of the battle and there's nothing stopping the potential victim of a 'protection racket' from just going back to high-sec. Kind of difficult to get that sort of behavior down so that it's not just allowed, but encouraged.
About the squad thing. At the same time, I can already think of a way that I, personally, would circumvent the entire system; by just not squading up with my corp mates for the same effect. A little bit of communication and I can jump into the match as a squad, disband it, and then just run with a burner voice channel. Give two guys the role of 'enforcer' and the rest just focus on the harvesting - all of a sudden the guilt by association part of the squad-play is completely nyxxed as there is no squad to associate the guilt to.
That being said, if it's something you're married to, I say go ahead and work with it... but if it's easily circumvented then there's probably not much sense in investing resources into it.
Useful Links
Aeon Amadi for CPM1
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
311
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 15:04:00 -
[362] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:CCP Wolfman wrote:Kevall Longstride wrote:CCP Wolfman wrote:if a neutral kills a threat the neutral player stays neutral. Well that would make sense. However I'd like to add a wrinkle to that. I think it would be interesting for neutrals to be rewarded somehow for consistently taking out threats. It should be fairly obvious that should a neutral be taking out threats they are in fact acting as a protector/bounty hunter role and should be rewarded in some way for acting as a Marshall in a lawless region. The reward could be ISK based or perhaps even an increse in his/her chances of getting the rarer salvage items. By doing this we've just added a new role and increased the chances of emergent behaviour. Perhaps a corp of dedicated protectors for salvage only based players working to a contract system? There is huge scope for increased participation here I feel. I had a little think about this and I'd be interested in putting a reward of that type in the hands of the players. For example at the end of or during a session you could gift people with stuff. Thanks Mr Policeman! That in turn could end up creating a lot more possible roles and could be done on an ad-hoc basis managed by players without the need for us to create specific game systems to support it. Could also lead to protection rackets... Could, but probably won't xD Lot of people expected that Eve Online's new bounty system -could- allow for that same behavior but it's either not happening or simply isn't heard of. Kinda hard to set that sort of thing up in the middle of the battle and there's nothing stopping the potential victim of a 'protection racket' from just going back to high-sec. Kind of difficult to get that sort of behavior down so that it's not just allowed, but encouraged. About the squad thing. At the same time, I can already think of a way that I, personally, would circumvent the entire system; by just not squading up with my corp mates for the same effect. A little bit of communication and I can jump into the match as a squad, disband it, and then just run with a burner voice channel. Give two guys the role of 'enforcer' and the rest just focus on the harvesting - all of a sudden the guilt by association part of the squad-play is completely nyxxed as there is no squad to associate the guilt to. That being said, if it's something you're married to, I say go ahead and work with it... but if it's easily circumvented then there's probably not much sense in investing resources into it.
There should be other benefits of remaining in a squad other that sharing voice channel, which can be (like you say) easily set-up separate from the squad. What this can be, the sky is the limit.
Also, in your example with two enforcers, these are the guys that are a potential "threat" to other players, and will get tagged appropriately. The remaining harvester guys are possibly not a threat, so why should they get tagged?
Of course, they can swap role every 3min, but overall I don't see the problem. If a squad is working together (as a squad), they should share the status (as suggested). I would also propose that any FF during being repped by a logi, the logi would also share the status regardless of squad belonging.
|
lateris ablon
Commando Perkone
Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 15:35:00 -
[363] - Quote
What about drop ships- can they play a roll in these PvE areas for transportation?
ATC
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
311
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 16:09:00 -
[364] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote: Lots of very good stuff
The only problem I can see with the proposed system is the two edge cases that I tried to address in my suggestion.
- Deliberate vs accidental kill: Since the timer always starts from full there is no difference in consequence if a player reduces another players health from 100% -> 0% (deliberate) or 1% -> 0% (accidental). Both players need to wait 180s + 90s to go down to neutral. This can (and will) be abused by griefers.
- Non killing griefing: If I understand it correctly, if I don't kill anybody (only damage) I never go to "threat" level. This would mean I could deliberately (and continually) damage other players so they easily die by NPC (or other players), which can never retaliate since I am only a "suspect". Expect a lot of this as well.
With a incremental timer, these would not be an issue. |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2040
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 16:18:00 -
[365] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:Q: What kind of player interactions do you think would be interesting?
A: That's up to the visitors to decide. If they want to greet with bullets, then I would like to say "hi" as well in kind. Of course, the security status of the system you're in should play a role in this. This could also be a chance to encourage team play if players want better returns in their investment (those salvage tools will cost ISK after all).
Q: How do you think drones should behave?
A: Honestly I would say borrow from the null-sec AI or sleeper AI since those provide a challenge in Eve. Of course, how prevalent they are should also depend on the sec status of the system. One interesting thing I like to see is a chance to go after drone hives in an attempt to salvage even better loot but that should likely require actual teamwork just like how Eve players handle Incursions using public fleets like The Ditanian Fleet.
I also think that sec status of the system should play a part in determining "acceptable behavior" as well as AI behavior.
Though I also think that sec status should vary on a District by District basis within an acceptable variance of 2. If the System Sec Status is 0.8, any Districts within said System could be of Sec Status 0.6-1.0; if the System Sec Status is 0.4, any Districts within said System could be of Sec Status 0.2-0.6.
In a perfect world, the Sec Status of all Districts in the System would average out to the Sec Status of the System.
"Heres the deal, in the 40s there was Normandy today you got punks, some need culling real bad." --Truth
Logi for Hire
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
311
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 16:34:00 -
[366] - Quote
I thought of another one.
Will the timers reset upon going back to merc quaters, including the neutral-marked status?
If so, it would be a problem if it takes less time than 270 seconds to redeploy.
(Not that I'm asking for longer deploy times  )
It would be cool if there was some penalty of disconnecting / returning to merc quarters while having "threat" status (like EVE).
For example, if you going for the concept of only deploying with a limited number of clones, all of those are lost if you choose to leave while "red flagged". |
Severus Smith
Caldari State
548
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 17:10:00 -
[367] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:Saw some questions about squads, this is how we're thinking...
- Players do not change state by damaging or killing squad members. It is up to the squad to manage itself and eject anyone causing trouble for the squad.
- All members of a squad will have a suspicion rating equivalent to the highest state of any member. That is to say, if any member is GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ or GÇ£threatGÇ¥ then all members are shown as such.
- Squad matesGÇÖ tags remain half-green and the other half is the color representing the squadGÇÖs current state.
- Upon leaving a squad, the player inherits whatever state he/she had while in the squad.
Problem with this.
If friendly fire is always on and a squads only defense is policing itself then you're setting yourself up for a HUGE problem. This limits squads to groups of friends / corporations only and completely leaves out new players / less connected players.
EVE is a perfect example. How many people mission in "pug" groups? None. it is basically unheard of because once your in a fleet with a stranger they can shoot you with little to no consequence. The only activity resembling a "pug" PVE thing is Incursions; which require ships costing billions of ISK, characters with years of SP, and are policed by OCD fleet commanders with global blacklists.
DUST / Legion needs a way for random players to join together without the paranoia that at any moment Squad Member X is going to kill everyone and run with the loot. This will help form a community, get players into corporations, and increase retention. I brought up this in an earlier post as a possible solution. It ensures that there is a small level of trust. That if Squad Member X decides to betray the squad he has to remove his IFF module first, thus showing as hostile and giving the squad some warning.
On topic: The threat levels are good. The only suggestion I would have is lengthening the "threat" timer when shown to victims. If Merc X kills me, I want to know he's a threat for far longer than 3 minutes. Maybe make the "enemy" flag where they show up red last for 30 minutes. That way if I get killed I can track that person down.
|
Maken Tosch
DUST University
Ivy League
8832
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 18:16:00 -
[368] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote:I thought of another one. Will the timers reset upon going back to merc quaters, including the neutral-marked status? If so, it would be a problem if it takes less time than 270 seconds to redeploy. (Not that I'm asking for longer deploy times ) It would be cool if there was some penalty of disconnecting / returning to merc quarters while having "threat" status (like EVE). For example, if you going for the concept of only deploying with a limited number of clones, all of those are lost if you choose to leave while "red flagged".
The thing with Eve Online, and this is a good "thing" that Eve has, is that it has a "LOG OFF TIMER" after a player has been involved in a recent aggression. The LOG OFF TIMER lasts about 5 minutes if the aggression involved only an NPC or a suspect act while it increases to 15 minutes if the aggression involved direct PvP with another player. If the player logs off or disconnects during this timer, the ship and its pod will warp out to a safe spot BUT WON'T DISAPPEAR from the system until the timer has worn off EVEN IF the player controlling the ship is no longer connected to it. And since the ship and pod won't cloak, the opponent can still chase him down if he happens to have combat scanners or has a buddy that carries combat scanners so long as the opponent can find him in the allotted time provided by the LOG OFF TIMER.
This system didn't exist until the latter half of Eve Online's existence. It was implemented to address the annoying LOGOFFSKI tactic that risk-adversed players would resort to when they realize that a combat situation is not going their way.
This system should be implemented into Legion as well. But considering that Legion is a FPS game, the timers will need to be adjusted to better suit the genre and gameplay for the sake of balance. Also, since Legion is a FPS game, mercs would obviously NOT be able to warp off to a safe spot if they disconnect. Their clone will just sit there until it is destroyed.
On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
|
Sylwester Dziewiecki
Interregnum.
320
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 20:30:00 -
[369] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:A playerGÇÖs suspicion rating helps other players identify him as a possible threat, particularly PKGÇÖers. It is a reactive system used to rate and grade player behavior rather than a proactive system. This is to allow for an exciting degree of uncertainty over the motives of other players who are still GÇ£neutralGÇ¥. There are four suspicion states that define the color of a playerGÇÖs tags:
- Neutral GÇô white
- Neutral Marked GÇô white/black (half white and half black)
- Suspect GÇô yellow
- Threat GÇô red
CCP Wolfman wrote:What is the thinking behind clones & spawning in Salvage?
Each player would pay a fee before deploying to cover the cost of their clone jump and a limited number of clones. There would be no teams so the clones are personal. Run out of clones and youGÇÖre out. The idea that you could salvage extra is interesting.
Currently spawning on to the field is handled using a number of neutral CRUGÇÖs available to all. I'm trying to connect both things.
So since there's no teams, just squads, players will see my red chevron only if I will appear on they LOS, or they will scan me down with scanner? Is it right?
Nosum Hseebnrido
|
Aero Yassavi
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8692
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 21:41:00 -
[370] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:Kevall Longstride wrote:CCP Wolfman wrote:if a neutral kills a threat the neutral player stays neutral. Well that would make sense. However I'd like to add a wrinkle to that. I think it would be interesting for neutrals to be rewarded somehow for consistently taking out threats. It should be fairly obvious that should a neutral be taking out threats they are in fact acting as a protector/bounty hunter role and should be rewarded in some way for acting as a Marshall in a lawless region. The reward could be ISK based or perhaps even an increse in his/her chances of getting the rarer salvage items. By doing this we've just added a new role and increased the chances of emergent behaviour. Perhaps a corp of dedicated protectors for salvage only based players working to a contract system? There is huge scope for increased participation here I feel. I had a little think about this and I'd be interested in putting a reward of that type in the hands of the players. For example at the end of or during a session you could gift people with stuff. Thanks Mr Policeman! That in turn could end up creating a lot more possible roles and could be done on an ad-hoc basis managed by players without the need for us to create specific game systems to support it. Could also lead to protection rackets...
Hardly anyone would gift players for protecting them after the fact. It has to be before, have players set an amount of ISK for neutrals who kill a threat within a certain radius of them. Of course that requires creating a specific game system to support it but it is still all entirely managed by the players.
Again, hardly anyone would be willing to part with ISK or items AFTER THE FACT.
Amarr are the good guys
Their way of the Commando seems right and noble
|
|
|
Ghural
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
245
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 00:19:00 -
[371] - Quote
If we go down the line of being able to put bounties on enemy players. It would be cool if EVE players could get some of those bounties if they kill them via orbital bombardment. |
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
897
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 00:26:00 -
[372] - Quote
Ghural wrote:If we go down the line of being able to put bounties on enemy players. It would be cool if EVE players could get some of those bounties if they kill them via orbital bombardment.
Assuming economic interaction between Legion and Eve, then definitely.
Dust/Eve transfers
|
|
CCP Wolfman
C C P
C C P Alliance
3146
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 01:42:00 -
[373] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote:CCP Wolfman wrote: Lots of very good stuff The only problem I can see with the proposed system is the two edge cases that I tried to address in my suggestion.
- Deliberate vs accidental kill: Since the timer always starts from full there is no difference in consequence if a player reduces another players health from 100% -> 0% (deliberate) or 1% -> 0% (accidental). Both players need to wait 180s + 90s to go down to neutral. This can (and will) be abused by griefers.
- Non killing griefing: If I understand it correctly, if I don't kill anybody (only damage) I never go to "threat" level. This would mean I could deliberately (and continually) damage other players so they easily die by NPC (or other players), which can never retaliate since I am only a "suspect". Expect a lot of this as well.
With a incremental timer, these would not be an issue.
We should be testing our first version which is very binary (youGÇÖre either neutral or a threat) next week. We have some really rather dedicated griefers on the team so weGÇÖll give them a mandate to f***k with people as much as humanly possible once itGÇÖs in. Then we can iterate based on experience as well as theory. IGÇÖm not dismissing this as an issue, it is a very valid concern and something we will be paying attention to. |
|
|
CCP Wolfman
C C P
C C P Alliance
3146
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 01:45:00 -
[374] - Quote
Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:CCP Wolfman wrote:A playerGÇÖs suspicion rating helps other players identify him as a possible threat, particularly PKGÇÖers. It is a reactive system used to rate and grade player behavior rather than a proactive system. This is to allow for an exciting degree of uncertainty over the motives of other players who are still GÇ£neutralGÇ¥. There are four suspicion states that define the color of a playerGÇÖs tags:
- Neutral GÇô white
- Neutral Marked GÇô white/black (half white and half black)
- Suspect GÇô yellow
- Threat GÇô red
CCP Wolfman wrote:What is the thinking behind clones & spawning in Salvage?
Each player would pay a fee before deploying to cover the cost of their clone jump and a limited number of clones. There would be no teams so the clones are personal. Run out of clones and youGÇÖre out. The idea that you could salvage extra is interesting.
Currently spawning on to the field is handled using a number of neutral CRUGÇÖs available to all. I'm trying to connect both things. So since there's no teams, just squads, players will see my red chevron only if I will appear on they LOS, or they will scan me down with scanner? Is it right?
That is correct. They work just like regular tags for a member of the enemy team now.
|
|
|
CCP Wolfman
C C P
C C P Alliance
3146
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 01:54:00 -
[375] - Quote
Severus Smith wrote:CCP Wolfman wrote:Saw some questions about squads, this is how we're thinking...
- Players do not change state by damaging or killing squad members. It is up to the squad to manage itself and eject anyone causing trouble for the squad.
- All members of a squad will have a suspicion rating equivalent to the highest state of any member. That is to say, if any member is GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ or GÇ£threatGÇ¥ then all members are shown as such.
- Squad matesGÇÖ tags remain half-green and the other half is the color representing the squadGÇÖs current state.
- Upon leaving a squad, the player inherits whatever state he/she had while in the squad.
Problem with this. If friendly fire is always on and a squads only defense is policing itself then you're setting yourself up for a HUGE problem. This limits squads to groups of friends / corporations only and completely leaves out new players / less connected players. EVE is a perfect example. How many people mission in "pug" groups? None. it is basically unheard of because once your in a fleet with a stranger they can shoot you with little to no consequence. The only activity resembling a "pug" PVE thing is Incursions; which require ships costing billions of ISK, characters with years of SP, and are policed by OCD fleet commanders with global blacklists. DUST / Legion needs a way for random players to join together without the paranoia that at any moment Squad Member X is going to kill everyone and run with the loot. This will help form a community, get players into corporations, and increase retention. I brought up this in an earlier post as a possible solution. It ensures that there is a small level of trust. That if Squad Member X decides to betray the squad he has to remove his IFF module first, thus showing as hostile and giving the squad some warning. On topic: The threat levels are good. The only suggestion I would have is lengthening the "threat" timer when shown to victims. If Merc X kills me, I want to know he's a threat for far longer than 3 minutes. Maybe make the "enemy" flag where they show up red last for 30 minutes. That way if I get killed I can track that person down.
Don't forget, currently our intention is still that high sec is FF off. So for the new players learning the ropes they don't have to worry about being ganked by squad mates and can meet other players to group up with before they venture in to the wild.
Personally whilst I don't think the IFF module is a bad idea, I prefer a reactive system over a proactive one in this case because of the uncertainty it creates. I think it's a shame to lose that aspect of play by telegraphing peoples intentions.
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11524
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 02:08:00 -
[376] - Quote
Will we be able to set standings , or are standings or miltia status planned to play into this somehow.
While a corporation may not have attacked us directly, but we know they are aligned against us (forum smack talk, PC war, FW miltias) will these things be visible in a similar manner.
While I am aware that Aeon did speak about visual pollution I cannot help but wonder if these indicators cannot be extended to other aspects of gameplay.
E.G- Aero Yassavi goes out on patrol looking for some loot in Arzad, he takes two buddies with him. However New Age Outlaws also is in Arzad looting ISKies and preparing another dastardly attack on our glorious Empire. They are set to 2.0 Standing (orange)
Both parties come across one another at a Drone Salvage site (lets assume that neither party has killed another player) will they have a visual indicator denoting their standing or militia status?
*"I watched you. From candle to a torch you grew. I'll always remember those days with great affection." - Satja Askarin
|
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
897
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 02:29:00 -
[377] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:Personally whilst I don't think the IFF module is a bad idea, I prefer a reactive system over a proactive one in this case because of the uncertainty it creates. I think it's a shame to lose that aspect of play by telegraphing peoples intentions.
Agree with reactive intel system rather than proactive system (would prefer proactive for actions, ala safety system)
Note, however, that there's a difference between 'telegraphing intentions' and 'telegraphing past history'.
Dust/Eve transfers
|
Sylwester Dziewiecki
Interregnum.
320
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 06:56:00 -
[378] - Quote
Aero Yassavi wrote:
Hardly anyone would gift players for protecting them after the fact. It has to be before, have players set an amount of ISK for neutrals who kill a threat within a certain radius of them. Of course that requires creating a specific game system to support it but it is still all entirely managed by the players.
Again, hardly anyone would be willing to part with ISK or items AFTER THE FACT.
I would. If I had track of what really happened, today it's very hard for me to remember nick-name guy who resurrected my with militia nanite injector just to let me die again.
It's worth to 'catch' those who value other interest because they are perfect future recruit of your corporation. So if we will have in Legion tools to track someone efforts on field, reward him it's definitely something good for us all. And it will be fun if we will be able to find those mNI ******* as well :)
CCP Wolfman wrote:
That is correct. They work just like regular tags for a member of the enemy team now.
Sir, you have my apology for being grouch in 'witch-hunt' post.
Nosum Hseebnrido
|
Syeven Reed
G0DS AM0NG MEN
719
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 07:42:00 -
[379] - Quote
I have another idea which I haven't see posted,
I understand wanting friendly fire off in high-sec, it helps the new players. However like in EvE theres a risk of creating carebears, people who never leave high-sec because their to scared about getting shot. Or players who try it once and because it's to much of a change, (they don't like change) and don't try it again.
What if you make the damage incremental? For example:
High-Sec
1.0 - 00% FF Damage
0.9 - 10% FF Damage
0.8 - 20% FF Damage
0.7 - 30% FF Damage
0.6 - 40% FF Damage
0.5 - 50% FF Damage
Low-Sec
0.4 - 100% FF Damage
This way it gets players used to FF without actually putting them in a large amount of danger.
It may also be a good idea to introduce Concord 'snipers', that after a timer will execute the clone committing the dastardly deed.
Define Dastardly Deed
- A player who has aggression towards another player for a distinct amount of time (concentrated fire).
- A player who deals 'X%' amount of damage (20% of suit health) Keep in mind that because of the damage reduction much harder to do in high-sec.
This idea still leaves room for griefers and it gives the newberrys safe haven. But it gets them ready for the rest of the game which they can still turn down if they wish, but are far less likely to do.
What do you think eh?
Twitter MajLagSpike
CPM Application
|
|
CCP Wolfman
C C P
C C P Alliance
3150
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 07:58:00 -
[380] - Quote
the thing that I don't quite like about varying FF damage is that it makes the weapons feel very weak. |
|
|
|
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
898
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 09:26:00 -
[381] - Quote
Better to just disable your weapon after a certain amount of time in high sec, if you deliberately damage a non-threat (which you have a safety setting to enable or disable, otherwise friendly fire is off)
1.0: 0.5 seconds
0.9: 1.0 seconds
0.8: 1.5 seconds
0.7: 2.0 seconds
0.6: 3.5 seconds
0.5: 5.0 seconds
After that, if you actually damaged someone (rather than just equipment) then your clone is terminated and you drop a little pile of salvage.
Dust/Eve transfers
|
steadyhand amarr
shadows of 514
3213
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 09:31:00 -
[382] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:the thing that I don't quite like about varying FF damage is that it makes the weapons feel very weak.
Nothing quite makes a gun feel as badass than accidently blowing your best friends in one shot. :-P
You can never have to many chaples
-Templar True adamance
|
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
898
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 09:34:00 -
[383] - Quote
steadyhand amarr wrote:
Nothing quite makes a gun feel as badass than accidently blowing your best friends in one shot. :-P
Phrasing!
Dust/Eve transfers
|
steadyhand amarr
shadows of 514
3213
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 10:20:00 -
[384] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:steadyhand amarr wrote:
Nothing quite makes a gun feel as badass than accidently blowing your best friends in one shot. :-P
Phrasing!
Ahahahaha i forgot the word head but i doubt that would make it any better :-P
You can never have to many chaples
-Templar True adamance
|
Ghural
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
246
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 11:49:00 -
[385] - Quote
What if a certain amount of FF damage causes a concord drone to spawn and destroy the player.? |
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
313
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 11:56:00 -
[386] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:the thing that I don't quite like about varying FF damage is that it makes the weapons feel very weak.
I agree, weapons needs to do consistent damage when FF is ON.
However, I also agree with Syever that FF OFF in highsec can give unwanted consequences. Carebears are one thing, but they will always exist to some degree. Teaching bad gunplay and unawareness is another thing, which makes players unprepared to go to lower security systems. This coupled with the sudden shock of going from FF OFF to ON, can make people turn away.
Basically, given the only "consequence" of being able to fire on a "threat" player without taking any penalty, there will be only two "security levels" in Legion that I know of: High sec | Null Sec
Sure, there are still security levels from 1.0 - 0.0, and the lower you go the more difficult the drones becomes and you find rarer the loot, but PVP wise they will be exactly the same (apart from High Sec). There need to be some other consequences based on player action that vary with security level, if it supposed to be meaningful.
Question to all: what do you think appropriate consequences for player action are, and how would it be tracked by the game?
My suggestion:
- Personal security status from 2.0-0.0, where players start at 1.0 (neutral). Every time you go to "threat" level by killing another player you will decrease your status with initially 0.1 steps, but the lower your initial security status, the smaller the impact becomes (so starting from neutral and killing one person you will have 0.9, but a 0.2 player doing the same might only get 0.02 decrease). You can only deploy to districts with security status equal or lower than your own, so for the new player it might be 0.9-0.0 and for the professional griefer 0.2-0.0.
Of course there should be ways to increase your status (missions?), and both high and low security status might get you other benefits.
Please note that I'm not really fond of the idea of locking players out from certain areas, but I have problems to find other solutions.
Thoughts? |
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
6138
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 12:44:00 -
[387] - Quote
Also, in your example with two enforcers, these are the guys that are a potential "threat" to other players, and will get tagged appropriately. The remaining harvester guys are possibly not a threat, so why should they get tagged?
Of course, they can swap role every 3min, but overall I don't see the problem. If a squad is working together (as a squad), they should share the status (as suggested). I would also propose that any FF during being repped by a logi, the logi would also share the status regardless of squad belonging.
[/quote]
I don't really understand what you're conveying here, could you possibly re-word it?
If the two guys playing Enforcer aren't in the squad with the Harvester guys, the harvesters wouldn't get tagged unless they were in a squad. At least, that's based on my assumption of how Wolfman's proposed system would work. So it'd be more beneficial to -not- run a squad to save the harvester guys the guilt by association and just divvy up the rewards later on unless some other means is implemented. I wasn't suggesting that they get tagged outside of the squad, I was saying that, if this system is implemented as it's proposed - that's how I, personally, would abuse it.
As far as the Logi repping guilt-by-association, have to be very careful with that because there's a good chance that you ostracize Logistics from the Salvage Field entirely; it already looks as though there are dropsuits better geared toward the Salvage Field meta but having too strong a punishment toward Logistics for playing their Saintly role could very well discourage their use altogether.
To elaborate, combat in Dust 514 / Legion is presumably slower paced than other FPS games - so there's no reason that the tag should change on the Logi instantly, perhaps after the player outright kills the other player should the Logistics get a suspect tag? Sort of a trickle down effect?
Useful Links
Aeon Amadi for CPM1
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
313
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 14:13:00 -
[388] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:I don't really understand what you're conveying here, could you possibly re-word it?
Sorry if I was vague in my statement 
I see the proposed system as primarily information sharing of potential intent, for the benefit of other players. There are no real consequences attached to it (at the moment). It does not matter if the harvesters get tagged or not, since they really do not pose a threat to other players, the enforcers do. And they will get tagged in both cases (squad or not).
So if you feel running separate (not in a squad), please do so. The important thing is that players that do present a threat to other players gets tagged. |
Severus Smith
Caldari State
548
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 15:30:00 -
[389] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:Personally whilst I don't think the IFF module is a bad idea, I prefer a reactive system over a proactive one in this case because of the uncertainty it creates. I think it's a shame to lose that aspect of play by telegraphing peoples intentions. One final point, then I'll concede. How is the IFF "proactive" rather than "reactive" and if so, why is this bad for progression..?
In scenario A (without an IFF module) you and a squad are running around. You've just finished salvaging and are about to extract. Suddenly Squad Member X lobs a grenade and ARs you in the head. Due to the low TTK and the utter surprise you die pretty much instantly without any chance to retaliate. Maybe the other 4 squad members take him down, but with a well placed grenade and an AR by the time they realize what has happened to you they're also probably dead. This isn't fun.
In scenario B (with an IFF module) you and a squad are running around. You've just finished salvaging and are about to extract. Suddenly the message "Squad Member X has removed his IFF module" pops up on the screen and you spin around just in time to see him throw a grenade. Maybe you still die (like above) but at least you had a chance rather than just being gunned down in the back with no contest. This is more fun.
To me, they are both reactive. One just alerts you, giving you 1 - 2 seconds to react, while the other happens instantly. That was the benefit of the IFF when I imagined it. In Highsec FF is always off (as your already doing). In Lowsec the IFF must be disabled (thus giving an alert to your intentions). And in Nullsec the IFF is always disabled, thus allowing FF killing anywhere anytime.
To me this was a logical progression. You start in safety, then move to an alerting system, then finish with no safety. The risk is offset by the rewards.
Without a system like this then your "carebear" players will never leave Highsec. Just like in EVE, a one jump difference goes from relative safety to utterly deadly. There isn't a stepping stone. And while many people will go "this is needed" I disagree. EVE has a large problem with incensing players to move from Highsec to Low to Null. Why? Because dropping from 0.5 to 0.4 means you will lose what your flying. CONCORD doesn't give a **** and gate guns wont save you.
You don't want that in DUST / Legion. You want new / carebear players to want to adventure out into Lowsec. There should still be danger, but it is mitigated by something like the IFF where instead of dying instantly to a turncloak or ganker they have a chance to react and survive. 1 - 2 seconds, that's all. Then, when they eventually move to Null, they can deal with the "reactive" situations of FF being always on and having to worry about instantly dying to betrayals.
You need steps. Not a cliff. |
Syeven Reed
G0DS AM0NG MEN
720
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 16:01:00 -
[390] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:Better to just disable your weapon after a certain amount of time in high sec, if you deliberately damage a non-threat (which you have a safety setting to enable or disable, otherwise friendly fire is off)
1.0: 0.5 seconds
0.9: 1.0 seconds
0.8: 1.5 seconds
0.7: 2.0 seconds
0.6: 3.5 seconds
0.5: 5.0 seconds
After that, if you actually damaged someone (rather than just equipment) then your clone is terminated and you drop a little pile of salvage.
This is a good iteration! Could see this being easier to implement than my idea too. But what about the high damage weapons such as snipers and forges? I can see them being difficult to control under this rule.
Maybe a way to combine the two?
Ghural wrote:What if a certain amount of FF damage causes a concord drone to spawn and destroy the player.?
I like!
Twitter MajLagSpike
CPM Application
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |