| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Asno Masamang
Odd Shadows Inc
122
   |
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Greetings,
I have suggested this multiple times before, but usually in response to various nerf requests... At which point people start crying and whining that it would ruin the game. I disgree.
In EVE, we have friendly fire turned on everywhere and yes I have lost a couple of Myrmidons and even a T2 rigged Dominix before I found the option to disable auto-target back. Yes, it sucks to get Concorded like that, but it taught me valuable lessons. I also learned that you don't use smart bombs in high sec... Unless you are going after a Hulk fleet anyway. ;)
The point is, that your players will adapt and be the better for it. Additionally, it will improve the game in a lot of ways;
- It will reduce the current abuses of Remote Explosives.
- It will encourage more coordinated activities. If for no other reason than to avoid getting sniped by your own people.
- It will discourage people from certain types of spawn / objective camping activities.
- It will foster a need among vehicle drivers to use and help balance other weapons besides the currently broken missiles.
Obviously one of the big questions is how this would work in High Sec. Well, I would suggest that instead of getting Concorded for any act friendly fire, the punishment would be for any act that results "directly" in the death of a teammate. So taking a teammate down to 2% armor would not result in actions by Concord, but killing him would.
As an alternative, leave friendly fire off for all direct damage combat, but turn it on for ALL explosives. Remember explosives deliver are omni-directional damage and are in no way capable of determining friend or foe while they are doing it.
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
We're supposed to be getting paid based on how much enemy stuff we trash, right?
So strict penalties for friendly-fire damage is logical too.
Destroy a teammate's vehicle by directly shooting at it, and you pay the replacement cost. Get an "Assist" on a friendly vehicle and you pay half the cost. This comes out of your earnings for the mission, and gets paid direct to the player you attacked.
They could also flag repeated TKers as such, and killing someone with that flag (which would be a visibly different colour from normal teammate markers) wouldn't be penalised as harshly. A severe TKer might be marked as "free game" meaning they have no protection from Concord and when TKed, produce no fine and earn no repayment. They could potentially have truly horrifically notorious turncoats marked as enemies for BOTH teams, and REWARD players for killing that particular teammate because that's just how the police work in New Eden. |
Dante Daedrik
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Adding penalties to TK'ing is not on par with the vision for the EVE/Dust community/environment. On EVE people betray each other all the time for either money, power, or reputation purposes. When Dust starts having Corporations there will eventually be spies and saboteurs whose main jobs are to infiltrate corporations and destroy them from the inside out, such as becoming a commander of an enemy corp and calling in an orbital strike on your own force (being a spy afterall); with penalties such as what you suggest, this will take away from the cut throat community that EVE/Dust are based around. |
Asno Masamang
Odd Shadows Inc
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dante Daedrik wrote:Adding penalties to TK'ing is not on par with the vision for the EVE/Dust community/environment.
That was actually part of the reason I went with Concording rather than fines as Garrett suggests. But, at the same time I think Garrett's proposal does fit. Remember, we are immortals, killing us in Dust doesn't really have the same affect as killing us in EVE does. By making it monetary and standing based, they mix a little bit of EVE (Standings) and a little bit of Dust (ISK for kills) to come up with a suitable punishment.
Also note that unless the penalties are HUGE it will not stop sabotage, only make it more "expensive" and that is not such a bad thing considering how fast the ISK comes in when you are playing it straight... I am getting 80K - 300K ISK per match right now. if I had to pay for your LAV for TKing you, it wouldn't stop me, but it would make me think twice before doing it gratuitously.
Quote:When Dust starts having Corporations there will eventually be spies and saboteurs whose main jobs are to infiltrate corporations and destroy them from the inside out, such as becoming a commander of an enemy corp and calling in an orbital strike on your own force (being a spy afterall); with penalties such as what you suggest, this will take away from the cut throat community that EVE/Dust are based around.
I disagree here... In fact I think when the Corporations and Alliances get involved, they will be more than happy to pay for these acts... Remember, most corps / alliances already have SRPs and if my Corp is willing to pay to replace my 100M ISK Ishtar, I am sure they would be more than willing to pay an extra 5M ISK when I blow the snot out of the opposing team by sacraficing one of my team's Sagaris. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
They would be FINES, though, enforced by Concord.
Full cost of replacement gear for TKing in HIghSec, reduced fines in LowSec, and the system ignored in NullSec.
EDIT: Also, if you're being bribed to take out a teammates 1mil ISK Tank, you're probably going to have that cost covered as well by whoever asked you to do it... |
Dante Daedrik
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thanks for the clarification on your suggestions, you have a point and I really like the ideas now. I can see it coming to fruition and working well. |
KingBlade82
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
i do understand the idea of sabotage and its a fun concept being a spy but they need to have an area with no team kills allowed ik in others fps's people dont tolerate it and just kick them out of the match or they r stuck with them and its awful no one will really want to play if its allowed u have to think general audiance but as for a match type dedicated to screwing over ur team im sure if its in eve it will be in dust |
Riggs Tank
Bragian Order
Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
i would think TK'ing would be the lowest form of spying. How about the spy that can lead ur squad into a corner then "Bombard" the squad and himself with has own ship in eve. i hope that is not what we will need to deal with as we play dust. |
Zero Harpuia
Maverick Conflict Solutions
422
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
I'd be fine with Friendly Fire so long as they work all the bugs out of the UI FIRST. I've been hit by so many friendly bullets by idiot blindfire... |
KingBlade82
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Zero Harpuia wrote:I'd be fine with Friendly Fire so long as they work all the bugs out of the UI FIRST. I've been hit by so many friendly bullets by idiot blindfire...
see idiot blindfire will be a good thing lol and people will just have fun running around shooting all the same team members in the back its one feature i want to hold off a long time to be a part of ive had it done in the past |
|
|
Tamori Orn
Ordus Trismegistus
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 01:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
I fully support turning on friendly-fire for the game.
No longer would you be able spam rockets on infantry battles from above without hurting your own team.
Tanks get balanced out a bit by suiciding your own teams clones for the enemy kills (or the lulz).
For the Beta, you could be penalized SP and ISK for friendly fire at end of match to strongly discourage trolls, but I can see the counter argument.
Full game, though, needs Friendly fire.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |