DUST Search - A Reasonable Punishment for Team Killing When CCP Turns On FF

All Channels

General Discussions

A Reasonable Punishment for Team Killing When CCP Turns On FF

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Etero Narciss Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 112	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:40:00 - [61] - Quote Entruv wrote: I can't wait for FF, because when I'm shooting someone and you run right in front of me so I'm shooting you and not the enemy I want you to die from my bullets. Team mate or not, it'll force people to pay attention. Yeah. How dare he expect you to exercise some fire discipline!?
Maken Tosch 263	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:42:00 - [62] - Quote Buzzwords wrote: i think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. a team kill in dust is NOT analogous to a hi-sec kill in eve. in eve, even in hi-sec, i'm not teamed up with every other player. i have no reason to trust them, and we have made no common cause together. me and that other random whatever ship are not forced to work together to defeat some common enemy just by virtue of being in hi-sec at the same time... yet in dust we WILL be. even in hi-sec matches it will be "us" against "them", i don't get veto power over who the "us" is. my lot is AUTOMATICALLY tied to a complete stranger. also, i looked up grief points. that might have worked if i didn't have to pay for my ****.. but i do, so ANY intentional team killing by FORCED teammates is too much... You are forgetting that corps will form and you will be given the option to join a player-run, well-managed corp on day one of your character's creation.
Geirskoegul Soul-Strike 134	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:43:00 - [63] - Quote Buzzwords wrote: i think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. a team kill in dust is NOT analogous to a hi-sec kill in eve. in eve, even in hi-sec, i'm not teamed up with every other player. i have no reason to trust them, and we have made no common cause together. me and that other random whatever ship are not forced to work together to defeat some common enemy just by virtue of being in hi-sec at the same time... yet in dust we WILL be. even in hi-sec matches it will be "us" against "them", i don't get veto power over who the "us" is. my lot is AUTOMATICALLY tied to a complete stranger. also, i looked up grief points. that might have worked if i didn't have to pay for my ****.. but i do, so ANY intentional team killing by FORCED teammates is too much... There will be PvE, you're welcome to carebear it up there.
Buzzwords Deadly Blue Dots RISE of LEGION 416	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:43:00 - [64] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Buzzwords wrote: i think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. a team kill in dust is NOT analogous to a hi-sec kill in eve. in eve, even in hi-sec, i'm not teamed up with every other player. i have no reason to trust them, and we have made no common cause together. me and that other random whatever ship are not forced to work together to defeat some common enemy just by virtue of being in hi-sec at the same time... yet in dust we WILL be. even in hi-sec matches it will be "us" against "them", i don't get veto power over who the "us" is. my lot is AUTOMATICALLY tied to a complete stranger. also, i looked up grief points. that might have worked if i didn't have to pay for my ****.. but i do, so ANY intentional team killing by FORCED teammates is too much... You are forgetting that corps will form and you will be given the option to join a player-run, well-managed corp on day one of your character's creation. but now we're right back to my other point, am i not going to be able to play ANYTHING unless i bring my ENTIRE team along with me?
Geirskoegul Soul-Strike 134	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:44:00 - [65] - Quote Etero Narciss wrote: Geirskoegul wrote: Etero Narciss wrote: Just posting to say that charging the teamkiller the loss of the suit due to negligence might be one of the best ways to punish teamkilling (other than kicking him out of the match). I don't think anything else should be reimbursed though; just the dropsuit. Think about it; Dust 514 has no insurance system at the moment. This could serve as that, while subsequently working to discourage the random teamkiller/griefer (spies and genuine traitors won't give two damns about the isk loss). Simply, no. Almost no teamkills are ever negligence on the part of the one shooting. Nearly 100% of teamkills are either A) deliberately killing a teammate, or B) the idiot on your team was negligent and ran in front of your line of fire. I'm sorry. How does this refute the idea? I was refuting the argument of punishment for negligence. Punishment for completely intentional actions is antithetical to the EVE universe. Highsec has some consequences, but the victim is NEVER rewarded for being a victim, under ANY circumstances.
Entruv Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 32	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:45:00 - [66] - Quote Etero Narciss wrote: Entruv wrote: I can't wait for FF, because when I'm shooting someone and you run right in front of me so I'm shooting you and not the enemy I want you to die from my bullets. Team mate or not, it'll force people to pay attention. Yeah. How dare he expect you to exercise some fire discipline!? double post...
Entruv Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 32	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:45:00 - [67] - Quote Etero Narciss wrote: Entruv wrote: I can't wait for FF, because when I'm shooting someone and you run right in front of me so I'm shooting you and not the enemy I want you to die from my bullets. Team mate or not, it'll force people to pay attention. Yeah. How dare he expect you to exercise some fire discipline!? How dare he be so stupid to run in front of me cutting off my line of site.
Maken Tosch 263	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:47:00 - [68] - Quote Buzzwords wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Buzzwords wrote: i think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. a team kill in dust is NOT analogous to a hi-sec kill in eve. in eve, even in hi-sec, i'm not teamed up with every other player. i have no reason to trust them, and we have made no common cause together. me and that other random whatever ship are not forced to work together to defeat some common enemy just by virtue of being in hi-sec at the same time... yet in dust we WILL be. even in hi-sec matches it will be "us" against "them", i don't get veto power over who the "us" is. my lot is AUTOMATICALLY tied to a complete stranger. also, i looked up grief points. that might have worked if i didn't have to pay for my ****.. but i do, so ANY intentional team killing by FORCED teammates is too much... You are forgetting that corps will form and you will be given the option to join a player-run, well-managed corp on day one of your character's creation. but now we're right back to my other point, am i not going to be able to play ANYTHING unless i bring my ENTIRE team along with me? Let's put it this way. You can still play any game mode with a bunch of randoms if you like. But it will be up to you to decide to take that risk.
Etero Narciss Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 112	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:52:00 - [69] - Quote Geirskoegul wrote: Etero Narciss wrote: Geirskoegul wrote: Etero Narciss wrote: Just posting to say that charging the teamkiller the loss of the suit due to negligence might be one of the best ways to punish teamkilling (other than kicking him out of the match). I don't think anything else should be reimbursed though; just the dropsuit. Think about it; Dust 514 has no insurance system at the moment. This could serve as that, while subsequently working to discourage the random teamkiller/griefer (spies and genuine traitors won't give two damns about the isk loss). Simply, no. Almost no teamkills are ever negligence on the part of the one shooting. Nearly 100% of teamkills are either A) deliberately killing a teammate, or B) the idiot on your team was negligent and ran in front of your line of fire. I'm sorry. How does this refute the idea? I was refuting the argument of punishment for negligence. Punishment for completely intentional actions is antithetical to the EVE universe. Highsec has some consequences, but the victim is NEVER rewarded for being a victim, under ANY circumstances. Ah, ok. I understand now. I figured however that some sort of reimbursement wouldn't hurt. After all, in Eve your ship is reimbursed regardless of circumstances (well, there are exeptions). I'd rather Dust not use NPC money for that, so the idea has the potential to kill two birds with one stone. It doesn't really stop the dedicated griefer from killing the victim over and over (until, of course, kicked). In the end, what I mean to say is that I don't want to reward the victim so much as reimburse them part of the loss, while punishing the team killer (whether it was accidental or otherwise).
Etero Narciss Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 112	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:54:00 - [70] - Quote Entruv wrote: Etero Narciss wrote: Entruv wrote: I can't wait for FF, because when I'm shooting someone and you run right in front of me so I'm shooting you and not the enemy I want you to die from my bullets. Team mate or not, it'll force people to pay attention. Yeah. How dare he expect you to exercise some fire discipline!? How dare he be so stupid to run in front of me cutting off my line of site. In the middle of a firefight? With all that movement going on? It's not so much stupid as circumstance.

EnglishSnake Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 1012	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:56:00 - [71] - Quote Etero Narciss wrote: Entruv wrote: Etero Narciss wrote: Entruv wrote: I can't wait for FF, because when I'm shooting someone and you run right in front of me so I'm shooting you and not the enemy I want you to die from my bullets. Team mate or not, it'll force people to pay attention. Yeah. How dare he expect you to exercise some fire discipline!? How dare he be so stupid to run in front of me cutting off my line of site. In the middle of a firefight? With all that movement going on? It's not so much stupid as circumstance. Even MAG didnt have this just a simple 5 and your out rule If ppl run in front tough **** im not gonna stop firing because of morons Morons deserve to die like the enemy so im fine with killing them
Adaris Manpher 70	Posted - 2012.07.17 18:57:00 - [72] - Quote Something like that could be done but from a programming side it would be a nightmare to do. I understand wanting to get something back if a team mate kills but to be honest everyone on the team just needs to be more careful about what they do. -Foxhound/ Ziontcd
Paran Tadec Imperfects Negative-Feedback 902	Posted - 2012.07.17 19:00:00 - [73] - Quote Sandbox, the only rules are the ones you make.
Etero Narciss Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 112	Posted - 2012.07.17 19:01:00 - [74] - Quote EnglishSnake wrote: Etero Narciss wrote: Entruv wrote: Etero Narciss wrote: Entruv wrote: I can't wait for FF, because when I'm shooting someone and you run right in front of me so I'm shooting you and not the enemy I want you to die from my bullets. Team mate or not, it'll force people to pay attention. Yeah. How dare he expect you to exercise some fire discipline!? How dare he be so stupid to run in front of me cutting off my line of site. In the middle of a firefight? With all that movement going on? It's not so much stupid as circumstance. Even MAG didnt have this just a simple 5 and your out rule If ppl run in front tough **** im not gonna stop firing because of morons Morons deserve to die like the enemy so im fine with killing them I don't know. Maybe it's just me. I find that waiting that one second that the person is in the way is good enough. Or, you know, let them kill whoever I was shooting at since typically they're at least facing the same direction. I win regardless.
Oryx Offerton Doomheim 61	Posted - 2012.07.17 19:04:00 - [75] - Quote Just don't turn on friendly fire. Problem solved. Delete this thread.
Renzo Kuken Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 369	Posted - 2012.07.17 19:09:00 - [76] - Quote STB-stlcarlos989 EV wrote: Along with negative SP and WP for team killing I believe the perpetrator should pay the victim the equivalent cost of the dropsuit fit they lost. Now before you freak out, it should be percentage based, so if a teammate does 10% of the damage to you then 10% of the dropsuit cost you lost is transferred from their account into yours. It doesn't have to be a team kill, if an enemy kills you and a teammate puts a couple of bullets in your back they should pay the damage equivalent. For aurum dropsuit fits they would pay the isk equivalent cost. I have no game programming experience so I have no idea if something like this would be possible to keep track of or if it could be implemented but if it could I believe it would be a great idea. Those against this would most likely be the people who are highly prone to team kill, random grenade throwers, vehicle gunners who will shoot into crowds without considering who is a friend or foe, those to have a hard time letting go of R1 with a teammate in front of them, etc. So what do you guys think? this isnt mag carlos you and your SVER boys are gonna be in for a rude awakening when you find out there will be little or no punishment for griefing it happens in eve everyday and there isnt a penalty (well concord pulls you over and BAM) my advice to you is to add the person to your watch list and return the kindness if ya look at your tv in yer room you can see that concord will have a presence in the game could act like EVE as in you kill a person in high sec and you get jail time? or just lined up against a wall and shot :)
Buzzwords Deadly Blue Dots RISE of LEGION 416	Posted - 2012.07.17 19:14:00 - [77] - Quote Geirskoegul wrote: Buzzwords wrote: i think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. a team kill in dust is NOT analogous to a hi-sec kill in eve. in eve, even in hi-sec, i'm not teamed up with every other player. i have no reason to trust them, and we have made no common cause together. me and that other random whatever ship are not forced to work together to defeat some common enemy just by virtue of being in hi-sec at the same time... yet in dust we WILL be. even in hi-sec matches it will be "us" against "them", i don't get veto power over who the "us" is. my lot is AUTOMATICALLY tied to a complete stranger. also, i looked up grief points. that might have worked if i didn't have to pay for my ****.. but i do, so ANY intentional team killing by FORCED teammates is too much... There will be PvE, you're welcome to carebear it up there. is PVE offline? otherwise it's no different so far as this discussion is concerned...
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.07.17 20:03:00 - [78] - Quote Geirskoegul wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again... HighSec - Loss of standing (as in EVE), and Concord fines paid to the player(s) killed. The value paid is the cost of gear you destroyed, modified for the victim's standing (lower standing = less fine for killing you), and the payment is forwarded on to the player(s) TKed. An Assist have no effect on your standing, but 1/4 of the teammate's replacement costs will be paid as a fine. LowSec - No punishment for Assists, and fines reduced by an appropriate amount (approx 30 - 50%). Loss of standing will also be significantly lower than in HighSec. NullSec - What are these "rules" you speak of? In HighSec, known TKers will be flagged thanks to their low standing, and players will know to be cautious about incoming fire, and less cautious about outgoing fire in that player's direction. In LowSec, it will take significantly worse standing for this to happen, and in NullSec, there's no penalty. If someone is bad enough to get flagged in LowSec, they MIGHT be bad enough that in HighSec, they're marked as a Concord bounty. In this instance, a bounty marker will appear near the teammate indicator, and a reward will be paid out for killing said player instead of incurring a fine. No fines to the player doing the shooting. Period. As in EVE, the "fine" is that you lose something, the victim doesn't receive anything except the insurance he paid for on the ship. In a game like Dust, where concord-style response isn't viable, grief points really are the most ideal solution. Look to how planetside handled it, it's the closest relative to this game, and it really provides the best solution in terms of the gameplay-affecting penalty. I'm fine with secstatus being added as well, maybe have it result in higher warpoint costs or something in high-sec, since "police chasing you" doesn't translate to EVE. It's difficult to suggest a workable mechanic for secstatus as things are now, but it shouldn't be purely aesthetic. Paying fines to the victim seemed like a good idea to me, but I can see your point. Fines aren't defined by being paid to the victim though, so I think a system involving fines is still legitimate. If you kill a teammate, Concord take ISK from you for doing so. It doesn't have to go to the player you killed. But the Planetside grief points system seems MORE inappropriate for New Eden, not less. People don't get banned from EVE for betraying their allies in a battle, and it would make NO sense to do it here. I think secstatus and having lesser penalties to your teammates when you have low standing works. Also, as I suggested, they could add bounties which can be claimed by a player's teammate when they've destroyed their reputation badly enough. If someone's been bad enough, they'll have their teammates killing them for ISK.
carl von oppenheimer Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 158	Posted - 2012.07.17 20:08:00 - [79] - Quote Well I just hope they improve the way of identifying friendlies then because as a sniper I often cannot see who is who so I have "verify it" with a head shot, which would be kind of bad with a FF on I'd presume.
Geirskoegul Soul-Strike 134	Posted - 2012.07.17 20:13:00 - [80] - Quote Etero Narciss wrote: Geirskoegul wrote: Etero Narciss wrote: Geirskoegul wrote: Etero Narciss wrote: Just posting to say that charging the teamkiller the loss of the suit due to negligence might be one of the best ways to punish teamkilling (other than kicking him out of the match). I don't think anything else should be reimbursed though; just the dropsuit. Think about it; Dust 514 has no insurance system at the moment. This could serve as that, while subsequently working to discourage the random teamkiller/griefer (spies and genuine traitors won't give two damns about the isk loss). Simply, no. Almost no teamkills are ever negligence on the part of the one shooting. Nearly 100% of teamkills are either A) deliberately killing a teammate, or B) the idiot on your team was negligent and ran in front of your line of fire. I'm sorry. How does this refute the idea? I was refuting the argument of punishment for negligence. Punishment for completely intentional actions is antithetical to the EVE universe. Highsec has some consequences, but the victim is NEVER rewarded for being a victim, under ANY circumstances. Ah, ok. I understand now. I figured however that some sort of reimbursement wouldn't hurt. After all, in Eve your ship is reimbursed regardless of circumstances (well, there are exeptions). I'd rather Dust not use NPC money for that, so the idea has the potential to kill two birds with one stone. It doesn't really stop the dedicated griefer from killing the victim over and over (until, of course, kicked). In the end, what I mean to say is that I don't want to reward the victim so much as reimburse them part of the loss, while punishing the team killer (whether it was accidental or otherwise). But as soon as you implement forced reimbursement from player funds, you introduce it as a grief mechanic in itself. The whole point is that griefing's only DIRECT effects are INDEPENDENT of the parties involved. Insurance is paid by NPCs (and the player pays NPCs to receive more than the default 50% mineral value; all insurance has always been calculated from mineral value -- hence t2 always paying less proportionally compared to t1 -- ithe only change being switching from a fixed value to a market-related value). Concord punishes without any benefit to the person their "victim" aggressed. It's always been about consequence, but not making either side of the dispute be a beneficiary OF those consequences. I'm fine with insurance being implemented in some form (though I must say again, I see a grief point system being more appropriate; in EVE, a team kill is either deliberate or negligence via criminally incorrect overview settings / failing to follow orders -- in a fleet op, you shouldn't ever shoot anything you aren't explicitly ordered to, with very few exceptions that almost only apply to tacklers -- in Dust, an FPS, team kills can happen due to OTHER PEOPLE being negligent, or pure, legitimate accident), it must NEVER be charged to the aggressor. One of the core reasons the EVE system works is that you CAN choose to **** over someone else, if you're willing to accept the consequences. More than anything else, though, making the aggressors penalty actively help the victim massively discourages the action, more than it should. The reason for this is that I can eat the loss, you might get some insurance, but my actions do not profit you at my expense. It's partially psychological, and partially the mechanic as implemented, but the psychological aspect IS important, in any game (an example of this I use is day 1 DLC, where new copies come with a code to get it free, but when people buy used, they have to pay for the DLC, versus online pass where new players play online for free but used have to pay; it's the difference between getting a free extra in the first example versus the used guy being actively denied something and having to buy it separate). An example directly from EVE would be the bounty system on players. I can put a bounty on someone, and I may as well just have clicked "give money" rather than adding the bounty; if I make a verbal contract with a person or corp to kill the target and bring me the corpse, unless they're an alt or friend of the target or their allies, I actually get what I wanted. I pay the same in the end (in theory), but it FEELS better, because I know it gets something done and the intended victim gains nothing from it. If you make the penalty beneficially affect the victim, it's the same as using the actual bounty system: your action directly benefits the victim, thus defeating one of the main points. I'm a bit drunk, so I'm sorry if I didn't develop or explain that further. I hope you understand the point I'm trying for. Please comment in that regard, letting me know what you think my meaning was, if it wasn't totally clear.

Longshot Ravenwood Algintal Core Gallente Federation 680	Posted - 2012.07.17 20:30:00 - [81] - Quote Depends on the team killing action. Accidental kill through splash damage (stern warning, maybe.) Accidental kill through vehicle handling (removal of in game driver's license/commander will deny all of your vehicle requests). Accidental kill through a vehicle that another player called in and/or subsequent loss of that vehicle (reprisal to the vehicle's owner. Owner may or may not kill you personally). Intentional kill of allies through vehicle mechanics, out of bounds, or general douchery (you have to watch share it maybe, exponentially. 1st offense twice, 2nd offense four times, 3rd offense 8 times, etc..) CEO reserves the right to black list you & kick you from your corporation for any of the above if he deems it necessary.
amarrian victorian Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 52	Posted - 2012.07.17 20:35:00 - [82] - Quote Agnoeo wrote: Why not give a commander the option to yank that persons clone once he gets killed or team mates kill him. Something like cutting off his up-link? So you could still have the edge of always a possible spy/sabotage like in eve, just at this point you have to make your betrayal count. Just like you would see in Eve. You get turned on, you can destroy their ship, then pod them. I think it would keep that New Eden feel we're all looking for. cause not all games will have commanders... I agree with the reimburse the player idea. if I am team killed and it is obviously on purpose I should have the option of taking their money. we also have to discuss the other things, like turrets. if I team kill our own turret I should be paying the entire team a small amount. unless of course an enemy is hacking it, or a friendly just hacked it back.
Templar Two Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 459	Posted - 2012.07.17 20:42:00 - [83] - Quote Longshot Ravenwood wrote: Depends on the team killing action. Accidental kill through splash damage (stern warning, maybe.) Accidental kill through vehicle handling (removal of in game driver's license/commander will deny all of your vehicle requests). Accidental kill through a vehicle that another player called in and/or subsequent loss of that vehicle (reprisal to the vehicle's owner. Owner may or may not kill you personally). Intentional kill of allies through vehicle mechanics, out of bounds, or general douchery (you have to watch share it maybe, exponentially. 1st offense twice, 2nd offense four times, 3rd offense 8 times, etc..) CEO reserves the right to black list you & kick you from your corporation for any of the above if he deems it necessary. Tell me: how can a software/algorithm decide when something I did was intentional or not? What is the parameter that defines the difference between the two? Really we would have a software in Dust 514 that can tell the difference between fair & unfair, accident & murder?
carl von oppenheimer Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 158	Posted - 2012.07.17 20:46:00 - [84] - Quote Or just simply too much "TK points" will kick you from the match for the rest of the game. This worked just fine in AA for example where you had a max of 1000 TK points (a server default) and server booted you for violation for a set time which usually was 10mins or so. So the how it worked was -150 per each shot on the victim (3 was a kill so -150x 3 + extra for a kill shot). How ever the closer the target the more negative points you got, also squad leaders got more negative points then grunts from TK. Also shooting your 'superiors' gave you extra Tk points as well so shooting your sergeant just because he behaved like a **** wasn't an option. Also killing someone from a close range (back of the head) usually gave you enough TK points to boot you from the server outright. A similar system would likely work in DUST as well I believe.
Lurchasaurus SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 808	Posted - 2012.07.17 21:19:00 - [85] - Quote Abron Garr wrote: Friendly fire and backstabbing are integral to Eve, and subsequently, Dust. .
Tony Calif Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 2002	Posted - 2012.07.17 21:27:00 - [86] - Quote Backstabbing isn't actually integral. It's just you EvE guys love making a quick buck/being efficient. That's just how it is. Edit: Friendly fire IS integral
Longshot Ravenwood Algintal Core Gallente Federation 680	Posted - 2012.07.17 21:33:00 - [87] - Quote Templar Two wrote: Longshot Ravenwood wrote: Depends on the team killing action. Accidental kill through splash damage (stern warning, maybe.) Accidental kill through vehicle handling (removal of in game driver's license/commander will deny all of your vehicle requests). Accidental kill through a vehicle that another player called in and/or subsequent loss of that vehicle (reprisal to the vehicle's owner. Owner may or may not kill you personally). Intentional kill of allies through vehicle mechanics, out of bounds, or general douchery (you have to watch share it maybe, exponentially. 1st offense twice, 2nd offense four times, 3rd offense 8 times, etc..) CEO reserves the right to black list you & kick you from your corporation for any of the above if he deems it necessary. Tell me: how can a software/algorithm decide when something I did was intentional or not? What is the parameter that defines the difference between the two? Really we would have a software in Dust 514 that can tell the difference between fair & unfair, accident & murder? There are 3 pieces of software already built in -- the first is the match overview map. The second is the neocom mail system. The third & most important is the voice chat. Intent, just like in real life, would be used to determine if you were doing it on purpose or not. Incompetence only covers so much before everyone else decides that you're too much of a liability to have on their team. I imagine your CEO would have a word with you after the match when the complaint was brought up (or during the match if he was your commander), using the built in software called "voice chat" or as an alternate the built in software called "Neocom Mail". Edit: Also, this is not including any potential security status damage that may be included with team killing actions. Lower security status would prevent you from participating in highsec matches if it followed EVE's sec status rules. Then again this would be much easier to get around than it is in eve (since the game is free to play).
Abron Garr Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 256	Posted - 2012.07.17 21:43:00 - [88] - Quote Tony Calif wrote: Backstabbing isn't actually integral. It's just you EvE guys love making a quick buck/being efficient. That's just how it is. Edit: Friendly fire IS integral It wouldn't be a sandbox if we couldn't knock over other peoples' castles while building our own. Sometimes that means grabbing hand fulls of it and aiming for the eyes.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.07.17 21:46:00 - [89] - Quote Geirskoegul wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: One thing that might ease your mind is no FF in high sec. Not sure how even nanites explain that but that is how it will be. For the record, there are ALWAYS ways to ruin someones day as a blue dot, even without direct FF. Ramming them to death for example. Link to the post, devblog, or fanfest vid where CCP stated this. They never have. There's NOTHING to indicate that friendly fire will be disabled ANYWHERE, other than the fact that it is right now for beta. A mild penalty system in high-sec is the most you can hope for given the universe you're playing in, and the company running it. Anything more would be a violation of the conventions of both, and generally stupid (to put it nicely.) I talk to them regularly in the IRC. Yes this came from [CCP] directly. I was just trying to give you a heads up. You're certainly welcome to wait until an official dev blog if you are unwilling to count that as official.
Quiverous Dark Harlequin 37	Posted - 2012.07.17 21:57:00 - [90] - Quote I had a really enciteful and profound observation to share with you all about this post. But I can't type for the tears of laughter so I'm gonna have to let it go. No. Not now, not ever.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page