why would CCP ever turn on friendly fire?

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?

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?

thats kinda stupid y because of tanks and dropships if you havent notice when some tanks and dropships help ppl secure a objective at times the missiles may end up hitting their allies because the enemy ends up being to close to you that you end up being an accidentally kill then how would they fix something like that.
why should i pay you for helping you out. Also some ppl for some reason like to move right in front of you while your shooting and if you end up killing them then what it was their fault so again y should i pay you. Lastly I've had times when allies would come around the corner and end up shooting at me because they think im the enemy they my be new ppl but it was obviously an accident. These are a couple of reasons your plan might not fit well with others

The game shouldn't enforce any idea of what is proper reimbursement for friendly fire besides the -50 instead of the +50 WP. Blacklisting or transferring ISK is the equivalent of the game playing itself since it is removing one of the most basic friction points in the game. Blue on blue aggression can tear apart alliances without the proper handling. No hand-holding please.

It shoul give them the option to repay you. Ricochet would work great tbh. Think runnin man/battle royale style necklaces for all clones. You TK? You go pop. Simple. Or just make 5 in a game an auto kick. Tbh friendly fire isn't as important as getting the guns firing decently. TK's suck, but it sucks even more if the guys killed you with a scifi water pistol.

No, to each and every one of your idiotic suggestions that violate all aspects of the universe you're playing in.

EDIT:
Believe it or not, Templar, that like was from me.

why would CCP ever turn on friendly fire?

im all for the back stabbing and risk of the world of dust.

how ever people have to consider this is completly f2p. what that means is we will be flooded with tons of idoits who will download the game with the sole purpose of being a complet c***. i dont mind being tk if its accidental, well to an extent that is, i dont mind being tk by someone out to stab our team in the back for the opposing corp.

Did I offend you? Or do you just want to team kill? How would any of that a.) be idiotic b.) go against everything in New Eden?
And people wonder where the phrase EvEtard comes from....tsk tsk

You guys are comparing this to EVE but this not EVE, yes it takes place in the EVE universe but there are key differences. Team killing mechanics for an FPS are very different then those of a point and click space ship battle. People will still be able to back stab if they want, also there are different security levels so this could only implemented in high sec or whatever. Also with the arena battles is could be an option that is turned on or off. EVE players need to get out of this mentality that this has to be EXACTLY like EVE. An FPS is vastly different then that spaceship game you play. They are in the same universe so there will be similarities but with the two genres there will be key differences.

You guys are comparing this to EVE but this not EVE, yes it takes place in the EVE universe but there are key differences. Team killing mechanics for an FPS are very different then those of a point and click space ship battle. People will still be able to back stab if they want, also there are different security levels so this could only implemented in high sec or whatever. Also with the arena battles is could be an option that is turned on or off. EVE players need to get out of this mentality that this has to be EXACTLY like EVE. An FPS is vastly different then that spaceship game you play. They are in the same universe so there will be similarities but with the two genres there will be key differences.

In Eve, I shot and destroyed several several mining ships in high sec without provocation and without a war declaration. Even though I suffered a sec status hit, I can easily go around that. So far, CCP has not forced me to reimburse those poor miners for the loss of their vessels. I do not, in any way, feel any remorse for doing that. It's just business.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=1373455&m=5&y=2012

In Dust, I saw people disregard several orders when I told them to stick together and focus on the objective. One was just running and gunning blindly on his own while the other was shooting swarm launcher rockets at the MCC. Then there was the tank that was shooting at the MCC when we needed him to focus fire on the enemy tanks (he ignored our comms). I sooooooooooooooooooooo want to shoot them for their insubordination.

In Dust, once corporations will be implemented, spies will be a tool used by our enemies to ruin our day... just like in Eve. Even if they suffer a penalty for betraying their corp mates, they will quickly be compensated by the enemy corporation they officially serve.

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.

it's a tough one...

teamkilling cannot go completely unpunished. it would be ridiculous. what would stop a pissed off CoD fanboy from joining and murdering unsuspecting teammates just to waste their isk? 1 ******* could render entire matches unplayable.

but i don't think carlos' plan would work. what if it's a newbie alt with no isk? or what happens if you defend yourself? do you suddenly owe HIM something?


i kinda think friendly fire should just stay off. if you wanna backstab you can backstab by intentionally shooting over the "enemys" heads. or telling them where your "teammates" are in match, or emptying out the corp coffers out of it.



remember, eve HAS no matchmaking. anybody you team up with you DECIDED to team up with. so a teamkill in eve is a betrayal of a built up trust. a teamkill in dust could very well just be some random ******* the game TOLD me was my teammate for the next 15 minutes, greifing everybody he meets.

Properly screen your recruits and you don't have to worry about the bitter CoD children. Problem solved.

CCP has already confirmed that highsec will have matchmaking, and a PlanetSide grief point system would be workable. Lowsec and highsec? WTF are you doing there with pugs? You CHOSE to go there with pugs, you reap what you sow. In nullsec I shouldn't even need to explain, what are you doing there with pugs in the first place?

because they have before

Lets see, if you shoot a vehicle that a teammate is hacking and you kill them its your fault, if you can't let go of R1 when a teammate gets in front of you its your fault, if a teammate turns a corner and shoots you its their fault. I don't see your point, all of the issues you listed can be avoided through smart play. Besides I said Percentage based if you put 1 bullet into teammate you DON'T pay the full cost.

so basically what you're saying is i can't play any game mode ever unless i personally know my entire team, and we all join together? you realize that is idiotic right?

Not sure if I agree with there being a penalty for killing a teammate if FF gets turned on, since I've been in many instances where I've been blasting away at an enemy only to have some 'tard on my team run right in front of me trying to get the kill. Penalties should be handled by the corps themselves, not by CCP.

Most of you are against so I guess I'm wrong, but this game has a lot of potential for accidental team killing. With so many splash damage based method to kill, accidental team kills will become far too frequent. Have a punishment for team killing will promote smart play, but since none of you want that then fine, everyone just play and don't give a f**k about you teammates.

Edit: you guys know that you won't only be playing corp battles right? I'm pretty sure you will find yourself in a public battle at least once.

so basically what you're saying is i can't play any game mode ever unless i personally know my entire team, and we all join together? you realize that is idiotic right?

Take your fudging finger off the fudging button. Penalty should be there for exactly this reason.

Take your fudging finger off the fudging button. Penalty should be there for exactly this reason.

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.

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?

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.

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).

but not all game modes will be outlaw systems. and you only need 1 griefer to ruin a match.

what people are suggesting will make the ENTIRE GAME unplayable unless you have an ENTIRE TEAM worth of friends online. even if me and my gang outnumber the greifers 10:1 in a given match, we're now stuck playing against THEM instead of playing against the other team.

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 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.

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...

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.

I'm sorry. How does this refute the idea?

Yeah. How dare he expect you to exercise some fire discipline!?

Yeah. How dare he expect you to exercise some fire discipline!?

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?

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.

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

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?

There will be PvE, you're welcome to carebear it up there.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Friendly fire and backstabbing are integral to Eve, and subsequently, Dust.
.

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?

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

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.)

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

This thread is hilarious.
Welcome to New Eden. The penalty will be to their reputation (and maybe sec status).

A warm welcome to all these new "clans". People WILL get awoxed, it's a crucial part of the metagame

MAG was full of awoxers. Become member, play a bit become officer, remove all members. The games that never had clan support are in for a horrible shock hohoho

yep, people did that in socom.

Ricochet.

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.

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

why would CCP ever turn on friendly fire?

Come to think of it, wouldn't your opponent take advantage of the team-kill penalty system by simply running around within your group causing you to accidentally shoot each other as your team tries to kill the enemy that waltzed right in? I can imagine the griefers using this to their advantage.

1. Scout runs into enemy group in circles.
2. Group shoots itself.
3. ...
4. Profit from the tears.

Because having it off is terrible and dumb. It encourages such things as tossing grenades into teamates in a fight, because it will only kill the enemies, allows you to fire your HMG recklessly with no chance of repercussions, all kinds of illogical and idiotic behavior.

How many friendly fire fps games have u played? ik it seems more realistic but most people who enjoy FF think its hilarious to team kill all day and they laugh and giggle when if they did it realistically in life it would be treason and im pretty sure execution in the USA it would have to have strict guidelines and managed properly or it will not be fun but if they add the spy aspect to it then all is fair :P but the rules will have to be made and we should all have the option to not include said person in our reindeer games lol

In null sec corps should handle friendly fire incidents. In hi/low sec they could implement some sort of standings like in eve where if you repeatedly teamkill youre security status goes down. this would give your teammates a headsup at least that you have a history of teamkilling. Also putting in a system that would allow your teammates to forgive the teamkill if it is accidental would be good. so unforgiven teamkill -> effects sec status, forgiven teamkill -> no sec status penalty. Any merc who gets to low of a sec status is no longer allowed to participate in hi sec matches at all, but can participate in lowsec

well, either make it reflect back at them or let them have one but the next they get booted from the battle.

or... make them pay whoever they shot the amount that their load out costs.

I doubt CCP would put that in. They would more than likely let the high-sec "crime watch" system handle that instead of the players. In Eve Online, there are griefers who join Incursion fleets with a bunch of randoms with the intent of actually destroying their own friends because... guess what!

They're Sansha's Nation sympathizers! (role-playing)

What did CCP do? Nothing.