Friendly fire damage upto 30%

[andrewprofit]

I know pvp will only occur in certain zones. However, I think when your in a battle with group members and you miss the enemy the torpedo or phaser blast shouldnt just go through your fellow players ships magically. Damage from friendly fire upto 30% of max health.

[Rangerrob]

Pirates of the Burning Sea handled this by not letting you shoot at all if a friendly was in the way.

[OrabIbo]

wow, your just asking for all kinds of trouble tonight ;)

Again I appreciate your need for realism. But there is nothing more frustrating than team killing! Whether it was accidental or not. The fact of the matter is it prevented you from squaring off with the enemy because you teammate doesn't know how to lay off his trigger finger :P

Really uncool. when it happens and totally uncool when it happens often. To the point..... *wait for it* yes, GRIEFING!

You will regret this request the moment you actually experience it when it is not in your favor!

[andrewprofit]

wow, your just asking for all kinds of trouble tonight ;)

Again I appreciate your need for realism. But there is nothing more frustrating than team killing! Whether it was accidental or not. The fact of the matter is it prevented you from squaring off with the enemy because you teammate doesn't know how to lay off his trigger finger :P

Really uncool. when it happens and totally uncool when it happens often. To the point..... *wait for it* yes, GRIEFING!

You will regret this request the moment you actually experience it when it is not in your favor!

Well I propose that the damage be limited to 30% of max health. So if I am fighting a npc and im at 60% health and some player such as yourself comes by and starts shooting me it woundn't do any damage to me at all.

Yes I realize If I am at 95% while fighting an npc and you start shooting me that would get me to 70% quick but I think the realism is worth it.

Also If a Player does more than say 20% damage to my ship he would be flagged hostile for a couple hours and subject to my fire.

[callsign11b]

in the pvp areas why can't there be frendly fire?
the dev. said its going to be slowed down to actually use tactics to play not another run and gun or fighter plane style play.
so you actually have to plan something out in tactics before you go in guns a blasing.

[OrabIbo]

For PvP I can understand this being used. But I don't know if I'd even be to happy in the middle a huge firefight the majority of my damage taken was because my teammate behind me was to lazy to take another angle to fire on the enemy that I was in his way of getting to.

Hit me with asteroids and enemy NPC's and PC's all day. But I can do without my teammates destroying my ship while the enemy is doing the same thing. If there were penalties for it I might feel better for it

But with Cryptic taking the stance of light penalties in the game. I really don't think they would really allow this to happen. Either way, I'll enjoy the game and deal with it.

I'd rather have all teammate damage do 10% damage on ship. And they can do damage to my ship up to 30% health left. AFter that they can do no damage. Which I think is what you meant, except the reduced damage effect.

[andrewprofit]

For PvP I can understand this being used. But I don't know if I'd even be to happy in the middle a huge firefight the majority of my damage taken was because my teammate behind me was to lazy to take another angle to fire on the enemy that I was in his way of getting to.

Hit me with asteroids and enemy NPC's and PC's all day. But I can do without my teammates destroying my ship while the enemy is doing the same thing. If there were penalties for it I might feel better for it

But with Cryptic taking the stance of light penalties in the game. I really don't think they would really allow this to happen. Either way, I'll enjoy the game and deal with it.

I'd rather have all teammate damage do 10% damage on ship. And they can do damage to my ship up to 30% health left. AFter that they can do no damage. Which I think is what you meant, except the reduced damage effect.

I ment that no player damage beyond 70% of max health. So when they get me down to 70% ie 700 out of 1000 hp then they stop having an effect and their shots pass through.

I think your 30% health would be more exciting though. Since they want light penalties I think 70% is more appropriate IE it will give us reasons not to stand our ships ontop of each other to form invincible shield bubbles.

[callsign11b]

I know what your getting at some players will go straight in firing every thing they have and who cares who's in the line of fire.
but as this will be alot of team (clan) play as well that can be dealt with in house .
I know if i came to the aid of a team mate and he contuned to fire and damaged my ship because they chose not to think just run and gun.
i could decide to back off until that person got his but kicked. leave the area. or take it up in the clan after action reports.
and i know better than to help that person next time.
remember there is going to be some communication between ships. I got no problem telling someone to stop shooting me up.
now its a different story if your and over agressive player tring to get all the kills and you fly your ship into the cross fire tring to finish off a enemy ship.
but tactics will play a important role and the guys who run and gun will find themselves losing more than winning.

[Trekkie]

In general I don't think that friendly fire should even be an issue, because to be honest although it is more realistic I think that worrying about shooting friendly ships would slow down a lot of otherwise fast-paced and exciting battles.

[WinterPark1701]

Pirates of the Burning Sea handled this by not letting you shoot at all if a friendly was in the way.

Thats kind of been the standard response to the question of fragging in many games, not just MMO's and I like it, it works I say we go with it. This systme goes a long way twords allowing the user to focuse on the game and not have to worry about annoying little nitty things like killing team mates. Maybe if they do a 'Hardcore' setting like they had in Diabo II you could do friendly fire along with the perma deaths which some of the uber-hard core gamer types seem to want, it seems to have worked well in Diablo II so why not here? But let the rest of us casual, recreational gamers just enjoy not having to worry about all the things which we must face in daily life.

There is a point where a game becomes too real, one of the reasons I never did like The Sims. Any game were I must go to work and pay bills just dosen't get my attention.

[SiskoBell]

I know pvp will only occur in certain zones. However, I think when your in a battle with group members and you miss the enemy the torpedo or phaser blast shouldnt just go through your fellow players ships magically. Damage from friendly fire upto 30% of max health.

Well I propose that the damage be limited to 30% of max health. So if I am fighting a npc and im at 60% health and some player such as yourself comes by and starts shooting me it woundn't do any damage to me at all.

Yes I realize If I am at 95% while fighting an npc and you start shooting me that would get me to 70% quick but I think the realism is worth it.

Also If a Player does more than say 20% damage to my ship he would be flagged hostile for a couple hours and subject to my fire.

I support your basic take on the issue andrew. I suggested the need/desire for friendly fire a few months ago. The way I see it, it's precisely because there will inevitably be players that run and gun that I'd like to see it. This just adds another level of tactics that I can exploit in combat. If my task force is facing off against an more inexperienced team, or I'm outnumbered in battle, getting the other side to weaken each other is beneficial. Limiting damage to a small percentage is good. But in the interest of preventing grief play, perhaps the "damage" should only apply to the firing vessel.

For example, perhaps a friendly fire penalty would simply be the introduction of a weapons fire delay. If you hit a friendly vessel, you can't fire your weapons at all for 10 seconds. If you strike a friendly vessel again within the next minute, the delay becomes 20 seconds. Next time it the delay reaches the maximum of 30 seconds. Conversely, if you hit a friendly and are penalized, but thereafter only hit the enemy, the delay penalty time reduces down a level until normal.

[cocoa-jin]

If we had to have friendly fire I suggest they make it so if you hit a friendly it damages you instead.

Or provide a stun factor that delays maneuvering and weapons fire for a second or so on the ship that fired.

[Rgoodfel]

Pirates of the Burning Sea handled this by not letting you shoot at all if a friendly was in the way.

I think this would be a perfect option.

[boz75]

No friendly fire please! A torpedo can navigate around a friendly and I imagine most of the time a phaser should be able to find its way through however if not then I vote that your ship should not fire until the enemy target can be hit.

[jayrelo]

drew, you need to stop with this realism stuff man. its getting ridiculous reading a thread from you a day about either perma death or realism.

i think you just want the 30% so you can take pot shots at everyone.

and you say you want realism... really? so a photon torpedo would stop doing damage to me after it reaches a magical number of allowable damage? no, this is not a good idear. sorry prof. but look on the brightside, at least its not as bad as your 58 threads on permadeath.

:p

[indigowhale345]

Realism? Okay, what tactical officer is stupid enough to try and shoot through an allied ship? None! You shouldn't be able to fire if the computer and your tactical officer can't get a clear shot.

I would say friendly fire should only be possible on misses, and thus it can never be intentional by the player. A smart target could make it more likely that a miss will hit someone else with excellent maneuvers, but it should never be allowed by the game that you can intentionally shoot an ally, due to griefing issues, and due to the fact that no tactical officer is going to do that on purpose in the ST universe.

If you can't maneuver your ship into a decent firing position then your friend should not be punished for your stupidity, especially when your crew wouldn't be making that mistake. They should just ignore the order and grab a taco until you can move the ship into a better position.

[Loekii]

Pirates of the Burning Sea handled this by not letting you shoot at all if a friendly was in the way.

I disagree with 'Friendly Fire' in Ship combat, as I think the margin for targeting error is fairly slim. The Targeting Computers would simply 'not fire' if there was a Friendly in the firing path. It would shoot when it had the shot --- even if it came close to hitting the friendly. It would NOT shoot if the path would connect to the friendly ship.

This is 2400 computer targeting, not some 5th century siege weapon.

I could agree with 'friendly' fire chances in Ground combat, as there is more 'human error' factored into it. However, I would only like to see that chance to be more like a 'fumble' (1-2% at most).

Overall, I would rather see things like 'malfunctions' (especially from heavily damaged equipment), where the system just 'blows up' -- breaking and causing some damage to YOUR ship.

[Thibor]

And it will get used to grief people, of that you can be assured.

A person that is willing to "corpse camp" in other games just to be a jerk will also go to the same lengths to make sure some starts a PvP battle at 70% instead of 100%.

It will also encourage those groups who are more PvP oriented to have people with 2nd accounts so as to have someone embedded in the opposing faction to weaken them before or during the early portions of a fight.

[Varrangian]

For Trek I don't think Friendly fire is "real". I've never seen accidental friendly fire in a single Trek show or movie. It was always intentional.

[callsign11b]

I think there should be friendly fire but as posted above only if you miss the enemy ship and you happen to be unlucky on the other side and take the damage.
in real or in this case game life.
you wouldn't fire on a friendly ship, there would be some safties in place to prevent it as well as crew quality.
but if your firing and you miss a enemy ship and a friendly comes in on your firing shot then it should hit.
and i don't think there should be a limit to how much damage you take .
thats where tactics come into play. not just run and gun type of play.
as well don't like the firing rate reduced that gives enemy ships a advantage.
It would be a good tactic for very fast and monuverable ships to reduce power to weapons and crank up shield power and fly in and around enemy ships drawing there fire to get them to try to hit each other to reduce there fire rate and the main enemy force come in and over power them with higher rates of fire.

[alucard1]

I ment that no player damage beyond 70% of max health. So when they get me down to 70% ie 700 out of 1000 hp then they stop having an effect and their shots pass through.

If your point is for realism.. then there would be no cut-off point... a bullet does not cause damage until your almost dead.. it wouldn't just go through you magically (wasn't that the phrase you used for your argument?)

It should be an all-or-nothing thing. Either you have friendly fire, or you don't... To which I say... don't.

- Peace

[Kuthulazrah]

Im new here but gotta throw my two cents in here.
Im all for friendly fire, like stated above for realism and a tactic to be exploited by smaller and more maneuverable ships. Targeting systems so advanced and competent officers should prevent this, so it shouldn't be a common occurrence.

But intentional targeting of friendlies should come with severely harsh penalties. Something like loss of ship and immediate mutiny of crew kicking you from the current battle.

[Vicelance]

I think that the tactical officer and targeting computer wouldn't fire when a friendly ship is in the line of fire, and at the same time a helmsmen shouldn't put their ship into an ally's firing path.

If there is friendly fire there shoudn't be some magical cut off number where you stop taking damage or a penalty to the firing ship due to a friendly from getting in the way of the shot.

[Thibor]

But intentional targeting of friendlies should come with severely harsh penalties. Something like loss of ship and immediate mutiny of crew kicking you from the current battle.

I'm curious about this computer AI that will be able to accurately decipher a player's intentions and not be exploited

[ParkerHayden]

I don't think friendly fire is a good idea. There would always be a good chunk of idiot players that would abuse it beyond reason. Just look at FPS games played online when friendly fire is allowed: say some guy wants a weapon, and another guy on the same time does too. One of them gets the weapon before the other, so the one without the wanted weapon kills the one that did take the weapon because he/she was ****ed. Same exact scenario in STO and any MMO that would allow friendly fire. Except that people would do it for the sheer fun of it too.

[Skepic]

i don't think there should be friendly fire in the game.

[andrewprofit]

I support your basic take on the issue andrew. I suggested the need/desire for friendly fire a few months ago. The way I see it, it's precisely because there will inevitably be players that run and gun that I'd like to see it. This just adds another level of tactics that I can exploit in combat. If my task force is facing off against an more inexperienced team, or I'm outnumbered in battle, getting the other side to weaken each other is beneficial. Limiting damage to a small percentage is good. But in the interest of preventing grief play, perhaps the "damage" should only apply to the firing vessel.

For example, perhaps a friendly fire penalty would simply be the introduction of a weapons fire delay. If you hit a friendly vessel, you can't fire your weapons at all for 10 seconds. If you strike a friendly vessel again within the next minute, the delay becomes 20 seconds. Next time it the delay reaches the maximum of 30 seconds. Conversely, if you hit a friendly and are penalized, but thereafter only hit the enemy, the delay penalty time reduces down a level until normal.

Wow I like your idea the best. If you hit a friendly ship you get an earful from starfleet command and while your getting chewed out you cannot shoot. Oh I would like to see this timeout increase based on the number of friendly ships you hit.

To prevent greifing I think players that get shot because of line of fire to enemy npc should get enemy npc aggro. Even that could be exploited under certain circumstance. Oh well i like the idea of getting chewed out by the faction with somekinda of short term concequences.

[Freejack]

I know pvp will only occur in certain zones. However, I think when your in a battle with group members and you miss the enemy the torpedo or phaser blast shouldnt just go through your fellow players ships magically. Damage from friendly fire upto 30% of max health.

Won't we have computers on our ships? :confused:

[Kuthulazrah]

I'm curious about this computer AI that will be able to accurately decipher a player's intentions and not be exploited

Because you assign the ship that you want to fire at. As far as I understand it isnt Star Wars X-wing fighter style, point and shoot, so if you tell your ship to purposely target a friendly ship your intentions would be rather obvious.

[ParkerHayden]

Won't we have computers on our ships? :confused:
Computers aren't perfect.

[Silverspar]

I don't understand what purpose this will serve other than the simple fact it just gives griefers easy tactics to grief others. Big whoop, you limit it to 30% max damage they can do, that means that's 30% less damage your enemies will have to do in PvP, and ontop of htat, that means that more than likely your 'friends' aren't helping you to begin with. This is a big resounding no, and chunked in the horrible ideas pile quite easily.

The argument for reallism is the silliest and has more holes in it than the Titanic.

[callsign11b]

How i'm talking about friendly fire is by accident like real life friendly fire your not targeting friendlys on purpose.
you fire at a enemy and for one reason or another you miss the enemy and if a friendly ship flys into your shot or puts inself into the field of fire then friendly fire should happen.
but not targeting friendly ships on purpose nope.

example when the two hologram doc. fire torpedoes at the romulan ships but didn't tell the computer to target a romulan ship.
they launch the torpedoes and they flew around and hit the federation ship by accident. (voy. series)
thats friendly fire....

[dinendae]

example when the two hologram doc. fire torpedoes at the romulan ships but didn't tell the computer to target a romulan ship.
they launch the torpedoes and they flew around and hit the federation ship by accident. (voy. series)
thats friendly fire....


Do not mistake lack of research on the writer's part and/or dramatic license for how things would operate in the Star Trek universe. Not only should there be IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) technology, but there should also be safety hardware/programs on the torpedo or in the firing station. Look at a present day torpedo; they have a safety built in to help prevent the torpedo from coming back to hit the sub that launched it. I would imagine such technology to be quite advanced by the time period this game will be set in.

Also you need to factor in that unlike ourselves, our characters have been fully trained. Not only would they know to hold fire until they had a good shot, but the consequences of hitting a friendly ship would be fresh in their minds. At the very least they would be removed from command or duties for incompetence, and rightly so.

Finally, as others have already pointed out, friendly fire would be abused. It does not matter how harsh of a penalty you impose, there will always be those who just don't care and will run around attacking friendly players for the sheer fun they get out of it. You cannot rely on the player base policing itself (sure a clan/guild can kick someone out, but that doesn't really solve the problem), as this has never truly happens on a grand scale like everyone seems to think it will. At best you get a few clans/guilds that try to, but they cannot handle the sheer amount of incidents that will happen.

Finally, look at the majority of ship conbat in the Star Trek universe; you will find many more instances where a ship will either stop firing when a friendly gets in the way, or holds fire until a clear line of sight is established and then resumes firing. Distance and a three dimensional battlefield should make friendly fire instances virtually nonexistant as well.

[Zander2]

This would be more realistic, and it would keep people from spitting out torpedos in every direction in hopes of hitting the enemy.

[callsign11b]

yes friendly fire would be abused if you could target friendly ships.
but what i'm tring to say is by accident
target 1 is locked .
you fire at target 1.
at the same time.
target 1 is doing evasive tactics to reduce the chanch of being hit.
so you fire because your locked onto a enemy target.
say you fire a torpedo and two phaser shots.
because target 1 is evading you only hit him with the torpedoe and one phaser hit.
at the same time a friendly ship is manovering to fire at target 1 ship also and is behind him and your phaser shot that missed target 1 hits your friendly ship because he got into the line of fire.

that is friendly fire.

I don't think friendly weapon fire should just pass through your ship as if you were never there.


iff is friend or foe another words you send out a signal and the ship plane sends back the friend signal so you don't lock them up if its a enemy they will not have the correct signal to send back.
but weather iff is on you can still lock up any target friend or foe.

but in real life combat friendly fire happens.

[dinendae]

[QUOTE=callsign11b;288350

that is friendly fire.

I don't think friendly weapon fire should just pass through your ship as if you were never there.


iff is friend or foe another words you send out a signal and the ship plane sends back the friend signal so you don't lock them up if its a enemy they will not have the correct signal to send back.
but weather iff is on you can still lock up any target friend or foe.

but in real life combat friendly fire happens.[/QUOTE]

I know what friendly fire is. My point was that due to technological advances, along with a battle being fought with large scale distances in space and in three dimensions, it is very unlikely to happen. As for IFF you don't send out the signal, the other ship's IFF transmits its IFF signal (yes your ship does the same, but that has nothing to do with recieving another's IFF) which is read by your ship's computer. The device that does this job on a ship is called the transponder, which also gives various statistics such as name, class, etc. Transponder codes are highly classified and being able to read another races transponder codes gives a significant advantage (reference the ST:TNG episode where the rogue Starfleet captain was attacking Cardassian transports because they were rearming a space station for war).

Yes FF happens in real life; planes and helicopters destroy friendlies during conflicts because those friendlies do not have IFF (such as ground vehicles and infantry), and the pilots made a recognition error. However, and this is just a guess, I think that a starship from the game's time period is going to better technology to help alleviate this problem. Yes you can lock on to anything, once again crew training would kick in and your first officer should remove you from command if you try to fire onto a friendly ship.

However, this is all a moot point. As previously stated, the main reason this is a bad idea is because people will abuse it.

[jayrelo]

Won't we have computers on our ships? :confused:

aha.

freejack 1
andrewprofit 0

[callsign11b]

of course players will abuse it.
given half a chance alot of players will take advantage of any system device or playing style.
but.
it keeps coming back to firing on friendly ships.
maybe you can explane how a player could take advantage of it.
if.
1 you can not directly target or fire on a friendly ship.
2. you only take damage from friendly fire if you get in the way of incoming fire on a enemy ship.

if a friendly ship is between you and a enemy ship then you can't fire because the friendly ship is blocking the enemy target. so you don't have a lock on a enemy ship while a friendly ship is in the way.
but if a friendly ship is behind a enemy ship and is in the line of fire then there should be a chance if you miss with your shots that they may hit the friendly ship.

that is what i mean about taking friendly fire.

[dinendae]

if a friendly ship is between you and a enemy ship then you can't fire because the friendly ship is blocking the enemy target. so you don't have a lock on a enemy ship while a friendly ship is in the way.
but if a friendly ship is behind a enemy ship and is in the line of fire then there should be a chance if you miss with your shots that they may hit the friendly ship.

that is what i mean about taking friendly fire.

Try looking at it this way: Remember the battle with the Borg cube at the beginning of First Contact? There were multiple Federation ships flying all around the cube, but how many hit another friendly ship with friendly fire? For that matter, look at the fleet battles near the end of DS9. Same thing. The OP wanted enough friendly fire to do up to 30% damage to your ship. That implies that there will be more than just say a 1% - 2% chance (or less) of an occasional accidental hit, but rather multiple hits landing.

As to how FF could be exploited if you can't lock onto a friendly ship or fire on it? Simple; target the enemy ship, maneuver so that a friendly ship is between you and the enemy ship, then fire your weapons at the enemy ship. Since you have targeted the enemy ship and fired at the enemy ship, your weapons will discharge and hit the friendly ship (especially if you are right next to them). Viola!

Sure ship movement and maneuvers might make this tricky, but never underestimate someone's willingness to spend time practicing so that they can get a high percentage hit probability. No matter what safeguards you try to put in place, someone will always find a way around them. The only sure way to stop it from happening on purpose is to not allow it.

[callsign11b]

I see your point but bad example of the borg cube.
llarge slow moving ship.
But I get your point.
I was never in agreement of a 30% hit amount.
but I don't know takes a bit out of it if your in a fight and friendly fire just passes through your ship or just stops.
but what would the chances of three or more ships manuvering and firing that you could postion yourself so at the right moment you could line up a enemy target and get a friendly ship to come into the line of fire and have some or all your weapons miss there target and actually hit a friendly ship. on purpose.


but as a tactic two fleets form up for combat.
the smaller and more monuverable ships move in and get inbetween enemy ships taking shots of opertunity as the enemy ships try to hit you some will some will not but there would be a chance that some of those missed shots could hit friendly ships.
adding to the detail of game play and designing and operations of fleet tactics in play.

[Kinneas]

Perhaps:

- Friendly Fire systems tied into sensor platform. If sensor platform is hit, the computer rolls to see which sub-system gets damaged. You could loose your safeties and/or your ability to transpond to other friendly ships?

As a tactic it could be good to try and eliminate an opposing fleet's friendly fire safeties (non-lethal tactics)?

- Friendly fire sub systems as-add on devices when building ships from the ground up?

- A unit(s) that must be repaired if damaged?
-

Friendly fire IS horrible (& should remain horrible as a lesson. You will not become more skilled if it is gimped) and fleets should always practice co-ordinating attack vectors/tactics properly in the event you do loose your safeties or even all communications (silent stealth fighting)?

[dinendae]

but what would the chances of three or more ships manuvering and firing that you could postion yourself so at the right moment you could line up a enemy target and get a friendly ship to come into the line of fire and have some or all your weapons miss there target and actually hit a friendly ship. on purpose.


Actually you would be surprised at the lengths some people will go to just to find a work around so that they can mess with other players. Have you ever played WWIIOnline (I think it's called Battleground Europe now)? In the air battles that happen, your scenario here happens quite frequently. I lost track of the number of times at launch (when you could actually get in the game) where people tried this very thing. Luckily, the designers recognized the potential for abuse and there was no FF. That didn't mean people wouldn't try though. It wouldn't be that hard to do either, just learn to lead a target properly and adjust for movement.

If you could actually count on people not to intentionally try to hit you, then I wouldn't be opposed to the game giving an rare FF hit. Say less than 1% chance, due to all the various factors involved including the fact that your pilot should actually be piloting and trying to avoid getting your ship hit. However this is not a perfect world, and as many other games have shown, many players will intentionally try to harm their allies for sheer kicks if they are given a chance.