[GrimGriz]

Well, everything seems to lead back to this one way or another, so let's give it it's own thread and not sidetrack other ones

Here's the possibilities I see possibly being implemented, but if someone comes up with one that's not listed we can always start over.

Safe zone supreme - You can't damage another player in regulated space/their own faction space.

Safe zones strict - You can't damage another player in regulated space unless that player flags himself for pvp (like by attacking) ala non-pvp server WoW.

Safe zone loose - in safe zones (factional space) if you attack a non-combat player super tough AI appears and makes you splode.

Turrets - Haulers and Miners are given the means to fight back when cornered and are expected to be targets. There is no tag system or other system to artificially protect them.

Civ Tags/Bounty system - Netdevil decides that 'maybe this time the wannabe badarses won't run off other customers, let's give it another go. If it doesn't work out, at least the AI miners and haulers will be there!!'

[vorlon31]

I voted safezone strict - but I would want to expand the pvp flag to incorporate mission choices as well as direct action and pvp requests. So, if you take a mission to smuggle Tribbles into Quant stations (to drop there so they eat all quants grain) and get scanned your open to pvp.

I would like scanning to be commonplace in Jumpgate Evolution, its something that failed as a concept in Jumpgate Classic because it happened so rarely people assumed you were up to no good if you did it (and it took up a modx slot which was the other reason why it wasnt popular).

This is reliant on there being plenty of scope too for pvp action based on military service, rat hunts, renegade action, escorts through neutral zones, deregulated areas and badlands too so that the universe isnt staled by too much safety. The point being that when people get bored of the safe zones they can move into more aggressive environments and rp's but, unlike in Jumpgate Classic, have the option to return to a more civilised gameplay when they need to without fear of the ghosts of their military service following them, necessarily.

[Tritian]

Well, given those restrictions, you've certainly made 'turrets' look very attractive.

However, I vote they will find a way to remove the tags completely and encourage player interaction via squad/escort protection by offering good incentives, and a beefed up ship computer that can be programmed to recognize friends or foes based off any individual pilot, squad, or faction you place in the lists.

Am I the only person who thinks that given the proper incentives and rewards for escorting, that escorting can be a good way to keep the space lanes relatively safe while not limiting RP? The players *CAN* police themselves, maybe not with 100% accuracy, but it shouldn't be about that. When we had higher player numbers, we kept the griefers at bay even without any kind of incentive to do so. It was an unwritten law that pvp'ers generally protect the haulers, especially if they ask for help.

I'm sure if you made escort duty pay very well, civs will be protected for the most part just by people trying to ensure they make it to their destination. There is no need for hard coded rules that limit RP potential.

Being guarantied safety with 100% certainty is not my idea of a good game. I would prefer Jumpgate Evolution avoids ProgressQuest-esque safety where there are no unforeseen dangers, and everyone just watches their stats get higher and higher.

[dahalb]

Well, from what i saw today...

Safe zone supreme - Not there.
Safe zones strict - Not there
Safe zone loose - Possibly
Turrets - Nope
Civ Tags/Bounty system - Possibly.

Doesn't shed a lot of light i know, but i also voted Pie

[GrimGriz]

Originally Posted by Tritian

Am I the only person who thinks that given the proper incentives and rewards for escorting, that escorting can be a good way to keep the space lanes relatively safe while not limiting RP?

Escorting can be a fine way to make the spacelanes safe, but the key for escorting to work is making the spacelanes dangerous. Civ tags and the illusion of safety is what made escort duty boring and a failure. I think escorting would have worked pretty well had there never been tags.

However, after 5 years one fact has become abundantly clear - making haulers and miners at the COMPLETE mercy of fighters leaves them open to abuse and harassment. I can't imagine why Netdevil would want to put any percentage of their customers in that position.

I have to believe that at some point they said "wait a minute, we're losing customers that fly civ because of people harassing them" I mean....they considered the civ chip...so they knew something was up.

I don't know what relationship Rollio had to Netdevil, but they never learned the lession he tried to teach them in the beta of Jumpgate Classic. Ofcourse, he also showed them farming and they ignored it.

I'm so tempted to fly to Denver and see if I can get them to explain why they did/do some of the things they do/did. That and apply for a job in person.....though part of me thinks they wouldn't let me within 1000 feet of the building.

[vorlon31]

Originally Posted by GrimGriz

.....though part of me thinks they wouldn't let me within 1000 feet of the building.

I hear the Netdevil building has turrets for just that eventuality

[Eraser55]

Thats certanly true GG.. were there no tags, escorting would be needed and used.(like it was used on EU while traveling trough unreg, atleast in my squad.. )

But because we have this artificial protection called tags and bounty, almost no one is willing to hire escorts and rely on this system instead. But when they do get ripped, they cry how selfpolicing doesnt work.

[Jonboy]

I still think having two server-types is the best solution. One server allowing non-consensual PvP and the other server allows only consensual PvP.

[dailatron]

Originally Posted by Jonboy

I still think having two server-types is the best solution. One server allowing non-consensual PvP and the other server allows only consensual PvP.

LOL

What ever happens people will complain, but immunity is so wrong. Be it from the civilian side or the ripper side. But sadly because of the way gamers find loop holes in every aspect, nothing will work properly for the satisfaction of the ripped unless it IS immunity.

So I vote for loose or light as it is in the poll.

[Jump]

I don't know, while I do think core sector areas should be extremely defended like any civilization would, I don't want to see auto safe zones. Politics and a timely hauling for cash always kept -=MACK=- ships in the space lanes. While it was stressful dealing with that, it worked and added a new dimensions to the game for us. Though not everyone out there is going to be outgoing enough to get that job done.

[ELPIRATA]

I voted for safezone light/loose, but after reading the comment about AI exploding your ship... Im not so sure. I have no problems with it as long as the AI is not a god as the EVE version is.

Turrets dont solve the problem, if anything... will make it worse. Besides, aside of octavian ships... nobody else has the RP background to have them. And there's no turret available that can give you a 100% view of your target all around, unless you stop mining and you're able to move the ship and point to the aggressor.

Turrets are nice if adopted in other ways, but not as a ship protection measure.

ELP

[GrimGriz]

This wasn't a vote ELP, it was "what do you think they'll do." I personally voted for safezone strict, because I see that as the games only hope to keep the non-pvp crowd.

I can't imagine they'd leave things they way there are in Jumpgate Classic and just let all those would-be customers be run off again. Well, actually I can imagine it, they did it before, and this time they're be AI to replace them so no one except Netdevil's accountant will notice they left. That's why I've be so vehement about drawing attention to the issue...I happened to like those people in Jumpgate Classic.