Ranting for the first time.

[Faded Glory]

I'm mainly saying to just simply remove the damage threshold (I personally have never NOT got a fine for FF no matter what weapons.) and make it a per hit thing. 1st hit is a warning that pops up a message like a fine/bounty. 2nd shot within the time frame before the warning expires is a static fine. Any shots after that in the same time frame are bounties and scale depending on how much damage you do.

Yeah. I understand what you are saying, and I think the obvious problem with your suggestion (and why FD did not go down that route) is that not all weapons are equal. One shot from a class one pulse laser, and one shot from a plasma accelerator will do very different amounts of damage.

Also, as I said earlier, FD have stated from the very beginning of these discussions that they believe that any kind of combat infraction must be a bounty, not a fine, i.e. you will become wanted. All bounties are now persistent (they have a timer that must count down before you can clear it by paying it off), whereas a fine can be paid off whenever you wish (it will turn into a bounty if you don't pay it off). I don't really understand what you mean by a static fine.

And I mean this with the utmost respect, but any suggestion along the lines of the one you are putting forward seems to assume that not only are you going to 'accidentally' hit a clean ship once, but you are asking for forgiveness for repeat offenses, and I'm afraid that the fact is, you shouldn't be doing it once, and if it's happening a lot, then a player needs to learn how to avoid it. Plenty of players do, and you really don't have to be an ace combat pilot to manage that, I'm sure I'm not one, and in the main, I manage to avoid it.

 

[DNYI]

You have a lot to say about any solution to the 'friendly fire' problem. Like it or not, the problem is the weapons you are using, are not always hitting the intended targets. If you look a page back in this forum, you will see that I have stated that this is an 'American' problem, (and no not all yanks have this issue, most are very accurate) by this I mean, the 'yanks' have done everything possible to make it politically correct, to justify a major lack of discipline with weapon control. The term Collateral damage was 1st used by the yanks, in Vietnam to excuse 'overkill' (another American word invention) tactics. They have done such a good job, it is now in the public psyche; that is 'OK' or 'just one of those things' or even, 's*it happens', in response to friendly fire instances. The attitude of 'fire and forget' or the 'bigger the weapon the better' have grown up in the American and therefore, western culture, over the last century and the acceptance of the risk friendly fire, has grown along side it.

In this environment, in this game, there is no answer to the 'friendly fire' question, that will make every one happy. However: One should at least reproach ourselves for making such mistakes and not make excuses or try to lay the blame on others. Bigger, greater weapons, require greater control over the use of them, it is our fingers on the trigger and we should all take responsibility for the damage we do with them. Maybe for the trigger happy or reckless amongst us, missiles could be an option, they only hit the targeted ships, I believe. People need to spend less time, complaining about any sanctions imposed due to recklessness, and a little more time, thinking about their own actions and how to avoid such mistakes in the future.

You are misunderstanding the difference between weapon trigger discipline, which entails target identification and determining that is the target you want to shoot at (and that there is nothing beyond the target that you do not want to hit), and something entering the firing path of a weapon between the firer and their intended target (not something that has entered the firing path down range of the intended target) in either the milliseconds before a weapon is triggered (which requires an amount of time equal to or greater than the average human reaction time to see that happening and abort firing) or after a weapon is triggered (in which there is no aborting the attack). In a combat situation where there is an ongoing exchange of fire with clear sight lines for all parties in the area (i.e. a big open area) , the party that can be viewed as more at fault from a causality stand point in the case of a shot striking something downrange (as in past the thing the firer was intending to hit) is the firer of the weapon. The firer of the weapon is also at fault for striking things that were in view long enough to make a friend or foe identification that were nearby the projected firing path. However, the party more at fault when someone enters the firing path of a weapon between the firer and their intended target (not something that has entered the firing path down range of the intended target) in either the milliseconds before a weapon is triggered (which requires an amount of time equal to or greater than the average human reaction time to see that happening and abort firing) or after a weapon is triggered (in which there is no aborting the attack) in an open sight line environment is generally found to be the party that moved into the path of weapons fire. It is this case that I and others are complaining about, not the cases where a ship was fired upon without bothering to identify them (a trigger discipline problem) or cases where a ship was fired upon because one wasn't paying attention to what was behind the target.

Additionally, characterizing this as an "American" problem is bigoted. It implies that only "Americans" have a problem with trigger discipline or "collateral damage" as you put it. Collateral damage as a concept existed before Vietnam and was used throughout history in warfare to make continued resistance/warfare undesirable by an opponent. A major previous example in the 20th century before Vietnam are the bombing campaigns against civilian targets in World War one and world war two. Furthermore on the issue of using weapons that don't always hit the intended target, this issue applies to pretty much all weapons throughout history, as even a melee weapon can strike things next to the intended target in the chaos of a life or death battle, biological/viral/chemical can easily spread in ways that are undesired, etc.

You've also missed my point about the game mechanic being able to be exploited.

 

[FredTA]

15 minutes? How many times have you done this? When I hit another ship, my own fault I didn't have to wait that long, it was 6 miniutes.

Does the time go up each time you do this? If so, how many times have you done this and not learned to take a bit more care?

Yeah me too, for a misfire like that it's only like, 6 mins, I just use that time to dock at a station and cash in my kills. I kinda feel sorry for FD, they're working their asses off and their "fanbase" always find something to rant about.

 

[Arry]

You are misunderstanding the difference between weapon trigger discipline, which entails target identification and determining that is the target you want to shoot at (and that there is nothing beyond the target that you do not want to hit), and something entering the firing path of a weapon between the firer and their intended target (not something that has entered the firing path down range of the intended target) in either the milliseconds before a weapon is triggered (which requires an amount of time equal to or greater than the average human reaction time to see that happening and abort firing) or after a weapon is triggered (in which there is no aborting the attack). In a combat situation where there is an ongoing exchange of fire with clear sight lines for all parties in the area (i.e. a big open area) , the party that can be viewed as more at fault from a causality stand point in the case of a shot striking something downrange (as in past the thing the firer was intending to hit) is the firer of the weapon. The firer of the weapon is also at fault for striking things that were in view long enough to make a friend or foe identification that were nearby the projected firing path. However, the party more at fault when someone enters the firing path of a weapon between the firer and their intended target (not something that has entered the firing path down range of the intended target) in either the milliseconds before a weapon is triggered (which requires an amount of time equal to or greater than the average human reaction time to see that happening and abort firing) or after a weapon is triggered (in which there is no aborting the attack) in an open sight line environment is generally found to be the party that moved into the path of weapons fire. It is this case that I and others are complaining about, not the cases where a ship was fired upon without bothering to identify them (a trigger discipline problem) or cases where a ship was fired upon because one wasn't paying attention to what was behind the target.

Additionally, characterizing this as an "American" problem is bigoted. It implies that only "Americans" have a problem with trigger discipline or "collateral damage" as you put it. Collateral damage as a concept existed before Vietnam and was used throughout history in warfare to make continued resistance/warfare undesirable by an opponent. A major previous example in the 20th century before Vietnam are the bombing campaigns against civilian targets in World War one and world war two. Furthermore on the issue of using weapons that don't always hit the intended target, this issue applies to pretty much all weapons throughout history, as even a melee weapon can strike things next to the intended target in the chaos of a life or death battle, biological/viral/chemical can easily spread in ways that are undesired, etc.

You've also missed my point about the game mechanic being able to be exploited.

Missing the point, is something you seem to be doing, well missing your intended target anyway. I am not going to counter your 'justification' for your error, you can write all you like, you got it wrong, you hit the wrong ship end of story. As to my 'bigoted' understanding that Americans have a need to down play friendly fire or make collateral damage, socially acceptable, tough! The phrase was 1st used in 1961 by T C Schelling in an article, basically about the Vietnam war. A euphemism used by the yanks from then onwards.

 

[Ikor]

Exactly just be aware of your surroundings.