Player Fleet helping Faction Fleet - Still impossible

[LameFox]

Not sure I follow. You're saying that if accidental shots didn't provoke retaliation, no attack would? The game does know if your ships are targeting something on purpose, even if they choose a target based on something other than you giving the order directly.

[Y-llian]

We don’t need to turn off friendly fire completely. We just need a sensible mechanic to emolliate unintended friendly-fire incidents. Imperial’s reparations idea is one such example.

In the past, I suggested a cool down mechanic. You comm your ally before a fight and say you’re going to assist in this area e.g. Eleventh hour. Ally says kewl, friendly-fire will be forgiven for x period of minutes in this area. Rule: you cannot have more than one friendly-fire timer active at a time. After it expires there’s a cool down before you can ask again. Friendly-fire is only really a problem in high attention and that’s the area where we need solutions. Not saying my idea is the best, just throwing it out there.

[LameFox]

I wonder if it could be set up so factions take into account the presence of their enemies when taking friendly fire. So if you hit one surrounded by neutrals (to them) they're upset at being collateral damage, but if there are hostiles nearby they're more 'accidents happen'.

[Ragnos28]

In the past, I suggested a cool down mechanic. You comm your ally before a fight and say you’re going to assist in this area e.g. Eleventh hour. Ally says kewl, friendly-fire will be forgiven for x period of minutes in this area. Rule: you cannot have more than one friendly-fire timer active at a time. After it expires there’s a cool down before you can ask again. Friendly-fire is only really a problem in high attention and that’s the area where we need solutions. Not saying my idea is the best, just throwing it out there.

You are certainly on to something The way I see it is having an dialog option "Offer to assist against....xenon, split, whatever" to the local fleet leader or something. When that offer is accepted.."Afirmative"...your ships in the sector will be treated by the allied AI as its own ships. That will eliminate the frendly fire issue, because when you see an argon Behemoth hiting another argon Behemoth, while trying to kill a Xenon M, the two will not start to pew pew each other
Viceversa will also apply and your ships will say a "target invalid" when and if order to atack allied ships. Also the opposing ships will turn automatically red. That will be in affect, while hostile ships are in the sector.

[Ragnos28]

Not sure I follow. You're saying that if accidental shots didn't provoke retaliation, no attack would? The game does know if your ships are targeting something on purpose, even if they choose a target based on something other than you giving the order directly.

When I have given the scenario in which a player would start the bording of an escorted Asgard, then start to "apologize" to the escorts, turn them "blue" and happily continuing the bording operation, some reply said that there is a diference betwin given an atack order and the AI ships atacking AI ships. Then I remember that my subordonates ships, will engage red targets w/o any order from me, so I could say..."you do those ships agrro? I did not give any order to atack, I'm innocent, I swear, why are they so mean to me? "

[LameFox]

Not sure I follow. You're saying that if accidental shots didn't provoke retaliation, no attack would? The game does know if your ships are targeting something on purpose, even if they choose a target based on something other than you giving the order directly.

When I have given the scenario in which a player would start the bording of an escorted Asgard, then start to "apologize" to the escorts, turn them "blue" and happily continuing the bording operation, some reply said that there is a diference betwin given an atack order and the AI ships atacking AI ships. Then I remember that my subordonates ships, will engage red targets w/o any order from me, so I could say..."you do those ships agrro? I did not give any order to atack, I'm innocent, I swear, why are they so mean to me? "

They probably just worded it strangely. A ship choosing to attack something still gets an order in its behaviour tab, so if the aggro is shifted to that then stray shots would not matter but intentional attacks would. I am not entirely sure how it works with turrets but even those are choosing targets, despite it not being visible to the player, so I think it's likely that distinction can also be made.

[grapedog]

Not sure I follow. You're saying that if accidental shots didn't provoke retaliation, no attack would? The game does know if your ships are targeting something on purpose, even if they choose a target based on something other than you giving the order directly.

When I have given the scenario in which a player would start the bording of an escorted Asgard, then start to "apologize" to the escorts, turn them "blue" and happily continuing the bording operation, some reply said that there is a diference betwin given an atack order and the AI ships atacking AI ships. Then I remember that my subordonates ships, will engage red targets w/o any order from me, so I could say..."you do those ships agrro? I did not give any order to atack, I'm innocent, I swear, why are they so mean to me? "

Who cares? It's a single player game. There are plenty of ways to cheese boarding actions already. Who cares if you decide to do it like that in your own game? I don't.... but I don't want friendly fire every time I try to engage in a big space battle. If you want to abuse it, go ahead. If I choose to, or not to, it should make no difference to anyone else....

But we should all want to have the option to participate in big space battles, without a friendly fire accident turning the whole thing into a huge mess for no good reason.

[Slashman]

Who cares? It's a single player game. There are plenty of ways to cheese boarding actions already. Who cares if you decide to do it like that in your own game? I don't.... but I don't want friendly fire every time I try to engage in a big space battle. If you want to abuse it, go ahead. If I choose to, or not to, it should make no difference to anyone else....

But we should all want to have the option to participate in big space battles, without a friendly fire accident turning the whole thing into a huge mess for no good reason.

I keep hearing people using that argument and it always starts and stops with them. Well its true...it is a single player game...that you paid what...$60 for? That's a single user and some other users on the boards. The fact is that it is not good business to have your games be highly exploitable no matter if it is single or multiplayer. For a number of reasons. Mainly you are seeing one solution to a problem and not thinking of the other implications for where it could cause problems.

The developers do not have the luxury of taking a myopic view of things and need to consider testing, money and manpower to implement your "easy fix". And then consider where it could also break other game logic and fix that. Or are you saying that it is fine to just let it break whatever it wants to so you can have this one scenario work out how you want it to?

Now I personally think that it could use some tweaking...but I'm not assuming that it would start and stop there or that the developers have no good reason for not allowing it to happen in the game currently.

[Eyeklops]

Who cares? It's a single player game. There are plenty of ways to cheese boarding actions already. Who cares if you decide to do it like that in your own game? I don't.... but I don't want friendly fire every time I try to engage in a big space battle. If you want to abuse it, go ahead. If I choose to, or not to, it should make no difference to anyone else....

But we should all want to have the option to participate in big space battles, without a friendly fire accident turning the whole thing into a huge mess for no good reason.

I agree. I'm not sure why these odd edge cases are being argued. I think the spirit of the thread is not about negating the aggro on player caused actions such as ordering a ship to attack or board a friendly. A boarding action or attack order is a clear player aggression and should be handled as such. Unintentional friendly fire due to AI misses is what needs addressed. The NPC AI already seems to get a pass on this because I will get frequent "oops, I'm sorry" comms from them. I think players should get the same pass and it should be done automatically. I say automatic because if I am busy in the map directing a war I don't want to constantly stop to apologize.

[Lord Dakier]

Who cares? It's a single player game. There are plenty of ways to cheese boarding actions already. Who cares if you decide to do it like that in your own game? I don't.... but I don't want friendly fire every time I try to engage in a big space battle. If you want to abuse it, go ahead. If I choose to, or not to, it should make no difference to anyone else....

But we should all want to have the option to participate in big space battles, without a friendly fire accident turning the whole thing into a huge mess for no good reason.

I keep hearing people using that argument and it always starts and stops with them. Well its true...it is a single player game...that you paid what...$60 for? That's a single user and some other users on the boards. The fact is that it is not good business to have your games be highly exploitable no matter if it is single or multiplayer. For a number of reasons. Mainly you are seeing one solution to a problem and not thinking of the other implications for where it could cause problems.

The developers do not have the luxury of taking a myopic view of things and need to consider testing, money and manpower to implement your "easy fix". And then consider where it could also break other game logic and fix that. Or are you saying that it is fine to just let it break whatever it wants to so you can have this one scenario work out how you want it to?

Now I personally think that it could use some tweaking...but I'm not assuming that it would start and stop there or that the developers have no good reason for not allowing it to happen in the game currently.

You're restricting players from properly using a BIG part of the game because some small minority might exploit it. This isn't removing paintbrushes from Elder Scrolls Oblivion because people can walk on them to complete the game in 20 minutes lol. That entire point you make is really, really weak.

As for the previous point about calling off enemies when boarding. Absolutely not, the only time I would be in favour of this is in player-owned space where you fleet is the police force.

[GCU Grey Area]

Personally fine with friendly fire being a thing & would not want it radically changed, at least not to the extent demanded in this thread. It in no way makes assisting NPC fleets "impossible" as the thread title suggests. I do exactly that in most of my games - I don't like to claim sectors for myself, would much rather help my NPC allies to extend their own territory & that means fighting alongside them. Just have to be a bit careful about how I equip my ships (flak in particular is best avoided, for obvious reasons) & what orders I give - i.e. friendly fire is just part of the Think aspect of the game as far as I'm concerned.

[Ragnos28]

Personally, I like the concept of rules and consequences to my actions in my games, even single player ones. Even if I play chess by myself, I would still want the pieces on the board to move acording to the rules of chess and, maybe, not have some dice rolling involved

Anyway, I did proposed a posible solution for the problem mention in this thread and a way to implement it.

The way I see it is having an dialog option "Offer to assist against....xenon, split, whatever" to the local fleet leader or something. When that offer is accepted.."Afirmative"...your ships in the sector will be treated by the allied AI as its own ships. That will eliminate the frendly fire issue, because when you see an argon Behemoth hiting another argon Behemoth, while trying to kill a Xenon M, the two will not start to pew pew each other
Viceversa will also apply and your ships will say a "target invalid" when and if order to atack allied ships. Also the opposing ships will turn automatically red. That will be in affect, while hostile ships are in the sector.

[phrozen1]

OMG. What are you guys even talking about? Why are you defending this???

I don't want my NPC-Ships of my fleet shooting at allied faction ships in a fight where i try to help them.
But they do, all the time in every slightly bigger battle.
Btw. factions shoot their own ships all the time but thats no problem.
My own ships shoot each other and sometimes i loose my own ships because of that. OK.

I just dont want to loose rep when i help a faction with my fleet, it's not fun and makes no sense. Nobody can make me believe this is "fun" or this is the "think"-part of x4.
It's just an unsolved problem. And there are many possible solutions which even could add to the gameplay.
But beeing forced to leave the sector and look at the fight from the map is not a solution.

Just look at the mod Shuulo posted on page 1. It solves the problem pretty good and i don't see much potential for exploits.

[Exitialis101]

I would love it if Egosoft found a solution to allow us to help allied fleets with our own fleets.

I made a topic with a poll about this a while ago. It seems like the majority who voted are for some kind of change.

Topic:
viewtopic.php?f=146&t=435850&sid=ee7a8f ... 1&start=30

[Nanook]

Personally fine with friendly fire being a thing & would not want it radically changed, at least not to the extent demanded in this thread. It in no way makes assisting NPC fleets "impossible" as the thread title suggests. I do exactly that in most of my games - I don't like to claim sectors for myself, would much rather help my NPC allies to extend their own territory & that means fighting alongside them. Just have to be a bit careful about how I equip my ships (flak in particular is best avoided, for obvious reasons) & what orders I give - i.e. friendly fire is just part of the Think aspect of the game as far as I'm concerned.

Care to enlighten us as to how you 'solved' the friendly fire issue with the "Think aspect of the game"? Because I don't believe you can have a large engagement without that being a major problem. But I'm ready to be educated on how it can be done.

[GCU Grey Area]

Care to enlighten us as to how you 'solved' the friendly fire issue with the "Think aspect of the game"? Because I don't believe you can have a large engagement without that being a major problem. But I'm ready to be educated on how it can be done.

Careful choice of weapons for the most part. Shorter range weapons or those which have a high projectile speed seem to cause noticeably fewer friendly fire incidents than using longer range or inaccurate weapons. Would definitely recommend avoiding anything with a significant blast radius if you're planning to fight alongside allied forces (e.g. flak, blast mortar, torps). Shield bypassing weapons can also cause problems.

Main thing you need to avoid is complete destruction of allied S/M ships or subsystems on one of their capital ship - that sort of thing really annoys them to the point where they'll turn hostile. However they generally tolerate the occasional burst of friendly fire that hits them as long as it doesn't destroy anything important.

I also try to avoid using fleets too close to friendly NPC stations. If I'm trying to defend one I'll position my fleet (i.e. protect position behaviour) to intercept enemy forces before they can reach it, but if any does manage to get past I deal with them personally.

When defending a gate I'll generally put the centre of the protect position zone around 15-20km above the gate, so as enemy forces emerge from the gate my ships dive down to attack, rather than operating in the same plane as allied NPC forces (e.g. https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tatawvg5yk8d ... 1.jpg?dl=0). Can never completely eliminate the risk of friendly fire but can do a fair bit to mitigate it.

[Exitialis101]

Care to enlighten us as to how you 'solved' the friendly fire issue with the "Think aspect of the game"? Because I don't believe you can have a large engagement without that being a major problem. But I'm ready to be educated on how it can be done.

Careful choice of weapons for the most part. Shorter range weapons or those which have a high projectile speed seem to cause noticeably fewer friendly fire incidents than using longer range or inaccurate weapons. Would definitely recommend avoiding anything with a significant blast radius if you're planning to fight alongside allied forces (e.g. flak, blast mortar, torps). Shield bypassing weapons can also cause problems.

Main thing you need to avoid is complete destruction of allied S/M ships or subsystems on one of their capital ship - that sort of thing really annoys them to the point where they'll turn hostile. However they generally tolerate the occasional burst of friendly fire that hits them as long as it doesn't destroy anything important.

I also try to avoid using fleets too close to friendly NPC stations. If I'm trying to defend one I'll position my fleet (i.e. protect position behaviour) to intercept enemy forces before they can reach it, but if any does manage to get past I deal with them personally.

When defending a gate I'll generally put the centre of the protect position zone around 15-20km above the gate, so as enemy forces emerge from the gate my ships dive down to attack, rather than operating in the same plane as allied NPC forces (e.g. https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tatawvg5yk8d ... 1.jpg?dl=0). Can never completely eliminate the risk of friendly fire but can do a fair bit to mitigate it.

So your solution to NPC friendly fire is to restrict the choices of weapons, restrict strategies, restrict, restrict...
For a game about freedom of choice that is low.

I have confidence in Egosoft and I think that the majority of players who want some change in this system will see it.

[Slashman]

Care to enlighten us as to how you 'solved' the friendly fire issue with the "Think aspect of the game"? Because I don't believe you can have a large engagement without that being a major problem. But I'm ready to be educated on how it can be done.

Careful choice of weapons for the most part. Shorter range weapons or those which have a high projectile speed seem to cause noticeably fewer friendly fire incidents than using longer range or inaccurate weapons. Would definitely recommend avoiding anything with a significant blast radius if you're planning to fight alongside allied forces (e.g. flak, blast mortar, torps). Shield bypassing weapons can also cause problems.

Main thing you need to avoid is complete destruction of allied S/M ships or subsystems on one of their capital ship - that sort of thing really annoys them to the point where they'll turn hostile. However they generally tolerate the occasional burst of friendly fire that hits them as long as it doesn't destroy anything important.

I also try to avoid using fleets too close to friendly NPC stations. If I'm trying to defend one I'll position my fleet (i.e. protect position behaviour) to intercept enemy forces before they can reach it, but if any does manage to get past I deal with them personally.

When defending a gate I'll generally put the centre of the protect position zone around 15-20km above the gate, so as enemy forces emerge from the gate my ships dive down to attack, rather than operating in the same plane as allied NPC forces (e.g. https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tatawvg5yk8d ... 1.jpg?dl=0). Can never completely eliminate the risk of friendly fire but can do a fair bit to mitigate it.

So your solution to NPC friendly fire is to restrict the choices of weapons, restrict strategies, restrict, restrict...
For a game about freedom of choice that is low.

I have confidence in Egosoft and I think that the majority of players who want some change in this system will see it.

I dunno...it sounds like thinking to me...but hey I say tomato and you say zucchini.

I mean I suppose I may have the word freedom misinterpreted. Does it actually mean that anything I do works out for me? I thought it was freedom to make a choice and that choice may have consequences but I am free to make it.

If all strategies and weapons are the best choices in all situations...then there is no point to strategy. What you want is to have no consequences for something that you find annoying.

[Exitialis101]

I dunno...it sounds like thinking to me...but hey I say tomato and you say zucchini.

Sure, thinking to avoid something that should not need to be avoided. Have you never wanted to aid allies only to find yourself not being able to because of NPC friendly fire?

I mean I suppose I may have the word freedom misinterpreted. Does it actually mean that anything I do works out for me? I thought it was freedom to make a choice and that choice may have consequences but I am free to make it.

I mean I suppose I may have the word freedom misinterpreted too. Does it mean that you have to restrict your strategies because of an unrealistic game mechanic that forces you to let your allies get butchered while you watch, only to fight when they are dead?

If all strategies and weapons are the best choices in all situations...then there is no point to strategy.

That is not what I want, and you likely know that. Now you are jumping to conclusions because of one small, yet big mechanic. NPC Friendly FIre needs to be fixed somehow.

What you want is to have no consequences for something that you find annoying.

I never said no consequences, now you are putting words in my mouth. I want to be able to fight alongside allies, in the same sector, using the NPC weapons of my choice and the strategies of my choice without the game making me a hostile to those allies. Is that so much to ask?

[Slashman]

Sure, thinking to avoid something that should not need to be avoided. Have you never wanted to aid allies only to find yourself not being able to because of NPC friendly fire?

So you think that you should be able to use any and all big splash damage weapons and have the NPCs ignore them?

Look, I'm not gonna waste time here trying to find a way to make you feel better about using the tools that you already have to avoid an outcome that you do not want. GCU Grey Area already said how he avoids big NPC friendly fire mistakes, but you want to go down the road of what should be instead of what is. The strategy of using less splash damage weapons and positioning your fleet...which sounds to me like a valid strategy and makes sense, versus going in with whatever weapons you feel like and mixing it up with the enemy and NPCs in a free for all...which sounds like no strategy to me.

Until and IF Egosoft makes a fix for this, you can do the smart thing and follow his advice or spend all your days in frustration. It doesn't matter to me, but I have found that when I follow GCU Grey Area's advice, I usually have much less head-banging frustration and can enjoy my game and move along with my objectives. But hey...you do you!