Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex]

And pirate space! Arr!

Yes, but then the point of friendlies offering unwanted help is rather moot

[Thaago]

And pirate space! Arr!

Yes, but then the point of friendlies offering unwanted help is rather moot

Says you! Down with the oppressors!

*cough * sorry bout that...

[Sy]

From a purely mechanical point of view, this situationally encourages a more aggressive playstyle, which I think is good. It's good to have an extra reason to mix up your tactics.

that's true. having to switch from the usual hit-and-run tactics to "everyone race for the loot!" once in a while could actually be a good thing^^

Oh, right, forgot about that. Yes, if your transponder is off *and* they don't know who you are (i.e. didn't see you recently with the transponder on) then they won't join. And won't let you join an ongoing battle.

new question: if having the transponder off means other fleets don't really know who you are, does that interfere with the "you can only join battles if you're hostile to one or friendly to one" rule?

for example, fleet A has its transponder off and attacks fleet B. nearby fleet C is friendly with both A and B. can C still support B, because they can't know that A is an ally as well? and if C is still prevented from supporting either side because of the above rule, how is that shown to the player? if the player is C, it could be confusing not being able to help an ally in trouble (B) defend against what looks to be a neutral/unidentified aggressor (A).

...or am i just misunderstanding the effects of a disabled transponder?

[Alex]

new question: if having the transponder off means other fleets don't really know who you are, does that interfere with the "you can only join battles if you're hostile to one or friendly to one" rule?

I wouldn't say "interferes" so much as "works with" or "factors into"

for example, fleet A has its transponder off and attacks fleet B. nearby fleet C is friendly with both A and B. can C still support B, because they can't know that A is an ally as well? and if C is still prevented from supporting either side because of the above rule, how is that shown to the player? if the player is C, it could be confusing not being able to help an ally in trouble (B) defend against what looks to be a neutral/unidentified aggressor (A).

...or am i just misunderstanding the effects of a disabled transponder?

The player is not fooled by other fleets' transponder status (they can still see the faction etc when they get close enough), and so it has no impact here.

[Alex]

Says you! Down with the oppressors!

*cough * sorry bout that...

Ah, I just got what you meant.

[CrashToDesktop]

@Sy
I think C won't support B, since A is still an unknown (they have no idea who you are).  You're not misunderstanding anything, I think - just those pesky edge cases. At least, if Fleet A is the player's fleet.

[Solinarius]

Ah, those in-battle officer portraits give it kind of a Freespace feel. . My nostalgia aside, I really like that implementation. Great job!

[Sy]

Could it be done so that you loose more or less reputation depending on how much rep/how much dmg you do to the allied fleet ?

seems this is how it will work. penalties depend on amount of hull-damage done to your allies. additionally, your allies are more forgiving of friendly fire in battles they likely would've lost without your support.

The player is not fooled by other fleets' transponder status (they can still see the faction etc when they get close enough), and so it has no impact here.

i see. thanks for all the quick answers :]

@Sy
I think C won't support B, since A is still an unknown (they have no idea who you are).  You're not misunderstanding anything, I think - just those pesky edge cases. At least, if Fleet A is the player's fleet.

i guess the ai has to technically know who the fleets are as well, even if that isn't how the transponder works in lore. since they should not support either fleet in a battle between two of their allies, but they probably should support an allied fleet in a battle against a hostile pirate (who will usually have their transponder off as well, i think).

[CrashToDesktop]

i guess the ai has to technically know who the fleets are as well, even if that isn't how the transponder works in lore. since they should not support either fleet in a battle between two of their allies, but they probably should support an allied fleet in a battle against a hostile pirate (who will usually have their transponder off as well, i think).

I guess you could theoretically say that once the AI has come close enough to your fleet and have made contact, they have an idea of who you are (sort of similar to how the player knows fleets once they come close enough).  Fleet B most definitely knows Fleet A isn't a pirate (maybe due to the kind of "response" from the comm link), but they don't know exactly.  Lore could say they contacted Fleet C telling them who they are (since Fleet C is friendly to both), and Fleet C isn't willing to take the risk so they don't participate.  Blah, that's just me rambling.

[Sy]

Lore could say they contacted Fleet C telling them who they are (since Fleet C is friendly to both), and Fleet C isn't willing to take the risk so they don't participate.  Blah, that's just me rambling.

yeah, i think that'd make sense. if both fleets are friendly, A might just be able to inform C of their identity (at least if C is close enough to be in reinforcement range) without enabling the transponder. if A isn't willing to provide identification (since a pirate's best bet would likely be to just not send anything) C would have good reason to believe that A is hostile.

on the other hand, if that's how it works, why can a fleet with disabled transponder not join someone else's battle themselves? that only makes sense if that fleet has no way of providing (or proving) its identity to the one they are trying to support. hmmmm.

[CrashToDesktop]

on the other hand, if that's how it works, why can a fleet with disabled transponder not join someone else's battle themselves? that only makes sense if that fleet has no way of providing (or proving) its identity to the one they are trying to support. hmmmm.

I don't understand what you're trying to say?  Of course a fleet friendly to you won't let you join in if your transponder if off (since they have no idea who you are with that transponder off).  It's not about providing information - it's about if the fleet trusts your or not.

...

Speaking of transponders, would it be possible to mimic the transponder signal of another faction?  Like, you can mimic the transponder signal from a Tri-Tachyon fleet and get into a station's open market if you're hostile to them.

[Sy]

I don't understand what you're trying to say?  Of course a fleet friendly to you won't let you join in if your transponder if off (since they have no idea who you are with that transponder off).  It's not about providing information - it's about if the fleet trusts your or not.

yeah, but then this should also be true in the case of fleet C not trusting A. A is allied with C, but C can't know that if A has their transponder off. so C should be supporting their other ally, B, in a fight against A.

so either fleets do have a way of letting nearby allies know who they are, even while their transponder is off (which means enabled transponder shouldn't be necessary to join into an ally's battle) or they don't (which means sometimes a supporting fleet should join into a battle between two of their allies, if one of those has the transponder off, as the supporting fleet wouldn't be able to know that they're fighting an ally).

of course, that's only a small lore issue, not something that would be a problem in terms of game mechanics.

[CrashToDesktop]

I thought that's exactly what I said?

I guess you could theoretically say that once the AI has come close enough to your fleet and have made contact, they have an idea of who you are (sort of similar to how the player knows fleets once they come close enough).  Fleet B most definitely knows Fleet A isn't a pirate (maybe due to the kind of "response" from the comm link), but they don't know exactly.  Lore could say they contacted Fleet C telling them who they are (since Fleet C is friendly to both), and Fleet C isn't willing to take the risk so they don't participate.

[Sy]

I thought that's exactly what I said?

right, sorry. you're saying the supporting fleet (C) would know the attacker (A) is at least not a pirate, even if the attacker doesn't have a way to provide full identification without the transponder?

but the same would still be true if it was fleet C defending against hostiles, and A (with disabled transponder) coming to support. A could contact C directly to let them know who they are. and even if C can't know for certain that A is telling the truth, they'd still be able to see that A isn't a pirate (or a member of whatever faction it is that is attacking C).

in both cases it comes down to whether C trusts that A is telling the truth. it makes sense that C would err on the side of caution in a battle they aren't directly involved in anyway (they'd like to support their ally, but they'd rather not risk attacking another ally in the process) but i think the same would be true in the case of C defending against a, likely more powerful, attacker (they don't trust the supporting fleet completely, but they also don't have much of a choice than to take the risk, if they want to win the battle).

[Histidine]

May as well make sure: NPC fleets in battle with each other can't leave for any reason until the battle ends, right?

"Alright boys, let's show these Tri-Tachyon scum what's what... HEY YOU GET YOUR MITTS OFF THAT COMM RELAY"