Yes PVP is unfair.

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Yeah, a tenuous grip indeed. You know, as well as everyone else, that I used the word 'content' for it;s meaning, and impact, in this discussion. It has a contextual meaning not tethered to it's official definition here on these Forums, and in this type of discussion. If the word 'content' is going to bunch up your undies, I will use the word 'entertainment', or better yet 'victim'. Splitting hairs over the use of one word shows the desperation, and lengths some will go to to win an argument, rather than being correct.

It is not desperation. It is handing out the red pill so the truth is known to all. Content, entertainment, victim... are all applicable to Solo and Group mode. When a system folds and it is my system... I am the victim. When commodity prices change, that is entertainment. Change it to whatever you want but the truth is still the same. The only way to not be a part of other people in Elite is to not play.

That is the truth.

 

[Mohrgan]

i dont think the people who play open will ever agree with the ones that dont.
those of us who do play open stuck with it. decided that is what the game is and accept the risks "very minimal risks to be fair"

It is HIGHLY uncommon to get interdicted. CG raises the Chances a lot, but even then i was only interdicted 1ce at the latest CG. and never in any previous one..
(i was only interdicted because some one called me a grifer because i chased them out of the combat zone for stealing my kills)

So i really dont see why pople like to pretend that open is a horror show.

Your point of view is valid, but mostly just to you. That you don;t see it, doesn't make any difference at all. Other players feel differently to you. That's just the way it goes.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

That is an interesting idea however you must consider that those blowing up traders can be either a pirate or a psycho. Pirates make little to no money as is. If you make the penalties too great, nobody will pirate any more. As it is, traders have little to no penalty for trading due to the huge income they can generate relative to the pirate.

-so-

If you implement harsher penalties for murdering players, you must simultaneously implement downsides to trading and upsides to piracy to balance things out.

What I mean by this is...

Implement viable non-violent ways to pirate other traders and force them to pay up--i.e. we shoot their drives out, their ships stop. We shoot their cargo hatch out, all their cargo dumps out (or at least a reasonable percentage of say 25 - 30%).

Harsh penalties for murder are a double-edged sword as piracy, as a profession, routinely sees murder as part of their business due to the lack of incentive traders have to stop. The re-buy screen and loss of cargo apparently isn't enough for them as many continue to try and run away.

So for every con a positive should be added if you get my drift and vice versa.

 

[Perseus]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

It would be a step in the right direction! Some way for bounties to be issued and pursued would also make some great game play. 'Victims' could get someone else to do their revenge and maybe see proof of it and bad un's and good 'uns would get their PvP kicks.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

Good evening Sandro,

It might discourage high-rank players a little - depending on the penalty. A financial penalty would need to be a significant portion of total assets for it to even be felt by a cash-rich player. If the penalty related to enhanced security vessel "attention" and docking restrictions in civilised space then it may have more of a deterrent effect. If Major Faction bounties were to be implemented (after being mentioned previously) that might also have a deterrent effect.

The proposal to reduce insurance cover is an interesting one - is this a Pilots' Federation response to attacking other Pilots' Federation members?

 

[Theodrid]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

Hey Sandro,

To be honest I'm supposed you have to ask the question in regards to harsher punishments. Pilots get smoked for pad loitering and greeted to land after killing 1,2,3 or more Pilots Federation members, how can that be right? The security in systems has to be scaled much better, from rich populous systems like Sol all the way through to zero, or virtually zero security anarchy systems. The 'crime and punishment' mechanics as they stand are backside about face to the point of being pointless.

Let's get some sensical crime and punishment mechanics in place, some sense, some scale and some logic, padvloitering should not equate to death, murder of pilots in high security systems should result in fines, bounties, landing denial and the criminal getting shot up by police galore or having to run for his/her life to an anarchy port, no it's, no buts.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Mr_Blastman!

This idea is more focused on addressing the "random killer" issue that is a part of the PVP vs PVE debate.

So I think it's safe to assume that we want to allow piracy without killing the trader (we already have hatchbreaker limpets and module damage to drives and cargo hatch, but we'll continue to look at other ways to enable piracy without murder).

 

[Uri]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

I would not oppose that idea, but first I would like to be able to search for System Security Level on the galaxy map.

 

[Mohrgan]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

I believe this could make a genuine difference. It is often proposed, in these discussions, getting the Pilots Federation more involved with policing us Commanders. But, that still won;t make PvP fair, nor does it have to be. Some players just don;t like getting mixed up with PvP. That may never change.

In the end, I am, personally, not terribly interested in propping up open, or to make changes just to populate open. Open can and will only support those players that enjoy the environment it spawns. But, if you want to make it more difficult for the criminally inclined to flout authority, those suggestions would be very welcomed.

 

[the100thmonkey]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

Personally, I think the two factions won't be reconciled because of fundamental differences in what they perceive the purpose of the game to be (or, to put it another way, why they play the game.) The discourses surrounding the two outlooks are different at a basic level.

That said, I feel that PVP ganking in starter systems, for example, should basically be a capital crime, regardless of jurisdiction. Perhaps the response could be based on the differential between the two ships and the regularity with which the CMDR engages in such behaviour. For instance, someone hanging around Cleve Dock in Eravate in an FdL shooting up some number of newbie startwinders should expect automated, swift and lethal retribution from station defenses when they try to dock anywhere - there's no place in any game for that kind of behaviour, in my opinion. If, however, the same player were to do it in a starter sidey themselves, the response might be more muted.

Alternatively, every time the offending player started in open, they could be automatically referred to CQC. That would at least ensure a fair fight with players expecting to be shot at for no reason other than that they were there. (I'm only half-joking.)

 

[Robert Maynard]

I would not oppose that idea, but first I would like to be able to search for System Security Level on the galaxy map.

Maybe the same shading procedure that is used for Powerplay could be used to show System Security Level....

 

[shadragon]

What exactly? Credits barely mean anything.

Penalties can be things other then credits, but it will need additional code in game to do it.

I'll stop there. This topic has been raised way too many times to comment on originally.

Edit: However, ganking new players in starter systems is cutting your own throat and Frontier should stomp down on that HARD. It makes sense purely from a pure business point of view, but it's the decent thing to do as well for noobs.

 

[Uri]

New players are already protected while the keep themselves on the starter system, they will not be able to see or be seen by other players, at the moment they jump to another system, they will join the rest of the server. This is a thing that I have to explain to each friend I brought to the game, because we were unable to form a wing or seeing each others. I don't know if this behaviour is intended or not, but the game already makes all new players play in Solo at the beginning.

Maybe the same shading procedure that is used for Powerplay could be used to show System Security Level....

That could work.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Remember, this is just speculation at the moment.

But yes, the concept would probably revolve around the Pilot's Federation disapproving of infighting.

So members that victimise weaker members (important to remember - it would not affect players going after equally matched targets or going after legal targets) would suffer both financial risk (imagine rebuy excess fees rising to a double digit percentages on the more expensive ships) as the Federation upped their premiums, and outcast status from systems receiving warning communiqués from the Federation (starting with the most secure systems, but eventually preventing docking access everywhere except anarchies).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Remember, this is just speculation at the moment.

But yes, the concept would probably revolve around the Pilot's Federation disapproving of infighting.

So members that victimise weaker members (important to remember - it would not affect players going after equally matched targets or going after legal targets) would suffer both financial risk (imagine rebuy excess fees rising to a double digit percentages on the more expensive ships) as the Federation upped their premiums, and outcast status from systems receiving warning communiqués from the Federation (starting with the most secure systems, but eventually preventing docking access everywhere except anarchies).

Intriguing.... The exact definitions of "weaker" and "equally matched" in this context (and the method of determining equivalence / disparity) would be very interesting to read!

Could this be coupled with the Pilots' Federation Bounties (imposed by players affected by the attentions of other players) that form part of the Criminality final proposal in the DDF?

 

[Uri]

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Remember, this is just speculation at the moment.

But yes, the concept would probably revolve around the Pilot's Federation disapproving of infighting.

So members that victimise weaker members (important to remember - it would not affect players going after equally matched targets or going after legal targets) would suffer both financial risk (imagine rebuy excess fees rising to a double digit percentages on the more expensive ships) as the Federation upped their premiums, and outcast status from systems receiving warning communiqués from the Federation (starting with the most secure systems, but eventually preventing docking access everywhere except anarchies).

If it's balanced, it would be cool.

 

[Bewilderbeest]

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

It strikes me that many of the players who exist in a mostly PVP stance, and who are likely to engage in random acts of violence are mostly going to be "post economic". Sanctions that are purely monetary wouldn't particularly phase these richer players.

I do like the station docking restriction idea, so if there were a good number of non-monetary sanctions along with the monetary then I feel it would feel weighty enough to have an effect.

 

[Mohrgan]

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Remember, this is just speculation at the moment.

But yes, the concept would probably revolve around the Pilot's Federation disapproving of infighting.

So members that victimise weaker members (important to remember - it would not affect players going after equally matched targets or going after legal targets) would suffer both financial risk (imagine rebuy excess fees rising to a double digit percentages on the more expensive ships) as the Federation upped their premiums, and outcast status from systems receiving warning communiqués from the Federation (starting with the most secure systems, but eventually preventing docking access everywhere except anarchies).

That sounds like a very good concept. I think you will find a great deal of support for this. How would high rated Trade/Exploration vessels fit into this? There is a disparity in fighting ability between combat focused ships, and those that are not. Pirates that rob players shouldn't be too troubled by this, as long as they leave the Trader in their ships.

 

[Drunk Si]

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

I think being unable to dock at high security systems outright wouldn't be the way to go about it; those systems should genuinely have a greater security presence making it more likely for a criminal to be scanned, caught out, and chased off.

Personally I think if players got higher bounties for their crimes and some rudimentary tools were introduced to aid in tracking down cmdrs for pvp bounty hunting that would go a long way towards sorting it because all of a sudden there would be tons of people out chasing down a payday and the guys who were just murdering indiscriminately now have their hands full dealing with the onslaught of people hunting them for a big fat payday. It would kill two birds with one stone; it would help deal with player on player crime by empowering bounty hunters to hunt people and deal with it and at the same time add a huge amount of depth to bounty hunting.

Also, I think if scans became more frequent in high security systems then there also need to be mechanics in place to evade scans as well. Not just boosting away but whether it's via silent running or chaff or something new or whatever there should be ways of avoiding or delaying a scan. There should be an opportunity for the very best and most shrewd criminal pilots to continue operating even in hostile territory.

I think increasing rebuy cost (insurance premium) and essentially banishing criminals from docking at high security systems would be a bit much and I don't think it would be realistic and I don't think it would help the gameplay at all. Just a paint a target on their back and give us tools to hunt them down.