Yes PVP is unfair.

[Robert Maynard]

Or the easy way, as I suggested. Don't differentiate between CMDRs and NPCs on the scanner. No CMDR tag. No hollow blips.
It would really solve many problems.

This would not solve it, in my opinion.

If a player drops into an instance with ships already in existence then there must be a player there. If there's only one other ship....

Similarly, if a player drops into an instance, from the player already in the instance's perspective, they have just opened another P2P connection therefore the new ship must be a player.

What it would do is give predators more time to observe their prey from behind the relative anonymity of a solid dot on the scanner.

At least at the moment those who are regarded as prey have a heads up that there is another player in the instance....

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Or the easy way, as I suggested. Don't differentiate between CMDRs and NPCs on the scanner. No CMDR tag. No hollow blips.
It would really solve many problems.

its 1 option.. (i would just add an optional transponder for those who want to show the difference, but splitting hairs perhaps)

.

From what I've read, the Pilot's Federation is more of a union, rather than a mafia.

I don't think a union.... I think of Airline Pilots or Trucker's union.... would take kindly to its own members killing civilians or innocents, no matter the affiliation. You tell me.

fair enough, as i said, it is only how I think of it. For ages i thought I had read it from FD but on looking further i think i just made it up in my own head - though they DID say they are treated differerntly.

as for they should not take kindly on its members killing anyone.... this is a topic i am really interested in and i have bought up in its own thread before. it would mean the lore changing a bit, but i would like a story where the PF cleaned up its act... kicked out the worst criminals so they are no longer members and the PF became more like the star trek federation.

on the flip side, i would like to see another faction we could join if we earned enough rep in which specialised in the whole criminal side of the game. so no insurance on destruction, but instead you are given a replacment ship, in varying model and configuration, depending on your rank and play style, which has been stolen (and would be flagged as such on KWS)

this would lead to potentally cool long term missions of having to infiltratre each groups before getting the option of doing something, assasination, or all sorts really, and could make a nice way of exciting promotion opportunities in the military. but i am way OT for this now

 

[Robert Maynard]

on the flip side, i would like to see another faction we could join if we earned enough rep in which specialised in the whole criminal side of the game. so no insurance on destruction, but instead you are given a replacment ship, in varying model and configuration, depending on your rank and play style, which has been stolen (and would be flagged as such on KWS)

.... The Dark Wheel perchance?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

.... The Dark Wheel perchance?

you read my mind

if nothing else it will give me another whole bunch of "elite" ratings to work for.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

.... The Dark Wheel perchance?

With whom I happen to be Allied with now - but currently they make it bloomin' difficult due to the seeming rarity of Dark Wheel missions in Shinrarta Dezhra

 

[Pluvialis]

Where piracy is a legit path in the game.

'Legit' is a complicated word to use for in-game piracy. Yes, piracy is a 'legit path' in the sense that it's supported by the game mechanics - but I suggest, looking at the developer comments already cited (by dxm55, I think) - that ED wasn't intended to be a 'piracy simulator'. Piracy is a criminal path and should be treated and seen as such. Which is not to say it shouldn't yield profit - but that the game universe should treat it as the crime it is.

At the moment, piracy is seen as cool, and this image is cultivated by PVP players who themselves want to be seen as cool.

Superficially the problem here is the same as in EVE Online: we're in a game world that has no significant consequences for committing offences against others. As a result, people are free to behave according to their instinct with no need to check themselves, no need to weigh their potential advantage against their potential losses, as they would in the real world.

In reality, there are systems in place intended to make crime unappealing, when without them it would be a simple way of obtaining what you want from those too weak to protect themselves. These systems are legal (you can be fined, or go to prison, or (historically) be executed); or they can be social (there is shame and stigma in being seen as a criminal). And perhaps most importantly there's also the moral safeguard which leads most people to reason "I won't do that because it's a nasty thing to do and I wouldn't want it done to me". That basic empathy is probably what prevents more crime than anything else - but there are people who lack that empathy.

But the point is there are safeguards by society to mitigate rogue behaviours, and thereby protect the overall structure.

There's the complicating factor, as many will reason, that "It's just a game". That's a big debate in itself, and one which is ongoing in plenty of forums. But wherever real people are interacting I'd argue it's no longer as simple as being able to say, "It's just a game": yes, it is a game, but it's also a social space involving real people. Those people - all of them - must come before any other consideration.

No, I'm not saying there should be no crime because someone might get upset. What I'm saying is that there should be a reasonable balance. If crime is appealing because it's potentially profitable, then it must also be risky. (Were I feeling facetious, I might even say... Dangerous.) Crime must involve hard decisions, and sacrifices, and potentially huge consequences for the player who chooses the criminal path. That's the price of choosing the quick buck. For those who choose an honest path, the profits must come more slowly, but with far less risk. Those players should not simply be content to be enjoyed by those who consider piracy the 'proper' way to play the game.

 

[NeilF]

'Legit' is a complicated word to use for in-game piracy. Yes, piracy is a 'legit path' in the sense that it's supported by the game mechanics - but I suggest, looking at the developer comments already cited (by dxm55, I think) - that ED wasn't intended to be a 'piracy simulator'. Piracy is a criminal path and should be treated and seen as such. Which is not to say it shouldn't yield profit - but that the game universe should treat it as the crime it is.

At the moment, piracy is seen as cool, and this image is cultivated by PVP players who themselves want to be seen as cool.

Superficially the problem here is the same as in EVE Online: we're in a game world that has no significant consequences for committing offences against others. As a result, people are free to behave according to their instinct with no need to check themselves, no need to weigh their potential advantage against their potential losses, as they would in the real world.

In reality, there are systems in place intended to make crime unappealing, when without them it would be a simple way of obtaining what you want from those too weak to protect themselves. These systems are legal (you can be fined, or go to prison, or (historically) be executed); or they can be social (there is shame and stigma in being seen as a criminal). And perhaps most importantly there's also the moral safeguard which leads most people to reason "I won't do that because it's a nasty thing to do and I wouldn't want it done to me". That basic empathy is probably what prevents more crime than anything else - but there are people who lack that empathy.

But the point is there are safeguards by society to mitigate rogue behaviours, and thereby protect the overall structure.

There's the complicating factor, as many will reason, that "It's just a game". That's a big debate in itself, and one which is ongoing in plenty of forums. But wherever real people are interacting I'd argue it's no longer as simple as being able to say, "It's just a game": yes, it is a game, but it's also a social space involving real people. Those people - all of them - must come before any other consideration.

No, I'm not saying there should be no crime because someone might get upset. What I'm saying is that there should be a reasonable balance. If crime is appealing because it's potentially profitable, then it must also be risky. (Were I feeling facetious, I might even say... Dangerous.) Crime must involve hard decisions, and sacrifices, and potentially huge consequences for the player who chooses the criminal path. That's the price of choosing the quick buck. For those who choose an honest path, the profits must come more slowly, but with far less risk. Those players should not simply be content to be enjoyed by those who consider piracy the 'proper' way to play the game.

As a criminal, if you hold up a shop at gunpoint, what puts you off, once you've got the money from the till, just shooting the shop keeper for the lolz too?

The answer is surely that murder is considered a very more serious crime than armed robbery.

I feel if ED "rewarded" pirates for stealing cargo from Pilot Federation members by force, and CMDRs were punished harsly for "murder", thing would take a step in the right direction.

If the game also then offered "legal" PvP combat (destruction), great!



And there's also the argument of course well no one is really murdered in ED, but if we're talking about the mindless/pointless destruction of a trading Anaconda, that's many many hours of effort gone for the lolz, or an explorer at Sag A, even more so... And let's not forget, there's no real deep reason for this sort of destruction. It is an individual quite simply destroying someone else for little more than they get a kick out of causing anguish to someone else. Should the game really be building mechanics around that? Or something more interesting?

 

[Robert Maynard]

And there's also the argument of course well no one is really murdered in ED, but if we're talking about the mindless/pointless destruction of a trading Anaconda, that's many many hours of effort gone for the lolz, or an explorer at Sag A, even more so... And let's not forget, there's no real deep reason for this sort of destruction. It is an individual quite simply destroying someone else for little more than they get a kick out of causing anguish to someone else. Should the game really be building mechanics around that? Or something more interesting?

Interestingly, Sandro mentioned this type of behaviour (one of the few Frontier statements regarding what they loosely consider to be "griefing") in the opening post of the series of threads in the DDF discussing "death" penalties:

We want to encourage cooperative and competitive player interaction that might legitimately result in player death, whilst protecting against malicious griefing (which we loosely define as actions whose only purpose, outcome and gain is to punish and frustrate other players).

 

[dxm55]

Generally speaking, laws are put in place to protect those who cannot protect themselves by serving as a deterrent to those who may wish them harm.

The weak includes both players and NPCs.
All Clean/lawful trader vessels shd fall into this category.

Hence my case of having the law apply to both player and NPC equally.

Proposing this law is actually disadvantaging myself, as I take on ranking-up assassination missions that have involved killing NPC characters and innocents. But I truly want crime and punishment in this game to mean something.

If members of the Pilot Federation is considered a step above the common man (like a politician, FBI agent, Police Officer and the like) I could see the reasoning behind it as more resources would be spent on hunting down the perpetrator but at the same time.

The law should be blind and punishments should be the same regardless of faction affiliation.

Harsher laws will also make PowerPlay interesting as people need to be WAY more careful in those areas of gameplay.

Actually I have another idea from what you just said.

A two tiered bounty.
If you kill an NPC, you get a police bounty, and there's cops will be looking for you. The bounty should still be increased to a more realistic level. But not so much so as to scare of PVE players from taking on KILL-NPC missions. Maybe 20000cr bounty for 2 weeks for murder

If you kill a player, on top of the police bounty, you will also get a Pilot Fed bounty.
Now that one can run for 3 months, and be worth the rebuy of the ship you destroyed.
On top of that, until the bounty runs out, your insurance coverage is null and void.

Plus, there will be PilFed Elite NPC wings flying around who might just interdict and kill you.

Will that be a fair proposition?

 

[FuzzySpider]

There should be harsher penalties for murdering Non-wanted ships, both NPCs and CMDRs. I have never contested that. There should be consequences, serious ones at that, for crimes committed in Core... or lawful.... systems. Just apply said penalties uniformly across all modes, and for both NPCs and players. That's only fair.

I don't think that there should be harsher penalties at all. In fact there should be no penalties in certain areas of space. The problem is it's everywhere. I've been interdicted near the Founders world for, quite literally, "no reason".

Spoiler

It's totally random, runs counter to logic or lore of the game, and ruins the experience for those trying to play the actual game. When this happens I am no longer playing Elite: Dangerous, I am in some chatroom with spaceship wallpaper getting trolled for the amusement of some anonymous denizen of the internet. It's ruinous to open.

But there shouldn't be mechanics that unrealistically block any kind of player-player attacks just to pander to some players who didn't read the game's advertisement. They have Solo and Group for that relative safe place to play.

I absolutely agree there, but then we're basically leaving Open play to people who don't actually want to play "Elite", but some sort of horribly balanced world of space tanks. So, in the absence of actual gameplay mechanics to combat this, shunting repeat offenders off to the shadow server is a good alternative.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

The weak includes both players and NPCs.
All Clean/lawful trader vessels shd fall into this category.

Hence my case of having the law apply to both player and NPC equally.

Proposing this law is actually disadvantaging myself, as I take on ranking-up assassination missions that have involved killing NPC characters and innocents. But I truly want crime and punishment in this game to mean something.





Actually I have another idea from what you just said.

A two tiered bounty.
If you kill an NPC, you get a police bounty, and there's cops will be looking for you. The bounty should still be increased to a more realistic level. But not so much so as to scare of PVE players from taking on KILL-NPC missions. Maybe 20000cr bounty for 2 weeks for murder

If you kill a player, on top of the police bounty, you will also get a Pilot Fed bounty.
Now that one can run for 3 months, and be worth the rebuy of the ship you destroyed.
On top of that, until the bounty runs out, your insurance coverage is null and void.

Plus, there will be PilFed Elite NPC wings flying around who might just interdict and kill you.

Will that be a fair proposition?

I am unfortunately completely against bounties that we can earn from other players.

Too easy to exploit - even at the cost of another ships non-insurance.

I would rather like to see:

-Increase bounties and penalties for unwarranted murder at least 10 fold (60K per kill)
-Add any bounty to an attackers insurance cost (cumulative)
-Block major station docking access in non-anarchy systems
-Add +REP to any player that kills the perpetrator

 

[Robert Maynard]

The weak includes both players and NPCs.
All Clean/lawful trader vessels shd fall into this category.

Hence my case of having the law apply to both player and NPC equally.

Proposing this law is actually disadvantaging myself, as I take on ranking-up assassination missions that have involved killing NPC characters and innocents. But I truly want crime and punishment in this game to mean something.

Except we're not talking about in-game "law" exactly. As I said earlier in response to another post:

Rules of, what is in effect, a private club, can be put in place to deal with the conduct of members.

Whether the in-game law in general is also tweaked will be interesting to see.

 

[dxm55]

you read my mind

if nothing else it will give me another whole bunch of "elite" ratings to work for.

This brings up memories of another space trader game I played a decade back.
Jumpgate TRI.

There was an option to play what was called 'Honor Guard', which was basically a tag or badge which signified your willingness to partake in player combat. Having a HG badge meant that you were free to attack anyone else with a HG badge without incurring penalties, anywhere.

If you attacked a non HG player you would receive a bounty like everyone else.
If a non-HG attacked a HG, there won't be a penalty for the non HG, but the HG would then be free to kill the offending pilot without consequence.


Would this type of system work in Elite?

 

[dxm55]

I am unfortunately completely against bounties that we can earn from other players.

Too easy to exploit - even at the cost of another ships non-insurance.

I would rather like to see:

-Increase bounties and penalties for unwarranted murder at least 10 fold (60K per kill)
-Add any bounty to an attackers insurance cost (cumulative)
-Block major station docking access in non-anarchy systems
-Add +REP to any player that kills the perpetrator

You realize that right now, you earn a bounty from killing wanted players right?

So when you said "-Increase bounties and penalties for unwarranted murder at least 10 fold (60K per kill)", you are basically still gifting the bounty hunter with 60K when he kills the wanted ganker. What's the difference between what I proposed and yours?

Right now, I can make 2 MIL in half an hour killing helpless Condas and Clippers in a Hi RES. Do you think a player is going to be that easy, given that he'll be buffed with HRPs? That rebuy bounty of 1.5 MIL is gonna be hard work. And the chances of me getting killed is higher than in a RES.

Besides, exploitation? How can it be if the wanted has no insurance? His souped up Vulture may have cost him 25mil, but the bounty on his head may only be 3 MIL. It's not even zero sum. If the wanted is fool enough to use that as an exploit, it's 22mil down the drain.

 

[NeilF]

Interestingly, Sandro mentioned this type of behaviour (one of the few Frontier statements regarding what they loosely consider to be "griefing") in the opening post of the series of threads in the DDF discussing "death" penalties:

Yep... That sounds like the kind of stuff being debated...

Mindless malicious destruction purely to get a kick out of griefing another player should be treated harshly... especially repeat behaviour. Meanwhile the game needs to promote and reward constructive PvP combat IMHO...

 

[Snarfbuckle]

You realize that right now, you earn a bounty from killing wanted players right?

So when you said "-Increase bounties and penalties for unwarranted murder at least 10 fold (60K per kill)", you are basically still gifting the bounty hunter with 60K when he kills the wanted ganker. What's the difference between what I proposed and yours?

You misunderstand.

The 60K per kill is ONLY an increase to the perpetrators insurance so he cannot use friends to cash in on his own death.

We can explain this that the pilot Federation dont put bounty on their own members.

Instead a pilot Federation bounty hunter gain a +REP with factions instead.

 

[excalibus]

if the pilots federation added the 'rebuy value' of other pilots federation clean ships of you destroy to your own insurance buyback... that WILL go some ways towards stopping random sport killing... because at some point the perpertator will get killed and then either find themselves bankrupt or paying a fairly high insurance excess for their actions no matter if they suicidewinder themselves or get killed in some other fashion...

Of course there are ways around it with the right amount of credits in the bank but it would be far from sustainable... especially if they go rampant...

Add to that the heightened responses from authority ships and possibly the pilots federations own 'enforcer squads' interdicting the player, with revoking docking rights and imagine if the Pilots Federation then proceeded to impound the players ships that are in stations where they are banned from docking...

Now we might be getting somewhere towards giving some real consequences for actions

 

[NeilF]

if the pilots federation added the 'rebuy value' of other pilots federation clean ships of you destroy to your own insurance buyback... that WILL go some ways towards stopping random sport killing... because at some point the perpertator will get killed and then either find themselves bankrupt or paying a fairly high insurance excess for their actions no matter if they suicidewinder themselves or get killed in some other fashion...

Of course there are ways around it with the right amount of credits in the bank but it would be far from sustainable... especially if they go rampant...

Add to that the heightened responses from authority ships and possibly the pilots federations own 'enforcer squads' interdicting the player, with revoking docking rights and imagine if the Pilots Federation then proceeded to impound the players ships that are in stations where they are banned from docking...

Now we might be getting somewhere towards giving some real consequences for actions

Don't see that as the right approach myself. If anything it could smilpy make new bate in Sidewinders all the more appealling!

At the end of the day, unlawful murder/destruction of a Pilots Federation member (CMDR) should be dealt with harshly... especially repeat/regular offences...

ie: One off, get away with it within reason, more than that, and semi-regularly? Life should become hell with any law enforcement groups tracking/hunting the individual down. And their destruction shouldn't be a way out either, else they'll just move to a Sidewinder and let themselves be destroyed. ie: There should be a penalty period enforced too.

 

[excalibus]

Don't see that as the right approach myself. If anything it could smilpy make new bate in Sidewinders all the more appealling!

Please explain how it would be more appealing ???

I think I know what you are getting at... I mean if you kill a newbie in a sidewinder, it will only be a few K on top of your insurance buyback, but if you take out a T9 you could be up for quite a few million in buyback added...

With my idea... those values keep going up until you are killed and either paid them or sent bankrupt... the keep accumulating so if you kill one person early on, you won't suffer greatly, but if you make a habit of it...

Add to that further increases in pilots fed response with their own goon squad coming hunting you... especially once you start to get over key values of outstanding kills etc

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Please explain how it would be more appealing ???

I think I know what you are getting at... I mean if you kill a newbie in a sidewinder, it will only be a few K on top of your insurance buyback, but if you take out a T9 you could be up for quite a few million in buyback added...

With my idea... those values keep going up until you are killed and either paid them or sent bankrupt... the keep accumulating so if you kill one person early on, you won't suffer greatly, but if you make a habit of it...

Add to that further increases in pilots fed response with their own goon squad coming hunting you... especially once you start to get over key values of outstanding kills etc

I think the entire insurance value IS a bit harsh.

After all, MONETARY cost is not a deterrent most of the time so a better solution is to limit/expand gameplay by having stations refuse access to wanted murderers and similar solutions.

We definitely SHOULD increase bounty cost and pile that on the perpetrators insurance though. I think that would work in the long run.