Yes PVP is unfair.

[mistohise]

Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game. The rub is that some folk (myself included, for what it's worth) feel that the consequences of such actions are not commensurate with the act committed. So whilst I want to defend the right of "griefconda" to exist, I want to make sure that there are meaningful responses in the game world to their actions.

This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)

On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?

I thought that bounties get capped anyway? Or is that only the collectable bounty and not the actual fine?

It seems to me that a financial loss to griefconda is not really a barrier. Let's be honest, the person who has a griefconda isn't exactly short of credits.

A more meaningful reaction to wanted criminals seems much more the way to go. Blocking off secure starports (or systems?), freezing assets in lawful systems, making access to ships more expensive (what sort of shipyard is going to sell a ship to a criminal, after all?), having more robust police forces in secure systems and other such acts to make the criminal life more difficult ​all seem fair. This makes sense within a consistent universe where crime is attributed to a particular person. Also, the responses should scale dramatically proportionately to the number of crimes.

Additionally, if such measures push the criminals to anarchic states, then you've actually achieved a meaningful difference within the game world.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Hello Commander Pecisk!

A declaration of piracy ties into NPC comms, both of which are currently not on the *immediate* roadmap.

I guess it is something to look forward to then. Thanks for clarification Sandro!

 

[EidLeWeise]

Hello Commanders!
snip...

This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)

On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?

Honestly what I'd love to see is some kind of NON FINANCIAL penalties put in place too. The idea of doing some kind of community service for your missdeeds I think is very appealing. For example if Cmdr GriefAConda gets caught for murdering poor NoobySidewinder then his Anaconda gets impounded and he has to collect X tons of biowaste in a bright orange Sidewinder without any weapons and can't jump out of that system before he can get his Anaconda out of the impound yard. (this is also where Lave Radio's 'ASBO' Orange Sidewinder comes from) I understand that this idea would require a lot of development, but I think the gamification of the penalties, whilst not meant to be precicesly fun, certainly add some depth to the game.

Speaking about financial penalties it seems fair that the 'murderer' pays the insurance cost rather than the victim. (Especially if we can add cargo to that cost)

Eid

 

[GJ51]

@Sandro

How about murder = loss of insurance on all vessels owned at the time of the infraction?

How about considering the suggestion made many times of allowing players to toggle "CMDR" prefix and hollow icon in Open Play. Let the PLAYER decide if they want to appear same/different onscreen from NPC?

Security - did a "Kill 100 Pirates" mission yesterday. Several times when dropping into USS as soon as I engaged the target half dozen security vessels show up. There to help? No, of course they're only there to try to get between the target and my line of fire so I can get a fine or become wanted (unsuccessfully, I might add), yet when you get interdicted in a high security system and you are NOT wanted, no security vessels show up.

Much of what we are talking about in this thread has been beaten to death for over a year.

The classic "We're working on it" from FD is wearing a bit thin.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Hello Commanders!

At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire

I'd like to make a few things clear about our standpoint:

Any changes we might make would not be to punish PVP players or PVE players.

They would be to improve consequence for player choices, which I think sometimes gets a little lost in the heat of the debate.

In Open play, any sort of behaviour is technically allowed (bar hacking or using known exploits). What is potentially missing is appropriate consequence for some actions. For example, pirating a ship and stealing some amount of cargo in a policed jurisdiction is reasonable - you are committing crimes which you might have to pay for. Pirating in anarchy is also fine, including destroying the target ship in the process - the victim should understand the risk of flying outside of legal jurisdictions.

Frankly, none of the above is particularly about player versus player or lack thereof. It's about plausible and consistent game rules.

Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game. The rub is that some folk (myself included, for what it's worth) feel that the consequences of such actions are not commensurate with the act committed. So whilst I want to defend the right of "griefconda" to exist, I want to make sure that there are meaningful responses in the game world to their actions.

This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)

On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?

Sounds good, being a criminal really needs some more consequences (be that against players or NPC) and I really hope you do something about the security level of system being good represented in game. Also I hope you look into faction wide bountys, so if one maybe has a bounty in multiple Federation system of a certain amount it becomes a Federation bounty.

And yeah, doing something about getting rid of bountys with a cheap sidewinder or SRV death is a good Idea.

 

[Javert]

On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?

This seems like a good idea, but I guess my question would then be whether the other changes you are making would make it difficult to avoid paying this fine. At the moment, you can put any size fine on a player but it's relatively easy to avoid paying those fines since you are only ever forced to pay up if your ship is destroyed and you respawn in a station where that legacy fine is valid - this is pretty easy to avoid I think?

 

[mistohise]

The other side to it is that no amount of penalty or cost imposed on griefconder really helps newbwinder in any way. newbwinder has still lost their cargo, and however many hours of work went into the insurance rebuy. Ultimately there should be some sort of victim redress system. If griefconder's bounty gets cashed in, some of that should go to newbwinder, or whatever.

 

[eza]

On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?

I like this idea. It might make cheap combat ships more used, because the resulting bounties would be more affordable.

 

[raok]

On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?

How about something very simple...

Bounty from my head: 100 000 Cr
I die in a sidewinder re-buy: 10 000 Cr
Bounty from my head: 90 000 Cr

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Snarfbuckle!

I'm not sure I was clear enough. The idea would be that if I murder you in a ship that has a re-buy cost of 1m CR and get a 6k CR bounty, When I re-spawn at a location in the jurisdiction that the crime was committed in I have to pay 6K *plus* 1m CR, regardless of what ship I actually died in.

This additional cost would *only* be added to the fine, not to the bounty, so my friends could only claim a 6K bounty for killing me.

The reason I would prefer not to use the victim's insurance premium as an additional fine is because A) this would be trivial when murdering small ships and B) I don't have a problem with small ships attacking bigger ships.

Hello Commander Lightspeed!

Yes, a very important part of any update we do that would introduce these measures would be to have escalation, both in punishments and in preventative system security.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hello Commanders!

At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire

I'd like to make a few things clear about our standpoint:

Any changes we might make would not be to punish PVP players or PVE players.

They would be to improve consequence for player choices, which I think sometimes gets a little lost in the heat of the debate.

In Open play, any sort of behaviour is technically allowed (bar hacking or using known exploits). What is potentially missing is appropriate consequence for some actions. For example, pirating a ship and stealing some amount of cargo in a policed jurisdiction is reasonable - you are committing crimes which you might have to pay for. Pirating in anarchy is also fine, including destroying the target ship in the process - the victim should understand the risk of flying outside of legal jurisdictions.

Frankly, none of the above is particularly about player versus player or lack thereof. It's about plausible and consistent game rules.

Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game. The rub is that some folk (myself included, for what it's worth) feel that the consequences of such actions are not commensurate with the act committed. So whilst I want to defend the right of "griefconda" to exist, I want to make sure that there are meaningful responses in the game world to their actions.

This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)

On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?

Good afternoon Sandro!

Thanks for taking the time to add detail to your proposal for increased consequences.

Very glad to hear that the Pilots' Federation could be about to awaken from its slumber in respect of members attacking / destroying other members (in some circumstances at least).

An improvement to the differentiation of low / high security systems in terms of security response times / capability of security vessels of would be a welcome change.

Interstellar bounties - as you mentioned quite some time ago when minor faction bounties were implemented - would mean that offenders would not just have to move a couple of systems over to appear clean (unless KWScanned).

Linking the rebuy cost of the ship flown at the time of the offence with the fine levied for the offence would be interesting - although would this not introduce a form of double jeopardy in that the offender may end up paying twice the rebuy - unless the rebuy of the ship flown at destruction were taken into account at point of extraction of residual fine from the offender's account at the rebuy screen?

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Hello Commander Snarfbuckle!

I'm not sure I was clear enough. The idea would be that if I murder you in a ship that has a re-buy cost of 1m CR and get a 6k CR bounty, When I re-spawn at a location in the jurisdiction that the crime was committed in I have to pay 6K *plus* 1m CR, regardless of what ship I actually died in.

This additional cost would *only* be added to the fine, not to the bounty, so my friends could only claim a 6K bounty for killing me.

The reason I would prefer not to use the victim's insurance premium as an additional fine is because A) this would be trivial when murdering small ships and B) I don't have a problem with small ships attacking bigger ships.

Hello Commander Lightspeed!

Yes, a very important part of any update we do that would introduce these measures would be to have escalation, both in punishments and in preventative system security.

Sandro, I pointed out before that quite a few murderers have > 1 billion Cr in their accounts - this is absolutely zero deterrent, IMO.

 

[Ari Ben Zayn]

When I re-spawn at a location in the jurisdiction that the crime was committed in I have to pay 6K *plus* 1m CR, regardless of what ship I actually died in.

OK, so I don't dock in the system I want to kill people in?

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…


They would be to improve consequence for player choices, …


For example, pirating a ship and stealing some amount of cargo in a policed jurisdiction is reasonable - you are committing crimes which you might have to pay for. Pirating in anarchy is also fine, including destroying the target ship in the process - the victim should understand the risk of flying outside of legal jurisdictions.

I don’t think that there is any meaningful difference between committing a crime in a high security or an anarchy system.
A noticeable and „painful“ difference would be a very good addition to the game - in my opinion.


Seeing a CMDR with 450kcr bounty simply docking in a station in a high security system is something that simply doesn’t make sense to me. I get blown up because I’m to slow to fly out of the station, but a bounty is irrelevant? In a RES every security ship attacks me with a 200 cr bounty…


It shouldn’t be possible to dock with a bounty in a high security station. A dormant bounty should get automatically collected (maybe with x% increase).
In medium or low security systems docking with a bounty might be possible, but the police would collect the bounty and take a big bonus for themselves in addition (or maybe bribing to be able to dock, and the bribe depends on the ship used).

…
On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?

I think that’s a very good idea. I’m curious how such a bounty system gets explained in-game, but form a gameplay point of view it makes sense - as death isn’t possible in the game.

 

[NeilF]

Hello Commander Snarfbuckle!

I'm not sure I was clear enough. The idea would be that if I murder you in a ship that has a re-buy cost of 1m CR and get a 6k CR bounty, When I re-spawn at a location in the jurisdiction that the crime was committed in I have to pay 6K *plus* 1m CR, regardless of what ship I actually died in.

This additional cost would *only* be added to the fine, not to the bounty, so my friends could only claim a 6K bounty for killing me.

The reason I would prefer not to use the victim's insurance premium as an additional fine is because A) this would be trivial when murdering small ships and B) I don't have a problem with small ships attacking bigger ships.

Hello Commander Lightspeed!

Yes, a very important part of any update we do that would introduce these measures would be to have escalation, both in punishments and in preventative system security.

Ah! That first sentence isn't entire clear, but the clarification at the end explains it. To clarify

"The idea would be that if I murder you, and my ship that has a re-buy cost of 1m CR and get a 6k CR bounty. When I re-spawn at a location in the jurisdiction that the crime was committed in I have to pay 6K *plus* 1m CR, regardless of what ship I actually died in."

The sentence to me read the victims rebuy - Doh!

 

[raok]

I'm not sure I was clear enough. The idea would be that if I murder you in a ship that has a re-buy cost of 1m CR and get a 6k CR bounty, When I re-spawn at a location in the jurisdiction that the crime was committed in I have to pay 6K *plus* 1m CR, regardless of what ship I actually died in.
security.

In one way it is ok, but I believe it will be punishing maybe too much. Will be really hard for you to make PvP content. People will run out of money really fast.

Will nerf the piracy even more. This is one of the things that needs a "buff", and now, if they happen to kill something.. I have a bad feeling about this.

I think the bounty should not vanish from one death, is a better approach. The criminals will be criminals long period of time -> Consequence.

Bounty Hunters can hunt them down multiple times, for some small bounty that will "stick". The bounty can be defined by the murderers or the victims ship, if so liked.

 

[Robert Maynard]

One thing this doesn't take into account - and may be a conscious omission - is the facility with which Wings of small ships destroy large (and generally slower, less manoeuvrable) ships - therefore a Wing of cheaper attack ships could more easily destroy a target that would require a more expensive ship for a single attacker.

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Good afternoon Sandro!

Thanks for taking the time to add detail to your proposal for increased consequences.

Very glad to hear that the Pilots' Federation could be about to awaken from its slumber in respect of members attacking / destroying other members (in some circumstances at least).

An improvement to the differentiation of low / high security systems in terms of security response times / capability of security vessels of would be a welcome change.

Interstellar bounties - as you mentioned quite some time ago when minor faction bounties were implemented - would mean that offenders would not just have to move a couple of systems over to appear clean (unless KWScanned).

Linking the rebuy cost of the ship flown at the time of the offence with the fine levied for the offence would be interesting - although would this not introduce a form of double jeopardy in that the offender may end up paying twice the rebuy - unless the rebuy of the ship flown at destruction were taken into account at point of extraction of residual fine from the offender's account at the rebuy screen?

So if a player kills 10 ships per day his rebuy cost will be approximately 100M?

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commanders!

A few more points.

Some folk are super rich in CR terms. But not everyone, not by a long shot. I think that cost of having to pay re-buy costs for powerful ships regardless of what ship you died in has more teeth that people might give it credit for, especially as an ongoing effect.

Interstellar bounties could have a fairly dramatic affect on the way that folk think about crimes - having bounties (and any additional costs like the one's we're discussing here) follow you over all of Imperial space might make some folk think twice, or at least provide some interesting game challenges for them. Of course, interstellar bounties don't have any jurisdictional power in independent space though.

On the point of it being easy to avoid paying fines - this is indeed a tricky one, not least because I really don't want to disincentive criminal activity too much.

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Double jeopardy with ship re-buy - because this additional penalty is there to serve as a form of justice, we would not apply the cost if the bad guy stuck to their guns and kept the same ship. You might think of this as rewarding behaviour that we approve of. Basically, if you stick to your ship, you don't incur the extra cost. But if you try to game the system, you end up paying more.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Double jeopardy with ship re-buy - because this additional penalty is there to serve as a form of justice, we would not apply the cost if the bad guy stuck to their guns and kept the same ship. You might think of this as rewarding behaviour that we approve of. Basically, if you stick to your ship, you don't incur the extra cost. But if you try to game the system, you end up paying more.

Thanks for the clarification, Sandro!