Yes PVP is unfair.

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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.

just a thought, for those who are super rich... could the fine (not the bounty) what ever is greatest, either a set amount OR a percentage of a CMDRs total assets, and then add the option to have to strip down ships if need be
(just a percentage of money in the bank would be too easily exploited using ships as a way of banking money)

that way a player new to the game who maybe does not "get" that they are not meant to go around destroying everything that moves does not get spanked hard enough to have to reset their save, and the flip side, even billionares will feel the pain.

it is not without precedent. i believe some court given fines vary depending on how loaded you are.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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

Dependent on whether the targets were clean and in less powerful ships, possibly. It's up to the attacker which ships they target after all....

 

[Lightspeed]

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.

Great idea

 

[mistohise]

, not least because I really don't want to disincentive criminal activity too much.

But criminal activity should be difficult. Behaving as a criminal should not be an easy life. It should have its rewards, but it should also carry a degree of risk that rises the more prevalent a criminal someone is. If you're a hapless criminal, it should be easy to get caught. If you're careful about it, it should be possible to survive and make a lot of money. But there should always be a large amount of risk. It's hard to imagine a future where there are "secure systems" that allow wanted criminals to go about their business as if nothing had happened, or that [murder] fines get conveniently forgotten after a period of time.

Criminals should find themselves hunted and corralled into independent systems or anarchy states, and it should be for them to invent clever ways to work around that.

 

[Stigbob]

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.

That sounds like a brilliant solution, at one stroke it prevents the suicide-winder bounty clearance exploit.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

just a thought, for those who are super rich... could the fine (not the bounty) what ever is greatest, either a set amount OR a percentage of a CMDRs total assets, and then add the option to have to strip down ships if need be
(just a percentage of money in the bank would be too easily exploited using ships as a way of banking money)

that way a player new to the game who maybe does not "get" that they are not meant to go around destroying everything that moves does not get spanked hard enough to have to reset their save, and the flip side, even billionares will feel the pain.

it is not without precedent. i believe some court given fines vary depending on how loaded you are.

Means tested fines... I like it!

 

[Toxic_Waster]

Dependent on whether the targets were clean and in less powerful ships, possibly. It's up to the attacker which ships they target after all....

Such a brilliant idea. I think it should be implemented ASAP. I also loved the malfunctioning modules last night. Genius!

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commanders!

Concerning adding insurance re-buy costs: it would not be our intention to do this for every ship that a villain destroys - such a punishment would most likely remove any incentive for criminal activity, which is not the point. It would simply be to negate the ability of a bad guy to swap to a cheaper ship after committing murder. To be clear again, I'm not out to cosh PVP players - I just want to make sure that the penalties we put in place cannot be avoided.

As for "seal clubbing billionaires": as rightly pointed out, the main consequences here would not be financial (to be clear, they'd still end up with unavoidable, mammoth bills upon re-spawning, but like any fiscal sanction against a wealthy target it would take time for any effects to actually be felt), locking off starport access would be far more effective: not being able to dock at any starport except in anarchy space would significantly alter things.

 

[willowfan]

This is fine, it's basically what the majority is asking for. Ok, that is bad, really, really bad. Simplay due to the fact that two griefers can essentially TRADE MONEY by blowing each other up.

This is the reason I liked the idea floated earlier in the thread. Offenders would build up a Pilots Federation bounty for destroying fellow PF Members (ie players) ships. These bounties can't be claimed by players (they would be completely separate from system authority bounties, which could still be claimed by bounty hunters) but are triggers for intervention by npc Pilots Federation Enforcer Wings that would hunt down multiple murder offenders with extreme prejudice.

 

[Uri]

So, Fine = Murdering Bounty + Own ship insurance, but I need to ask, the "Own ship insurance" is only applied once, or each time you kill someone? I need to ask now because I don't really like how you drop information about anything.

Edit: Ok, you answered at the same time I posted.

Concerning adding insurance re-buy costs: it would not be our intention to do this for every ship that a villain destroys

But now, quick question, this will apply to killing non-wanted NPCs too? if that so, please, fix the bug that gives you a bounty when attacking a wanted ship.

 

[raok]

Interstellar bounties...

if you stick to your ship, you don't incur the extra cost.

Pilot Federation Law:
When a member of Pilot Federation makes a crime against another PF member -> Pilot Federation Bounty.
PvP Bounty, that can be collected only by another Pilot Federation member.

edit. If bounty is not collected by a PF member, the bounty stays.

...

Remember that there is no reason for PvP in the game. Now people just grief, they have other reasons for PvP? You make it even more difficult to be a pirate, that will earn nothing anyway?

PvE bounties from res, you get 1000 cr bounty because you accidentally shot a security eagle, and you have to die in Anaconda? I have to admit that I disagree here.

 

[Javert]

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.

I have put bold on the point that I think concerns me here.

Maybe I'm confused about the current game mechanics, but can't they then just go to the next system along and do the same trick in a different jurisdiction?

I have seen it mentioned several times that the fines should scale up exponentially, and after many repeated murders the fines should be based on a % of the players net worth rather than just a fixed value.

In my mind, you should be able to get away with this for a while and for a number of times, but there should be some tipping point beyond which the consequence of player murder becomes severe, and also beyond which those consequences follow you around rather than being only in the one system where you committed those crimes.

Edit: I do also see that if those players are eventually locked out of the non anarchy starports across the whole of that major faction (and not just the system/minor faction) this could have the potential to be a game changer anyway. What I am suggesting is that once they are in that situation, they should be forced to pay the fine if their ship is destroyed within that major factions's space (regardless where they respawn). They can still be a criminal, but they have to be careful not to die whilst they are in those areas.

 

[Dwarden]

PvP is and stay unfair as long as it's not secure

 

[NeilF]

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.

Surely Sandro is refering to illegal destruction? If you're in an Anarchy system then surely all bets are off for example?

I'd also suggest if the game starts offering PvP related missions. eg: CMDRs can go to a zone and defend X while other CMDRs can go to a zone and attack X, then any PvP is "legal" by the very nature you have taken missions to undertake it.


But yes, your question would apply to some of the PP mechanics wouldn't it?

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

As for "seal clubbing billionaires": as rightly pointed out, the main consequences here would not be financial (to be clear, they'd still end up with unavoidable, mammoth bills upon re-spawning, but like any fiscal sanction against a wealthy target it would take time for any effects to actually be felt), locking off starport access would be far more effective: not being able to dock at any starport except in anarchy space would significantly alter things.

Fully seconded.

 

[Sandmann]

Hey Sandro, thanks for clarifying. It's GREAT to see you discussing these ideas. There's not many people who feel that PvP should be removed or punished, most of us are willing to "take our licks" if we decide to play in open, but (as you point out) the lack of "plausible and consistent game rules" and "appropriate consequence" make it all too easy for Cmdr Griefconda to ruin Cmdr Newbwinder's day, and if that happens often enough Cmdr Newbwinder can easily lose interest, either in open play or in the game as a whole. There should ALWAYS be a risk in open, but that LEVEL of risk should be heavily influenced by where you choose to go and what you choose to do, not only by who you happen to randomly run into. This rewards players who THINK about where they're going, it means traders have to balance profit vs risk.

Consequences "with bite" is important. It doesn't matter how big you make a financial penalty, there'll always be some to whom that doesn't matter which means it stops being a consequence and starts being a reward (as a "badge of dishonour"). There's got to be other aspects of consequence, and I believe you're headed in the right direction.

Hello Commanders!
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'm assuming you are NOT suggesting that the fine the "murderer" pays would go to the victim as compensation? That would have some "poetic justice" but would be fairly easy to abuse and would nullify the need for people to consider keeping cash aside for insurance payment - resulting in "less game".

I do like the idea of degree of inequity between attacker and victim having an effect on degree of penalty, but if implemented as suggested that would mean that "Cmdr Griefconda" attacking "Cmdr Newbwinder" would incur a lesser penalty, and a much greater penalty if "Cmdr Griefconda" attacked "Cmdr PythonTrader" simply die to the greater ship value, even though the latter is more capable of defending himself and probably more financially capable of recovering from the loss.

My suggestion would be to come up with a way of (invisibly within the game system) putting a numerical value on the sum of defensive capability, offensive capability, and pilot ranking/ability for each player and basing the penalty on the difference between those two scores. This would have the effect of a higher consequence for "picking on the little guy", but decreasing the difference in ANY of those three scores (levelling the playfield) would help reduce the consequence. For example if "Cmdr Griefconda" was "Mostly Harmless" and he attacked "Cmdr EliteViper" who was "Elite" he'd reduce the penalty for murder because his victim was a more capable pilot, even though the victim's ship was less capable. However "Cmdr GriefConda" attacking "Cmdr TeesixTrader" would always incur a reasonable penalty since the T6 has pretty much no defensive or offensive capability at the best of times. You'll still have issues with wings attacking solitary players etc and leaving the kill shot to the noob in the wing, but there's ways around that (eg: players in wings get their score temporarily replaced with the average score of the wing). It's not a perfect system, but what is? This still allows Griefcondas to attack Noobwinders, but it would encourage them to prefer players closer to their own abilities.

I considered suggesting adding the value of cargo etc too, but on reflection I don't think it's a good idea. The consequence should be for picking fair/unfair fights, not for the value of whatever the victim happens to be carrying at the time. I -would- like to see optional cargo insurance implemented however as an optional, non-refundable purchase BEFORE you leave the station (similar to real world travel insurance). Get killed with insurance and they'll pay out 75% or so of the value of the cargo. This means that if you KNOW you're going into a "dangerous area" you can "hedge your bets" a bit, but at a financial cost.

 

[Arithon]

This is just what the game needs.

PvP can be enjoyed in an anarchy without any issues for commanders who want to pit their skills against one another, but the "seal clubbing" wings of commanders who are killing unarmed traders without even the pretence of piracy will face ever escalating consequences for those actions.

Now as a counterbalance, are there any consequences going to be added to quitting (gracefully or otherwise) after firing a shot at another commander? Logging off to avoid the consequence of a fight that you started/joined? A three strikes rule for a set period (1 week) perhaps? After all network and OS errors can happen, but not in the same circumstances with the that sort of frequency.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Javert!

What you describe in your edit sounds very much like what interstellar bounties are: if you get an Imperial bounty on your head, re-spawning at any Imperial system will impose the fine.

I'm not currently a fan of net worth fines. There are several instances where players are incentivised to commit murder (Powerplay, missions etc.); I don't want to make the punishments too harsh.

And in the case of the billionaire seal clubbers, they would end up being more appropriately punished by increased insurance premiums overall, regardless of where they re-spawned, along with increasing pariah status in secure systems, because we would be checking for undesirable behaviour (ship power and combat rank differential between attacker and victim).

So I *think* (assuming we did choose to execute on this) that you should get pretty much what you want.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

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?

Please Sandro give us an in game, player focused method of dealing with the dregs of society. If players want to gain notoriety then make it mean something, make them player targets for us to hunt with a workable in game way of doing it. It can be done and various ways of doing it have been suggested.

 

[Notwyn]

All interesting suggestions but I think if you get rid of the hollow square and CMDR in front of the name (as others have suggested) it would help solve a lot of the "gratuitous killing".

PK'ers would not be able to specifically target other commanders, they would have to take their chances, more often then not it will be a NPC. They can still go about their nefarious role of killing for no apparent reason and players who might get caught up in the spree at least will feel they were not specifically targeted.

I will still know who my friends are as they are on my list and my wingmates are highlighted on the HUD so no need for the hollow square / CMDR tag.

Just another tack that you could look at as well as the crime/punishment options.