Griefing & Piracy Solution Mega Thread

[Galactic Fork]

Ejection hacker module is a module that I just simply not thought. But it's your next good idea both for NPC and players. But we need some good conditions to prevent use this module too easy or in not logic way. For example, this module should be similar to "egg" in eve online. But in elite playes sit in cabin, that means he must go to the module first, that means also if you hack module you eject empty module. Next question. What the ejection module should work? It should be something like emergency boat. That means module should can enter supercriuse at least 1 time and travel in supercriuse at least few seconds .. 1 minute ( fuel ) and have emergency transmiter. As you can see for this example ejection hacker module could work in 3 diferent ways if escape pods hacked.
1. Prewent jump in supercruise. ( best you can interdict escape pod )
2. Tracking in supercruise. ( you can interdict it faster until he reach safe destination )
3. Eject empty escape pod. ( open dialog option with pilot )

I kinda figured the ejection process would be like going to your SRV- The pilot seat kinda slides back to the pod and launches. The two are linked so hacking the launcher would pull the seat into the pod without the pilot's input. So no empty pods.
I wasn't 100% on how the ejector would be utilized to not be completely cheap (especially for PCs, another reason I ditched it). The original main purpose was to disable to thrusters first, fly very close and hack into the system to ditch the pilot so the ship would be ripe to strip of parts or tow to sell (using other illegal modules). Kidnapping was another option.

I'm not super keen on allowing kidnapping of Players, it'd make the experience more tedious for the one being kidnapped and would be pretty devoid of gameplay. At least getting your ship destroyed takes you right back to a station. If it is put in, I think it should be limited to NPCs.

1) Have a charge up time for the pods, hitting them can disable the FSD. (Have to be very careful not to blow up pod) Players have pods that jump immediately.
2) Eh, I'd say it's best if you just have the single window until it enters supercruise. Set to enter supercruise and then hyper jump right away. Or its supercruise signature is too small to detect. This way you need to put in the effort to get it before it escapes. (Allows in game reason Players' pods aren't capturable, FSD activation upon launch.)
3) But how would player end up on the station if their ship is destroyed after launching escape pod?

 

[Deadspin]

I still am not a fan of your murder mechanic.

Automatically charging players the cost of their hull, or more if they're using a smaller ship to take out larger ones, is detrimental to the gameplay choices available and will narrow what we can or cannot do in-game by a large margin. I get that your ultimate goal is to make medium/high security systems into what resembles a bastion of safety for players to play in in Open but that's not the way to do it.

You don't punish a player that way. To completely counter the homicide mechanic (sorry that I called it murder earlier) you can just push for a more powerful and responsive security force. That's the very reason I mention Concord. CCP got it right in that respect, that Concord can drop out of warp within weapons range to immediately engage an attacking player who has broken the law.

To keep that kind of a mechanic from being abused by the victim players (who wouldn't need to heed anything an opposing player said in any system with a security rating above low) you only allow those 3-5 second response times in high security space.

Slow it to 15-20 seconds in medium security.
Slow it even further in low security space.
Obviously there wouldn't be a response, except for maybe more pirates thinking they could get a piece of the haul, in anarchy space.

This gives pirate players a chance to "persuade" their victims to turn over cargo without immediately being torn apart by security forces when interdicting someone in medium/low security areas, with interdiction itself being a crime worth investigating by the security force in high security space and just a small fine in medium/low.

Ultimately, you have your deterrent, but Frontier would still need to restructure the system/government layouts within the current bubble in order to make sure that players who thrive in the low/null security areas aren't left completely devoid of outfitting/engineer/mission opportunities by choosing to live there.

 

[CMDR GTR2014]

I still am not a fan of your murder mechanic.

Automatically charging players the cost of their hull, or more if they're using a smaller ship to take out larger ones, is detrimental to the gameplay choices available and will narrow what we can or cannot do in-game by a large margin. I get that your ultimate goal is to make medium/high security systems into what resembles a bastion of safety for players to play in in Open but that's not the way to do it.

You don't punish a player that way. To completely counter the homicide mechanic (sorry that I called it murder earlier) you can just push for a more powerful and responsive security force. That's the very reason I mention Concord. CCP got it right in that respect, that Concord can drop out of warp within weapons range to immediately engage an attacking player who has broken the law.

To keep that kind of a mechanic from being abused by the victim players (who wouldn't need to heed anything an opposing player said in any system with a security rating above low) you only allow those 3-5 second response times in high security space.

Slow it to 15-20 seconds in medium security.
Slow it even further in low security space.
Obviously there wouldn't be a response, except for maybe more pirates thinking they could get a piece of the haul, in anarchy space.

This gives pirate players a chance to "persuade" their victims to turn over cargo without immediately being torn apart by security forces when interdicting someone in medium/low security areas, with interdiction itself being a crime worth investigating by the security force in high security space and just a small fine in medium/low.

Ultimately, you have your deterrent, but Frontier would still need to restructure the system/government layouts within the current bubble in order to make sure that players who thrive in the low/null security areas aren't left completely devoid of outfitting/engineer/mission opportunities by choosing to live there.

Biggest problem with the "murder" penalty is that : those guys... DONT CARE ABOUT money... they have like 20 BI Credits! So money punishment is never the issue for them!

 

[Sopel3pl]

I kinda figured the ejection process would be like going to your SRV- The pilot seat kinda slides back to the pod and launches. The two are linked so hacking the launcher would pull the seat into the pod without the pilot's input. So no empty pods.
I wasn't 100% on how the ejector would be utilized to not be completely cheap (especially for PCs, another reason I ditched it). The original main purpose was to disable to thrusters first, fly very close and hack into the system to ditch the pilot so the ship would be ripe to strip of parts or tow to sell (using other illegal modules). Kidnapping was another option.

I'm not sure about it. You don't know how frontier create the ships when it becomes walkable. Your assume that the pilot chair and escape pod will be combine is risky. It's safer to predict a walk from pilot seat to escape pod.

I'm not super keen on allowing kidnapping of Players, it'd make the experience more tedious for the one being kidnapped and would be pretty devoid of gameplay. At least getting your ship destroyed takes you right back to a station. If it is put in, I think it should be limited to NPCs.

We have 2 options.
First you blow up with your ship.
Second. You ejected ship. At this you can always type "suicide' after this look point 1 . If you don't type this look at future multi crew patch solutions. There are many possibilities one of it ransom demand.
I wrote a few once about it in separate thread. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/222041-NPC-pilots-eject-and-occupied-escape-pods

1) Have a charge up time for the pods, hitting them can disable the FSD. (Have to be very careful not to blow up pod) Players have pods that jump immediately.
2) Eh, I'd say it's best if you just have the single window until it enters supercruise. Set to enter supercruise and then hyper jump right away. Or its supercruise signature is too small to detect. This way you need to put in the effort to get it before it escapes. (Allows in game reason Players' pods aren't capturable, FSD activation upon launch.)
3) But how would player end up on the station if their ship is destroyed after launching escape pod?

1) You should rather don't have time to do it. If you don't hack it before.
2) Who said about super cruise in capsule? Send SOS transmission and wait for response if you don't have station in system or in right distance. You have to wait until somebady response. It can be even NPC. It can be solve easily. Your signal have speed 10 LY for 1 real minute max 100 LY. Every player in signal range can response. You chose whom you want to be survive. If you choose bad and send your position to bad person.. look up and think how much ransom you have to pay or say welcome to gun shells Another situation. "Hi i'm your hero" "Hi this is pirate ambush, we are wery bad players and you are in anarchy system "
3) Land on station pay fine and rebuy ship.

 

[Sopel3pl]

You say I try and build missions around "worthless cargo"...????????

What???? You think (consider) Platinum and Painite cargo as worthless, then, I presume?

Platinum and Painite is something miners would have a lot of and would be easier to obtain (not to mention, one of the best sellers) - hence, not so hard for pirates to get their hands on.

I know it may seem like simple steps, but I have only created missions that Frontier could easily implement with little effort and time - anything else you are looking for is something that Frontier would have to develop themselves. I'm not designing and developing the game for them - I'm trying to solve a problem between Crime & Punishment (murdering players) and providing a better quality of life for REAL pirating.

Every cargo was valuable many month ago but now frontier completly destroy trade economy. There is no cargo worth risk. You can risk for very specific cargo like military plans, persons, technology plans. But painite? Your mission proposal is develop the start game simplication to the absurd level. ( when frontier start elite 2 years ago they do simple piracy missions ) 50 gold 500 gold 5000 gold... maybe 50 000 gold? It's not good way. If we propose missions then we should propose logic missions. The logic missions for piracy is kidnapping, extortion, station siege (lock). You want trade here? Pay 20% of your cargo value or your ship value. This missions have sense. Steal 5 000 000 tons of gold.. not.
Another question is. How you want to collect 200 containers of cargo in system with any security?

 

[Deadspin]

Biggest problem with the "murder" penalty is that : those guys... DONT CARE ABOUT money... they have like 20 BI Credits! So money punishment is never the issue for them!

Not necessarily. I've been known to murder a random player or two simply because they had the potential to interfere with an ongoing assignment or operation and I'm not Daddy Warbucks. If I were flying around killing player Anacondas, innocent player anacondas (which is quite fun I might add) I would be stone broke within 3-4 kills.

The biggest issue with the deduction of credits for murder is that the Pilot's Federation is not the bank. They control licensing and registration of... whatever we are in this game. Given that NPCs are apparently not members of the PF, it's not like they ultimately control who gets to fly what and where. Changing a ship's ID should be easy in lawless space, but going into that conversation is an entirely different thread about how to basically reinvent the game.

Ultimately, players need more ways to interact with the game and the existing powers that be (not powerplay powers). There are dozens of ideas I could write out governing player interaction between factions that would divide the bubble up into safe harbors and lawless anarchies while keeping the game fun and interesting for all. In the end, it would be very close to just being EVE Online's little brother though, just with more rules about what you can/can't do. CCP got it right when it comes to a player controlled universe. Now FDev just needs to take lessons learned from them and apply them as needed to Elite and we'd have a really good game.

 

[trollson]

I stopped at "Homicide" and voted no, simply because Frontier (if they have I haven't seen it and would welcome a link to it) hasn't explained in depth how the respawn mechanic fits into the lore of the Elite universe.

Are we popping out of our ships in escape pods and being carried by notional rescue crews to our last visited stations? How does this work for explorers? How does insurance play into this?

I still say that we are all 3D-printed clones backed up at the last station we visited - we just get reprinted along with our replacement ship.

Explains why no-one is too bothered about rescuing those escape pods - a bit awkward to meet yourself in the canteen.

 

[CMDR Dreamstate]

I still am not a fan of your murder mechanic.

Automatically charging players the cost of their hull, or more if they're using a smaller ship to take out larger ones, is detrimental to the gameplay choices available and will narrow what we can or cannot do in-game by a large margin. I get that your ultimate goal is to make medium/high security systems into what resembles a bastion of safety for players to play in in Open but that's not the way to do it.

You don't punish a player that way. To completely counter the homicide mechanic (sorry that I called it murder earlier) you can just push for a more powerful and responsive security force. That's the very reason I mention Concord. CCP got it right in that respect, that Concord can drop out of warp within weapons range to immediately engage an attacking player who has broken the law.

To keep that kind of a mechanic from being abused by the victim players (who wouldn't need to heed anything an opposing player said in any system with a security rating above low) you only allow those 3-5 second response times in high security space.

Slow it to 15-20 seconds in medium security.
Slow it even further in low security space.
Obviously there wouldn't be a response, except for maybe more pirates thinking they could get a piece of the haul, in anarchy space.

This gives pirate players a chance to "persuade" their victims to turn over cargo without immediately being torn apart by security forces when interdicting someone in medium/low security areas, with interdiction itself being a crime worth investigating by the security force in high security space and just a small fine in medium/low.

Ultimately, you have your deterrent, but Frontier would still need to restructure the system/government layouts within the current bubble in order to make sure that players who thrive in the low/null security areas aren't left completely devoid of outfitting/engineer/mission opportunities by choosing to live there.

If a griefer has his heart completely set on it, his victim will be dead in under 10 seconds (and even less time in a gank wing), depending on what ship he or she goes after (which will be low combat rank and a transport or an expensive solo ship). By your estimations for Medium Security, the killer would've already low-waked.

How many security would it take to fight off a solo griefer, or a wing? 4? 8? 12 ships? 16 ships?

A credit penalty is the only way to ensure a griefer suffers for his or her actions - any thing else other than that, and you are letting them get away with murder. Sure, security can also be increased on top of the Homicide penalty - obviously, if someone doesn't want to get penalized in the first place for killing - THEN DON'T KILL PEOPLE.

It is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

- - - Updated - - -

Not necessarily. I've been known to murder a random player or two simply because they had the potential to interfere with an ongoing assignment or operation and I'm not Daddy Warbucks. If I were flying around killing player Anacondas, innocent player anacondas (which is quite fun I might add) I would be stone broke within 3-4 kills.

Then don't in High Security or Medium Security systems under my proposal. Pretty simple. Nice griefing brag, btw.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Deadspin]

If a griefer has his heart completely set on it, his victim will be dead in under 10 seconds (and even less time in a gank wing), depending on what ship he or she goes after (which will be low combat rank and a transport or an expensive solo ship). By your estimations for Medium Security, the killer would've already low-waked.

How many security would it take to fight off a solo griefer, or a wing? 4? 8? 12 ships? 16 ships?

So you adjust the times accordingly during a beta period where ganking is encouraged so that the system can be properly vetted. That's what betas are for, right?

And you don't just throw the current gen ships at the problem. This is where your thinking comes up quite lacking. You can't look beyond the current game mechanics or what is already in the game, can you? Do you even know what I'm talking about when I talk about Concord in EVE Online? If you don't, let me explain it to you:

• Concord is the NPC Security Faction that patrols all high and low security systems in EVE Online.
• Players do not have access to Concord ships.
• Players cannot join the Concord faction.
• Concord ships, even one or two of them, can take out player battleships in less than 30 seconds.
• Concord will send what is the equivalent of an Eagle to take out the EVE equivalent of an Anaconda and the Eagle will do it in less than 10 seconds.
• I've only ever heard of one instance where players successfully destroyed Concord ships and it was during a literal riot where 2500+ players attacked one of the main trade hubs in high security space as an act of violence against the lead developer or CCP CEO (Can't remember who wrote the email that got leaked).

I'm not talking about only increasing response time. I'm talking about turning the security ships into veritable monsters that players will, absolutely will, be afraid to engage with. Ships that, if they have to engage with them, they are no doubt going to lose their gank chariots to. There are always system security ships in SC and you don't get a scan warning there, so players would have to be incredibly careful, if under a wanted status, coming into a medium or high security system where the authority will be more prevalent as they would be spotted in SC and likely pulled down via interdiction chains.

A credit penalty is the only way to ensure a griefer suffers for his or her actions - any thing else other than that, and you are letting them get away with murder. Sure, security can also be increased on top of the Homicide penalty - obviously, if someone doesn't want to get penalized in the first place for killing - THEN DON'T KILL PEOPLE.

Hey boss, I hate to break it to you, but that bolded part... ..it's part of the game. I'm trying to work with you here to create a more reasonable proposal so that it remains a part of the game in your plan but is much, much harder to accomplish within certain areas. Credit deductions don't fit the current lore (emphasis on current, given my ideas) and it would be relatively easy for Frontier to shoehorn in Thargoid/Human hybrid ships as the new security force/military ships given they already exist in lore and could be brought out again for the impending alien introduction.

Then don't in High Security or Medium Security systems under my proposal. Pretty simple. Nice griefing brag, btw.

You know what they say about assumptions, right? You should probably stop making them.

Your proposal is asinine, at least the homicide punishment part of it, the rest wasn't too bad but could use some fine tuning (yes, I did go back and read it yesterday). It's a knee jerk reaction designed to completely kill off a valid style of gameplay and subject it to MMORPG type rules of "PvP only allowed in this area" which, frankly, doesn't fit the MO of this game or it's developers at all.

 

[CMDR Dreamstate]

So you adjust the times accordingly during a beta period where ganking is encouraged so that the system can be properly vetted. That's what betas are for, right?

And you don't just throw the current gen ships at the problem. This is where your thinking comes up quite lacking. You can't look beyond the current game mechanics or what is already in the game, can you? Do you even know what I'm talking about when I talk about Concord in EVE Online? If you don't, let me explain it to you:

• Concord is the NPC Security Faction that patrols all high and low security systems in EVE Online.
• Players do not have access to Concord ships.
• Players cannot join the Concord faction.
• Concord ships, even one or two of them, can take out player battleships in less than 30 seconds.
• Concord will send what is the equivalent of an Eagle to take out the EVE equivalent of an Anaconda and the Eagle will do it in less than 10 seconds.
• I've only ever heard of one instance where players successfully destroyed Concord ships and it was during a literal riot where 2500+ players attacked one of the main trade hubs in high security space as an act of violence against the lead developer or CCP CEO (Can't remember who wrote the email that got leaked).

I'm not talking about only increasing response time. I'm talking about turning the security ships into veritable monsters that players will, absolutely will, be afraid to engage with. Ships that, if they have to engage with them, they are no doubt going to lose their gank chariots to. There are always system security ships in SC and you don't get a scan warning there, so players would have to be incredibly careful, if under a wanted status, coming into a medium or high security system where the authority will be more prevalent as they would be spotted in SC and likely pulled down via interdiction chains.

Hey boss, I hate to break it to you, but that bolded part... ..it's part of the game. I'm trying to work with you here to create a more reasonable proposal so that it remains a part of the game in your plan but is much, much harder to accomplish within certain areas. Credit deductions don't fit the current lore (emphasis on current, given my ideas) and it would be relatively easy for Frontier to shoehorn in Thargoid/Human hybrid ships as the new security force/military ships given they already exist in lore and could be brought out again for the impending alien introduction.

You know what they say about assumptions, right? You should probably stop making them.

Your proposal is asinine, at least the homicide punishment part of it, the rest wasn't too bad but could use some fine tuning (yes, I did go back and read it yesterday). It's a knee jerk reaction designed to completely kill off a valid style of gameplay and subject it to MMORPG type rules of "PvP only allowed in this area" which, frankly, doesn't fit the MO of this game or it's developers at all.

So, you're basically saying that in order for Elite: Dangerous to have a proper security system, then they need to directly copy EVE online?

I know what EVE is, and I've been deliberately ignoring it because Elite isn't EVE.

Besides, I already covered security forces in the way you've just described in my original post on the first page in the Homicide section: "Getting killed by a clean pilot while you have the Wanted: Homicide status will wipe it. Having a Wanted: Homicide status means AI police will deliberately go out of their way to hunt you down - and, depending on your Rank and Ship, you could face a small fleet of police in a Medium or High Security system."

We're talking about GAME BALANCE not Lore. Players who stay in Private and Solo don't give a monkey about your "Lore" when they have ZERO interest in PvP and ZERO interest in being someone's target practice. Without an immediate consequence in game for murderers, pirates, griefers, etc., then the issues will keep on going and will continue to rage on.

This thread is about trying to convince players to come back to Open Play to enrich everyone's social experience if there was a suitable Crime and Punishment system in place - not because "Lore".

Honestly, if "lore" was so essential to every game, I could imagine the huge whine threads in other games and other universes (like Warhammer: 40,000). You cannot 100% apply "Lore" to a game when you need to adjust GAME BALANCE. The very notion is just absolutely ludicrous.

If they do not change anything (Frontier), then they have 2 options:

1) Create an Open PvE server (that many have requested, and would ultimately be bad for people like you).

2) Continue to ignore combat logging.

Both of those options above solve nothing about Solo Play or Private Groups if people want Open Play to be the main source of activity.

EDIT: My proposal is balanced, and this is what I don't understand - players would not be charged credits if they murder players in Low Security or Anarchy systems (and War Zones) - I changed this because of the whining that Anarchy and Low Security should mean trouble - I accepted this, and changed it for balance - but it seems even THAT isn't good enough.

The truth of the matter, really? Truth is, people just want to kill "because game", and not get punished for it (as the game barely punishes now) wherever they do it, no matter if it is Anarchy or High Security systems. These people don't want balance or a fair and just system in place (despite whining "derp, we need real crime and punishment, derp") - they just want to "blaze their own engineered guns" at any "Harmless" hauler or "Master" Anaconda they come across because they are Elite in all 3 categories, have over 1,000,000,000 in credits, assets, or both, and are bored with themselves and life and aren't prepared to pay any consequence for their actions.

 

[CMDR Dreamstate]

Every cargo was valuable many month ago but now frontier completly destroy trade economy. There is no cargo worth risk. You can risk for very specific cargo like military plans, persons, technology plans. But painite? Your mission proposal is develop the start game simplication to the absurd level. ( when frontier start elite 2 years ago they do simple piracy missions ) 50 gold 500 gold 5000 gold... maybe 50 000 gold? It's not good way. If we propose missions then we should propose logic missions. The logic missions for piracy is kidnapping, extortion, station siege (lock). You want trade here? Pay 20% of your cargo value or your ship value. This missions have sense. Steal 5 000 000 tons of gold.. not.
Another question is. How you want to collect 200 containers of cargo in system with any security?

I honestly don't think you know what pirates do for a living. I really don't.

Pirate: Source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pirate

noun
1.
a person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea.
2.
a ship used by such persons.
3.
any plunderer, predator, etc.:
confidence men, slumlords, and other pirates.
4.
a person who uses or reproduces the work or invention of another without authorization.
5.
Also called pirate stream. Geology. a stream that diverts into its own flow the headwaters of another stream, river, etc.
verb (used with object), pirated, pirating.
6.
to commit piracy upon; plunder; rob.
7.
to take by piracy :
to pirate gold.
8.
to use or reproduce (a book, an invention, etc.) without authorization or legal right:
to pirate hit records.
9.
to take or entice away for one's own use:
Our competitor is trying to pirate our best salesman.
verb (used without object), pirated, pirating.
10.
to commit or practice piracy.

The AI Pirates in game are always happy to try to rob you for whatever is in your cargo hold (except limpets) - so... why doesn't this apply to human "pirates", if they are indeed calling themselves such?

EDIT: In response to: "How you want to collect 200 containers of cargo in system with any security?" - Well, so long as you don't SHOOT the hauler first, then nothing illegal has occurred (a fine), which means "Report Crimes Against Me" in the right-hand panel will not come into effect for the other pilot. Providing, of course, you use the Cargo Scanner hack and try to rob the person first without firing a shot. If you spent time mining (286 million earned through mining in pristine metallics myself) or *trading, other than griefing, you'd probably have a clue.

[video=youtube;BPAeVYgbw4U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPAeVYgbw4U[/video]

 

[Deadspin]

So, you're basically saying that in order for Elite: Dangerous to have a proper security system, then they need to directly copy EVE online?

No, I'm saying that FD could learn a thing or two from EVE's "Lessons learned" folder when it comes to applying C&P measures to Elite.

Besides, I already covered security forces in the way you've just described in my original post on the first page in the Homicide section: "Getting killed by a clean pilot while you have the Wanted: Homicide status will wipe it. Having a Wanted: Homicide status means AI police will deliberately go out of their way to hunt you down - and, depending on your Rank and Ship, you could face a small fleet of police in a Medium or High Security system."

Weren't you the one who asked me how many security ships would have to be sent against an over-engineered gank wing to be effective? How is what you put in bold above any improvement over the current system? Ships will still arrive minutes after the fight has finished to find either an empty instance or a group of FDLs that will tear them to shreds in seconds. That's your own logic at play right there.

We're talking about GAME BALANCE not Lore. Players who stay in Private and Solo don't give a monkey about your "Lore" when they have ZERO interest in PvP and ZERO interest in being someone's target practice. Without an immediate consequence in game for murderers, pirates, griefers, etc., then the issues will keep on going and will continue to rage on.

This thread is about trying to convince players to come back to Open Play to enrich everyone's social experience if there was a suitable Crime and Punishment system in place - not because "Lore".

I bring Lore up because this forum and reddit tend to sway Dev decisions on huge updates/patches/game ideas and this would be an absolutely massive change to gameplay that the devs would approach the player base about before implementing. That being said, probably the most vocal sect of those two forums are the guys who've been around dreaming about this game for the past 20+ years, who care about the lore, who care about "why" something happens.

Or did you miss the massive arguments about broken immersion and ruined lore during the instant-transfer debates?

You know jack schitt about your target audience and every time you try to counter a recommendation you only prove that even further.

EDIT: My proposal is balanced, and this is what I don't understand.

No, it's not. It's balanced with a bias towards the way you think the system should be. It's not balanced with an eye for all players which is why it will never be a thing. Almost every post of mine in this thread has been made with an attempt to show you that but you are continuously blind to the fact that you can't alienate a portion of the player base, throw some cookie cutter crap missions in their direction and then expect them to enjoy your proposal. You can't understand because you can't look beyond yourself.

The truth of the matter, really? Truth is, people just want to kill "because game", and not get punished for it (as the game barely punishes now) wherever they do it, no matter if it is Anarchy or High Security systems. These people don't want balance or a fair and just system in place (despite whining "derp, we need real crime and punishment, derp") - they just want to "blaze their own engineered guns" at any "Harmless" hauler or "Master" Anaconda they come across because they are Elite in all 3 categories, have over 1,000,000,000 in credits, assets, or both, and are bored with themselves and life and aren't prepared to pay any consequence for their actions.

And this right here explains your bias and why your suggestion for mechanic changes is imbalanced and awful.

 

[CMDR Dreamstate]

No, I'm saying that FD could learn a thing or two from EVE's "Lessons learned" folder when it comes to applying C&P measures to Elite.

Weren't you the one who asked me how many security ships would have to be sent against an over-engineered gank wing to be effective? How is what you put in bold above any improvement over the current system? Ships will still arrive minutes after the fight has finished to find either an empty instance or a group of FDLs that will tear them to shreds in seconds. That's your own logic at play right there.

I bring Lore up because this forum and reddit tend to sway Dev decisions on huge updates/patches/game ideas and this would be an absolutely massive change to gameplay that the devs would approach the player base about before implementing. That being said, probably the most vocal sect of those two forums are the guys who've been around dreaming about this game for the past 20+ years, who care about the lore, who care about "why" something happens.

Or did you miss the massive arguments about broken immersion and ruined lore during the instant-transfer debates?

You know jack schitt about your target audience and every time you try to counter a recommendation you only prove that even further.

No, it's not. It's balanced with a bias towards the way you think the system should be. It's not balanced with an eye for all players which is why it will never be a thing. Almost every post of mine in this thread has been made with an attempt to show you that but you are continuously blind to the fact that you can't alienate a portion of the player base, throw some cookie cutter crap missions in their direction and then expect them to enjoy your proposal. You can't understand because you can't look beyond yourself.

And this right here explains your bias and why your suggestion for mechanic changes is imbalanced and awful.

But a large portion of the player base are already alienated by either sticking to Solo or Private Groups because they feel Open Play is unbalanced and not protected by a suitable Crime and Punishment system...

And your answer to these players when they get trashed in under 10 seconds if they don't pull the plug is, basically, "let in-game cops deal with over-engineered boats... careful, we don't want to alienate players".

Do you want to continue going in circles?

 

[NW3]

Do you want to continue going in circles?

No, and these discussions are getting nowhere. If FD doesn't want to fix crime & punishment, how about placing instance limits on murderers? Anyone who is identified as a serial murderer will no longer share an instance with regular commanders. PvPs can fight it out, among themselves and the rest of us won't be bothered by them anymore.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I'm not sure about it. You don't know how frontier create the ships when it becomes walkable. Your assume that the pilot chair and escape pod will be combine is risky. It's safer to predict a walk from pilot seat to escape pod.

This is already how the SRV appears to work, so why not the escape pod?

We have 2 options.
First you blow up with your ship.
Second. You ejected ship. At this you can always type "suicide' after this look point 1 . If you don't type this look at future multi crew patch solutions. There are many possibilities one of it ransom demand.
I wrote a few once about it in separate thread. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/222041-NPC-pilots-eject-and-occupied-escape-pods

That's the thing, we never die, I'm pretty sure in game, we escape our ship blowing up and end up in our last station with a copy of our ship. Only we don't get a visual representation when we witness other ships blow up. And because it's a game, the time issue is removed. If our escape pods are visible and can be blown up, or we suicide, how do we end up in the station? If it's some kind of cloning\memory implant thing, there'd be no need for escape pods at all.

1) You should rather don't have time to do it. If you don't hack it before.
2) Who said about super cruise in capsule? Send SOS transmission and wait for response if you don't have station in system or in right distance. You have to wait until somebady response. It can be even NPC. It can be solve easily. Your signal have speed 10 LY for 1 real minute max 100 LY. Every player in signal range can response. You chose whom you want to be survive. If you choose bad and send your position to bad person.. look up and think how much ransom you have to pay or say welcome to gun shells Another situation. "Hi i'm your hero" "Hi this is pirate ambush, we are wery bad players and you are in anarchy system "
3) Land on station pay fine and rebuy ship.

1) For npcs there could be a reasonable time before the ship could jump.
2) You did. But you mentioned it'd work only for one jump for a short distance. I always figured the capsules would have small FSDs to take them to the nearest station. I know in the original elite the blown up ships often sent out escape pods with full thrusters. But the SOS thing sounds horrible (no offense) just so much waaaiting. Dying's already a painful experience, this would be too much. It's great if it were just NPCs and would add interesting elements, but I'd rage quit if I had to sit there and wait and wait for a player or an NPC to show up. Especially if I was thousands of light years from a station.
3) But how would they get to the station? Ship's blown up and they had no means to escape because the pod is gone, they'd be either burned in the fiery explosion or blown out into the vast emptiness of space.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I'm trying to work with you here to create a more reasonable proposal so that it remains a part of the game in your plan but is much, much harder to accomplish within certain areas. Credit deductions don't fit the current lore (emphasis on current, given my ideas) and it would be relatively easy for Frontier to shoehorn in Thargoid/Human hybrid ships as the new security force/military ships given they already exist in lore and could be brought out again for the impending alien introduction.

There is a current lore aspect that allows credit deductions. Your buyback. What the heck kind of insurance allows you to murder people and then still pays 95% of your replacement ship when your murder ship gets destroyed? Not only that, all your crimes get wiped clean once your ship is destroyed? You're saying that's sensible lore? To put it into perspective, let's say you drove around running pedestrians over, did this for hours in a massive car chase, then finally the police force your car off the road into a tree. You climb out of the wreckage (thanks airbags!), and the police ignore you after that, and you go off and call your insurance company to replace your car. That is Elite in a nutshell right now. That is the "lore" you're defending.

So the insurance is the way around it. It's covered by the Pilot's Federation. When you blow up another Commander's ship, you are costing the Federation a bunch of money. Why would they pay off your ship if you are costing them additional credits? If you are doing so in official business like powerplay stuff or work for one of the major factions, that's one thing--the Pilot's Federation can get reimbursed by the people you're working for-- but if you're out there murdering people all willy nilly, that's on you. Despite what you think, this should also be for actions taken place in low or anarchy because you seem to be working under the assumption that whatever happens in a lawless part of space stays in a lawless part of space. Which is kinda silly. Let's look back in the golden age of pirates on the high sea. You couldn't just attack and pirate ships in the open water then happily sail into the port of Lisbon and expect anything but the Portuguese navy to sink the crap out of you. You're a criminal no matter where you pirate, only difference is whether or not the location you're currently in will respond or care. When you go to a place that does care... They will still care, even if you did the pirating somewhere else. Especially in a time with superfast communication and recognition of individuals. Also, as mentioned, the bounty bit is silly, we don't actually die. We always escape back to the station, so wiping the slate completely clean when our ship is destroyed is silly. Especially since we so easily get the exact same ship again.

[Note: this appeared in the original above the quoted above.]
Hey boss, I hate to break it to you, but that bolded part... ..it's part of the game.

This is a bit hypocritical. You expect non violent players to face the consequence of you. You expect to be a deterrent for some people to play in open. But any sort of consequence or deterrent to being a pirate is seen as an invalidation of the valid play style. Suggesting that you believe trading isn't a valid play style because you certainly want there to be deterrents and consequences for that.

 

[CMDR Dreamstate]

No, and these discussions are getting nowhere. If FD doesn't want to fix crime & punishment, how about placing instance limits on murderers? Anyone who is identified as a serial murderer will no longer share an instance with regular commanders. PvPs can fight it out, among themselves and the rest of us won't be bothered by them anymore.

What you're talking about is similar to an Open PvE play mode (where killing players isn't possible because damaging and ramming players isn't possible because they are immune), which I'm in favour of, but many people aren't in favour of it because "it doesn't bring people together into Open", and would effectively divide players between Open Play and Open PvE (thus not solving the whole Solo/Private Group drama).

There are plenty of places PvP'ers can slug it out with my proposal without any penalty - (again, why I don't understand the hostility to my idea):

• Low Security Systems
• Anarchy Systems
• War Zones

The only places they can't kill without incurring a penalty?

Medium Security and High Security.

When you have 2 zones where you can kill without penalty, and 2 zones where you kill and are penalized - this is called fair and balanced.

I also included a fail-safe for accidental shooting to allow the pilot, who died, a way to refund credits to the pilot that destroyed him - this is called fair and balanced.

I included buffs to help piracy by proposing a change to how Cargo Scanners worked to allow pirates to more easily obtain cargo from traders or miners - and included proposals for missions to pirate cargo from players - this is called fair and balanced.

Therefore, I created this thread as a 50/50 solution to bring players back into Open Play without having to create an Open PvE mode - something everyone should surely want?

Hence my earlier comment of; "The truth of the matter, really? Truth is, people just want to kill "because game", and not get punished for it (as the game barely punishes now) wherever they do it, no matter if it is Anarchy or High Security systems. These people don't want balance or a fair and just system in place (despite whining "derp, we need real crime and punishment, derp") - they just want to "blaze their own engineered guns" at any "Harmless" hauler or "Master" Anaconda they come across because they are Elite in all 3 categories, have over 1,000,000,000 in credits, assets, or both, and are bored with themselves and life and aren't prepared to pay any consequence for their actions."

Because it doesn't matter how fair I make a crime and punishment system - pilots who want to be criminals, sorry, bludgeoning murderers, just don't want to be punished by any change in game mechanics and will throw everything they have at such an idea as a balanced C&P system - ranging from the kitchen sink to even "Lore".

 

[Deadspin]

But a large portion of the player base are already alienated by either sticking to Solo or Private Groups because they feel Open Play is unbalanced and not protected by a suitable Crime and Punishment system...

And your answer to these players when they get trashed in under 10 seconds if they don't pull the plug is, basically, "let in-game cops deal with over-engineered boats... careful, we don't want to alienate players".

Do you want to continue going in circles?

Sticking to solo or PG doesn't change what they can do in the game. It doesn't take options away from the players aside from the multiplayer option (solo). Players in either mode can still do whatever it is that they want to do in the game and are not restricted from any single activity because of the mode they play in.

We're only going in circles because of you're inability to comprehend what's being said.

I'm saying we don't need to charge people 150 million credits for destroying another player's ship, that's absolutely asinine.

Look man, I'm sorry that somebody trashed your ship in under 10 seconds while you were out gathering your millions in mined ore, I really am. Take it out on that person though. My proposal was designed to create safe(r) spaces (ugh that hurt to type) within the bubble where Solo and PG "restricted" pilots could come back to open and experience the game with random player encounters without having the huge fear of being blown to pieces by the first hollow box they encounter. It was also designed to create safe(r) spaces for the people who do the killing in the first place and make it hard for either group to infiltrate the other's space without some type of consequence.

There is a current lore aspect that allows credit deductions. Your buyback. What the heck kind of insurance allows you to murder people and then still pays 95% of your replacement ship when your murder ship gets destroyed? Not only that, all your crimes get wiped clean once your ship is destroyed? You're saying that's sensible lore? To put it into perspective, let's say you drove around running pedestrians over, did this for hours in a massive car chase, then finally the police force your car off the road into a tree. You climb out of the wreckage (thanks airbags!), and the police ignore you after that, and you go off and call your insurance company to replace your car. That is Elite in a nutshell right now. That is the "lore" you're defending.

1: You choose whether or not to pay the buyback. It doesn't happen automatically based off of your actions.

2. The police wouldn't have let you walk out of the car. They would have shot you dead and you would have then been revived on the table in the hospital. Think more GTA. What would you have me do? I can't help the mechanics Frontier has already implemented but I can, however, try to keep suggestions for new mechanics lore friendly if possible. It's not a crime to want some of the mechanics in the game to actually fit the world, given the ones you've pointed out (and more) that struggle to fit already.

Despite what you think, this should also be for actions taken place in low or anarchy because you seem to be working under the assumption that whatever happens in a lawless part of space stays in a lawless part of space. Which is kinda silly. Let's look back in the golden age of pirates on the high sea. You couldn't just attack and pirate ships in the open water then happily sail into the port of Lisbon and expect anything but the Portuguese navy to sink the crap out of you. You're a criminal no matter where you pirate, only difference is whether or not the location you're currently in will respond or care. When you go to a place that does care... They will still care, even if you did the pirating somewhere else. Especially in a time with superfast communication and recognition of individuals. Also, as mentioned, the bounty bit is silly, we don't actually die. We always escape back to the station, so wiping the slate completely clean when our ship is destroyed is silly. Especially since we so easily get the exact same ship again.

Where did you get the idea that I thought people who commit crimes should be allowed into any station they want? I only talked about security force responses in the corresponding security sectors, never where people could go. I know what a lot of Anarchy and lawless space looks like in this game and it's not a group of systems where you could easily sustain anything larger than a Cobra. So, because of that information, I put to OP the suggestion that Frontier would need to basically re-distribute systems and governments in order to support both lawless and lawful player groups within the bubble to the fullest extent while also implementing a security system that would make it incredibly dangerous (while also incredibly lucrative) to venture into either type of space for missions/casual exploration.

This is a bit hypocritical. You expect non violent players to face the consequence of you. You expect to be a deterrent for some people to play in open. But any sort of consequence or deterrent to being a pirate is seen as an invalidation of the valid play style. Suggesting that you believe trading isn't a valid play style because you certainly want there to be deterrents and consequences for that.

You've apparently got some reading comprehension issues. I'm not a ganker. I'm not a pirate. I just fly around space, land on planets or swoop through rings and pewpew NPCs (or PCs) who try to destroy my ship.

I don't expect anyone to escape whatever punishment gets eventually implemented. I actually haven't talked about anything you've alluded to here save for the fact that I disagree with OPs homicide mechanic because the punishment is ridiculous, specifically the credit designed strictly to dissuade any PKing outside of a proper combat zone from happening ever again. It's a carebear design decision that's solely focused on making a safe place for the OP while making an attempt to completely throw away a valid game mechanic simply because OP doesn't like it.

God forbid somebody try to explain that that's now how it works.

 

[CMDR Dreamstate]

Sticking to solo or PG doesn't change what they can do in the game. It doesn't take options away from the players aside from the multiplayer option (solo). Players in either mode can still do whatever it is that they want to do in the game and are not restricted from any single activity because of the mode they play in.

We're only going in circles because of you're inability to comprehend what's being said.

I'm saying we don't need to charge people 150 million credits for destroying another player's ship, that's absolutely asinine.

Look man, I'm sorry that somebody trashed your ship in under 10 seconds while you were out gathering your millions in mined ore, I really am. Take it out on that person though. My proposal was designed to create safe(r) spaces (ugh that hurt to type) within the bubble where Solo and PG "restricted" pilots could come back to open and experience the game with random player encounters without having the huge fear of being blown to pieces by the first hollow box they encounter. It was also designed to create safe(r) spaces for the people who do the killing in the first place and make it hard for either group to infiltrate the other's space without some type of consequence.

Oh, I fully comprehend your point of view.

You use EVE as a text book manual for C&P in space sims (which EVE has in place because of game play mechanics, not lore first and foremost), you drone on that you could "write up" your own rules to balance the game, which would be based on Elite lore rather than game play mechanics that "must be balanced", but it would take you too long or take up too much of your time. Killing players just, well, anywhere really, and getting appropriately fined for it in Medium or High Sec but not in Anarchy or Low Sec is insane, according to you - and you completely dismiss the social factor Open Play would offer players would like to give Open Play a go again because they would like to meet new people - but there is a lack of sufficient punishment, so they don't.

If I have an inability to comprehend your backward and hypocritical lore logic, then it could suggest you are out of touch with the other half of the player base that avoids Open Play.

Honestly, if you have such "scope" of what it takes to create such balance, and know far more than I do - grow some, write it up like I have done with my own proposal, then present it to General Discussion.

See how far that gets you.

You keep talking, so I expect some walking.

If you don't, then you may as well continue blowing your hot air into your balloon in this thread.

 

[Deadspin]

Oh, I fully comprehend your point of view.

Not really, so this should be fun. You make a lot of assumptions.

You use EVE as a text book manual for C&P in space sims

I used Concord as an example of how Frontier could buff System Authority ships to make them an actual danger to criminals.

I used CCPs bounty system as an example of how Frontier could avoid exploitation of player given bounties.

There are about a dozen more elements to CCPs C&P system that I have not touched on.

you drone on that you could "write up" your own rules to balance the game, which would be based on Elite lore rather than game play mechanics that "must be balanced", but it would take you too long or take up too much of your time.

I mentioned once, one time, that I could write up my ideas. When I said it would take weeks, it's because I would actually do what you've so implicitly failed to do and that's research the areas of the game I am not 100% familiar with in order to make sure that no single person was being left out or pushed to the side.

Cause pushing out something that would basically change the entire core of gameplay is something we really want to just slap together in an hour, right?

Killing players just, well, anywhere really, and getting appropriately fined for it in Medium or High Sec but not in Anarchy or Low Sec is insane, according to you - and you completely dismiss the social factor Open Play would offer players would like to give Open Play a go again because they would like to meet new people - but there is a lack of sufficient punishment, so they don't.

"Appropriate" is entirely subjective and we've already established that your bias takes away any chance your proposal ever had of being "appropriate" when it comes to the punishments dolled out under your system. I never said fines shouldn't happen. I said yours were ridiculous.

The social aspect has never been a point of this conversation but, if you want to go there, the entire reason I mention having to reorganize the bubble based on system security in order to support both the PvE crowd and PvP crowd is so that each crowd has the space to play the game in a complete fashion. That, in the end, provides your social safe spaces and opportunity to meet and converse with other like-minded players.

I have voiced all of these ideas and more across dozens of threads in this forum over the last two years. You've been here for 6 months and likely only joined up due to your BorCo affiliation. I have nothing to prove to you and your inability to see beyond your bias only provides me with more entertainment while, at the same time, helping me kill time at work.