Do you think a "proper" crime and punishment system will solve issues relating to combat logging and random ganking/griefing?

[Agony_Aunt]

Do you think a "proper" crime and punishment system will solve issues relating to combat logging and random ganking/griefing?

It keeps getting touted that a "proper" crime and punishment system will solve all problems, and afterwards will live in magical fairy land where gankers will not be able to ply their trade (except possibly in anarchy systems).

There is also concern from the pirate community that if implemented incorrectly, it would be the end of the PvP piracy (although there is some hope that a proper system would work and make people more confident of going along with a "real" piracy attempt).

What do you think.

Poll incoming...

 

[Bobbydylan]

I voted it might help, but I think that grieving being a thing for so long it's going to be a hard wash.

But, I think if a hapless trader is beset upon by a commander will be more likely to stick around if he's instantly assisted by 2 or 3 NPC Battleconda's.

 

[Weps]

It could, if done correctly.... People have said for years that they want the established model of sector security affecting how crime punishment works - if unprovoked crime in a high security system means for example that the attacker loses his engineered ship on the spot, for good, I think that type of ganking would stop.

And I would personally be the first one to throw a rotten kiwi at someone coming on the forum and complaining that he was "ganked" while traversing an anarchy system.

 

[Chazzie]

If implemented correctly then I think it will work, casual murder is what needs to be dealt with not piracy. I admit I'm not sure how they would deal with ganking though - perhaps a timer that you must clear the no fire zone around the station would work?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Is it just for player interaction? I was thinking it might add to a more believable universe.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Correctly - A very subjective term that will mean different things to many players. I voted that it will not change anything as I've seen to many games suffer from the same problem never to resolve them. It's about the player mentality of those who just show up and murder others in game. For some, only a small number if think, it is how they have chosen to play the game, rightly or wrongly is not even a factor here as they are playing within the games mechanics. Any justice system has to take into account that this kind of 'thing' would/could happen if humanity were in this particular future.

I think that any attempt to introduce a justice system needs to consider the larger factions and the wanted status being spread rapidly throughout the area making it harder for the killers to find a safe place and this would also enhance piracy. The system could also me done so that depending on the size of the bounty on a CMDR's head the AI response would be according so a repeat offender could find a wing of FDL's all pimped out interdicting them repeatedly until they are dispatched.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I voted it might help a bit. Naturally it won't solve all problems. But if it's strict enough, it should drive away the bullies who only gank at zero risk to themselves. If those lose their instant easy gratification and get a little taste of suffering themselves, it should be alright.

 

[Adhock]

Did...

Did you just dupe your own thread that asked what people considered to be "proper" crime and punishment to get them to define it rather then just spouting off that it was needed without defining what it actually was?

I imagine a proper crime and punishment system would implement consequences that PvP Pirates would be able to live with because in the end, they're still criminals as the gankersmurderers are.

The question of whether thievery carries a lighter penalty then murder would have to be considered in such a system to be 'proper' I suppose.

If players are feeling threatened that such implementation would be the end of PvP piracy, then clearly they didn't want to be pirates in the first place if they weren't willing to deal with the consequences.

In Assassins Creed Four and Rogue. There were consequences for engaging in Piracy and theft. While there were ways to get back in 'good standing' as is the case I hope with any such retrofit Frontier does, Piracy and Murder are still cut from the same cloth in that those that engage in it are criminals and should be treated as such.

If this is the end of PvP Piracy then so be it. If they didn't want to deal with the consequences and take the time to build good standing to create their own Isle of Tortuga to act as a Haven where they're considered the good guys and the rest of the galaxy wants their heads, they didn't want to be pirates at all. Just glorified Anarchists in name only.

If I am deliberately pirating a player and they resist, I will finish the job until they submit or die at my hand and accept the consequences of such. If the situation gets too hot and the Law shows up to deal justice then I will fight... to run away.

Everyone is always saying how these big changes will ruin something. Regardless of it's 'correctness'.

If you disagree then I challenge you to define an 'incorrectly implemented 'proper' crime and punishment' system.

Huh.

Funny how it sounds like a misnomer when you say it aloud like that.

And no matter how Frontier does it. Someone is going to claim it was incorrectly applied because it doesn't line up with their beliefs.

Ultimately, their 'concern' is little more then pre-emptive complaining to blowing whatever gets announced wildly out of proportion about how horrible it is.

So no. I don't think it's going to solve all the problems because someone is always going to have a problem with anything Frontier does. Someone is always going to look for an exploit to get their jollies, someone is always going to post it because they want to start a scene and get famous for it, and someone is always going to hyperinflate the situation to ridiculous proportions.

The only thing I think it will do is add another layer of complexity to the game. And I'm fine with that. Whether or not it actually solves the issue I'll reserve judgement on after I see it in action since I don't believe in Theorycrafting as the be all end all until I see said Theory in Practice. But I'm not holding my breath in that everyone will walk away satisfied and feel like all the problems have been solved over anything that gets implemented.

 

[JeffRyan]

NPC response is far too slow and lacking the firepower to actually save CMDRs in trouble. This is because EffDev want the response to be credible ie. Not the instantaneous super-cops of EVE Online's HighSec space. I doubt this is going to change. The solution for me is simple, lose your docking privileges, first with the faction and if continued with the superpower.

 

[Patrick_68000]

The punishment can be dissuasive. Not for everybody but for some. And it is already a progress

 

[Robert Maynard]

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some Combat Loggers do so after initiating the combat in the first place - so not sure if a comprehensive C&P(PvP)* update would improve that.

*: it will probably be necessary to treat PvP crimes differently from those against NPCs, in my opinion.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Did...

Did you just dupe your own thread that asked what people considered to be "proper" crime and punishment to get them to define it rather then just spouting off that it was needed without defining what it actually was?

I don't know... did I?

I didn't define it because i'm sure everyone has their own idea of what a "proper" crime and punishment system would entail.

 

[Alpha November]

I doubt it will solve anything, it will be worked-around fairly fast and FD will just end up chasing their tails. An Open-PvE with a different rule set is a better long-term solution I think.

 

[CMDR M Kozak]

People who does not like to loose ships now will not like it more under a "proper" C&P system. Logging is a thing in all games where progress can be lost.

Logging is not limited to PvP!

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

Ive gone "might help a bit". The issue is, as I see it is that both groups of people wont be satisfied with the implementation, group A want nothing less that the total destruction of a player killer including prohibitive fines etc and group B want an increase in C+P but confined to civilised space.

Obviously something needs to be done and I believe FD could do it if they have the will to (I'm not sure its a high priority for them though), the challenge is not making each group hate each other more, if thats even possible now.

 

[Muetdhiver]

IMO it would remove sunday gankers and keep the hardcore ones.

As it does in other games. So it might mitigate ganking quite a lot and
put a lid on the most toxic stuff.

And maybe some people will get back in open. Maybe.

 

[Garbarrage]

Currently, the impression that I get is that CLing goes completely unpunished. Therefore, when a player is engaged in non-consensual PvP, and a rebuy screen is looking like a certainty, there are two clear options for a player:
1) Accept your rebuy for "reasons" (which is basically why you're being attacked in the first place, right?)

or

2) Pull the plug and carry on this mission in solo/PG, avoiding unnecessary loss.

Regardless of FD's official stance, I think the whole unchecked YouTube video fiasco has made FD's actual stance abundantly clear. They don't care about CLing, and why should they? PvP is completely meaningless in this game. If someone CLs the only real loss to an aggressor is an ego trip, other than time taken to find and interdict a victim.

I think it's clear that FD aren't really concerned about players' time too. Again, why should they be? People play games to essentially waste time anyway, right? (I don't actually agree with this. Just offering a perspective.) The timesink method of giving longevity to content a la Engineers seems to support this.

To make it worth doing anything about CLing, they would need make CLing consequential beyond just loss of time to the aggressor. There would have to be loss of progression.

This would be a massive undertaking. Player-driven economy affecting a reworked BGS, with territorial control mechanics that are tied to that economy. In short, they'd need to create a purpose to PvP beyond "reasons".

Look at it from their perspective. Are they really going to upset players who don't want to engage in PvP but want to interact cooperatively with other players to appease "griefers" who believe that the game "would die without them"?

DB has shown on numerous occasions that he prefers PwP gameplay, and has gone to great lengths to avoid the typical MMO toxicity that pervades modern gaming. (I don't actually think the "toxicity" is all that bad, but it seems to be FD's take on it), but they can keep PvPers in the game by having an "official" stance against CLing without having to actually do anything about it.

Basically, if you are expecting a fix for CLing, I wouldn't hold my breath.

For the record, I'd love it if there was a purpose to PvP as described, but there's a better chance of Trump telling us it was all a joke and resigning.

 

[kpmop]

If implemented correctly then I think it will work, casual murder is what needs to be dealt with not piracy. I admit I'm not sure how they would deal with ganking though - perhaps a timer that you must clear the no fire zone around the station would work?

Thing is though the game allows casual murder of NPCs, and the general Elite "lore" allows casual murders. Ganking isn't nice but rare and mostly confined to certain systems (it's only happened to me once during a CG in open, where to be fair it's to be expected) and for example, blockading a station is a valid tactic. "Griefing" i've never encountered in E-D outside of these forums, but I'm prepared to believe it exists in E-D because it's actually a valid tactic in other online games, and because if it can be done people will do it... though I imagine it's got to be pretty easy to avoid (and still play in Open).

Crime and punishment is an easy term to throw around, but it's going to be hard to come up with one that still allows the game to be played, beyond maybe slightly tweaked versions of what we have now.

So er, yeah to answer the poll: Other. "Is there actually a big enough problem that needs solving?"

 

[lenna]

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some Combat Loggers do so after initiating the combat in the first place - so not sure if a comprehensive C&P(PvP)* update would improve that.

*: it will probably be necessary to treat PvP crimes differently from those against NPCs, in my opinion.

+cookie (since I can not +rep you again just yet ).

Depends on the nature of the Combat Logging, it in itself is not an in-game crime thus C&P changes are unlikely to affect the occurrence of at least some incidents. It may limit the incidents a bit by "perhaps" curtailing certain behaviours. As for ganking, it is unknown but I doubt it will stop ALL of it unless perhaps the measures are so extreme as to go beyond in-game C&P changes - e.g. account and/or ship bound time unlimited penalties.

Overall: I voted it might help a bit - but you can't bundle Ganking with Combat Logging - the former is an in-game offence (currently with practically ZERO penalties) while Combat Logging is an EULA breach.

 

[verminstar]

I would say its very badly needed, but I dont think FD can do it...they may try but this game is in a very similar spiral that other games have gone into...Ive seen this before and Ive seen games attempt a karma type system and fail hard. By all means, I genuinely hope Im proved wrong, but from what Ive seen so far from them, I just dont think they can do what so many others have failed at.

This games best years are behind them...the gank mentality has all but destroyed it.