Deliberate Ramming

[StiTch]

Hello Commander Cocalarix!

So we would not by default penalise using the combat timer.

However, we're still considering increasing this value to thirty/sixty seconds.

And well, if we thought it would be useful, we could clearly add some minor bad karma for this action.

Simple change - increase timer to 30/60 secs, have auto-log out when timer runs out.

At present you still need to wait for the timer to hit 0 and then manually log out, which kind of defeats what I recall being its intended purpose - "for when RL happens".

If negative karma gets associated, ensure the detection is a bit cleaner than it is now, because I sometimes face the "wait for logout" option having just jumped into a new location with absolutely nothing around me...

Note the term "Disconnecting Ungracefully" this implies pulling the cord. The "graceful" exit through the menu would still perfectly fine, even though it can be used in the same way...

To clarify further, I don't think anyone even has many ethernet cables at home these days (though I plan to myself for the sake of reliability) - ungraceful exits generally involve force closing the game or disabling wifi.

 

[Cocalarix]

Hello Commander Cocalarix!

So we would not by default penalise using the combat timer.

However, we're still considering increasing this value to thirty/sixty seconds.

And well, if we thought it would be useful, we could clearly add some minor bad karma for this action.

Awesome news! I love that you're finally approaching these very difficult parts of the game.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Arry!

If you mean context (apologies if I am misunderstanding), then we'd probably go with some form of Pilot's Federation Rating system.

This would be like a code of conduct for members. In the dangerous universe of Elite and due to the nature of the organisation, the PF understands there will be conflict within the ranks. So this code of conduct would perhaps be like the Geneva conventions. Rules of engagement, if you will.

As you commit actions that break these codes, the PF would take an increasingly dim view of you, which would translate into them withdrawing support and even working with factions to punish you.

Hypothetically, of course.

 

[nrage]

Hello Commander nrage!

Discerning naughty from undesirable would really be such a system's prime function.

so, to spitball a little, here are some potential examples:

* Attacking a wanted ship, no matter how overpowered you were compared to it, would be fine
* Attacking a clean ship when massively overpowered would get minor bad karma
* Repeatedly attacking clean ships that you massively overpowered would get you major bad karma
* Stealing cargo from a clean ship would be fine.
* Being involved in an occasional starport collision would gain you minor bad karma
* Being repeatedly involved in starport collisions over time would get you major bad karma
* Occasionally disconnecting ungracefully in danger would be fine
* Repeatedly disconnecting ungracefully in danger over time would get you major bad karma
* Attacking starports as crew would get you major bad karma

This sort of thing.

Such a system might not be perfectly right in very instance, but punitive measures would increase based on trends over time, which in the end become fairly accurate indicators of intent.

In general, we want to minimise out of game intervention. However, that does not mean that punitive measures would be toothless. We could make life *very* challenging, in ways we currently have not employed, for repeat offenders.

But please remember, as of this moment, this is just discussion, and although we have very positive vibes, there's currently no ETA or guarantee for such a system's arrival.

YES, this is it exactly.

I meant to include combat logging in my undesirable category to show that it's not just the "griefers" who do things which are undesirable and ultimately hurt the game as a whole.

Of course, there are issues to deal with like..

* Attacking a clean ship when massively overpowered would get minor bad karma
* Stealing cargo from a clean ship would be fine.

Given that pirates tend to have to open fire on clean ships, and those ships are typically trade ships which are underpowered compared to a pirate ship. Perhaps if it was "Destroying a ship, which was clean, when massively overpowered (or disabled)". But, even then, if the trader knows the pirate cannot destroy them without serious karma consequences then they will simply refuse to co-operate. I think the only way to solve this is some sort of explicit pirate mechanic in the game, the issue there being ensuring it cannot be abused by a griefer.

I think it might require some sort of in-game pirate deal/promise mechanic. Say, the pirate issues a "request" for X tonnes of cargo, the manifest scan results UI would be used to make the request, and so long as the trader complies then any subsequent murder would incur bad karma. But, if the trader refuses the pirate can destroy them with minimal or no bad karma. So, pirates still have to be careful not to destroy ships prior to completing the manifest scan and "request" but once they manage that step they retain their leverage over the trader who would then be best off complying, knowing that the pirate is unlikely to kill them. A griefer is unlikely to bother with the manifest scan or request, and even if they did the trader would still comply and any subsequent murder would be punished.

 

[Arry]

Awesome news! I love that you're finally approaching these very difficult parts of the game.

It was good of him to take up the challenge, after all he could have just logged off

- - - Updated - - -

Hello Commander Arry!

If you mean context (apologies if I am misunderstanding), then we'd probably go with some form of Pilot's Federation Rating system.

This would be like a code of conduct for members. In the dangerous universe of Elite and due to the nature of the organisation, the PF understands there will be conflict within the ranks. So this code of conduct would perhaps be like the Geneva conventions. Rules of engagement, if you will.

As you commit actions that break these codes, the PF would take an increasingly dim view of you, which would translate into them withdrawing support and even working with factions to punish you.

Hypothetically, of course.

Thanks for the quick reply.

- - - Updated - - -

YES, this is it exactly.

I meant to include combat logging in my undesirable category to show that it's not just the "griefers" who do things which are undesirable and ultimately hurt the game as a whole.

Of course, there are issues to deal with like..


Given that pirates tend to have to open fire on clean ships, and those ships are typically trade ships which are underpowered compared to a pirate ship. Perhaps if it was "Destroying a ship, which was clean, when massively overpowered (or disabled)". But, even then, if the trader knows the pirate cannot destroy them without serious karma consequences then they will simply refuse to co-operate. I think the only way to solve this is some sort of explicit pirate mechanic in the game, the issue there being ensuring it cannot be abused by a griefer.

I think it might require some sort of in-game pirate deal/promise mechanic. Say, the pirate issues a "request" for X tonnes of cargo, the manifest scan results UI would be used to make the request, and so long as the trader complies then any subsequent murder would incur bad karma. But, if the trader refuses the pirate can destroy them with minimal or no bad karma. So, pirates still have to be careful not to destroy ships prior to completing the manifest scan and "request" but once they manage that step they retain their leverage over the trader who would then be best off complying, knowing that the pirate is unlikely to kill them. A griefer is unlikely to bother with the manifest scan or request, and even if they did the trader would still comply and any subsequent murder would be punished.

A pirate does not have to destroy the trader. Hit the modules such as FSD, drives and power distributor and leave them to die alone. The repair bill for the trader, would out weigh the cost of cargo losses.

 

[Baton]

* Attacking a wanted ship, no matter how overpowered you were compared to it, would be fine
* Attacking a clean ship when massively overpowered would get minor bad karma
* Repeatedly attacking clean ships that you massively overpowered would get you major bad karma
* Stealing cargo from a clean ship would be fine.
* Being involved in an occasional starport collision would gain you minor bad karma
* Being repeatedly involved in starport collisions over time would get you major bad karma
* Occasionally disconnecting ungracefully in danger would be fine
* Repeatedly disconnecting ungracefully in danger over time would get you major bad karma
* Attacking starports as crew would get you major bad karma

Half Life 3 Karma confirmed

I would love some system when if somebody attacks my clean ship, destroys it and I pay 20 mil rebuy, then if he gets cought or lands in the same jurisdiction, he gets clamped and has to pay my rebuy cost back, plus whatever fine and unclamping cost but knowing things griefers would quickly find a way to exploit it

 

[StiTch]

* Attacking a wanted ship, no matter how overpowered you were compared to it, would be fine
* Attacking a clean ship when massively overpowered would get minor bad karma
* Repeatedly attacking clean ships that you massively overpowered would get you major bad karma
get you major bad karma

Hi again - bet you're loving the sight of this blue creature by now.

Note regarding this: I'd be careful what defines an "underpowered" ship. Many smaller ships are piloted with extreme skill to great effectiveness, and can be the hallmark of ED's most experienced fighters. Penalising someone disproportionately because an experienced CMDR happened to be in a smaller ship at the time feels a tad off. Perhaps link to pilot's fed rep or whatever is appropriate.

 

[nrage]

A pirate does not have to destroy the trader. Hit the modules such as FSD, drives and power distributor and leave them to die alone. The repair bill for the trader, would out weigh the cost of cargo losses.

Why would a pirate do that? A griefer might, but an actual pirate?

Reboot/repair will always get them going again.

Repairs on trade vessels aren't that bad. But, once piracy is "legitimised" with some in game support I think we'll find traders more willing to simply submit, with no need for pirates to open fire. The issue currently is that there is no way a trader can tell an actual pirate from a griefer.

 

[clinton]

Hello Commander clinton!

I'm not convinced of the robustness of such a system as it's still very blunt and yet potentially open to even more manipulation than the 100 m/s rule. As I stated, this rule works only because it's a lot harder to cause damage at such slow speeds (and even then it's not infallible).

I would wager that skilled pilots could intercept folk even when travelling at slightly slower speeds, and cause significant damage (and the heavier the ship you can do this in, the more chaos you can cause). Again, for me it comes down to intent. Speed does not necessarily signal intent.

Hi Sandro

I didn't claim it was perfect I'm just saying it's an improvement on the current system. I know it comes down to intent but unless you implement mind reading into ED it's going to have to come down to some rules (or is mind reading 2.4? ). Criminalising only the fastest speeder is simple, intuitive, and I can't see how it's any worse than the current situation (and someways it's better).

The only potential problem with my approach is that ships will be able to ram another ship doing 250m/s at 200m/s legally, but it can already legally do that at 100m/s so it's not a huge difference (ie you can still pop up in front of the mail slot). Commanders who want to play it safe can just keep below 100m/s where you can't be fined anyway.

The big issue is kamakaze pilots boosting into other players. My solution solves that problem. Sure you'll still have an issue with "slow griefers" but this is a smaller problem, because it's harder to perform.

Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good? This is a simple fix that improves the situation whilst you can take your time developing a crime and karma system, which is very complex and I presume will take some time.

 

[Arry]

Why would a pirate do that? A griefer might, but an actual pirate?

Reboot/repair will always get them going again.

Repairs on trade vessels aren't that bad. But, once piracy is "legitimised" with some in game support I think we'll find traders more willing to simply submit, with no need for pirates to open fire. The issue currently is that there is no way a trader can tell an actual pirate from a griefer.

I have found that it is all to do with the communication.

Most of my encounters have been silent except for gun fire. These have not been pirates, just player killers. I have had a couple that have requested that I power down etc.. I still ran of course and lost a few, and won a few; but I least I understood the loses were due to my own lack of cooperation and not just for the laughs of others.

 

[ryan_m]

Hello Commander nrage!

* Occasionally disconnecting ungracefully in danger would be fine
* Repeatedly disconnecting ungracefully in danger over time would get you major bad karma

I hope you think long and hard about this one, Sandro. "Disconnecting ungracefully", also known as combat logging, is a literal exploit as acknowledged by you. Are we to believe that other types of exploits will also be fine as long as they're done in moderation?

* Occasionally using shield hacks would be fine

* Repeatedly using shield hacks over time would get you major bad karma

It is absolutely ridiculous to hear from the lead designer that you are putting combat logging into the same karma severity as attacking clean ships. Unreal.

 

[StiTch]

Why would a pirate do that? A griefer might, but an actual pirate?

Reboot/repair will always get them going again.

Repairs on trade vessels aren't that bad. But, once piracy is "legitimised" with some in game support I think we'll find traders more willing to simply submit, with no need for pirates to open fire. The issue currently is that there is no way a trader can tell an actual pirate from a griefer.

nrage, aggression should always be an option for a pirate. If the trader chooses to run even in the face of what is considered "legit" piracy, they need to accept there will be potential repercussions, or all we have is impromptu scripted donations that leave a bad taste...

The karma system would ideally mitigate this though. If interdicted a trader doesn't need to discern if the pirate is legit or a murderer, because an insta-gank would result in a karma penalty to the attacker in the same way as if he'd just interdicted them and murdered them without the piracy pretense.

If the pirate is legit and the attacker makes a run for it, quite frankly I think the pirate needs better tools for SKILLFULLY disabling the target. No magic tow-rope. My poison of choice was to strafe FA-Off above the target and blow out their power plant, but this has the obvious risk that if taken to 0%, RNG might decide to insta-blow the ship.

Between the above RNG PP insta-blow, the fact that when thrusters are blown the ship maintains velocity and the "trail of loot" will disappear as it starts to extend over a certain range, and the inadequacy of any other tools, the karma system would only have a slight issue in "legit" pirates being penalised for hindering a runner if killed...but that's too much detail for a ball-park discussion.

I hope you think long and hard about this one, Sandro. "Disconnecting ungracefully", also known as combat logging, is a literal exploit as acknowledged by you. Are we to believe that other types of exploits will also be fine as long as they're done in moderation?

* Occasionally using shield hacks would be fine

* Repeatedly using shield hacks over time would get you major bad karma

It is absolutely ridiculous to hear from the lead designer that you are putting combat logging into the same karma severity as attacking clean ships. Unreal.

Repped.

If nearly as much time has been spent "gathering telemetry" on CLing as appears, and if sense prevails, it shouldn't be too hard by any means to identify when a player is logging to evade something over an unintended disconnection - and last I checked, stance was "if a player has a bad connection it's their problem to sort".

 

[Cocalarix]

I hope you think long and hard about this one, Sandro. "Disconnecting ungracefully", also known as combat logging, is a literal exploit as acknowledged by you. Are we to believe that other types of exploits will also be fine as long as they're done in moderation?

* Occasionally using shield hacks would be fine

* Repeatedly using shield hacks over time would get you major bad karma

It is absolutely ridiculous to hear from the lead designer that you are putting combat logging into the same karma severity as attacking clean ships. Unreal.

Come on, that's clearly a protection for the people with unfortunate disconnects. There needs to be a buffer for them.

 

[MickyG1982]

Come on, that's clearly a protection for the people with unfortunate disconnects. There needs to be a buffer for them.

Australian and American players would be particularly affected given that they do have quite a few connection issues purely due to their geographic location...

 

[ryan_m]

Come on, that's clearly a protection for the people with unfortunate disconnects. There needs to be a buffer for them.

If you have legitimate connection problems, you should disconnect randomly all the time, right? So someone that has a bad connection would be just as likely to disconnect in supercruise or docked as they would in combat. Someone that is combat logging, though, would be significantly more likely to disconnect while in a dire combat situation.

I don't care about that first guy. I absolutely care about that second one.

 

[Cocalarix]

If you have legitimate connection problems, you should disconnect randomly all the time, right? So someone that has a bad connection would be just as likely to disconnect in supercruise or docked as they would in combat. Someone that is combat logging, though, would be significantly more likely to disconnect while in a dire combat situation.

I don't care about that first guy. I absolutely care about that second one.

The first guy could be a hardcore PvPer from Australia. I'm sure you care about THAT guy. Not that it matters who you care about, because ultimately Frontier needs to care about everyone.

And besides, you're not considering all the disconnects we get from server issues/patch day that aren't region dependent. I don't know if they can differentiate between them, meaning everyone needs a buffer for disconnects.

 

[Misaniovent]

Hello Commander nrage!

Discerning naughty from undesirable would really be such a system's prime function.

so, to spitball a little, here are some potential examples:

* Attacking a wanted ship, no matter how overpowered you were compared to it, would be fine
* Attacking a clean ship when massively overpowered would get minor bad karma
* Repeatedly attacking clean ships that you massively overpowered would get you major bad karma
* Stealing cargo from a clean ship would be fine.
* Being involved in an occasional starport collision would gain you minor bad karma
* Being repeatedly involved in starport collisions over time would get you major bad karma
* Occasionally disconnecting ungracefully in danger would be fine
* Repeatedly disconnecting ungracefully in danger over time would get you major bad karma
* Attacking starports as crew would get you major bad karma

This sort of thing.

Such a system might not be perfectly right in very instance, but punitive measures would increase based on trends over time, which in the end become fairly accurate indicators of intent.

In general, we want to minimise out of game intervention. However, that does not mean that punitive measures would be toothless. We could make life *very* challenging, in ways we currently have not employed, for repeat offenders.

But please remember, as of this moment, this is just discussion, and although we have very positive vibes, there's currently no ETA or guarantee for such a system's arrival.

It seems to me like you are suggesting that combat logging (disconnecting ungracefully in danger) is in the same vein as nonconsensual PVP (repeatedly attacking clean ships) are in the same vein. Am I misunderstanding?

 

[Arry]

If you have legitimate connection problems, you should disconnect randomly all the time, right? So someone that has a bad connection would be just as likely to disconnect in supercruise or docked as they would in combat. Someone that is combat logging, though, would be significantly more likely to disconnect while in a dire combat situation.

I don't care about that first guy. I absolutely care about that second one.

Not the case for myself. It is a random thing and more often happens the more players in my instance. I have never combat logged; because if I am not OK with losing my ship, then I don't fly in open, because I have seen more than 10 re-buys due to players just looking for laughs. So I can understand the desire not to be someone else's cannon fodder.

 

[sataris]

It seems to me like you are suggesting that combat logging (disconnecting ungracefully in danger) is in the same vein as nonconsensual PVP (repeatedly attacking clean ships) are in the same vein. Am I misunderstanding?

That's my understanding of his comment.

 

[ryan_m]

The first guy could be a hardcore PvPer from Australia. I'm sure you care about THAT guy. Not that it matters who you care about, because ultimately Frontier needs to care about everyone.

And besides, you're not considering all the disconnects we get from server issues/patch day that aren't region dependent. I don't know if they can differentiate between them, meaning everyone needs a buffer for disconnects.

Could be, but there are ways around that.

First calculation: % of disconnects in a combat situation

If the threshold for the combat logging punishment criteria is met, move to the 2nd calculation

Second calculation: % of combat situations a disconnect occurs in

If all disconnects occur in a combat situation, but the % of combat situations a disconnect occurs in is low, no problem. Having a buffer is completely fine, but according to what Sandro said, killing clean ships will reap the same punishment as combat logging which is ridiculous.