Deliberate Ramming

[Bunkerkind Anni]

This one?

It's not bad.. I don't think the current instancing model would allow for them to be dropped back into the same instance as the ship they were fleeing however, that ship has probably jumped to SC by then anyway (given they can wait 30 mins to relog). So, I'm not sure how effective it would be overall.

you mean forcing this upon any combatlogger :
https://youtu.be/aixJMURrKUM

 

[palazo]

Why would PvP players care about this? Unless they are in highly engineered ships and spend all their time seal clubbing, right? Most PvP duels are done with report crimes off and Sandy has already said karma would not apply in that case.

Because we like to fight and meet new commanders in open and how to do it is trying to interdict and fight.
In addition the other can always escape and encourage the best of their ships.

 

[nrage]

There are idiots who activate crimes when they're losing, or bait you into shooting first. Heck, there are people who have healers in their wing, and everyone except the healer has crimes OFF, so if you try to kill the healer to prevent healing, you get yourself wanted.

Players with crimes OFF should be clearly marked on your HUD, and it shouldn't be possible to activate crimes reporting in combat.

All good points. I see no reason why Frontier wouldn't attempt to address these issues as well, now that you've raised them as such.

 

[Sole Hunter]

Hello Commander Sole Hunter!

Let me be as clear as I can, I think perhaps I am not articulating the concept well enough.

* Our karma system would work by tracking *trends* over time. You would never perform a single action and get dropped down to the lowest rating. It tracks intent by building up a picture over time.

* It would very likely *only* apply to interactions with other players in most cases, so it would not interfere much with the rest of the game.

* Importantly, for combat encounters, it would a) only apply to criminal attacks, b) use as detailed and as comprehensive metrics as possible for determining relative ship powers, taking into account ship hull, load out, engineered upgrades and pilot rating, and only activate when there was a large disparity.

I guess, in response, do you feel it's completely fine for powerful ships to be able to wantonly destroy new players, for example?

Hello Commanders besieger, Jukelo and others!

Regarding the possibility that such measures might act as an incentive: it's an interesting point.

In response I would suggest that if the measures did do that then with the system in place it would be more likely that we could swap in measures that in no way could be seen as good things (such as shadow bans).

There's also the argument that it's not that we necessarily want to prevent Commanders from playing how they want, more that we want appropriate consequences for such actions.

Why don't you actually work with what you already have implemented in the game such as the security level status. Why don't you implement specific systems in the bubble (starter systems) with an increased REPONSE time (make it instant) that will react accordingly and quickly to griefers and people who do crimes?

All you need to do is have a specific set of rules and a flag in systems that are judged ''beginner systems''. How about disabling player weapons outside of a station in the beginner systems or locking the speed limit to below 60-90 km/h. There is so many thing's you could do, remove hours of gameplay is not one of them.

That would decentivize abusers and griefers to take advantage of new players by just destroying them for no reason. If those new players venture outside of a HIGH security system, it should be their responsibility not mine. What happened with the concept of ''Blaze your own trail in this dangerous galaxy''.

Why do you need to punish those who want to participate in doing crimes even more by removing their ship for being outlaws. We already have ZERO incentive for doing crimes because there's little to no rewards associated with it.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

This one?

It's not bad.. I don't think the current instancing model would allow for them to be dropped back into the same instance as the ship they were fleeing however, that ship has probably jumped to SC by then anyway (given they can wait 30 mins to relog). So, I'm not sure how effective it would be overall.

Yup, didn't know you could link individual posts. Nice one. Lol

No, I get that when you log back in, you'd likely be alone anyway, but your attacker may still be lurking in supercruise, or the CZ you was in, for example.
Obviously for solo activities, combat logging is still frowned upon, but it doesn't effect anyone else.
The main aim is to stop CMDRs illegally logging, then hopping in to solo or whatever and moving to safety.
If you illegally logged in open while on a trip to a station, you'd need to finish it in open.
Or sit in normal space alone for 30 minutes or whatever. Lol

 

[nrage]

Because we like to fight and meet new commanders in open and how to do it is trying to interdict and fight.
In addition the other can always escape and encourage the best of their ships.

Sure, and provided your ships are relatively evenly matched there is nothing wrong with this and no karma will be awarded. If, however, you spend all your time in starter systems killing new players in side-winders .. well, then there should be consequences for this, right?

 

[Lateralus]

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.

If killing clean players (legitimate in game activity) should receive a karma penalty (fair enough), then surely it would not be unreasonable for someone using the log out timer to avoid destruction to also receive a karma penalty of equal severity?

 

[nrage]

Yup, didn't know you could link individual posts. Nice one. Lol

Just click the #<post number> on the right hand side

No, I get that when you log back in, you'd likely be alone anyway, but your attacker may still be lurking in supercruise, or the CZ you was in, for example.

Yeah, which is why it doesn't seem to "solve" the issue, to me.

Obviously for solo activities, combat logging is still frowned upon, but it doesn't effect anyone else.

Yep, I am far less concerned about this sort of logging.. all you're doing it cheating yourself out of a lesson. But hey, people have been using "cheat codes" forever and this is essentially the same thing.

The main aim is to stop CMDRs illegally logging, then hopping in to solo or whatever and moving to safety.
If you illegally logged in open while on a trip to a station, you'd need to finish it in open.

That would be nice.. but I don't think it will happen with the current model, unfortunately.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Perhaps a Karma system needs players to be aware of whatever Frontier intends to be 'within the spirit of the game'?

What I mean is: Frontier touts 4 main roles within the game: Trader, Bounty Hunter, Explorer, Pirate

I've not ever seen Frontier tout the role of : Murderhobo, as Beseiger calls it in this thread, for example.

Over the last 3 years I've got what I think is a fair assessment of what Frontier wants the 'spirit of the game' to be, but that's just in my head and I don't know if it's right or not.

So Sandro, maybe it'd be a good idea to write a small dissertation on behalf of Frontier, defining what the 'spirit of the game' should be, from Frontier's point of view? That way, players can gain a better understanding of what is and is not considered good or bad gameplay.

Another example : Frontier creates more content like the Ancient Ruins sites. Along come a bunch of exploration-fitted ships, with players wanting to team up and do Science! But here comes CMDR Rabid Murderhobo, who sets about destroying all the exploration-fitted ships parked there, and proceeds to chase and toy with these Science! players who are running around in their SRV's. Eventually CMDR Rabid Murderhobo destroys those SRV's.

That has actually happened, and more than once. I'm not making any judgement call on that - I merely describe what I have observed happening.

Would Sandro/Frontier consider that as being within 'the spirit of the game'? That's what I'd like to know. My point being that introducing a Karma system also needs knowledge of what Frontier considers being within the 'spirit of the game'.

Also, in the above example, Sandro, which I have witnessed with my own eyes from various Twitch streams of the perpetrators involved, this happens/happened outside the bubble, in Lawless or Anarchy systems - how would a Karma system cope with such a thing?

 

[Gubbenogkatt]

Hello Commander Sole Hunter!

Let me be as clear as I can, I think perhaps I am not articulating the concept well enough.

* Our karma system would work by tracking *trends* over time. You would never perform a single action and get dropped down to the lowest rating. It tracks intent by building up a picture over time.

* It would very likely *only* apply to interactions with other players in most cases, so it would not interfere much with the rest of the game.

* Importantly, for combat encounters, it would a) only apply to criminal attacks, b) use as detailed and as comprehensive metrics as possible for determining relative ship powers, taking into account ship hull, load out, engineered upgrades and pilot rating, and only activate when there was a large disparity.

I guess, in response, do you feel it's completely fine for powerful ships to be able to wantonly destroy new players, for example?

Hello Commanders besieger, Jukelo and others!

Regarding the possibility that such measures might act as an incentive: it's an interesting point.

In response I would suggest that if the measures did do that then with the system in place it would be more likely that we could swap in measures that in no way could be seen as good things (such as shadow bans).

There's also the argument that it's not that we necessarily want to prevent Commanders from playing how they want, more that we want appropriate consequences for such actions.

just make rebuy scale with rebuy. neutral karma = the rebuy we have now, posetiv karma = less rebuy, bad karma = increased rebuy, so less coverage up to the point of a paying full price for your ship. paying 170 mill cause you died in a fdl and had bad karma seems like punishment enough. removing the ship we have spendt 6 months on making sounds like a prefect way to remove all pvp fetures.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander CMDR Dahak!

Well, seeing that this is just chewing the fat at the moment, as I've stated *many* times, all options could be on the table.

I totally agree that no chance to rebuy a ship is incredibly dramatic, but I hope I have been clear enough now that the concept of such a karma system is based on building up over time, and that ship loss could be one of the ultimate forms of punitive measures, *not* the first response.

In my opinion, the *really* interesting question, is one I have already asked: should it be OK to destroy much weaker ships? How important is this to folk?

Seeing that such a system could host a whole range of measures and could clearly be as lenient of harsh as we desired, where do folk think the red line should exist for such behaviour?

 

[ryan_m]

I guess, in response, do you feel it's completely fine for powerful ships to be able to wantonly destroy new players, for example?

Use the security ratings properly and this won't be an issue. Have designated high-sec space where response times are <5 seconds with 10 fully engineered Anacondas respond to a player getting pulled. Cluster high-sec systems together so noobs and people that don't want the risk can stay in there without issues. The missions pay less, and trading is less lucrative, but it is safe.

Then, a little further out, you have low-sec system which function essentially how most systems do now. Response time is around 30 seconds and consists of lightly outfitted ships. Missions here pay a little more, because it's less safe.

Further out than low sec is null sec, where everything is anarchy and there will be no system response. This is where all your criminals will live, and should be the termination point for any high-paying mission. High/low-sec systems will spawn high paying missions that send you into null sec.

The main problem with a karma system is that the person that needs the negative feedback from it is also probably the person least likely to actually have the consequence. There are noobkillers that do it in fully engineered Condas and high-wake out at the first sign of legitimate resistance. If you can't mobilize a force that can take a fully engineered Conda from 100% to 0% in less than 15 seconds, that player will never lose their ship.

Please, I implore you, reach out to us, either publicly or privately for feedback on this stuff.

 

[zarking]

Rather than deleting their ship just fine them hard if they persist, increasing amounts with cool downs, if a criminal action takes place (as in they've mounted up karma points) then it's 1% or total worth, repeat the criminal act within x number of days then 5%, 10% etc.

This wouldn't be straight away, but if they have built up a profile as a "swarthy villainous sea dog" then it kicks in.

But... Link it to something like the crimes against me toggle, if it's turned on then the aggressor gets the karma points, if it's off then you're saying "bring it on big boy" and the aggressor doesn't get karma points.

 

[Misaniovent]

Use the security ratings properly and this won't be an issue. Have designated high-sec space where response times are <5 seconds with 10 fully engineered Anacondas respond to a player getting pulled. Cluster high-sec systems together so noobs and people that don't want the risk can stay in there without issues. The missions pay less, and trading is less lucrative, but it is safe.

Then, a little further out, you have low-sec system which function essentially how most systems do now. Response time is around 30 seconds and consists of lightly outfitted ships. Missions here pay a little more, because it's less safe.

Further out than low sec is null sec, where everything is anarchy and there will be no system response. This is where all your criminals will live, and should be the termination point for any high-paying mission. High/low-sec systems will spawn high paying missions that send you into null sec.

The main problem with a karma system is that the person that needs the negative feedback from it is also probably the person least likely to actually have the consequence. There are noobkillers that do it in fully engineered Condas and high-wake out at the first sign of legitimate resistance. If you can't mobilize a force that can take a fully engineered Conda from 100% to 0% in less than 15 seconds, that player will never lose their ship.

Please, I implore you, reach out to us, either publicly or privately for feedback on this stuff.

tl;dr, EVE has this basically correct. Just look at how CCP handles this.

 

[StiTch]

Hello Commander CMDR Dahak!

Well, seeing that this is just chewing the fat at the moment, as I've stated *many* times, all options could be on the table.

I totally agree that no chance to rebuy a ship is incredibly dramatic, but I hope I have been clear enough now that the concept of such a karma system is based on building up over time, and that ship loss could be one of the ultimate forms of punitive measures, *not* the first response.

In my opinion, the *really* interesting question, is one I have already asked: should it be OK to destroy much weaker ships? How important is this to folk?

Seeing that such a system could host a whole range of measures and could clearly be as lenient of harsh as we desired, where do folk think the red line should exist for such behaviour?

As previous, simply be mindful of what is defined as "weaker".

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.

 

[Powderpanic]

Hello Commanders!

In response to combat logging versus "griefing" (which I will define here as killing a much weaker vessel with potentially a lower combat rated pilot): both are considered "undesirable" behaviour. I'm not saying that they would have to get exactly the same bad karma, just that repeatedly doing either act would see a Commander slide down the karma slope. I'm not sure that this can really be argued against, unless you are bringing a strong bias to the discussion table.

In Open, you can run into other Commanders that want to destroy your ship. We are saying that if they repeatedly pick unfair fights, we will take action against them. Why would we not take action against someone who consistently logs to avoid legitimate destruction? And I'm sure that we could envisage a system that reduced karma loss for combat logging when aggressors are also low karma Commanders, so it feels reasonable to me?

Hell Commander besieger!

As we're speaking hypothetically here, we would want to avoid shadow banning where possible. As an example, for a Commander that repeatedly killed clean ships that were significantly weaker than them, I'd rather see a removal of insurance cover (so when a ship is destroyed it's gone, or you have to pay the full price to get it back), docking privileges rescinded at all starports and outposts except those in anarchy jurisdictions and game applied Pilot Federation bounties rather than a shadow ban.

Of course, we'd always reserve the right to apply out of game measures if we felt they were justified.

Hi Sandro

If you are going to push through stupid ideas like this, do you plan to do any of the following?

* Refund Pirates. This mechanic of weaker players getting destroyed resulting in you losing your entire ship, will eventually kill piracy. Traders will become too risky to shoot at or will eventually just lose their ship by doing their career choice.
* Refund players who's chosen trail to blaze will be impacted by this. Murder Hobo is a solid career role. Praise be Braben.
* Write an incredibly detailed check list that PVP players can check before engaging in PVP to make sure it meets this weeks TOS?
* Change all your marketing to remove lies like ( I mean they have been a joke for a while )

-PLAY YOUR WAY
Experience infinite freedom as you earn the skill, knowledge, wealth and power to stand among the ranks of the Elite.
-EPIC MULTIPLAYER
Blaze your own trail and experience an evolving, player-driven narrative in a 34th century galaxy of warring galactic superpowers.

*Changing the voice acting stations from

"Kill you speed, not your credit balance." - Which already is a 100% successful way of not being rammed killed.

To

"Speed, Do what you like. Break the law, who cares. Support will refund your ship anyway and Daddy Sandro will just annoy the person who is playing his way enough, that he will quit"

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Sandro, also, any Karma system would require for there to be a Declaration Of Piracy mechanic, which has been discussed on these forums many time - that way the game could better distinguish between 'genuine' Piracy attempts and the CMDR Rabid Murderhobo's out there.

The two would need to be introduced together.

 

[Cocalarix]

Please, I implore you, reach out to us, either publicly or privately for feedback on this stuff.

This thread is it, Ryan. This is where you offer the feedback, and not short and stupid comments like other people.

 

[Earth Ultimatum IV.]

This thread is it, Ryan. This is where you offer the feedback, and not short and stupid comments like other people.

Except this thread is way too full of people who have absolutely no idea how PVP and "griefing" works. Worthless feedback cluttering the comments of people who actually have experience in the subject.

 

[Sole Hunter]

Also how the eck do you define what is a weak ship or objectively make a system that track strong ships. I could be flying a cobra and be harmless (and objectively be a much better pilot) but with dank weapon rolls and destroy a terrible anaconda pilot.