Deliberate Ramming

[StiTch]

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.

Not needed at all, because you cannot make the distinction between a legit "legit piracy declaration".

Pirate declares piracy, murders target anyway: free reduction in karma penalty

Increase more harsh penalties for karma kills during a piracy attempt? Well why would the pirate ever declare it?

And frankly I prefer the natural feel of ED, which was meant to be "play your way", not "piracy mode engaged. Next up: trader mode engaged..."

 

[Acroci]

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?

I am firmly under the impression that destroying much weaker ships should not be okay and there should absolutely be (gradually more severe) consequences for that sort of action. Unless of course that weaker ship was an aggressor of some sort.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

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.

"If you're not a PVP'er or a griefer then you don't know what you're talking about"?

 

[Powderpanic]

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 but with dank weapon rolls and destroy a terrible anaconda pilot.

I know right!

What about the Sothis Cutters??

They all have Elite status and End game ships and lose to PVP players with a can opener.

 

[Earth Ultimatum IV.]

"If you're not a PVP'er or a griefer then you don't know what you're talking about"?

"I got ganked without conscent by a viper in my anaconda once, plz nerf all PVP and make everyone who starts shooting lose rebuy and pay my rebuy too"

The forum is full of these. Worthless feedback.

 

[Jukelo]

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.

In the current state of the game fines and bounties are a non-factor. You never have to pay your fines or bounties unless you respawn at the jurisdiction the bounty is coming from, and of course if you're half decent you always have control over where you will be respawning.

 

[Sole Hunter]

I know right!

What about the Sothis Cutters??

They all have Elite status and End game ships and lose to PVP players with a can opener.

And this is why this idea will simply not work.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Not needed at all, because you cannot make the distinction between a legit "legit piracy declaration".

Pirate declares piracy, murders target anyway: free reduction in karma penalty

Increase more harsh penalties for karma kills during a piracy attempt? Well why would the pirate ever declare it?

And frankly I prefer the natural feel of ED, which was meant to be "play your way", not "piracy mode engaged. Next up: trader mode engaged..."

You make good points, but there have been some great ideas about such a mechanic in previous threads here - and on Reddit - ideas which are entirely workable. And basically, every single other aspect of the game is already as you describe with set mechanics to it. Right from release, the game on the PvP side of things has always been undefined - it's a complete mess.

 

[A_Honcho]

Rip powerplay
Again

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commanders!

Lots of interesting points!

A few comments for the end of the day:

* For the suggestion that the most serious "offenders" would be least likely to suffer the consequences (by escaping): yes, we would likely want to address this in some manner.

* For the various alternative punitive measures: yes, most of these are plausible (including benefits for good karma), the exact details are less interesting to me at the moment as the concept of *when* they should be employed (because in my opinion, it comes back to...

* ...This). For the question of what do we feel should be the spirit of the game - this is an excellent question, and to one degree or another involves us all. Our current take is that we feel that some actions, say like the ones I have described earlier, can be overall be not so good for the game in the long term. However, we'd rather approach a solution that added consequences than simply shadow banning or full banning. So basically, we want people to play how they want, but understand that eventually there are reactions to certain actions.

And now, unfortunately, I have to end for the day. Feel free to offer constructive criticism or support, or just debate (as long as it's civil).

And remember, this is speculative: no ETA, no guarantee.

 

[palazo]

When i never play in open when im start on a sidewinder and i dont know how to fly or a Anaconda without hull that´s the true.

I think the Open need be an open space, and dangerous place, where you can fly free your ship.

The clog need be punished like the exploits.

I disagree with the idea of Sandro, although the karma can be usefull for other things I do not deny it.

You can make safe places where the players cant fight like the starter sites or a sector, them have a big galaxy.

Why you go to brake everything when you can do something better.

Once I saw in the forum that one of my ideas went ahead and was heard. That was the Surface Scanner...

Now I read this and I say, god why? They do things this way.

They have the "solo", have the "private" and " the open" that only the pvpers have fun they are going to do something to kill our skill and fun.

I do not know, the truth is that I have a little common sense, nothing more.

The truth is that PVPers are always less quantity than PVErs, in the pulls we always lose. It would be good to improve the Open by having the players integrate more, for example allowing trading between players or improving the gameplay itself. Encouraging peaceful activities.

If people modified their ships to make them tough the griefers would never kill them in Open.

Sincerely I do not think this is going well Sandro, the open has a tremendous potential as pvp, you did the CQC that no one plays. Because people want to fight with their ships and their creations on the big space. And sometimes they also like everything else in the game like PVeers.

I hope you guys talk to PVPers too and come to an agreement.

Maybe I will not write this crap but at least I express what I think.

Greetings.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

i can't wait for Obsidian ants review on this

 

[Lateralus]

Hello Commander CMDR Dahak!

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?

The problem with this notion is that it does not consider PvP piracy; out of 10 interdictions, probably 8 traders will try and run (fair enough, it's up to them), so the pirate has to use force in most encounters. Obviously disabling the escaping trader is preferable to killing them, but it's not always possible given the small window of time the pirate has, so we tend to default to killing the trader for refusing to yield.

Should this scenario be treated as the same as Eravate seal-clubbing? I don't think it should given the trader had a fair chance to escape in-tact whereas noob-killers are targeting players with not only weak ships, but little if any experience.

 

[Cosmos]

I find it somewhat interesting that they've sold us a game set in a cutthroat galaxy, where we are told we have infinite freedom to blaze our own trail and we see rhetoric like this from the lead developer.

Before I get on a rant.. Lets say this all goes through.. Does this mean solo and pg will be removed too? Or is the intent to just stiff people who don't play in Frontiers 'approved way'?

 

[Sole Hunter]

Hell, you could just temporarily block a player from entering Erevate for killing too many new players (you could determinate what is a new player based on how many hours he played the game ex : 15hours). That would decentivize current players to abuse new players.

You already have that feature implement in the game with unaccessible systems and with permits.

There is your easy band-aid fix if that's what you want to do.

 

[CMDR Dahak]

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?

Punishment for griefing should always be high. Always. The penalty for what the community calls "seal clubbing" should be the strongest, because we don't want to drive away new players. I don't think there's any question on that.

But the Engineering system made the game "item based."
if you lose your engineering items on a ship, given that some of the mats to make them don't always exist in the game at any given time, you've lost a hell of a lot of time. Enough that the person being punished will probably not consider it's worth the time to continue playing.

As an extreme punishment, it's a very small step away from banning. You're talking at that point about banning someone for playing the game.

Playing the game like a total jerk, but playing the game.

 

[MacAllister]

A reputations system is a start but what needs to be agreed upon is the safety of ships in Open just as we have in Mobius. If for instance the pirate community was to guarantee that any ship in a High or Medium Security System would never be interdicted, then you give these players a way to get around and make money in Open without the potential loss of their ship to piracy. The problem of course is no group can promise this, and you will always have those who will ignore this edict and kill players anyway.

I think this solution has to come from the FDevs themselves. There has to be ways to be totally safe from having your ship destroyed by another player. Even if you choose to make money in something with no defensive capabilities whatsoever, there needs to be a guarantee they can do this. It would make no sense for them to trade modes for higher risk even if they would make more money, because for most it's not about money but not becoming a victim.

I have talked to many and having a player come in and destroy their ship and then laugh at them in a YouTube video is their greatest fear. No amount of financial incentive will convince these players to play in Open when they are totally safe from this in Mobius. They have to have the same guarantee they have in Mobius or they will simply not come.

Your ideas are a good start. There are many ways the FDevs can solve this and any one of them would work. However it must guarantee these players can fly an unarmed unshielded ships and make their destinations without the possibility of ever being destroyed. Until you have this mechanic in Open they will simply not come.

 

[zarking]

Maybe the hardcore, kill everything that moves, pvp'ers (which is a legitimate career path, ish), should suggest what punishment they think is fair for killing players in an unfair way (unfair concept under construction), what consequences do they feel is reasonable for their actions?
Or do you think it's fine as it is and that no action should be taken? Life is hard, deal with it.

Other than making a handful of "starter" zones safe space I mean, as even a one day old noobie has to venture out the starter system for their first shiny mission

I actually think their ideas might end up the best.

 

[Powderpanic]

Can we get some qualification on what counts as a powerful ship?

How much can I engineer my Keelback before I get into ship loss territory for non consensual PVP with a noob?
Will there be some sort of in game indicator or do we just have to guess?

If I use a ship of equal of lower power than a noob, to gank a noob.
Will i be exempt from your measures? Will I get positive Karma for being in the weaker ship?

 

[palazo]

A reputations system is a start but what needs to be agreed upon is the safety of ships in Open just as we have in Mobius. If for instance the pirate community was to guarantee that any ship in a High or Medium Security System would never be interdicted, then you give these players a way to get around and make money in Open without the potential loss of their ship to piracy. The problem of course is no group can promise this, and you will always have those who will ignore this edict and kill players anyway.

I think this solution has to come from the FDevs themselves. There has to be ways to be totally safe from having your ship destroyed by another player. Even if you choose to make money in something with no defensive capabilities whatsoever, there needs to be a guarantee they can do this. It would make no sense for them to trade modes for higher risk even if they would make more money, because for most it's not about money but not becoming a victim.

I have talked to many and having a player come in and destroy their ship and then laugh at them in a YouTube video is their greatest fear. No amount of financial incentive will convince these players to play in Open when they are totally safe from this in Mobius. They have to have the same guarantee they have in Mobius or they will simply not come.
Your mechanic is a good one as well. There are many ways the FDevs can solve this and any one of them would work. However it must guarantee these players can fly an unarmed unshielded ships and make their destinations without the possibility of ever being destroyed. Until you have this mechanic in Open they will simply not come.

Yes, is like god protects the Africa childrens from die of angry.

God mode for the noobs on open.