Deliberate Ramming

[Powderpanic]

Hello Commanders!
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.

Will these mechanics be coming in before or after you find a fix for combat logging and solve the games terrible instancing issues?

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

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.

Sandro,

With all due respect you Guys sold the game with hunting other players as a selling point in your promotional literature, I find the idea that you're considering shadowbans on people who choose to do that rather unethical. I certainly wouldn't continue to support your game after doing something like that and I've been playing since gamma.

I like PVP, I don't gun people down often myself, but knowing a human player in a much bigger ship can gun me down and take my stuff does give me a little thrill. Yeah you die sometimes but that fear is what separates open from private groups. I couldn't play a private group any more it would just be dull, good as the flight mechanics are the game is a grind fest. A risk free galaxy wouldn't hold my interest for very long and if you made the NPC's as hard as human players no one would be bothered complaining about being shot by humans, it's the losing they don't like when you guys have been forced to nerf the NPC's

That said griefing and unsociable play is an issue, but it should be dealt with in non lore breaking ways. When I started playing this game I wanted to hunt super bounties on notorious human players, the amount of now griefers who were (or wanted to be) ex bounty hunters is astronomical. I dont bother anymore I just run missions from time to time hoping I'll get interdicted by a human so I can give them a shock or two. My play time has plummeted recently.

If I may a game suggestion that uses the ingame bounty system rather than being the equivalent of gods magic to make anyone who doesn't follow an implicit PVP level cap just disappear. Come on a pirate that attacks only ships of equivalent rank would not be a very successful one would they?

Increase the credit penalty on CMDR kills, ensure that it has to be paid off if KW scanned and killed or if killed in a sector the bounty is active in before the rebuy is allowed. Confiscate existing ships to the value of the penalty if no money is present so griefers can end up in a sidey again. Make justice painful.

Give half (only half - so its not worth getting your mates to kill you) that credit penalty to human players (uncapped) as a bounty, make justice pay.

Put the offenders on a bounty board and let people pick those bounties up as jobs, let those hunters receive a real time warning anytime a board quarry enters a lawful system run by the superpower that issued the bounty, or in a system that the hunter has superior rep to the quarry.

Prioritise hunters to be instanced with quarry (if possible)

Do not let wanted players dock in systems run by that superpower unless the system is lawless or anarchy. Force pirates and the like into hideouts and let them be the victim of the type of embargos they put on the community goals.

They'd want to undermine systems to increase their docking options, law abiders would want to keep their systems safe.

Split the PVP community in two and let emergent player gameplay resolve the issue.

It would be really interesting, really fun, would add a new dynamic to the background sim making it have more than a cosmetic name change effect and would focus and redirect the aggression rather than removing it.

Being the most wanted may be an incentive, for some it definitely would be, but that's true of the criminals of the wild west too and is as it should be, It would also make them the most hunted, and the most likely to be betrayed by one of their own.

I hope these suggestions serve you well, its not going to save everyone (and it shouldn't) but it gives some of us combat focused and lawful something else to do than hang around grinding res zones or running combat missions for a pittance (unless we stack) and should make criminals fearful.


Ohh and dont let anyone start a new character until their bounties paid off.

 

[sovapid]

I've only made it through the first 7 pages. So far the only talk on the Karma system is how your Karma goes down. Is it in here anywhere how your Karma (hypothetically, no ETAs no guarantees) goes up?

 

[PeLucheuh]

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.

I still don't see anything about a reward for criminal activities (killing clean CMDRs).

At the moment, the game is well balanced : no punishment nor reward for criminal activities.
Plus being killed is really easy to avoid because the game already has everything to avoid it (decent loadout, FSD cooldown reduced by submitting, high-wake etc...) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh9AWV_BWo0

What do you think about this :

*Killing in High sec system : almost impossible but huge credits potential if you survive but heavy punishment (huge bounty, being chased out by authority and unable to dock in the system or huge karma lost with the local faction)

*Killing in med sec system : hard to kill clean players and moderate credit potential and punishment.

*Killing in low sec system : easy to kill clean players but low reward potential and low punishment.

 

[n o o d l z]

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.

This definitely needs to happen, but I think adding a karma system on top of that can be beneficial as well. If karma can only be gained/lost in open, you can tie rebuy to that and use that as an incentive to get people into open.

If you've got a spotless record, your rebuy has the potential to go down lower than what it currently is...which is going to drastically reduce the amount of combat logs because a) law abiding CMDRs will naturally have a lower re-buy, and dying won't sting quite as much...and b) combat logging will decrease your karma, and consequently increase your rebuy next time you log in.

On the flip side, if you're a relentless murderer, you're still able to play exactly how you want without risk of losing your ship, unless you can't cover your rebuy (which would be your responsibility to track). Worst case scenario is your rebuy is essentially the cost of your ship, and by murdering other people you're just putting yourself at a higher risk of being tracked and shot down by security forces.

 

[zarking]

Sandro,

With all due respect you Guys sold the game with hunting other players as a selling point in your promotional literature, I find the idea that you're considering shadowbans on people who choose to do that rather unethical. I certainly wouldn't continue to support your game after doing something like that and I've been playing since gamma.

I like PVP, I don't gun people down often myself, but knowing a human player in a much bigger ship can gun me down and take my stuff does give me a little thrill. Yeah you die sometimes but that fear is what separates open from private groups. I couldn't play a private group any more it would just be dull, good as the flight mechanics are the game is a grind fest. A risk free galaxy wouldn't hold my interest for very long and if you made the NPC's as hard as human players no one would be bothered complaining about being shot by humans, it's the losing they don't like when you guys have been forced to nerf the NPC's

That said griefing and unsociable play is an issue, but it should be dealt with in non lore breaking ways. When I started playing this game I wanted to hunt super bounties on notorious human players, the amount of now griefers who were (or wanted to be) ex bounty hunters is astronomical. I dont bother anymore I just run missions from time to time hoping I'll get interdicted by a human so I can give them a shock or two. My play time has plummeted recently.

If I may a game suggestion that uses the ingame bounty system rather than being the equivalent of gods magic to make anyone who doesn't follow an implicit PVP level cap just disappear. Come on a pirate that attacks only ships of equivalent rank would not be a very successful one would they?

Increase the credit penalty on CMDR kills, ensure that it has to be paid off if KW scanned and killed or if killed in a sector the bounty is active in before the rebuy is allowed. Confiscate existing ships to the value of the penalty if no money is present so griefers can end up in a sidey again. Make justice painful.

Give half (only half - so its not worth getting your mates to kill you) that credit penalty to human players (uncapped) as a bounty, make justice pay.

Put the offenders on a bounty board and let people pick those bounties up as jobs, let those hunters receive a real time warning anytime a board quarry enters a lawful system run by the superpower that issued the bounty, or in a system that the hunter has superior rep to the quarry.

Prioritise hunters to be instanced with quarry (if possible)

Do not let wanted players dock in systems run by that superpower unless the system is lawless or anarchy. Force pirates and the like into hideouts and let them be the victim of the type of embargos they put on the community goals.

They'd want to undermine systems to increase their docking options, law abiders would want to keep their systems safe.

Split the PVP community in two and let emergent player gameplay resolve the issue.

It would be really interesting, really fun, would add a new dynamic to the background sim making it have more than a cosmetic name change effect and would focus and redirect the aggression rather than removing it.

Being the most wanted may be an incentive, for some it definitely would be, but that's true of the criminals of the wild west too and is as it should be, It would also make them the most hunted, and the most likely to be betrayed by one of their own.

I hope these suggestions serve you well, its not going to save everyone (and it shouldn't) but it gives some of us combat focused and lawful something else to do than hang around grinding res zones or running combat missions for a pittance (unless we stack) and should make criminals fearful.


Ohh and dont let anyone start a new character until their bounties paid off.

This is good, can't see obvious flaw, must read again to find one

 

[Mr Skelly]

Wait, so the solution is not to make cops more dangerous and bounties higher, but to ban players who kill clean ships?

Seriously? I pirate players (without my cargo racks) and have to kill ones who do not comply, and after this is introduced I will get BANNED for killing them?!

Maybe the game should be called Elite: Fluffy Kittens and Rainbows instead? Why not focus on a proper issue like combat logging?

 

[Elethiomel Zakalwe]

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.

Hello Sandro,

I want crime and punishment reformed as much as anyone, but please, whatever you choose to do, remember that the game must allow for the existence of 'bad guys'. In order for PvP to happen (other than pre-arranged fights) someone has to be the bad guy. For example, that could be blockading a CG, where the ships enforcing the blockade will almost inevitably be "massively overpowered" compared to the trade ships they're attempting to stop – but that gives "good guy" wings a reason to exist and defend the CG. As a Federal CMDR I've played both roles depending on which faction is running the CG.

As I said, I want crime and punishment reformed as much as anyone, but revoking insurance is going too far. Nobody in their right minds would be willing to play the bad guys anymore. I realize that you're looking at at lessening the penalty in powerplay/anarchy systems, but I think that there are alternatives that you could consider. Instead of having the PF refuse to insure players with low karma, you could localize the karma system to the superpower, then revoke docking permissions in those systems (station would attack on sight). You could apply it to all stations in a system controlled by that superpower, even if the individual stations are not. In the case of powerplay, you could also have karma for a power. Killed a lot of clean ALD pledged ships? You won't be able to dock in ALD-controlled space. Also, even a so-called "graceful exit" should get you extreme negative karma if used repeatedly to escape combat.

It would also be completely different if you could actually profit from PvP, enough to cover your expenses. Right now, PvP is just a money sink. Turning it into even more of a money sink is not the way to go.

 

[Cosmos]

Hello Commanders!

Some thoughts.

< snip>

and be punished appropriately.

Need details on this 'punishment'. I will say though as a customer of the game the idea you are going to punish me is far from an acceptable statement.

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.

You've conflated two things suggesting they are the same when they are not. The only reason combat logging is a thing is because of your chosen, and lets be frank here, poor networking solution, which I might add requires us to foot the bill for most of the network traffic.

Regardless, shooting at things is part of the game (yeah in this cutthroat universe (Frontiers words not ours), combat logging was never a game feature as far as I am aware. Its cheating. Shooting at others is not.

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?

As I said previously the two things really arent the same. You've given us guns, we fly ever increasingly heavily armed spaceships. Its beyond laughable that you are suggesting doing this falls into the same ballpark as deliberately cheating. But you think thats reasonable? M'kay..

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.

I find the whole concept of 'shadow banning' rather dubious and pathetic. If people are cheating, exploiting or hacking, then by all means knock yourself out with it however its rather more honest if you simply issue them with a warning, or ban them, etc. Its effectively the same thing except without the cloak and dagger, and passive aggressiveness.

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

Did you really just say that? Whats next, making us an offer we cant refuse?

Again, statements like this really need to be qualified. Yet from what you've said in this thread I'm concerned about the general attitude. We are talking about a video game here, we are not considering criminal actions in the real world. I think its worth pointing that out at this stage because the whole rhetoric over 'griefing' has been nothing short of hysterical over the years.

Previously I was somewhat supportive of a reasonable karma system but the sentiment I am getting here seems rather sinister.

 

[The Dutch]

Can I have a link to the refund page? think false advertisement, your trailers are all about combat, are in order... 2 seasons and some microtransactions please!!!

Start working on the real problems instead of coming with solutions that will create more...

 

[n o o d l z]

Wait, so the solution is not to make cops more dangerous and bounties higher, but to ban players who kill clean ships?

Seriously? I pirate players (without my cargo racks) and have to kill ones who do not comply, and after this is introduced I will get BANNED for killing them?!

Maybe the game should be called Elite: Fluffy Kittens and Rainbows instead? Why not focus on a proper issue like combat logging?

Can I have a link to the refund page? think false advertisement, your trailers are all about combat, are in order... 2 seasons and some microtransactions please!!!

Start working on the real problems instead of coming with solutions that will create more...

Aaaaand, this is why we don't get much communication from Frontier. Sandro is literally opening the door here for discussion on whether a crime and punishment system is a good idea, and how it should be implemented. And half of the posts are people completely blowing things out of proportion instead of providing constructive feedback that will actually help make this game better. Do you guys want Sandro blindly developing this feature without any community input or do you want him to come on here and chat about it? Because it seems like you're asking for the former.

 

[Elethiomel Zakalwe]

You've conflated two things suggesting they are the same when they are not. The only reason combat logging is a thing is because of your chosen, and lets be frank here, poor networking solution, which I might add requires us to foot the bill for most of the network traffic.

Also the definition of "griefing" he used is just wrong. A griefer is someone whose primary motivation in playing a game is to annoy other players or spoil their enjoyment of the game. Is that what killing a much weaker ship or lower ranked player is? Sometimes, but not always. Depends on the player. I've been on both sides of CG blockades (I defend Fed CGs, and blockade Imperial ones). Inevitably, blockading a CG involves attacking "much weaker vessels". Is this "griefing"? Don't be absurd.

 

[yons]

Aaaaand, this is why we don't get much communication from Frontier. Sandro is literally opening the door here for discussion on whether a crime and punishment system is a good idea, and how it should be implemented. And half of the posts are people completely blowing things out of proportion instead of providing constructive feedback that will actually help make this game better. Do you guys want Sandro blindly developing this feature without any community input or do you want him to come on here and chat about it? Because it seems like you're asking for the former.

^^^
This. People focus... do not panic!

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

Can I have a link to the refund page? think false advertisement, your trailers are all about combat, are in order... 2 seasons and some microtransactions please!!!

Start working on the real problems instead of coming with solutions that will create more...

Here here, If this is passed what I payed for will not be what I got.

There are better ways, it's a shame half the "griefers" are banned from the forums keeps the PVP focused community nice and quiet I guess.

 

[shadragon]

Hello Commander besieger!

Well, it would be a descent rather than an instant slam - there would be plenty of warnings and punitive measures would ramp up from much lesser effects, but if we decide that unbalanced combat encounters are bad for the overall game health then yes, something like this could be the ultimate consequence of roleplaying a remorseless murderer.

Open is a shared game space and we want to maximize enjoyment for all the Commanders that use it.

Of course, this is hypothetical. If we do decide to go down this route, we will make sure that everyone is fully informed along the way.

I suspect Karma will not inhibit negative play, but will throw consequences your way for negative play which is just like real life.

If there is a player who wants to kill others continuously they can be marginalized into anarchy systems over time. Docking permissions denial based on Karma. If anyone goes through that system then they are a target. It makes anarchy systems more dangerous. The anarchy player can still go into HighSec systems, but will be not have a good time.

 

[besieger]

Aaaaand, this is why we don't get much communication from Frontier. Sandro is literally opening the door here for discussion on whether a crime and punishment system is a good idea, and how it should be implemented. And half of the posts are people completely blowing things out of proportion instead of providing constructive feedback that will actually help make this game better. Do you guys want Sandro blindly developing this feature without any community input or do you want him to come on here and chat about it? Because it seems like you're asking for the former.

We cant discus anything with Sandro, hes set in his mind what he want and its clear, look at Power Play, Sandro himself on stream has said "Its my baby", well that's one neglected baby for sure! I would love a karma system but not one with a risk of having no option to pay my rebuy. Thats not karma that's punishment and control from Fdev on how I should play, not only that but we have these comments of "Shadow banning" users for killing other players.

 

[n o o d l z]

Also the definition of "griefing" he used is just wrong. A griefer is someone whose primary motivation in playing a game is to annoy other players or spoil their enjoyment of the game. Is that what killing a much weaker ship or lower ranked player is? Sometimes, but not always. Depends on the player. I've been on both sides of CG blockades (I defend Fed CGs, and blockade Imperial ones). Inevitably, blockading a CG involves attacking "much weaker vessels". Is this "griefing"? Don't be absurd.

It's reasons like this that make me feel like the solution needs to be more based on in-game security response, rather than karma exclusively. If you're blockading a CG in a high-security system, there needs to be an appropriate system response to your actions, not necessarily a hit to your karma.

 

[The Dutch]

the solutions been posted many times... there is even a comment literally of how a player gets ignored... thats why people respond like they do. pvp community gets ignored by default and it will just be a half solution to a problem thats as old as the game...

everyone knows who the real pvp players are, specially FD will now this by the statistics... send them a message asking for a solution. this way you get a real answer from those who know what they are talking about. stay away from the pve community with this as 90% of them dont want a solution, but a total ban...

FD has all the statistics to filter out who the real killers are, PM them instead of making a public thread knowing the pvp and pve will clash again

 

[shadragon]

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

We finally have a dev in an active informative discussion with far reaching implications and your first knee-jerk reaction is to insult him.

At some point in the future, when you're trying to get an answer for something and no one from Frontier answers, remember this post.

 

[Cosmos]

Can I have a link to the refund page? think false advertisement, your trailers are all about combat, are in order... 2 seasons and some microtransactions please!!!

Start working on the real problems instead of coming with solutions that will create more...

Yeah, I mean aside from the infinite freedom, and this cuthtroat galaxy we are meant to be in, I made the mistake of reading their website.

In your own words Frontier:

Funny though, its not like the game is suggesting we can shoot at others is it..

I mean is this your promotion video for ED or not? This in the station:

[video=youtube_share;mx9io7bFR64]https://youtu.be/mx9io7bFR64[/video]