All the suggestions that I've seen always leave out some form of RNG. [haha]
Deliberate Ramming
- Thread starter shadragon
- Start date
All the suggestions that I've seen always leave out some form of RNG. [haha]
You forgot to include the factor of killing clean ships that may harm Powerplay or the BGS.
I'm not that sympathetic to people who force rebuys on others suddenly losing their insurance privileges and having to pay increased costs, especially when I suspect they have enough skill to not die often... [haha]
However, I'd like it if there was some differentiation between hi-sec and anarchy systems for such a penalty, eg. Murder someone in hi-sec, get a karma hit. Murder in anarchy, get none. Die in high sec with low karma, pay an increased insurance cost, die in anarchy, pay same as current. This would serve to encourage insane psychopaths and people looking for fights to the highest risk systems, which I think is the point of these system statuses. Of course this also means an increased incentive is needed to get traders in there.
Not sure if anyone has suggested this, but perhaps an alternate penalty for low karma could be they lose the ability to use the pilots fed IFF ie, they see other commanders as a solid square while those commanders see the low karma individual as something else as well that identifies someone dangerous. This may be too close to a shadowban I suppose, but on the other hand some may see it as a challenge to identify a real person by their movements...
Sounds good to me so far...this sort of system would reduce risk of being charged for murder...except for the shield bit. unshielded traders I feel will be victim to this.
I always obay speed laws when passing near/into stations...only because the only risk to my ship is a lethal response for murder (found out the hard way that Starports use Shield gen attacks. Still lived though with 20%!! )
Bah...2,000 for fines. they got it easy.
I always obay speed laws when passing near/into stations...only because the only risk to my ship is a lethal response for murder (found out the hard way that Starports use Shield gen attacks. Still lived though with 20%!! )
Bah...2,000 for fines. they got it easy.
Other than that, not sure if trying to turn into Eve, but there's definitely ideas there.
I'm also okay where some of Sandro's ideas are. It all just needs to be reasonable. Everyone has a way they want to play the game and as long as it isn't griefing or cheating, no one should be getting banned or permanently losing ships over legitimate play, regardless of trends. You'd need some pretty specific rules in place to prevent further griefing and prevent people from getting severely punished for accepted play.
Last edited:
Hi Sandro Sammarco, here's some feedback. You said:
"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."
"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 really think the focus should be more on make High-Security systems truly high-security where NPC security arrives a few seconds after a player attacks someone. Then new players and others not interested in PVP will be truly safe in High-Security systems, and it diminishes PVP in high-sec. An other game called Eve does this pretty well already.
- For serial player killers the Bounty Hunting system should be improved so players and NPCs can track those players down and kill them.
- Griefers could gradually have their insurance reduced.
- Players who use the log-out and disconnect exploit to save themselves from PVP should be punished with reduced ship insurance or a fine that increases the more often they do it. I'm also against shadow banning people.
- People who genuinely want to PVP in places where PVP is tolerated (medium and low security systems) should not be punished. Because that is also a legitimate way to play. The full-sized galaxy means player encounters are very rare already.
- Add a basic Guild system, because that makes it easier for players to cooperate and protect each other.
- Look more for a Player Driven system (proper bounty hunting tracker and guilds) rather than some secret hidden karma system that mysteriously punishes players and creates confusion.
Last edited:
That already happens as far as i know, at least with NPCs. Well, it happens to me when i'm a bad boy in high sec. At least in space. I've been a bad boy when doing naughty stuff on a planet and security didn't actually turn up...
Last edited:
i wonder - do those PVP groups have a registered minor faction somewhere? all they need is to have their own anarchy subfaction registerd and make that one spread through the galaxy.
thats the problem with instant-response police npcs - that would really kill a part of the gameplay, especially real piracy (stealing cargo) or working on the BGS by killing Station defenses.
isn't the response time of the system police force tied to your relation with minor faction that provides that service?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... and NPCs are virtual constructs provided by the game for the amusement of players - they have no "life".
The portion of Sandro's post that you quoted would suggest that Frontier are considering introducing consequences for some actions against other players - as it is those actions that may affect the population of the different game modes (and Frontier would seem to be keen for more players to play in Open).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Glad to read that the Pilots' Federation may be about to awaken from it's somnolent approach to internecine behaviours.
Javert
Volunteer Moderator
I haven't read this entire thread, but I like the idea of a karma system as described in some of the posts here.
I have also in the past posted an idea for also mitigating this in the opposite manner - rather than increase the consequences for attacking players, reduce the consequences for being attacked in certain situations.
As an example, you could have a temporary rebuy insurance. This is an insurance package that you would purchase that is system specific, and time limited. For example, if there is a CG in Lave, you would get the opportunity to purchase a rebuy insurance package for the duration of that event. This package would mean that your rebuys are capped, or even eliminated, for the duration, but only in that one system.
This rebuy insurance would only be available to non criminals, and potentially only available to certain ships or loadout limitatations.
The idea behind it would be to cap the re-buy risk of traders flying in open at large gatherings.
Edit - I made a more detailed post about this a few months back and I think I also included cargo in the proposal i.e. this temporary insurance would include the value of your cargo as well.
I have also in the past posted an idea for also mitigating this in the opposite manner - rather than increase the consequences for attacking players, reduce the consequences for being attacked in certain situations.
As an example, you could have a temporary rebuy insurance. This is an insurance package that you would purchase that is system specific, and time limited. For example, if there is a CG in Lave, you would get the opportunity to purchase a rebuy insurance package for the duration of that event. This package would mean that your rebuys are capped, or even eliminated, for the duration, but only in that one system.
This rebuy insurance would only be available to non criminals, and potentially only available to certain ships or loadout limitatations.
The idea behind it would be to cap the re-buy risk of traders flying in open at large gatherings.
Edit - I made a more detailed post about this a few months back and I think I also included cargo in the proposal i.e. this temporary insurance would include the value of your cargo as well.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... and delay could be reduced to zero if the player was being attacked by a player with very poor karma.
.... or, the Pilots' Federation could introduce a comprehensive* compensation scheme for members destroyed by other members who have a lower Pilots' Federation behavioural reputation.
*: comprehensive, as in: covers more than just the ship.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given the existing disparity between combat builds and non-combat builds that already existed well before Engineers were introduced, their introduction only widened an existing gulf, in my opinion, and did not create it.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
Very interesting thread! Good to see some discussions and more details on the Karma system.
I like the general idea described here. It makes sense to me. I can see how controversial the combat logging points are, but at the same time I understand that FDEV can't really tell when it's CL and when it's network outage. However - if a player's connection is lost repeatedly and only during combat, I think it's a good indication he's a logger and should be punished. Whether to apply Karma system in this instance... Not so sure.
CL is defined as an EXPLOIT by Frontier, so I think while it's determined we have a combat logger (as I said - losing connection very often while in combat only is a good indication of that), an out of game measure should be applied, like shadowbanning for example.
As for repeated ganking (aka killing other ships without reason, regardless of whether it's a newbie Sidewinder or fully engineered Vette) - Karma system would work I think. As long as the gankers are not breaking the rules (aka cheating), they should not be punished outside of the game. Docking privileges revoked, insurance taken away, then eventually no ability to rebuy their ship would be good in game punishment.
Now griefing is a different cup of tea and that should be punished with a shadowban IMHO. Crashing into ships near stations, shooting at stations in MC, repeatedly killing the same player over and over and other similar behaviour - that's griefing (as opposed to ganking described above) is just being a... how can I put it and not break the forum rules? Let's just say it's not cool. And that kind of stuff should not be tolerated. It's one thing to be a murderer, even if it's only pretended role play, and it's another thing to be a complete and utter <mumbles expletive>.
That's a very good idea and IMHO should be implemented asap.
That's a very fitting lore explanation. Makes sense, I like it!
I like the general idea described here. It makes sense to me. I can see how controversial the combat logging points are, but at the same time I understand that FDEV can't really tell when it's CL and when it's network outage. However - if a player's connection is lost repeatedly and only during combat, I think it's a good indication he's a logger and should be punished. Whether to apply Karma system in this instance... Not so sure.
CL is defined as an EXPLOIT by Frontier, so I think while it's determined we have a combat logger (as I said - losing connection very often while in combat only is a good indication of that), an out of game measure should be applied, like shadowbanning for example.
As for repeated ganking (aka killing other ships without reason, regardless of whether it's a newbie Sidewinder or fully engineered Vette) - Karma system would work I think. As long as the gankers are not breaking the rules (aka cheating), they should not be punished outside of the game. Docking privileges revoked, insurance taken away, then eventually no ability to rebuy their ship would be good in game punishment.
Now griefing is a different cup of tea and that should be punished with a shadowban IMHO. Crashing into ships near stations, shooting at stations in MC, repeatedly killing the same player over and over and other similar behaviour - that's griefing (as opposed to ganking described above) is just being a... how can I put it and not break the forum rules? Let's just say it's not cool. And that kind of stuff should not be tolerated. It's one thing to be a murderer, even if it's only pretended role play, and it's another thing to be a complete and utter <mumbles expletive>.
That's a very good idea and IMHO should be implemented asap.
That's a very fitting lore explanation. Makes sense, I like it!
I think a Karma system as described by Sandro is the best that could happen to the game, and it isn't working outside of the game and lore at all.
Sandro, if you are still reading, i'd like to make a general comment on this, about the no ETA no guaratee part you keep repeating.
While i fully understand your need for this (otherwise people will hold you to your comments like iron bars), i think it would be great if FD could priortize this more. I think this is a major part of the game that is lacking for an online game and something that has been passed by for far too long.
While i'm a PvEer, and the chances are i wouldn't really be affected by such a system too much (or at all?), this would have some serious ramifications for open players, and overall, based on what you have said, i think largely positive (although i'm sure there will be some negative effects as well, as is likely with any change).
Open gets a bad rep due to the lack of consequences for those who choose to play the bad boy lifestyle.
In fact, what i suggest, with any karma system (and yes, this means more work i'm afraid), there should be a corresponding counter benefit for being a bad boy in certain ways.
So, i'm not suggesting combat loggers get a benefit, but let's pick up on your suggestion about how the Pilot's Federation might withdraw their support for players. Let's say the PF insurance benefit starts to reduce. Now, how about a Criminal Syndicate that welcomes such bad boys, and while they don't confer an insurance benefit, they instead have other benefits not available to people who play good boys. For example, discounted ammo and repairs. Basically dying hurts, but getting damaged and using ammo hurts less.
Of course, i'm sure it would need a lot more thought than that, but just floating the idea.
On top, if that good/bad boy rating was somehow displayed, it would help people identify the risk when seeing other players.
While i fully understand your need for this (otherwise people will hold you to your comments like iron bars), i think it would be great if FD could priortize this more. I think this is a major part of the game that is lacking for an online game and something that has been passed by for far too long.
While i'm a PvEer, and the chances are i wouldn't really be affected by such a system too much (or at all?), this would have some serious ramifications for open players, and overall, based on what you have said, i think largely positive (although i'm sure there will be some negative effects as well, as is likely with any change).
Open gets a bad rep due to the lack of consequences for those who choose to play the bad boy lifestyle.
In fact, what i suggest, with any karma system (and yes, this means more work i'm afraid), there should be a corresponding counter benefit for being a bad boy in certain ways.
So, i'm not suggesting combat loggers get a benefit, but let's pick up on your suggestion about how the Pilot's Federation might withdraw their support for players. Let's say the PF insurance benefit starts to reduce. Now, how about a Criminal Syndicate that welcomes such bad boys, and while they don't confer an insurance benefit, they instead have other benefits not available to people who play good boys. For example, discounted ammo and repairs. Basically dying hurts, but getting damaged and using ammo hurts less.
Of course, i'm sure it would need a lot more thought than that, but just floating the idea.
On top, if that good/bad boy rating was somehow displayed, it would help people identify the risk when seeing other players.
I don't think that "fines" would be enough of a punishment. Also there is another problem.
Scenario:
I'm going with my Cutter (ship 2) to a CG and get attacked in front of station. I boost to get faster in before shields fail. I'm through the mailslot in the moments where shields failed and than i get suicide attacked. It was a Hauler with class 1 biweaves and he reduced his Hull with tickeling to 20% before.
Suicide Hauler (Ship 1)
- Was impact within 1KM of mail-slot? If Yes, +1
- Was Ship 1 travelling >100 M/S? (Y/N) If Yes, +1
- Did Ship 1 boost within the last ten seconds? Yes +1
- Were Ship 1 shields up (at least 50% strength) at time of collision? Yes -1
- Did Ship 1 have docking permission? Yes -1
- Was docking computer active on Ship 1 for at least three seconds? No +1
- Was Ship 1 a small ship? Yes, +1
- Was pilot of Ship 2 killed as result of collision? Yes +3
Total = 6
My poor Cutter (Ship 2):
- Was impact within 1KM of mail-slot? If Yes, +1
- Was Ship 2 travelling >100 M/S? (Y/N) If Yes, +1
- Did Ship 2 boost within the last ten seconds? Yes +1
- Were Ship 2 shields up (at least 50% strength) at time of collision? No +1
- Did Ship 2 have docking permission? Yes -1
- Was docking computer active on Ship 2 for at least three seconds? No +1
- Was Ship 2 a small ship? No -1
- Was pilot of Ship 1 killed as result of collision? Yes +3
Total = 6
So how is this gonna going to work. What is wrong with the rule not to speed? Is it really so hard to keep 100m/s if you don't wanna get this situation?
Scenario:
I'm going with my Cutter (ship 2) to a CG and get attacked in front of station. I boost to get faster in before shields fail. I'm through the mailslot in the moments where shields failed and than i get suicide attacked. It was a Hauler with class 1 biweaves and he reduced his Hull with tickeling to 20% before.
Suicide Hauler (Ship 1)
- Was impact within 1KM of mail-slot? If Yes, +1
- Was Ship 1 travelling >100 M/S? (Y/N) If Yes, +1
- Did Ship 1 boost within the last ten seconds? Yes +1
- Were Ship 1 shields up (at least 50% strength) at time of collision? Yes -1
- Did Ship 1 have docking permission? Yes -1
- Was docking computer active on Ship 1 for at least three seconds? No +1
- Was Ship 1 a small ship? Yes, +1
- Was pilot of Ship 2 killed as result of collision? Yes +3
Total = 6
My poor Cutter (Ship 2):
- Was impact within 1KM of mail-slot? If Yes, +1
- Was Ship 2 travelling >100 M/S? (Y/N) If Yes, +1
- Did Ship 2 boost within the last ten seconds? Yes +1
- Were Ship 2 shields up (at least 50% strength) at time of collision? No +1
- Did Ship 2 have docking permission? Yes -1
- Was docking computer active on Ship 2 for at least three seconds? No +1
- Was Ship 2 a small ship? No -1
- Was pilot of Ship 1 killed as result of collision? Yes +3
Total = 6
So how is this gonna going to work. What is wrong with the rule not to speed? Is it really so hard to keep 100m/s if you don't wanna get this situation?