Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The Dark Wheel springs to mind as a lore friendly alternative to the Pilots' Federation.
Deliberate Ramming
- Thread starter shadragon
- Start date
The Dark Wheel springs to mind as a lore friendly alternative to the Pilots' Federation.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
That is a very valid point and I couldn't agree more. There's been enough proof that ganking and griefing is of no consequence whatsoever and that's really bad.
I like that idea! This would ensure that being a "bad boy" is still a valid gameplay style, that has it's own benefits, while being balanced.
The Karma Rating public display is a must IMHO. I have acquired Anaconda lately and I did notice that most of the Commanders I come across in hot systems (Engineers, CG etc.) will just log out as soon as I comm them with "Hello Commander!" or even when they just see me on their scanners. I've heard other people in bigger ships noticing such behaviour in Open, which only proves how badly the Karma system is needed in game and that your Karmna HAS to be visible for other Commanders.
i hope there is something valuable in for "good karma" players, that kill "bad karma" player in an "equal" rated PVP fight.
that way, the bad guys get their PvP (what they say that they are after) and the good guys also have an incentive to try it.
that way, the bad guys get their PvP (what they say that they are after) and the good guys also have an incentive to try it.
Last edited:
Sandro I'd also like to comment on 'No ETA's no guarantees' on this karma system.
I think Frontier should put a bigger priority on this - it's something which is obviously badly needed - we've all been enduring about two and a half years of a lack of an effective Crime & Consequence system. The touted roles of Pirate and Bounty-Hunter are for all intents and purposes, non-existent because of this rather sizeable hole in the game.
I also point out that along with any Karma/Crime & Consequence system, Frontier absolutely needs to add a Declaration of Piracy mechanic, at the same time, as the game needs to distinguish between intent of the player to commit piracy, or intent of the player to be a 'murderhobo'. I think your proposed karma system is unworkable unless this piracy mechanism is in place - it should have been in place on game release in December 2014, in my opinion, but what's done is done.
I've pointed this out before. I think you're making it especially difficult on yourself designing such a Karma system when the game cannot distinguish between a 'legit' act of piracy as intended, or an act of 'murder'. I think trying to design a karma system around how strong an attacking ship is relative to the ship being attacked, is not a logical or good way to go about it - which is why I and others have suggested in the past that you include a formal declaration of piracy mechanic.
And lastly, no offence intended when I say 'No ETA's no guarantees' is really, seriously, beginning to wear thin nowadays - I think most of your playerbase, whilst we appreciate you coming on here to talk candidly about various proposals, are finding 'No ETA's no guarantees' tiresome and frustrating, especially on this subject of a badly needed Crime & Consequence system. What we'd like to hear is "Such a system is being designed right now and we'll be allocating resources towards implementing it from <date>".
Regards.
I think Frontier should put a bigger priority on this - it's something which is obviously badly needed - we've all been enduring about two and a half years of a lack of an effective Crime & Consequence system. The touted roles of Pirate and Bounty-Hunter are for all intents and purposes, non-existent because of this rather sizeable hole in the game.
I also point out that along with any Karma/Crime & Consequence system, Frontier absolutely needs to add a Declaration of Piracy mechanic, at the same time, as the game needs to distinguish between intent of the player to commit piracy, or intent of the player to be a 'murderhobo'. I think your proposed karma system is unworkable unless this piracy mechanism is in place - it should have been in place on game release in December 2014, in my opinion, but what's done is done.
I've pointed this out before. I think you're making it especially difficult on yourself designing such a Karma system when the game cannot distinguish between a 'legit' act of piracy as intended, or an act of 'murder'. I think trying to design a karma system around how strong an attacking ship is relative to the ship being attacked, is not a logical or good way to go about it - which is why I and others have suggested in the past that you include a formal declaration of piracy mechanic.
And lastly, no offence intended when I say 'No ETA's no guarantees' is really, seriously, beginning to wear thin nowadays - I think most of your playerbase, whilst we appreciate you coming on here to talk candidly about various proposals, are finding 'No ETA's no guarantees' tiresome and frustrating, especially on this subject of a badly needed Crime & Consequence system. What we'd like to hear is "Such a system is being designed right now and we'll be allocating resources towards implementing it from <date>".
Regards.
Good thoughts on this thread. As a trader/explorer who sometimes PvPs, I can see both sides.
My view is:
- consider the immersion factor: one can imagine high security stations switching off pilots weapons and logging every little move, but out in deep space ships go missing all the time. No "God's eye view" please. But if we grumble about the Feds being a little tight****ed round their stations, hey, all good bar talk.
- impose the mark of Cain: murderers should find every hand turned against them, but in a way they enjoy (it's a game after all). So, low karma should mean you are on the ED equivalent of wanted posters, have a high personal bounty, and not be welcome in places that expect a level of decorum. Expect to do a lot of fighting to stay alive (but that's what you enjoy anyway)! Yet you should be able to find sanctuary in "hives of scum and villainy", anarchy systems/outposts, engineers: PvPers like the other bits of the game too.
- consider who in the game would care, and why: the Pilots Federation would care about all the insurance they have to pay out and may start charging it to your ship, Aisling Duval should care if you kill her faction ships and to a lesser degree other Imperial ships and mark you kill on sight (if she hears about it, see above), minor factions will care about what you do in their systems to their friends and allies and shouldn't just forget repeat offenders as they do now.
- please remember that sometimes, people just need killing: if I am in an engineered ship and blast some noob for using his brand new interdictor on me, I am prepared to take my licks, but please let me take food to starving children to pay it off.
In short, I like the idea that there are the besiegers of the world out there, want them to stay in the game (hopefully far away from me) but I wouldn't expect the in-game authorities to agree.
PS To add, harassment and bullying should still be an out of game offence, the karma system should not be an excuse to ignore abusive behaviour that has real world consequences.
My view is:
- consider the immersion factor: one can imagine high security stations switching off pilots weapons and logging every little move, but out in deep space ships go missing all the time. No "God's eye view" please. But if we grumble about the Feds being a little tight****ed round their stations, hey, all good bar talk.
- impose the mark of Cain: murderers should find every hand turned against them, but in a way they enjoy (it's a game after all). So, low karma should mean you are on the ED equivalent of wanted posters, have a high personal bounty, and not be welcome in places that expect a level of decorum. Expect to do a lot of fighting to stay alive (but that's what you enjoy anyway)! Yet you should be able to find sanctuary in "hives of scum and villainy", anarchy systems/outposts, engineers: PvPers like the other bits of the game too.
- consider who in the game would care, and why: the Pilots Federation would care about all the insurance they have to pay out and may start charging it to your ship, Aisling Duval should care if you kill her faction ships and to a lesser degree other Imperial ships and mark you kill on sight (if she hears about it, see above), minor factions will care about what you do in their systems to their friends and allies and shouldn't just forget repeat offenders as they do now.
- please remember that sometimes, people just need killing: if I am in an engineered ship and blast some noob for using his brand new interdictor on me, I am prepared to take my licks, but please let me take food to starving children to pay it off.
In short, I like the idea that there are the besiegers of the world out there, want them to stay in the game (hopefully far away from me) but I wouldn't expect the in-game authorities to agree.
PS To add, harassment and bullying should still be an out of game offence, the karma system should not be an excuse to ignore abusive behaviour that has real world consequences.
Last edited:
I think this is not so complicated even if things are to tie to Systems properties like
government, state and so on. Basically it needs to have a range ( e.g -5 to +5) in Karma
and a similar at Systems (Station) side (-5 to +5).
Then maths kiks in same prefixes results postive and odds negatively.
The real hard thing is to make it exploit proof.
Regards,
Miklos
Combat logging and karma
I'd just like to say how concerned I am by what appears to be a proposal to give combat logging what I might call, 'the bi-weave treatment': it goes down, it refills, it comes back up.
The worst loggers in this game are garbage-tier PvP bottom-feeders who prey upon zero-threat players and then log when a serious PvP-er drops their Drives or FSD to malfunction levels.
Thankfully some of these guys have actually had multiple rebuys of late, as they've been frightened of shadow bans ever since a logger got permanently banned in an episode that was well publicised on reddit, hence they've actually suffered some consequences for once.
All that deterrence now risks being undone. If a karma system permits these guys to log occasionally, that's exactly what they'll do. They'll treat karma like a bi-weave: it goes down, you wait a bit, it comes back up.
A combat log is an out-of-game immortality cheat. It achieves precisely the same thing as a hack that prevents hull going beneath 1%. It should be punished with the same vigour.
Out of game cheating should not be equated with in game 'crime'. They are fundamentally different. One is playing the game and can be dealt with by improvements to in game mechanics. The other is cheating and neither better nor worse than hacking. It should be dealt with out of game, by bans.
How do you tell via telemetry that someone is cheating, not suffering an unintended disconnect? By checking the health of their hull, drives and FSD and whether another player was shooting at them at the time - and comparing to the frequency of such mysterious network issues on any other occasions.
And yes, I believe that where such an allegation of cheating is backed up by multiple reports and videos, Frontier Support should be taking that very seriously, especially if on more than one occasion.
Deliberate cheating in any multi-player game, whether on computer or on the pitch, is orders of magnitude more important than any of the other issues under discussion in this thread.
I'd just like to say how concerned I am by what appears to be a proposal to give combat logging what I might call, 'the bi-weave treatment': it goes down, it refills, it comes back up.
The worst loggers in this game are garbage-tier PvP bottom-feeders who prey upon zero-threat players and then log when a serious PvP-er drops their Drives or FSD to malfunction levels.
Thankfully some of these guys have actually had multiple rebuys of late, as they've been frightened of shadow bans ever since a logger got permanently banned in an episode that was well publicised on reddit, hence they've actually suffered some consequences for once.
All that deterrence now risks being undone. If a karma system permits these guys to log occasionally, that's exactly what they'll do. They'll treat karma like a bi-weave: it goes down, you wait a bit, it comes back up.
A combat log is an out-of-game immortality cheat. It achieves precisely the same thing as a hack that prevents hull going beneath 1%. It should be punished with the same vigour.
Out of game cheating should not be equated with in game 'crime'. They are fundamentally different. One is playing the game and can be dealt with by improvements to in game mechanics. The other is cheating and neither better nor worse than hacking. It should be dealt with out of game, by bans.
How do you tell via telemetry that someone is cheating, not suffering an unintended disconnect? By checking the health of their hull, drives and FSD and whether another player was shooting at them at the time - and comparing to the frequency of such mysterious network issues on any other occasions.
And yes, I believe that where such an allegation of cheating is backed up by multiple reports and videos, Frontier Support should be taking that very seriously, especially if on more than one occasion.
Deliberate cheating in any multi-player game, whether on computer or on the pitch, is orders of magnitude more important than any of the other issues under discussion in this thread.
Last edited:
Love all of Sando's ideas. Time to finally get this sorted.
And the griefing Sando describes is totally unacceptable.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh, god - we can only hope...
Ideally a combo of this and what Sando suggested would be perfect.
And the griefing Sando describes is totally unacceptable.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh, god - we can only hope...
i hate that I agree with all of that...
Ideally a combo of this and what Sando suggested would be perfect.
I made a suggestion which I think does let you distinguish genuine piracy from murder..
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...rate-Ramming?p=5477489&viewfull=1#post5477489
Just to reiterate, though I understand that Karma is merely for the PvP side of things, I do think this game needs a parallel system of "Jurisdictional Notoriety"-separate from Reputation-that effects your relations with Super Powers & any law-abiding Factions that are affiliated to them.
Indeed, I'd go even further and say that I'd love to see our "career choices" build up a "reputation"-over time-for our commanders (like Bounty Hunter, Smuggler, Explorer, Trader) that has an in-game effect on NPC behaviour & missions.
Indeed, I'd go even further and say that I'd love to see our "career choices" build up a "reputation"-over time-for our commanders (like Bounty Hunter, Smuggler, Explorer, Trader) that has an in-game effect on NPC behaviour & missions.
Can you explain how because it's not at all clear to me how they would suffer "more" than now?
I like these suggestions. I think they would complement a karma system.
The reason I say that is that I think there should be a distinction made between commander activity which is all in-game with only in-game consequences, such as those you've described here. But, also, player activity which is what a karma system would address. This is still in-game activity, even in-game activity which is considered "just part of the game" when it happens intermittently, but it's the sort of behaviour which when taken to extremes is "bad" for the game/community as a whole. The important point here is that this issue is not identifiable by a single instance or event, instead it is determined by a pattern of behaviour and so needs to be tracked over time in order to detect that pattern.
How do you decide if a player is "griefing" new players? You cannot tell from a single player kill, instead you determine this by tracking 100+ kills over time and you represent this as low karma. This is considered bad for the game and community because it puts new players off, gives new player the impression they have to start in Solo mode, etc. This is a real thing, I have a friend who has only ever played in Solo or PG and now, mostly by habit, he will continue to do so perhaps never bothering with Open. This is going to lead, eventually, to an even emptier universe. We, as a community do not want this, heck even the griefer doesn't want this. So, Frontier need to do something to discourage it, and to give new players a chance to form a good impression of the game and Open play.
How do you decide if a player is combat logging? You cannot tell from a single disconnect event, even if it was during "combat". Bugs and network issues are all "reasonable" (doubt) excuses for a single event. But, multiple events, all in combat, now that's a trend you can call "combat logging" with some confidence. This behaviour is also bad for the community as a whole, it's cheating, and it frustrates and enrages players who aren't "griefers" and are just trying to play the game as intended.
So, while I like your suggestions and think they would enhance the game I don't see how they would address the "bad" behaviour which can only be detected by tracking over time.
(^^My emphasis...)
Sandro, can we please be clear that a Powerplay pledged Cmdr killing another Powerplay pledged Cmdr (not being members of the same superpower) is something that the game should reward - or at least, not punish?
Us die-hards who remain pledged to a Power for Roleplay purposes and take part in what was described by your goodself as, "A reason to PvP" do not deserve punishment, in any degree.
Last edited:
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
That's quite reasonable and I like the general idea. I also think that Karma system, as described by Sandro ain't a bad one either.
Ideally, I'd like to see both implemented, but as I said - both CL and griefing (not ganking) should be punished outside of game (aka ban/shadowban).
Good idea.
Games can and should evolve over time.
I think the main point people might be missing with the karma system vs systems of all in-game consequences is that the karma system tracks trends of behaviour, not just single events. So, while we can talk about single events which we think are "bad" we also need to think about trends of behaviour where each individual event itself might not be considered "bad".
For example how do people feel about players who spend a lot of their time simply interdicting and killing other players? One single interdiction and murder isn't "bad" for the game/community as a whole, it's just part of the game. But, I would argue that a player who only does this is "bad" for the community, they have a NET negative effect on the community and game and ought to be discouraged, gently at first, and if they do not reform they ought to be punished. Sando listed a number of ideas for punishments and these can be scaled appropriately based on the data collected by the karma system. The same is true for combat logging and other behaviours which negatively effect the in-game experience of other players above and beyond what one might reasonably expect.
This is a game, but it's also a social/shared space where everyone has the right to enjoy themselves, within reason.
Agreed.
I would class as "bad" any activity that exploit game mechanics for purposes other than what they were intended for, especially if the result is a negative experience for other players. So, I class this example as "bad". Similarly the recent examples where multi-crew is used to "grief" or escape combat. In some cases Frontier can alter the mechanic to remove the exploit, but in some cases we have to live with them. In the latter case we ought to track them with karma to discourage long term use.
Player harassment violates the TOS and if it can be proven satisfactorily would result in some action from Frontier, I presume. I disagree with the view that just because "we have solo and pg" it's somehow "ok" for players to harass others. No player should be forced into solo, period. I think, but haven't had to use it myself, that a player block ought to sort this specific situation tho, right?
Agreed. More in-game mechanics are always going to be good. Any karma system would necessarily need to avoid punishing "normal" gameplay, pirates in particular, and to do that it might require some additional in-game mechanics to achieve. Perhaps bounty hunters gain karma by killing wanted ships with low karma?
- - - Updated - - -
A very good point. I gotta presume this falls under "normal" gameplay and outside the remit of a karma system designed to track "bad" behaviour. Of course, confirmation would be nice.
Last edited:
A large range of ship types/strengths isn't the real problem here.
The "problem" is that some players simply aren't interested in combat so they don't learn the skills required, or spend the time required to engineer a ship capable of combat. Now, you might argue that it's possible to build a ship which can survive (we've all seen the video), and this is totally true (there are trade offs involved of course). But, to use the alien ruins example again, how would that actually help anything? It would mean that they could run away and ultimately survive (assuming they weren't in their SRV at the time of course) but that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun, for them, and it means they aren't doing the thing they wanted to do, with their game time.
This is the overarching issue here, it's the same issue many MMO style games have. These players aren't "bad" at combat, or "stupid" because they fly weak ships, they actually have no interest in PvP and combat nor do they have any desire to engage in it, at all, they have other interests and other things they want to do with their (possibly) limited game time. Of course, this is a game and the attackers have every right to attack, but it does mean that one type of player can dictate what the other type of player does in the game, and this is a one-sided situation which isn't entirely "fair" to everyone involved.
Now, if this happened infrequently it wouldn't really be a problem. It's "fair enough" for a player trying to do science (for example) to have to evade an attack or two. Provided they do manage to do the thing they wanted to do it would all turn out ok. But if players are preventing other players from enjoying the game, at all, then it's an issue which needs some sort of resolution. Again, it's not a one off event which needs correcting, it's a trend of behaviour which needs tracking and addressing.
No one?
Not one comment on my frankly, genius solution to combat logging?
Bah, why do I even bother... Lol
This thread is quickly turning in to a salt mine anyhow.
In before the lock?
I'm reading through this looking for comments to your suggestion to avoid duplicating answers.
Anyway, I'm sure someone is going to find some kind of problem with your idea, but as described it looks like a really good idea. It won't solve the problem, but it will create consequences (temporary, since you can just wait for the timer to expire) for anyone combat logging, which is good. Lets focus on that.
Depending on hard it is to implement, you could take it a bit further and save a state that forces you into the same instance if it exists, freezes any shield regeneration while the timer is running.
Good idea to explore is my verdict.
The problem with the karma system (and most likely why FD keep reiterating "No promises, etc.") is that it requires a whole new system to be implemented to collect the data/monitor.
Most of the complaints about persistent griefers could be solved with much simpler measures. For example, have a Pilots Federation fine which is an additional fine that you will incur if attacking clean Pilots Federation members. As it is a fine, not a bounty, this money would go to the Pilots Federation when the offender is finally brought to book (loses their ship), which means that it can't be exploited by additional accounts or friends. The fine would be reasonably small for just attacking (to allow piracy to work), but for murder it would be a very large sum, at least equal to the insurance cost of the offending player (and increasing exponentially for additional offences).
If the above were implemented, it would start getting very expensive to simply keep murdering player ships. And you don't have to implement a whole new system (which will likely have as many flaws as the existing one).
Most of the complaints about persistent griefers could be solved with much simpler measures. For example, have a Pilots Federation fine which is an additional fine that you will incur if attacking clean Pilots Federation members. As it is a fine, not a bounty, this money would go to the Pilots Federation when the offender is finally brought to book (loses their ship), which means that it can't be exploited by additional accounts or friends. The fine would be reasonably small for just attacking (to allow piracy to work), but for murder it would be a very large sum, at least equal to the insurance cost of the offending player (and increasing exponentially for additional offences).
If the above were implemented, it would start getting very expensive to simply keep murdering player ships. And you don't have to implement a whole new system (which will likely have as many flaws as the existing one).
In addition to noting the "deceleration of piracy", you would also have to note if cargo is released by the victim.
But again, this also seems to be open for exploits. I could carry a few tons of worthless cargo to try to trick such a system. It would require a rather complex system to identify whether a pirate victim is complying with demands.
- - - Updated - - -
I imagine that one does not replace the other. Any karma system related to combat logging would have to be an addition to current bans resulting from reporting cheaters and whatever FDEV do to detect combat logging.
So, give anyone who cheats one more thing to worry about.
i dont understand why you would need to declare piracy?
the mentioned karma system only affects you if you DESTROY the target, not if you just force his cargo hatch open.
the mentioned karma system only affects you if you DESTROY the target, not if you just force his cargo hatch open.
I think the idea is that if you pirate someone and they don't comply to demands, then killing the victim is "justified". Problem is, currently the game doesn't know that any sort of demand was made and would treat it as straight forward murder regardless.