Deliberate Ramming

[EUS]

You're saying their RP is not valid, but opinions are subjective.
This is where the real discussion has to start. Not some arbitrary system of "ship power>other ship power = negative rep".
C&P/Karma cannot be implemented until FD explicitly explains hard rules to their player base.
Which turns the game into a kindergarten-level loophole exploit exercise.

 

[Goose4291]

But there comes a point where there is a difference between flying about killing other players as you play the game, and deliberately camping out at locations purely to cause grief to others - i.e. shooting srvs/empty ships at popular ruins sites, or heading over to remote destinations simply to intercept explorers that might have spent many days/months making their way to. The later examples do qualify as harassment and it's toxic to the game.

Im sorry, but thats you imposing your own belief set onto the game mechanics and other players actions in a sandbox environment where they dont need to adhere to your personal ethos.

And BTW - the advert that you guys keep trotting out says "Commanders" - it does not say "Players". So playing the game purely to hunt down and kill players is NOT the game that was advertised. (Bounty hunting missions = hunting Commanders for example)
But FD should let the players decide if they want to be identifiable as a human vs NPC tbh.

The only commanders ingame are members of the pilots federation.
The only members of the pilots federation are players.
Therefore 'or hunt other commanders' means to specifically hunt other players.

FD absolutely should punish anti-social players who set out to harass and spoil the game for others.
There are people in this very thread who are known to do that and have basically admitted it in their answers. i.e. the ruins example, destroying players in their SRV's under some guise of RP but as they've said, that wasn't really what they were doing at all.

"I dont like your RP reasons for killing players, therefore its not proper RP"

For the good of the game this kind of thing does need to be stopped and a line drawn.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Yes you should, because as per your own marketing:

Spoiler

That marketing thing comes up a lot, and in the broadest of interpretations it's a valid point for arguing that PVP is, in general, an accepted and even encouraged way to play. But you have to be careful applying it to specific actions.

Random killing of players in a game where not only is it allowed, but is encouraged by the marketing[...]

For instance, I don't interpret the text "hunt other Commanders" as an encouragement towards "random killing." There's no context for that. Whether killing other players' characters is seen as acceptable behaviour or otherwise, or whether the game should impose sanctions for such behaviour, depends on the nature of the characters you choose to hunt. And the marketing blurb has nothing to say on that subject either way.

[...] shouldnt result in shadowbans/out of game punishment and doesnt fall into the category of online harrassment/bullying, no matter how much certain people on this forum attempt to square peg into a round hole it into that category.

I am broadly in agreement with your conclusion though; in an ideal world shadowbans should be limited to those offenders who use cheats, exploits or similar to break the game, or cause the gameplay of others to be broken. I'm just not convinced that "hunt other Commanders" is a meaningful part of that argument.

Edit: this last paragraph was badly worded. Strikethrough and italics used to emphasise edits.

Whether or not FD decide to go down the very dodgy road of using out-of-game sanctions for in-game behaviour, "hunt other Commanders" can't be used to justify argue that random PKing is encouraged by the game. A pirate vengefully hunting a bounty hunter in lawless space, and a player out to destroy other people's games by blowing up Sidewinders in Eravate, are both "hunting other Commanders." One action is valid gameplay, the other is griefing. Three words on a marketing image in no way make them equal.

 

[Kyokushin]

.... and NPCs are virtual constructs provided by the game for the amusement of players - they have no "life".

By this logic, Virtual ships driven by players are still virtual and thats why i am shooting to them with no remorse and no regrets


From a point of view a game universe there is no matter who you are shooting, npc or players, and bad behaviour against players and npc should be punished by similar way.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

Yes you should, because as per your own marketing:

http://i.imgur.com/3cBGIRm.jpg

Random killing of players in a game where not only is it allowed, but is encouraged by the marketing, shouldnt result in shadowbans/out of game punishment and doesnt fall into the category of online harrassment/bullying, no matter how much certain people on this forum attempt to square peg into a round hole it into that category.

Ive been critical of this games development but have stood by it since day one, despite the broken promises of offline and Iron man mode, and generation of a community where content is awarded to groups based on their special relationship with you as developers rather than actual in game achievements. I even pretty much let the whole god-modding the BGS and undoing peoples work slide, but this idea Sandro is beyond the pale for me, as no doubt it is to those of us who play open in its current state.

"or just hunt other commanders" -> how does this phrase exclude that you will have to face consequences for doing it?

 

[Arguendo]

You're saying their RP is not valid, but opinions are subjective.

"I dont like your RP reasons for killing players, therefore its not proper RP"

I think you guys are defining RP a bit too broadly. There is playing the game, which is RP; and then there is playing the players, which isn't. I believe Sandro is talking about the latter, not the former.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

It would be awesome if Sandro could - once and for all - explain the intent of that "or just hunt other commanders".

It would go a long, loooong way to stop some of the longstanding arguments on these forums.

 

[Jack Schitt]

One of the reasons that it has generated such response here is because of the DevTracker site and another is that it received an ultra-high profile link on reddit yesterday. But for most of the Dangerous Discussion users, they just won't even know it's here.

I'm sure the Reddit post was linked somewhere on DD, which is how I got here, but I'll be damned if I can find it again. Of course the problem with "Look at this!" threads is that all follow-up postings go to the linked thread and the redirect drops off the front page of the forum.

Moving it would be a great idea, but I'd expect the signal-to-noise ratio to drop a bit.

"or just hunt other commanders" -> how does this phrase exclude that you will have to face consequences for doing it?

Ah, a one-line summary of what it took me half a page to spout.

+1 for brevity!

 

[killerofstars]

I kind of want to know if any of this karma system would apply to Solo. If you want to be a merciless pirate, I feel like the game should afford you that oppertunity without punishment exactly, as long as its against AI. I also "combat log" every now and then. I've combat logged against computer controlled AI in certain circumstances (I have NEVER combat logged against a player however, because when I go into open, I EXPECT a fight.) I have also "combat logged" most frequently from getting STUCK IN THE G DOCKING BAY BASKET. Sometimes your ship can get stuck in those things and then you cannot free it.

I would very much want those scenarios to be free of bad karma.

 

[Goose4291]

That marketing thing comes up a lot, and in the broadest of interpretations it's a valid point for arguing that PVP is, in general, an accepted and even encouraged way to play. But you have to be careful applying it to specific actions.

For instance, I don't interpret the text "hunt other Commanders" as an encouragement towards "random killing." There's no context for that. Whether killing other players' characters is seen as acceptable behaviour or otherwise, or whether the game should impose sanctions for such behaviour, depends on the nature of the characters you choose to hunt. And the marketing blurb has nothing to say on that subject either way.

The problem I find with this whole out of game punishment idea is that PvP is in my mind PvP regardless of whether its done for lore, game mechanic reasons or even the aforementioned 'LOLZ' and therefore shouldnt be anymore 'specific' than that when it comes to legitimate player gameplay choices, particularly when the marketing is worded in such a way.

I am broadly in agreement with your conclusion though; in an ideal world shadowbans should be limited to those offenders who use cheats, exploits or similar to break the game, or cause the gameplay of others to be broken. I'm just not convinced that "hunt other Commanders" is a meaningful part of that argument.

Im glad we agree broadly on the matter. My problem (and the reason I used the previous picture) comes from the following scenario I can forsee: Someone buying the game on the strength of the prior marketing materials, then finding themselves banned under this system, and the negative PR this would generate. Particularly if fdev refused to refund.

- - - Updated - - -

"or just hunt other commanders" -> how does this phrase exclude that you will have to face consequences for doing it?

There's a big difference between ingame consequences (which as you'll see if you check my history I'm in favour of) and out of game consequences (such as banning accounts/stopping people being able to fully experience the game) such as being floated here.

 

[Jack Schitt]

I kind of want to know if any of this karma system would apply to Solo. If you want to be a merciless pirate, I feel like the game should afford you that oppertunity without punishment exactly, as long as its against AI. I also "combat log" every now and then. I've combat logged against computer controlled AI in certain circumstances (I have NEVER combat logged against a player however, because when I go into open, I EXPECT a fight.) I have also "combat logged" most frequently from getting STUCK IN THE G DOCKING BAY BASKET. Sometimes your ship can get stuck in those things and then you cannot free it.

I would very much want those scenarios to be free of bad karma.

I think we're talking about two different things unless I've radically misinterpreted some posts. Karma would be something handed out by the EFP, and so would only apply to player-on-player action. Broader changes to the criminality system outside of EFP influence should, IMO, apply equally to NPCs and players although it's unclear at this point what FD's intentions may or may not be.

I'm reasonably sure FD have confirmed that combat logging to avoid ship loss is considered an exploit whether the potential loss is at the hands of a player or an NPC. Pulling the plug to free a stuck ship is more of a grey area; if it was caused by a glitch it's arguably fair, but if it was caused by bad piloting then it's still logging to avoid a rebuy. I'd consider that a no-no, but YMMV.

 

[Goose4291]

I think you guys are defining RP a bit too broadly. There is playing the game, which is RP; and then there is playing the players, which isn't. I believe Sandro is talking about the latter, not the former.

I dont Arguendo. In the response your quoting I'm basing my statement on previous times when for example, the 13th legion (who are massively imperial RP focused) have enacted blockades of federal CGs and this forums usual suspects have been accused of being 'griefers using RP as an excuse' or 'RP-ing wrong'.

 

[Imperial Guard]

Elite Dangerous will always have problems because it tries to be everything to everybody.
Having played Elite as a kid I was looking forward to the release of ED.

I got it and only played in OPEN.
I was looking forward to space combat vs other players but quickly realised that its a bit pants.
Essentially PVP is generally just a point and click slugfest in ED along with some rather fiddly systems management.
it mostly comes down to whoever has the most space credits and engineered ship has a huge advantage.

The 2.3 weapons engineering has only made this worse and results in a confusing "light show"
No thanks.

You could compare it to Formula 1 which is now primarily an engineering championship where the drivers role is less about actual racing and more about fiddling about shifting with brake , fuel saving and tyre saving. yawn...


If PVP was limited to basic "ship board" fighters and SRVs, it might be far more interesting.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

There's a big difference between ingame consequences (which as you'll see if you check my history I'm in favour of) and out of game consequences (such as banning accounts/stopping people being able to fully experience the game) such as being floated here.

why are you so fixated on getting banned?
is your playstyle to gank and grief new player in sidewinders?

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Genar-Hofoen!

It would be awesome if Sandro could - once and for all - explain the intent of that "or just hunt other commanders".

It would go a long, loooong way to stop some of the longstanding arguments on these forums.

I could, but frankly, you could use multiple interpretations that could all be valid.

For example:

* It means you can attack other Commanders without consequence.
* It means you can attack other Commanders and face consequences.
* It means you can attack other Commanders within limitations on the rules of engagement.
* It means you can attack other Commanders and gain special rewards.

Not very helpful, easy to twist to a particular view.

Clearly, you *can* attack other Commanders, and there *are* consequences. Regardless of what changes we make or don't, this will always be true, so to me it kind of clutters a more interesting discussion: what should the consequences be?

Personally, I'm not advocating banning (or shadow banning), because, as I have said a few times, I would rather the consequences be present in game and in context. I'm also not in favour of insta-all powerful authority ships, as potentially both of these options potentially result in the same thing: a complete shutdown of these kinds of attacks, loss of choice.

I know that some folk would see this as a good thing, and part of me agrees. After all, our concern is the enjoyment of as many players as possible.

But I'm still interested in investigating the prospects of some sort of middle ground, which is where the concept of karma and escalating in game measures comes in. A system in which you are more or less free to act how you want but must face appropriate consequences so that the majority of folk feel that there is *some* form of justice, suitable risk.

Perhaps this is an impossible dilemma, but it's good to hear from all the different viewpoints.

 

[Goose4291]

why are you so fixated on getting banned?
is your playstyle to gank and grief new player in sidewinders?

I'll repeat my concerns:

Because there's a big difference between ingame consequences and out of game consequences such as being floated here.

 

[Javert]

@Sandro,

So you didn't like my earlier idea of somehow capping the risk of commanders in high traffic locations by selling temporary, and system specific, rebuy / cargo insurance for systems such as CG systems, which would then reduce your losses to maybe just 1 hull and cargo loss for the duration of the insurance, or something like that.

 

[Goose4291]

Personally, I'm not advocating banning (or shadow banning), because, as I have said a few times, I would rather the consequences be present in game and in context. I'm also not in favour of insta-all powerful authority ships, as potentially both of these options potentially result in the same thing: a complete shutdown of these kinds of attacks, loss of choice.

Your own words. On Page 8

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)

 

[Faded Glory]

But I'm still interested in investigating the prospects of some sort of middle ground, which is where the concept of karma and escalating in game measures comes in. A system in which you are more or less free to act how you want but must face appropriate consequences so that the majority of folk feel that there is *some* form of justice, suitable risk.

Perhaps this is an impossible dilemma, but it's good to hear from all the different viewpoints.

Isn't this a bit of a contradiction?

If you're 'free to act how you want', the only consequences can be that your action doesn't pan out as you expected, so in the context of the game that might mean a player decides to attack another thinking it will be a nice win / kill, but ends up getting the rebuy screen handed because of something they or the other player manage to do.

You cannot be free to act how you want if their are negative consequences possible from an external source / justice system. As humans we are not free to act how we want, and if we transgress we are punished, but if we stay within the rules of society, we are free to act how we want.

You need to make rules and enforce them, or if you want players to be free to act how they want, you have to let them do just that.

 

[AndyJ]

Im sorry, but thats you imposing your own belief set onto the game mechanics and other players actions in a sandbox environment where they dont need to adhere to your personal ethos.

Yes I am outlining my ethos, and probably the majority of players in this game.
I'm not saying no PvP I'm saying that there is playing the game and there is being anti-social.

The only commanders ingame are members of the pilots federation.
The only members of the pilots federation are players.
Therefore 'or hunt other commanders' means to specifically hunt other players.

Nah. you're just twising a word to suit your own agenda.

"I dont like your RP reasons for killing players, therefore its not proper RP"

Well when the player base called 'foul' on the so-called RP reason, and even the person themselves says that they weren't really RPing in an earlier post - just there to PK, then it is exactly what I'm saying it is, isn't it? It's harassing, anti-social play.

And as for the constant mocking gifs etc to anyone that opposes your opinion, well just confirms there's no reasoning with you. no middle ground, so if a line drawn is the only way forward, you've brought it on yourself.