Deliberate Ramming

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Goose4291!

Um, I think that actually still makes sense.

i would prefer to keep consequences in game.

If that is unworkable/not effective enough, we could use out of game measures.

Because a karma system is a trend tracker that can support a number of different options.

I would have thought it's even fairly clear by the language I've been using. I've stated, multiple times, that I'm not taking part in this discussion to lay down the law about what will work. And I'm not here to score points. I'm actually interested in getting feedback about suggestions I've mentioned.

 

[Javert]

Your own words. On Page 8

Seems like Sandro came out to do some brainstorming / whiteboarding with the community. You have jumped on one particular idea that he threw out, even though he made it clear several times that IF this was even considered, it would be at the uttermost end of need for the most extreme offenders. He is then collecting feedback from us about what we think of all these ideas. You are giving it.

It was also in the context of someone claiming that in game consequences would "never work" (someone who arguably has a strong interest in none of this being implemented whatsoever).

What fun!

 

[Jack Schitt]

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.

Not so long ago I'd have labelled that as an edge case and dismissed it, but seeing how quickly things can explode in the gaming community (and on the gaming websites, who love the avalanche of clicks) it could be a legitimate concern.

I'd still say it's an edge case. "I saw three words, I interpreted them in the broadest way possible, I bought the game on the strength of it, I played the way the words 'told me' to play, I got warning after warning that I'd interpreted the words wrong, I carried on playing that way anyway, I got banned." But it's an edge case that does have the potential to trigger one of those entrenched opinion wars that we all love so much.

"FD meant this." "No, what they meant was this." "But that's not what they said." "They didn't say what you said either." "My dad's a lawyer and I'm going to sue!"

In a perfect world FD would just clarify things with a slight change to the text...

Help rebels overthrow an oppressive
regime, put down a rebellion, or just hunt
other Commanders. Your combat skills
will keep you safe in a cutthroat galaxy,
but remember that some actions have
consequences.​

...but then you just know that some players would fire up the Wayback Machine and call shenanigans. In fact it could make things worse, with people crying, "Now it says there are consequences, but I bought the game when it said there would be no consequences!" (which of course it never did, but that won't stop the RAEG).

Sometimes I feel sorry for FD. The 'D' stands for "Damned if they do, damned if they don't." You can make up your own mind what the 'F' stands for.

 

[Dedhed]

As others have talked about in this thread so far, there is a difference between piracy/hunting other commanders and such things as chat harassment. The former should be handled by a karma system, the latter by reporting. They're completely separate situations.

I really like the idea of a karma system making a more pronounced difference between anarchy systems and secure systems. The former having little or no karma penalty for attacking other commanders and the latter having a penalty or a stronger penalty. This is something that makes a lot of sense and would be another step toward not just consequences, but also more personality and greater depth to whether a system is actually 'secure' or 'anarchy'.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Hello Commander Genar-Hofoen!




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.

That's not what I meant though, Sandro.

What I meant was does it mean "you can base your entire gameplay on destroying 'Science!' ships at Ancient Ruins!", for example. Frontier added that content - and that's what happened. And the phrase "or just hunt other commanders" in your marketing is being used to argue that that's an endorsement of the type of gameplay Frontier wants to see within the game. See what I'm getting at? Is that the sort of thing Frontier want to endorse as 'the spirit of the game'?

 

[Goose4291]

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.

But coming back to my prior post, thats a personal definition. People regularly regard for example UA bombing as 'anti-social behaviour' or 13th legion events as 'griefing'. The idea of frontier giving out shadowbans for what is legitimate gameplay, based on definitions by this forums angry mob rhetoric is not a good idea.

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

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-an-expectation-the-game-would-be-dumbed-down

"We've structured the rules - we have this thing called the Pilot's Federation, where all player characters are members. That's how, from a game point of view, how we distinguish between what are AI pilots and human pilots."

 

[Kyokushin]

Hello Commader Goose4291!

Um, I think that actually still makes sense.

i would prefer to keep consequences in game.

If that is unworkable/not effective enough, we could use out of game measures.

Because a karma system is a trend tracker that can support a number of different options.

I would have thought it's even fairly clear by the language I've been using. I've stated, multiple times, that I'm not taking part in this discussion to lay down the law about what will work. And I'm not here to score points. I'm actually interested in getting feedback about suggestions I've mentioned.

Sandro, please - focus on in-game punishment. You have a lot of in-game tools. Revoking permits, limited access to engineers, outfiting, higher rebuys or outfitting, hard security and often interdictions of players with bad karma, and finally you can turn that all into the more gameplay, because changing bad karma into a good may require some 'good deeds', like donating, defending something instead of attacking (defend installation, station, megaship missions).

That all may be a good part of gameplay - engineer may say - you are fugitive CMDR, i will not craft modules for you. Leave my base now!
... or imperial security: you commited many crimes commander, leave our territory immediately or you will be destroyed.

That really may work and may add some spice into the game instead of banning frustration.

You could make easily good crime system.
Its open sugestion, maybe need a little tweak, but please read:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...rate-Ramming?p=5479213&viewfull=1#post5479213

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

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.

lol,
where did you learn such things?
I am a free citizen of the federal republic of germany -> yet if i shoot someone to death, i have to face the consequences.
Free doesn't mean lawless

 

[Faded Glory]

lol,
where did you learn such things?
I am a free citizen of the federal republic of germany -> yet if i shoot someone to death, i have to face the consequences.
Free doesn't mean lawless

Err, no, you're not free to shoot someone to death... That's my point.

You're free to act within the rules of society, which is what I said. FD have since the game was released said that players are free to do what they want, but they obviously feel that some behavior is not what they were expecting or wanting.

I'm suggesting that if they want to dole out 'consequences' for behavior that they would prefer not to see, then they probably need to establish rules that specify whether actions are acceptable or not. If they go down the route of maintaining that players are free to do what they want, but they may be punished for doing so, I doubt it will work very well.

 

[AndyJ]

That all may be a good part of gameplay - engineer may say - you are fugitive CMDR, i will not craft modules for you. Leave my base now!

Exactly - and on the flipside - those engineer who needed you to know x black markets or have an introduction from a pirate faction should likewise only deal with someone who's at least a little shady on the karma level.

It starts to brings some cohesion to the game and the idea that your choices and actions do matter...

 

[V'larr]

Hello Sandro Sammarco!

Have you considered instead creating an official PvE mode? That way, you could keep Open the "no holds barred" anarchist free-for-all it it seems to be now, and apply whatever rules you like to PvE mode.

That and it might take the load off of Mobius's shoulders....

(edit: if it's been floated in this thread already, fine, I was too lazy to browse all 23 pages )

 

[fuub]

Horrible ideias from sandro, once again, instead of a true crime and punishment where bounty hunters could hunt ppl with bad karma adding gameplay value, is just a punishment system nothing else. No gameplay value.

 

[jc4hokies]

What about benefits to negative karma? There could be outfitting discounts in Anarchy space, because the local merchants don't want to cross fearsome gangsters.

And maybe negatives to positive karma? It takes longer to build up reputation with criminal factions to access lucrative missions.

 

[Loskene]

Exactly - and on the flipside - those engineer who needed you to know x black markets or have an introduction from a pirate faction should likewise only deal with someone who's at least a little shady on the karma level.

It starts to brings some cohesion to the game and the idea that your choices and actions do matter...

Exactly. Using a karma system just as a way of keeping naughty commanders in check is an enormous waste of potential, when it could be used to bring some real life to the game and tie all of these horrendously disparate systems together. That none of this seemed to cross sandro's mind yet is... well, kind of expected. But what happens in game stays in game. Using it as an excuse to punish players out of game is really not on at all. I hope that idea never makes it further than the drawing board.

 

[Shadowdancer]

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.

And yet, those would be a tool, a (pen)ultima ratio against the worst offenders. A special section of authorities patrolling secure systems when the most wanted are sighted or reported, and giving chase even some range into lawless territory.

There has to be a real and unavoidable threat to lawless players in civilised space, same as there should be a more persistent threat to law-abiding commanders in the highly anarchic parts of the galaxy. When a system is ruled by a mob faction with 99% influence, it should be dangerous for anyone not friends with that faction to go there, and when you have a superpower bounty on your head, the same should be true in civilised space.

As it currently stands, the NPC threat is sorely missing. There is no single AI ship that could threaten a dedicated minmaxer, neither is there any game mechanic that would really come close to being more than a nuisance once your credit balance exceeds your rebuy by a few orders of magnitude (and in that light, I agree that loss of insurance should be a tool in the karma chest). So NPC ships that would look like gods to anything but the best-equipped players or even groups thereof are definitely something that should exist on both sides of the fence.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

Hello Sandro Sammarco!

Have you considered instead creating an official PvE mode? That way, you could keep Open the "no holds barred" anarchist free-for-all it it seems to be now, and apply whatever rules you like to PvE mode.

That and it might take the load off of Mobius's shoulders....

(edit: if it's been floated in this thread already, fine, I was too lazy to browse all 23 pages )

maybe we can say "if you dont like the karma system, join the pvp private group and you are free to do what you want" ?

Horrible ideias from sandro, once again, instead of a true crime and punishment where bounty hunters could hunt ppl with bad karma adding gameplay value, is just a punishment system nothing else. No gameplay value.

horrible feedback. actually sandro is asking for input, yet you just badmouth him.
no value in this post.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet, those would be a tool, a (pen)ultima ratio against the worst offenders. A special section of authorities patrolling secure systems when the most wanted are sighted or reported, and giving chase even some range into lawless territory.

There has to be a real and unavoidable threat to lawless players in civilised space, same as there should be a more persistent threat to law-abiding commanders in the highly anarchic parts of the galaxy. When a system is ruled by a mob faction with 99% influence, it should be dangerous for anyone not friends with that faction to go there, and when you have a superpower bounty on your head, the same should be true in civilised space.

As it currently stands, the NPC threat is sorely missing. There is no single AI ship that could threaten a dedicated minmaxer, neither is there any game mechanic that would really come close to being more than a nuisance once your credit balance exceeds your rebuy by a few orders of magnitude (and in that light, I agree that loss of insurance should be a tool in the karma chest). So NPC ships that would look like gods to anything but the best-equipped players or even groups thereof are definitely something that should exist on both sides of the fence.

and how would the server know that their response needs to be one of the hard ones?
by having a stat on each player that enforces that decision

oh, wait thats what the karma does or could do

 

[Dbrn47]

Mods, as a public service I ask that this thread is in some way retitled and moved to Dangerous Discussion.

I mean no disrespect to the OP but the fact is that this thread has taken the unexpected turn of becoming the forum's greatest source of engagement on its hottest topics (C&P/Logging/Karma) by the Lead Designer ... and yet it is currently languishing in the relative backwater of the Suggestions sub-forum under the original title of 'Deliberate Ramming'.

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.

Cheers

Works better to report the OP. Reporting doesn't just mean "this person is being a meanie".

 

[AndyJ]

But coming back to my prior post, thats a personal definition. People regularly regard for example UA bombing as 'anti-social behaviour' or 13th legion events as 'griefing'. The idea of frontier giving out shadowbans for what is legitimate gameplay, based on definitions by this forums angry mob rhetoric is not a good idea.

Well yeah, some people don't understand that non-functional stations are part of the game.

However, that said - if a player is continually UA bombing a starter system to cause problems for newbies, or station camping to PK them, then yes it is anti-social. That's not good for anyone to let continue without consequence.

Karma + system forces could be left to take care of the camping/PK side of it on the whole within station limits.

And I think FD made it now so these particular stations couldn't be UA bombed in the end - but anyway - I guess the way to 'solve' the issue across the galaxy is to make sure that they're illegal cargo in such systems and there's a heavy karma hit & fine if you get caught smuggling them in. Won't stop it happening, but creates both a challenge and a risk/consequence ... everyone's happy, yeah?

My position is that when it comes to certain actions - there does come a point where it goes too far, and the person knows they are simply doing it to cause disruption to the game for everyone else... beyond what is "reasonable". That does need to be sorted out when it happens, IF it is reported and it's not "fair" to the other players who want to enjoy their game time.
If extreme behaviour does go unpunished then it will become toxic to the game.
And as I've said, the context is important, and it should be a case-by-case approach for the worst offences. Perhaps I'm not explaining it well enough, but surely you yourself can distinguish between someone actively trying to ruin the game vs someone trying to play the game.
Anyway I think it's a whole separate headache from the Karma side of things - or at least, should be.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-an-expectation-the-game-would-be-dumbed-down

"We've structured the rules - we have this thing called the Pilot's Federation, where all player characters are members. That's how, from a game point of view, how we distinguish between what are AI pilots and human pilots."

Well the entire quote was:

"We've structured the rules - we have this thing called the Pilot's Federation, where all player characters are members. That's how, from a game point of view, how we distinguish between what are AI pilots and human pilots. And they respond much more aggressively by putting bounties on your head if you kill their own members. So a player killer will attract a bounty very, very quickly. And then becomes fair game to other players - because once you've got a bounty it's okay to kill another player. That should be self-balancing. Obviously we'll tune the levels, and we will get player/player kills, but we're hoping it'll be a much more rare event."

Well for context - this was published in March 2014, and the article says that game is in ALPHA at that point.

There's quite a few inaccuracies compared to what might be implemented (at that point) and we actually have. NPC's attack you for a bounty too. Does killing a player vs an NPC gain a larger bounty? I don't even know, didn't think it did.
Anyway, not really sure what relevance it has regarding the advert. Makes no mention at all of "Commanders".
I think that any argument that an NPC pilot isn't a "Commander" in the sense of being the pilot of a ship would be a bit weak tbh.
And just in case you do want any explanation of how frequently DB/Frontier expected PK to happen, well take note of the last line.

 

[Goose4291]

Hello Commander Goose4291!

Um, I think that actually still makes sense.

i would prefer to keep consequences in game.

If that is unworkable/not effective enough, we could use out of game measures.

Because a karma system is a trend tracker that can support a number of different options.

I would have thought it's even fairly clear by the language I've been using. I've stated, multiple times, that I'm not taking part in this discussion to lay down the law about what will work. And I'm not here to score points. I'm actually interested in getting feedback about suggestions I've mentioned.

But therein is the point Sandro. Doing something that is allowed within the core concepts of a sandbox game (being a murderhobo, which for the record, I am not) should not under any circumstances incur out of game measures regardless of how much pitchfork waving, handwringing or rosary bead clutching is done by your 'community'. That sort of idea shouldnt even be considered as an option, or brought to the discussion table. Im not here to score points, Im pointing out where I disagree with you and why this is.

The problem I forsee you facing is that because you've pandered to 'easy mode on' types (the same people who called for Sarah Janes head when she suggested they 'learn to fly' after the NPC overhauls) for so long in your design decisions that you've made death and ingame failure a mild inconvenience to a players experience.

The only way your going to get a decent C&P/Karma system in place is by negating those decisions, which will never happen.

- - - Updated - - -

lol,
where did you learn such things?
I am a free citizen of the federal republic of germany -> yet if i shoot someone to death, i have to face the consequences.
Free doesn't mean lawless

I hate real world analogies.

But a better example of why people dont like this idea of out of game puniative mesaures is that in the scenario you describe, and you 'shot someone to death' the police are inept and bumbling buffoons unable to stop you, or you had found a legal loophole meaning you got away with it (ingame measures), so God comes down from heaven and casts you into hell (out of game measure) because 'Thou shalt not kill'

 

[Javert]

But therein is the point Sandro. Doing something that is allowed within the core concepts of a sandbox game (being a murderhobo, which for the record, I am not) should not under any circumstances incur out of game measures regardless of how much pitchfork waving, handwringing or rosary bead clutching is done by your 'community'. That sort of idea shouldnt even be considered as an option, or brought to the discussion table. Im not here to score points, Im pointing out where I disagree with you and why this is.

The problem I forsee you facing is that because you've pandered to 'easy mode on' types (the same people who called for Sarah Janes head when she suggested they 'learn to fly' after the NPC overhauls) for so long in your design decisions that you've made death and ingame failure a mild inconvenience to a players experience.

The only way your going to get a decent C&P/Karma system in place is by negating those decisions.

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute - Shadow banning is not an out of game measure. You have been deemed such a severe criminal, that you have been tagged with an temporary ASBO and all ships in the vicinity were automatically warned upon your approach to steer clear. They could also even have an "override" function on ships, so if some commanders choose to still be instanced with those that FD have shadowbanned for "in game" reasons, they would be.

This would probably only happen if you continuously attack new players. For example, I'm not sure such measures would be appropriate for attacking trading ships in a CG zone - there are lots of complexities here that need to be thought through.

However, it seems to me that if a players MO is to continuously seek out new inexperienced players and kill them for laughs, this is not good for the game, as more players will be driven away than the number of players who actually enjoy doing that - which ultimately is bad for both of them because they will run out of targets. As someone else said, these should in theory be edge cases because how many of the PVP players really spend most or all of their time murdering newbies - surely that's not much fun?