Deliberate Ramming

[Arguendo]

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'.

What? 13th are among the groups that actually do RP! I was extremely happy to see 13th come out and announce their blockade the way they did. We need more of that! If people don't see that as a valid gamestyle, then they need to leave the game tbh.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

 

[Synergized]

how can someone refuse to drop his cargo?

By not dropping any and trying to escape...?

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

Hello Commander CMDR Dahak!

Well, seeing that this is just chewing the fat at the moment, as I've stated *many* times, all options could be on the table.

I totally agree that no chance to rebuy a ship is incredibly dramatic, but I hope I have been clear enough now that the concept of such a karma system is based on building up over time, and that ship loss could be one of the ultimate forms of punitive measures, *not* the first response.

In my opinion, the *really* interesting question, is one I have already asked: should it be OK to destroy much weaker ships? How important is this to folk?

Seeing that such a system could host a whole range of measures and could clearly be as lenient of harsh as we desired, where do folk think the red line should exist for such behaviour?

Sandro,

Yes it should be ok, part of what makes elite combat so interesting is that its rarely ever symmetrical thats why Arena is bombing. There's a million and one matchmade arcade shooters out there already. Dont make elite one please.

Upgrade the police

Uncapped bounties half the value of the destroyed ships from the perps (time crimes out after a couple of months)

Make bounty hunting humans a job on the board

Deny docking in systems where you have a record, once bounty is above a threshold ban from superpower aligned systems unless lawless or anarchy.

Once a bounty is collected take the other half of the money in the penalty and award it to the victim, enabling them to get back on their feet.

Give the player base the means to seek justice, let fear of revenge or a contract on your life be the justice.

The problem is is that there's so few outlets for legitimate PVP ambush warfare, ambush warfare shouldn't be fair, but in the long run we as players should be able to do something about it.

 

[Loskene]

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute - Shadow banning is not an out of game measure...

Given how far you had to reach to make that analogy work I figure you could probably grab a handful of moon dust without getting out of your chair.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

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'

its no god
the Karma system is described as a ingame measure parallel to the reputation system we already have. the described measures are also all in line with lore.
and BANNING as a last measurement against player who break the code of coinduit is an acceptable action.

i still don't know why you are so obsessed with the punishment against a player that makes the game DEVs lose potential income in the long run?

If you call me something inaprotiate via the ingame chat several times, i will also not hassle to use the "report player" so the support can use their Hammer of GOD and remove you from my gaming experience.
well, TBH, i would also accept if they used the HAMMER of GOD and would simply send fully modded ELITE NPC ships against everytime you jump into a non-anarchy system for at least 4 weeks - at best via hyperdiction.

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

This!

 

[Synergized]

If the trader knows you cannot kill them without serious (karma) repercussions they will just refuse to drop cargo. The pirate needs to be a threat, without karma penalties.

So much this.

 

[Goose4291]

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.

I get what your roughly saying, my point is that as you say context and personal definition is key (if you go way back, proper pirates like the code were treated by this forum in the way current 'noob-dunkers' are) and what worries me is how frontier will define it, and who they'll listen too. If you speak to a lot of very strong PvE advocates, all they seem to want is every vocal PvP/open mode player to have their accounts terminated

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.

Im on my phone so i can really go chasing quotes, but the devs have said quite often that we are the only 'commanders' in the galaxy, which is why I regard any mention of them by the devs as referring to players.

And I know the whole quotation and I do wish PvP was meaningful, but sadly we only have dev design decisions and their desire to pamper to the 'easy mode' playstyle advocates to thank for the current situation.

- - - Updated - - -

its no god
the Karma system is described as a ingame measure parallel to the reputation system we already have. the described measures are also all in line with lore.
and BANNING as a last measurement against player who break the code of coinduit is an acceptable action.

i still don't know why you are so obsessed with the punishment against a player that makes the game DEVs lose potential income in the long run?

If you call me something inaprotiate via the ingame chat several times, i will also not hassle to use the "report player" so the support can use their Hammer of GOD and remove you from my gaming experience.
well, TBH, i would also accept if they used the HAMMER of GOD and would simply send fully modded ELITE NPC ships against everytime you jump into a non-anarchy system for at least 4 weeks - at best via hyperdiction.

You're talking apples and oranges with this now.

Im saying that legitimate gameplay choices should not incur out of game punishments, not anything about abuse or harrasment (which is what these mechanics are designed for).

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

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.

I'm a little exasperated by this too,

- - - Updated - - -

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 - - -



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'

This!

 

[Cosmos]

its no god
the Karma system is described as a ingame measure parallel to the reputation system we already have. the described measures are also all in line with lore.
and BANNING as a last measurement against player who break the code of coinduit is an acceptable action.

i still don't know why you are so obsessed with the punishment against a player that makes the game DEVs lose potential income in the long run?

If you call me something inaprotiate via the ingame chat several times, i will also not hassle to use the "report player" so the support can use their Hammer of GOD and remove you from my gaming experience.
well, TBH, i would also accept if they used the HAMMER of GOD and would simply send fully modded ELITE NPC ships against everytime you jump into a non-anarchy system for at least 4 weeks - at best via hyperdiction.

If Frontier want to fundamentally change the game against how it was advertised (refering to their website and other promotional stuff) then that is their perogative. However, should they do so that goes against what people have bought into (again, I'm talking official stuff via marketing and so on) then they should offer those affected a full refund of all money spent on the game.

Its worth pointing out that we are meant to fly in a cutthroat universe, set against a back drop of raw anarchy.. Where we are apparently meant to have infinite freedom .. I could easily go on with substance and links but they are well known by now.

Since we are all such a minority then it shouldnt break the bank, and I'd happily accept a refund and would be on my way.. My only crime it would seem was buying a game and playing it as it was advertised.

This offer is open for Frontier to accept at any time.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its worth pointing out that we are meant to fly in a cutthroat universe, set against a back drop of raw anarchy.. Where we are apparently meant to have infinite freedom .. I could easily go on with substance and links but they are well known by now.

Where does it say that one's actions would be consequence free?

.... and it's up to any Developer to determine what constitutes unacceptable behaviour in their multi-player game, not the players.

 

[Goose4291]

If Frontier want to fundamentally change the game against how it was advertised (refering to their website and other promotional stuff) then that is their perogative. However, should they do so that goes against what people have bought into (again, I'm talking official stuff via marketing and so on) then they should offer those affected a full refund of all money spent on the game.

Its worth pointing out that we are meant to fly in a cutthroat universe, set against a back drop of raw anarchy.. Where we are apparently meant to have infinite freedom .. I could easily go on with substance and links but they are well known by now.

Since we are all such a minority then it shouldnt break the bank, and I'd happily accept a refund and would be on my way.. My only crime it would seem was buying a game and playing it as it was advertised.

This offer is open for Frontier to accept at any time.

Concur fully.

Even though I dont get involved in 'murderhoboing', if such out of game mechanics were brought in, which would fundamentally change the way open works, I too would be happy to accept a refund.

 

[rootsrat]

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.

While I partially agree with you, don't you think that excessive behaviour like that (aka griefing aka harassment, aNOTka ganking or PK) should be punished harder?

If someone attacks your ship for no reason, that's OK - it's a game and it's a part of it. But if someone repeatedly trolls other playeres via multicrew or via ship ramming near a station, don't you think that's going a little bit too far from "playing the game" into "being a twunk for other people that play the game with me" and deserves a more solid response, perhaps isolating from other PLAYERS (as opposed to TWUNKS) for some time, so that they can only spend time with equally unsocial twunks?

I realise that a part of the community is overexcessive in crying and whining about the game being too hard and that PK/ganking is not cool, but on the other spectrum are totally unsocial people that don't want to PLAY the game - they just want to make lifes of others as miserable as possible.

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

If Frontier want to fundamentally change the game against how it was advertised (refering to their website and other promotional stuff) then that is their perogative. However, should they do so that goes against what people have bought into (again, I'm talking official stuff via marketing and so on) then they should offer those affected a full refund of all money spent on the game.

Its worth pointing out that we are meant to fly in a cutthroat universe, set against a back drop of raw anarchy.. Where we are apparently meant to have infinite freedom .. I could easily go on with substance and links but they are well known by now.

Since we are all such a minority then it shouldnt break the bank, and I'd happily accept a refund and would be on my way.. My only crime it would seem was buying a game and playing it as it was advertised.

This offer is open for Frontier to accept at any time.

I'd rather a productive compromise, but I would accept this.

I dont see why they're building a new rep system and not flushing out the bounty system, make the systems you have work before building another. Bounties being so localised is a huge problem, they're so ineffective.

 

[Goose4291]

While I partially agree with you, don't you think that excessive behaviour like that (aka griefing aka harassment, akNOTa ganking or PK) should be punished harder?

If someone attakck your ship for no reason, that's OK - it's a game and it's a part of it. But if someone repeatedly trolls other playeres via multicrew or via ship ramming near a station, don't you think that's going a little bit too far from "playing the game" into "being a twunk for other people that play the game with me" and deserves a more solid response, perhaps isolating from other PLAYERS (as opposed to TWUNKS) for some time, so that they can only spend time with equally unsocial twunks?

I realise that a part of the community is overexcessive in crying and whining about the game being too hard and that PK/ganking is not cool, but on the other spectrum are totally unsocial people that don't want to PLAY the game - they just want to make lifes of others as miserable as possible.

I agree fully this sort of thing requires 'punishment', but purely by using ingame methods (or to prevent them happening in the first place) and not by using out of game intervention methods.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

I agree fully this sort of thing requires 'punishment', but purely by using ingame methods (or to prevent them happening in the first place) and not by using out of game intervention methods.

you repeat that sentence very often. yet thats what the karma system would do.
to be precise - whatever it does (which you actually totally ignore) it will be an ingame method per definition.

and about the refund - lol, playing a game three years and then asking for a refund is alredy outside the waranty, and excluded by the Terms of service signed by you when you have bought it.

 

[Cosmos]

Hello Commanders!

Thank you for all the constructive criticism and appraisal (remember, attack the argument, not the speaker).

I've misguidedly given you some flak over the years and I've come to realise that hasn't been fair. If we take this maelstrom to one side I want to say I have nothing against you Sandro. Nevertheless, its not acceptable to speak about metaphorically knee capping people whilst also asking them to remain civil at the same time.

Having said this, perhaps its time for the Game Director, David Braben, to stop hiding behind you and come forward so we can have a robust and frank exchange.

I supported this project with all my focus and energy and always wanted it to succeed, I still do.. However, its really becoming untenable these days.

 

[Goose4291]

you repeat that sentence very often. yet thats what the karma system would do.
to be precise - whatever it does (which you actually totally ignore) it will be an ingame method per definition.

and about the refund - lol, playing a game three years and then asking for a refund is alredy outside the waranty, and excluded by the Terms of service signed by you when you have bought it.

Does it though? A karma system should (in my mind) reflect the way the game mechanics and NPC's interact with you based on your prior actions.

It shouldn't be about how to remove 'undesirables' from the gamescape just because they play in a different (albeit legitimate manner).

 

[Cosmos]

I'd rather a productive compromise

All the compromises seem to go one way. Yet who can argue with a productive compromise.

One thing I find infuriating, and this has gone on for years, is the limitations of a forum. Combine that with the censorship of expression and other annoyances here, it makes it hard to have a reasoned discussion when everything is loaded.

I'd be more than happy to meet with Frontier and others so we can discuss matters like this in a real life setting. This community has become so bitterly divided and venemous something needs to change.

We are all human beings after all.

 

[Humbo]

I would recommend initially running the Karma system as informational only, so people can see and discuss it's effects without it actually having consequences. There could also be a visual indication of the commanders karma (I think this was mentioned before) to "warn" other players.