Deliberate Ramming

[Kyokushin]

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.

Yes, in fact if ganking matter will be resolved by in-game tools then griefing will also be resolved, because if someone will attack others over and over and will get a bad karma, then he will be punished, and IF in-game tools will make a game annoying for griefer or ganker (as i mentioned before), then that all problems will be resolved.

In fact i would like to see a dangerous places where all fugitives would play, and very lucrative routes through these location - i mean, more risk, more profit (only in open ofcourse). I would really like to see how people fighting with themselves to resist a temptation

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

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).

up to now, sandro only made a few SUGGESTIONS what could happen,
and getting higher bounties on your head, and your insurance company (ingame npc faction) starting to increase your share on the rebuy based on your bad reputation are not npc interactions for you?

 

[Kyokushin]

up to now, sandro only made a few SUGGESTIONS what could happen,
and getting higher bounties on your head, and your insurance company (ingame npc faction) starting to increase your share on the rebuy based on your bad reputation are not npc interactions for you?

Its just a small part. Crimes against NPC should influe the exact as against players.
If someone want to be a bully, then should not hide over NPC to bully them without a punish. If you want to be a bully, then be a bully, and get full consequences, no matter who you bully.

 

[Goose4291]

up to now, sandro only made a few SUGGESTIONS what could happen,
and getting higher bounties on your head, and your insurance company (ingame npc faction) starting to increase your share on the rebuy based on your bad reputation are not npc interactions for you?

If you look back at page 8, he floats in a roundabout way that if ingame mechanics didnt work, then out of game mechanics such as shadowbanning might be considered an option if people wont 'tow the line'.

This is where I'm drawing my line in the sand on the issue.

 

[rootsrat]

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.

Fair enough, then we'll need to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'd be more than happy to meet with Frontier and others so we can discuss matters like this in a real life setting.

I very much doubt that you would be alone in that desire - what would be the selection criteria of a representative sample of the player-base for such a meeting?

 

[Dbrn47]

I very much doubt that you would be alone in that desire - what would be the selection criteria of a representative sample of the player-base for such a meeting?

Whoever donates the most blood to the Blood God, of course.

Spoiler

Warhammer 40k reference, before anyone thinks I'm being morbid.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If you look back at page 8, he floats in a roundabout way that if ingame mechanics didnt work, then out of game mechanics such as shadowbanning might be considered an option if people wont 'tow the line'.

This is where I'm drawing my line in the sand on the issue.

Frontier would already seem to have taken steps against some players who have not behaved in an acceptable manner - why should the introduction of a karma system change that?

 

[Crank Larson]

I very much doubt that you would be alone in that desire - what would be the selection criteria of a representative sample of the player-base for such a meeting?

More importantly, what makes anyone think that it would be any more useful than the stuff that gets posted on the forums? It wouldn't, and while there is a lot of chaff on the forums, there are also some good ideas.

As I've said previously, the whole Karma request is overkill for the issue, and adds a whole load more development time. Most of the issues can be fixed simply by tweaking the existing fines/bounties system. i.e. massively increase fines given to players who kill other clean players (note, not attack, as this would affect piracy - but murder should be expensive). And the fines go to the Pilots Federation, not the bounty hunter (a bounty goes to the bounty hunter). For murder, the fine should be at least the rebuy for the offender's ship, and each additional murder should increase the fine exponentially.

If the above change was implemented, regular "griefers" would end up in a Sidewinder after not too long, and then they won't be able to "grief" anyone. And no-one has to go to jail, or be shadow-banned, or whatever other system is implemented (and then exploited due to some oversight).

 

[Truesilver]

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.

OK Sandro, here's my quick-fix suggestion:

Just make every single player count as a member of the Pilots Federation minor in-game NPC faction, as if we were NPC's.

If a Cmdr kills one of us, they get exactly the same Pilots Federation rep negative hit that they would have got if they'd killed a Pilots Federation NPC.

(Kills in Anarchies, or of the Wanted, or Powerplay Pledger v Powerplay Pledger - the latter not of same superpower - 100% exempt.)

In that way everyone could still playakill as much as they wanted but if they didn't top up their Pilots Federation rep occasionally, they'd end up locked out of docking permission at Jameson Memorial. Of course, they could just keep topping up, or they could go Hostile and wait for minor faction rep decay to bring them back to Unfriendly ... but it would still be something.

And it would work with the game's existing architecture, require no complex arguments about what is worse than what, and be completely explicable in terms of RP/Lore. Those who donate more bounties etc to Jameson get in the good books, bit of a blind eye turned ... those that don't ... less tolerance. It all works.

Of course not every murder hobo has access to Jameson but frankly ... all the ones that anyone cares about do.

What do you think, guys? Like I say, a quick fix, not a perfect solution, not a forever solution, but something. A reasonably fair solution for both sides of the playakillin thing?

 

[Robert Maynard]

What do you think, guys? Like I say, a quick fix, not a perfect solution, not a forever solution, but something. A reasonably fair solution for both sides of the playakillin thing?

Other than convenience of being able to purchase any ship or module that one might desire (that one has access to, of course), there's no reason to go to Founders - the discount isn't the best available either. In which case, losing rep with the Pilots' Federation (Faction) is no punishment at all.

 

[Goose4291]

Frontier would already seem to have taken steps against some players who have not behaved in an acceptable manner - why should the introduction of a karma system change that?

Because those were clear cut cases of exploiting game mechanics (such as the infamous limpett and point defence in a station hijinx) and not throwing shadowbans and the ilk against someone who is playing within the games framework and design ethos (being a murderhobo), which is what's being tabled here

 

[Dbrn47]

OK Sandro, here's my quick-fix suggestion:

Just make every single player count as a member of the Pilots Federation minor in-game NPC faction, as if we were NPC's.

If a Cmdr kills one of us, they get exactly the same Pilots Federation rep negative hit that they would have got if they'd killed a Pilots Federation NPC.

(Kills in Anarchies, or of the Wanted, or Powerplay Pledger v Powerplay Pledger - the latter not of same superpower - 100% exempt.)

In that way everyone could still playakill as much as they wanted but if they didn't top up their Pilots Federation rep occasionally, they'd end up locked out of docking permission at Jameson Memorial. Of course, they could just keep topping up, or they could go Hostile and wait for minor faction rep decay to bring them back to Unfriendly ... but it would still be something.

And it would work with the game's existing architecture, require no complex arguments about what is worse than what, and be completely explicable in terms of RP/Lore. Those who donate more bounties etc to Jameson get in the good books, bit of a blind eye turned ... those that don't ... less tolerance. It all works.

Of course not every murder hobo has access to Jameson but frankly ... all the ones that anyone cares about do.

What do you think, guys? Like I say, a quick fix, not a perfect solution, not a forever solution, but something. A reasonably fair solution for both sides of the playakillin thing?

I still don't have access to Jameson Memorial and it has no effect on anything I do in the game. As Robert says, there is an even better discount elsewhere. This would accomplish nothing unfortunately.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because those were clear cut cases of exploiting game mechanics (such as the infamous limpett and point defence in a station hijinx) and not throwing shadowbans and the ilk against someone who is playing within the games framework and design ethos (being a murderhobo), which is what's being tabled here

Were they all?

Has Sandro guaranteed that such measures will be taken? It rather seems that they are a last ditch option from what he has said, to me at least.

.... and if Frontier feel the need to curtail the behaviours of some few players to improve the game for many more players (i.e retain more players), is it not in their interests to do so?

 

[Goose4291]

Were they all?

Has Sandro guaranteed that such measures will be taken? It rather seems that they are a last ditch option from what he has said, to me at least.

.... and if Frontier feel the need to curtail the behaviours of some few players to improve the game for many more players (i.e retain more players), is it not in their interests to do so?

Well we'll never know for sure, as frontier hold their cards close to their chest regarding who they've banned, the only shadowbans we know about have been either that aforementioned issue, cheaters or the (mostly unfounded) combat loggers.

The problems I see is the gamescape is so skewed now that any crime and punishment system will be easily ignored, because of the 'easy mode' crowd. For example, credits are now so easy to accrue that you can go from sidey to annie in 10hrs of gametime, making financial penalties of fines, let alone rebuys, laughable.

To be clearer, I dont want to be in a situation after any such concept is implemented where I have to worry about being shadowbanned for shooting another player in a game where we can bolt guns onto the front of our ships.

 

[Robert Maynard]

To be clearer, I dont want to be in a situation after any such concept is implemented where I have to worry about being shadowbanned for shooting another player in a game where we can bolt guns onto the front of our ships.

From what Sandro has said, it would seem that if the players have bounties on their heads then they are fair game - clean players, not so much - and there is a clear difference between attacking and destroying.

 

[besieger]

From what Sandro has said, it would seem that if the players have bounties on their heads then they are fair game - clean players, not so much - and there is a clear difference between attacking and destroying.

Everyone in this game is fair game... making up rules after you have already set them out is just silly.

 

[Imperial Guard]

To have straightforward PVP, you need only 2 fixed sides.

I.E Empire vs Federation
Set up by ED so that you cannot harm somebody on your own side (kill-shooter on) meaning that shooting at a teammate actually reverses the damage to your own ship instead)

 

[Crank Larson]

Everyone in this game is fair game...

I agree with this. Many people may not like it, but that is essentially how the game was sold. Blaze your own trail, and all that. There are already ways for people to avoid other humans if they want to. I never saw the promise of a feature that was "meet only people that share your values and that won't attack you unless you give them permission". Probably because it would be impossible to implement such a feature...

Punishment should be increased for murder, yes. But this can be done easily using existing mechanics.

- - - Updated - - -

Set up by ED so that you cannot harm somebody on your own side (kill-shooter on) meaning that shooting at a teammate actually reverses the damage to your own ship instead)

That would be truly awful.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Everyone in this game is fair game... making up rules after you have already set them out is just silly.

Frontier can, quite simply, do what they need to - and it seems, from what they have said, that they need to do something (Sandro's been talking about increased penalties for attacking clean players for over a year now) - because they would seem to be keen to encourage players in to Open (which belongs to all players, of course) and are considering adding a karma system to curb particular behaviours.

.... and what you might consider "silly" may be considered by others to be long overdue....