Deliberate Ramming

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Ive not been posting all the time but i have been here as long, not that being here for x amount of time means anything or are you suggesting you have mod rights only because you have been here so long, posted so much and know X person rather than for your ability to moderate these forums in an unbiased manner?

You seem to have an issue with Moderators participating in threads and expressing their opinions. It has already been explained, by another, that Moderators are free to participate in threads on the understanding that they do not then Moderate those threads. Moderators are drawn from the forum user-base, i.e. Frontier has control over who does and does no Moderate the forums. Moderation is not a solo exercise, advisories and infractions are always reviewed - with Frontier determining whether bias has entered into it and dealing with that accordingly.

You saying it would benefit the majority is also subjective, this would harm anyone who has any interest in pvp outside of gentlemans duels which by the way applies to most of the elite community who would play a open sandbox game over a controlled arena/battleground game.
Aka the only reason they are here.

Indeed - however it's Frontier's opinion as to what is good for the game in general that matters, in my opinion at least....

.... as to "harm" - consequences for attacking other players would make the game more "dangerous" for players that chose to do so - with some bored players claiming that the game isn't dangerous enough for them. Then, when Frontier propose a system that may increase the danger, some of those seeking danger complain about it....
 

This idea that all publicity is good publicity is a myth.

A long time ago I heard stories about the subterfuge in EVE Online. It made me never want to play that game.
 
July 3rd, 2014. Newsletter #30 is published, containing an entry detailing upcoming changes to criminality in Beta 1.


The next day the following thread begins on the official forum:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Seriously, open this thread and that archived thread in side-by-side tabs and bounce between them. I swear after a couple of pages you won't know which one you're reading. A beta thread. Five months before launch. We're getting on for three years into the mythical ten year plan and nothing has changed. Even Sandro's cameo interjections are almost indistinguishable between the threads.
 
For me an interesting potential consequence of the Karma system would be its effects on Anarchy systems.

I think there would be a move by some of the Salt miners to ensure that key systems become anarchys. This would be to reduce the impact the Karma system would have on their ability to move between systems without being attacked.

It would also of course allow the generation of free salt when players discover their "safe haven" has now become Mogadishu.

This helps make the background sim more important to players.
 
For me an interesting potential consequence of the Karma system would be its effects on Anarchy systems.

I think there would be a move by some of the Salt miners to ensure that key systems become anarchys. This would be to reduce the impact the Karma system would have on their ability to move between systems without being attacked.

It would also of course allow the generation of free salt when players discover their "safe haven" has now become Mogadishu.

This helps make the background sim more important to players.

In this thread Sandro has only referred to it as "quite possible" that anarchy systems would be exempt from or less affected by karma. Hopefully it will end up applying equally in all systems, since it makes little sense for murderers to be welcome in civilised space just because they take a jaunt to an anarchy system whenever they fancy a killing spree.

Besides, "combat logging" would also be regulated by the karma system. I'm sure there would be complaints if it became a legitimate action in anarchy systems.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
July 3rd, 2014. Newsletter #30 is published, containing an entry detailing upcoming changes to criminality in Beta 1.


The next day the following thread begins on the official forum:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Seriously, open this thread and that archived thread in side-by-side tabs and bounce between them. I swear after a couple of pages you won't know which one you're reading. A beta thread. Five months before launch. We're getting on for three years into the mythical ten year plan and nothing has changed. Even Sandro's cameo interjections are almost indistinguishable between the threads.

I'd expect that the situation has changed a bit - Frontier now have stats (from the game being launched for over two years) to back up their expectations (before the game was launched) - and those stats would seem to have spurred them to come up with the means to encourage players back into Open - the karma system being one of them. Here's hoping for a point release in the not too distant future.... :)
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
In this thread Sandro has only referred to it as "quite possible" that anarchy systems would be exempt from or less affected by karma. Hopefully it will end up applying equally in all systems, since it makes little sense for murderers to be welcome in civilised space just because they take a jaunt to an anarchy system whenever they fancy a killing spree.

Besides, "combat logging" would also be regulated by the karma system. I'm sure there would be complaints if it became a legitimate action in anarchy systems.

The Pilots' Federation transcends mere system security levels - so they could choose to apply their rules everywhere, or not, as the case may be....
 

Minonian

Banned
All I see is, combat logging is treated the same as killing people many times. Something is wrong here.

Agreed. PVP and PVE are both valid game style. If someone don't want to do PVP? You can't punish, and doing so enforce em to do PVP.
You can't say your path (god) the only one true path. Is that simple!

Hello Commanders!

In response to combat logging versus "griefing" (which I will define here as killing a much weaker vessel with potentially a lower combat rated pilot): both are considered "undesirable" behaviour. I'm not saying that they would have to get exactly the same bad karma, just that repeatedly doing either act would see a Commander slide down the karma slope. I'm not sure that this can really be argued against, unless you are bringing a strong bias to the discussion table.

See above.

Hello Commander zarking!

A very good question! It's quite possible that the karma system would not apply in anarchies (and powerplay, lawless areas etc.) or be severely reduced in effect. We're always looking to differentiate secure systems with lawless ones.

Fraction / ideology karma?
Based on fraction and ideology related deeds and deeds done for and against them. Example? Older Fallout games.
+ Good / bad karma for the first step.
- - - Updated - - -

Hello Commander CMDR Dahak!

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?

Analogy? Box weight classes. If you running amok and killing weaker vessels that's definitely must be off table. However? There are mixed weight matches.
 
Last edited:

Minonian

Banned
In what artificial life is worse than organical?

In this level of development what we see ingame can we talk about artifical life or even a worm like "intellect", or it just a response automation? The latest i afraid.
The point is? If it's just a machine, than it's threated as such, if it's reaches animal level intellect than it's must be threated as such. IF it's reaches human like levels? than it must be equal with us.
And there are also plants. be honest! Most of us threating them just like an object, but even so giving more care to them than a piece of rock.
- - - Updated - - -

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.
So, if you kill a chicken that's murder?

- - - Updated - - -

* 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.

I think the main point is killing spree must be off table anything else with the proper mechanics debatable.

- - - Updated - - -

Sandro, please - focus on in-game punishment. You have a lot of in-game tools.
Jut not the manpower to do it that's why automation (built in game measures necessary) But until than, it voud be nice if they are taking care at least the worst so some people don't feel like they can do anything without consequences.
 
Last edited:
In this thread Sandro has only referred to it as "quite possible" that anarchy systems would be exempt from or less affected by karma. Hopefully it will end up applying equally in all systems, since it makes little sense for murderers to be welcome in civilised space just because they take a jaunt to an anarchy system whenever they fancy a killing spree.

Besides, "combat logging" would also be regulated by the karma system. I'm sure there would be complaints if it became a legitimate action in anarchy systems.

I personally dont think Karma should apply in Anarchys at all, that way it makes for a more varied galaxy, and allows those who want to use "emergent" gameplay tactics to have a legitimate outlet within game, that also reinforces the risk associated with such systems. It should be backed up with greater profits being available in such systems, though this may have the negative impact of people merely flying to anarchys in solo to minimise risk and maximise profit.
 
Okay so, I find your... reasoning... unconvincing... :)



Shows a lack of empathy for any other player you blow up.

Okay so try - at least try! - to place yourself in another player's shoes. So say you're excited about the Ancient Ruins (look I know I keep mentioning those but they're a perfect example of content that Frontier created for the Science! types and you were there so it's all good) - you're excited about this Thing that needs investigated. You climb into your ship and you fly all the way from the bubble to this place. You land. You disembark your ship into your SRV, and there's Stuff to explore, so you do. Artefacts dotted all over the place. Combinations of the things to bring together and see if you can extract more data.

Then suddenly, BAM! Your landed ship is exploded! And there's this FdL that's all of a sudden aiming towards your SRV and it's chasing you down! And the pilot is toying with you - flipping your SRV, acting all menacing and stuff - and eventually exploding your SRV with you in it.

Now, I don't know about you, but my sense of empathy tells me that the CMDR in that SRV was not feeling great about that situation one bit. There'll be annoyance, fear, outrage - all that time lost! - and eventually miserable anger. That was NOT a good gaming experience for them.

Do you honestly think that anyone would find that to be great gameplay? Do you think for one millisecond that it would feel like a positive experience? Are you imagining that this is nothing more than a bit of "teehee!" within the game world?

Now times that by the amount of players you did this to. Is this really what you think Frontier intends for the game?




That entirely depends on context. Example: Let's play the classic Space Invaders. Simple game, right? 2-dimensional, straightforward rules - you control a machine which shoots stuff upwards - meanwhile the invaders are coming down at your planet/base and you need to defend it from the marauding masses. Depending on how good you are at shooting your ammo at them, you either defeat each wave or you succumb to their ammo coming down at you - in which you lose a life - or they manage to reach the surface of your planet/base.

The times where you lose cause frustration/anger, but there are other times where you had the chance to defeat the wave and defend your base, which is part of the pleasure you experience whilst playing the game. Endorphins released, a good time was had.

Contrast that with this videogame - in this case you are the invader, and BAM! They've just destroyed your ship, and now they're coming for you. You have zero chance to defend yourself - an SRV against an apex-engineered Fer de Lance. There is zero pleasure here. You had no chance to defend your ship which is now destroyed - okay now you regret dismissing your ship, should've done that earlier so lesson learned. But wait... now there's the bonus round because the CMDR involved is now coming after your SRV. There's no competition between an SRV and an FdL. The outcome is inevitable. This was NOT an enjoyable experience.




This says a lot about you. This lack of empathy for others, your personal boredom, and the fact that you gain pleasure from other's misery - yet you don't see it as that because you're only concentrating on your own endorphin rush by way of the acts you're committing against other players. It's the most extreme form of selfishness. But who cares, right? You can get away with it, because the game allows you to, and stuff anyone else's thoughts or feelings on the matter.



Yet - the content is there, for others who appreciate it more than you. Okay so there are players who enjoyed the puzzle of the Ancient Ruins, yeah? To them this is great content, a mystery to be solved, they take it seriously. But because you don't find it great content, then to you this is nothing more than an opportunity to get your endorphin rush by taking your frustration about the lack of content you find enjoyable, on others. Again, that's an extreme form of selfishness and lack of empathy right there.




No actually, I'm not sure at all what you were going to say next, because your reasoning is incomprehensible. You have yet to explain what content you'd like to be added which would make you happy, and take you away from blowing up other players at places like the Ancient Ruins.





Which confirms my analysis of you. No one asked you to fly to the Ancient Ruins site(s) and just blow up the CMDR's who do find that content enjoyable. You did it of your own volition. Because you can. Because for you, there are zero consequences, and you like it this way. To you, this is a nice 'teehee!' moment as you watch countless explosions. Sorry matey, your endorphin rush is more shallow and sad than the content that others enjoy more than you.

I anticipate this post will achieve nothing more than derision, objections of 'armchair psychologist' and whatever. I don't care. Have at it. I don't even expect you're going to change your ways either because of this post. You're going to keep on doing what you do, because that's how you roll.

But you know what? I still don't blame you. You're still operating within the game world's rules, because as far as the game is concerned, technically, you're doing nothing wrong - that's because Frontier have always been opaque with specifying the 'spirit of the game'. And even with my best efforts at getting Sandro to start specifying Frontier's intent and 'spirit of the game' - he still refuses to give a specific and direct answer to it. It's the usual response I've come to expect from Frontier, and it's maddening.

So, really, do please go on being you - have at them, because until the day that Frontier specifies where the line is drawn in this game, then no one knows if or where the boundaries are - after all, the marketing did in fact say 'blaze your own trail', 'cutthroat galaxy', and even 'or just hunt other commanders', which is exactly what you're doing.

Bet you weren't expecting that ending, huh? ;)

Armchair psychologist was what came to mind first before getting to the end. ;)

What a twist! ;)

But yeah, I agree. All the salt flows really are ultimately Frontier's fault - there are people like Besieger/Harry that like to toe the line, and while the line keeps on stretching they will keep on pushing it. Eventually either A. Frontier will finally put the brakes on and the game will keep making a profit, or B. the game will get a bad enough reputation that it's no longer economically viable; either way, Harry and his friends will just shrug and move on to another game. It's Frontier's fiscal responsibility to prevent B from happening.

Its not even a case of "toe the line", I do the same thing I have been for the last year, I just murder players and sometimes spice it up with a different ship or load out, the game's bad reputation you speak of comes from its lack of content to keep player engaged and the massive grind wall that is engineers, player retention was always a tough one for Frontier since the game was so difficult to get into, but the added "Content" only made it worse.

Just a quick question. Did you ever consider that driving people out of the game might actually be inconveniencing yourself? I'll explain.

You want quicker content, more content make Harry happy, yes? But if players are being driven out of the game by bored murder hobos slaughtering them in their very first experience of the game, that means less profit for Frontier. Less profit means less developers and that means slower content. Slower content means Harry unhappy.

Harry - MurderHobo = Harry + Happy

G'wan. give it a try. You know you want to really ;)

No, that's not how development works. I also do not kill players just out of LHS 3447, I in fact offered Frontier the opposite... I and some others in the Galactic Academy requested that starter systems be permit locked and said permit only given to a select few players myself included who could use this permit to help new players learn to play away from the "noob killers", while being able to teach a new player in Open as it should be. it was perfectly Lore safe and would of worked to prevent the situation we have now in the starter systems. We where ignored.

Sounds like a classic case of "create stuff for me or I'll do bad stuff*" - I doubt that Frontier would either be impressed or cowed by such an approach. The upshot of some of this behaviour would seem to be that Frontier are considering adding content - to curb the behavioural excesses of those who, in the judgement of some, spoil the game for others.

*: "bad stuff" in the opinion of a significant proportion of the player-base.

It could be argued that the karma system could bring the "dangerous" back to the game for those who have honed their ships and skills and aren't finding it challenging enough - to some extent at least.

Quite the bait post... the game states you can "blaze your own trail" I blaze a trail of death by day and science by night, its not about a karma system for me I would love to see one, its when devs even float the idea of removing ships, engineered ship.... anyone who has played engineers knows that would be their end and why not? it can take upwards of 300 hours to create an engineered ship, that's longer than it takes to complete most games, its not even great game-play too. or Sandro's idea of shadow banning, the ideas floated by Devs here are some of the most crazy ideas I have ever seen from a developer.

The fact that an option to a Developer of a MMO is to ban a player that is playing within the rules set by them, well just read that out loud. see how it sounds.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Quite the bait post... the game states you can "blaze your own trail" I blaze a trail of death by day and science by night, its not about a karma system for me I would love to see one, its when devs even float the idea of removing ships, engineered ship.... anyone who has played engineers knows that would be their end and why not? it can take upwards of 300 hours to create an engineered ship, that's longer than it takes to complete most games, its not even great game-play too. or Sandro's idea of shadow banning, the ideas floated by Devs here are some of the most crazy ideas I have ever seen from a developer.

The fact that an option to a Developer of a MMO is to ban a player that is playing within the rules set by them, well just read that out loud. see how it sounds.

Hardly bait, in my opinion, of course. Where does it say that there would be no consequences for "blaze your own trail"?

If the Pilots' Federation wake up to the internecine struggle ongoing then, as the entity that provides replacement ships, it might be reasonable for them to reduce the subsidy to members that attack other members without reason - up to and including total constructive loss. It's not as if Sandro is saying that such a consequence would occur without warning though, is it?

Shadow-banning already exists - to assume that it is being introduced now is inaccurate.
 
Hardly bait, in my opinion, of course. Where does it say that there would be no consequences for "blaze your own trail"?

If the Pilots' Federation wake up to the internecine struggle ongoing then, as the entity that provides replacement ships, it might be reasonable for them to reduce the subsidy to members that attack other members without reason - up to and including total constructive loss. It's not as if Sandro is saying that such a consequence would occur without warning though, is it?

Shadow-banning already exists - to assume that it is being introduced now is inaccurate.

I can only assume you have never done any engineers to feel the idea of losing an entire ship is a good idea... I worked for it, can pay for it. I should get to keep it. Sandro did float the idea of shadow banning players, again a stupid idea designed to mask poor game mechanics.
 

Harry, there comes a time when you must reap what you sew, plenty of MMO's have banned players for anti-social interaction in game, plenty of MMO's have changed rules to deter such interaction, just as Frontier has every right to. There has to come a time when folks like you look in the mirror and say to yourself, (should a harsh karma possible ban system ever come in), 'is it in any way possible that my actions may have helped inspire this change in Frontier's stance and new system?'
 
Harry, there comes a time when you must reap what you sew, plenty of MMO's have banned players for anti-social interaction in game, plenty of MMO's have changed rules to deter such interaction, just as Frontier has every right to. There has to come a time when folks like you look in the mirror and say to yourself, (should a harsh karma possible ban system ever come in), 'is it in any way possible that my actions may have helped inspire this change in Frontier's stance and new system?'

A ban is never justified in the paying customer is within the rules set by the developers.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I can only assume you have never done any engineers to feel the idea of losing an entire ship is a good idea... I worked for it, can pay for it. I should get to keep it. Sandro did float the idea of shadow banning players, again a stupid idea designed to mask poor game mechanics.

I'm Grade 5 with 10 Engineers and have undertaken over 400 modifications, 10% of which are Grade 5. Yes, it takes time - the game itself takes time.

Yes, you worked for it - just like players worked for their ships that other players seem to take pleasure in making them rebuy - it takes time.

Shadow-banning for particular behaviours is not "stupid", in my opinion - it is an unfortunate necessity when dealing with the behaviours of some players.
 
Back
Top Bottom