Deliberate Ramming

[rootsrat]

The solution to your problem here is to team up and fight back, I have seen it and done it myself. I wouldn't be a PVPer if I didn't decide to stand up to players like that. As I said before no amount of C&P will fix that encounter too.

I'm not much of a PVP-er, but I did in fact assemble a team, found the guy and even manged to interdict him, but his Cutter was really well built and he just ran away. I set up a contract for his head in my group, that currently pays 125 kk Cr for a video documenting the destruction of his ship

It's very hard to find an SRV that doesn't want to be found, without hostile SRVs on the ground at the same time.

Read again what I've put - we were at the barncles site, in the middle of the day and he's suddenly logged back in right next to us in a PVP kitted Cutter. There was no chance we could have survived.

::EDIT::

You are correct, i assumed it when i should not. Excuse me for that (i made the same mistake as people who assume my mentality or reasons through the way i play the game) :/

But yeah i can understand you felt griefed but you can't expect a SRV to compet against a ship. It will always be 100% unfair. But loosing a SRV is nothing compared to loosing a ship.

I agree, but that's not really the point, the point is that to me his actions was pure griefing, rather than playing the game. Ganking or PK, I can understand, it is part of the game and in Open it's fair play. What he did was just pure malice, as he must have known we stood no chance whatsoever. That is the difference I'm talking about. This part of the discussion emerged from argument regarding an idea to punish certain action with a shadow ban, rather than in game measures - and my opinion is that yes, they should, because there is a line between playing a muderer in game and being a male-chickenwomble.

 

[besieger]

It's more the fact, that it would create a de facto player group with exclusive access to certain systems. Access that even newbs would eventually be unable enter.

Additionally the BGS and Powers would have to ignore these systems because they couldn't be flipped.

It's just a really really bad and incredibly dangerous idea. In a game where we're all supposed to be nobodies, elevating some CMDR's is exactly how you cause problems amongst the player-base.

With the attraction of the "meta game" most easily seen in Eve, giving any player groups power would be greeted with a lot of complaints/requests for similar areas.

its for game play... this "de facto" is just rubbish, the whole idea of the Galactic Academy is to filter new players into groups who teach them how to play the game... they are not forced to stick to a group, its also not giveing players more power... its a game-play change that would prevent players from mowing down hundreds of sidewinders for the "lulz" and improve player retention.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In elite we already have a proven way to avoid any unfavorable PVP, that is solo mode and if you want to see the occasional cmdr, the popular and great idea that is mobius.
I support mobius alot, it is a great idea and I am glad people who really just wana do their thing go there.
However I am at the same time as you can see greatly for defending the integrity of open being a very dangerous place where you must suspect any cmdr might decide to attack and kill you.

Why should players leave the only game mode with an unlimited population? Frontier have not chosen to offer any additional Open modes (although the possibility of these is included in the KS design pitch). Sandro spoke on this earlier:

We want to try our hardest to let Commanders enjoy the game how they want to. However, and it's a big however: Open is a shared game space that we want as many folk to enjoy as possible. We have to decide what is best for the greater good when there are conflicts of interest between Commanders. Just because there are Private Group and Solo mode, does not necessarily mean that Open should be without codes of conduct. We don't tolerate racism, for example.

.... and a karma system would not stop any player attacking any other player - although it might make them think twice before doing so.

 

[Morbad]

Read again what I've put - we were at the barncles site, in the middle of the day and he's suddenly logged back in right next to us in a PVP kitted Cutter. There was no chance we could have survived.

If it was the middle of the day, there was no reason for your lights to have been on, and even a ship appearing right next to you could easily have missed you. You can also generally see a newly logged in ship before it can see you. At least some of you should have been able to escape.

 

[imski]

its for game play... this "de facto" is just rubbish, the whole idea of the Galactic Academy is to filter new players into groups who teach them how to play the game... they are not forced to stick to a group, its also not giveing players more power... its a game-play change that would prevent players from mowing down hundreds of sidewinders for the "lulz" and improve player retention.

Giving a certain group of players access to a system would make it a player-group.

As it stands a better way to stop idiots mowing down newb sideys would be to make anyone doing it face consequences, which is why FD seem to have landed on the karma idea. No such system will be perfect, but if it prevents 90% of the problems and people come back to open it'll be a better and more sustainable solution than hoping certain individuals keep playing the game.

 

[Javert]

It's more the fact, that it would create a de facto player group with exclusive access to certain systems. Access that even newbs would eventually be unable enter.

Additionally the BGS and Powers would have to ignore these systems because they couldn't be flipped.

It's just a really really bad and incredibly dangerous idea. In a game where we're all supposed to be nobodies, elevating some CMDR's is exactly how you cause problems amongst the player-base.

With the attraction of the "meta game" most easily seen in Eve, giving any player groups power would be greeted with a lot of complaints/requests for similar areas.

Again - I'm not disputing that you have a point in general. However, I'm guessing this would be more a single area around the starter systems, and the only people allowed in would be a) New players with less than x hours and who haven't left the area yet and b) Trusted mentors.

The category b would not be a player group - it would be people that were hand selected by FD, in a similar way to forum moderators on a forum (and no I'm not suggesting it would be the same people) - and their remit would be to teach people how the game works and what all the possibilities are. It would not be their remit to recruit players into particular groups. If Besieger wanted to be one of those, he would be held to a code of conduct around it, and quite possibly would not be selected in the first place because of his prior in game activities - that would be up to FD.

So for sure yes - any such proposal would involve and organized system to recruit and select trusted mentors for new players - whether FD would want to take that on is another question.

Now as I've said, FD might agree with you that this is a terrible idea, but I quite like it so far as I'm not seeing that it's the inevitable slippery slope that you describe.

See this is the issue everyone jumps to conclusions about us PVP folk but why is our share of the player base growing so fast? we are introducing players into the game and then into PVP, some enjoy it other not so much and go do their thing... I offered to help train CoR after the 29th event, I constantly help new players get into the game.

Its just the only side anyone takes notice of is the murder hobo side.

Other than the citation needed posted by others, if that's really what you are doing and you are doing it in a balanced way, that's good for the game in itself. However if you are then seeking out those same players a few days later and having a quick chat with them, and then kill them, this might actually bring the game into bad reputation (I'm not suggesting that's what you do, but FD would be wise to consider this risk ^^^^).

 

[rootsrat]

If it was the middle of the day, there was no reason for your lights to have been on, and even a ship appearing right next to you could easily have missed you. You can also generally see a newly logged in ship before it can see you. At least some of you should have been able to escape.

I'm sorry but you weren't there mate, so you couldn't possibly know the situation. I am a fairly experienced player (Premium Beta 2, 1300 hrs on record), so I know the game pretty well. Believe me when I say we stood no chance.

 

[imski]

Again - I'm not disputing that you have a point in general. However, I'm guessing this would be more a single area around the starter systems, and the only people allowed in would be a) New players with less than x hours and who haven't left the area yet and b) Trusted mentors.

The category b would not be a player group - it would be people that were hand selected by FD, in a similar way to forum moderators on a forum (and no I'm not suggesting it would be the same people) - and their remit would be to teach people how the game works and what all the possibilities are. It would not be their remit to recruit players into particular groups. If Besieger wanted to be one of those, he would be held to a code of conduct around it, and quite possibly would not be selected in the first place because of his prior in game activities - that would be up to FD.

So for sure yes - any such proposal would involve and organized system to recruit and select trusted mentors for new players - whether FD would want to take that on is another question.

Now as I've said, FD might agree with you that this is a terrible idea, but I quite like it so far as I'm not seeing that it's the inevitable slippery slope that you describe.



Other than the citation needed posted by others, if that's really what you are doing and you are doing it in a balanced way, that's good for the game in itself. However if you are then seeking out those same players a few days later and having a quick chat with them, and then kill them, this might actually bring the game into bad reputation (I'm not suggesting that's what you do, but FD would be wise to consider this risk ^^^^).

What this game needs more than anything for newbs is financial rewards for doing the tutorial missions.

If after doing them you got enough cash to maybe upgrade your FSD and maybe some better but basic kit for the sidewinder it would do a lot to help. Provide an engineer contact within them and once they've done them they're educated. After that let them fend for themselves but at least they could learn basic techniques in safety.

Lots of other MMO do it to great effect.

 

[besieger]

Giving a certain group of players access to a system would make it a player-group.

As it stands a better way to stop idiots mowing down newb sideys would be to make anyone doing it face consequences, which is why FD seem to have landed on the karma idea. No such system will be perfect, but if it prevents 90% of the problems and people come back to open it'll be a better and more sustainable solution than hoping certain individuals keep playing the game.

As I said before since you seem to be failing to comprehend what I am saying quite clearly, it would not be open to just SDC or AA or any single group, there would be independents there too. the system would serve to act as a "safe space" for new players a tutorial island, that approved players could help with and prevent others from killing new players over and over.

Again - I'm not disputing that you have a point in general. However, I'm guessing this would be more a single area around the starter systems, and the only people allowed in would be a) New players with less than x hours and who haven't left the area yet and b) Trusted mentors.

The category b would not be a player group - it would be people that were hand selected by FD, in a similar way to forum moderators on a forum (and no I'm not suggesting it would be the same people) - and their remit would be to teach people how the game works and what all the possibilities are. It would not be their remit to recruit players into particular groups. If Besieger wanted to be one of those, he would be held to a code of conduct around it, and quite possibly would not be selected in the first place because of his prior in game activities - that would be up to FD.

So for sure yes - any such proposal would involve and organized system to recruit and select trusted mentors for new players - whether FD would want to take that on is another question.

Now as I've said, FD might agree with you that this is a terrible idea, but I quite like it so far as I'm not seeing that it's the inevitable slippery slope that you describe.



Other than the citation needed posted by others, if that's really what you are doing and you are doing it in a balanced way, that's good for the game in itself. However if you are then seeking out those same players a few days later and having a quick chat with them, and then kill them, this might actually bring the game into bad reputation (I'm not suggesting that's what you do, but FD would be wise to consider this risk ^^^^).

Given I send most players to GCI no, I do not hunt them down later to kill them.... most of them have become good PVP players, and I have made many friends.

 

[CMDR Heisenberg B. Damned]

Well that's a chunk of Saturday gone trying to catch up!

OK to answer Sandro's main question - no I don't think just killing clean players repeatedly is a good thing. In general but more importantly in terms of the player base for the game.

As besieger seems to be angry enough to quit the game because (after what appears will be countless warnings) they may get their highly modded ship taken off them, so too will someone who's flown many thousands of light years be just as angry that they get blown out of space before they get chance to dock and sell the UC data for no other reason than they're a hollow icon on the scanner. I wonder how many players Elite D has lost this way already.

Both engineering and exploration involve a huge amount of time and effort. To lose a ship one way is because of repeatedly ignoring warnings (if this ever gets implemented) that they need to cool back down on killing players in less well equipped/engineered ships, the other is just playing the game (no constant warnings from FDev that they're doing something wrong by not being in a god rolled PvP engineered FDL).

This shouldn't dissuade genuine PvP where both sides stick a chance to win, just stop massively outmatched slaughter.

Seems to me the karma system, watching trend data from players, is pretty well thought out. It allows genuine mistakes to happen (honest officer I just hit the thrust up button to align with the slot and it appears to have taken me over the 100 speed limit) whist tracking consistent behaviour that FD have deemed antisocial. It gives plenty of warning, an increased level of inconvenience for the perp over time and a much better chance of survival (limited damage) to the new players/victims.

Personally I'd actually like areas of the bubble that are dangerous to go to. Where Anarchy means just that. I'd also like some incentive to get commanders to those systems, like a super rare at the station, if you can make it in and out then the rewards are high - not sure how this would balance over all three modes but for Open make it so commanders on the "naughty step" are free to move around these anarchy systems but face a very hard time in high security. And as Sandro suggested forget about using the karma system in these areas - provided FD can also make sure we don't exclusively end up with only anarchy systems (oh and make deep space not anarchy or every long distance passenger mission will suddenly become fair game).

Minor point, someone mentioned players switching "Report Crimes Against Me" to on just as they were about to get hit - as a precaution, if implementing karma, then put a timer on enabling it and make that visible to anyone targeting that player. Doubt it's much of an issue at present, it'll only really be used at events where combat/ramming is intended but some will use it to try and hurt others karma.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As I said before since you seem to be failing to comprehend what I am saying quite clearly, it would not be open to just SDC or AA or any single group, there would be independents there too. the system would serve to act as a "safe space" for new players a tutorial island, that approved players could help with and prevent others from killing new players over and over.

With the karma system it'd be pretty easy to only allow players with very good karma to re-enter a starter system.

 

[imski]

As I said before since you seem to be failing to comprehend what I am saying quite clearly, it would not be open to just SDC or AA or any single group, there would be independents there too. the system would serve to act as a "safe space" for new players a tutorial island, that approved players could help with and prevent others from killing new players over and over.



Given I send most players to GCI no, I do not hunt them down later to kill them.... most of them have become good PVP players, and I have made many friends.

Believe it or not, I completely understand what you're saying. You can be members of more than one group though, and this suggestion would create a "Mentor" player group with unique access to newb systems. It would eventually cause issues as once the principal of locking systems to player groups was established it would likely not end there.

Additionally filtering newbs into groups that teach PvP would result in a tacit approval of that gameplay style above overs from FD.

It's just a bad idea all over. By all means help newbs, just do it in open where newbs can learn from whomever they wish rather than "approved players".

ETA: It would also have an impact on the mission system for regular players, no missions could be allowed to end there, no factions could be based there and powers couldn't control them.

E.G. If you lock the system on an hours played basis, what happens if you took a mission that requires you to return but you exceed hours played and so get locked out?

 

[Javert]

There is one other point here that we aren't really seeing as well.

IF this could be made to work, it might encourage more people to play in open mode. This would mean that there are more players for criminals and murderers to target.

It would also mean that the chances of any one particular player being targeted by Besieger or other attackers, is less, because he has more targets to choose from.

Now I'm guessing that nobody here wants less players in the game in total - everyone probably wants the game to be successful. I'm also guessing that, all other things being equal, the PVP centric players also want more people in open and think that's a good thing.

So I'm also thinking that one element of a karma system might be the tracking of who you are killing and where for example:
- Are you killing the same players over and over again?
- Are you killing many many players in the same system in a short space of time who are all in much weaker ships than you?
- Are you killing player ships that are not carrying any cargo?
- Are you taking part in a legitimate blockade of a CG system?
- Are you killing players very close to (or in) a no fire zone?
- What is the relative strength of the ships you are attacking vs your own?
- Is this a completely unbalanced situation in other ways (like the one rootsrat described above)?
- Is the player you are attacking a new player less than x hours?
- Is the player you are attacking a much lower combat rank than you?
- Is the player you are attacking wanted for general activity and/or player kills? (in this system, or any system)?
- Are you wanted for player kills and/or general activity in this system / any system?

There are lots of possible criteria here, and then there is also the question of what the sanctions should all be, and how quickly they could kick in. Getting a temporary shadow ban, if that was even part of the measures, might be something incredibly difficult to get to - it might be the equivalent of getting to Elite in combat in terms of criminal activity, and even then might only be for a week or a day. This would all have to be thought through.

My main point though is that if there were lot more players in open, the chances of murdering the exact same player multiple times in a short space of time would be much lower (unless you were actually trying to do that on purpose).

 

[Reav]

Counter to popular belief open has plenty enough people as is.

If people can't handle being killed nothing will change about which mode they play in. As they will still be killed.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Counter to popular belief open has plenty enough people as is.

If people can't handle being killed nothing will change about which mode they play in. As they will still be killed.

That would depend on whether being destroyed by low-karma CMDR resulted in a lower rebuy cost for the targeted player.

 

[Reav]

That would depend on whether being destroyed by low-karma CMDR resulted in a lower rebuy cost for the targeted player.

That is about the only good idea you have typed so far and should be implemented.
As i said before another mmo i play BDO, used to have exp loss on death to players, now they removed that and the only thing you loose is a small amount of time rather than 4 hours worth of exp.
Lower rebuys is one thing that SHOULD be implemented, at least for pvp deaths.

 

[Maxmilian Czhilli]

CNP needs to be changed not because PVP must be prevented like some desire but more because it lacks any real consequence when it should have one. Just not one that removes people from the game, just one that makes them think twice where as right now you don't need to think about risk at all.

Sandro set out some potential risks in suggestions about a karma system. Not for all PVP, but in cases such as continuous noob ganking and ramming games at stations.

But it seems many PVP players find these risks to be too high. This seems somewhat ironic coming from players who often call PVE players risk averse.

What Sandro is trying to do is balance things. He is responding to voices in the community that risk balance between hunter and prey is out of kilter. You can still play ramming games and gank noobs if you want. But the more you do it the more risky your play style becomes: it gets harder to find places to dock, your insurance costs go up, you may even put your god tier PVP ship on the line. You just need to manage those risks. If you are unable to that and leave then you will just be replaced by PVP players who can manage those risks better than you can.

It's kind of funny to see the level of upset at the prospect at loosing a pixel spaceship. If you can't handle the idea of your highly engineered spaceship being gone for ever then don't wreck you karma. And if you are prepared to loose your pretty things then gank away. It's currently far too easy to play at being the scum of the galaxy (no offence ), it should really take some proper psychotic role play, high level survival skills and/or a devil may care attitude. Imagine the adrenaline rush of being one of the most wanted commanders in the galaxy, flying the over engineered uber PVP ship you've sweated hours over, knowing that death means loosing it. That would really sort the pros from the casuals.

If you gank hundreds of weak, clean players then payback should be a ... Murder hobo is a legitimate play style, but I think in order to achieve some balance we really need to restrict the numbers to those who are prepared to live with much higher levels of risk. Remember it's only a game, surely some of you have the attitude and balls to rise to such a challenge.

[edit]
I know some players are terrified of shadow banning. That should really only be a last resort for those engaged in targeted harassment and bullying.
[/edit]

 

[Morbad]

With the karma system it'd be pretty easy to only allow players with very good karma to re-enter a starter system.

What if they never left?

That is about the only good idea you have typed so far and should be implemented.
As i said before another mmo i play BDO, used to have exp loss on death to players, now they removed that and the only thing you loose is a small amount of time rather than 4 hours worth of exp.
Lower rebuys is one thing that SHOULD be implemented, at least for pvp deaths.

I think this is a horrible idea.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What if they never left?

Then PF "Insurance Adjusters" could deal with them locally.

 

[besieger]

Sandro set out some potential risks in suggestions about a karma system. Not for all PVP, but in cases such as continuous noob ganking and ramming games at stations.

But it seems many PVP players find these risks to be too high. This seems somewhat ironic coming from players who often call PVE players risk averse.

What Sandro is trying to do is balance things. He is responding to voices in the community that risk balance between hunter and prey is out of kilter. You can still play ramming games and gank noobs if you want. But the more you do it the more risky your play style becomes: it gets harder to find places to dock, your insurance costs go up, you may even put your god tier PVP ship on the line. You just need to manage those risks. If you are unable to that and leave then you will just be replaced by PVP players who can manage those risks better than you can.

It's kind of funny to see the level of upset at the prospect at loosing a pixel spaceship. If you can't handle the idea of your highly engineered spaceship being gone for ever then don't wreck you karma. And if you are prepared to loose your pretty things then gank away. It's currently far too easy to play at being the scum of the galaxy (no offence ), it should really take some proper psychotic role play, high level survival skills and/or a devil may care attitude. Imagine the adrenaline rush of being one of the most wanted commanders in the galaxy, flying the over engineered uber PVP ship you've sweated hours over, knowing that death means loosing it. That would really sort the pros from the casuals.

If you gank hundreds of weak, clean players then payback should be a ... Murder hobo is a legitimate play style, but I think in order to achieve some balance we really need to restrict the numbers to those who are prepared to live with much higher levels of risk. Remember it's only a game, surely some of you have the attitude and balls to rise to such a challenge.

[edit]
I know some players are terrified of shadow banning. That should really only be a last resort for those engaged in targeted harassment and bullying.
[/edit]

The amount of combat logging would sky rocket over night if there was a chance of losing your Engineered 300 hours ship... FACT. The devs don't understand the level of effort that goes into these ships to then have them removed because of our play style is one that many players will simply "log out of", 15 or 30 sec.. easy...

We all want a better C&P System but we don't want a system that just imposes restrictions on our play-style, Removing docking and the like is a great idea loss of a ship is not, unless you don't have the rebuy then its your own fault.