You've blown up players that are in weak exploration ships returning from many weeks/months of exploration?
Deliberate Ramming
- Thread starter shadragon
- Start date
You've blown up players that are in weak exploration ships returning from many weeks/months of exploration?
so, for you its ok if or gank-target loses his ship because he couldn't afford the rebuy, (or millions and weeks worth of exploration data)
you report any player who tries to escape via combat log to get him banned,
but if you suddenly have to rebuy your ship for the full price if someone got you in a revenge kill (note: first you need to be killed) you would justify to combat log on your own?
pot calling kettle black ?
Last edited:
Same thing then, you've limited their play style, pretty hypocritical to then complain if your play style is also hit.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... and I'd expect that the trend spotting system would trivially identify players with ultra-poor karma who suddenly "lost" connection at convenient moments - and the karma system would also seem to be designed to deal with habitual connection losers.
"we don't want a system that imposes restrictions on our play-style" - interesting - given that some players go out of their way to impose their gameplay on others to the financial detriment of the latter.
No not at all, the idea floated was no chance of re buying your ship... lets say for example my FDL its about 70mil total, now lets say I have killed well over 2,000 players in the last 3 weeks my Karma is at the lowest point. When I die I will have to pay a 70mil rebuy for my ship.
That is fair and rewards player killers in smaller ships, but punishes players in larger ships mowing down hundreds of players. Now I could hide out for a week while my karma is improved or run missions in solo or private etc. this type of system would be fine, the only thing I am against is the total loss of a Engineered ship regardless of if the player can buy the entire ship back or not or the whole shadow banning thing.
- - - Updated - - -
The difference is I don't prevent you buying your ship back.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
From FDev's focus on this of late, it is probable that the Open to Non-Open ratio is slowly shifting towards the latter. If that wasn't true, this wouldn't have been a focus from FDev at all. Even Braben commented on it during the charity livestream. Paraphrasing; "We must get people to play in Open."
So, I would surmise that there aren't "plenty enough people as is" in Open, but rather "there are many people in Open as is, but the percentage is falling noticably." Look at Mobius. They have had to forcefully move players from one group (Mobius) to another (Mobius PVE) to accommodate all their new requests for membership, and have even seen the need for creating a third group (Mobius AsiaPacific).
Last edited:
is that your "expert" opinion?
Mobius player will NOT move to open, they want zero PVP at all... no amount of C&P will fix it for them. and I see why, I have spoken to many Mobius players and can say without a doubt they will not move to open.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
What? I thought SDC had a firm "Open-only rule" in place?
Other than that your points are spot-on. A rebuy up to the full ship price is acceptable, but not being able to buy back your Engineered ship is going overboard.
- - - Updated - - -
You are generalising J, just like some on the PvE side do towards PvP.
I have been a Mobius player myself, but now I play almost exclusively in Open and I PvP. Some Mobius players will never move to Open, but some are also just waiting for there to be meaningful consequences to mass murdering in the game. I was waiting for the latter, but decided to move because I don't see it coming any time soon. All the blustering and "meaningful" discussions aside, FDev with Sandro as a spearhead have been saying these exact things for going on two years. Nothing has happened and I don't expect them to anytime soon.
No, I play in private quite often when I don't want to be bothered by other PVPers, Canonn is a group I am mostly in doing stuff out in Maia, as I have stated time and time again I enjoy all aspects of this game... even mining.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
That's a very strange sentiment coming from someone who is in a group that has several members who send snide remarks at others playing in Private Groups/Solo. By that token, everyone should play in PG/Solo, unless they are in their über-Engineered PvP ship. That really makes no sense to me coming from members of SDC, sorry.
Yes it is, that player in the exploration ship could have 100's of millions in UC data. You killing (well exploding) them it's no different from their point of view, they lose so much work and effort so many first discovered tags. So much reason for playing.
They lose all the data, all the effort and it's impossible to fly a PvP ship out to some of the locations an explorer wants to get to. You seem incapable of viewing anything other than your play style, which seems odd.
Anyway - FD are a company, they have to make a profit or the, very real, consequences are unemployment for all staff (in a country that appears to be tearing itself apart - not that I want to make this a political thread, I just want to emphasise the implications here).
I have no idea what data FD are seeing - maybe Sandro's an evil genius with a massive wooden spoon stirring the proverbial and seeing how long this thread can get (I doubt it - well a little bit!), maybe FD have seen players walk away because of PK'ing in unbalanced combat load-outs. Maybe that's a big enough issue that it's impacting ongoing sales, if so then it's time to suck up any egos and realise we're better off that Elite exists at all and hopefully will do for a long time.
If karma cramps your style half the time then move on or put up with it. For someone who just got their name in a book about the game you don't seem to want it to be as popular as it could. Do you really believe players welcome being killed in far weaker ships?
I see no snide remarks from any PVPers in this thread, there are a couple on the forum and they are clearly very young.
Infact the only trolling that was going on was some PVE'ers suggesting people were sadists or psychopaths IRL and that they had no life were shallow pathetic individuals simply for liking PVP.
Just to say my self i'd not mind paying a full rebuy either.
Total loss of ship big nono.
Full rebuy and limit to docking only in anarchy systems, yes i can deal with that.
This coming from a guy who would have to lower my ship class to afford a rebuy currently.
Last edited:
I'm inclined to agree with this. I would imagine that the number of players 'hiding' in PG and Solo is small, most players are in those modes because it's where they want to be.
Honestly though, it's time FD got off the fence with all this. Surely the reason behind this thread is that FD are trying to maintain their "Play your way" motto, but implying that they might kind of punish players if "Their Way" doesn't quite align with how FD thought people would behave.
Just make some rules, then players know where they stand, then while they are about it make a PvE mode so they can have their cooperative gameplay. Open can remain the 'anything goes' mode for those who want it, and it will stand or fail based on that. "We must get people to play in Open". Why? Just get people to play where they are happy, it'll surely be easier in the long run.
Thing is, these suggestions are about changing the risk balance between the strong and the weak in Open. This is about changes to play style for everyone. Getting more players prepared to take the risk of playing in Open requires an environment that feels less hostile for clean players and more hostile to those who try to kill them. If you want change then you have to be prepared to accept a compromise that suits the majority of players.
Change may feel like it is imposing restrictions. But the game is always changing. Think of it as a new meta and adapt.
Personally I like the idea of insurable outcasts because I feel the game needs much more meaningful consequences for actions. For me insurance costs are way to low already and the game doesn't really feel that dangerous. Realistically I think the idea of uninsurable pilots is unlikely to happen because the majority of players, including the PVPers it seems, are averse to setbacks and loss.
I am poking you somewhat. But seriously, if you really care about improving the game for all, then the player killer hardcore are going to have to come to a compromise with others.
What are you talking about I took a PVP fit FDL to Colonia just fine, I explore in a prismatic anaconda just fine, I sometimes PVP in a bi-weave ASP just fine... see the pattern here? I was prepared. any explorer who gets killed like that is not prepared, if they didn't min-max their way with jump range they would make it back just fine.
- - - Updated - - -
No not at all, we want risk, that's why I said my 70mil FDL should cost 70mil to replace should I die being a criminal.
Last edited:
Some one talking sense on the elite forums, i like.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
I am not talking about this thread, I am talking about the history of SDC. InAbsentia has himself posted on this forum stating that anyone in SDC caught in anything other than Open will be kicked from the group. Other members of SDC frequently call Open their Private Group and berate other players for "hiding in Solo/PG." If you haven't seen this, you haven't been around very long.
That is why a comment like J's is both surprising and disappointing to me.