Deliberate Ramming

[besieger]

That's a pretty poor argument now, especially considering you can just chase. It turns into a 'thrill of the hunt' scenario instead. Who's to say you don't just bother them more since they ran instead of just taking their 'noogies'. There are so many analogies that can apply to that kind of argument. You need something stronger than that.

Its not a poor argument at all, if you don't want to be bothered by players Solo or Private is an option, hell even I use it to avoid players.

Assuming the Karma system is introduced and a loss of ship is one of the most harsh punishments for having bad Karma, plus there is ability to regain good Karma - you can just as well be a smart bad boy and don't let your Karma drop down to those drastic levels, so that you will never lose your ship. <shrug>

This is true and its what I would do, it would end up worse for most though... I would just pick my targets, Frontier Streams... one kill no hit to my karma, right?

 

[nrage]

...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.

Can we please stop persisting this falsehood. Sandro mentioned removing insurance (5% of full cost rebuy) and having to pay full cost to get your ship back. People immediately miss-understood that and started saying "losing your ship" when that wasn't what was being suggested. As long as you have the in game cr to rebuy your ship at full cost, then nothing Sandro has suggested would remove your ship from you.

EDIT: Turns out I was wrong

 

[Dbrn47]

Its not a poor argument at all, if you don't want to be bothered by players Solo or Private is an option, hell even I use it to avoid players.

Yes, we've already gone over that. That wasn't what I was responding to. It was the idea that you don't force people to engage you in open, that they can just high wake out. For them to need to high wake out, you have to force them into a position in which they need to. Of course it can all be avoided by being in Solo or Private, but if that's the solution, discussing C&P is a waste of time in the first place. The game needs to progress to something many have been waiting for. People want to play in open without worry of Harry Potter taking their lunch money every (insert time here) and being on your Youtube Highlight Reel.

Again, I'm not really sure why you guys aren't arguing for incentives to PvP along with the C&P. Is salt really all you're interested in PvPing for? Hell, if there were an actual reason to hop into open and fight with or against you guys, I would probably be into it. Right now, there is legitimately nothing but negatives for me to do so. In tandem, I also think that it shouldn't all be negatives for PvP in C&P either.

 

[nrage]

So you feel that me attacking a clean player is reason to ban?

You've simplified the idea here. If the player attacks clean player ships in non-anarchy systems and those ships are much less powerful than the attacker, and they do this hundreds (perhaps a thousand) times and through all of this they ignore the warnings and other repercussions the game throws at them for their anti-social and damaging behaviour, then, yes, if nothing else has worked I would support banning such a player from OPEN play (not from PG or SOLO, however).

The reason for the ban is that this player is having a negative impact on the experience of far too many other players.

 

[rootsrat]

This is true and its what I would do, it would end up worse for most though... I would just pick my targets, Frontier Streams... one kill no hit to my karma, right?

And that's fair enough to me - they'd bring that on themselves

Effectively, you'd be killing less players = less whining on the forums = more people in Open. Theoretically

 

[Maxmilian Czhilli]

Can we please stop persisting this falsehood. Sandro mentioned removing insurance (5% of full cost rebuy) and having to pay full cost to get your ship back. People immediately miss-understood that and started saying "losing your ship" when that wasn't what was being suggested. As long as you have the in game cr to rebuy your ship at full cost, then nothing Sandro has suggested would remove your ship from you.

Actually:

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.

Remember this is all talk at the moment, people kicking ideas around. And it's remarkably good natured and constructive. Nothing is off the table right now and people should be encouraged to come up with ideas that even Sandro hasn't thought of. Hell it doesn't even have to be a karma system.

 

[nrage]

Justified when considering it would change their original pitch of the game?

Can we please quit with this weak sauce argument. The marketing stated you could hunt commanders, that is to say you can do that action if you want. It said nothing about what consequences you would face and it certainly didn't say that the consequences would never change.

 

[rootsrat]

This is true and its what I would do, it would end up worse for most though... I would just pick my targets, Frontier Streams... one kill no hit to my karma, right?

So, on a more serious note, assuming that would be the case (Karma + losing your ship as the most harsh punishment for extremely bad Karma + counter in a form of some ability to regain good Karma) - would you be still opposed to that system?

 

[nrage]

for the PVP community, not so much

The proposed changes will have no effect on the PvP community. The Griefer and murderhobo community however, different story.

For starters, it is sensible to assume that there will be no karma effect if you both have report crimes off.

It is sensible to assume that if you're in an anarchy, same thing.

Even if you do neither of those things, provided you're both in similarly engineered ships, there will be no karma effect.

It will only be those players who repeatedly kill clean commanders with report crimes on in significantly weaker ships who see a karma effect. To me, you can't really even justify calling that PvP as there is no "versus" there at all given one player has no hope of winning and at best might flee.

- - - Updated - - -

...this whole Karma won't even work. I already explained how it could be gamed with ease.

You did? I asked you to and got no reply.. unless I missed it. Can you explain again, exactly how you think someone will game the karma system Sandro proposed. At least then, he can use that information to construct a more robust system.

- - - Updated - - -

its anti-social behaviour to kill another player... now I have heard everything.

No offence, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to stop straw manning the suggested karma system like this. Otherwise, people are going to think you don't understand what is being proposed, which might result in them writing off your points as missunderstandings.

 

[Gunnet]

Can we please quit with this weak sauce argument. The marketing stated you could hunt commanders, that is to say you can do that action if you want. It said nothing about what consequences you would face and it certainly didn't say that the consequences would never change.

Just to add to this, it also didn't say that you could hunt any and every player. "Just hunt other commanders" could easily be a reference to PvP bounty hunting. It wouldn't even be incompatible with hard PvP flagging, since you could still hunt other players who wished to engage in that gameplay.

 

[Arguendo]

Tbh for a lot of us PvP-ers this type of thing didn't survive 2.1 RNGineering.

I understand all that, and I definitely understand why people switch modes. That however also leads to those players losing their right to complain about other players "hiding" in Solo/PG. Either always fly in Open, even when doing non-combat stuff, or quityerbit€hing. If the only time you're in Open is when in a fully kitted PvP-ship ganking other players for lulz, then you don't get much respect.

*general "you" throughout the post btw

 

[nrage]

..in the way that you would loose your ship

Sandro DID NOT SAY THIS. (Edit: turns out I was wrong) The idea he floated was that you would not get insurance, so would have to pay full price for your ship. The implication was also that this was an effect which would not kick in immediately but would scale up to this, meaning, that for you to lose your ship this way you would have to effectively "fly without rebuy". Can we stop spreading this missinformation now please.

.. or be banned.

Again, this was a last resort measure.

Each of them, PVPers of various degrees, some of them hardly kill any lower tier players, some of them pure Player Killers like my self. Each of them said they would quit.

The PvPers who do not kill lower tier players would not see any of the karma effects. Only the PKers like yourself would notice karma effects piling up on you, and presumably you'd stop at that point. If not, then any losses/bans you suffer are your own fault.

I'll be honest.. I would not feel at all sad if some of the worst PKers we have in this community did quit. It would make just about no difference to player numbers, and would have a disproportionately positive effect on the game as a whole. This is just my opinion, I don't have any numbers to back this up. I simply presume there aren't too many players who are (or are roleplaying <roll eyes>) sociopaths. Again, my opinion.

 

[besieger]

So, on a more serious note, assuming that would be the case (Karma + losing your ship as the most harsh punishment for extremely bad Karma + counter in a form of some ability to regain good Karma) - would you be still opposed to that system?

Yes I would, but no because it would affect me, I would simply move to killing exploration ships and choice targets in the bubble. RIP karma system right there. Explorers as detailed in this very thread tend to be the one worst hit by murder hobos.

The proposed changes will have no effect on the PvP community. The Griefer and murderhobo community however, different story.

For starters, it is sensible to assume that there will be no karma effect if you both have report crimes off.

It is sensible to assume that if you're in an anarchy, same thing.

Even if you do neither of those things, provided you're both in similarly engineered ships, there will be no karma effect.

It will only be those players who repeatedly kill clean commanders with report crimes on in significantly weaker ships who see a karma effect. To me, you can't really even justify calling that PvP as there is no "versus" there at all given one player has no hope of winning and at best might flee.

- - - Updated - - -


You did? I asked you to and got no reply.. unless I missed it. Can you explain again, exactly how you think someone will game the karma system Sandro proposed. At least then, he can use that information to construct a more robust system.

- - - Updated - - -



No offence, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to stop straw manning the suggested karma system like this. Otherwise, people are going to think you don't understand what is being proposed, which might result in them writing off your points as missunderstandings.

1. Its clear you no idea how organic PVP works.
2. How do you distinguish between a weaker ship and a more powerful ship? I have took on Corvettes in an adder...
3. yes I did...
4. Check the source of that reply... you might find the person in question is trying to be an arm chair psychologist.

 

[nrage]

the highlighted issue at least should be clear: none. karma should build up (very) slowly just for playing (edit: or in rl time, why not). any action causing positive karma is prone to exploit and abuse rendering the whole karma system ineffective.

I tend to agree.. perhaps the only way to reset your karma would be to reset your commander? On the other hand, what if someone does decide to turn their life around, so to speak? Should there be a way for them to do that? Perhaps some number of positive activities with NO negative ones at all might cause a gradual rise in karma?

- - - Updated - - -

For some, maybe. It's also a "not interested" activity for others.

+1 to this. I'm simply not interested in PvP, it just seems fairly dull to me given the fairly narrow range of builds which are effective etc. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy PvE combat in Elite and even CQC. I have a fully engineered Corvette. But, I have limited game time and when I have a goal in mind I don't want "organic PvP" to interrupt me doing what I want to do.

 

[Gunnet]

Yes I would, but no because it would affect me, I would simply move to killing exploration ships and choice targets in the bubble. RIP karma system right there. Explorers as detailed in this very thread tend to be the one worst hit by murder hobos.

You see, this is actually constructive feedback to offer to Frontier. Now that you've provided feedback on one particular way to game the system, they can look at ways to resolve that issue. For example, they could dramatically increase the karma impact of ganking a ship with typical exploration characteristics and/or carrying exploration data. Not sure exactly what else you're referring to as a "choice target", but I'm certain similar solutions could be found for them no matter what they are.

 

[nrage]

But I'm there to haul cargo for CG - do you suggest I do it in a PVP kitted FDL?

And with all due respect - I didn't lose until my ship blows up. I know how to run away, I did it many times, recently from 3 FDL's in a Python loaded up with cargo, made it to high wake with 20-something hull integrity left

99% of my game time is in Open. (As an anecdote I was even recently killed by Harry and his 2 friends at an alien wreck site. Luckily - a split second after my ship blew up I had a disconnection error. After logging back in, instead of a rebuy screen, I found myself back at the planet side with 38% hull still intact. I contacted Harry to confirm it wasn't a CL and he's actually seen my ship blowing up on his screen too. We chatted a bit and went our own ways).

I'm not talking about the definition of PVP. Plus, It's all semantics really. I'm talking about putting things in certain context. To me attacking a ship that's only choice is to run away is not really "PVP". Especially when done for poos and giggles, rather than to for example stop a CG from being completed for RP reasons. Anyway, that's just my opinion - and you guys have yours.

::EDIT::



I only played EVE for 3 hours maybe, but basing my opinion on the reviews and various stories/articles I read - pretty much, yeah And I really would not like Elite to become something like that. While I accept Open has it dangers, there is a certain line between being social and having fun with other players in game (even when it means killing other players or being killed for others) and just being an antisocial twunk

I'll give you an example - you have killed me recently (see above) and I found it fun, even though I lost my ship (well, I didn't really due to an error, but I lost the encounter, and I have seen a rebuy screen many times before. It has never made me hide in Solo). That was fun, that was part of the dangers of being in Open. I enjoyed that, despite the defeat.

A few days later I was with couple of mates at a Barnacles site. Our ships were parked nearby, as we were there only with a short visit. All of a sudden a Cmdr logged in, right next to our ship and lo' and behold first thing he did with his PVP-kitted Cutter was to blow our defenceless ships to smitherins. We had no chance to counter his actions, no chance to escape - we couldn't do anything to prevent that (one of us managed to dismiss their ship, 2 were blown up). That was not fun, that's just intentionally causing grief to other players that you are fully aware can't do anything about it - as opposed to ganking, which you flawlessly performed on me.

Perhaps you don't see the difference, but to me there is a massive difference in those 2 scenarios.

And I am of an opinion that griefing is just as bad as combat logging, in fact combat logging IS griefing too in my eyes.

+1 to everything here.. could not have said it better myself.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Playing in these different modes does not mean you are a lesser player or anything like that, if open where anything goes is not for you there are very good alternatives already in place.

Unfortunately while Mobius is good, it's still less good than open without PvP would be, simply based in the number of commanders present.

This situation is also "unfair" in that it is biased by the fact that players who don't want PvP are forced into Solo/PG while PvP players get to stay in Open.. what would you think if this was reversed? Would you be as supportive of a PG for PvP?

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

In my entire time on elite i've come across maybe 20-30 cmdrs with a bounty on their head. Most of those abuse combat logging or they FSD out the normal way as soon as I appear or they are in wings of 4 when I play solo.
20-30 is not alot considering I've probably killed some where in the region of 2000ish.
Elite is a very large game, very very large in game map terms even when we are talking the bubble.

I've been spreading the news of this thread in game and on discord some people go, NAH that will never come in its just FDev talking as per usual, others take it more seriously.
However.. each of them when confronted with the fact that if this was implimented, in the way that you would loose your ship or be banned. Each of them, PVPers of various degrees, some of them hardly kill any lower tier players, some of them pure Player Killers like my self. Each of them said they would quit.


We are all for a better CNP system.
I even support really harsh penalties.
But.
Removal of ships, banning of players as if they were cheating or breaking game rules.
Goes way too far.


If you support the idea of Ship removal or shadow banning, you are saying you want us to leave. It's not a threat or anything its just that is what will happen. If FDev want to turn this into a more pure PVE experience with very limited PVP then they have the right to do that this is their game but of course, obviously anyone who enjoys the pvp are going to leave its kinda that simple.
The karma system can be changed as sandro said its up for speculation.
I don't mind repercussions so long as its manageable, I view CNP as a thing to deter ganking for people not committed not as a way to outright remove it.
I will never stop ganking as long as I play.
I came to elite just to do this, no other reason. I fly for a job i have great interest in games about piloting however if it is reduced to a casual PVE experience I am afraid Elite does not stand up enough to be able to keep my attention.


To put it short.

PVPers will not stop PVPing no matter what system is implemented, they will only quit if it becomes apparent you can't actually do it to that extent any more.
PVPers support a change in the CNP to make the risk much greater as well there is not really any risk right now. Ideas have been suggested, Fdev should work with ALL players and not just people who's only wish is to remove a portion of the game they never participate in.

DaaasRoyyyt

- - - Updated - - -

Here's my order of preference for the outcome of a karma system, descending from most to least desirable:

• eradicates griefing while still permitting some non-consensual but fair and immersive PvP
• completely erases non-consensual PvP and gankers move on to just doing consensual duels and wing fights
• drives gankers fully out of the game with ship loss and shadowbans
• fails at its core goal and allows griefing to continue unchecked at the expense of the majority of players

In other words, stopping the griefing is non-negotiable. How much force has to be employed to do that is ultimately up to you.

Your first option I fully support, anything else other games already do better and if i wanted it id be playing them. No Mans Sky for instance.

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

I don't agree.

Those who have been exposed to PvP from the get go are much better prepared for it than those who avoid it until they feel 'ready', because nothing other than combat against other CMDRs can prepare on for combat against other CMDRs.



An over abundance of fair fights is intrinsically counter-immersive.

Anyone who wants a game setting that makes sense will find something seriously wrong when most hostile CMDR encounters they didn't initiate are not heavily stacked against them, and will try to stack the odds in their favor as much as possible when they have cause to initiate hostilities with others.



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.

Pro Tip: Try switching your lights off next time.

 

[nrage]

No because being able to shoot others is a game core fonctionnality of the multiplier mode.

It is not PvP focus players who force people in a playstyle : It is the game itself.

Is it though? There is a lot more to Elite than combat, which is itself a small part of the game, and PvP is only a small part of that small part of the game. Many, people play Elite and don't do any combat at all, many more certainly aren't interested in any PvP combat.

The very idea that "because there are other people around" (multiplayer mode) "shooting them MUST be the intended activity" (core functionality) is, IMO, narrow minded. I get the impression it's not what the developers foresaw themselves (they were definitely naive on that score.. I mean, all they had to do was look at Eve Online). Sure, you can shoot other players, but you don't have to and there are many other ways to interact with other players, all of which I personally enjoy more than I would shooting them.

THIS is the underlying issue Elite has been dealing with since day one, there are many different people playing Elite, with many different interests and goals and the PvP player base is only one slice of that population. The PROBLEM is really that a PvP player can force their own interests on another player, but the same is not true in reverse. Just imagine if an explorer could pull a PvP player into their ship and make them sit through a load of planet scans.. the outrage that would occur. Or, if a miner could force a PvP player to sit and mine rocks with them.. makes me chuckle just thinking about it.

No player has the right to adversely affect the enjoyment of the game for a large number of players, period. Whatever action they take to do that, ought to be prevented if possible, and if not it ought to be tracked and suitable repercussions employed to discourage it. That's what is required from a Karma system.

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

Ship balance being what it is is FDs fault, I would much rather have a more even term between all ships and even have traders be durable atm you have massive, gigantic differences between ships that it is not even funny.
If you know how to escape and have good situational awareness then you don't need any system to fall back on to prevent PVP encounters.


No matter what you say about PVP the definition is the definition, it's PVE'ers who put the cringy label of 'griefing' on pvp encounters they do not favor (for some that is any pvp encounter).

What people are not brining up here but its true no matter what people say.
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.

Playing in these different modes does not mean you are a lesser player or anything like that, if open where anything goes is not for you there are very good alternatives already in place.

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.

DaaasRoyt

- - - Updated - - -

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).

There would only be bounty hunting with no criminals under this system, crime should be an option, but it should have risks, not sure fire penalties but really severe risks.