Deliberate Ramming

[Robert Maynard]

Its really ironic you demand people change the way they have been playing since launch just because you and your kind are selfish enough to constantly badger about demands.

Sandro has been talking about stronger penalties for particular PvP behaviours for over a year - it seems that Frontier are considering implementing them (no ETA, no guarantee, as Sandro would say) - that's Frontier's call - it's their game - and they probably want to have a game that most players can enjoy as much as possible. Of course, this means that some players may not enjoy the repercussions associated with their in-game behaviours - c'est la vie - you can't please all of the people all of the time (but you can try to please as many people for as much of the time as possible)....

 

[Galactic Fork]

Hell Commander besieger!

As we're speaking hypothetically here, we would want to avoid shadow banning where possible. As an example, for a Commander that repeatedly killed clean ships that were significantly weaker than them, I'd rather see a removal of insurance cover (so when a ship is destroyed it's gone, or you have to pay the full price to get it back), docking privileges rescinded at all starports and outposts except those in anarchy jurisdictions and game applied Pilot Federation bounties rather than a shadow ban.

Of course, we'd always reserve the right to apply out of game measures if we felt they were justified.

Rather than just making a general punishment, it could be expanded to make the whole experience fuller. Expand it to piracy as well, but add a lot of gameplay features to piracy. Those who attack clean pilots (NPC or PC) are branded criminal and wanted throughout the bubble and lose their insurance. Expelled from the Pilots Federation, but joining the Criminal Underground (tm). No insurance but being a criminal would add perks.

In addition to being able to dock at anarchy stations, CU members would have exclusively criminal stations that clean people won't be allowed to dock at (or will be shot out of the sky on approach). Even some in higher security systems, the exact location only known to the higher ranked criminals. Add nastier criminal modules like the ability to rip modules from disabled/destroyed ships for attaching to your own ship. Or the ability to tug disabled ships to chop shops on criminal stations.


Attacking stronger vessels rather than weaker ones adds credibility to your reputation in the criminal underground, this credibility would allow something similar to the insurance. The shipyard would be too scared (or have too much respect) to charge you full choice. It also means the CU will use its vast network of corrupt officials to get you out of fines upon destruction. Doing so gives you a hit in reputation that you have to earn back, of course, and repeatedly getting destroyed though would really lower your reputation (to deter teaming up with bounty hunters).

Attacking weaker vessels doesn't help your reputation much but gives you a much higher bounty and causes you to owe high fines before buyback (Cost = Fines - buyback cost, so how much you owe will be affected by how much you lost). Like the CU is going to care about some bottom feeder.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Rather than just making a general punishment, it could be expanded to make the whole experience fuller.

Nice to see somebody else seeing this as an opportunity. +Rep.

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

Rather than just making a general punishment, it could be expanded to make the whole experience fuller. Expand it to piracy as well, but add a lot of gameplay features to piracy. Those who attack clean pilots (NPC or PC) are branded criminal and wanted throughout the bubble and lose their insurance. Expelled from the Pilots Federation, but joining the Criminal Underground (tm). No insurance but being a criminal would add perks.

In addition to being able to dock at anarchy stations, CU members would have exclusively criminal stations that clean people won't be allowed to dock at (or will be shot out of the sky on approach). Even some in higher security systems, the exact location only known to the higher ranked criminals. Add nastier criminal modules like the ability to rip modules from disabled/destroyed ships for attaching to your own ship. Or the ability to tug disabled ships to chop shops on criminal stations.


Attacking stronger vessels rather than weaker ones adds credibility to your reputation in the criminal underground, this credibility would allow something similar to the insurance. The shipyard would be too scared (or have too much respect) to charge you full choice. It also means the CU will use its vast network of corrupt officials to get you out of fines upon destruction. Doing so gives you a hit in reputation that you have to earn back, of course, and repeatedly getting destroyed though would really lower your reputation (to deter teaming up with bounty hunters).

Attacking weaker vessels doesn't help your reputation much but gives you a much higher bounty and causes you to owe high fines before buyback (Cost = Fines - buyback cost, so how much you owe will be affected by how much you lost). Like the CU is going to care about some bottom feeder.

See elite was sold with the potential of allowing hostile boarding, hostile boarding makes bigger more powerful ships a target. As we have no space legs its obvious this wont work at present (to be honest it never ever going to happen imagine stealing the ships of the people who are currently complaining about being blown up - they'd whine too much) I do like your idea, but again it wont happen.

Because the route of the complaints isn't anything to do with being attacked or odds of success or out of concern for newer players, that's just a moral screen.

Its because some people don't like losing, given how much of a grind ED is its understandable, I'm on board with something to ease the losses but ambush PVP is going to go the way of the dodo, like piracy and like bounty hunting and I don't see the majority of the community caring.

Frontier by catering to this specific group of people are going to be forced to abandon much of their original design brief.

All the above is Ok, fair enough the majority of the community wants to go one way, but I would like my money back under those circumstances as this is not what I paid for.

No mans sky does everything elite does that I'm interested in (allbeit in a brightly coloured less polished way) just without the human risk element which I adore about the game. I do play other space games too, am nuts about the genre but more and more I see the parts that make elite stand out being done away with to please a few who min max their ships a certain way, get caught out, then (even if some of it is very valid) complain.

 

[Jack Schitt]

EDIT: Turns out I was wrong

Actually, I'm not convinced that you were. Sandro tends to break the continuity of the dialogue by using Hellos rather than quoting, which can make it difficult to follow, but as far as I can tell when he said this...

Hello Commander CMDR Dahak![...]
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.

...he was responding to this...

Removal of insurance is literally removal of ships. If you die without the ability to rebuy, you have lost the ship. Not a big deal until engineers came along. Now that the grind to engineer a ship to high levels is an integral part of the game, you're removing hours, days, weeks, even months of time spent grinding if you don't let them rebuy.

...which is talking specifically about the removal of insurance, at least in the first sentence. The second sentence is a little more open to interpretation (does "the ability to rebuy" mean a lack of funds or the removal of the option?) but it looks to me as though Sandro was talking about having to pay the full price for a lost ship, rather than losing the ability to pay at all. If that's the case then half of the posts in this thread are moot.

I've taken another trawl through Sandro's posts and my interpretation seems to be bolstered a bit by this...

I'd rather see a removal of insurance cover (so when a ship is destroyed it's gone, or you have to pay the full price to get it back), docking privileges rescinded at all starports and outposts except those in anarchy jurisdictions and game applied Pilot Federation bounties rather than a shadow ban.

...which again talks in terms of insurance removal, rather than an outright prevention of a ship rebuy.

What we need at this point is an unambiguous statement from Sandro that what he's talking about for the worst serial recidivists is the removal of the insurance cover for, not the removal of the right to buy back, the ship.

Some of the other proposals, including out-of-game sanctions for excessive in-game lawbreaking, are understandably contentious. But in the case of the rebuy "removal" it looks to me like a simple case of people having misinterpreted each other's posts.

If I'm wrong, and Sandro confirms it, I am happy to stand corrected.

 

[Fracktal]

I repped you as the Fallout 3 reference or your other ideas/suggestions are spot on.

However, this part is wrong IMHO:

Last but not least, I think we should differentiate two things - using trendspotting (karma) as a measure to various decisions (like deciding if somebody is a grieframmer or a logger), and using karma as a gauge of your actions towards certain roleplay. In short, combat logging has nothing to do with someone being good or evil, only a poor game player (and against TOS). Griefwinders however, do it on purpose and it should contribute to their overall "evil" status. So there is a delicate line here.

Behavior Karma (instead of criminal karma/reputation) should affect any Out-of-game intent of "upsetting" a player whether it's Combat Logging, gaming/exploiting the mechanics of the game using broken/bugged/not polished features.

The suicidewinders at station falls EXACTLY in that category. Does pilot federation members "committing suicide" to enforce speed restriction makes sense in the Lore/universe or not?
Obviously, no. So people abusing (i.e. using repeatedly) should have their behavior karma impacted.

But overall, I mostly agree with a lot of suggestions, not factoring which "sides" of the argument it is coming from.


Two systems need to cohabitate though.

A behavior karma system:
Escalating eventually to the hardest consequences available (up to shadowbanning) to ensure keeping the Open ecosystem balanced and realistic, in other words Dangerous but not a toxic cesspit full of trolls.

An "in-game" reputation system (displayed on standard ship scan):
Elite Dangerous would benefit implementing an Alignment system to affect In-game reputation. No need to reinvent the wheel, the classic D&D system is more than fitting (Chaotic/Neutral/Lawful & Good/Neutral/Bad).
This would allow to bring some depth in the gameplay and resolve some issues/abusable mechanics.
It also allows a broad scope of criminal activities to have proportional and incremental consequences, adding some finesse and depth in the gameplay.

Examples:
- A Bad aligned player blowing another Bad aligned player would not improve karma. While a Neutral character and a good one doing so would raise their standing.
- A pirate never/rarely blowing up any ship with Neutral/Neutral standing would be identified by its victim leading to potential negotiation for cargo.
- A Neutral/Bad player would be considered a threat and running/dropping cargo without even waiting for the request would be probably the best course of action.
- Player alignment and Station Faction/System security would affect the type of missions available

And obviously consequences should come incrementally over time, with possibility to redeem oneself through in-game mechanics:
- Combat Loggers getting blown-up would recover their lost karma
- Exploiters while playing the game normally (timed recovery)
- Criminal could redeem themselves running mission (Charities/Lawfull Good) as collecting player bounties would be too easy to abuse unfortunately

 

[Maxmilian Czhilli]

Rather than just making a general punishment, it could be expanded to make the whole experience fuller. Expand it to piracy as well, but add a lot of gameplay features to piracy. Those who attack clean pilots (NPC or PC) are branded criminal and wanted throughout the bubble and lose their insurance. Expelled from the Pilots Federation, but joining the Criminal Underground (tm). No insurance but being a criminal would add perks.

In addition to being able to dock at anarchy stations, CU members would have exclusively criminal stations that clean people won't be allowed to dock at (or will be shot out of the sky on approach). Even some in higher security systems, the exact location only known to the higher ranked criminals. Add nastier criminal modules like the ability to rip modules from disabled/destroyed ships for attaching to your own ship. Or the ability to tug disabled ships to chop shops on criminal stations.


Attacking stronger vessels rather than weaker ones adds credibility to your reputation in the criminal underground, this credibility would allow something similar to the insurance. The shipyard would be too scared (or have too much respect) to charge you full choice. It also means the CU will use its vast network of corrupt officials to get you out of fines upon destruction. Doing so gives you a hit in reputation that you have to earn back, of course, and repeatedly getting destroyed though would really lower your reputation (to deter teaming up with bounty hunters).

Attacking weaker vessels doesn't help your reputation much but gives you a much higher bounty and causes you to owe high fines before buyback (Cost = Fines - buyback cost, so how much you owe will be affected by how much you lost). Like the CU is going to care about some bottom feeder.

The idea of a CU type separate organisation for criminal pilots has been suggested before but I really don't think it will work.

The Pilot's Federation is the MacGuffin that distinguishes the players from the NPCs. It's why we are Commanders and they aren't. It's a handy catch all that allows there to be rules that apply to us that don't to the NPCs. Why can only Commanders discover planets and stars and not the NPCs already living in the system? Pilot's Federation!

It's far too useful to have a single organisation that covers all players and apply rules only to them and not the NPCs. It's why I like the idea of a Pilot's Federation reputation system - call it karma or whatever you like.

It's also important that the Pilot's Federation is core to Elite lore. Conjuring a new organisation from thin air will not play well with those players for whom the lore is an important part of their game.

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

Actually, I'm not convinced that you were. Sandro tends to break the continuity of the dialogue by using Hellos rather than quoting, which can make it difficult to follow, but as far as I can tell when he said this...



...he was responding to this...



...which is talking specifically about the removal of insurance, at least in the first sentence. The second sentence is a little more open to interpretation (does "the ability to rebuy" mean a lack of funds or the removal of the option?) but it looks to me as though Sandro was talking about having to pay the full price for a lost ship, rather than losing the ability to pay at all. If that's the case then half of the posts in this thread are moot.

I've taken another trawl through Sandro's posts and my interpretation seems to be bolstered a bit by this...


...which again talks in terms of insurance removal, rather than an outright prevention of a ship rebuy.

What we need at this point is an unambiguous statement from Sandro that what he's talking about for the worst serial recidivists is the removal of the insurance cover for, not the removal of the right to buy back, the ship.

Some of the other proposals, including out-of-game sanctions for excessive in-game lawbreaking, are understandably contentious. But in the case of the rebuy "removal" it looks to me like a simple case of people having misinterpreted each other's posts.

If I'm wrong, and Sandro confirms it, I am happy to stand corrected.

I do actually wonder why engineered parts are allowed to be rebought given that they are lore wise supposed to be unique. The engineers side of thing massively unbalanced the game relative to those who have horizons and don't (making it sneakily pay to win which David Braben said he'd never do).

I have horizons, I have a few engineered parts, never went all out on it because i dont have the time for even more grind, I'm still trying to rep grind to an FAS. You should fear the loss of custom modules without a rebuy option, but not the ship entire.

- - - Updated - - -

I repped you as the Fallout 3 reference or your other ideas/suggestions are spot on.

However, this part is wrong IMHO:



Behavior Karma (instead of criminal karma/reputation) should affect any Out-of-game intent of "upsetting" a player whether it's Combat Logging, gaming/exploiting the mechanics of the game using broken/bugged/not polished features.

The suicidewinders at station falls EXACTLY in that category. Does pilot federation members "committing suicide" to enforce speed restriction makes sense in the Lore/universe or not?
Obviously, no. So people abusing (i.e. using repeatedly) should have their behavior karma impacted.

But overall, I mostly agree with a lot of suggestions, not factoring which "sides" of the argument it is coming from.


Two systems need to cohabitate though.

A behavior karma system:
Escalating eventually to the hardest consequences available (up to shadow banning) to ensure keeping the Open ecosystem balanced and realistic, in other words Dangerous but not a toxic cesspit full of trolls.

An "in-game" reputation system (displayed on standard ship scan):
Elite Dangerous would benefit implementing an Alignment system to affect In-game reputation. No need to reinvent the wheel, the classic D&D system is more than fitting (Chaotic/Neutral/Lawful & Good/Neutral/Bad).
This would allow to bring some depth in the gameplay and resolve some issues/abusable mechanics.
It also allows a broad scope of criminal activities to have proportional and incremental consequences, adding some finesse and depth in the gameplay.

Examples:
- A Bad aligned player blowing another Bad aligned player would not improve karma. While a Neutral character and a good one doing so would raise their standing.
- A pirate never/rarely blowing any ship with Neutral/Neutral standing would be identified by its victim leading to potential negotiation for cargo.
- A Neutral/Bad player would be consider a threat and running/dropping cargo without even waiting for the request would be probably the best course of action.
- Player alignment and Station Faction/System security would affect the type of missions available

And obviously consequences should come incrementally over time, with possibility to redeem oneself through in-game mechanics:
- Combat Loggers getting blown-up would recover their lost karma
- Exploiters while playing the game normally (timed recovery)
- Criminal could redeem themselves running mission (Charities/Lawfull Good) as collecting player bounties would be to easy to abuse unfortunately

Dont speed... simples. Or remove the speed limit.......

Insurance scams are a thing though...... why not in game...

Suicide winder bounty wipes is what I want to see put a stop to

 

[Fracktal]

Dont speed... simples. Or remove the speed limit.......

Insurance scams are a thing though...... why not in game...

Suicide winder bounty wipes is what I want to see put a stop to

If it does makes sense in Lore or game wise and is just abused for trolling, the practice needs to be punished and has to go. FULL STOP.
This has nothing to do with any normal criminal activities and therefore doesn't bring anything to the game.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Two systems need to cohabitate though.
A behavior karma system
An "in-game" reputation system (displayed on standard ship scan):

You are right. This was what I had in mind when I started writing this, but then it got lost in the thought process. Essentially I wanted to avoid the situation when we only have a hammer at our disposal and start seeing everything else as nails to use this hammer on . Karma tracking exploits / tos breakage and karma tracking behaviour should be two different systems.

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

If it does makes sense in Lore or game wise and is just abused for trolling, the practice needs to be punished and has to go. FULL STOP.
This has nothing to do with any normal criminal activities and therefore doesn't bring anything to the game.

when you speed you put others at risk who are flying smaller ships, there's a law for a reason. Some choose to spend money and ships enforcing it. I lost my first eagle due to someone boosting out a letter box.

 

[Fracktal]

You are right. This was what I had in mind when I started writing this, but then it got lost in the thought process. Essentially I wanted to avoid the situation when we only have a hammer at our disposal and start seeing everything else as nails to use this hammer on . Karma tracking exploits / tos breakage and karma tracking behaviour should be two different systems.

Indeed. Otherwise, I'm affraid and sure that some people would make it a goal to game the system leading to more chaos and achieving the opposite result.

Also, you could bring the systems at two different time, reducing the timeframe for such updates to come through and being released.

- - - Updated - - -

when you speed you put others at risk who are flying smaller ships, there's a law for a reason. Some choose to spend money and ships enforcing it. I lost my first eagle due to someone boosting out a letter box.

And when it happens the person get punished.
Again, the problem is not the mechanic in place, which is fine.
The problem is people abusing it to troll others and that's exactly what needs to go, it is just toxic behavior which serves no other purpose and makes no sense in-game.

Police don't crash in other people cars to enforce speed limit, do they?

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

Indeed. Otherwise, I'm affraid and sure that some people would make it a goal to game the system leading to more chaos and achieving the opposite result.

Also, you could bring the systems at two different time, reducing the timeframe for such updates to come through and being released.

- - - Updated - - -




And when it happens the person get punished.
Again, the problem is not the mechanic in place, which is fine.
The problem is people abusing it to troll others and that's exactly what needs to go, it is just toxic behavior which serves no other purpose and makes no sense in-game.

The person gets punished only if a ship explodes, didn't buy my ship back did it?

If you didnt speed and put smaller ships at risk against the law, no one could do this to you.

 

[Fracktal]

The person gets punished only if a ship explodes, didn't buy my ship back did it?

If you didnt speed and put smaller ships at risk against the law, no one could do this to you.

Let's agree to disagree then and FDev to be the judge on whether it's a behavior that needs policing or not, depending on intent and frequency.

 

[Galactic Fork]

The idea of a CU type separate organisation for criminal pilots has been suggested before but I really don't think it will work.

The Pilot's Federation is the MacGuffin that distinguishes the players from the NPCs. It's why we are Commanders and they aren't. It's a handy catch all that allows there to be rules that apply to us that don't to the NPCs. Why can only Commanders discover planets and stars and not the NPCs already living in the system? Pilot's Federation!

It's far too useful to have a single organisation that covers all players and apply rules only to them and not the NPCs. It's why I like the idea of a Pilot's Federation reputation system - call it karma or whatever you like.

It's also important that the Pilot's Federation is core to Elite lore. Conjuring a new organisation from thin air will not play well with those players for whom the lore is an important part of their game.

Well, it could be a plot point. Worked into the current lore. Rules of the Pilots Federation change and a secret subsect is revealed. Players part of this group wouldn't be commanders (or CMDRs) anymore, but corsairs (or CRSR). Players would still be recognizable. And one group would recognize the other. It's not like Engineers and station bases didn't manifest overnight. FDev could make the schism happen in game.

Eta
(Also, a macguffin is a contrived goal type of plot device, I always saw the pilots federation as more of a handwave.)

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

I quite like the idea, many of the NPC pirates are given the name lord x, i thought it'd be quite cool if i ever rolled as a pirate.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Ekhem ;-) An older post of mine...

Then instead of finding over how we can "punish" the other side, we should focus on "how to make PvP gameplay interesting and viable for all playstyles". The so called "Crime and Punishment System" which is lauded on this forums falls short on anything but the "punishment" part. And I want crime to be PROFITABLE. I want to be able to build grim reputation throughout the galaxy AND playerbase. So if you see StarLightPL^* on the scanner you will reconsider highwaking before interdiction, or, if you happen to be in a PvP equipped ship YOU WILL INTERDICT ME hoping for a really juicy bounty. AND at the same time, I want all possible benefits for lawful commanders. So in general, I want consequences for action and stable roleplaying.

* - I'm not really like that, I always end up with "Jesus" karma status in fallout 3 ;-)

 

[Galactic Fork]

AND at the same time, I want all possible benefits for lawful commanders.

Wait, you want to be feared and loathed, but still get all the benefits of legal status? So crime without punishment?

 

[Maxmilian Czhilli]

:x:x

Why reinvent the wheel? There are examples out there of how it could be done. This is one of them: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Karma_(Fallout_3) . It contains an example of how your actions bring you both advantages and disadvantages and affect the game you're playing. I've outlined what it could be in Elite in a previous post which has drowned in this thread so I will repeat it every few pages hoping that it sparks some discussion which will in turn at least make Sandro read it. Basically what I outlined would add a good chunk of the sooo desired mythical DEPTH to the whole game, causing you to reconsider which missions you take or what do you do, because your actions will suddenly matter in the long run, not just in the moment.

Also I think we're scratching the outside symptoms not realising what is the real cause of the problem. And IMHO the cause of the problem is that the killed player loses way much more than the killer, while also they are both (the victim and the killer) not gaining anything from that encounter, making it meaningless. And of course this also isn't exactly new - I've written about it in detail after open livestream. It is also semi-tied to the pace we can re-earn the rebuy, and IMHO its also the cause of combat logging.

Last but not least, I think we should differentiate two things - using trendspotting (karma) as a measure to various decisions (like deciding if somebody is a grieframmer or a logger), and using karma as a gauge of your actions towards certain roleplay. In short, combat logging has nothing to do with someone being good or evil, only a poor game player (and against TOS). Griefwinders however, do it on purpose and it should contribute to their overall "evil" status. So there is a delicate line here.

Now knowing nobody will click these links because they will be lost in this thread, I'm providing spoiler quotes:

Post 1 - Karma as a career path:
Post 2 - Invested time vs risk imbalance - karma proposal:

I haven't been ignoring this but thinking over my reply.

I think it is important to be clear about the purpose of Sandra's proposed Karma system. It's is designed to make Open a more attractive place to play my moderating the behaviour of those who simply want to kill other players. Currently player killers can operate with negligible negative consequences imposed by the game. Leaving game skill out of the equation, it's just too easy a play style and has a disproportionate impact on gameplay in Open.

The idea of a more fleshed out reputation system to encourage more interesting gameplay is a good one. But I don't believe simply giving players more interesting ways to play will necessarily reduce the impact of player killers. Despite protestations form player killers that they do it because there is nothing else to do, I simply don't believe that's the core reason to do it. For lots of players, the satisfaction of the player kill is motivation in itself. You only have to watch their videos to see the joy it brings them.

Besieger also made an excellent point that any system has to be carefully designed to prevent it being gamed. He and his compatriots in the SDC are masters at this.

Any karma system designed to combat anti-social behaviour must allow players to recover their reputation. Redemption has to be an option. The effects of negative karma need to be not just a deterrent but something you can learn from. If you make it too easy to recover karma it will simply be gamed. Let's say you spend the evening in your FDL killing noobs in Sidewinders and tanking your karma. If you can then gain positive karma by fuel ratting your mates, doing charity missions or whatever it is that builds positive karma then that's the smart way of avoiding the negative consequences of your anti-social actions.

[EDIT]
Sorry Sandro. Didn't mean your secret life as nightclub chanteuse to come out like this. :x
[/EDIT]

 

[CMDR Heisenberg B. Damned]

Sandra's proposed Karma system