Which is more verisimilitude defying hogwash that further prevents Elite's setting from feeling like living, breathing, world and emphasizes the artificiality of it all.
To be fair, the Pilots Federation is the one footing the bill for most of the cost of the ships of the offender's fellow CMDRs. Why would the Federation allow that to continue without revoking some privileges of being a member, or refusing to offer them insurance? They wouldn't care as much about all the non-PF member ships.
(This isn't an endorsement of a strictly PVP karma system... I'm part of the criminal justice\criminal path side)
imagine the karma system as punishment system for bad kids.
do you tell your kids "beeing a bully is bad and you will get curfew"
and then tell them "but you will also get infinite internet time and free access to the sweets fault"
No, but a local gang leader might take an interest in their talent for bullying, and offer them a position with incentives. The entity doling out the punishment and the entity offering sweeteners need not be the same one.
I'd favour a system that offered incentives towards contextual bad guy RP, but it would need to be designed in such a way that it would be impossible -- or at least very counterproductive in the long term -- to abuse it for non-contextual purposes. By which I mean that 'g' word which is impossible to objectively define but we all know when we see it. As an example (blue sky, don't take this too seriously) a pirate engineer might offer a tuned weapon that shortens TTK when ship destruction is the primary goal, but with the proviso that it's only used against bounty hunters or wanted pilots belonging to or working for rival factions. Any use on a clean target, especially a member of the Pilots' Federation, would result in the weapon's remote self-destruction and the player character's status with the pirate faction becoming irreconcilably hostile.
There is a huge difference between legitimate, valid PvP and Griefing. Case in point - parking a couple ships inside a space station, keeping them alive with healing beams, despite being blasted repeatedly by station defenses, just to shoot people in the back as they're launching is not valid gameplay in any way. It's clear by the magnitude of station defense systems that such an activity is certainly "not as intended", regardless of means used to circumvent it.
Agree. That is an exploit, and using the mechanic as not intended. And if used repeatedly, should be met with action from "god hand", namely support. In this case, everything is clear. However I wouldn't swing the banhammer on first occurence of that behaviour - its a fault of QA team for not spotting that up. The way I would react to this would be a message from support to the players in question, describing that they deem it as a bug exploit, thank for report and further exploit of this bug would be considered TOS breakage. And swing the banhammer on repeated offences.
1. Where's the challenge? Blowing up someone who can barely get off a landing pad? Beating up preschool kids? This sort of thing speaks volumes for the person engaging in such behavior, and such people should be branded for the good of society.
Those are still criminal actions, and should be met with the criminal consequences in game. I am not judging someone bullying other players - I couldn't care less for their "black soul". I would welcome the possibility to track them down and hunt them I really like your idea of "known" - it falls in line with my "Infamous Criminal". If that was joined, a starter newbie would be alerted to a repeated offender presence and quickly highwake. Or to try to silent runningly sneak out. And if all else fails - switched to solo, problem solved.
Also, the fact that someone can grief in the closest vicinity of a station is also bothersome. Station should at best send security ships after them. Violating no-fire zone by hitting another commander should be met with station opening fire. Even entering no-fire zone with hardpoints out and not stowing them when warned after 15s should be met with station opening fire (maybe more lenient in less sec systems). Problem solved.
2. If your first 30 seconds of experience are "take off, get blown up, rebuy" what sort of impression does that make? Where's the incentive to rebuy after the 3rd or 4th time? Why stay in a mode where this happens? Instead, it only encourages a mass exodus to Private Groups and Solo play
There's (currently) no incentive to playing in open, other that the added risk of rebuys, granted. I don't have an easy answer to that, although multicrew and wing payouts are good step towards it. Aside from teaming up, I see no real reason for a lone player to wander in Open. We cannot incentivise the payouts because they are shared between modes
There often arises some confusion with differentiating "Criminal" from "Psychopath".
"Criminal", as a career choice, is perfectly valid, and would include Smugglers, Data Thieves, Landing Pad Loiterers, Station Trespassers, Pirates who only steal, not kill, and the like.
"Psychopath", while certainly achievable within the mechanics of the game, well... there is that whole "live by the sword" thing - and no, it really doesn't matter who's sword they die by - PC, NPC, Deity.
I'd disagree. Killing newbies is still valid choice, but, it should be made ineffective after some repeation wrt. criminal status. Similarly like killing lvl1 monsters in an rpg while you're lev.30 still nets you XP, but the amounts needed for advancement are so high its hardly a profitable endeavour. So you can reach a rank of, say "common thug" by doing that, but to progress to "gang leader" you would need to pick your targets better. Victim's combat rank seems to be ideal for gauging that sort of thing. And system security would be less eager to send an A-rated anaconda against a common thug, but after a crime lord? Hell, even two Corvettes and a pack of Vultures!
So here's a rehash of a much longer post I made quite some time ago, in a condensed format:
Crime and Punishment: The current Justice System of Elite is quite basic. For all non-violent offenses, fines are assessed. It most cases they are laughable at best. Loiter around a landing pad, you get an inconvenience fine. Loiter longer, you die. Dump your biowaste in the mail slot, take a small fine with you. Get caught with a hold full of Slaves, have a larger fine and carry on. There is a lot of room for improvement here. If you're caught with a load of contraband coming in to a station, that contraband should, at least, be confiscated when you dock, not left in your hold to be sold anyways, often offsetting the cost of the fine, or still yielding profit. This is just silly.
For violent offenses, there is but a single punishment, and that's death - either at the hands of another player, or at the hands of NPC's. But death also wipes the slate, and you're free to go about whatever you were doing - which usually entails things like blowing up 10 minute old commanders while they're trying to figure out where the mail slot even is.
There certainly is a place for the "Criminal" career path - and I've long advocated for certain "benefits" to it - such as better selling prices on Black Markets, Access to Criminal Network facilities that are otherwise "locked" in the same kind of manner that Engineer facilities are "locked", until you are invited. Special "pop-up" missions specific to Criminals, but also a certain reaction to Criminal elements in "civilized" space. And something that may be necessary to really make this sort of implementation really work would be an additional status: "Known".
"Known" could be affixed to someone's current status standing, so they might show as "Known: Clean" or "Known: Wanted". Being prefixed as "Known" only means that you have an established pattern of committing Criminal activities. Unlike "Clean" or "Wanted", "Known" would not simply drop off at death. It would have to clear over time. Carrying "Known" status should have only the effect of:
1. In Uncontrolled or Anarchy space: No particular effect.
2. In Space controlled by a Super Power:
2a. If unaligned to any power, increased security response to crimes reported against anyone with "Known" status.
2b. Docking requests denied if "Known" and "Wanted". Civilized People do not welcome criminals into their midst.
2c. If aligned with a Power:
2c1. Docking requests denied by Opposing powers
2c2. Docking requests accepted by Aligned powers, but only if not "Known" and "Wanted".
3. No affect on Criminally aligned facilities - may result in Docking requests denied if not "Known". Criminals don't just let anybody in, they might be cops.
"Known" status would have a natural decay cycle much like Bounties, but is not cleared on death (or Temporary Inconvenience, as "death" doesn't actually happen in Elite, only the passage of time and refraining from Criminal activity would cause this status to decay.
Lots of sane stuff. I like it. +Rep. i just don't think there should be any decay to Known (or Infamous) status. The only changing thing would be the bounty on someone's head, which would be cleared/claimed/reduced if someone killed the criminal, so he would become a little less attractive to bounty hunters. But system authority should still hunt him down - after all, he still has a sentence to sit out in jail. IDK what punishment should be applied after "getting caught". I think a ship destruction would be a bit drastic but losing a rebuy protection or maluses to rebuy discount could be applied. This should be a bit sweetened by the criminal perks (like the mentioned better black market prices), and maybe your mates could bail you out (% depending on how high your criminal status is).
I'd disagree. Killing newbies is still valid choice, but, it should be made ineffective after some repeation wrt. criminal status. Similarly like killing lvl1 monsters in an rpg while you're lev.30 still nets you XP, but the amounts needed for advancement are so high its hardly a profitable endeavour. So you can reach a rank of, say "common thug" by doing that, but to progress to "gang leader" you would need to pick your targets better. Victim's combat rank seems to be ideal for gauging that sort of thing. And system security would be less eager to send an A-rated anaconda against a common thug, but after a crime lord? Hell, even two Corvettes and a pack of Vultures!
I like this idea, but there should be another layer. Other criminals aren't going to respect someone who goes after tons of weaker people for fun without bring anything in, but law enforcement would have more incentive to go after someone who is such a threat to the "common people." So it'd need to be layered. Both a status among criminals and a status from society. An up and coming "gang leader" could be largely ignored as you said, but one with a long history of cruelty... they might send out those Corvettes and Vultures just to get him out of their face.
I could, but frankly, you could use multiple interpretations that could all be valid.
For example:
* It means you can attack other Commanders without consequence.
* It means you can attack other Commanders and face consequences.
* It means you can attack other Commanders within limitations on the rules of engagement.
* It means you can attack other Commanders and gain special rewards.
Not very helpful, easy to twist to a particular view.
Clearly, you *can* attack other Commanders, and there *are* consequences. Regardless of what changes we make or don't, this will always be true, so to me it kind of clutters a more interesting discussion: what should the consequences be?
Personally, I'm not advocating banning (or shadow banning), because, as I have said a few times, I would rather the consequences be present in game and in context. I'm also not in favour of insta-all powerful authority ships, as potentially both of these options potentially result in the same thing: a complete shutdown of these kinds of attacks, loss of choice.
I know that some folk would see this as a good thing, and part of me agrees. After all, our concern is the enjoyment of as many players as possible.
But I'm still interested in investigating the prospects of some sort of middle ground, which is where the concept of karma and escalating in game measures comes in. A system in which you are more or less free to act how you want but must face appropriate consequences so that the majority of folk feel that there is *some* form of justice, suitable risk.
Perhaps this is an impossible dilemma, but it's good to hear from all the different viewpoints.
However, If I ever get "shadow banned" for killing a player because "consequences". You will see the fastest charge back from my bank account that you'll ever see in your life.\
However, If I ever get "shadow banned" for killing a player because "consequences". You will see the fastest charge back from my bank account that you'll ever see in your life.\
Not sure, but there are actually many cases where charge backs are simple and the merchant can't fight it. Often times just suggesting possible fraud can be enough, whether true or not.
If I though I was in danger of becoming the next Walter Scott or Freddie Gray, absolutely.
That said, my next door neighbor isn't a cop, and if he tries to citizen's arrest me for a trivial misdemeanor or in a case of mistaken identity, he's probably going to wind up the victim of a legally justifiable homicide, even if he technically had the legal authority to do what he was trying to do.
Anyway, it's not unreasonable for there to be laws that criminalize self-defense (the existence of unreasonable laws is entirely reasonable, even mandatory, in a believable setting of this size), but no one should expect them to be followed or consistently enforced, and I don't believe they should influence a 'karma' system.
Because they bypass legal requirements/prohibitions like taxation, tariffs, and various controls on certain substances/materials/services, while out-competing others trying to do the same.
Crime itself doesn't pay, it just bypasses certain...state monopolies.
A notorious CMDR being able to instantly cleanse their record by Suicidewinder and parting with a paltry credit sum also detracts from it - it lacks persistence.
Break the rules of the club, face the consequences of being a member, the club being the Pilots' Federation, of which every player (and only players) is a member.
Many of the proposed operations of this club, as well as mandatory membership, threaten to break any reasonable level of suspension of disbelief.
If I were a member of the upper echelons of the Federation or Empire and I saw a Pilot's Federation charter that let their members run roughshod all over me and my constituents/livelyhood, I'd push for it to be declared a terrorist organization and for a fleet to be sent to liquefy the crust of every habitable planet in Shinrarta!
Actually, my CMDR is a member of the upper echelons of the Federation and Empire! Wouldn't that give me damn good pretense to wage war against any and all Pilot's Federation members I encounter, if some of these proposed changes went through?
To be fair, the Pilots Federation is the one footing the bill for most of the cost of the ships of the offender's fellow CMDRs. Why would the Federation allow that to continue without revoking some privileges of being a member, or refusing to offer them insurance?
Not sure, but there are actually many cases where charge backs are simple and the merchant can't fight it. Often times just suggesting possible fraud can be enough, whether true or not.
isn't there a time limit? i mean, you can't use something for three years, and then ask for a chargeback. or what does the law in NEVADA say about that?
What you seek is arguably already missing - similarly with criminals who, on destruction, return to a station where they are wanted are simply given a new ship and are free to go.
Many of the proposed operations of this club, as well as mandatory membership, threaten to break any reasonable level of suspension of disbelief.
If I were a member of the upper echelons of the Federation or Empire and I saw a Pilot's Federation charter that let their members run roughshod all over me and my constituents/livelyhood, I'd push for it to be declared a terrorist organization and for a fleet to be sent to liquefy the crust of every habitable planet in Shinrarta!
Actually, my CMDR is a member of the upper echelons of the Federation and Empire! Wouldn't that give me damn good pretense to wage war against any and all Pilot's Federation members I encounter, if some of these proposed changes went through?
isn't there a time limit? i mean, you can't use something for three years, and then ask for a chargeback. or what does the law in NEVADA say about that?
I'm not sure, 3 years might be a bit much, but if you can show that the product has changed but still is advertised the same, it might just work. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be so quick to assume it wouldn't work. My wife has had to deal with chargebacks at her restaurant on the basis of fraud even though there was ample proof that the people in question were definitely there and had approved the transactions, all because of new chip laws. Laws change, get murky or have loopholes and sometimes the credit card company just accepts it to keep the customer happy.
And maybe someone in charge realized it wasn't a cost effective strategy for gaining new members, or they started listening to the PF members who were the many many victims.
A quick Google shows that, in the US at least, chargeback limits on credit card transactions tend to max out at 120 days. Much less for debit card purchases. Even if within time limits Frontier or their US agents would have grounds to contest given that ED EULA states:
These services and Online Features may not be available in your country, are not guaranteed to be available for any period of time, may be subject to suspension or withdrawal at any time and may be subject to age restrictions.
We may deploy or provide patches, updates and modifications to the Game that must be installed in order for you to continue to play the Game. We may update the Game remotely (including without limitation the Game client on your device), and you hereby grant us your consent to deploy and apply such patches, updates and modifications.
There is an argument to be made that these EULAs are not consumer friendly and unenforceable. But you'd need to start spending money on lawyers to make any headway with that.
To bring things back on topic...
It's notable that it is the most notorious player killers and groups that feel the most threatened by these proposed changes. If they weren't feeling the heat then it would suggest that the changes are unlikely to have any meaningful effect.
One of the bits of SDC propaganda that often makes it into the general gaming press is that their exploits (read that anyway you choose) force FD into improving the game. Isn't that what is happening here?
Who gets to define "unacceptable"? You? Forum poll? Design committee? Besieger? I am proposing an unbiased system allowing you to blaze your own trail, this time meaningfully with long term effects.
There's no such thing as lawful self-defense by a criminal against a bounty hunter. You commit a crime then kill the people who come after you to enforce the law, you have (more) murders counted against you.
The visibility of bounties and griefers forcing bounties upon new players are other issues.
I'm perfectly fine with even grazing a security vessel, or not backing off when they decide to bring down a wanted target themselves, to trigger a lethal response.
However, the pilots Federation should recognize that sometimes illegal actions are correct and justified. If they are going to be tracking behavior relative to their code, it should frequently be different than the countless local codes and spotty quality of enforcement that is in place.
Now that's a can of worms. If the PF code doesn't more or less align with the rest of the law in the galaxy, who's to say they're fine with members killing each other under any circumstances? Maybe they don't even see powerplay as a justification.
However, If I ever get "shadow banned" for killing a player because "consequences". You will see the fastest charge back from my bank account that you'll ever see in your life.\
If Frontier ever bans you for griefing and you can prove you got away with charging back a three year old software purchase after violating the EULA (good luck with that), I'll buy a second copy of the game to reimburse them.
Wouldn't recommend Frontier spend their dev time on this - not with the state of the game being as it is now. If you've been around here for more than a year, you know that Frontier has perfected the art of falling flat on one's face. Powerplay is an ignored splattering of fanfiction strung together with jpgs and spreadsheets used to gate off access to interesting modules for 3-4 weeks of real time each. CQC was dead on arrival, and Arena was recently pulled from Steam. Engineers stomped on the PvP scene, escalated the grind for money into an additional grind for materials, and made Horizons a mandatory buy for anyone looking to engage in combat. Multicrew is buggy and profitless.
Really, there's no way Frontier could even make an 'okay' karma system before core issues with the game are addressed.
I dont get why people want to make even more annoying one of the most already annoying feature of this game. The hit on player base is not big enough ?
- Making karma hit or even more hit then the normal fine for colisions is stupid, I cant see any point on that since you already get an annoying fine for that.
- Adding karma hit for killing not wanted ships is stupid for 2 reasons :
1) The current system is broken because you can get fines and bounty when atacking and killing wanted ships just because the scanner didnt have time to finish scan, it may not be an big issue for new players, but for me for example, its an big issue, I can kill anacondas in less then 5 seconds with my corvette, and to get fun playing with it I just cant wait the several seconds it needs to finish scan, in that time I can kill 3x more.
2) It suppose to allow role playing, and making the game impossible to play as an pirate or atacker is stupid and against this concept.
- Adding karma for combat log is also stupid, just because it will do nothing, players that do combat log just will fix the bad karma doing missions or whatever and continue to combat log.
This game needs stuff to do, not stupid ideas to make this even more boring.
On the other hand, if they really are a psychopath, much better they are spending their time playing a computer game killing people rather than sitting at home, twidding their thumbs, and eyeing the school across the road
On the other hand, if they really are a psychopath, much better they are spending their time playing a computer game killing people rather than sitting at home, twidding their thumbs, and eyeing the school across the road
Probably true. I'm of the other mind though, more likely just fluffy teddy bears that'd shrivel up as soon someone looked at them sideways on the street.
I really like your idea of "known" - it falls in line with my "Infamous Criminal". If that was joined, a starter newbie would be alerted to a repeated offender presence and quickly highwake. Or to try to silent runningly sneak out. And if all else fails - switched to solo, problem solved.
