Deliberate Ramming

[Truesilver]

Probably much simpler to count the number of not-in-danger disconnections since the last in-danger disconnection, along with total disconnections of each type - to build up a history of the player's connection.

It's usually pretty obvious numerically, via the protagonists' respective hull, FSD and thruster health, who is winning or losing a PvP fight - or whether so far the fight is a draw.

One might gain from that a disconnect record: when losing fight - when drawing fight - when winning fight.

Applying that metric there are certain serial loggers whose incidence of disconnects would be worse than 10-0-0.

 

[Rampant]

If I can no longer play how I wish then there is simply no reason to carry on playing . If the carebears are crying that much why not just remove weapons completely, seems if you cry enough and spit the dummy out changes are made.

"Spit the dummy out", eh?

What?
Just like you appear to be doing right now in this post???

I can answer your question, about why don't we remove weapons, though - because NPCs will still carry them.
You would be better off not trying to be melodramatic about "your play style". If "your play style" is all about ruining the game for others (forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, but your aggressive style and using that word "carebear" would lead any onlooker to assume that it is), then don't expect a whole heap of sympathy from the players who you would try to ruin the game for.

And anyway, I think you are jumping far to quickly to conclusions without actually thinking this through. If you aren't that player who "mines the salt", then the proposed changes will not dramatically affect you, in which case stop spitting your dummy out.

All the best

Mark H

 

[Requiem Mortis]

TLDR (actually got halfway though) Forgive if this has been covered before but I'd like to see the Insurance Re-Buy more dynamic.....loss of NCB if your involved in an incident may be connected with number of jumps successfully completed to appreciate / re-buys inflicted or sustained to depreciate. This pertains to risk involved for safe operation or putting your craft in harms way. Doesn't prevent you from murdering others but means if you do it constantly your potential re-buy is higher and could drop as far as being uninsurable and you pay full cost for replacing your lost ship.

 

[Rampant]

The problem with this notion is that it does not consider PvP piracy; out of 10 interdictions, probably 8 traders will try and run (fair enough, it's up to them), so the pirate has to use force in most encounters. Obviously disabling the escaping trader is preferable to killing them, but it's not always possible given the small window of time the pirate has, so we tend to default to killing the trader for refusing to yield.

Should this scenario be treated as the same as Eravate seal-clubbing? I don't think it should given the trader had a fair chance to escape in-tact whereas noob-killers are targeting players with not only weak ships, but little if any experience.

The bit in bold.

Why?
Why would you default to killing them?
This is idiocy and a shot in your own foot.
So the trader who tried to escape dies and suffers a rebuy. How will this enhance anybody's game? If you didn't *want* to kill them, but instead take some cargo, then it is not enhancing *your* game either. Is it. Answer carefully, because if you say killing *does* enhance your game, then you are actually not really a pirate and no better than a murder-hobo. The end result is that the traders leave Open and go elsewhere, making Piracy a less enjoyable profession overall.

A *MUCH* better scenario would be that *Proper* Pirates inflict heavy, heavy damage to a Trader's vessel, without killing them. Even if they get away, the Trader has a big expenditure to repair his vessel, probably bigger than the loss of cargo that he could have chosen, but instead chose to try to run away. They also get some thrill of the chase, and thrill of escaping, albeit with a loss on their trade account, so some good, some bad. The end result here is that the Trader has less impulse to leave Open and will learn a lesson to either: actually bargain with the Pirate, to save such a big loss on their trade account, or perhaps to learn to run away better, or even perhaps to fight better and give you Pirates a more enjoyable and more satisfying duel.

If that doesn't sound like a much more appealing game dynamic to you, then perhaps look to a career as a murder-hobo instead of a would-be pirate, and also - hoping that a Karma system gets introduced - prepare to accept that some actions have perhaps-undesirable consequences.

Is it just me, or does no-one actually analyse the consequences of their actions any more farther forwards than the tips of their noses?

Yours Aye

Mark H

- - - Updated - - -

I find it somewhat interesting that they've sold us a game set in a cutthroat galaxy, where we are told we have infinite freedom to blaze our own trail and we see rhetoric like this from the lead developer.

Before I get on a rant.. Lets say this all goes through.. Does this mean solo and pg will be removed too? Or is the intent to just stiff people who don't play in Frontiers 'approved way'?

For god's sake, are you being deliberately obtuse, or just not listening... any proposed Karma system would be a build-up of consequences over time for doing certain things. It doesn't mean that those things are not able to be done, just that if you play in that way, which has been deemed to have an overall negative effect on *the game*, then you must be prepared for some consequences to those actions.

You will still be able to *play your own way*, but in a galaxy where "Crime" is actually a thing, and where the galaxy isn't a *total* "free-for-all", then you should expect some consequences for Criminal activity. Or do you actually want to be a Criminal and have it completely consequence free? If so, please provide some rational words on how this can be justified?

Yours Aye

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

Well this is an incredibly smarmy post. Either we agree with you or we're unsuspecting dupes. "If you don't agree with me, the terrorists win." Did it ever occur to you that a good C&P system would include all the features of the Karma system, but you know, not as a magical meta fairy floating above everybody's head? The problem is with the C&P system. With the exception of combat logging, which is literally a meta-action, all the actions are in game, and should be dealt with in universe.

This, the deterring asymetric combat is my problem, everyone who is backing this is denying themselves of the possibility of experiencing a higher ranked player in a better ship attacking them, beating them against the odds, and screetching victorious into a docking bay with 1% health and 10 seconds of air left.

Things like that make elite great, I'm not a ganker but they should be in game and handled by the CnP system not by Karma. I agree the C+P system is woeful and need addressing though.

Karma should apply to meta actions like logging and suicide winding.

 

[Rampant]

Wait, so the solution is not to make cops more dangerous and bounties higher, but to ban players who kill clean ships?

Seriously? I pirate players (without my cargo racks) and have to kill ones who do not comply, and after this is introduced I will get BANNED for killing them?!

Maybe the game should be called Elite: Fluffy Kittens and Rainbows instead? Why not focus on a proper issue like combat logging?

No, the proper issue is that you seemingly unrepentantly kill targets for non-compliance.
See my post just ^^above^^ somewhere why this should be a bad choice for you. (Unless you actually want to kill players without penalty and are just using the word piracy as a front?)
Combat logging is the symptom. Wantonly killing players and then not owning any consequences for such is the cause.
Treat the cause, not the symptom. The symptom will then magically reduce.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

The bit in bold.

Why?
Why would you default to killing them?
This is idiocy and a shot in your own foot.
So the trader who tried to escape dies and suffers a rebuy. How will this enhance anybody's game? If you didn't *want* to kill them, but instead take some cargo, then it is not enhancing *your* game either. Is it. Answer carefully, because if you say killing *does* enhance your game, then you are actually not really a pirate and no better than a murder-hobo. The end result is that the traders leave Open and go elsewhere, making Piracy a less enjoyable profession overall.

A *MUCH* better scenario would be that *Proper* Pirates inflict heavy, heavy damage to a Trader's vessel, without killing them. Even if they get away, the Trader has a big expenditure to repair his vessel, probably bigger than the loss of cargo that he could have chosen, but instead chose to try to run away. They also get some thrill of the chase, and thrill of escaping, albeit with a loss on their trade account, so some good, some bad. The end result here is that the Trader has less impulse to leave Open and will learn a lesson to either: actually bargain with the Pirate, to save such a big loss on their trade account, or perhaps to learn to run away better, or even perhaps to fight better and give you Pirates a more enjoyable and more satisfying duel.

If that doesn't sound like a much more appealing game dynamic to you, then perhaps look to a career as a murder-hobo instead of a would-be pirate, and also - hoping that a Karma system gets introduced - prepare to accept that some actions have perhaps-undesirable consequences.

Is it just me, or does no-one actually analyse the consequences of their actions any more farther forwards than the tips of their noses?

Yours Aye

Mark H

- - - Updated - - -



For god's sake, are you being deliberately obtuse, or just not listening... any proposed Karma system would be a build-up of consequences over time for doing certain things. It doesn't mean that those things are not able to be done, just that if you play in that way, which has been deemed to have an overall negative effect on *the game*, then you must be prepared for some consequences to those actions.

You will still be able to *play your own way*, but in a galaxy where "Crime" is actually a thing, and where the galaxy isn't a *total* "free-for-all", then you should expect some consequences for Criminal activity. Or do you actually want to be a Criminal and have it completely consequence free? If so, please provide some rational words on how this can be justified?

Yours Aye

In red, because they're pirates not beggars...

 

[Rampant]

Wait. So you advertise the pvp part of the game and then consider shadow bans for those who actually do it? Is that even legal?

Depends on your definition of PvP.
Seal-clubbing is not PvP.
PvP will still be a viable and non-Karma earning issue.
Seal-clubbing wil still be a viable game-style (for those that think this is "fun"), but will have consequences.

Please explain what is not to like about that.

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Maxmilian Czhilli]

Well this is an incredibly smarmy post. Either we agree with you or we're unsuspecting dupes. "If you don't agree with me, the terrorists win."

Thanks for the feedback. Maybe it is a bit smarmy (lovely word BTW ). I have been accused of being condescending before. And you'll probably find this reply smarmy too. It's just my writing style. I blaze my own trail when it comes to forum PvP and I won't change simply because it causes mild upset (I'm struggling for a word that won't cause offence) to some. Believe it or not, I actively try and refrain from personal attacks and play within the forum rules.

The post you quoted did in indulge in a bit of hyperbole. But, come on these forums, are full of it. Let me have my fun too!

Did it ever occur to you that a good C&P system would include all the features of the Karma system, but you know, not as a magical meta fairy floating above everybody's head? The problem is with the C&P system. With the exception of combat logging, which is literally a meta-action, all the actions are in game, and should be dealt with in universe.

Yes, I've thought about how a good C&P system could incorporate a Karma system. But, I have seen no decent suggestions as to how this would be achieved without weakening the desired outcomes of a Karma system. I know I am disagreement with some posters here, but I will continue to make my case. I encourage others to continue making their opposing cases. This is how we test our own thoughts and develop ideas together. I've personally changed some my ideas through discussion on these forums.

Sandro has been quite clear that any consequences ought to be in universe and I heartily agree with that. It's why he has suggested that Karma should be represented in game as a Pilot's Federation Reputation rating. I have been a proponent of this idea for as long as I've been playing the game. The one exception would be shadow banning and reserved for the most extreme cases. I'm not personally keen on shadow-banning, but it is an idea worth exploring: What would be the most effective deterrent to extreme undesired behaviour? A period of shadow banning or the permanent loss of a highly engineered ship?

Continue making your case; explaining the outcomes you would like and how they could be achieved. I will do the same. FD do follow these forums and take into account opinions from across the player base. For all the flack they get, I really do think they pay great attention to us players. It's an impossible job to try and please everyone, but they do try and please as many as possible.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Probably much simpler to count the number of not-in-danger disconnections since the last in-danger disconnection, along with total disconnections of each type - to build up a history of the player's connection.

Not too difficult to game that, though, by yanking the plug once in a while instead of gracefully logging out. Build up a nice history of "unfortunate, accidental" disconnections to act as an offset ready for the next combat log...

It's the sort of easily gatherable data that can feed into a well-designed pattern recognition system alongside other sources, but in isolation it would be too easy to fool.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Not too difficult to game that, though, by yanking the plug once in a while instead of gracefully logging out. Build up a nice history of "unfortunate, accidental" disconnections to act as an offset ready for the next combat log...

It's the sort of easily gatherable data that can feed into a well-designed pattern recognition system alongside other sources, but in isolation it would be too easy to fool.

I'd expect that it would be a bit challenging to implement a trend spotting system, for a significant number of players, without recording vast amounts of additional player-related data, that would not be able to be gamed. Probably not impossible - but non-trivial nonetheless.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Judging from some of the posts here, I'm starting to think a karma system will be nearly impossible to implement without either;

A) killing piracy
B) making things worse



Good luck FD!

 

[Halifax Gibbet]

Judging from some of the posts here, I'm starting to think a karma system will be nearly impossible to implement without either;

A) killing piracy
B) making things worse



Good luck FD!

Karma can work for cheating, its too inescapable and far too broad a method for regulating PVP interactions, though I do think hybridising some of the ideas into the bounty system is a good call. You shouldn't be able to dock where you are wanted.

 

[Truesilver]

Judging from some of the posts here, I'm starting to think a karma system will be nearly impossible to implement without either;

A) killing piracy
B) making things worse



Good luck FD!

I share your concerns.

Although I would give Frontier huge credit for making such an immersive and enjoyable game, the following post is, imo, harsh but fair:

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.

The track record on the bolt-ons is not encouraging. Furthermore, karma has the potential to fall into the RNGineering category, i.e. unlike CQC or Powerplay, which are optional and can be ignored, something that is part of the core experience (at least, if you PvP).

I am very concerned by the prospect of Frontier putting massive yet transient Developer resource into adding a new, complex, bolt-on.

I still think a thorough-going look at improving C&P via the existing bounty and faction rep systems would be a prudent and preferable starting point.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

. how can you compare a player in a video game to real life, get a grip.

While I do agree that it is a game, people get personally attached to stuff in games. It's the reason why we play them. Like travelling hours to get to a station and then have someone ram you to death for no reason at all and then having to start all over again can be annoying, upsetting or could get you angry and frustated, or could make someone not want ot play the game anymore.

Yes it's a game, but having someone else just completely wast the 2 hours of game time you had for a quick laugh is demoralising. Can you not see the issue there.

 

[firemane]

Well, you are what you do. *shrugs*

That's the essence of a Karma system. I am in general agreement with the idea that we need something like that. It is however, only a part of the solution.

As we can see on this thread opinions about what a given action means vary wildly and are, in many cases, irreconciliable. That's the reason why I think FD should go a bit beyond what it has stated here and tie karma to a "player filter" that is used for matchmaking. That way players will have some sort of choice regarding _who_ they will be playing with. That will solve a good number of the "customer satisfaction issues" in ED by customizing your player subset.

My case, as an example... I am a middle-aged regular Joe with a family, and a job. That leaves me a rather limited amount of time to play. I love the game, but I am a cranky old dude who'd rather not spend his time with someone else's feral child (not necessarily underage). I'd rather someone else babysit those cute little psychopaths for free. They aggravate me to no end and they ruin my game experience.

I am, after all, a paying customer.

It'd be awesome to have a menu option where I could filter out those people during matchmaking based on their karma rating or on their likehood to engage in certain types of conduct. That way my quality of life (virtual) and customer satisfaction (not virtual) would be enhanced by sharing time with people with similar interests and "social development" levels. It'd just be a layer added to the matchmaking.

 

[MickyG1982]

Judging from some of the posts here, I'm starting to think a karma system will be nearly impossible to implement without either;

A) killing piracy
B) making things worse



Good luck FD!

It's the problem of something that needs to be done but ultimately I do't think a Karma system is going to be anywhere near accurate enough to accomplish what it sets out to do. Setting a per system criminal rating might, gradually upping your criminal rating (& therefore securities response to you) until you either can't cope & move on or are destroyed. This criminal rating could be increased for all crimes, be reduced by helping out the local governing factions & for piracy - legitimate piracy would only be a minimal increase, for a short time as long as their prey isn't killed in the act of piracy. Murder of clean vessels = a large increase in criminal rating for as long as a murder bounty, the exception being when on a mission and only on a mission target, in which case you only get a bounty.

Logging, via the menu it's already been suggested that a 30-60 second wait would be implemented in the middle of combat by Sandro, a very good idea. Loggers themselves, while realistically I couldn't care if they get fined / hit with negative karma or even end up with the rebuy, their ship should stay in combat for at least the same thirty - sixty seconds that a graceful logger would get under the new system before appearing to hyperspace out.

Ramming at stations, solved by simply having the station extend it's shields around every ship in the 7.5km / no fire zone - as long as you are clean, found to be a criminal/ carrying criminals or have a high criminal rating with the ruling faction & the station won't help you out at all, reckless flying fines can still happen if speeding however.

Effectively, a suitable system would be something like GTA V's wanted method, on a per system basis where the response simply ramps up depending on how bad you've been. After a while, ruling faction change or you've done enough "good deeds" for the ruling faction your criminal rating drops & you be allowed back in once more.

In fact the idea I've just put up has been mentioned repeated & re-imagined all the way through this thread. It won't please everybody, but no method will.

 

[Maxmilian Czhilli]

This, the deterring asymetric combat is my problem, everyone who is backing this is denying themselves of the possibility of experiencing a higher ranked player in a better ship attacking them, beating them against the odds, and screetching victorious into a docking bay with 1% health and 10 seconds of air left.

Things like that make elite great, I'm not a ganker but they should be in game and handled by the CnP system not by Karma. I agree the C+P system is woeful and need addressing though.

Karma should apply to meta actions like logging and suicide winding.

I reckon the vast majority of combat in ED is asymmetric. All the combat I have been involved in has been asymmetric, with me and my penchant for low tier ships being at the disadvantage. And yes, just escaping alive is thrilling. I can't see how you could prevent asymmetric combat it, nor would it be desirable.

One of the goals of the Karma system, that Sandro has being proposing, is to try and reduce the amount massively asymmetric combat. For instance: a wing of FDLs attacking a new player emerging from LHS 3447 on their first mission. We still have new players coming into the game and their early experiences are very important in how they perceive the game and whether they persist through those difficult early days. Many veteran players started at game launch when everyone was on the same level. It's very different now with, gangs of experienced players in hyper-engineered PvP murder ships looking for easy slaughter and giggles.

I'm firmly of the opinion of that C&P needs a massive overhaul but that it should be focussed on enabling compelling gameplay involving criminality for all. Karma should be a parallel system focused on reducing behaviour that FD considers undesirable and detrimental to the health of their game.

Let's not fall into the trap (not aimed at you Chrissy )of labelling all those in favour of a Karma system as "carebears" who want a safe and sterile galaxy to play in. I love the threat of Open. I'm a big boy blazing my own trail: My most expensive ship is a Type-6 and I can cover over 300 re-buys from my liquid credit reserve. I treat every death, whether by player, NPC or my own bad flying as a mere inconvenience. But most players are not like me, they tend to be more financially affected by loss and are usually much more emotionally affected when it comes to death by another player. I fully support the right of players with differing personalities and play-styles, whether Elite murderous sociopaths or Harmless traders, to enjoy the game their way too.

However, there will alway be conflicts between play-styles. This is something that FD has to balance. I personally think that current balance of the game disadvantages some far too heavily as they attempt to blaze the trail they want. New players are especially harshly disadvantaged compared to when the game launched: they are a minority now and they have to get going in a galaxy filled with extremely powerful commanders. There are plenty of levers that can be used to adjust the balance of the game, and yes C&P is one of them. I see Karma as just another lever especially designed to reduce the most off-putting game experiences for new and low level players. I want more players in the game, more players in Open, more players to shoot and be shot at by. I support Karma because I believe, if done right, it will improve the health and longevity of the game; and that means I can have fun game to play for longer, make my first billion and maybe treat myself to a Type-9.

 

[Jack Schitt]

I'd expect that it would be a bit challenging to implement a trend spotting system, for a significant number of players, without recording vast amounts of additional player-related data, that would not be able to be gamed. Probably not impossible - but non-trivial nonetheless.

I suppose some of the value would depend on what pre-karma data FD were sitting on, or were prepared to use as a benchmark. Someone suffering a series of unfortunate "random" non-combat disconnections post-karma where few or none happened before might itself be an indicator of something fishy. Or it might just be that the player swapped to a crappier router just as the karma system went live, of course. It's next to impossible to eliminate all edge cases or false positives. But the more data you have the better the chances, I guess.

 

[nrage]

This, the deterring asymetric combat is my problem, everyone who is backing this is denying themselves of the possibility of experiencing a higher ranked player in a better ship attacking them, beating them against the odds, and screetching victorious into a docking bay with 1% health and 10 seconds of air left.

Not necessarily.

This would, presumably, be possible in anarchy systems, with report crimes off, in a power play context (assuming the karma system is programmed to detect and react to those scenarios), and so on.. There should remain plenty of contexts in which this encounter can happen, the goal is only to prevent the encounters where what you describe is simply impossible.

For example, the detail of just how the system would determine relative ship strengths is something that hasn't been clearly defined (for obvious reasons) but it will surely be something which can be tweaked and adjusted. It could be that the range Frontier implement for this is wide enough that no karma penalty would be applied in the example you give.