Referal --> Karma / C&P Debate in "Deliberate Ramming" Thread with input from Sandro Sammarco
Deliberate Ramming
Just thought I'd pop this link here for everyone that enjoys the ever popular debate about the balance of PvP within the "Spirit of the Game", within this example of the debate Lead Developer Sandro Sammarco puts forward some Ideas on a Karma system and calls for feedback , there are posts from some very notorious commanders one being the arch enemy of 'he who must not be named' who I must admit made some surprisingly constructive comments himself.
Enjoy
P.S. be prepared for a very long read.
Edit
one of the highlights for me was this post by MR Sammarco --> #315
Edit 2
List in chronological order of posts by Mr Sammarco
#16
#20
#25
#35 - details and thoughts on karma system
#39
#43
#63
#75
#90
#106
#111
#131
#150
#288 Probably the most informative of the response posts so reproduced in spoiler below
#315 - pertains to the controversial "hunt other Commanders" marketing material
#321
last page searched 52
Review by Obsidianant
Deliberate Ramming
Just thought I'd pop this link here for everyone that enjoys the ever popular debate about the balance of PvP within the "Spirit of the Game", within this example of the debate Lead Developer Sandro Sammarco puts forward some Ideas on a Karma system and calls for feedback , there are posts from some very notorious commanders one being the arch enemy of 'he who must not be named' who I must admit made some surprisingly constructive comments himself.
Enjoy
P.S. be prepared for a very long read.
Edit
one of the highlights for me was this post by MR Sammarco --> #315
Edit 2
List in chronological order of posts by Mr Sammarco
#16
#20
#25
#35 - details and thoughts on karma system
Hello Commander nrage!
Discerning naughty from undesirable would really be such a system's prime function.
so, to spitball a little, here are some potential examples:
* Attacking a wanted ship, no matter how overpowered you were compared to it, would be fine
* Attacking a clean ship when massively overpowered would get minor bad karma
* Repeatedly attacking clean ships that you massively overpowered would get you major bad karma
* Stealing cargo from a clean ship would be fine.
* Being involved in an occasional starport collision would gain you minor bad karma
* Being repeatedly involved in starport collisions over time would get you major bad karma
* Occasionally disconnecting ungracefully in danger would be fine
* Repeatedly disconnecting ungracefully in danger over time would get you major bad karma
* Attacking starports as crew would get you major bad karma
This sort of thing.
Such a system might not be perfectly right in very instance, but punitive measures would increase based on trends over time, which in the end become fairly accurate indicators of intent.
In general, we want to minimise out of game intervention. However, that does not mean that punitive measures would be toothless. We could make life *very* challenging, in ways we currently have not employed, for repeat offenders.
But please remember, as of this moment, this is just discussion, and although we have very positive vibes, there's currently no ETA or guarantee for such a system's arrival.
#43
#63
#75
#90
#106
#111
#131
#150
#288 Probably the most informative of the response posts so reproduced in spoiler below
Hello Commanders!
Thank you for all the constructive criticism and appraisal (remember, attack the argument, not the speaker).
First the CAVEAT: I am not saying when this system is coming, or even that it is coming at all. I am merely discussing the pros and cons of what it might be able to address, and what it would not. It's also not "the fix" to crime and punishment, just one of several options.
However, it’s pretty cool to chew the fat over various development concepts and gather very useful feedback from you folk. We all want the same thing, for the game to be as good as it can be, and it’s important that we try to look at issues from as many different viewpoints as possible.
To address a few persistent issues that I've seen:
* "You are going to ban people for playing your game"
That's not the intention. We want to try our hardest to let Commanders enjoy the game how they want to. However, and it's a big however: Open is a shared game space that we want as many folk to enjoy as possible. We have to decide what is best for the greater good when there are conflicts of interest between Commanders. Just because there are Private Group and Solo mode, does not necessarily mean that Open should be without codes of conduct. We don't tolerate racism, for example.
And there’s the rub: should we tolerate psychopathic/unpleasant behaviour against Commanders (this isn't an issue with AI ships)? Because if we really thought that this behaviour was beyond the pale, then why would we not prevent/punish it?
As I've tried to make to make clear, we currently believe in using in-game sanctions whenever possible. That is to say, we would like to see a system where players can act in unpleasant ways, but where there are suitably appropriate consequences for those actions. For example, the concept of removing any reduction in re-buy costs ( basically meaning you would have to pay the whole amount for a destroyed ship) would, if we decided to use it as a punitive measure, only come at the end of a long, long road of wanton offences.
* "You are going to punish me the moment I step out of line"
No. This is simply not the case.
If we were to do a karma system, it would fundamentally be based on tracking behaviour *over time*, so infrequent indiscretions would factor in only as data points. They still would carry any appropriate immediate penalty, such as gaining a bounty, of course. When actions were logged, they would not instantly dump “bad points” on Commanders, they would affect the power of a positive or negative trend.
Importantly, we would look carefully at each behaviour we wanted to track, and give it its own specific values for karma loss/gain. This value could then be modified by tracked trends of all parties involved that were relevant (to the account level, to mitigate undesirable behaviour keyed off resetting Commanders), interrogating concepts such as how “new” each participant was to the game, what they had been doing in the past, their current karma status, their relationships (including wing members, friends present etc.)
We would also have a wide range of punitive measures to draw upon, and importantly scale up or down, so a Commander would always experience a descent and have plenty of time to moderate their behaviour based on what consequences they were prepared to accept.
* "There's no way you can tell the difference in power/ability/intent using karma"
It's undeniable that working out relative power and reading intent from tracked values is a challenge. But I suspect that the success rate we can achieve would make it more than worth the effort.
It should be made absolutely clear that a trend tracking system would not be a panacea. We are not against looking at the power of authority vessels, system security etc.
But we think that potentially karma could help in a lot of instances that currently are not being addressed because of the long view it would take, assuming that there aren’t horrible holes in it, which is where this kind of discussion comes in very handy. So once again, thank you for your continued interest, passion and feedback!
Hello Commander Genar-Hofoen!
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.
last page searched 52
This reddit post sums it up well:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/698b36/sandro_sammarco_lead_designer_talks_about/
Review by Obsidianant
Last edited: