Elite: Harmless - Karma System aka "be the Tamagotchi" - FRESH SALT, MINED RIGHT HERE

[Morbad]

Leaving anyone you deem "incompetant" to be victims.

Another way to put that is that everyone needs to be as good as the best pilots or move to solo, because there's no in-game consequence for ganking.

Because of how open the game is and how enormously slanted things are in favor of the defender, you don't need to be as good as the pilots after you to survive Open.

Once a pilot has basic situational awareness, a fair grasp of the tactical capabilities that can be brought to bear against them, and an understanding of how the instancing transitions work, cornering them proves almost impossible.

Those in-game realities of instancing and defense are a big part of precisely why no meaningful consequences exist for 'ganking'. The severity of the consequences don't matter as long as actually facing the music remains optional, and it's only not optional for those "incompetent" players.

The changes required to have the effect on 'ganking' and 'griefing' that some desire would mandate too much of a removal of convenience features to make the bulk of those who are actually at risk from these types happy.

I don't like telling people to "git gud", but at the same time I don't think there is any hope for those who demand that the system always save them from their own incompetence. The kind of system they want would require a new game mode, either in name, or in essence. The only way to save these CMDRs is to create insurmountable barriers mechanisms that prevent them from being attacked or destroyed in the first place.

Most proposed karma and C&P systems end up looking like a dragnet trolling for idiots...not a targeted response to undesirable behavior or an effort to improve underlying flaws that make such behaviors viable.

I used to give similar advice to students when I used to teach SCUBA diving when they asked about shark attacks... "Why do you think you always dive with a buddy? You don't have to out-swim the shark, just be faster than your buddy." I'm sure it gave them just as much comfort.

Well, it is a lot easier to think you could be a better swimmer than your buddy than to think you could be a better swimmer than a shark.

For Crime & Consequences, certainly.

For karma, not so much - as karma would seem to be designed to deal with the inevitable conflict of play-styles between players - and, while Frontier control NPC behaviours, they cannot directly control players - hence a proposal that seems designed to discourage particular player behaviours through the introduction of consequences for engaging in them against other players.

The best way to mitigate the issue of conflicting play styles is to stop trying to appeal beyond the niche you're product is suited for. Can't do that though, it's bad for business.

An attempt to discourage particular player behaviors in a setting that otherwise has no disincentives is exactly what this karma proposal feels like...which is why it feels so forced and artificial.

the karma system feels more like the pilot federations rules of conduct between members.

That's what it is.

But these rules are essentially a galactic caste system that places every NPC on a lower level than any CMDR. Rather than make the setting feel more plausible, more alive, or align with the less far-fetched portions of the lore/history, it undermines all of these. The game itself is telling us that NPCs are not people, they are race of slaves and drones, placed here, by the hand of Braben, for our sustenance and enjoyment. They may occasionally protest through token acts of resistance, but by and large, they are inferior and they know their place. 'Karma' is merely the Pilot's Federation codifying their de facto status.

The game has made us the Spartans and it should be no wonder that some find abusing the Helots lacking.

This trend to raise the NPC's up to the ranks of the Pilot's Federation, is just another attempt to de-legitimatize a Notoriety system.

This trend, which goes back three years, to treat NPCs not as an intrinsic part of an immersive setting, nor as vehicles for actual content, but rather as mindless fodder offered up for the culling, is the single most problematic facet Elite: Dangerous has.

Every single issue with the current C&P system, and the whole reason why a karma layer is being considered, originates from all the silly mechanisms deliberately placed to remove consequences for treating NPCs as disposable filler. Sure, you can roll back the effects of some of this, with regard to CMDRs with systems that only apply to CMDR interaction, but you can't fix the underlying cause by exacerbating it.

But why should good clean NPC piracy put you in the sin bin?

Because the Pilot's Federation should care a hell of a lot more about it's relations with other in game entities and powers. Giving diplomatic immunity to everyone then unleashing them on the galaxy with the blessing of your resources and political protection, and having this be tolerated by other entities is far fetched, to say the least.

Policing what your members do to non-members is at least as important as policing what they do to each other. Every real organization that has survived for more than a momentary blip of history has understood this.

 

[Mohrgan]

You know as well as I do that crimes against NPC's/Factions are as big of a joke as crimes against commanders. As you said it's easy to stay clean so why are you so against Karma including NPC's.
You can try to dance around the issue all you want but it comes down to you want to punish humans because they hurt someones feels. Boo fraggling hoo.

I'm not afraid to face consequences, in fact I'm going to welcome it. I have never shot at anyone who didn't deserve it but if a PVElord version of Karma is introduced I will put on my black hat and club every seal I can find.

Spiteful. I'm not surprised. I don;t necessarily think crimes against NPC's should be overlooked. They have their place in the continuum. But, I feel the primary concern of a Notoriety system would be actions between the PF and Commanders. I think the C&P system should handle our relationships with the Factions, and a Notoriety system should track and respond to PF issues. I can see any type of Murder as an issue for the PF. But anything that gains a fine, is not the PF's concern. Logically.

I have stated that I expect a revamped C&P system, with teeth, to emerge in tandem with a Notoriety system. And, I have stated that the Notoriety system's response should be gradual, fitting, and reversible. Implementation can and should be discussed, but a masked smear campaign based on absurdity is not warranted.

 

[Kaa Mchorror]

Spiteful. I'm not surprised. I don;t necessarily think crimes against NPC's should be overlooked. They have their place in the continuum. But, I feel the primary concern of a Notoriety system would be actions between the PF and Commanders. I think the C&P system should handle our relationships with the Factions, and a Notoriety system should track and respond to PF issues. I can see any type of Murder as an issue for the PF. But anything that gains a fine, is not the PF's concern. Logically.

I have stated that I expect a revamped C&P system, with teeth, to emerge in tandem with a Notoriety system. And, I have stated that the Notoriety system's response should be gradual, fitting, and reversible. Implementation can and should be discussed, but a masked smear campaign based on absurdity is not warranted.

Masked smear campaign based on absurdity? Isn't that what what the PvE players have been doing to open since the beginning? Griefers behind every asteroid and every player is a griefer.

Spiteful? No. Sick of the PvE agenda? Absolutely. Don't worry though I will have exploited enough cash and engineering materials by the time that this comes into play that it won't be an issue. Add in the fact that I can just menu log against bounty hunters and then put them on block so I don't get instanced with them I don't see any problems at all. I can't wait.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The simple fact is you guys are on a mission to turn Open into Mobius and you have been given fresh wind in your sails to Sandro's recent remarks.

That's an opinion, yours, and not a fact.

What I see is a player who wants to use a ruleset to punish other players for playing in a manner he doesn't like, while unwilling to abide by the same rules himself.

All players would be subject to karmic consequences - for transgressing the Pilots' Federation Code of Conduct.

The only way I'm going to abide by a karma system is if it applies to everybody, regardless of whether they murder NPC's or players.

You don't need to abide by it - that's your free choice.

.... and it does apply to everyone (but probably does not carry consequences for destroying NPCs).

I think it would be hysterical if every time the spray & pray PvEer "accidentally" tags security forces his karma takes a big hit. In fact, that would almost talk me into supporting it right there.

Changing extant consequences for interacting with NPCs is, of course, possible - however the so-called "friendly fire" response has been the way it is for some time now - I doubt that it would be changed much, if at all, by revisions to a Crime & Consequences system or the introduction of a karma system / Pilots' Federation Code of Conduct.

Sandro has been talking about increased consequences for some player/player interactions for some time, here are some quotes from a previous thread where he broached the topic:

Spoiler

Hello Commanders!

Usual caveat: no guarantee, no ETA! This is just another thought experiment.

A quick question regarding player-versus-player (not AI) in open:

Currently there is no real difference between crime against AI and crime against humans.

Do folk think that additional, relatively severe in-game penalties for illegal ship destruction where there was a large disparity between rank/power of murderer to victim would be a worthwhile thing?

As an example suggestion: a high combat rank player in a combat capable ship boils a low combat rank player in a trade vessel. In addition to a bounty, the murderer is unable to dock at high security systems and suffers an increased insurance premium excess for an amount of time.

Continued offences of this nature increase and prolong the punitive measures.

Would a system like this help reconcile the two factions of the PVP and PVE, or would it not really address the issue?

Thoughts?

Hello Commander Mr_Blastman!

This idea is more focused on addressing the "random killer" issue that is a part of the PVP vs PVE debate.

So I think it's safe to assume that we want to allow piracy without killing the trader (we already have hatchbreaker limpets and module damage to drives and cargo hatch, but we'll continue to look at other ways to enable piracy without murder).

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Remember, this is just speculation at the moment.

But yes, the concept would probably revolve around the Pilot's Federation disapproving of infighting.

So members that victimise weaker members (important to remember - it would not affect players going after equally matched targets or going after legal targets) would suffer both financial risk (imagine rebuy excess fees rising to a double digit percentages on the more expensive ships) as the Federation upped their premiums, and outcast status from systems receiving warning communiqués from the Federation (starting with the most secure systems, but eventually preventing docking access everywhere except anarchies).

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

We have ways of measuring ship power well enough for such a system to work, I think.

It's not incompatible with the concept of Pilot's Federation bounties. However, I feel that bounties, which are an incentive to other players, are "softer" than punitive measures applied directly to the offender without the possibility of avoidance.

Worth considering though, obviously.

Hello Commander Bane Six Echo!

Personally I'm not a fan of pushing the rebuy cost onto the criminal. Not that it's a bad idea. It makes sense in many ways, but for me, trivialises ship destruction, which is part of the intended risk of flying a ship in Elite: Dangerous. It also further stretches the difference between AI and players (which as a general principle I'd like to minimize), unless we had free re-buys from AI murders.

But point taken on the imbalance of cost resulting from criminal activities.

Hello Commander Bumbles!

I'm interested in your opinion. Even though these penalties would only be applied in cases where there was a very clear mismatch of ability *and* a crime was committed, you think it would be a deterrent to player versus player activities.

Do you (or any other folk, feel free to respond), feel that there should be no additional penalties for lopsided encounters? That the world should remain uncaring and cold as is (don't worry folk, this isn't a trick question - there's no right or wrong answer!)?

Hello Commanders!

At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire

I'd like to make a few things clear about our standpoint:

Any changes we might make would not be to punish PVP players or PVE players.

They would be to improve consequence for player choices, which I think sometimes gets a little lost in the heat of the debate.

In Open play, any sort of behaviour is technically allowed (bar hacking or using known exploits). What is potentially missing is appropriate consequence for some actions. For example, pirating a ship and stealing some amount of cargo in a policed jurisdiction is reasonable - you are committing crimes which you might have to pay for. Pirating in anarchy is also fine, including destroying the target ship in the process - the victim should understand the risk of flying outside of legal jurisdictions.

Frankly, none of the above is particularly about player versus player or lack thereof. It's about plausible and consistent game rules.

Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game. The rub is that some folk (myself included, for what it's worth) feel that the consequences of such actions are not commensurate with the act committed. So whilst I want to defend the right of "griefconda" to exist, I want to make sure that there are meaningful responses in the game world to their actions.

This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)

On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?

Hello Commander Snarfbuckle!

I'm not sure I was clear enough. The idea would be that if I murder you in a ship that has a re-buy cost of 1m CR and get a 6k CR bounty, When I re-spawn at a location in the jurisdiction that the crime was committed in I have to pay 6K *plus* 1m CR, regardless of what ship I actually died in.

This additional cost would *only* be added to the fine, not to the bounty, so my friends could only claim a 6K bounty for killing me.

The reason I would prefer not to use the victim's insurance premium as an additional fine is because A) this would be trivial when murdering small ships and B) I don't have a problem with small ships attacking bigger ships.

Hello Commander Lightspeed!

Yes, a very important part of any update we do that would introduce these measures would be to have escalation, both in punishments and in preventative system security.

Hello Commanders!

A few more points.

Some folk are super rich in CR terms. But not everyone, not by a long shot. I think that cost of having to pay re-buy costs for powerful ships regardless of what ship you died in has more teeth that people might give it credit for, especially as an ongoing effect.

Interstellar bounties could have a fairly dramatic affect on the way that folk think about crimes - having bounties (and any additional costs like the one's we're discussing here) follow you over all of Imperial space might make some folk think twice, or at least provide some interesting game challenges for them. Of course, interstellar bounties don't have any jurisdictional power in independent space though.

On the point of it being easy to avoid paying fines - this is indeed a tricky one, not least because I really don't want to disincentive criminal activity too much.

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Double jeopardy with ship re-buy - because this additional penalty is there to serve as a form of justice, we would not apply the cost if the bad guy stuck to their guns and kept the same ship. You might think of this as rewarding behaviour that we approve of. Basically, if you stick to your ship, you don't incur the extra cost. But if you try to game the system, you end up paying more.

Hello Commanders!

Concerning adding insurance re-buy costs: it would not be our intention to do this for every ship that a villain destroys - such a punishment would most likely remove any incentive for criminal activity, which is not the point. It would simply be to negate the ability of a bad guy to swap to a cheaper ship after committing murder. To be clear again, I'm not out to cosh PVP players - I just want to make sure that the penalties we put in place cannot be avoided.

As for "seal clubbing billionaires": as rightly pointed out, the main consequences here would not be financial (to be clear, they'd still end up with unavoidable, mammoth bills upon re-spawning, but like any fiscal sanction against a wealthy target it would take time for any effects to actually be felt), locking off starport access would be far more effective: not being able to dock at any starport except in anarchy space would significantly alter things.

Hello Commander Sandmann!

Correct, the fine always goes into the Aether of the minor faction when you re-spawn.

What you describe about invisibly scoring ships for combat power (taking into account modules) is basically what we already do with NPCs which is why I'm mooting using the system to "judge" player versus player strength, and yes, the idea would be to encourage Commanders to stop clubbing seals and take on more meaningful fight challenges.

Hello Commanders!

Yeah, I'd just like to add: making changes of any sort is non-trivial. We'd love to be able to iterate constantly, but the reality is that the game is incredibly complex as are the various (sometimes conflicting) needs of the user base.

However, that isn't going to stop us from always looking to improve the game as we move forward, it just means that sometimes things take longer than you might first imagine.

Hello Commander A_Honcho!

Combat logging would probably be part of the same system: undesirable behaviour, monitored by aggregate data analysis, leading to punitive measures over time. No escape for the wicked.

Hello Commanders!

Hopefully I've given you folk some things to chew over, but unfortunately I have to frame shift to my home system now.

Remember, at the moment this is all hypothetical, as I've said, even the smallest changes have a very large lead time, and there are lots of other happenings in development land. So for now, take a moment or two to digest my various posts, and feel free to carry on the (very civil, of course) debate!

.... and in recent the Deliberate Ramming thread:

Spoiler

Hello Commander Arry!

If you mean context (apologies if I am misunderstanding), then we'd probably go with some form of Pilot's Federation Rating system.

This would be like a code of conduct for members. In the dangerous universe of Elite and due to the nature of the organisation, the PF understands there will be conflict within the ranks. So this code of conduct would perhaps be like the Geneva conventions. Rules of engagement, if you will.

As you commit actions that break these codes, the PF would take an increasingly dim view of you, which would translate into them withdrawing support and even working with factions to punish you.

Hypothetically, of course.

Hello Commander besieger!

Well, it would be a descent rather than an instant slam - there would be plenty of warnings and punitive measures would ramp up from much lesser effects, but if we decide that unbalanced combat encounters are bad for the overall game health then yes, something like this could be the ultimate consequence of roleplaying a remorseless murderer.

Open is a shared game space and we want to maximize enjoyment for all the Commanders that use it.

Of course, this is hypothetical. If we do decide to go down this route, we will make sure that everyone is fully informed along the way.

Hello Commander Sole Hunter!

Let me be as clear as I can, I think perhaps I am not articulating the concept well enough.

* Our karma system would work by tracking *trends* over time. You would never perform a single action and get dropped down to the lowest rating. It tracks intent by building up a picture over time.

* It would very likely *only* apply to interactions with other players in most cases, so it would not interfere much with the rest of the game.

* Importantly, for combat encounters, it would a) only apply to criminal attacks, b) use as detailed and as comprehensive metrics as possible for determining relative ship powers, taking into account ship hull, load out, engineered upgrades and pilot rating, and only activate when there was a large disparity.

I guess, in response, do you feel it's completely fine for powerful ships to be able to wantonly destroy new players, for example?

Hello Commanders besieger, Jukelo and others!

Regarding the possibility that such measures might act as an incentive: it's an interesting point.

In response I would suggest that if the measures did do that then with the system in place it would be more likely that we could swap in measures that in no way could be seen as good things (such as shadow bans).

There's also the argument that it's not that we necessarily want to prevent Commanders from playing how they want, more that we want appropriate consequences for such actions.

Hello Commander zarking!

A very good question! It's quite possible that the karma system would not apply in anarchies (and powerplay, lawless areas etc.) or be severely reduced in effect. We're always looking to differentiate secure systems with lawless ones.

EDIT
Hello Commander Bunkerkind Anni!

Technically we could still make it apply in such areas if we wanted. For example, around starports in anarchies we'd still consider tracking collisions. You are right though, whenever possible we'd want to tie it to criminality.

Hello Commander CMDR Dahak!

Well, seeing that this is just chewing the fat at the moment, as I've stated *many* times, all options could be on the table.

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.

In my opinion, the *really* interesting question, is one I have already asked: should it be OK to destroy much weaker ships? How important is this to folk?

Seeing that such a system could host a whole range of measures and could clearly be as lenient of harsh as we desired, where do folk think the red line should exist for such behaviour?

Hello Commanders!

Lots of interesting points!

A few comments for the end of the day:

* For the suggestion that the most serious "offenders" would be least likely to suffer the consequences (by escaping): yes, we would likely want to address this in some manner.

* For the various alternative punitive measures: yes, most of these are plausible (including benefits for good karma), the exact details are less interesting to me at the moment as the concept of *when* they should be employed (because in my opinion, it comes back to...

* ...This). For the question of what do we feel should be the spirit of the game - this is an excellent question, and to one degree or another involves us all. Our current take is that we feel that some actions, say like the ones I have described earlier, can be overall be not so good for the game in the long term. However, we'd rather approach a solution that added consequences than simply shadow banning or full banning. So basically, we want people to play how they want, but understand that eventually there are reactions to certain actions.

And now, unfortunately, I have to end for the day. Feel free to offer constructive criticism or support, or just debate (as long as it's civil).

And remember, this is speculative: no ETA, no guarantee.

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!

It would be awesome if Sandro could - once and for all - explain the intent of that "or just hunt other commanders".

It would go a long, loooong way to stop some of the longstanding arguments on these forums.

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.

 

[Robert Maynard]

PvE affects (possibly adversely) other players through the BGS. There is no reason PvE players should get a free pass to murder hundreds of soft targets.

Indirectly, yes - that's the game. It's up to Frontier to decide if crimes against NPCs incur sufficient consequences - they may (or may not) change them, we'll see.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Don't see much of a difference myself. If you're acting enough of a deush that the game can consider you need reigning in, why is that behaviour OK aimed at NPCs if not non-NPCs?

Deush behaviour should be bad no matter what.

Probably result in a better/more realistic in game outcome too. Why should the game allow you to act like a psycho to NPCs and not penalise you?

Sandro has talked about "the health of the game" - which necessarily involves the number of players - and it's some player/player interactions that put some players off the game. Frontier would seem to be thinking of taking steps to curb some player behaviours (against other players) for the good of the game as a whole.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The best way to mitigate the issue of conflicting play styles is to stop trying to appeal beyond the niche you're product is suited for. Can't do that though, it's bad for business.

An attempt to discourage particular player behaviors in a setting that otherwise has no disincentives is exactly what this karma proposal feels like...which is why it feels so forced and artificial.

It is, in my opinion, far, far too late for that. Plus the fact that there will always be players who will attempt to shoehorn their preferred play-style into a game, whether or not it has been designed with that play-style in mind.

If particular player behaviours are considered by Frontier to be bad for the health of the game then I'd expect them to take steps.

 

[Han_Zen]

That's what it is.

But these rules are essentially a galactic caste system that places every NPC on a lower level than any CMDR. Rather than make the setting feel more plausible, more alive, or align with the less far-fetched portions of the lore/history, it undermines all of these. The game itself is telling us that NPCs are not people, they are race of slaves and drones, placed here, by the hand of Braben, for our sustenance and enjoyment. They may occasionally protest through token acts of resistance, but by and large, they are inferior and they know their place. 'Karma' is merely the Pilot's Federation codifying their de facto status.

The game has made us the Spartans and it should be no wonder that some find abusing the Helots lacking.

This is essentially why the Karma system is such a bad idea.

I can not fathom why anyone would want a game where the NPCs are just decoration/income?

They are already gimped from having meta builds, but still we expect them to enforce a law that don't protect them.

Why? Because the all powerful Pilots federation tells them to do it. They aren't members, but they have to do the dirty work. Good deal they got there.

 

[jasonbarron]

Wow Robert, nice wall of text there. Thank you for including almost an entire Reddit thread for our reading pleasure. I think you should have tried to condense it a bit with spoiler tags to avoid looking like you're spamming the forum, though.

Edit: nevermind, I'm on mobile

 

[Robert Maynard]

Wow Robert, nice wall of text there. Thank you for including almost an entire Reddit thread for our reading pleasure. I think you should have tried to condense it a bit with spoiler tags to avoid looking like you're spamming the forum, though.

It does have spoiler tags?

.... and the reddit thread must be copying Sandro's posts from the forum thread.

 

[jasonbarron]

It does have spoiler tags?

.... and the reddit thread must be copying Sandro's posts from the forum thread.

Yep, I just got hit with a wall of text on my mobile that took almost a minute to scroll through.

 

[steenpass]

Scene 3765, Somewhere in the nirwana

jasonbarron
I feel that the upcoming karma system forces me to play in a way I do not like.

jb looks around defiantly.

Robert Maynard
The upcoming karma system forces everybody to play in the proper way.

rm drags in huge boxes filled with densely written paper sheets.
he sets to scrunching them up and bombarding jb.
jb retreats from the forces of truth.

 

[jasonbarron]

Scene 3765, Somewhere in the nirwana

jasonbarron
I feel that the upcoming karma system forces me to play in a way I do not like.

jb looks around defiantly.

Robert Maynard
The upcoming karma system forces everybody to play in the proper way.

rm drags in huge boxes filled densely written paper sheets.
he sets to scrunching them up and bombarding jb.
jb retreats from the forces of truth.

Nice try, Steen, but I'm not retreating from the "forces of truth" I just can't keep up with RM's spam on my phone.

Rep to you when I get back to my computer in any case.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Nice try, Steen, but I'm not retreating from the "forces of truth" I just can't keep up with RM's spam on my phone.

Rep to you when I get back to my computer in any case.

You could always use the non-mobile theme on your phone....

 

[Morbad]

You could always use the non-mobile theme on your phone....

But it's a rotary phone!

 

[Bartizan]

OP, this sounds like a very sound business design, alienate the larger player base of people less inclined to griefer shenanigans who would eventually just leave, over the few players who get a rise out of praying on new players or players not interested in pvp or players who have better things to do than grind hundreds of hours to make sure they are flying the most pimped out epeen they can and are in such need for attention, feel the need to shove it into everyone's exhaust port.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think it would be hysterical if every time the spray & pray PvEer "accidentally" tags security forces his karma takes a big hit. In fact, that would almost talk me into supporting it right there.

I'd feel messing with security forces should mess with your karma, since they're special. Like us guys from the Pilots Federation.

Regular NPCs are schmucks who didn't make it in Pilot's Federation school, have no class, and are ruled by decision processes which begs for a little chlorine in the genepool. No one cares about them.

#someofthemdo

 

[Mohrgan]

Masked smear campaign based on absurdity? Isn't that what what the PvE players have been doing to open since the beginning? Griefers behind every asteroid and every player is a griefer.

Spiteful? No. Sick of the PvE agenda? Absolutely. Don't worry though I will have exploited enough cash and engineering materials by the time that this comes into play that it won't be an issue. Add in the fact that I can just menu log against bounty hunters and then put them on block so I don't get instanced with them I don't see any problems at all. I can't wait.

Of course, you offer the perfect response.

 

[lenna]

Of course, you offer the perfect response.

There are those of us that are sick of the PvP Agenda and the near constant drivel that comes out of certain glory hounds.

ED is not a PvP combat frag fest and it is long overdue for some players to realise that ED is a PvX title and excessively anti-social PvP behaviours should not continue to go largely unanswered.

I will admit I am not a big fan of PvP, but I do accept it has it's place in the ED environment - just not largely unconstrained as it definitely is currently. It does not matter if there is only 1 excessive PvPer, PvE has rules of engagement which can be quite punishing on the PVE player but PvP is largely unpoliced by comparison.

 

[Morbad]

PvE has rules of engagement which can be quite punishing on the PVE player

Since when?

I'm completely sure that I've always been able to shoot down whatever NPCs I care to with nearly non-existent consequences since the pre-release Beta, and I won't even suicidewinder.