Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Elite: Harmless - Karma System aka "be the Tamagotchi" - FRESH SALT, MINED RIGHT HERE
- Thread starter ranje
- Start date
I'd expect that those odds are pretty good - in Frontier's favour....
If I agreed I'd have not put it the way I did. And I don't think wishing really hard is going to speed it up, Robert. Personally, I'd rather they didn't waste the time they do spend developing the actual features and mechanics of the game trying to create a brand new and complex ruleset that's going to do little to pursuade anyone to come back from Group and that's probably doomed to failure right out of the box.
- - - Updated - - -
That being my point
Last edited:
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that it would seem that the aim of the potential karma system would be to improve the "health of the game" (as Sandro put it), I'd rather that Frontier did this - for the good of the game in general (even if it would not be appreciated / liked by a subset of the player-base).
Whether Frontier will actually implement such a system is yet to be seen. Anything implemented that attempts to discourage some of the player behaviours that Frontier are fairly obviously concerned about would, in my opinion, be better than what we have now.
I'm not talking about people who just want to kill because they can. I'm talking about people who interdict, demand cargo with the threat of death upon refusal. I like it when someone tries to pirate me. It's fun and the only time I feel at all worried when trading. NPC's are not a challenge. I do not want NPC's to become a huge challenge because the game is too rife with them. It would remove the fun entirely for people who don't enjoy combat if they couldn't do anything without an uber npc killing them. PVP pirating allows for higher risk and the possibility of facing additional challenge while allowing people who do not want that risk to avoid it.
It's not about being a murderous nutter. The accusation couldn't be further from how I play the game.
Within the failure of a Karma system rests the birth of Open PvE!
As if that has not been perfectly obvious all along. IF it ever gets past being a hypothetical on a Reddit post it will be implemented as a half-baked runny mess, the usual crowd of gankers will exploit it shamelessly virtually free of meaningful consequence and send a whole new batch of PvEers to run crying for their mommy's, and Fdev will leave it to languish right alongside Power Play. I sort of envision this as a best case scenario.
Sorry gang, I know how much this means to you
Last edited:
As if that has not been perfectly obvious all along. IF it ever gets past being hypothetical on a Reddit post it will be implemented as a half-baked runny mess, the usual crowd of gankers will exploit it shamelessly virtually free of meaningful consequence and send a whole new batch of PvEers will run crying for their mommy's, and Fdev will leave it to languish right alongside Power Play. I sort of envision this as a best case scenario.
Sorry gang, I know how much this means to you
Right. My guess is it just gets worse and more inventive. Spite is troll food. It will just make them stronger and more determined.
Not only that, it will also convert many who are currently sitting on the fence to go full on rampage mode. I just feel bad for all the little guys who are going to be caught in the middle when/if it ever comes about.
Last edited:
Elite needs this. ATM i can pick any system ( if i choose - i do not ), go there. Shoot whatever i want. Kill whoever i want. Get a bounty whooop what will i do, carry on killing. Kill some cops. Had enough, jump to another system and forget all about it! Go somewhere else, do the same Elite needs proper crime and punishments. If im an enemy of the federation in 1 system, why can i dock no problems in the next?
Elite needs proper crime and punishments. If im an enemy of the federation in 1 system, why can i dock no problems in the next?Elite needs this. ATM i can pick any system ( if i choose - i do not ), go there. Shoot whatever i want. Kill whoever i want. Get a bounty whooop what will i do, carry on killing. Kill some cops. Had enough, jump to another system and forget all about it! Go somewhere else, do the same
Except that's not what's under discussion, and certainly not indicative of what the majority of players really want who are weighing in on this thread. The last thing the average proponent of a karma based c&p system wants is c&p to provide more protections to NPC's and therefore make that part of the game more difficult. No, at the root of the discussion is a proposed system that would force non consensual PvPers to either stop blowing people up, or be driven from the game for good. That is ALL the proposal of karma or crime and punishment is; a tool to punish non consensual PvPers. There isn't a chance in hell of Fdev being stupid enough to actually take such a drastic measure, but I feel obligated to point out what is at the core of the intellectual battle at any rate so we can proceed with some honesty.
How somebody can arrive at the conclusion that a karma system intended to reign in player behavior is more cost effective than <insert very long list here> is beyond me. My son started playing ED when he was nine. He is almost 11 now. I made a point of not helping him out. He went to CGs regularly. He played exclusively in open. He was shot down once and did not suffer much during the process.
And we are on page 50 discussing morals, grief, health of the game, and the welfare of humanity in general.
If my butt hurts I apply some ointment. Its cheap.
And we are on page 50 discussing morals, grief, health of the game, and the welfare of humanity in general.
If my butt hurts I apply some ointment. Its cheap.
Last edited:
Elite needs this. ATM i can pick any system ( if i choose - i do not ), go there. Shoot whatever i want. Kill whoever i want. Get a bounty whooop what will i do, carry on killing. Kill some cops. Had enough, jump to another system and forget all about it! Go somewhere else, do the same
I'd be a lot happier with proper faction wide C&P, wanted timers that didn't vanish on death, and limited docking options when wanted (limited to docks controlled by anarchy minor factions.).
That seems like a fair point but I doubt you'll get anyone to admit it.
I will happily admit that a Notoriety system's intention is to bring consequences to Murder HoBo's. Not to drive them from the game, but to make the gery cost them something in-game. To say that the Dev's intentions is to drive them from the game is a ridiculous mis-read of the information FD has provided. Some players may wish for that, but FD will protect the ability for a Commander to commit crimes against the members of the PF, but the Dev's will protect you (those that find it necessary to destroy a clean Commanders ship.) from the extremists on that end of the scale.
If there is a consequence for a game-life's of criminality, it may cause some to reconsider the frequency of offenses, and reduce the incidence of players gaining unwanted attention. That is the goal of a Notoriety system, to create a moment where the aggressor has to consider the cost of his indulgence. I can see nowhere in the game's advertisements stating that crimes would go unpunished, and that there should be no consequences for ones actions. You're free to choose, but you should have to consider the cost. That isn't so as of now. It should be.
If there is a consequence for a game-life's of criminality, it may cause some to reconsider the frequency of offenses, and reduce the incidence of players gaining unwanted attention. That is the goal of a Notoriety system, to create a moment where the aggressor has to consider the cost of his indulgence. I can see nowhere in the game's advertisements stating that crimes would go unpunished, and that there should be no consequences for ones actions. You're free to choose, but you should have to consider the cost. That isn't so as of now. It should be.
Last edited:
For years I have read non consentual PvPers go on and on about taking responsibility for youself if you go into Open. Take care of your build, learn the tricks of escape, git competent and all that.
It seeks that medicine doesn't go down too well when the responsibility tables are turned. Woe is them when their actions mean there are consequences attached for the first time, and even though there aren't any concrete rulesets being communicated, it's already a failure. No, even worse, it's a PvE conspiracy to get rid of PvP.
The amount of dramaquenery and threats of how the griefing will get worse and the cries how NPCs are also subject to griefing sound rather desperate to me. It's these overreactions that tell me these players will never accept any changes in the game that take away their position of laying all the responsibiliy and consequences at the weaker party in a PvP encounter.
It seeks that medicine doesn't go down too well when the responsibility tables are turned. Woe is them when their actions mean there are consequences attached for the first time, and even though there aren't any concrete rulesets being communicated, it's already a failure. No, even worse, it's a PvE conspiracy to get rid of PvP.
The amount of dramaquenery and threats of how the griefing will get worse and the cries how NPCs are also subject to griefing sound rather desperate to me. It's these overreactions that tell me these players will never accept any changes in the game that take away their position of laying all the responsibiliy and consequences at the weaker party in a PvP encounter.
Well, I'm not saying you're wrong about that at all but that's a dangerous route to take. The more people "protest" that way the more likely FD are to shrug and just start swinging the banhammer. If some players don't take the hint and the attempt to leave it to game mechanics to sort out doesn't work, what have they left?
What desperation? Personally I think we'll get a half baked plan sometime slightly after never, so what is there to be desperate about? Griefers and gankers have zero effect on me because I schooled myself on how to prevent myself from becoming a victim, so that's no consideration. And I actually do think a c&p system could be fun if the primary motivation behind it wasn't purely punitive. Do you know why I put it like that? Because despite the predilection of the karma proponents to shout about real life consequences, I recognize that we're all just playing a game here, and that as much as you might not like it blowing up other people's space ships (or having it done to mine) is just part of that game. If you remove that element from the game the game will stop being fun and enjoyable in that respect for many people. I welcome a c&p system that enhances gameplay and actually adds something as opposed to simply being a tool for players long since exiled to Mobius to reach across time and space and punish those who they feel drove them away in the first place.
Last edited:
And there's a statement from FD saying that it's not the intention to remove that part of the game.
So why bring that strawman up? It's irrelevant.
Yeah, it's the players from Mobius who determine the ruleset FD is going to implement.
Christ man, give it a rest
Last edited:
You are the one who does not know what they are talking about... and if you read my post more carefully you should realise that I am talking about the much wider audience rather than some presumed limited audience.
The flight-model in ED is in-line with the most common flight-model in current flight games (be it space based or otherwise). There are very few titles that use full Newtonian flight mechanics and there are good reasons for that especially in a networked gameplay environment. Full physics based models tend to be extremely complicated from a code complexity perspective and computationally intensive, also the resulting motion is far harder to predict and manage reliably. When motion exceeds certain limits, the costs of errors in dead-reckoning become much greater and that starts to make at least some aspects of the multiplayer environment impractical. In a single player environment, full Newtonian mechanics may be viable but ED was never going to be purely a single player environment thus it is pretty moot.
There are some aspects of a Newtonian flight model that ED does implement and I am sure there are at least some like myself that would have loved ED to include more of the features of a reasonable hybrid Newtonian flight model such as being able to execute some of the Babylon 5 Starfury type manoeuvres such as thrusting forward at maximum thrust then cutting engines so we can drift backwards without losing momentum. We can kind of do extreme manoeuvres similar to this with usage of FA Off but once you have got used to flying larger vessels trying those manoeuvres in smaller craft tends to feel very twitchy. However, it is still possible to at least some degree.
You claim Space flight is not modelled in ED and I think you are wrong, it may not allow you the complete freedom of a full Newtonian flight model but that also means you are not shackled to the complications of such models either - ED is already seen as having a steep learning curve and a full Newtonian flight model would only make that perception worse. If you want to play with full physics flight models, I would suggest the KSP which allegedly implements such things with intricate detail.
The flight model used is essentially a pseudo-Newtonian one with inertial dampening and as I have stated earlier is in-line with the most common flight models used in space flight games in general. At no point in the ED product description does it even mention a Newtonian flight model so anyone expecting more than what we have are essentially guilty of building up unreasonable expectations.
As for the forums being empty if we truly fly our own ships - I have never heard so much in my life. As for the Eve contingent, they are free to go back to playing Eve - don't let the door hit your backside on the way out.
However, shall we try and stay on topic - which is about the prospective PvP behaviour moderation solution rather than other aspects of ED.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I expect we all recognise that we're playing a game, well, the vast majority of us, anyway.
Of course being attacked is part of the game - NPCs do it frequently - being blown up is also part of the game - they do that too. However, different players have different personal definitions of what is "fun" and Frontier seem to be trying to offer a game that provides "fun" to as many players as possible, which includes those that don't particularly like being blown up by other players for no in-game reason (i.e. they were clean at the time).
Hence why Sandro has mentioned a potential feature implementation that would introduce consequences for players attacking / destroying clean players. We'll see how it affects player behaviours if and when it is implemented.