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

[DefiledDragon]

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.

Can't disagree with that, but it remains to be seen whether we'll get something that's actually effective or if we'll just get something that's completely ineffective but ticks the C&P box and FD consider it a job well done.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I think you'll find that the people complaining about a C&P system are a tiny minority of the actual PvP oriented players to be honest Ziggy. I'm not seeing SDC raging in this thread for example.

 

[steenpass]

Could somebody explain to me why being clean should prevent others from attacking me? And why does being clean mean that there is no in-game reason for others to attack me?

I would assume that somebody in a combat loadout could be interested in a bit of a fight. Given that where is the harm in giving it a try?

(That said, a 1v1 a rarely make sense since engineers...)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Could somebody explain to me why being clean should prevent others from attacking me? And why does being clean mean that there is no in-game reason for others to attack me?

A karma system would not stop any attack. The karmic consequences for continuing to attack clean ships may make the potential attacker think twice about doing so though.

I would assume that somebody in a combat loadout could be interested in a bit of a fight. Given that where is the harm in giving it a try?

That's on the assumption that the other player wants to engage in PvP. From what Frontier has indicated, they are well aware that the majority of players do not get involved in PvP.

 

[steenpass]

I did not ask about karmic consequences, just about the meaning of clean and why you assume that 'clean' means 'please do not attack me'?

'I would assume' declares an assumption, yes. Starting with this assumption where is the harm in giving it a try, aka interdict and find out?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think you'll find that the people complaining about a C&P system are a tiny minority of the actual PvP oriented players to be honest Ziggy

Very true. I think most are sensible enough to wait to see how or if it will all get fleshed out.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I did not ask about karmic consequences, just about the meaning of clean and why you assume that 'clean' means 'please do not attack me'?

It's Frontier that would seem to have made the distinction between clean and wanted ships with respect to karmic consequences. There's no assumption on my part as to the meaning of a CMDR's legal status with respect to being attacked by other CMDRs.

'I would assume' declares an assumption, yes. Starting with this assumption where is the harm in giving it a try, aka interdict and find out?

Just that the assumption is more likely, given the indicated majority of players that don't get involved in PvP, to be wrong than right.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's Frontier that would seem to have made the distinction between clean and wanted ships with respect to karmic consequences. There's no assumption on my part as to the meaning of a CMDR's legal status with respect to being attacked by other CMDRs.



Just that the assumption is more likely, given the indicated majority of players that don't get involved in PvP, to me wrong than right.

And the other CMDRs can turn off crimes against them if they're up for PvP.

 

[Han_Zen]

Ganking is a problem because gankers are OP. Gankers are OP, because players are OP.

When traders are more afraid of running into SDC than the Cumo crew, there is something wrong.

Fix the cause, not the symptom.

 

[steenpass]

Did FD officials use the expression 'attacking for no in-game reason' in connection with 'clean cmdr'? I remember them stating that 'attacking other Cmdrs in game' is not griefing.

So the odds for fun are bad, but does this mean there is any *harm* in giving it a try?

And, if crimes on/off are supposed to contribute to the decision about interdicting a clean Cmdr then maybe display it?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Did FD officials use the expression 'attacking for no in-game reason' in connection with 'clean cmdr'? I remember them stating that 'attacking other Cmdrs in game' is not griefing.

So the odds for fun are bad, but does this mean there is any *harm* in giving it a try?

And, if crimes on/off are supposed to contribute to the decision about interdicting a clean Cmdr then maybe display it?

Oh that was just a brainfart from me, not an official statement. But it would be good to be able to recognize that.

And the expression also included "regularly". Which doesn't reveal much about the frequency, but suggests that once in a while encounters would not change that much.

 

[lenna]

Ganking is a problem because gankers are OP. Gankers are OP, because players are OP.

Not entirely true, some player meta-builds are OP and combat balance is a running battle with ED.

Ultimately though, combat balance in general is not the root cause of the problem - the problem is specific behaviour trends - that problem existed long before Engineers came into the picture.

 

[SkipRat]

Not entirely true, some player meta-builds are OP and combat balance is a running battle with ED.

Ultimately though, combat balance in general is not the root cause of the problem - the problem is specific behaviour trends - that problem existed long before Engineers came into the picture.

.... and the lack of real in game consequences to that behaviour.

 

[lenna]

.... and the lack of real in game consequences to that behaviour.

True... and is why FD are discussing potential options for automated in-game PvP behaviour moderation... including the potential of a karma system with supplemental C&P changes.

 

[SkipRat]

True... and is why FD are discussing potential options for automated in-game PvP behaviour moderation... including the potential of a karma system with supplemental C&P changes.

Yup, I hope they get it right.

I also hope that it includes player activity upon NPC's like piracy, so solo players can also have their game enhanced... Also means that pirates can't hide in solo either

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yup, I hope they get it right.

I also hope that it includes player activity upon NPC's like piracy, so solo players can also have their game enhanced... Also means that pirates can't hide in solo either

As I posted here earlier, in the Deliberate Ramming thread, Sandro has posted a few times. I asked him about this:

There has been some discontent regarding the apparent disparity of treatment between player vs. player interactions and player vs. NPC interactions.

You mentioned earlier that the karma system is designed to deal with player/player actions - although did not seem to rule out applying a karmic hit for player vs. NPC actions. Could you please clarify if karma would be applied for player/player interactions and some player/NPC interactions or not?

Also, are you considering beefed up consequences for crime in general (that would apply regardless of the nature of the target)?

He replied as follows:

Hello Commander Robert Maynard!

Remembering that none of this is being promised, I would say this about the players interacting with players versus players interacting with NPCs:

* In general, only players are members of the Pilot's Federation, which would be the organisation dealing with a karma rating.

* NPCs don't support the game's development. They don't (as far as I can tell) enjoy or hate the game mechanics. This system is not about them. It's not even focused on verisimilitude. It's about dealing with humans in a shared game space and creating an environment which supports as many of them as possible as well as we can.

Whilst we could apply a karma system to NPC interactions it would require more data tracking and serve no useful purpose as far as I can make out.

The only "beefing up" of crime I can think of at the moment is more teeth to authority vessels to cope with heavily engineered ships (authority vessels are always meant to be a threat, so I'd like to see them visiting the Engineers).

 

[Han_Zen]

Not entirely true, some player meta-builds are OP and combat balance is a running battle with ED.

Ultimately though, combat balance in general is not the root cause of the problem - the problem is specific behaviour trends - that problem existed long before Engineers came into the picture.

Much of the behaviour is a result of feeling invincible.
PvP in ED is relatively rare, even in open. It's therefor not efficient to outfit your ship to be ready for it, unless you actually seek it.
If there were NPC pirates and NPC police in the game, that were considerably tougher than the gankers, the PvE focused players would be more than ready for gankers.

The gankers would lose their invincibility, because their relative advantage would be gone and because NPC intervention would be a real threat.

The only thing left would be things like station ramming and combat logging. Those should lead to shadow ban, not crminal glory like bad karma.

 

[lenna]

Much of the behaviour is a result of feeling invincible.

I don't think that is the case, just because I get into a ship I feel comfortable in does not make me want to go round habitually blowing things up for lolz.

Game balance has nothing to do with the underlying issues (it does not matter how you try to spin it), the behaviours in question are largely a social disease bred in certain MMOs and in part nurtured by modern society not teaching people (nor encouraging) respect and responsibility. The relative anonymity of the on-line environment is also a factor but it is far from the root cause of the problem.

 

[Han_Zen]

I don't think that is the case, just because I get into a ship I feel comfortable in does not make me want to go round habitually blowing things up for lolz.

Game balance has nothing to do with the underlying issues (it does not matter how you try to spin it), the behaviours in question are largely a social disease bred in certain MMOs and in part nurtured by modern society not teaching people (nor encouraging) respect and responsibility. The relative anonymity of the on-line environment is also a factor but it is far from the root cause of the problem.

It's not a social disease. It's a conflict of cultures.

Some view the game as a meta competition between people. Destroying other players is winning. If you don't do it, it's because you're not gud.

Some view the game as a social activity with other people, where you may cooporate to achieve the tasks presented by the game.

Some are full RP. They don't play the game, they are in the game. An NPC is as real as another player.

ED has in some way, to accomodate for all these multi player styles. And for solo players.

FD has been wise enough to create modes for people that want to play alone or only with their friends.
Still many type 2 players feel that the type 1 player are allowed to dominate Open.
This is to some degree, true.

I think it's because the game is tilted towards player dominance in combat. Type 1 player are given the oportunity to dominate in som scenarios. Of cource they take it. They are just playing the game, the way they think it should be.

To fix this you can either balance, kick the type 1s out or make special rules for players.

FD seem to favour the special rules, that favours only type 2.
Type 1 and 3 get a poorer experience.

Personally I'm closest to type 2, but I still see this as negative for the game.

 

[T'Kitr]

That being said, a friend of mine who is a big fan of the Elite series and who has played the original games to quite a significant degree seems to actually disagree with your assessment regarding the older games.

Many do. But still, that is my assessment. Elite as a game series went from a somewhat basic arcade-style game (albeit still a hugely impressive achievement for its time) to a more sophisticated, simulation-style experience over the course of the three earlier games. Elite Dangerous has moved the franchise back towards the original, and I feel that's a shame. Not because the original was bad, certainly not at the time, but because II and III were better.

While some players do try to convince everyone else that ED is some how primarily a "multiplayer arcade space shooter" (c/f primarily a PvP frag-fest game), there are at least some of us that realise that this was not FD's design intent and that seems to be primarily why FD are considering implementing some form of automated PvP behaviour moderation system (e.g. the proposed karma system with supporting C&P changes).

It's not a matter of "trying to convince" anyone of anything. I believe Elite Dangerous has suffered from the apparently unnecessary inclusion of multiplayer and the inevitable expectations that created. Had the title been designed and released as a single-player experience I very much doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid, since it would have been consistent with the franchise to date.

It is an interesting idea perhaps, but unless you can control ALL ships reliably and effectively in ED using Flight Assist mode permanently turned off then I suspect you would end up regretting playing any game with a full Newtonian flight model. It is probably worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of aircraft these days are actually fly by wire thus it is not too unbelievable for a futuristic space flight sim to model their flight model along comparable lines.

On your first point here, do bear in mind that it's not a case of "I suspect". Many of us have already played a full-Newtonian game because we've played Elites II and III.

You make a sound point regarding the control of the ships. My problem here is not that ED puts in assistive technologies that might be expected in the 34th century. If anything, given the glaring lack of proper autopilot, an HUD flight path indicator and a kill-rotation gyro control, I'd say the issue there is more than it withholds likely technologies - current-day technologies - in an attempt to artificially increase the 'challenge'.

But no, the actual flight interface isn't the issue. Issues for me are things like the facile "speed limit in space": engines that push us up to an arbitrary top speed and no further?

Regarding planetary landings and atmospheric flight support, we are led to believe it is still on the cards

I've no doubt it is. The question is whether the game will live that long.

For what it's worth, I actually hope it does.

Atmospheric landing in FE2 and FFE was not much different from our current airless worlds. There were only a few bases on otherwise empty planets.

True. Just imagine what could be done on today's systems.

As has already been said, it might well be we'll get to see atmospheric landings soon. But we'll still have to sit through loading screens while we transition from cruise to "orbit" to approach and landing. And of course it's not really orbit, at that. You can't switch your engines off and coast around the planet because gravity doesn't seem to do a great deal if you're not in non-cruise flight close to the surface, and in any case you can't go fast enough or slow enough to set up an orbital trajectory. You're either at a few hundred metres per second or a minimum of thirty kilometres per second in supercruise.

Yea - you're just going to have to get over that.

Not at all. The game's enough fun as it is - I certainly enjoy playing it. But that doesn't change the fact that, in my view, it's not what the fourth Elite game should've been, nor what I wanted it to be. The statement was that "everyone sees the game they want" - and that is untrue.

 

[jacozilla]

PvP isn't a 'role', it's what happens when the opposition to whatever you happen to be doing is a CMDR...which can be completely incidental, or the entire point, depending upon the intent of the player in question.

Also, the single most significant avenue of advancement, in my opinion, is essentially impossible without PvP.

Re: the bold italic part of quote above (*highlight put in by me, not the author)

Wait...what?

Don't agree with some views in this thread, but more or less able to track the logic. Whether agree or disagree, I get the assumptions, points, opinions raised. But this throws me for a complete blank.

What do you consider "the single most significant avenue of advancement"? And why is it "essentially impossible without PvP"?