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

[Dialectic]

Reasonably defined, but I don't think many that he's asking agree with your definition. I get the feeling many of them think that any player who attacks them is a griefer and that they should get to play in open and haul their rare goods, panite, and slaves from A to B without any real danger.

Sounds like a decent definition. But according to this, attacking you "without consent" is not griefing, it's PvP. So will the other guys here agree with that? If I rob you of cargo then go ahead and blow up your ship, that's within intended game mechanic. But I don't think ya'll are all on board with that being "legitimate" PvP. I'd be fine with that sort of action giving me some kind of special "bad guy" status. But then that's the end of it. I get the bad guy status, the target loses their stuff and ship, and ya'll can try and take out the pirate via hunting parties or whatever. But I don't think that's what people here are asking for.

What I"m seeing is that nobody wants to allow actual piracy or murder. They want it removed and left with a tournament style pvp where it's either separate from the main game (CPC, which as I understand it isn't drawing any activity), or they want it to be between factions only. But lol... just from what I've read, isn't this then circling back to improving EXISTING game mechanics as opposed to adding others? Because in theory if Powerplay was improved it would solve some PvP issues? In theory? I dunno. I'm just a "troll" as it were.

- - - Updated - - -

Reasonably defined, but I don't think many that he's asking agree with your definition. I get the feeling many of them think that any player who attacks them is a griefer and that they should get to play in open and haul their rare goods, panite, and slaves from A to B without any real danger.

PvP is not implicitly griefing, but griefing/ganking is implicitly PvP. It is the griefing/ganking and comparable PvP behaviours that the karma system seems to be intended to address. Those who engage in excessive amounts of unbalanced PvP with the sole intent to kill the weaker clean target though are tantamount to being griefers/gankers even if that is allegedly not their self professed intent.

Pirates in a much stronger position than their opponents should not habitually kill their opponents, if they are able to kill them easily then they are more than capable of non-critically disabling them and should do that instead.

See? The definitions vary. Nobody is on the same page.

 

[lenna]

See? The definitions vary. Nobody is on the same page.

My definition is essentially derived from the proposed Karma system and thus would appear to be in-line with FDs definition of the undesirable PvP behaviour (FD's version is the only interpretation that really matters).

 

[-Denali-]

Being ready to accept the consequences of becoming a murderer is part and parcel of being a pirate. Piracy desperately needs a strong incentive to avoid destroying ships in order to prevent it being used as a flimsy cover for griefing anyway.

Plus, the existence of hatch breakers suggests that forcing "compliance" isn't an essential part of piracy in the Elite universe. Hatch breakers just need a buff so that cargo is dropped in a cluster rather than a long trail, then pirates would be able to take cargo by force without running afoul of the karma system. The real pirates would be perfectly happy with that solution, and anybody who would prefer to destroy a ship and gain nothing than forcibly extract cargo from it doesn't deserve to be called a pirate in the first place.

You ever used a hatch breaker? They don't work. 1 PD will destroy it even if it manages to get close enough. Cargo is next to nothing once stolen so the best way to make a profit is to have it dumped. It's fairly common to have a pirate ask nicely first. You take away the threat of death and they'll just be begging in the street basically or worse forced into combat. It isn't easy to only disable a ship.

Again, it's not about actually destroying the ship. I've never killed anyone while pirating, it's about the threat seeming realistic.

 

[Zambrick]

Karma system raises your rebuy cost for killing clean pilots + Pirating requires the threat of death to illicit compliance = death of "honest" pirating = the fun threat and challenge that is open vanishing.

This is what happens if something that should be covered by C&P alone gets taken over by an overly aggressive Karma system. It needs to account for this somehow and as of now it doesn't!



That isn't true. I want a more aggressive C&P system. I just don't want legitimate gameplay to suddenly be a Karmic bad because that will kill it. Because of that perspective people keep accusing me of being a griefer who doesn't want consequences, which drives me to the conclusion that they just never want to be shot at by a player and think anyone who shoots at anyone is a psychopathic griefer.

Which is why it's completely fair to ask people in this thread to say what they think a griefer is. Very few of the loudest voices have bothered to answer that question.

Here is what a griefer is in Elite Dangerous. Not what I think it is what I know it is.

Spoiler

Easiest first.
Station rammers. Its the easiest for the lolz to perpetrate and its an exploit they are taking advantage of.

The tools who are flying around in the starter systems in over engineered ships of Vultures size or larger.

The exclusive targeting destruction of pilots with a very large gap in combat ranks.

The "Pirates" who jump interdict you in an FDL or much smaller ship and demand that you drop all your cargo. Regardless to the fact that they cant pick it all up. Generally those end up with the combat ship killing the trader for the lolz when they question the "pirates" motive. (Real Pirates wouldnt do that in this game.)

The "Pirates" who interdict you and you give them what they want and they still kill you. ("Also not real pirates they like to hide behind the name.)

Showing up to Charity events and funerals for people in the real world and disrupting or stopping it for the lolz.

Showing up at a non combat event or any place where combat has no place, such as listening posts and or tourist beacons blowing up ships that have no bounty or cargo to steal. Not everything done in the elite universe is combat oriented.

My favorite. Interdiction of all trade ships instantly when you drop out a macroed message appears for "RP" purposes and they blow you away. Power Play not withstanding.

The degenerates that blow up exploration ships with nothing in their holds.

People who interdict you and when you actually start to kick their butt, they combat log.

The dolts flying around blowing up exploration vessels at alien sites for no reason.

Killing other Pilots for no monetary or Power Play/Faction reason. Killing for no reason is not a reason.

Interdicting Pilots repeatedly with no intention and most of the time no ability to actually damage the ship.

Being the aggressor and attacking basic ships of a much smaller or less capable type with an over engineered super shielded death machine and kill them for the lulz.

I am sure there are many many more that can be added. The ones I listed are the most blatant wastes of time and the cause for the exodus from Open and the game in general. I would have 6 other people from my job alone who would play if it werent for this kind of crap. Instead they all went back to Eve.

Nothing I listed can be categorized as PVP. There was no "Versus" anything in those scenarios. Sure there were a couple of players, but combat was not required nor achievable by one of the players. Which is why the combat was initiated in the first place. If you are in it for the salt and lulz then surely you must bully the weakest targets.

Those are the things the Karma system would track. The system could track the trend of how often these actions occur and to what severity. We currently have a C&P system in place however its screwed up. You botch a parking job and the station kills you. You murder 30 newbies in the starter area just jump over one system and all is well. Just fly to the closest station, buy a sidewinder and boost into the side of the star port. All done no more crimes. A karma system could track what ship was used and how much more powerful it was compared to its opponents. It can then fact check things like Power Play opposition and then ignore those infractions.

 

[-Denali-]

Sounds like a decent definition. But according to this, attacking you "without consent" is not griefing, it's PvP. So will the other guys here agree with that? If I rob you of cargo then go ahead and blow up your ship, that's within intended game mechanic. But I don't think ya'll are all on board with that being "legitimate" PvP. I'd be fine with that sort of action giving me some kind of special "bad guy" status. But then that's the end of it. I get the bad guy status, the target loses their stuff and ship, and ya'll can try and take out the pirate via hunting parties or whatever. But I don't think that's what people here are asking for.

What I"m seeing is that nobody wants to allow actual piracy or murder. They want it removed and left with a tournament style pvp where it's either separate from the main game (CPC, which as I understand it isn't drawing any activity), or they want it to be between factions only. But lol... just from what I've read, isn't this then circling back to improving EXISTING game mechanics as opposed to adding others? Because in theory if Powerplay was improved it would solve some PvP issues? In theory? I dunno. I'm just a "troll" as it were.

- - - Updated - - -





See? The definitions vary. Nobody is on the same page.

I consider a pirate who gets the cargo they demanded and kills the trader anyways to be a griefer. It's just killing because you can at that point and it's the kind of thing that gives honest pirates a bad name.

 

[Gunnet]

You ever used a hatch breaker? They don't work. 1 PD will destroy it even if it manages to get close enough. Cargo is next to nothing once stolen so the best way to make a profit is to have it dumped. It's fairly common to have a pirate ask nicely first. You take away the threat of death and they'll just be begging in the street basically or worse forced into combat. It isn't easy to only disable a ship.

Again, it's not about actually destroying the ship. I've never killed anyone while pirating, it's about the threat seeming realistic.

I've used them against NPCs. If they're not viable against players, it just means they need more tweaking.

Having to move stolen goods is another fundamental element of piracy. Any cargo dropped by a ship which has been recently interdicted should be marked as stolen regardless of what option the pilot selects when ejecting it. If that makes piracy non-viable, then the mechanics for profiting off stolen goods should be improved rather than continuing the ludicrous situation where goods obtained through piracy can ever be considered not stolen.

The threat of destruction will still be able to seem realistic under a karma system. It will just mean that a successful pirate will have to either be good at bluffing (as it seems you must be), or willing to accept the consequences of destroying a cargo ship. There's nothing wrong with making it more realistic.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

Wow 77 pages of "Please don't take away my seal club", don't worry folks FD will fluff it anyway.

 

[lenna]

Wow 77 pages of "Please don't take away my seal club", don't worry folks FD will fluff it anyway.

Do you have any more salt for my popcorn?

 

[-Denali-]

I've used them against NPCs. If they're not viable against players, it just means they need more tweaking.

Having to move stolen goods is another fundamental element of piracy. Any cargo dropped by a ship which has been recently interdicted should be marked as stolen regardless of what option the pilot selects when ejecting it. If that makes piracy non-viable, then the mechanics for profiting off stolen goods should be improved rather than continuing the ludicrous situation where goods obtained through piracy can ever be considered not stolen.

The threat of destruction will still be able to seem realistic under a karma system. It will just mean that a successful pirate will have to either be good at bluffing (as it seems you must be), or willing to accept the consequences of destroying a cargo ship. There's nothing wrong with making it more realistic.

I would prefer they improve the pirating mechanics but that doesn't seem to be on the table. Changing one portion and leaving the other until next year just isn't a good option. If the plan is to adjust pirating to accommodate a new Karma system then they would need to happen hand in hand.

I still have serious doubts that any society would be capable of saying exactly which 1 ton cargo pods of food cartridges are stolen, or that in some distant future anyone would be too stupid to figure out how to sell them as clean. It's an odd mechanic.

 

[lenna]

I've used them against NPCs. If they're not viable against players, it just means they need more tweaking.

Perhaps the issue is Point Defence turrets? They can be an effective defensive weapon and IMO it is probably right for them to be so (if appropriately positioned that is - no shooting/tracking of limpets outside of line of sight).

 

[Dialectic]

Here is what a griefer is in Elite Dangerous. Not what I think it is what I know it is.

Spoiler

Easiest first.
Station rammers. Its the easiest for the lolz to perpetrate and its an exploit they are taking advantage of.

The tools who are flying around in the starter systems in over engineered ships of Vultures size or larger.

The exclusive targeting destruction of pilots with a very large gap in combat ranks.

The "Pirates" who jump interdict you in an FDL or much smaller ship and demand that you drop all your cargo. Regardless to the fact that they cant pick it all up. Generally those end up with the combat ship killing the trader for the lolz when they question the "pirates" motive. (Real Pirates wouldnt do that in this game.)

The "Pirates" who interdict you and you give them what they want and they still kill you. ("Also not real pirates they like to hide behind the name.)

Showing up to Charity events and funerals for people in the real world and disrupting or stopping it for the lolz.

Showing up at a non combat event or any place where combat has no place, such as listening posts and or tourist beacons blowing up ships that have no bounty or cargo to steal. Not everything done in the elite universe is combat oriented.

My favorite. Interdiction of all trade ships instantly when you drop out a macroed message appears for "RP" purposes and they blow you away. Power Play not withstanding.

The degenerates that blow up exploration ships with nothing in their holds.

People who interdict you and when you actually start to kick their butt, they combat log.

The dolts flying around blowing up exploration vessels at alien sites for no reason.

Killing other Pilots for no monetary or Power Play/Faction reason. Killing for no reason is not a reason.

Interdicting Pilots repeatedly with no intention and most of the time no ability to actually damage the ship.

Being the aggressor and attacking basic ships of a much smaller or less capable type with an over engineered super shielded death machine and kill them for the lulz.

I am sure there are many many more that can be added. The ones I listed are the most blatant wastes of time and the cause for the exodus from Open and the game in general. I would have 6 other people from my job alone who would play if it werent for this kind of crap. Instead they all went back to Eve.

Nothing I listed can be categorized as PVP. There was no "Versus" anything in those scenarios. Sure there were a couple of players, but combat was not required nor achievable by one of the players. Which is why the combat was initiated in the first place. If you are in it for the salt and lulz then surely you must bully the weakest targets.

Those are the things the Karma system would track. The system could track the trend of how often these actions occur and to what severity. We currently have a C&P system in place however its screwed up. You botch a parking job and the station kills you. You murder 30 newbies in the starter area just jump over one system and all is well. Just fly to the closest station, buy a sidewinder and boost into the side of the star port. All done no more crimes. A karma system could track what ship was used and how much more powerful it was compared to its opponents. It can then fact check things like Power Play opposition and then ignore those infractions.

Most of that isn't what I'd consider griefing. Y'all are tightly wound.

Exploration ships are valid targets.
Trade ships are valid targets
Lesser ships are valid targets
I don't need a reason to shoot at someone
Etc etc

Of all that I'd say station ramming is the only griefing because it's an exploit.

The rest of it? It's. Just. A. Game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Most of that isn't what I'd consider griefing. Y'all are tightly wound.

Here's the thing - in the absence of a single definitive definition of the term, it remains subjective, and everyone's different.

 

[Dialectic]

Here's the thing - in the absence of a single definitive definition of the term, it remains subjective, and everyone's different.

I agree and that was my point for several pages where I just got snide remarks. How can we even discuss this new mechanic without being on the same page?

And what's the point if virtually no one comes back over to Open regardless?

 

[lenna]

How can we even discuss this new mechanic without being on the same page?

Well going from the proposed Karma system rules, I think FD have a clear idea what they consider unacceptable PvP behaviours.

Call it griefing/ganking if you prefer, but their clear and succinct version of what is deemed unacceptable PvP would seem to be "habitual PvP killing of sufficiently weaker clean targets".

They may even consider their own NPC spawning/ship-matching rules to decide what constitutes "sufficiently weaker". The "habitual" part is implied by the trend tracking nature of the karma system.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree and that was my point for several pages where I just got snide remarks. How can we even discuss this new mechanic without being on the same page?

And what's the point if virtually no one comes back over to Open regardless?

The point is that Frontier have their own definition - and that's the only one that matters in this context (as there are probably as many other definitions as there are players).

At least they will have tried to encourage players back to Open.

 

[Zambrick]

Perhaps the issue is Point Defence turrets? They can be an effective defensive weapon and IMO it is probably right for them to be so (if appropriately positioned that is - no shooting/tracking of limpets outside of line of sight).

My thoughts to curb griefing was to make the ships either highly dangerous or maneuverable. There are only 4 kinds of ships in this game.

Trading Ships, Exploration Ships, Combat Ships, and Multirole ships. The issue is that the multi role ships can be anything. So I came up with an idea of fitting chassis to Multirole ships.

A Trading, exploration, or combat chassis when you purchase the ship. Each Chassis would be worked into the cost of the ship. So if at some point you want to switch out the chassis, then it would cost you a pretty penny. Like 50% of the original cost of the ship - the cost of the chassis you are trading in. So maybe around 25% total cost of the original purchase.

That way they can do things like create specialized modules for ships.

Trade ships could get specialized weapons and defenses. Weapons that incapacitate at range but if the attacker gets close the weapons become extremely effective and dangerous. Specialized turreted Rail Guns and PAs. Super lightweight but effective armor, Defensive limpits that are fast and can track other ships to interfere with modules. They could do anything really as long as they make them dangerous to attack.

Combat ships could have specialized armor that does things like completely makes Power Plants, Distributers, and Thrusters untargetable until the ship itself is at 50% hull or below. Military grade weaponry/ammo and over all best passive defenses.

Exploration ships should be super fast and efficient. Fastest ships in the game. Specialized access to lightweight by high quality materials.

Multi role ships would just have to choose the chasis and they would essentially be that type of ship.

It would open up things such as specialized modules. A reason to have commercial modules other than just the standard type. Kind of like buying Mishimoto intercooler for superior cooling and coolant flow. They could have things like lightweight Thrusters by Zorgon Peterson and they would allow them to expand different brands and module effectiveness based upon those brands. It could be cool.

But who knows. The Karma system is a start, but other things need addressed as well.

 

[Karunamon]

The rest of it? It's. Just. A. Game.

Griefing is an action that happens in Just. A. Game.

 

[lenna]

My thoughts to curb griefing was to make the ships either highly dangerous or maneuverable.

Would not work, griefing is a PvP activity that can not be curbed by balancing IMO.

You can't realistically make all ships effectively equal without completely screwing up the balance of ED.

 

[Zambrick]

Would not work, griefing is an activity that can not be curbed by balancing period.

I know that, but in combination with a Karma system, it could end up making punishment less harsh because ships actually have the ability to respond to a threat.

 

[mossfoot]

Here's the thing - in the absence of a single definitive definition of the term, it remains subjective, and everyone's different.

Not to mention that while everyone might be different, you WILL find a degree of overlap between most people.

You can't throw away the argument saying everyone's opinions are different when there are points they all agree on.

No C&P/Karma system is going to please everyone, but it will help, and it will be refined, and it will improve things and lower the toxicity of Open.

Most of that isn't what I'd consider griefing. Y'all are tightly wound.


Exploration ships are valid targets.
Trade ships are valid targets
Lesser ships are valid targets
I don't need a reason to shoot at someone
Etc etc


Of all that I'd say station ramming is the only griefing because it's an exploit.


The rest of it? It's. Just. A. Game.

You say you don't need a reason to shoot someone, and you're right. And I certainly don't agree with all of Zambrick's definitions offered.

BUT we're not talking about the odd occasional encounter, either. Rather we're talking about people who habitually target and kill people who have no chance to defend themselves for no reason (other than the lulz). Over and over. Behaviour whose sole purpose is to make the other person angry, frustrated, and eventually give up playing.

For example - if you are in a Corvette and interdicting nothing but Harmless Sidewinders in a starter system, what are you actually accomplishing? You can't really defend that behavior other than to say "well, it's allowed because of the game mechanics"

Sure, it's technically allowed. But how do you think those starter players are reacting to it? You think they're all laughing and saying "oh, well, I better git gud then"? Or do you think they're regretting their purchase?

If you've got a laise faire attitude towards open and getting shot down, then more power to you. But saying "It's just a game" and expecting everyone to think and act the way you do is being blind to human psychology, and it's also victim blaming. It's like saying: Hey, it's your fault for taking it too seriously.

And it's like expecting them to respond with: Oh, I see, I should learn to stop enjoying the game as a space simulator and instead treat it as a consequence free meat grinder like Call of Duty. Why, thank you for telling me how I'm playing wrong.

It's just a game. Yes. It is. But if I go to the beach and spend a few hours building a sand sculpture, and somebody decides to smash it before I could take a picture, arguing it's just sand isn't exactly a valid defence. What, I have no right to get upset over having my effort wasted by someone who wants to laugh at the face I make?

There is such a thing as toxic behaviour. And given how it affects other people, there are legitimate reasons to want to see that curbed. It can't be stopped, but it can be discouraged. And the goal is to do so without adversely affecting PvP pew pew pew.