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

[DefiledDragon]

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

What constitutes griefing in online games is usually defined by the publisher/developer in the terms and conditions. They usually define behaviours that are considered acceptable and those that are not when it comes to interactions with other players, drawing up consequences for engaging in unacceptable interactions, or "griefing" as it has now become known.

Frontier and indeed David Braben himself has already said that the destruction of another commanders ship, for whatever reason, is not considered griefing. Nothing more needs to be said on that matter really.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What constitutes griefing in online games is usually defined by the publisher/developer in the terms and conditions. They usually define behaviours that are considered acceptable and those that are not when it comes to interactions with other players, drawing up consequences for engaging in unacceptable interactions, or "griefing" as it has now become known.

Frontier and indeed David Braben himself has already said that the destruction of another commanders ship, for whatever reason, is not considered griefing. Nothing more needs to be said on that matter really.

Odd then that Sandro is talking about a karma system to discourage particular player behaviours, isn't it?

 

[Zambrick]

What constitutes griefing in online games is usually defined by the publisher/developer in the terms and conditions. They usually define behaviours that are considered acceptable and those that are not when it comes to interactions with other players, drawing up consequences for engaging in unacceptable interactions, or "griefing" as it has now become known.

Frontier and indeed David Braben himself has already said that the destruction of another commanders ship, for whatever reason, is not considered griefing. Nothing more needs to be said on that matter really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9ENkIB0cic&feature=youtu.be&t=431

 

[Kaa Mchorror]

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.

All ships can escape pretty equally if they are outfitted properly and with proper decision making. Most of my engineered ships are out in Colonia (I'm currently rebuilding my bubble fleet) and I have had no problem escaping. I might not be able to carry as much but I get my cargo where it's supposed to. Any one who tells you differently is a scare monger or bad at the game.

The above statements where made discounting wings and a few of the engineer effects.

 

[Minonian]

Well I don't have any issue with people playing non combative roles obviously because I'd like to have a target, but I do wish we'd all be in the same Open mode so everyone would share in the experience. try to understand this! (no you don't so i say to the others) To not like PVP does not means we hate it, it means we choose PVE and PPC (player player cooperation) get it?

"Sadly" We don't care about "your experience", and don't share your enthusiasm about "PVP" we got what we like and we plan to stick with it. And that's namely PVE and PPC (player player cooperation)
As an example, We don't obliged to like i don't know? Rock just because you do!

You said raising the black flag makes me a griefer?

If you are not, why you defending them? Why you act like one? And say we are PVP haters, while we only talking about griefing? Can you explain us this?

Suspicious.

I still don't quite understand what everyone's definition of griefing is vs pvp. I'm guessing everyone has very different definitions here.

No one saying this, only you act like we do!

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Nope, what you trying to do, is redefine griefing, so you can do it under another name. you are my "friend" a griefer who hiding behind the flag of PVP, And based on your arguments an experienced one, whom gone over in this debate a thousand times.

 

[lenna]

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.

I disagree, the nature of the necessary rebalancing would kill ED as even just a PvE game.

Fundamentally, the only way to deal with the less socially acceptable PvPers is to respond to their aggression with sufficient NPC controlled force... not to effectively nerf all possible builds so a Sidewinder is effectively equal to an Anaconda for example.

If an unwarranted aggressor with attacks with an Anaconda, they should have at least a 3:1 level of AI force attack and pursue them. At higher levels of poor karma, maybe much greater than that. An Anaconda can mass-lock another Anaconda.

 

[Zambrick]

I disagree, the nature of the necessary rebalancing would kill ED as even just a PvE game.

How?

Comabat ships become better at combat.
Trading ships can protect their cargo
Exploration ships can escape easily.

It wont change the current dynamic in the slightest. Each role still exists. However being successful at those roles can be augmented more by specialized equipment and builds.

The game portion of it is in stopping each ship type from performing their task. Not all of them require total destruction of the ships.

 

[Minonian]

I disagree, the nature of the necessary rebalancing would kill ED as even just a PvE game.

Fundamentally, the only way to deal with the less socially acceptable PvPers is to respond to their aggression with sufficient NPC controlled force... not to effectively nerf all possible builds so a Sidewinder is effectively equal to an Anaconda for example.

If an unwarranted aggressor with attacks with an Anaconda, they should have at least a 3:1 level of AI force attack and pursue them. At higher levels of poor karma, maybe much greater than that. An Anaconda can mass-lock another Anaconda.

The rebalancing sooner or later meant to be happen and even happens patch after patch when they are refining and changing weapon stats for an example. This killed the game?
I think not... The usual crying? There are always some people who don't like changes. And others whom like or accept it. the only question is the overall change results a better game or not?

 

[Zambrick]

The rebalancing sooner or later meant to be happen and even happens patch after patch when they are refining and changing weapon stats for an example. This killed the game?
I think not... The usual crying? There are always some people who don't like changes. And others whom like or accept it. the only question is the overall change results a better game or not?

- - - Updated - - -



That's a no brainer he is!

This would be a huge change though and I understand the apprehension and he is right to have it.

I wrote out a much detailed process as well as modules and weaponry I would change or add. Its just too long to put in a post that is not directly about changes. I can post a link to it if people wish to review the idea.

 

[Minonian]

This would be a huge change though and I understand the apprehension and he is right to have it.

I wrote out a much detailed process as well as modules and weaponry I would change or add. Its just too long to put in a post that is not directly about changes. I can post a link to it if people wish to review the idea.

Why don't you open a new topic?

 

[Zambrick]

Why don't you open a new topic?

I opened one a long time ago for it and I dont really want to do it again.

 

[lenna]

How?

I believe I explained it in an earlier post, a Sidewinder should not be balanced in such a way as to be practically equal to an Anaconda. Overall, it would ruin any sense of progression. This is not an RPG PvP MMO where all classes should be balanced equally and it is not primarily a PvP combat title.

There are some truly OP builds that do need some attention though, shield booster stacking being the current favourite to be addressed. I have proposed elsewhere what I believe the rebalancing factor should be but for the sake of clarity I will repeat it. Essentially, reduce the shield regen rate by some amount for each booster fitted. Fit one or two of the shield boosters and you would barely notice the difference, but fit many more than that and your shields would start to regen so slowly the benefit would be questionable - if the regen reduction is balanced properly. It would be largely comparable to the SCB stacking nerf wrt heat generation.

However, the balancing issues are not the root cause of the problem nor are they endemic to the problem being addressed by the karma system. I stated in the latter part of my post my personal recommendation for dealing with the "griefer"/"ganker" ships: An appropriately over powered NPC response force.

 

[Zambrick]

I believe I explained it in an earlier post, a Sidewinder should not be balanced in such a way as to be practically equal to an Anaconda. Overall, it would ruin any sense of progression. This is not an RPG PvP MMO where all classes should be balanced equally and it is not primarily a PvP combat title.

There are some truly OP builds that do need some attention though, shield booster stacking being the current favourite to be addressed. I have proposed elsewhere what I believe the rebalancing factor should be but for the sake of clarity I will repeat it. Essentially, reduce the shield regen rate by some amount for each booster fitted.

However, the balancing issues are not the root cause of the problem nor are they endemic to the problem being addressed by the karma system. I stated in the latter part of my post my personal recommendation for dealing with the "griefer"/"ganker" ships: An appropriately over powered NPC response force.

o no not that drastic. They shouldnt.

I am dropping the link to the details I had created in a thread in the past. I dont want ships themselves to be balanced at all. The more you pay the better your ship. However the roles need balanced and I think specialization can do that.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/311628-Crime-Punishment-PVP-Balance-Ideas

 

[DefiledDragon]

Odd then that Sandro is talking about a karma system to discourage particular player behaviours, isn't it?

Discourage being the key word there. They want to provide consequences for killing another player without reason, but they're not saying that it's an unacceptable form of player interaction. The difference between in game criminal behaviour and griefing is very important and people need to recognise that the former, no matter how baseless it may seem, does not equate to the latter.

 

[Zambrick]

o no not that drastic. They shouldnt.

I am dropping the link to the details I had created in a thread in the past. I dont want ships themselves to be balanced at all. The more you pay the better your ship. However the roles need balanced and I think specialization can do that.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/311628-Crime-Punishment-PVP-Balance-Ideas

As for an overwhelming respons. Yes that should happen, but not like Eve. Eve is insane. After clear intention and a enough examples have been gathered then the response can be harsh. It just cant be harsh all the time. Basically the Karma system for people griefing would be like giving them enough rope to hang themselves. For the people who provide positive karmic interactions, they can get some sort of benefit from that.

 

[Minonian]

I opened one a long time ago for it and I dont really want to do it again.

I see, than show the link.

- - - Updated - - -

As for an overwhelming respons. Yes that should happen, but not like Eve. Eve is insane. After clear intention and a enough examples have been gathered then the response can be harsh. It just cant be harsh all the time. Basically the Karma system for people griefing would be like giving them enough rope to hang themselves. For the people who provide positive karmic interactions, they can get some sort of benefit from that.

Aye, EVE is messed up this is part of the reasons why i decided to not play with it wery long. The other was the payment system. the game itself is good, and so as the atmosphere. The human part?

 

[Zambrick]

Discourage being the key word there. They want to provide consequences for killing another player without reason, but they're not saying that it's an unacceptable form of player interaction. The difference between in game criminal behaviour and griefing is very important and people need to recognise that the former, no matter how baseless it may seem, does not equate to the latter.

Nobody is debating that.

Piracy needs a huge overhaul. They need to be able to steal and make a profit. They need a mission system. They need specialized tools for Piracy. They just havent provided them.

We are talking about griefers. Station rammers, newbie killers, Trade ship exclusive killing. But those things must be shown as a repeatable and definitive conclusion before a response is given. The intention to ruin another persons game play experience must be completely clear before action occurs. The Karma system can provide that.

 

[Karunamon]

As for an overwhelming respons. Yes that should happen, but not like Eve. Eve is insane.

EVE is awesome. There is a very clear delineation between "wild west" and "civilization" with a gradient of police response time between them. Griefing is not impossible in hisec (ask The Code), but the griefer should be prepared to lose his ship in the process. (And on top of that, the killed party gets a free revenge kill). Karma, which Frontier just apparently learned about now after 5 years of development, already exists there as player security status. Consequences exist for being too much of a bellend.

Contrary to the cries here, despite all these things, PVP exists and is very, *very* healthy. All in the same universe. All without really destroying anyone's fun.

It's a very sane, very balanced, predictable, logical, and well-thought-out system.

Then again, EVE has a little thing called "depth", whereas elite could be compared to a puddle.

 

[Zambrick]

Here it is.

Spoiler

Break the ships down into the 3 main pillars of the game

Trading
Combat
Exploration.

Multirole ships will need to choose a specialized chassis when purchasing the ship. It will be built into the cost of the ship. In order to change to one of the other pillars, it will require a large investment, At least half of the original ship cost.

Each of the ship types has specialized armaments, armor, and Utilities. They also have limitations to them and cannot mix and match items.


Base Utilities and modules available to everyone.

Spoiler

Utilities:
Chaff, POD, Wake Scanner, ECM, Shield Boosters, Cargo scanner, Heatsinks
Primary Modules:
Power Plant, Fuel Tanks, FSD, Sensors, Life Support, Thrusters, Basic Power Distributors, Lightweight Armor, Advanced Armor

Secondary Modules:
All the same with the exception of Shielding. Basic shields and shield cell banks will stay the same but specialized shielding will be available to different types of ships.

Combat ships:

Spoiler

Ship Performance. Same as is currently.

Utilities: All the same as base Utilities. Add Kill Warrent Scanner

Weapon Hardpoints: Max Hardpoint size Huge
All of the current base weapons with no changes made

Primary Module:. All the same accept they get Military grade Armor. Military grade armor is the same level of armor as it is now, but it adds a 20% resistance boost to module protection against all damage types. Same weight.

Secondary Modules:
Same as Basic but with the addition of Bi Weave shielding and Bi Weave Prismatic shielding
Secondary Supercruise Manifest scanning station. Scans cargo in supercruise. EMP Discharge module. This will discharge an EMP blast so as to keep power going to your ships shields if hit by EMP blast.

Exploration ships:

Spoiler

Ship Performance Fastest base speed and boost in the game. Keep same agility levels

Utilities:
Same as Base utilities. Sensor scrambler. Makes tracking past 2.5KM difficult for sensors and targeting computers. Wake Scrambler. Scrambles wake coordinates(based off of grade purchased. A rated scrambler will have an 85% chance to scramble wake coordinates.)

Plus some science modules but not sure what kind yet.

Weapon Hardpoints: Max Size Large Same as current weapons

Primary Modules:

Same as basic modules but with the following changes.
Boosted FSD. Better range for jumping
High Performance Thrusters. Uses less power per boost.
Composite armor: Provides Advanced Armor level protection at the wieght of light armor. Assist with radar/sensor absorption.

Secondary Modules:

Advanced Shields. Best shields in game but longest recharge time an no access to shield boosters or shield cell banks.
ADS and DSS can be combined into one module for exploration ships only.
Fuel Compressor. Compresses the fuel you scoop into approximately 25% more in the same space.
If we get them a science station in the future.

Trading Vessels:

Spoiler

Ship Performance: Same as current trade vessels

Utilities: Same as basic but with addition of advanced Wake Scrambler. Gives 100% chance to scramble wake upon High Wake.

Advanced Turret targeting system. Allows turrets to track faster and more accurately. Allows you to select and fire all turreted weaponry even if not in front of ship. Because of accuracy increase base DPS for each weapon type is increased 15%. This will affect Medium size turrets only.

Prismatic Chaff Launcher: Launches prismatic chaff which will dissipate all non ballistic type damage by scattering the light/heat.

Weapon Hardpoints: Maximum size Medium. Turrets Only. Access to specialized weapons that can only be used by Trading vessels Due to oversized power plant.

Trading vessels are large and slow and owned by individuals. They should be more liken to mini flying forts less like flying soda cans. The closer you get to a Trade ship the harder it should be for the aggressor.


Range:

Long-
EMP Cannon: Fires long range burst projectile that will scramble a random module on attacking ship causing no damage but does count as an attack. Rest of weapons but turret only.
Plasma Beam: Long Range plasma based beam attack. More powerful than regular beam laser but at the cost of more energy requirements.

Medium-
Multi railgun cannon. Does the same damage as current multicannon, but it bypasses armor to a certain extent like current railgun.
Turret Mounted Plasma Accelerators
Turret mounted Seeker missiles pods.
All the same weapons that we have turreted of course.

Short Range-
Turreted Fragment cannon.
Mines both types.
Third Mine type. EMP burst mine. If hit the attacking ship will reboot power plant.

Primary Modules:

All the same as basic but with the following exceptions.

Ablative Armor: This will add the same armor level as Military but with an additional 25% armor boost. No special resistance but it will render power plant and thrusters as un targetable. Fully encased in the armor. All other modules can be target as normal. Weights as much as advanced armor.

High Capacity Power Plant. All Current class A power plants will provide an additional 30% power production. Same Weight

Secondary Modules.

All the same as basic except for the following changes.

(Shield multiplier needs to be on par to offer the same level of protection as Combat ships.)
Overcharged Shields: Provides the same protection and characteristics as Prismatic shields without requiring the powerplay requirement. Can only recharge in super cruise.
No access to bi weave or prismatic bi weave. No access to advanced shields.

Fuel compression module

Multirole ship Advantages per cost difference.

Spoiler

If you purchase a multirole ship, then it will justify its cost because you can kind of mix and match specific modules. Plus you get the added speed and agility that do not come with the normal role ship.

Tradaconda for example. You can fit all medium modules if you want. However if you choose to fit large or huge modules you can. But at the cost of only being able to fit fixed weapon type. No gimbels or turrets allowed on large weapons if you have an anaconda with a trading hull setup.

The pillar you choose determines what kind of weapons and armor you have access to.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Discourage being the key word there. They want to provide consequences for killing another player without reason, but they're not saying that it's an unacceptable form of player interaction. The difference between in game criminal behaviour and griefing is very important and people need to recognise that the former, no matter how baseless it may seem, does not equate to the latter.

It would appear that some forms would, if a karma system were implemented, be treated as unacceptable, in that if carried out repeatedly, would incur major bad karma:

Hello Commander nrage!

Discerning naughty from undesirable would really be such a system's prime function.

so, to spitball a little, here are some potential examples:

* Attacking a wanted ship, no matter how overpowered you were compared to it, would be fine
* Attacking a clean ship when massively overpowered would get minor bad karma
* Repeatedly attacking clean ships that you massively overpowered would get you major bad karma
* Stealing cargo from a clean ship would be fine.
* Being involved in an occasional starport collision would gain you minor bad karma
* Being repeatedly involved in starport collisions over time would get you major bad karma
* Occasionally disconnecting ungracefully in danger would be fine
* Repeatedly disconnecting ungracefully in danger over time would get you major bad karma
* Attacking starports as crew would get you major bad karma

This sort of thing.

Such a system might not be perfectly right in very instance, but punitive measures would increase based on trends over time, which in the end become fairly accurate indicators of intent.

In general, we want to minimise out of game intervention. However, that does not mean that punitive measures would be toothless. We could make life *very* challenging, in ways we currently have not employed, for repeat offenders.

But please remember, as of this moment, this is just discussion, and although we have very positive vibes, there's currently no ETA or guarantee for such a system's arrival.

Potential consequences up to, and, apparently, including shadow-banning:

Hello Commanders!

In response to combat logging versus "griefing" (which I will define here as killing a much weaker vessel with potentially a lower combat rated pilot): both are considered "undesirable" behaviour. I'm not saying that they would have to get exactly the same bad karma, just that repeatedly doing either act would see a Commander slide down the karma slope. I'm not sure that this can really be argued against, unless you are bringing a strong bias to the discussion table.

In Open, you can run into other Commanders that want to destroy your ship. We are saying that if they repeatedly pick unfair fights, we will take action against them. Why would we not take action against someone who consistently logs to avoid legitimate destruction? And I'm sure that we could envisage a system that reduced karma loss for combat logging when aggressors are also low karma Commanders, so it feels reasonable to me?

Hell Commander besieger!

As we're speaking hypothetically here, we would want to avoid shadow banning where possible. As an example, for a Commander that repeatedly killed clean ships that were significantly weaker than them, I'd rather see a removal of insurance cover (so when a ship is destroyed it's gone, or you have to pay the full price to get it back), docking privileges rescinded at all starports and outposts except those in anarchy jurisdictions and game applied Pilot Federation bounties rather than a shadow ban.

Of course, we'd always reserve the right to apply out of game measures if we felt they were justified.