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

[Dialectic]

Anyone remember the old Ultima Online murder system? It DID make gameplay tough on the murderer, but the most skilled players could do it. It was a kind of badge of honor. Though they still separated Pvp and pve into two workds regardless so ... *shrug*

 

[-Denali-]

I think griefers should just be forced to read this thread before they can log back in. That should be painful enough.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Anyone remember the old Ultima Online murder system? It DID make gameplay tough on the murderer, but the most skilled players could do it. It was a kind of badge of honor. Though they still separated Pvp and pve into two workds regardless so ... *shrug*

Sounds like that murder system didn't work out as the Devs hoped - so they had to split PvP and PvE anyway....

 

[Dialectic]

If you don't than why you act like one of them?

kind of a question is this? Act like what?

I've asked questions and stated interest in a certain type of pvp.

 

[DefiledDragon]

There is a solution to griefing, but it is not one Frontier could enact, nor would most local constabularies approve, but it involves a mallet, an oak plank and the offender's fingers.
100% effective, but it makes certain people sad.

You force the offending player to grip the mallet with the fingers of one hand, the plank with the fingers of their other hand and bang the two together, thus preventing them from operating their controller of choice? Hmmm, creative, but I'm not sure that bashing an oak plank with a mallet would hold their attention long enough for it to be effective.

 

[Mohrgan]

Ridiculous out of game punishment for legitimate gameplay choices being pushed as a 'fair' idea?

https://s26.postimg.org/j1n26hszt/11ap7e.jpg

I think its safe to say people who fly in open want a crime and punishment/Karma system that handles player action ingame. The issue drawing ire is the silly suggestion being championed to use out of game mechanics to punish a player path that is encouraged both by the games marketing and its mechanics.

You are jumping to conclusions. All that is being discusses is how your long term actions can be collected, and what the resultant effects would be. If there is an effort to curtail certain activities you can conclude that the Dev's don't consider it completely 'legitimate'. What may have been, by default, seen as legitimate game play can change as the game develops. Do not let the rhetoric of some players convince you what FD may be thinking.

Nothing but good things can come from players facing consequences for their actions.

 

[Dialectic]

Sounds like that murder system didn't work out as the Devs hoped - so they had to split PvP and PvE anyway....

It's already split here. So why do you or the other guys care about a game mechanic you won't even participate in?

It worked but the fact is that squishy people still get killed, and they want that to never ever happen ever. Pixels are very important.

But money speaks, and rightfully so. So usually the non hardcore pvp base gets the bigger say.

But if the pve crowd wants nothing to do with the pvpers, why care at all about karma for us?

- - - Updated - - -

You are jumping to conclusions. All that is being discusses is how your long term actions can be collected, and what the resultant effects would be. If there is an effort to curtail certain activities you can conclude that the Dev's don't consider it completely 'legitimate'. What may have been, by default, seen as legitimate game play can change as the game develops. Do not let the rhetoric of some players convince you what FD may be thinking.

Nothing but good things can come from players facing consequences for their actions.

And You aren't jumping to conclusions about me? Pfft

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Ridiculous out of game punishment for legitimate gameplay choices being pushed as a 'fair' idea?

There is absolutely no legitimacy behind griefing - which should really be termed "Harassment" and treated as such under the EULA.

There is a place for PvP, even non-consentual PvP - attacking someone pledged to another power, or to weaken a power's standing, or other game-play related reason.

There's absolutely no justification for sitting outside the docks of the starter system(s) blowing up 10-minute old commanders who can't even ram the internal walls of the stations they're in yet, except that you're an .

And the world needs about 1.68 billion fewer .

 

[Robert Maynard]

It's already split here. So why do you or the other guys care about a game mechanic you won't even participate in?

It worked but the fact is that squishy people still get killed, and they want that to never ever happen ever. Pixels are very important.

But money speaks, and rightfully so. So usually the non hardcore pvp base gets the bigger say.

But if the pve crowd wants nothing to do with the pvpers, why care at all about karma for us?

Only split as much as each player can choose, on a session by session basis which mode to play in. I'd expect that a lot of players don't play exclusively in any one mode.

Maybe they'd be happier in the knowledge that their destroyer faced consequences more significant than a paltry 6,000 Cr. bounty (against the target's loss that may run to the tens of millions).

It seems to.

There's only one game mode with an unlimited population, that's why.

 

[Dialectic]

There is absolutely no legitimacy behind griefing - which should really be termed "Harassment" and treated as such under the EULA.

There is a place for PvP, even non-consentual PvP - attacking someone pledged to another power, or to weaken a power's standing, or other game-play related reason.

There's absolutely no justification for sitting outside the docks of the starter system(s) blowing up 10-minute old commanders who can't even ram the internal walls of the stations they're in yet, except that you're an .

And the world needs about 1.68 billion fewer .

Yeah, he's the a-hole but you want 1.68 billion real people to die. Are you ok?

And again, I don't think he said anything about killing squishy noobs. But there is a solo play isn't there? And it's not going anywhere.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But there is a solo play isn't there? And it's not going anywhere.

It's not about players leaving Open though:

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.

 

[Dialectic]

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.

This thread is the worst. This post here is logical. If FD has a logical difference between griefing and pvp/murder/piracy, then I'm totally in to the idea of karma system, even if none of the pve guys will come play in open. It'll add some mechanics which is cool beans. Excited to play it

Edit: Lol I was just thinking how goofy it is that the people who aren't going to use the mechanic are probably dictating quite a bit of its progress.

Itd be like the pvp people setting game play mechanics for explorers.....

hey I think if you're an explorer then you should have to play in open and you should HAVE to have your location marked on the map. Yaknow.... because... it's for your own safety lol

 

[Minonian]

kind of a question is this? Act like what?

I've asked questions and stated interest in a certain type of pvp.

Playing stupid? Not suits you well...
And if you dont have any kind of experience in any side of the trenches why you playing the wise guy, and saying us how it goes, what really is? Don't you think it' a little absurd, and unbelivable?
If you are new in the forum than again? Why you act as an all knowing god?

 

[Goose4291]

The fact that Frontier seem to be considering such a system might suggest that the player behaviours that would incur bad karma are not considered, by Frontier, to be good for the health of the game. Ultimately, Frontier decide what is legitimate (or not) and whether repeatedly engaging in certain behaviours remains so.

The thing is, the term griefing is very broad and personal.

UA Bombing for example, is often argued as griefing by the community, replete with 'ban this filth' type posts here despite it being a mechanic quite clearly supported by the games mechanisms. Blockading CGs for roleplay reasons is another one that falls victim to this (the old "youre roleplaying wrong" nonsense). Would you support a policy of automated shadowbanning for 'griefing' without it being clearly defined? Because I and a lot of the open community that I know (and yes, that does include traders like me) certainly wouldnt.

- - - Updated - - -

You are jumping to conclusions. All that is being discusses is how your long term actions can be collected, and what the resultant effects would be. If there is an effort to curtail certain activities you can conclude that the Dev's don't consider it completely 'legitimate'. What may have been, by default, seen as legitimate game play can change as the game develops. Do not let the rhetoric of some players convince you what FD may be thinking.

Its players who are discussing this. Considering theres a lot of people here who argue piracy as griefing, and want those who partake in it removed from the game like undesirables, I'm going to highlight why I think thats wrong.

Nothing but good things can come from players facing consequences for their actions.

Are we playing the same game? Nothing seems to have consequences in Elite. Are we surprised that people are getting ansty about the idea of consequences being enforced on a specific niche of player type?

 

[lenna]

Sounds like that murder system didn't work out as the Devs hoped - so they had to split PvP and PvE anyway....

Trying to mix PvE and PvP gameplay in a free form fashion is generally asking for trouble from the get go.

Thankfully ED have the Private Groups mode to deal with the purely co-operative PvE case.

 

[Dialectic]

Playing stupid? Not suits you well...
And if you dont have any kind of experience in any side of the trenches why you playing the wise guy, and saying us how it goes, what really is? Don't you think it' a little absurd, and unbelivable?
If you are new in the forum than again? Why you act as an all knowing god?

Your type is exactly the type that needs blown up in game. Sanctimonious is a start. I'm sorry was there an application I should have submitted for your approval before posting?

 

[Robert Maynard]

The thing is, the term griefing is very broad and personal.

In the absence of a single definitive definition, yes, it is.

UA Bombing for example, is often argued as griefing by the community, replete with 'ban this filth' type posts here despite it being a mechanic quite clearly supported by the games mechanisms.

Interestingly, UA bombing has been made easier to recover from, compared to when it was first implemented.

Blockading CGs for roleplay reasons is another one that falls victim to this (the old "youre roleplaying wrong" nonsense).

Attacking / destroying probably clean, probably trade ships, probably outfitted for cargo isn't really much of a challenge - what roleplay reason would be given?

Would you support a policy of automated shadowbanning for 'griefing' without it being clearly defined? Because I and a lot of the open community that I know (and yes, that does include traders like me) certainly wouldnt.

Without a definition (or at least a list of specific proscribed behaviours), shadowbanning would not happen - as there'd be no way to determine whether an action warranted sanction.

 

[DefiledDragon]

Attacking / destroying probably clean, probably trade ships, probably outfitted for cargo isn't really much of a challenge - what roleplay reason would be given?

When I was 5 my dad left us. He ran off with a dirty space ho who used to run goods from the main starport 3 systems over to our small outpost. Three months after he left my mother couldn't cope any longer and killed herself. From that day on I vowed to destroy every single one of those slimy, no good traders and by god I intend to do just that!

That do you?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Trying to mix PvE and PvP gameplay in a free form fashion is generally asking for trouble from the get go.

Thankfully ED have the Private Groups mode to deal with the purely co-operative PvE case.

The game design information published at the start of the Kickstarter also includes the possibility of more than one Open Group (mode) where the rules can be different to accommodate different play-styles. Not yet implemented, maybe never.

 

[Minonian]

Your type is exactly the type that needs blown up in game. Sanctimonious is a start. I'm sorry was there an application I should have submitted for your approval before posting?

Why? What is my type? Why I needed to blown up? What i did to deserve that? How, and why I'm Sanctimonious? You sorry? Somehow i doubt that!

My approval? Where i said you can't post? But you know? A little less ego, and more rationality can help you to be accepted in there!

And than again? Where you got experience to talk about this matters with this much confidence? No strings attached just asking because you know? I'm curious about it.