The problem with the new C&P improvements

[NeilF]

Because anarchy systems should provide a safe haven for illegal professions that are part of the game, like smuggling or piracy. And although smuggling does not necessarily involve destruction of other ships, piracy does, as without the threat of destruction no one would stop a ship for pirates.

The game already provides navigation tools and a pre-jump warning to those who would prefer to stay safe and avoid anarchy systems, so I don't see what's the big deal of having no application of law in anarchy systems. I would even go further, I would give anarchy systems the highest profits, better paying missions, higher selling prices for goods and smuggling, for the ones who would brave the shark infested waters. Anfd it would make sense, as few would want to venture there, and those who were willing would be better compensated for it.

"like smuggling or piracy" - Agreed! Lower (or no) security should mean you can pirate and smuggle with a reduced risk of attention of security services... And that's all well and good

However, I'm more concerned with a Pilots Federation C&P (karma) system holding its member accoutable for their actions. Specifically the illegal destruction of other CMDRs (& NPCs).

If the C&P (karma) system works on the loose premise that you can destroy X CMDRs (or NPCs) in period Y, and if you reach that limit as you continue with your psychotic activities, the penalties against you are increased... How is that unfair or illogical?

If you're a pirate, continue to pirate away. Indeed even threaten and destroy a few victims... You'll probably get away with it. But start acting like a psycho and destroy innocent CMDR after innocent CMDR then you'll be penalised.

What's unfair or illogical about that? What gameplay does that damage? Because I only more logic and accountability out of it?

 

[NeilF]

You've made some good points, but for gameplay reasons, you can't have "crimes" where there's no "authority"

From a game universe point of view? Or gameplay point of view?


Let's follow a gameplay scenario through? I pirate other CMDRs in a selection of systems:-
High Security - I expect a brisk response from the security forces.
Low/no Security - I expect little/no response.

For the trader? They should expect potentially a greater return in the low/no security system. They should be expecting to outfit their ship accordingly, and if the game ever progresses enough, or hire Wingmen to escort them?


That's all well and good... But illegal destruction I see as a completely separate issue. If I destroy a couple of CMDRs (no matter what the security) I'd hope I could get away with it as it's only a "tiny ripple". But if I started illegally destroying more and more I'd then expect to incur logical penalties. eg:-
- Stations start denying me docking.
- Systems deny me a permit.
- Possible rebuy cost ramifications.
- A constant Pilots Federtaion bounty on me, meaning a fair game to be (legally) attacked by any other CMDR.
- An indication to all other CMDRs, I'm a know psycho!

Now these game outcomes to me see sensible. They allow some illegal destruction but rein in psychotic ganking. And I see no reason why to exclude some system types from this mechanic.


As for a game universe point of view?
- The information about illegal destruction surely comes back with me to my last station.
- The Pilots Federation is clearly interested in its members acting like psychos and want to deter it.
- Insurance companies obviously don't want lots of out goings, so individuals causing a lot of out goings would be penalised.

 

[kmwmtd]

A cooldown between being able to toggle it on/off might help too...

Or maybe only being able to change it when docked.

Ahhh, already been suggested

 

[Lightspeed]

If the C&P (karma) system works on the loose premise that you can destroy X CMDRs (or NPCs) in period Y, and if you reach that limit as you continue with your psychotic activities, the penalties against you are increased... How is that unfair or illogical?

If you're a pirate, continue to pirate away. Indeed even threaten and destroy a few victims... You'll probably get away with it. But start acting like a psycho and destroy innocent CMDR after innocent CMDR then you'll be penalised.

What's unfair or illogical about that? What gameplay does that damage? Because I only more logic and accountability out of it?

I'm not a programmer, but a REP record for killing commanders and NPCs that are not wanted ought not to be difficult to implement.

If we earn or lose Rep at bases for everything else, why can't our Commander name carry killing Rep too? If the Rep reaches a threshold, deny access to repair and re-arm facilities at local stations. Do it in stages, so it starts with High Sec systems, then Low Sec, then .... if the player really persists, at Anarchy too.

The player would have to "earn" improving the negative Rep by a cease and desist over a period of time (the negative rep could fade with time).

It surely isn't hard to program - we have rep for everything else !

 

[NeilF]

I'm not a programmer, but a REP record for killing commanders and NPCs that are not wanted ought not to be difficult to implement.

If we earn or lose Rep at bases for everything else, why can't our Commander name carry killing Rep too? If the Rep reaches a threshold, deny access to repair and re-arm facilities at local stations. Do it in stages, so it starts with High Sec systems, then Low Sec, then .... if the player really persists, at Anarchy too.

The player would have to "earn" improving the negative Rep by a cease and desist over a period of time (the negative rep could fade with time).

It surely isn't hard to program - we have rep for everything else !

That's the sort of premise, yes...

Personally I think if you've earned a negative reputation from the illegal destruction of other CMDRs/NPCs, the only way for that reputation to improve is via the passing of time.

I think this the best game outcome. ie: I wouldn't want to see gankers being able to gank more by farming RES zones. Instead I'd rather see their activity reined in by logical tolerances over time periods.

And yes, the denial of services and/or access to stations or indeed entire systems would make sense if done according to their security rating etc.

 

[Xender]

Profits from low security systems should be higher. Most of the smuggling missions should be acquired from low security systems. According to that "traders" or "smugglers" should use appropriate ships for this job. With selection of right fitting in order to escape from pvp hunters.

 

[NeilF]

But the problem is that Anarchy systems should not be ignored by the Crime & Punishment (karma) system. It makes no sense from a game universe point of view, and makes even less sense from a game play point of view.

Ignoring anarchy systems just means the mindless toxic ganking at "exploration sites" (eg: alien sites etc etc) will carry on (or increase?). What is the point of allowing a minority to sit in a system ganking explorer after explorer for no reason? How is it benefitial to the game so that even after illegally destroying a dozen other CMDRs there's not a single negative outcome for them? Worse still, there's no blemish at all, so the next dozen CMDRs turning up have not a single indication a CMDR is a total psycho.

As I've said before, if anyone can explain how gameplay will be improved by ignoring anarchy systems from the proposed C&P (karma) system I'd love to hear it. Because to me it just sounds a poor choice.

And from what I've heard ganking is now taking place at the newly found Thargoid bases in OPEN? So I'd reitterate again, there's no reason why a C&P (karma) mechanic cannot and should not also apply to anarchy systems. It helps the game, and makes total game sense too...

eg:-

I think most folks out there learned from the Alien Ruins sites (Guardians), that if you want to just immerse yourself in something new Frontier has given to us, the absolute last thing you want to be dealing with are jerk-off gankers who flock to these sites in OPEN with no other purpose but to ruin the enjoyment of others.

Is it any wonder why so few are bothering to check out the new alien structures with anyone but trusted friends, or in solo? Makes total sense to me.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

And from what I've heard ganking is now taking place at the newly found Thargoid bases in OPEN? So I'd reitterate again, there's no reason why a C&P (karma) mechanic cannot and should not also apply to anarchy systems. It helps the game, and makes total game sense too...

eg:-
​

I understand your point and you're right there does need to be a solution to this somehow. However, the point of an anarchy system is that there is no law, no repercussions etc. Whatever the solution, that ethos needs to be preserved.

My thoughts on this are that we could change the status of systems of interest to allow the authorities to enforce existing protections. Perhaps a Capital SHip could arrive in such systems as soon as a Thargoid presence is detected, declaring martial law.

 

[NeilF]

IHowever, the point of an anarchy system is that there is no law, no repercussions etc. Whatever the solution, that ethos needs to be preserved.

Yes, there's no law and/or security services there. But that doesn't mean there's no outcomes/ramifications to your actions there. ie: The Pilots Federation and Insurance companies will know of illegal destruction's in such systems.

From a realistism point of view, habitual mindless actions in such locations would still result in a negative outcome. Given it would seem to make positive sense from a gameplay point of view for habitual mindless actions to also be reined in, what's the problem?

In short, what positive gameplay are we trying to "preserve" exactly?

 

[BDelacroix]

Yes, there's no law and/or security services there. But that doesn't mean there's no outcomes/ramifications to your actions there. ie: The Pilots Federation and Insurance companies will know of illegal destruction's in such systems.

From a realistism point of view, habitual mindless actions in such locations would still result in a negative outcome. Given it would seem to make positive sense from a gameplay point of view for habitual mindless actions to also be reined in, what's the problem?

In short, what positive gameplay are we trying to "preserve" exactly?

Probably your risk, their reward.

I wonder if the scope of thinking here is too small. MOST of the universe is anarchy. Only a small small percentage is not even safe, just less bad.

IF the entire universe was the bubble, then this system would make total sense. With anarchy activities meaning absolutely no risk to players who want to exercise their inner jerk free of repercussion, that leaves most of the universe off limits. However we may want to sugar coat it or turn a blind eye or just not think about it, some people just live to make sure other people are having a bad time. I'm not sure much can be done about that.

We still have solo and PG.

Low security profits should not be higher. Are the low security sections of your town rolling in dough? No, people stay out for good reason.

This is similar to EVE where the profits were outside of governed space. That makes no sense. Governments move in to take valuable resources, they don't stay out.

Even the so called wild west had law and order. Don't believe the Hollywood stories of the shootouts all day every day in a lawless west.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

Probably your risk, their reward.

I wonder if the scope of thinking here is too small. MOST of the universe is anarchy. Only a small small percentage is not even safe, just less bad.

IF the entire universe was the bubble, then this system would make total sense. With anarchy activities meaning absolutely no risk to players who want to exercise their inner jerk free of repercussion, that leaves most of the universe off limits. However we may want to sugar coat it or turn a blind eye or just not think about it, some people just live to make sure other people are having a bad time. I'm not sure much can be done about that.

We still have solo and PG.

Low security profits should not be higher. Are the low security sections of your town rolling in dough? No, people stay out for good reason.

This is similar to EVE where the profits were outside of governed space. That makes no sense. Governments move in to take valuable resources, they don't stay out.

Even the so called wild west had law and order. Don't believe the Hollywood stories of the shootouts all day every day in a lawless west.

I think your signature sums it up. No government, no taxes, no regulations, no security, more risk, more profit.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

I'm not a programmer, but a REP record for killing commanders and NPCs that are not wanted ought not to be difficult to implement.

If we earn or lose Rep at bases for everything else, why can't our Commander name carry killing Rep too? If the Rep reaches a threshold, deny access to repair and re-arm facilities at local stations. Do it in stages, so it starts with High Sec systems, then Low Sec, then .... if the player really persists, at Anarchy too.

The player would have to "earn" improving the negative Rep by a cease and desist over a period of time (the negative rep could fade with time).

It surely isn't hard to program - we have rep for everything else !

I see it that primarily factions and secondarily powers (by faction allegiance) has sway who docks at a station. It would be logical for a cmdr's rep with controlling faction/powers should govern docking rights and station facilities. If cmdr's have a bad rep with the controlling faction or by extension if a bad rep with a power then that's where I would start refusing cmdrs access to station facilities.

The Pilots Federation deal with insurance and bounties (from 2.4) as all human players are pilots federation then any cmdr is fair game. If Fdev bring in a PF reputation system at some point in the future then it could be used to effect insurance levels. Cmdrs get negative rep for destroying cmdrs with neutral or positive rep and vice versa. This will make a system where there is always something riding on each encounter and players will have to make decision based on a numbers of factors as multiple consequences could result.

And from what I've heard ganking is now taking place at the newly found Thargoid bases in OPEN? So I'd reitterate again, there's no reason why a C&P (karma) mechanic cannot and should not also apply to anarchy systems. It helps the game, and makes total game sense too...

NeilF, Anarchy systems just mean there is no recognised governance/laws either because it is void of power system or power structures void themselves as in anarchist factions in the game. Those systems should be open for all comers. They shouldn't be artifically regulated if cmdrs want to go and grief there its upto them. What should be in place is a C&P system that doesn't make it consequence free. Hopefully reducing greifing and gankins impact over all.

The wild west is a very good analogy for elite dangerous. some towns had "law", others not. Some law was corrupt. Outside the towns in the wilderness your could murder someone and nobody would ever know. That is what elite dangerous should be trying to emulate. The PF should apply everywhere but only have a limited role i.e. bounties and insurance.

 

[BostromNZ]

Crimes reported on/off could be shown on the HUD next to or under the target ship hologram where the damage effect indicators are. It could be a police badge that turns from red to green.

I would also support the inability to change its status for a set time once combat has started.

 

[NeilF]

NeilF, Anarchy systems just mean there is no recognised governance/laws either because it is void of power system or power structures void themselves as in anarchist factions in the game. Those systems should be open for all comers. They shouldn't be artifically regulated if cmdrs want to go and grief there its upto them. What should be in place is a C&P system that doesn't make it consequence free. Hopefully reducing greifing and gankins impact over all.

The wild west is a very good analogy for elite dangerous. some towns had "law", others not. Some law was corrupt. Outside the towns in the wilderness your could murder someone and nobody would ever know. That is what elite dangerous should be trying to emulate. The PF should apply everywhere but only have a limited role i.e. bounties and insurance.

Why?

Can I ask - yet again - what is added to the game by allowing CMDRs to grief away in anarchy systems at absolutely no negative outcome to them.

How does it make sense that some CMDRs arriving at an alien site are blown apart for no reason other than the lolz, only for the ganker(s) in question to log off, come back an hour later, with a fresh batch of CMDRs then arriving who have not a single indication that there's known psychnopaths right next to them?

Indeed, at Thargoid live stream wasn't it obvious why Ed Lewis wasn't even playing in OPEN? And wasn't it entirely predictable groups of gankers would turn up as soon as they could. I watch one group of three gankers working their way around the ships in my instance quite literally blowing up ships in seconds...

What valuable mechanics and gameplay is served by the game ignore habitual illegal destruction anywhere, even in anarchy systems?

I can only think of negative outcomes, and hence why a C&P (karma) system would best serve applying no matter where, if only because then it's simpler! eg: Illegally destroy more than X CMDRs/NPCs in period Y, start incuring negative outcomes (no matter where).


ps: It's not just negative to gameplay, in a game universe it makes no sense to ignore such behaviour either - Yes even in Anarchy systems.

 

[lenna]

Illegally destroy more than X CMDRs/NPCs in period Y, start incuring negative outcomes (no matter where).

I generally support this position... +Rep... but...

I think the nature of the destruction should be taken into account - if the target CMDR had no hope at all of winning/surviving the engagement AND did not initiate it (nor was provoked into initiating it) then the rule you proposed should apply... in other circumstances, I think at least some latitude should be granted to the attacker.

There is also the point that if a clean commander acts stupidly by initiating (without provocation - and a bounty on the more powerful CMDR does not count as provocation) and maintaining an attack against another commander who could swat them like a fly then the killing commander should not be penalised for the other commander's behaviour via any form of supplemental karma-like system.

 

[NeilF]

I generally support this position... +Rep... but...

I think the nature of the destruction should be taken into account - if the target CMDR had no hope at all of winning/surviving the engagement AND did not initiate it (nor was provoked into initiating it) then the rule you proposed should apply... in other circumstances, I think at least some latitude should be granted to the attacker.

There is also the point that if a clean commander acts stupidly by initiating (without provocation - and a bounty on the more powerful CMDR does not count as provocation) and maintaining an attack against another commander who could swat them like a fly then the killing commander should not be penalised for the other commander's behaviour via any form of supplemental karma-like system.

I concur... Knowing when an attack is "legal" or "illegal" is very important.

That said though - if we ignore Powerplay - why isn't it simply, if a CMDRs shoots another player who is not wanted in the system in question, then that is an illegal action. If that then results in the victim's destruction, we enter into the realms of negative reputation in the new C&P (karma) system?

Note: Should a player reach a sufficiently poor reputation (after illegally destroying more than X CMDRs/NPCs in period Y) then it could well be they have a perminant Pilots Federation bounty on them no matter where they are, not only making them a viable bounty target for all CMDRs, but also simply highlighting them to all other CMDRS as, 'Careful this CMDR is a psycho!'

 

[Kaocraft]

They do have a point wrt the specific case of duels, the C&P system though is not even meant to be a consideration in the duel situation but is generally meant to act as a built-in deterrent for other behaviours.

The block list only works AFTER the fact and does not discourage certain behaviours at all. A C&P punishment that hinders the attacker as much if not more than the death has hindered the victim (assuming certain conditions are met) seems an appropriate way to deal with the underlying issues with current undesirable/anti-social PvP incidents.

Despite the blocking option though, any one that tries to abuse the pending C&P changes in a duelling scenario could be reported to FD for exploiting the mechanics. However, both myself and others have put forward a simple solution to the OP's concern - limit when the "Report Crimes" flag can be changed or when it takes effect.

If you had it turned off, and want it turned on, you should be in a free and clear situation. Perhaps CMDR scans should also indicate the current report crimes flag setting and highlight when it has changed.

I agree with all of what you have said.

 

[Jason Lightning]

Now we want enforcement in Anarchy? Seems very counterproductive to the idea of a lawless unmonitored zone.

Surely this is just some elaborate troll in wanting to put C&P in areas where security and government doesn't exist?

 

[NeilF]

Now we want enforcement in Anarchy? Seems very counterproductive to the idea of a lawless unmonitored zone.

Surely this is just some elaborate troll in wanting to put C&P in areas where security and government doesn't exist?

Every time someone comes up with an issue with applying a C&P (karma) system across the board (even in anarchy systems) so psychotic illegal behaviour is accountable no matter where, I ask:-
1) What actual gameplay would it be counter productive towards in anarchy systems?
2) Why doesn't it make sense that organisations would be interested in psychotic habitual illegal destruction going on (no matter where)? ie: The Pilots Federation have a, "zero tolerance policy regarding dishonourable behaviour among its members," and why would insurance companies not be interested in particular individuals costing them a fortune?

Now if you can explain a valid/reasoned issue with (1) or (2) I'd love to hear it... Because I've not heard one yet anytime I've asked these?


note1: Anarchy systems obviously have reduced/non-existent security, meaning if you are pirated or attacked there, you shouldn't expect any help. There's the risk! But to suggest this should give carte blanche for CMDRs to illegally destroy as many CMDRs (& NPCs) as they wish is as counter productive to gameplay as it is unrealistic IMHO.

note2: The only downside I can see is the reduced lolz for the gankers? And TBH... I can live with that.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

Now we want enforcement in Anarchy? Seems very counterproductive to the idea of a lawless unmonitored zone.

Surely this is just some elaborate troll in wanting to put C&P in areas where security and government doesn't exist?

I'd settle for some law enforcement in secure & governed; but doubt we're ever gonna see that, FD will fluff some half-baked Karma system that takes forever to act and appears ineffective from both sides.