Page 59 of 66 FirstFirst ... 49555657585960616263 ... LastLast
Results 871 to 885 of 986

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Deliberate Ramming

  1. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #871
    Sandro Sammarco is online now
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander Truesilver!

    Without taking anything away from your worries, which are valid, I would say this: assuming that it is relatively robust (no mean feat in of itself), I think we could all agree that a trend tracking system could be very useful for identifying both of these issues (combat logging and "grief" killing - that is, attacking clean ships when there is a massive, mechanically verifiable power differential between victim and aggressor).

    So part of the discussion should be about is what kind of consequences should be applied. Because we can never *truly* know if a disconnect is deliberate or not, is it not plausible to suggest that the consequences could remain as in-game penalties? This is not a rhetorical question, it's a genuine one, especially if the result is that combat logging decreases.

    Another part of the discussion is the concept of karma consequences for "grief killing". I still find the range of responses on this a little strange (I suspect because of the wide range of differing opinions): either we think it's a problem or we don't. I would like to assume that most folk do find it an issue, PvP and PvE players alike (PvE for obvious reasons, and PvP because it can clearly have a chilling effect on the population of the Open mode).

    If we do make this assumption (and to be sure, that's all it is), then we have two very clear options in my opinion.

    A) We prevent it.
    B) We add consequences that act as a form of appropriate risk/justice

    As I've stated before, I'm not too keen on option "A" unless it's absolutely necessary (and by the by, I consider a consequence so harsh as to stop a player playing the game not really any more suitable than simply preventing the activity in the first place - it's a last resort option to me). Also, note that saying "just make crime response better" is, in my opinion, not very useful. That crime response ships could do with much more teeth is not in dispute, but to make them able to prevent the crime would require instant arrival along with other magic powers

    So lets say the worst punishment is that the re-buy premium becomes 50 percent of the cost of the ship fully fitted. Dramatic, for sure, but clearly no more game stopping that flying without the means to pay for a standard re-buy. More serious? Absolutely - you need staggering amounts of spare credits if you're flying a tooled up big ship. But you can make that kind of money. And this is the final level of consequence, built up over a period of time where you will have been repeatedly warned and suffered lesser penalties before hand.

    Now the question I'm interested in is this (again, not a rhetorical question): Why would this drain Open of PvP players? They can still perform their "nefarious grief killing", only now there is an escalating series of challenges to consider. Not to mention that outside the power differential criteria players are still free to attack each other with abandon.

    Again, these are genuine questions. Of course, if folk disagree with some of the assumptions I have to make to create this scenario (like assuming that "noob killing" is not very desirable, then clearly that puts a different spin on things, but in those cases, I'd love to know why they disagree, it will help us understand.

    *** EDIT *** All of the above does not have any affect on how we deal with combat logging or other issues *currently*. This is simply hypothetical discussions. You have been warned...

    Aaaaaanyways, I hope everyone has a great weekend!

  2. #872
    Mic drop..

    CMDR Mal Reynolds (6th Interstellar Corps)

  3. #873
    Honestly, if we're not talking about a removal of insurance, just an increase, 50% seems pretty weak for a max tier offence.

  4. #874
    Originally Posted by CMDR Dahak View Post (Source)
    Honestly, if we're not talking about a removal of insurance, just an increase, 50% seems pretty weak for a max tier offence.
    A 50% rebuy is ten times the current standard rate....

  5. #875
    Hello Sandro,

    I didn't post in this thread yet (I think...), but your questions merit answers.

    1) Worst punishment: escalate rebuy to 50% of ship value
    Not drastic enough as end-of-the-line punishment. There were people who offered 1 Bn Cr. as bounty recently, and they could easily afford that. And also probably easily cheatable (Suicidewinder).

    2) Would that drain PvP players? Or stop them from "griefing"?
    I don't think so - see above. Seal clubbers either have enough money not to care about such paltry rebuys, or, unless you will make a proposition to attach that rebuy to the CMDR, not the ship, will find a way to drop that to an effective 10% or less (assuming Suicidewinder will clear the rebuy, and assuming that 1 time in 5 they'll get their timing wrong and actually get killed in their combat ship). Too many open ends actually to make a good guess.


    Your proposal _might_ be workable as part of a more encompassing scheme - like making high security systems much more dangerous to "wanted" CMDRs plus giving the system security forces some better teeth. If you could effectively make it too dangerous for high bounty players to come into a high security system, this could actually work. That still won't keep PvP players out of open, but would restrict them to lower security systems.
    If I'm bigger than you, then I'm in charge.
    If you are bigger than me, then you're in charge.
    If anything goes wrong, then he's in charge.
    -- credo of the orc marines

  6. #876
    And I bet increased rebuy won't make a jot of difference to any of the noisy Player Killers in this thread.

    So I take it the wider proposals for systems responding to "criminal" players is off the table then if it'll need instant and magic responses> Despite all the suggestions earlier in the thread about how this can be implemented? (I mean, surely just flag a criminal player as hostile in a high-sec system and how long are they likely to survive?)

  7. #877
    Originally Posted by AndyJ View Post (Source)
    And I bet increased rebuy won't make a jot of difference to any of the noisy Player Killers in this thread.
    Indeed - a player with billions in the bank wouldn't have much trouble running a 100M Cr. as their PK weapon of choice - the worst that could happen would be a 50M Cr. hit to their balance.

    .... or they would develop highly capable meta-builds based on comparatively inexpensive ships and weaponry and limit their expenses in that manner.

  8. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #878
    Sandro Sammarco is online now
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander Ashnak!

    Good points. There are some Commanders with exceptional amounts of credits, but not everyone is super rich. In addition, this kind of penalty *every time* you lose a ship can actually add up fairly quickly if you are using extremely expensive vessels (which tend to be the ones best suited for this activity).

    Of course, I also used this amount to ensure that there would be fewer cries of "that effectively stops them playing". The amount could be higher or lower. Finally, this would be on top of a range of lesser, but still notable, challenges, such as lack of docking permission except at anarchies, more powerful, determined authority vessels, auto-hostility from authorities in secure systems etc.

    Also, we will (separately) be looking at closing the Suicidewinder option, so you'd always be looking at the re-buy cost of the most expensive ship used in a crime spree.

    You make a point that I think is worth repeating: the idea that infamous criminals tend to spend more time in anarchies would be, in my opinion, a good thing, both contextually and for game play.

  9. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #879
    Sandro Sammarco is online now
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander AndyJ!

    Originally Posted by AndyJ View Post (Source)
    And I bet increased rebuy won't make a jot of difference to any of the noisy Player Killers in this thread.

    So I take it the wider proposals for systems responding to "criminal" players is off the table then if it'll need instant and magic responses> Despite all the suggestions earlier in the thread about how this can be implemented? (I mean, surely just flag a criminal player as hostile in a high-sec system and how long are they likely to survive?)
    Not at all. We are interested in giving authorities more teeth, additional challenge for criminals in secure systems etc.

    It's just that to deal with this particular issue is beyond all such teeth without effectively creating a PVE zone or flag environment. Without such things, it would be next to impossible to prevent the crime, only respond to it. And at this point, you're back to consequences, which a karma system can possibly handle better.

  10. #880
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    It's just that to deal with this particular issue is beyond all such teeth without effectively creating a PVE zone or flag environment. Without such things, it would be next to impossible to prevent the crime, only respond to it. And at this point, you're back to consequences, which a karma system can possibly handle better.
    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)?

  11. #881
    Sandro, is there any plan to encourage "police" forces by players? Let's say I enter a high-sec system and I receive a message that there's a known criminal at this location causing havoc. Something along those lines.

    Or a Galactic Bounty Board where the biggest criminals are listed. Which could also have some Wanted NPCs listed (for the Solo guys), but with top tier engineered ships. So basically a proper boss mission.

  12. #882
    Hey Sandro,

    Please keep in mind that it is very difficult for an experienced player to ever die, unless another player is involved and they both agree to fight to the death. Do remember that, even before factoring in engineer modifications, anybody intent on not dying only has to survive 15 seconds before they can jump out, something which is not too difficult against other players, and utterly trivial against the police response of even high security systems.

    Increased rebuys will only be a factor if somehow a player flagged by the karma system ever comes close to losing their ship against their will - that is, if the game somehow offers them an increased level of challenge, at which point those of us with a clean karma would be wondering "why can't we also be offered enough challenge and risk losing our ship once in a while? "

    Also, I have a feeling your definition of griefing (which you describe as seal clubbing noobs) doesn't exactly cover what the portion of the community complaining about it actually mean. I think you'll find there is not much disparity in terms of ships and play time between the attackers and defenders in most instances of so-called griefing, it usually comes down to one side being unwilling to take preventive meansure to ensure survival despite having all the means to do so. So a system dealing with only the outliers (say, Conda vs Adder) wont do much to appease the constant whinge I'm afraid as it wouldn't cover the vast majority of such interactions.

    If protecting beginners is the goal, wouldn't a beginner zone wit hthe appropriate protections be an easier approach?

  13. #883
    Hello Sandro,

    thank you for that clarification. Together with your "lesser challenges" (I'd rather consider them as the main points, but you have access to numbers that I do not know) and closing the Suicidewinder loophole - agreed.
    If I'm bigger than you, then I'm in charge.
    If you are bigger than me, then you're in charge.
    If anything goes wrong, then he's in charge.
    -- credo of the orc marines

  14. #884
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commander Ashnak!

    Good points. There are some Commanders with exceptional amounts of credits, but not everyone is super rich. In addition, this kind of penalty *every time* you lose a ship can actually add up fairly quickly if you are using extremely expensive vessels (which tend to be the ones best suited for this activity).

    Of course, I also used this amount to ensure that there would be fewer cries of "that effectively stops them playing". The amount could be higher or lower. Finally, this would be on top of a range of lesser, but still notable, challenges, such as lack of docking permission except at anarchies, more powerful, determined authority vessels, auto-hostility from authorities in secure systems etc.

    Also, we will (separately) be looking at closing the Suicidewinder option, so you'd always be looking at the re-buy cost of the most expensive ship used in a crime spree.

    You make a point that I think is worth repeating: the idea that infamous criminals tend to spend more time in anarchies would be, in my opinion, a good thing, both contextually and for game play.
    50% is ok, if you start to monitor countless mission exploits,
    fix them in a resonable time (aka ASAP)

    what is youre stance on the current "Quince" misison exploit, where a bug in passenger missions + a missconception of how they are generated, allow players to make those billion credits in no time?

  15. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #885
    Sandro Sammarco is online now
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    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).

Page 59 of 66 FirstFirst ... 49555657585960616263 ... LastLast