Page 3 of 66 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 986

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

  1. #31
    Originally Posted by EUS View Post (Source)
    More simple solution would be
    if within fire zone, x collisions / y time = death by station.
    Pick a ratio that makes sense.
    Even more simple solution: don't speed!

    *walks off shaking head*
    "Please replace these components if use causes fatal damage: HEAT SINK. MAGAZINE. OPERATOR"

    ---The StiTch! who mended the powerplant mid air---

  2. #32
    Originally Posted by StiTch View Post (Source)
    Even more simple solution: don't speed!

    *walks off shaking head*
    That's too simple.

    You'll confuse people with basics like that.

    We need 11 flow charts and spreadsheet to monitor while we dock, otherwise it's an arcade game y'know.

  3. #33
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Again, without any promises, we'd definitely want the core system to be automated, using analysis of mechanically verifiable events.
    YES! Please introduce a karma system sooner rather than later.

    If possible, can this (or a separate/similar system) include a distinction between "in-game this commander is a bit naughty" and "this player engages in anti-social behaviour we as a community want to discourage". Falling to the former category would be things like Piracy and Murder. Falling in to the latter category is anything which breaches the TOS but also other actions like the recently seen/addressed "joining a multi-crew ship, expending all the heatsinks and/or SCBs, laughing and leaving".

    I realise that this distinction will be very hard to make with an automated system but I am hoping that with the collection of enough data points and some sort of pattern recognition/analysis it might be possible to identify players whose behaviour routinely falls into the latter category. If that behaviour can then be said to violate the TOS Frontier could then take action to discourage it. I'm not talking about in-game bounties/cr losses as I see these as being ineffective deterrents in these cases. Instead, warnings (in the form of emails) which if ignored result in a ban from Open play for some length of time. An increased ban period for subsequent infractions, perhaps even going as far as a permanent ban.

    I can understand that some might see this as overly harsh but I feel that the sorts of behaviour which would warrant the reaction I'm suggesting are currently harming the community and game as a whole. Banning players is effectively a "digital prison" of sorts and it seems, to me, the right place to put people who are actually a danger to our digital society.

    CMDR Mal Reynolds (6th Interstellar Corps)

  4. #34
    There seems to be some sound ideas there.

    I think that with the ramming trick, the station should recognise, my rank and reputation, how often I have ramming in my history and tell the offender that 'Commander Arry' could not be a fault. of such an error of flying; so you can just pay for your own re-buy and he will be landing uninterrupted; thank you'.
    WOOF! WOOF!

    WHAT!? You think I said or did something wrong again? Blame T.j

    8 out of 10 Cats, have me on their ignore lists: 5 out of 10 posters; have me on their kill lists?

    Oh dear, it seems that I have joined the Elite. Does that mean, that now I have to oppress the masses?

  5. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #35
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    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.

  6. #36
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    * Occasionally disconnecting ungracefully in danger would be fine
    * Repeatedly disconnecting ungracefully in danger over time would get you major bad karma
    Does disconnecting mean logging out with the timer or is plug-pulling/task-killing included?

  7. #37
    Originally Posted by Cocalarix View Post (Source)
    Does disconnecting mean logging out with the timer or is plug-pulling/task-killing included?
    Note the term "Disconnecting Ungracefully" this implies pulling the cord. The "graceful" exit through the menu would still perfectly fine, even though it can be used in the same way...
    My System:
    AMD Athlon 860k, MSI A88X-G45 Gaming MoBo, 16GB DDR3, Asus Strix GTX 960 OC 2GB, Windows 10.

  8. #38
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    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.
    So how could 'Karma' be defined in such a game as Elite? Hypothetically of course.
    WOOF! WOOF!

    WHAT!? You think I said or did something wrong again? Blame T.j

    8 out of 10 Cats, have me on their ignore lists: 5 out of 10 posters; have me on their kill lists?

    Oh dear, it seems that I have joined the Elite. Does that mean, that now I have to oppress the masses?

  9. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #39
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander Cocalarix!

    So we would not by default penalise using the combat timer.

    However, we're still considering increasing this value to thirty/sixty seconds.

    And well, if we thought it would be useful, we could clearly add some minor bad karma for this action.

  10. #40
    Originally Posted by MickyG1982 View Post (Source)
    Note the term "Disconnecting Ungracefully" this implies pulling the cord. The "graceful" exit through the menu would still perfectly fine, even though it can be used in the same way...
    Yeah, just wanted to make extra sure, because Sandro rarely talks about mechanics that punish combat loggers. It's nice to see they have something planned.

  11. #41
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commander Cocalarix!

    So we would not by default penalise using the combat timer.

    However, we're still considering increasing this value to thirty/sixty seconds.

    And well, if we thought it would be useful, we could clearly add some minor bad karma for this action.
    Simple change - increase timer to 30/60 secs, have auto-log out when timer runs out.

    At present you still need to wait for the timer to hit 0 and then manually log out, which kind of defeats what I recall being its intended purpose - "for when RL happens".

    If negative karma gets associated, ensure the detection is a bit cleaner than it is now, because I sometimes face the "wait for logout" option having just jumped into a new location with absolutely nothing around me...


    Originally Posted by MickyG1982 View Post (Source)
    Note the term "Disconnecting Ungracefully" this implies pulling the cord. The "graceful" exit through the menu would still perfectly fine, even though it can be used in the same way...
    To clarify further, I don't think anyone even has many ethernet cables at home these days (though I plan to myself for the sake of reliability) - ungraceful exits generally involve force closing the game or disabling wifi.
    "Please replace these components if use causes fatal damage: HEAT SINK. MAGAZINE. OPERATOR"

    ---The StiTch! who mended the powerplant mid air---

  12. #42
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commander Cocalarix!

    So we would not by default penalise using the combat timer.

    However, we're still considering increasing this value to thirty/sixty seconds.

    And well, if we thought it would be useful, we could clearly add some minor bad karma for this action.
    Awesome news! I love that you're finally approaching these very difficult parts of the game.

  13. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #43
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander Arry!

    If you mean context (apologies if I am misunderstanding), then we'd probably go with some form of Pilot's Federation Rating system.

    This would be like a code of conduct for members. In the dangerous universe of Elite and due to the nature of the organisation, the PF understands there will be conflict within the ranks. So this code of conduct would perhaps be like the Geneva conventions. Rules of engagement, if you will.

    As you commit actions that break these codes, the PF would take an increasingly dim view of you, which would translate into them withdrawing support and even working with factions to punish you.

    Hypothetically, of course.

  14. #44
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    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.
    YES, this is it exactly.

    I meant to include combat logging in my undesirable category to show that it's not just the "griefers" who do things which are undesirable and ultimately hurt the game as a whole.

    Of course, there are issues to deal with like..
    * Attacking a clean ship when massively overpowered would get minor bad karma
    * Stealing cargo from a clean ship would be fine.
    Given that pirates tend to have to open fire on clean ships, and those ships are typically trade ships which are underpowered compared to a pirate ship. Perhaps if it was "Destroying a ship, which was clean, when massively overpowered (or disabled)". But, even then, if the trader knows the pirate cannot destroy them without serious karma consequences then they will simply refuse to co-operate. I think the only way to solve this is some sort of explicit pirate mechanic in the game, the issue there being ensuring it cannot be abused by a griefer.

    I think it might require some sort of in-game pirate deal/promise mechanic. Say, the pirate issues a "request" for X tonnes of cargo, the manifest scan results UI would be used to make the request, and so long as the trader complies then any subsequent murder would incur bad karma. But, if the trader refuses the pirate can destroy them with minimal or no bad karma. So, pirates still have to be careful not to destroy ships prior to completing the manifest scan and "request" but once they manage that step they retain their leverage over the trader who would then be best off complying, knowing that the pirate is unlikely to kill them. A griefer is unlikely to bother with the manifest scan or request, and even if they did the trader would still comply and any subsequent murder would be punished.

    CMDR Mal Reynolds (6th Interstellar Corps)

  15. #45
    Originally Posted by Cocalarix View Post (Source)
    Awesome news! I love that you're finally approaching these very difficult parts of the game.
    It was good of him to take up the challenge, after all he could have just logged off

    - - - Updated - - -

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commander Arry!

    If you mean context (apologies if I am misunderstanding), then we'd probably go with some form of Pilot's Federation Rating system.

    This would be like a code of conduct for members. In the dangerous universe of Elite and due to the nature of the organisation, the PF understands there will be conflict within the ranks. So this code of conduct would perhaps be like the Geneva conventions. Rules of engagement, if you will.

    As you commit actions that break these codes, the PF would take an increasingly dim view of you, which would translate into them withdrawing support and even working with factions to punish you.

    Hypothetically, of course.
    Thanks for the quick reply.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Originally Posted by nrage View Post (Source)
    YES, this is it exactly.

    I meant to include combat logging in my undesirable category to show that it's not just the "griefers" who do things which are undesirable and ultimately hurt the game as a whole.

    Of course, there are issues to deal with like..


    Given that pirates tend to have to open fire on clean ships, and those ships are typically trade ships which are underpowered compared to a pirate ship. Perhaps if it was "Destroying a ship, which was clean, when massively overpowered (or disabled)". But, even then, if the trader knows the pirate cannot destroy them without serious karma consequences then they will simply refuse to co-operate. I think the only way to solve this is some sort of explicit pirate mechanic in the game, the issue there being ensuring it cannot be abused by a griefer.

    I think it might require some sort of in-game pirate deal/promise mechanic. Say, the pirate issues a "request" for X tonnes of cargo, the manifest scan results UI would be used to make the request, and so long as the trader complies then any subsequent murder would incur bad karma. But, if the trader refuses the pirate can destroy them with minimal or no bad karma. So, pirates still have to be careful not to destroy ships prior to completing the manifest scan and "request" but once they manage that step they retain their leverage over the trader who would then be best off complying, knowing that the pirate is unlikely to kill them. A griefer is unlikely to bother with the manifest scan or request, and even if they did the trader would still comply and any subsequent murder would be punished.
    A pirate does not have to destroy the trader. Hit the modules such as FSD, drives and power distributor and leave them to die alone. The repair bill for the trader, would out weigh the cost of cargo losses.
    WOOF! WOOF!

    WHAT!? You think I said or did something wrong again? Blame T.j

    8 out of 10 Cats, have me on their ignore lists: 5 out of 10 posters; have me on their kill lists?

    Oh dear, it seems that I have joined the Elite. Does that mean, that now I have to oppress the masses?

Page 3 of 66 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast