Crime, punishment and combat logging: Light ideas

[fus roh potato]

PROBLEMS:

• Combat logging frustrates PvPers
• No justice against murderers
• Less freedom for PvP

I was trying to think of some easy ideas that may help address these problems. I see frequent complaints in these areas that follow with complicated suggestions that are often either illogical, would have negative side effects (easily abused), or are just too intensive for developing clean and efficient coding.

One of the major concerns surrounding bounties appears to be that FDev does not want to introduce methods for players to hand each other cash. They seem to want each player's progression to be their own, which I am fine with, but ultimately leads to lack in development for large pvp driven bounties.

As an alternative, we may be able to introduce a crime and punishment system that adds an additional layer to the insurance system. To explain this, I need to define murder as the killing of an unwanted commanders who are not aligned with a power while in systems with security.

INSURANCE IN SECURE SYSTEMS:

• The murdered pilot pays 2.5% of their ship's value in the form of a co-payment instead of 10%.
• 7.5% of the ship's value is sent as a bill to the murderer's insurance.
• The murderer has the option to pay this off through a station contacts menu in a system with security. Otherwise it will be added to their rebuy screen.
• Each murder offense comes with a murder flag that lasts for 2 weeks.
• If the murderer has more than 2 flags, an additional 1% of the murderer's total assets per additional flag (function = (N-2)%) will be added per murder. This is to inhibit murder sprees from rich commanders.

The consequence of these changes will be a large reduction in pointless pvp against unwanting participants, so I thought of an idea to help relieve any possible reduction of PvP activity as a result.

POWERPLAY INSURANCE:

• When a commander dies to another commander or powerplay NPC and both are aligned to powerplay factions, those factions will provide alternative insurance coverage that reduces insurance costs to 1% in an effort to promote their own expansion.
• This coverage would apply to any security level, including none.
• If they die while being wanted in a secure system, only the standard insurance will cover them.

I would expect that with the above changes, the incentive to combat log would be greatly reduced. Imagine a cargo hauler who has an expensive ship and is being attacked by a murderer. This hauler now knows that if he dies, the offender will be losing more than the hauler. They now must make a choice, combat log to save their ship, or let the murder happen which punishes the murderer more than the victim.

At this point, it would be more reasonable to implement (if possible) an inability for players to log out in order to prevent death by other players to maintain fairness in PvP. It may also encourage players to join the open universe who otherwise would have stayed in solo for fear of significant loss.

 

[NW3]

That sounds reasonable. I'd like to see the murderer's fine be increased significantly. I'm not sure this will reduce logging that much, since a player would still lose his cargo.

The 2 week flag should be reset upon a new murder (still stacking as you suggest). It would take a full 2 weeks to clear all accumulated points.

 

[Sopel3pl]

It's bad solution. Why? Because it's destroy idea of PvP. PvP players get extra punishment but combat loggers will still be combat loggers. Combat logging is a disease that must be burned.
I offer simpler solution
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/307369-Sugestion-Player-disconected

 

[fus roh potato]

It's bad solution. Why? Because it's destroy idea of PvP. PvP players get extra punishment but combat loggers will still be combat loggers. Combat logging is a disease that must be burned.
I offer simpler solution
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/307369-Sugestion-Player-disconected

There's a difference between pvp and murder. One is healthy and the other less.

Even with the penalties, players would still be able to murder and that murder gets the point across either way. If they simply forced ships to stay in the instance before adding these functions, the game would be worse off and this is exactly why FD won't make that move alone.

If you want to make good suggestions, you need to be able to critically think about the consequences, justify your reasoning, and be open to persuasive argument.

 

[Zeeman]

That sounds reasonable. I'd like to see the murderer's fine be increased significantly. I'm not sure this will reduce logging that much, since a player would still lose his cargo.

The 2 week flag should be reset upon a new murder (still stacking as you suggest). It would take a full 2 weeks to clear all accumulated points.

Fines really do nothing. People need to understand that a fine, regardless of size, is no way going to discourage anything.

I dare say most of the "bad people" have very tidy bank balances, even 10m cr fines would be a slap on the wrist, and you don't even have to pay them...

The only thing that will properly work is some form of punishment that takes away something that everyone needs - like docking privileges. A week, maybe 2 (depending on system type, of course, anarchies should still be a free for all)... Whatever, but then, there also needs to be a significant buff to piracy income, because the street has to go both ways.

Z...

 

[fus roh potato]

Fines really do nothing. People need to understand that a fine, regardless of size, is no way going to discourage anything.

I dare say most of the "bad people" have very tidy bank balances, even 10m cr fines would be a slap on the wrist, and you don't even have to pay them...

The only thing that will properly work is some form of punishment that takes away something that everyone needs - like docking privileges. A week, maybe 2 (depending on system type, of course, anarchies should still be a free for all)... Whatever, but then, there also needs to be a significant buff to piracy income, because the street has to go both ways.

Z...

That's a good point and exactly why one of my points takes player assets into account. The docking penalties have been suggested a lot and I just wanted to throw an alternative idea out there.

 

[Sopel3pl]

There's a difference between pvp and murder. One is healthy and the other less.

Even with the penalties, players would still be able to murder and that murder gets the point across either way. If they simply forced ships to stay in the instance before adding these functions, the game would be worse off and this is exactly why FD won't make that move alone.

If you want to make good suggestions, you need to be able to critically think about the consequences, justify your reasoning, and be open to persuasive argument.

As I said before. Ship owned by player who was attacked before should stay in the game even he disconnected. Sorry, when you start game in multi it must cause consequences. If you want good punishment for anyone who attack other player in system with security or other NPC ships. The best is insurance. If you are wanted then you should lost 100% insurance when you are wanted. If you lost your ship at that state in system where you are wanted then you have to pay 100% to rebuy it. I think also that you should lose your insurance when you are in combat zones or anarchy systems.

 

[Konnivar]

Good ideas, but with the percentage being taken from the killed players rebuy could cause problems. With the percentage coming from the dead ship's rebuy suddenly larger ships will be targeting smaller ships (i.e. Anacondas attacking Vipers, Eagles, etc.) because they will receive less of a penalty. Instead the percentage should come from the killer's base rebuy cost (or perhaps it stacks until paid to discourage killing sprees) to discourage bigger, more expensive ships from bullying smaller ships.

This would hopefully encourage the use of smaller ships in pvp and expand their roles.

 

[fus roh potato]

Good ideas, but with the percentage being taken from the killed players rebuy could cause problems. With the percentage coming from the dead ship's rebuy suddenly larger ships will be targeting smaller ships (i.e. Anacondas attacking Vipers, Eagles, etc.) because they will receive less of a penalty. Instead the percentage should come from the killer's base rebuy cost (or perhaps it stacks until paid to discourage killing sprees) to discourage bigger, more expensive ships from bullying smaller ships.

This would hopefully encourage the use of smaller ships in pvp and expand their roles.

I don't think you read the post either.

• Each murder offense comes with a murder flag that lasts for 2 weeks.
• If the murderer has more than 2 flags, an additional 1% of the murderer's total assets per additional flag (function = (N-2)%) will be added per murder. This is to inhibit murder sprees from rich commanders.

 

[Konnivar]

I did read your post, but was simply offering a different solution. I don't like the idea of taking from the total assets.

I'm a ship collector, I eventually want to own one of each type of ship in the game and have it setup for whatever I like to do with it. The money I spent on those ships is in my assets screen but I might not have more than 10-20 mil on my person but if I have say 500mil in assets each "murder flag" is going to cost me 5mil.

I suppose this does achieve the desired effect of inhibiting murder sprees but it would also severely limit the amount of pvp that someone with all of their assets tied up in ships would be able to have. Perhaps this is what you intended, as I can see the draw.

However the 2 flag limit paired with the two week duration means that someone who really likes to pvp would have to wait two weeks just to play the game the way they want to play it. Perhaps the 1% asset fee could be incurred if the player kills the same commander more than two or three times, to combat griefing/bullying. In my opinion your proposal of 1% of total assets being added to rebuy costs is TOO steep a price as it would significantly limit an intended gameplay feature.

 

[fus roh potato]

You clearly did not read my post. I clearly left an avenue to make PvP more accessible through powerplay.

It would only be a problem if you wanted to go on a civilian murder spree.

It would only limit pvp against unwilling participants, which is not even real pvp, it's just murder.

If you see that as a problem, then I see you as a problem. There are some types of gameplay that people desire that are not appropriate for the better good of a game, just as some types of behavior are not appropriate in a society. It may be some guy's opinion that he should be allowed to do child pornography because he's entitled to his desires, but we don't allow that because it's wrong.

In this case, I even provided leeway and you still have an issue with it. Can't do more than 2 pointless murders with your cutter in 2 weeks? Awww such a shame.

That's pathetic.

 

[Galactic Fork]

Instead the percentage should come from the killer's base rebuy cost (or perhaps it stacks until paid to discourage killing sprees) to discourage bigger, more expensive ships from bullying smaller ships.

Also maybe have it scale based on difference in rebuy cost. Killer: high vs victim: low causes a bigger percentage over killer: high vs victim: high.

 

[Konnivar]

*snip*

What about all those community goals to support one side or the other? Plenty of non faction aligned commanders can participate in these and affect the outcome; many commanders take their allegiances very seriously. So in essence your proposal is to cordon off the pvp players to only those who participate in powerplay.

As an example: I was running goods back when Denton Patreus was calling for resources to build more capital ships in a community goal; it was the one that paid out ~200mil to the top 5%. At this point I was not aligned with any of the major powerplay factions and I was flying my T7. Upon entering the system a Vulture aligned with Zachary Hudson interdicted me and proceeded to destroy my ship. In this instance I would say that the commander in the Vulture was playing the game as intended and with the system you propose that commander would not have been able to do that. He wasn't griefing, his intentions were clear: to slow the progress of the creation of capital ships of his "Enemy" faction. I could have easily avoided that situation by playing in solo or a no-pvp private group.

I agree that griefing and bullying are game ruining problems, but destroying another commander's ship is only one of many ways that a player can grief or bully another player. Just take a quick look around this section of the forums and you will find a few suggestions (like this one) on how to stop people from griefing with suicide iEagles. Perhaps you want something more like an Open-PvE only mode as suggested here.

Just so you know, not agreeing with certain parts of your suggestion and then offering potential alternatives does not mean that I didn't read your post. I read your post from top to bottom and saw what I thought could be a potential problem and offered an alternative suggestion. This is the suggestion forum after all, it's a place where people present their ideas on how they think the game could be improved. Criticism should be expected and welcomed in this section of the forums.

As it stands I like the general idea and I AGREE that there needs to be a balance of penalty when killing another player. Currently all of the cost is placed onto the killed player and very little is placed on the killer, and that is a bad system. My first comment was regarding this section of the OP:

• The murdered pilot pays 2.5% of their ship's value in the form of a co-payment instead of 10%.
• 7.5% of the ship's value is sent as a bill to the murderer's insurance.

My problem with this method is that if a player in an Anaconda kills a player in an Eagle that 7.5% of the rebuy cost being added to the Anaconda's rebuy is incredibly small. With the 7.5% method the rebuy wouldn't begin to be painful to the killer until facing off against ships like an FDL, Python, or Fed ship; ships which can often hold their own against an Anaconda long enough to escape. One kill per week or incur a 1% total asset fee doesn't solve the issue caused by having little to no penalty on a rich player killing a player in an Eagle.

Also maybe have it scale based on difference in rebuy cost. Killer: high vs victim: low causes a bigger percentage over killer: high vs victim: high.

^This idea is much better than the one in my first post as it would encourage pvp within "weight class" and impose extra penalties on engagements where one side severely outguns the other.


Now that I think about it, even the idea of adding to a player's rebuy insurance costs has its own problems.

The extra fee assumes that the player on a killing spree will eventually die; if they are on a killing spree they will most likely continue unhindered. They would leave the system long before anyone who could stop them arrived. Another issue is how insurance claims are currently handled, the insurance claim cost comes from the value of your ship and your current credit balance. If you read up to this point reply with: blarg. As in if you store a ship that ship won't be sold off to pay the insurance costs it's only based on the amount of credits you currently have in your account. Meaning a player with a 1billion Cr rebuy cost could buy a 30k sidewinder, fly outside a station, attack a system authority vessel, get killed, and restart in a stock sidewinder. This would result in them having only lost 30k and their current credit balance; even that could be saved by purchasing other ships before flying out in a suicidewinder.


I have never PvPed, I've been killed more than once by players for no good reason, and what you suggest and even what I suggested in my first post will NOT solve the problem of the imbalanced cost between killer and victim. At least not with the insurance system setup the way it currently is.

 

[Galactic Fork]

The extra fee assumes that the player on a killing spree will eventually die; if they are on a killing spree they will most likely continue unhindered. They would leave the system long before anyone who could stop them arrived. Another issue is how insurance claims are currently handled, the insurance claim cost comes from the value of your ship and your current credit balance. If you read up to this point reply with: blarg. As in if you store a ship that ship won't be sold off to pay the insurance costs it's only based on the amount of credits you currently have in your account. Meaning a player with a 1billion Cr rebuy cost could buy a 30k sidewinder, fly outside a station, attack a system authority vessel, get killed, and restart in a stock sidewinder. This would result in them having only lost 30k and their current credit balance; even that could be saved by purchasing other ships before flying out in a suicidewinder.

You could tie the bounty to the ship specifically (if you store it, it keeps its bounty even if you died in a different ship) and refuse the sale of a ship with a bounty. Or/and have storage facilities refuse to store a bountied ship (or modules from bountied ship). It'd be pointless to have a rebuy cost exceed the price of the ship, as it'd be cheaper just to refuse the rebuy, get a stock sidewinder and then go repurchase the ship (though you'd lose out on engineered mods). Only way around that would be making the bounty exist even if you refuse the rebuy.