Tough because it is difficult to balance "combat logging" against "picking on cripples".
Do you think a "proper" crime and punishment system will solve issues relating to combat logging and random ganking/griefing?
- Thread starter Agony_Aunt
- Start date
I voted for "Won't do jack" because it won't. Punishing people for playing the game simply doesn't work. You just have to look at the current implementation of "Hostile" to see that*. People who want to kill other players ingame aren't griefers^ or whatever you want to peg at them. They're just playing the game, albiet a different way to you and me.
What's needed is ways for people banging around with trading/mining/exploration fits to actually defend themselves. And by defend I don't mean damage or destroy the enemy, I mean nullify their offensive capabilities so they can get away.
The current balance is pretty daft. More guns, more defence (and, more skill, I guess?) win a fight. A miner/hauler/explorer (let's call them a noncombatant, for sanity's sake) will never outgun a dedicated combat fit, because it's fittings. If it did, guess what? You were flying a combat ship (or the other person was a terrible player; you can't fix stupid), not a ship designed for noncombat activities. What's needed are reasonable counters to hostile acts that players can use to fight back in a defensive way. Such things could look like:
- Gravitational Bubble; an ECM-like ability that can partially disrupt an attempt to masslock your ship while trying to low-wake.
- Wake distortion mine; dump one of these while your FSD spools and it'll mask your FSD wake. Limited charges
- Interdiction spike; Reverses the energy of an interdiction attempt back at it's target, giving you a few extra blocks while attempting to avoid interdiction. Limited charges
- Dummy cargo mines; Jettison canisters masked to look like expensive loot, but they're actually shockwave mines.
Then throw in some appropriate counters to these for the attackers too, and you get a solid rock-paper-scissors arrangement.
A hunter packs all-firepower and no counters, hits a target that has fitted a single counter method, and manages to get away because of it. Well, the hunter decides to fit some counters, which works, but then hits another target who values security over function and still gets away. Hunter then fits all the counters, but doesn't have the firepower to take down things as big as a T9. Not only that, they hit another hunter who's packing all-firepower and they can't fight them off.
Functional defence mechanisms for escape and evasion are the piece of the puzzle that's missing.
* Things like fighting for the opposite side in Conflict Zones and stuff should really make you hostile; but they don't, because fighting wars is an integral game function, and "Hostile" is a punishment state which locks you out; which would break your ability to fight in any wars.
^ This statement isn't 100% true. Things like suicidewinders in docking ports and stuff is pretty much griefing imo... but ripping someone out of supercruise and killing them "without any offer of surrender" is not... but I'm not here to argue those definitions.
What's needed is ways for people banging around with trading/mining/exploration fits to actually defend themselves. And by defend I don't mean damage or destroy the enemy, I mean nullify their offensive capabilities so they can get away.
The current balance is pretty daft. More guns, more defence (and, more skill, I guess?) win a fight. A miner/hauler/explorer (let's call them a noncombatant, for sanity's sake) will never outgun a dedicated combat fit, because it's fittings. If it did, guess what? You were flying a combat ship (or the other person was a terrible player; you can't fix stupid), not a ship designed for noncombat activities. What's needed are reasonable counters to hostile acts that players can use to fight back in a defensive way. Such things could look like:
- Gravitational Bubble; an ECM-like ability that can partially disrupt an attempt to masslock your ship while trying to low-wake.
- Wake distortion mine; dump one of these while your FSD spools and it'll mask your FSD wake. Limited charges
- Interdiction spike; Reverses the energy of an interdiction attempt back at it's target, giving you a few extra blocks while attempting to avoid interdiction. Limited charges
- Dummy cargo mines; Jettison canisters masked to look like expensive loot, but they're actually shockwave mines.
Then throw in some appropriate counters to these for the attackers too, and you get a solid rock-paper-scissors arrangement.
A hunter packs all-firepower and no counters, hits a target that has fitted a single counter method, and manages to get away because of it. Well, the hunter decides to fit some counters, which works, but then hits another target who values security over function and still gets away. Hunter then fits all the counters, but doesn't have the firepower to take down things as big as a T9. Not only that, they hit another hunter who's packing all-firepower and they can't fight them off.
Functional defence mechanisms for escape and evasion are the piece of the puzzle that's missing.
* Things like fighting for the opposite side in Conflict Zones and stuff should really make you hostile; but they don't, because fighting wars is an integral game function, and "Hostile" is a punishment state which locks you out; which would break your ability to fight in any wars.
^ This statement isn't 100% true. Things like suicidewinders in docking ports and stuff is pretty much griefing imo... but ripping someone out of supercruise and killing them "without any offer of surrender" is not... but I'm not here to argue those definitions.
If they made it so the cop response time was faster things could be better...
The issues with "ganking" tends to be the target being dead long before cops show up and often the criminal is already gone.
I almost feel that High-Security systems should have an almost instant response to those things.
The issues with "ganking" tends to be the target being dead long before cops show up and often the criminal is already gone.
I almost feel that High-Security systems should have an almost instant response to those things.
I didn't vote mainly because Elite is the only game I play and therefore my broader gaming experience is non-existent.
I have noted that just in Elite alone the players are endlessly inventive and seem to be able to find a way to exploit any and every loophole they find. A better C&P system would certainly improve the fun, whether our not it would have the desired effet is another matter and one that I am not qualified to answer.
I suspect that the law of unintended consequences would strike very quickly.
I have noted that just in Elite alone the players are endlessly inventive and seem to be able to find a way to exploit any and every loophole they find. A better C&P system would certainly improve the fun, whether our not it would have the desired effet is another matter and one that I am not qualified to answer.
I suspect that the law of unintended consequences would strike very quickly.
It might help a bit.
The problem of us all here, from all tribes, is that Elite is basically a solo game where players can meet. It doesn't have a true multiplayer heart, it's DNA is offline solo and it shows wherever you look. So this blend we have here will always have to mix apples with oranges. And it's to each of us to find our niche here without asking DB to change the game more "to my personal taste".
The problem of us all here, from all tribes, is that Elite is basically a solo game where players can meet. It doesn't have a true multiplayer heart, it's DNA is offline solo and it shows wherever you look. So this blend we have here will always have to mix apples with oranges. And it's to each of us to find our niche here without asking DB to change the game more "to my personal taste".
Well, that's a badly worded poll statement if I ever saw one. If you want a poll that is worth something you should avoid including your own bias into the opening statement.
As others astutely point out, it will deter the opportunistic but not totally committed, and it will inflict pain back on the terminally insane. In the worst case, you end up with poor gankers, and that is a step in the right direction. As for the combat loggers, that is a risk avoidance conduct (with a bit of other things mixed in), so it is likely that strong sanctions may at least limit the times they resort to that to the minimum that the system will tolerate.
PvP Piracy can not be any more dead than it is now. IMHO, we have very little roleplay Piracy and too much "can't commit and need an excuse" gankers looking for legitimacy under the crossbones flag. And that sentence makes as much sense as their conduct does. A stronger punishment system will weed out the poor roleplayers, or at least encourage would-be-pirates to display some common sense. (If it fights, it is probably not worth your time. If it runs, go for the disabling shot). Funny thing is that most pirates die young and poor, so dealing with that is part of the job.
Can Frontier pull it off? Absolutely. Can they make everyone happy? Probably not. Will they bother? Now, that is the real question. IMHO, they seem mesmerized by the concept of PvP. I am not sure they can break off from that fixation. In order to "save open" they'd need to break off from the "PvP anywhere" concept and provide enough of a safezone to the PvE players that they'd feel encouraged to go into open in a regular basis. My own assessment is that those are two playstyles are pretty much mutually exclusive. I'd just throw in an "Open PvE" mode and be done with the issue, but Kudos to them if they want to head butt that wall.
Thats about it, the entire concept was borked to begin with but we have choices now, play solo no grief just play the enviroment and fdev need to focus a lot more on making that enviroment more interesting, play mobius the default civilized galaxy or play open and enjoy the wild west where even the grifers get griefed by CL, oh frontier it is a whicked web you have weaved for yourselves by trying to be to many things to to many people. the only advice i would/could give fdev is focus on were th vast majority of your player base is, and you know where that is. Without PVE elite is finished.
Would love to know just what percentage of the base is PVP just to give us some idea of why the game has to be pulled in two directions. If fdev had focused on one thing say PVP without subscripion it would have failed if however they had focused on PVE we would probebly have a better game right now. But back to reality we have a split personality game and it will take years to reconcile both imperitives if ever.
Last edited:
A proper C&P surely will help a bit,
even make piracy more interesting PvP and PvE wise.
But we still wouldn't have anywhere the simplest recognition of
"crime careers", as piracy doesn't really kick up the combat aspect,
which it is focussed on however.
Anyway, can patch the game, can't patch people
even make piracy more interesting PvP and PvE wise.
But we still wouldn't have anywhere the simplest recognition of
"crime careers", as piracy doesn't really kick up the combat aspect,
which it is focussed on however.
Anyway, can patch the game, can't patch people
Just look at any thread where PvPers are being discussed, or someone brings up combat logging, grefing, ganking, or whatever. Sooner or later someone will mention the need for a proper C&P system and then the nodding of heads will start.
The bias in my opening statement was intentional, and designed to reflect the impression i got from threads around here. The question is, do people really believe it?
_trent_
Volunteer Moderator
Many of the most commonly complained about activities are already covered under the 'use of exploits' and 'harassment' in the code of conduct. FD already have the option of punishing players for doing those sorts of things and too often choose not to do so. They also have the option of clarifying the code of conduct to make it much clearer what activities are acceptable and what are not. They choose to leave them exceptionally vague.
Trying to solve out of game problems, such as cheating and exploiting, with in-game solutions doesn't strike me as a good use of development time, money and effort.
And yes there is the real problem in a nutshell sorry to be so abraisive but fdev have no backbone they dont want to upset anybody, to use a common slight, the developers are carebears......
I don't believe the C&P system should even be aimed at *fixing* griefing. It should be there to add fun and depth to the otherwise pretty shallow experience of being a criminal, whether against the environment or other players, and it should reduce the occurence of random killing in systems where it makes no in-universe sense for it to be so easy or consequence-free, but it should certainly not remove it. I also don't believe griefing to be the main reason behind combat logging so doubtless any rework of the C&P wont impact it much.
Last edited:
How many times in a week does this subject have to come up?
And griefing/ganking/Open?
Till the overly vocal minority finally gets their way?
And griefing/ganking/Open?
Till the overly vocal minority finally gets their way?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It seems, given the continued existence of the three game modes (despite demands for the removal of Solo / Private Groups from a vocal subset of the player-base) and the lack of Guilds (after similar protestations), the continued existence of the 15-second menu exit (which, according to Frontier, can be legitimately used at any time - and they know that not all players will agree with their stance), that Frontier do, indeed, have the fortitude to continue developing their game the way that they set out to - and, in the process, a subset of the player-base seems to be rather upset about that.
So to suggest that Frontier aren't prepared to upset anybody would seem to be inaccurate.
It could help if it was designed well - I hate to say 'properly' because I'm not qualified to say what proper design is!
First, you have to identify what the problems are with the current play model, and reading these forums it would seem to be a disconnect (pun intended) between those who PvP with any human target they can find, and those who don't wish to be other players' game content. There's also the issue that most PvP is pretty pointless and has little effect on the game other than upsettting those non-consensual targets.
If C&P was designed so that it effectively deterred PKs from operating in high and medium security systems, it would allow PvE players to feel safe interacting with other players in those locations, and tend to concentrate those looking for combat with other players into low-sec and anarchy systems. That in itself could drive some emergent content. If missions were rewarded according to the risk the posed to the player (i.e. greater rewards for successfully completing a mission in those low-sec/anarchic systems), you'd create the incentive for players to knowingly risk combat, and for PvP players to have targets come to them. That would influence those risk-taking missioneers' ship builds, and give some point to interacting with engineers for both sides of this equation. Meantime, explorers, miners, traders etc can happily get on with their chosen careers knowing who and where to avoid.
Just with these changes alone, the CL 'problem' would be reduced, as PvP combat would be an expected part of those missions, and PKs would be unlikely (but not impossible) visitors to HS/MS systems.
If a way could be found for this play to have some influence on the BGS, the scope of play could be improved for all. It would take some testing, and there's no way it would be 'right' out of the box, but it's got to be worth a try.
First, you have to identify what the problems are with the current play model, and reading these forums it would seem to be a disconnect (pun intended) between those who PvP with any human target they can find, and those who don't wish to be other players' game content. There's also the issue that most PvP is pretty pointless and has little effect on the game other than upsettting those non-consensual targets.
If C&P was designed so that it effectively deterred PKs from operating in high and medium security systems, it would allow PvE players to feel safe interacting with other players in those locations, and tend to concentrate those looking for combat with other players into low-sec and anarchy systems. That in itself could drive some emergent content. If missions were rewarded according to the risk the posed to the player (i.e. greater rewards for successfully completing a mission in those low-sec/anarchic systems), you'd create the incentive for players to knowingly risk combat, and for PvP players to have targets come to them. That would influence those risk-taking missioneers' ship builds, and give some point to interacting with engineers for both sides of this equation. Meantime, explorers, miners, traders etc can happily get on with their chosen careers knowing who and where to avoid.
Just with these changes alone, the CL 'problem' would be reduced, as PvP combat would be an expected part of those missions, and PKs would be unlikely (but not impossible) visitors to HS/MS systems.
If a way could be found for this play to have some influence on the BGS, the scope of play could be improved for all. It would take some testing, and there's no way it would be 'right' out of the box, but it's got to be worth a try.
Last edited:
It won't solve everything, but it would help reduce these issues to what I would consider to be tolerable levels. It truly depends upon how "proper" said crime and punishment system is.
For example, any crime and punishment system should consider the disparity between criminal and victim, as well as the circumstances of a loss of connection during combat. For example, if you're a triple Elite player-killer in a FDL attacking newbies in sidewinders, then you should be much more heavily punished than a similar Commander who is trying to shoot out the hatches of experienced traders.
Similarly, if you're a player killer targeting newbies, and attack an experienced player playing an alt account in a super up sidewinder, and combat log when you get your six shot up, then you should be punished much more heavily than a commander who combat logs because a PK caught them 10s from home after an eight month exploration trip.
In both cases, you should gradually lose station privileges in high sec systems first, with KOS orders following, with only time in open allowing you to regain those privileges, plus actual crimes committed in open should require to remain in open for a time as well, which DOESN'T allow you to regain said privileges.
For example, any crime and punishment system should consider the disparity between criminal and victim, as well as the circumstances of a loss of connection during combat. For example, if you're a triple Elite player-killer in a FDL attacking newbies in sidewinders, then you should be much more heavily punished than a similar Commander who is trying to shoot out the hatches of experienced traders.
Similarly, if you're a player killer targeting newbies, and attack an experienced player playing an alt account in a super up sidewinder, and combat log when you get your six shot up, then you should be punished much more heavily than a commander who combat logs because a PK caught them 10s from home after an eight month exploration trip.
In both cases, you should gradually lose station privileges in high sec systems first, with KOS orders following, with only time in open allowing you to regain those privileges, plus actual crimes committed in open should require to remain in open for a time as well, which DOESN'T allow you to regain said privileges.
No. In my opinion what it takes is a real, official, game-mechanically enforced PvE mode.
While I think a good crime and punishment system is needed and would make playing the game more fun in all modes, I don't think it will prevent actions that have out of the game motivators.
A ganker or griefer doesn't care about the game or in-game consequences.
A cheater doesn't care about in-game punishment.
The only method to reduce or prevent such actions from happening is out of game punishment.
A ganker or griefer doesn't care about the game or in-game consequences.
A cheater doesn't care about in-game punishment.
The only method to reduce or prevent such actions from happening is out of game punishment.