Increasing the rebuy costs of a ship is all well and good, but in order for that penalty to be felt, the ship must first be destroyed. Who's going to do that? Certainly not a trader or a newbie, so who? Also, loss of docking privileges is largely irrelevant. Why would they need to dock? They won't need to repair their ship. Fit energy weapons and a fuel scoop and you're golden. If the only thing you do in the game is sit in starter systems destroying new players, why would you ever need to dock?
Elite: Harmless - Karma System aka "be the Tamagotchi" - FRESH SALT, MINED RIGHT HERE
- Thread starter ranje
- Start date
Increasing the rebuy costs of a ship is all well and good, but in order for that penalty to be felt, the ship must first be destroyed. Who's going to do that? Certainly not a trader or a newbie, so who? Also, loss of docking privileges is largely irrelevant. Why would they need to dock? They won't need to repair their ship. Fit energy weapons and a fuel scoop and you're golden. If the only thing you do in the game is sit in starter systems destroying new players, why would you ever need to dock?
I like the idea , again, of expanding the crime and punishment mechanics.
But it really doesn't seem like it will encourage any solo players to play open. So why is this discussion happening? Who cares if scaliwags """grief"""" each other on Open?
Do the pvpers get to be the ones pushing new mechanics for solo/group? I read the idea of having solo/group rewards all be much smaller than Open, due to risk disparity. Would pve crowd be into that? I assume not
But it really doesn't seem like it will encourage any solo players to play open. So why is this discussion happening? Who cares if scaliwags """grief"""" each other on Open?
Do the pvpers get to be the ones pushing new mechanics for solo/group? I read the idea of having solo/group rewards all be much smaller than Open, due to risk disparity. Would pve crowd be into that? I assume not
Goose4291
Banned
But not every player is like that though. They're all different and there are strong RP centric ones, genuine powerplayers and 'honest' pirates, to name but a few player types, all of whom get lumped into this 'real life sociopathic griefer' trope that gets trotted out here in every single discussion.
The problems start when you begin impinging on their playstyles, which is where an poorly defined karma system is going to cause issues.
Last edited:
Goose4291
Banned
Fit an srv bay. Thanks to synthesis you can restock at will.
Constant Packhound volley, anyone?
Minonian
Banned
You capable to talk rationally?
Where do you know that? where you think, why you think? Not saying out of bad intentions, but maybe it's better to explain yourself even if briefly!
Just another PVP er idea to trough punishment push us into open whenever we like it or not? And again you call us crowd, What's going to be next? Call us again deranged and with it insult all of us again? With generalization and false presumption saying we all hate PVP-ers, and continue to wash away the line between PVP and griefing?
edit; Well? Sorry! But to not like PVP as a personal play style does not means we hate it or hate the PVP-ers.
Edit2; And if you really want a simple terminology to griefing in this game? here is one!
PVP Overdid without regard to the others, with no self-restraint, showing no respect toward the others.
I think this pretty much cowering it what they doing.
Last edited:
The implication that open belongs to PvP players and group belongs to PvE players is false. Open belongs equally to all players and must support all playstyles, at long as they fall within the EULA and any other code of conduct Frontier cares to apply.
Minonian
Banned
And if you Play in open you also accept the casual PVP encounters, but let me be clear! To hunt and destroy relentlessly the other players and with it disrupt the community? Are not acceptable behavior.
Goose4291
Banned
I think you'll find it was Sandro who floated the 'incentives to play in open' concepts, a while back (in relation to powerplay).
It was met by more faux angst ridden breast clutching than you'd see at an amateur dramatics Shakespearean adaptation.
Yeah, it was very similar to the faux angst ridden breast clutching than you'd see at an amateur dramatics Shakespearean adaptation about a Notoriety System.
Last edited:
Goose4291
Banned
Thats the thing though. If its based on and implemented through ingame mechanics I think most people will welcome it (myself included) but Sandro making vague allusions to ill defined shadowbanning mechanics hasnt helped for obvious reasons, particularly when the usual suspects are bigging this up as a way to get rid of all those horrid closeted psychopath serial killer death camp commandants who want to shoot people in a computer game, where the mechanics support that concept types, which is not what this should be about.
Personally I hope I run into him. My father told me on his deathbed that I had an older half-brother and that I should always look out for him on my travels as a trader in my mom's old ship. I think he wanted me to give him a hug, or was it 'get me his gun'? 'See him you run'? I never could understand dad's backwater accent.
My fear hear is that players will seek immunity by intentionally trading in weak ships. It opens the door to playing with impunity to any real danger. I think what a person could afford should be the real judge in that case.
I've been beating that same shtick for days now. No one cares. People who don't play in open and have never been a pvp pirate themselves are convinced that if you're good at pirating you'll never have to kill or maim. I can't seem to explain the realities of it.
Yesterday you said that you have never had to destroy a ship while pirating.
Last edited:
I haven't. I've never taken a trader under 10% hull. Usually they get that low because their hulls take too much damage before they're disabled. I'm also not a constant pirate like some people so I understand from my experience that it would have happened eventually. Now that they've added external module protection I imagine the problem has gotten worse.
Last edited:
And his mother cried as he walked out
"Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Denali
Don't take your guns to town"
Fair enough. But if it's that rare then pirates won't be affected by the karma system at all, since it's going to be focused on tracking trends rather than punishing individual incidents. They will only have to worry about it if they make destroying ships a habit, in which case they're crossing the line from being a pirate into being a griefer using piracy as an excuse.
It just sounds like irrational fears. There are some offenses that could rise to the occasion of a shadow ban. Let's say Combat Logging. So this guy runs around CL'ing on everyone. I'm sure I've heard you call for a ban more than once for CL'ing. Once the Notoriety System catches on, this Commander finds the world around starts to treat him differently. If he persists, a shadow ban is in order. Why not for the Seal Clubber? Why should a pest be protected, and an annoyance be punished? By the way, I certainly consider Shadow Banning as an in-game punishment.
Would it be enough if everybody had to play by the same rules? I think that would certainly be the case. The idea here is not to find and punish malcontents, it's offer the general population of players, that there are consequences to being naughty, in game. That both sides of the equation have an even vaguely similar level of risk. The bad boy should have some skin in the game. If that's too much to bear, then you have a interest in game, that doesn't make for a healthy population in open. The actual reason this topic comes up.
This topic is brought up to solve a, I'll even concede some perception issues, problem with the open environment. Most people discussing this topic realize, that in order to get more players into open, open has to have some control over detrimental behavior. As I see it we have two choices, a C&P/Notoriety that offers all players the confidence that actions have reactions, or a PvE-Open option on the Log in Screen. A PvE-Open would allow those looking for a more civilized version of the game, and open would stay what it is.
Goose4291
Banned
The problem is (which was raised originally in the deliberate ramming thread) that the pirate needs to be able to instil a sense of fear in the trader that if they dont comply, they'll die.
If the trader knows that if the pirate kills them, they might get banned from the game, then that negates any chance of that happening.
One problem I have with the discussion is that the people who are driving it the hardest and perhaps the one's who have SS's ear are unlikely to come back and play in Open, even with the implementation of c&p and karma tracking. As to the plan SS is currently mulling, the only people enjoying the new mechanics will be the same crowd already flourishing in Open--so why bother developing a mechanic they don't particularly need? I firmly believe that if a player can be driven into group, nothing short of banning all PvPers who would be up for sending them on a trip the rebuy screen is going to cut it and bring them back, and even then probably not.
If Fdev really believes that the mechanics they're tossing around are going to bring you guys back, they're crazy. Nothing short of banning all the bad guys in this game is going to make you feel safe. I mean, say that karma works like a teeter totter and I can work off karmic debt with enough good deeds, are you really going to put your ship in my path? I'm going to destroy you if I ever see you; if I see you in a ship I can take in a fight I'm going to interdict you and put you down on the spot, and if you're in a ship I can't handle then I'm going to station kill you. Are you going to put yourself in my crosshairs and hope the karma system finally gets me in the long run, or are you going to just stay in your little hidey hole and wait for the glorious day SS finally bans me from the game? As long as there's a way I can get to you and perhaps work my debt off later I can promise you that you'll never be safe.
If Fdev is going to spend time on a c&p mechanic it should be one that adds to gameplay as opposed to just being a cheap little band aid that acts as a punitive measure and little else.
Last edited:
Once again, an occasional lesson to the thick headed won't instantly whisk you off to the Sin Bin. You'll have to face the local Faction about the crime, but it won;t automatically jam some devil horns on your head. The threat of destruction would still be there, but everyone would have a price to pay. Not just the trader.
What about the trader that can't tell if a Commander is after cargo or laughs? The trader should have some semblance of an assurance that if they comply, they will survive. That does not exist right now at all. I'm looking at that other guy over there. What we have now, and what you are defending, is a situation where only one side of the conflict eats all of the risk, while the other side grabs a suicidewinder.
This one sided risk is what has reduced the population in open enough to concern the Dev's. It may not work. I have my doubts that a system can be brought out that all accept. But, a Notoriety System is the only offering that even stands a chance.
I don't see how being unable to constantly destroy cargo ships without repercussion equates to being unable to credibly threaten to destroy any individual ship. The possibility of being forced to take a karma hit in order to retain credibility as a pirate brings some quite realistic risk to piracy and ensures that both pirate and victim want to avoid anybody blowing up. Perhaps there will be the odd wannabe pirate who can't stomach being labelled a murderer when the time comes, but nobody ever said being a pirate was supposed to be easy.
The lower level karma repercussions are likely to be things such as being refused docking in high security systems. Which frankly seem like reasonable results of playing as a pirate anyway.
Sandro said they wanted to keep things ingame. I doubt we'll be seeing any automated shadow bans.
Using exploits is the one place where shadow bans would be appropriate. You'd agree if the exploit in question was combat logging, surely?
Last edited: