Frontier confirmed - Murder/PKing is a valid gameplay choice, can we all move on now?

[JosiahD]

This is a common hot topic for any multiplayer open game that allows PvP.

People that don't want to PvP will request the developer to remove it, or make it unreasonable to interact in. As most games don't allow open pvp, those who are attracted to the game for that purpose will obviously be highly opinionated regarding their desire to continue have open access to PvP.

Though in some games I kinda understand the frustration of the Non-PvPers; in this game they offer both solo and private group modes... so I am not sure why they get overly upset about it... but then I thinkt hat is priamrily the vocal minority.

I think what you'll ACTUALLY find is that we don't oppose PvP per se, but the attitudes of SOME players that come with it - ie arrogance, ignorance, bullying, insults etc. I for one don't object to PvP, but that doesn't mean I have to accept anti-social behavious such as insults, abuse and bullying in the process just to satisfy a subset (and a minority one at that here, I would suggest) of the playerbase. PvP to your hearts content, but take it too far into insults, abuse etc and you have gone too far (as many games have already done).

 

[BrewerGeorge]

bounties and fines mean NOTHING in this game when you can just hop three systems away and suddenly noone remembers that you are the guy Charles Manson is having Nightmares about.
Murder needs to hurt the murderer MORE than the guy being murdered. a LOT more.

See, I'm usually on the PvE side of the argument, but the point above falls apart with the "Space is BIG" reasoning. One should be able to go three or four systems away and "start a new life" so to speak. However, the converse is also true. Once you murder a CMDR in a particular faction's territory, you should have a permanent bounty in that faction for all time. (By 'faction' here, I mean the small ones, not Empire/Alliance/Federation.)

 

[Gibbonici]

Lets not forget the strategic gameplay that can come from safer civilised space, and more dangerous anarchy systems.
Having to plot routes more carefully, being aware of danger areas.
Having to follow targets out of safe space, waiting for your opportunity.
Chasing down high value pirates in lawless anarchy systems.
Equipping trade ships for speed and defense going to Anarchy.
No safety or protection from Anarchy stations (dare you dock).

All this would add so much to the game.

Yep, so much potential.

Shrewd pirates would have to judge the most likely systems that traders will jump into on their trade routes, balance up the risk presented by local forces and plan hit and runs.

Shrewder pirates could also undermine the factions in the mid-trade route systems, using the background sim to weaken the local police forces to make their jobs easier.

There's so much potential here for deeper gameplay than simply min-maxing a gunship and then pwning (does anyone still say that?) min-maxed trade ships.

 

[Rivka]

FD want the chance of random attacks for no reason and so on. That's fine, no chance of being able to shoot at other players would be very dull. Do they want powerful ships blasting newbies though? Do they want people exploiting spaceport mechanics to get players killed (that one seems to be a "no")? Very one-sided random attacks are probably carried out by people who think getting people killed by the space station is fun. IMO if the mechanics of the game force such behaviour into places where it belongs (e.g. anarchies) then that would be great, whatever I think of such people as individuals (not a lot, but they make the game a little more interesting). As it is there we've got problems, although ones that don't exist to anywhere near the extent this forum would have you believe.

It goes without saying, that to make something like this work, the "bad guys" section of space will need to be fleshed out and built upon. You can't just say "Lol GB2 Anarchy with it's one repair/rearm only outpost and no jumpable links anywhere else."

The whole "shadow economy" of bad guy space could be built out so well, in order to make being a bad guy a valid profession. PVe missions, black markets, dubious ship fittings, all that stuff could be plunked right out in anarchy space. Different pirate factions could have pirate wars, raids into secure space to secure materiel, all that jazz.

Take, for example, the black market. Selling illegal goods at a black market station SHOULD feel dangerous. It should be a place that an honest trader is always looking over his shoulder. It should set up things like "Huh, I don't think I'm willing to take the risk selling these slaves in that pirate stronghold. Maybe I can cut a deal with that shady looking PC who offered me some crates of gold in exchange. I should bring some buddies just in case it's a stickup."

What it shouldn't be is "Ohh I scooped some weapons. Hmm, let me look on this spreadsheet and see where the nearest "black market station" is. Lol don't forget to boost in to dodge the scan."

 

[Titus Balls]

Lets not forget the strategic gameplay that can come from safer civilised space, and more dangerous anarchy systems.
Having to plot routes more carefully, being aware of danger areas.
Having to follow targets out of safe space, waiting for your opportunity.
Chasing down high value pirates in lawless anarchy systems.
Equipping trade ships for speed and defense going to Anarchy.
No safety or protection from Anarchy stations (dare you dock).

All this would add so much to the game.

I agree with my friend above.

I even thought about it today - the Type 7 totally seems more like a Blockade runner type ship.

This is the problem with the way Frontier have designed the ship, none have a particular role like this.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Yep, so much potential.

Shrewd pirates would have to judge the most likely systems that traders will jump into on their trade routes, balance up the risk presented by local forces and plan hit and runs.

Shrewder pirates could also undermine the factions in the mid-trade route systems, using the background sim to weaken the local police forces to make their jobs easier.

There's so much potential here for deeper gameplay than simply min-maxing a gunship and then pwning (does anyone still say that?) min-maxed trade ships.

Added to the above as good stuff

 

[ReaperAlex]

I think what you'll ACTUALLY find is that we don't oppose PvP per se, but the attitudes of SOME players that come with it - ie arrogance, ignorance, bullying, insults etc. I for don't object to PvP, but that doesn't mean I have to accept anti-social behavious such as insults, abuse and bullying in the process just to satisfy a subset (and a minority one at that here, I would suggest) of the playerbase. PvP to your hearts content, but take it too far into insults, abuse etc and you have gone too far (as many games have already done).

i was proud to fly with 3FA in eve as they had a strict "no smack talk" rule for PvP. i've kept that attitude ever since and it's been nice to see many players dropping a "gf" into chat instead of a torrent of abuse. sadly elite has little chance of developing such a culture all the time we just can't talk to each other after a fight!

an interesting side effect of people talking after a fight is when a newbie decides to talk to the pirate and ends up getting a ton of solid advice on what to do next time. it's a real eye opener into the world of PvP as sure there are some just out there for the tears, but there are more than you might expect that are just looking for a scrap with no hard feelings.

 

[Maccus]

bounties and fines mean NOTHING in this game when you can just hop three systems away and suddenly noone remembers that you are the guy Charles Manson is having Nightmares about.
Murder needs to hurt the murderer MORE than the guy being murdered. a LOT more.

Make it a Pilot Federation Bounty, that is continuing for days, or even weeks, depending on the number of murders they rack up. That way it's a collectible bounty in any system, any where, at any time, by any player. Also, mark them with a special color that requires no scanning. Say, purple or pink. Players would know that CMDR has an ongoing bounty for murder. You'd still have to scan them to see how much the bounty is, but if you make the bounty for each player murder 1million, most players won't care.

It's not a perfect idea, but it's an idea. I agree that the punishments aren't harsh enough, but, I think they should still be within reason. Considering that some "murderers" are just pirates that have offered ultimatums, but their quarry still run, and ultimately they end up killing their targets out of failure to comply or frustration. I tried being a pirate, and currently, unless you have Limpets, most people will just run away. Not realizing that dropping just 2 units of cargo would save them from repair costs or death... it sucks really. We should be able to be pirates, without the game punishing us too harshly. Ultimately NPC pirates will have an easier break than PC pirates... and that's not rightfully fair now is it?

We need to be able to make sure that punishments directed as psychopaths, aren't put on those who are actually playing the game.

 

[Titus Balls]

i was proud to fly with 3FA in eve as they had a strict "no smack talk" rule for PvP. i've kept that attitude ever since and it's been nice to see many players dropping a "gf" into chat instead of a torrent of abuse. sadly elite has little chance of developing such a culture all the time we just can't talk to each other after a fight!

an interesting side effect of people talking after a fight is when a newbie decides to talk to the pirate and ends up getting a ton of solid advice on what to do next time. it's a real eye opener into the world of PvP as sure there are some just out there for the tears, but there are more than you might expect that are just looking for a scrap with no hard feelings.

Indeed the game is in serious need of some kind of combat log so you know who you've encountered (on both sides of the fight)

 

[ermtony]

I love it when people start to 'grok' the real gameplay behind Elite: Dangerous...to those that play solo to get away from the fight...you can work WITH those in Open, or against those in Open. Sorry if this isn't the game you wnated. It IS the game FDEV wanted.

+1 for that. The real game play is gradually becoming apparent to those who wish to see and I get the impression that more and more players are cottoning on to that. And of course the game mode chosen by an individual player isn't particularly important as all can contribute in assisting their chosen faction, whatever their skills and whatever their play preferences. I shall now don my ducal colours and return to the fray - in Mobius this evening I think, as the arthritis is giving me some serious grief

 

[Caffinated]

Ive already put forwards a solution that will be fair but harsh and END station griefing entirely.

On the first offence of opening fire in a station:

IMMEDIATE 25k bounty applied to the player.
Docking permission for that station is permanently revoked and they may NEVER land at that station again.
Player ship is destroyed by the station in a single shot and NOT offered the chance of ANY insurance.


On the SECOND offence:

Any current bounty for the faction whos territory the player is in, is immediately tripled.
The players ship is immediately destroyed in a single shot, no insurance is offered.
The player is forever banned from landing in any station controlled by that faction.
The player is forbidden to come within 100km of any station controlled by that faction on pain of death.
Whenever the player enters territory controlled by that faction, they are actively hunted down by system authorities and security.
A KOS marker is placed on the player, granting everyone in the factions territory the right to kill and claim the bounty on said player with or without a warrant scanner.
Dying does not negate these penalties and clearing the save file does nothing to these penalties either.

Harsh? Yeah...but no one will ever grief in a station again. The current Dev offered solutions dont solve the problem. This will.

I sure am glad you have no final say on how the game works. This a completely unreasonable set of suggestions that would make piracy an even worse profession than it already is.

 

[Ace Rifter]

As someone who doesn't partake in PvP very often, I would not want it to be taken out of the game, or reduced so much that most players will not attack. If that was done, you may as well take Dangerous out of the Elite name as well.

Of course griefing does need to be addressed, and one idea I had would be to only allow a certain number of kills to a particular player in a given period of time, so for example, you could only kill the same person twice in a 15 minute period, and a third time would result in a large bounty, with a forth time causing a reduction in reputation with the players faction and/or bans from certain stations, or even just larger fines. The exception would be is if the guy you killed twice, starts shooting back, then you would be allowed to kill them again without consequences.

I think the fines for random kills without reason, like pirating or bounty hunting should be higher though, but whatever is done, I would not want to have PvP reduced to the point that it feels like you will never be attacked by someone, as for me, only other players pose any kind of threat, as the AI is still easy to kill and/or get away from. For the most part, I don't count this game as being "Dangerous", although it is very good fun, and an awesome experience with the Rift.

 

[Maccus]

Actually, if you think about it, the Pilot's Federation would care in fact. If this were a real organisation, there would be code of conduct that would be required to be adhered to in order to retain membership. I'm a little surprised Frontier haven't issued such a document to feed roleplay purposes. That code would logically frown upon murder of fellow CMDRs (ie clean status CMDRs as fellow members). I think that should a murderer go far enough (eg kill records showing he or she targets fellow members exclusively or murders a certain number to times), the result is excommunication, banishing the individual with the effect you can't dock in any civilised system other than pirate outposts. And that history should stay with you after ship destruction/death (perhaps with missions required in order to reclaim your reputation and membership).

But by the same token, the Pilot's Federation only trains and licenses it's personnel. They, within the game lore, know that they license pilots from all over the Galaxy, and that their membership will more than likely fall on opposite sides of the same conflicts. That is why they do not do any of that. Because if they blacklist a hero pilot from Empire Space, they might cross the Empire, and suddenly the Empire fleets are around the Founder's planet, glassing it from orbit all over one pilot's right to dock in his home port. The Pilot's Federation is always a neutral party, because they profit too much from playing all sides. Why threaten your neutrality over one member out of millions of members, just because he happens to be killing people? It makes no sense. They already provide a necessary service to the Galaxy. No matter what happens, they make money in the end. Insurance costs, ship sales, part sales, the Pilot's Federation has a hand in all of that. They make money off you no matter what, and that's why they will never lift a finger to stop you.

This is why the Pilot's Federation will never take a stance on individual pilots. So, sorry, there is no RP reason to blacklist pilots at all, within the game lore. If you're a notorious pirate in Federation space, it makes sense for the Federation to black list you, but it does not make sense for the Alliance and Empire space to black list you in turn. Heck, piracy in Federal Space should increase your standing with the Empire if you ask me, especially if the two ever go to war.

As it stands, blacklisting, and insurance removal, are too harsh a punishment for murder. Especially when your target doesn't really "die."

 

[Messaline]

Make it a Pilot Federation Bounty, that is continuing for days, or even weeks, depending on the number of murders they rack up. That way it's a collectible bounty in any system, any where, at any time, by any player. Also, mark them with a special color that requires no scanning. Say, purple or pink. Players would know that CMDR has an ongoing bounty for murder. You'd still have to scan them to see how much the bounty is, but if you make the bounty for each player murder 1million, most players won't care.

It's not a perfect idea, but it's an idea. I agree that the punishments aren't harsh enough, but, I think they should still be within reason. Considering that some "murderers" are just pirates that have offered ultimatums, but their quarry still run, and ultimately they end up killing their targets out of failure to comply or frustration. I tried being a pirate, and currently, unless you have Limpets, most people will just run away. Not realizing that dropping just 2 units of cargo would save them from repair costs or death... it sucks really. We should be able to be pirates, without the game punishing us too harshly. Ultimately NPC pirates will have an easier break than PC pirates... and that's not rightfully fair now is it?

We need to be able to make sure that punishments directed as psychopaths, aren't put on those who are actually playing the game.

I'm speaking as a PvP averse player here, but a fellow E: D who plays open brought this up and i don't think the forum member would mind me paraphrasing here because I think it is a good idea and a potential area for compromise between the pro and anti PvP factions. Killing players would incur a high bounty, but the bounty could be burned off by doing certain types of PvE missions--say delivering a lot of food to famine victims or other charitable type acts. Now, here's my suggestion which would bring in a bit of strategy for both PvP rivals and PvE'ers seeking a measure of payback--the bounty would be restored at full value if the offending player aggressively kills another player. Now, if the player burning off the bounty is defending himself (did not fire first) then, he wouldn't be penalized, but if he "breaks parole" he is. So...thoughts?

Also, "combat logging" should carry a penalty commensurate with player griefing--they're both the same thing to me--this subject has been dealt with ad nauseaum on other threads, but I wanted to mention it in the interests of fairness and compromise.

 

[Zenicetus]

Another thing that this whole idea is lacking is the idea of NPC bounty hunters chasing you over the galaxy.

If you are "spotted" by a player or NPC they might report you, knowing you are one the most wanted people on GalNet.

This would not only provide content but a escalating scale of risk as first bounty hunters in Vipers and Cobras come after you, then Asps and Pythons - then the big guns start coming after you.

I believe David Braben thought it would eventually work like this, but with many players acting as bounty hunters as well. The fly in the ointment though, is how easy it is to log off if you're caught by a bounty hunter. I don't think Braben & Co. anticipated how many people would be doing this.

Maybe we didn't test the "logoffski maneuver" enough in Beta? I don't remember much talk about it. And I don't think it was necessarily that the Alpha/Beta testers were more honorable than recent arrivals to the game (although there is some of that). There were periods when it was much easier to buy ships and equipment, and we knew we'd lose them anyway with the frequent wipes between versions. So there wasn't a big incentive to combat log. The even flakier connection quality also made it hard to tell if it was intentional.

Anyway, not to get too far off-topic here, but I think they're going to have to find some way to tighten up on combat logging -- even if it harms a few innocents with bad connections -- as an integral part of making bounties more effective. Especially if persistent bounties are tied into insurance fees for ship recovery. It's just too easy never to lose a ship now, no matter how many hunters are on your trail.

 

[Xntryk]

Ive already put forwards a solution that will be fair but harsh and END station griefing entirely.

On the first offence of opening fire in a station:

IMMEDIATE 25k bounty applied to the player.
Docking permission for that station is permanently revoked and they may NEVER land at that station again.
Player ship is destroyed by the station in a single shot and NOT offered the chance of ANY insurance.


On the SECOND offence:

Any current bounty for the faction whos territory the player is in, is immediately tripled.
The players ship is immediately destroyed in a single shot, no insurance is offered.
The player is forever banned from landing in any station controlled by that faction.
The player is forbidden to come within 100km of any station controlled by that faction on pain of death.
Whenever the player enters territory controlled by that faction, they are actively hunted down by system authorities and security.
A KOS marker is placed on the player, granting everyone in the factions territory the right to kill and claim the bounty on said player with or without a warrant scanner.
Dying does not negate these penalties and clearing the save file does nothing to these penalties either.

Harsh? Yeah...but no one will ever grief in a station again. The current Dev offered solutions dont solve the problem. This will.

bitter much? LOL!

Ive got much better ideas see my post on "crime and punishment" this poster seems angry to me . my ideas are much more balanced.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Seems that some people forget why this game called "dangerous", and forget why "anarchy" is scary.

As before devs does it right, nerf the imbalanced killing methods, but allow kills in general.

Why oh why do you make me do this...

 

[Antmax]

This won't work, they'll just have a friend collect the bounty, when it's high enough. Some may even want it as a status symbol.

From the sounds of things players with bounties will soon have to pay regardless. The repercussions are supposed to last beyond ship destruction.

For me one of the best things coming up is reasonable tolerance of friendly fire based on your standing with the faction you accidentally hit. Will make things like conflict zones and bounty hunting much better.

 

[Maccus]

I'm speaking as a PvP averse player here, but a fellow E: D who plays open brought this up and i don't think the forum member would mind me paraphrasing here because I think it is a good idea and a potential area for compromise between the pro and anti PvP factions. Killing players would incur a high bounty, but the bounty could be burned off by doing certain types of PvE missions--say delivering a lot of food to famine victims or other charitable type acts. Now, here's my suggestion which would bring in a bit of strategy for both PvP rivals and PvE'ers seeking a measure of payback--the bounty would be restored at full value if the offending player aggressively kills another player. Now, if the player burning off the bounty is defending himself (did not fire first) then, he wouldn't be penalized, but if he "breaks parole" he is. So...thoughts?

Also, "combat logging" should carry a penalty commensurate with player griefing--they're both the same thing to me--this subject has been dealt with ad nauseaum on other threads, but I wanted to mention it in the interests of fairness and compromise.

Not to mention the plethora of other issues. The fact that there's no counter to "fixed weaponry," but there's a counter to just about every other weapon out there. The fact that submitting to an interdiction offers a quicker FSD recharge, and thus it makes more sense to submit and then just gun it, with chaff trailing in your wake. The fact that Interdiction is still buggy as heck, with occaisonally both parties ending up in separate instances after a successful interdiction. Turning off your cargo hatch makes enemy limpets useless, and thus making it impossible to be a pirate at all (seriously.) There's a plethora of issues that still need to be ironed out, and in my opinion are way more important to be fixed, than implementing punishments for "murder." Being murdered is only a minor inconvenience if you are properly financed. I think these people calling out griefers and murderers are either A: sore losers, B: flying around without a the re-buy on their insurance, or C: had one bad experience with a player and now want every avenue put in place to ensure it never happens again; IE: a spoiled brat.

I'm not even a "murderer" and I'm defending their right to play the game how they want to. You "anti-PVP" crowd have all the options to avoid these kinds of players in the form of private groups and solo mode. Keep your fingers out of Open Play. The game will be better for it.

 

[Hatsune Miku]

I'm going to continue playing in Open mode, and continue to file reports against players killing me, because they're clearly abusing the system. Frontier will then have a record of these people to ban when they realise the mistake they've making by allowing player killing.

When they find out you've been flooding their system with nonsense, you realise they're not going to be too happy about it, right?

 

[Messaline]

And I try to be friendly...I can see I've wasted my time with you.