Karma vs PvP Piracy

[Ozram]

What do you mean by "aside from one's with POI's?"

I suppose that's the point of contention. I don't see why they should be protected at all if they're in anarchy systems, but if they must be protected, there ought to be some in game mechanic that's visible for said protection and not "oh, players want to come and see the pretty so let's make magical safe passage".
First off, there is valid reason for killing players in these spots for those of us (yeah myself included) who think messing with the aliens is stirring the beehive and would like to discourage it. Second, it seems very few non combat players understand that there are ways to get by safely even in a dangerous spot especially with planetary landings.
Tips:
1) Don't leave your ship unattended (send it off once you're in the srv).
2) Turn off your headlights in the SRV (headlights make you far more visible from a distance)
3) Use your instruments. They aren't just there for the pretty. You can tell when there's player ships nearby and a whole lot more the better you learn to use them (situational awareness is key).
I was amazed at how many people would make themselves sitting ducks at the beta (where missile testing among other things was being conducted) and of those, how many combat logged... in beta!

There's more to pvp the just the pew pew. A lot of it has to do with planing and avoidance. Sneaking is awesome. Planning too. All that gameplay (which is a frequent part of my gameplay) is effectively removed if a "no tolerance" Karma where the kiddies go because the kiddies don't want consequences or risk even though they're in open (as opposed to private or solo) gets implemented.
It would be bad design imo. It's sort of why we don't have instant transfers or why we can (if stupid, ignorant or distracted) run out of fuel and die (or call fuel rats). Consequences, planning and decision making is it's own reward and feels more rewarding when the risk is "real". I'd hate for that to be removed.

Na, I think the game needs the Anarchy systems to stay out of the PF's hands. There has to be a place where nefarious activity goes un-noticed, even by the PF. Without that, those playing hardened criminals will be without a place to thrive. We are warned, at each jump, when we enter an Anarchy, it should continue to mean something.

Agreed.

 

[Riverside]

I suppose that's the point of contention. I don't see why they should be protected at all if they're in anarchy systems, but if they must be protected, there ought to be some in game mechanic that's visible for said protection and not "oh, players want to come and see the pretty so let's make magical safe passage".
First off, there is valid reason for killing players in these spots for those of us (yeah myself included) who think messing with the aliens is stirring the beehive and would like to discourage it. Second, it seems very few non combat players understand that there are ways to get by safely even in a dangerous spot especially with planetary landings.
Tips:
1) Don't leave your ship unattended (send it off once you're in the srv).
2) Turn off your headlights in the SRV (headlights make you far more visible from a distance)
3) Use your instruments. They aren't just there for the pretty. You can tell when there's player ships nearby and a whole lot more the better you learn to use them (situational awareness is key).
I was amazed at how many people would make themselves sitting ducks at the beta (where missile testing among other things was being conducted) and of those, how many combat logged... in beta!

There's more to pvp the just the pew pew. A lot of it has to do with planing and avoidance. Sneaking is awesome. Planning too. All that gameplay (which is a frequent part of my gameplay) is effectively removed if a "no tolerance" Karma where the kiddies go because the kiddies don't want consequences or risk even though they're in open (as opposed to private or solo) gets implemented.
It would be bad design imo. It's sort of why we don't have instant transfers or why we can (if stupid, ignorant or distracted) run out of fuel and die (or call fuel rats). Consequences, planning and decision making is it's own reward and feels more rewarding when the risk is "real". I'd hate for that to be removed.



Agreed.

I was about to write up a summary of karma vs anarchies but you did it

I think there is little gameplay in getting ganked in a regular anarchy, but as long as the players understand the risk either way is okay with me.

But in an important anarchy (one with a CG, alien base etc) there is lots & lots of gameplay reasons for ganking (excessive force). Stuff like this is the place for players to come together to support & oppose each other & for one side or the other to win & hold the ground. These places are emergent gameplay nirvana.

 

[Jason Lightning]

I suppose that's the point of contention. I don't see why they should be protected at all if they're in anarchy systems, but if they must be protected, there ought to be some in game mechanic that's visible for said protection and not "oh, players want to come and see the pretty so let's make magical safe passage".
First off, there is valid reason for killing players in these spots for those of us (yeah myself included) who think messing with the aliens is stirring the beehive and would like to discourage it. Second, it seems very few non combat players understand that there are ways to get by safely even in a dangerous spot especially with planetary landings.
Tips:
1) Don't leave your ship unattended (send it off once you're in the srv).
2) Turn off your headlights in the SRV (headlights make you far more visible from a distance)
3) Use your instruments. They aren't just there for the pretty. You can tell when there's player ships nearby and a whole lot more the better you learn to use them (situational awareness is key).
I was amazed at how many people would make themselves sitting ducks at the beta (where missile testing among other things was being conducted) and of those, how many combat logged... in beta!

There's more to pvp the just the pew pew. A lot of it has to do with planing and avoidance. Sneaking is awesome. Planning too. All that gameplay (which is a frequent part of my gameplay) is effectively removed if a "no tolerance" Karma where the kiddies go because the kiddies don't want consequences or risk even though they're in open (as opposed to private or solo) gets implemented.
It would be bad design imo. It's sort of why we don't have instant transfers or why we can (if stupid, ignorant or distracted) run out of fuel and die (or call fuel rats). Consequences, planning and decision making is it's own reward and feels more rewarding when the risk is "real". I'd hate for that to be removed.



Agreed.

Slightly off topic but related to the 'sneaking is awesome':

One of the best moments I ever had playing Elite was during the Barnacle CG, the Open instance was being patrolled by a wing that was playing with the goal of keeping everyone away from the Meta Alloys. Alone there was no way I could kill them, but I instead brought a really fast and low heat ship (a Cobra as this was pre-engineers with high power modules off), parked outside sensor range, and used the SRV to grab a pair of MAs right from under their patrol.

Sure I could have farmed it faster and safer using solo, but the sheer adrenaline of sneaking to a landing site, driving several Kilometers to the Barnacle, and quickly making my escape was exciting. In some runs I didn't instance with the guards, others I did but got spotted attempting to land and had to boost clear.

I suppose the point is that sometimes the threat of resistance comes with its own unique challenges, which makes for exciting gameplay.

 

[Ozram]

Slightly off topic but related to the 'sneaking is awesome':

One of the best moments I ever had playing Elite was during the Barnacle CG, the Open instance was being patrolled by a wing that was playing with the goal of keeping everyone away from the Meta Alloys. Alone there was no way I could kill them, but I instead brought a really fast and low heat ship (a Cobra as this was pre-engineers with high power modules off), parked outside sensor range, and used the SRV to grab a pair of MAs right from under their patrol.

Sure I could have farmed it faster and safer using solo, but the sheer adrenaline of sneaking to a landing site, driving several Kilometers to the Barnacle, and quickly making my escape was exciting. In some runs I didn't instance with the guards, others I did but got spotted attempting to land and had to boost clear.

I suppose the point is that sometimes the threat of resistance comes with its own unique challenges, which makes for exciting gameplay.

Perfect example of great gameplay that would potentially be squashed with a "zero tolerance" approach, especially where we are talking about lawless space. It's anarchy, not faux anarchy.

 

[jasonbarron]

I suppose that's the point of contention. I don't see why they should be protected at all if they're in anarchy systems, but if they must be protected, there ought to be some in game mechanic that's visible for said protection and not "oh, players want to come and see the pretty so let's make magical safe passage".
First off, there is valid reason for killing players in these spots for those of us (yeah myself included) who think messing with the aliens is stirring the beehive and would like to discourage it. Second, it seems very few non combat players understand that there are ways to get by safely even in a dangerous spot especially with planetary landings.
Tips:
1) Don't leave your ship unattended (send it off once you're in the srv).
2) Turn off your headlights in the SRV (headlights make you far more visible from a distance)
3) Use your instruments. They aren't just there for the pretty. You can tell when there's player ships nearby and a whole lot more the better you learn to use them (situational awareness is key).
I was amazed at how many people would make themselves sitting ducks at the beta (where missile testing among other things was being conducted) and of those, how many combat logged... in beta!

There's more to pvp the just the pew pew. A lot of it has to do with planing and avoidance. Sneaking is awesome. Planning too. All that gameplay (which is a frequent part of my gameplay) is effectively removed if a "no tolerance" Karma where the kiddies go because the kiddies don't want consequences or risk even though they're in open (as opposed to private or solo) gets implemented.
It would be bad design imo. It's sort of why we don't have instant transfers or why we can (if stupid, ignorant or distracted) run out of fuel and die (or call fuel rats). Consequences, planning and decision making is it's own reward and feels more rewarding when the risk is "real". I'd hate for that to be removed.



Agreed.

I'm in complete agreement with you on all fronts. Besides the usual forum talk, has there been any word from Fdev regarding turning Anarchy into safe space, too, or is so far just wishful thinking?

 

[Riverside]

I'm in complete agreement with you on all fronts. Besides the usual forum talk, has there been any word from Fdev regarding turning Anarchy into safe space, too, or is so far just wishful thinking?

Not that I've seen. Last word was that Sandro was mulling it over:

Hello Commanders!

A few comments:

* Yes, we will need to consider areas of lawless space that would normally be considered exempt from karma (such as barnacle sites), we're chewing this over.
* Regarding piracy, there are separate issues to do with collection and cost efficiency that we'd also like to address.
* A karma system will not be a panacea. Our initial implementation is also not to completely prevent specific styles of play - it is to add appropriate consequences for them.

So I think the debate is worth having, I've seen good arguments either way here.

 

[Ozram]

I'm in complete agreement with you on all fronts. Besides the usual forum talk, has there been any word from Fdev regarding turning Anarchy into safe space, too, or is so far just wishful thinking?

Cheers and yeah, the only mention I know of is the quote of Sandro's that Riverside was kind enough to repost.

 

[jasonbarron]

Not that I've seen. Last word was that Sandro was mulling it over:


So I think the debate is worth having, I've seen good arguments either way here.

Ah, well. So making lawless areas magically safe, too, is on the table. How wonderfully fabulous. Thanks for cluing me in, Riverside.

 

[Riverside]

Ah, well. So making lawless areas magically safe, too, is on the table. How wonderfully fabulous. Thanks for cluing me in, Riverside.

Gunnets argument in post #771 is probably the best in favour of tracking karma in an 'important' anarchy.

If the karma system still tracks activity in these locations, it could be that it's applied at a low level, so that only the most excessive activity is taken into account (with the ship disparity still bumping it up I guess).

I'm not convinced though. I agree with Gunnets logic but I still feel that if real gloves off freeform PvP is to have a place in the game it's these locations that can provide it.

It's worth bearing in mind that CLogging activity should be tracked here. How about an all or nothing approach; if you don't track kills you don't track CLogs either? By that argument it's all got to be tracked IMO.

 

[Zambrick]

I'm in complete agreement with you on all fronts. Besides the usual forum talk, has there been any word from Fdev regarding turning Anarchy into safe space, too, or is so far just wishful thinking?

From what I understood Anarchy would be tracked, but nothing would come of it. No kinds of fines or Punishment from the C&P system. No bad dings on the Karma front either. At least thats what I gathered from Sandros posts. It should stay that way as well. There is a reason why they are called Anarchy systems. I think he just means to involve any site in space that has some sort of special goings on like the alien stuff.

They could have and should have made those spaces non anarchy in the first place if they were planning on research happening there. I never understood it.

 

[Mohrgan]

Place a Capitol ship of any super power, or a PF agent, over certain locations to bring karma, if you must, but Anarchy systems can't be neutered. Especially, if that's where you expect to drive the worst offenders. Bad guys need their space too, you know.

 

[Ozram]

Place a Capitol ship of any super power, or a PF agent, over certain locations to bring karma, if you must, but Anarchy systems can't be neutered. Especially, if that's where you expect to drive the worst offenders. Bad guys need their space too, you know.

Pretty much this.

I would also add that if there's an incursion so to speak, into Anarchy sectors where Karma takes a foothold, then the inverse should be true in the bubble, and I'd recommend the various HaZ Res to be found.

 

[Kraael]

What follows is actually copied from another thread about punishing combat logging. I was told this might be a better place for my ideas so I copy-pasted it.
"Hey there. New to this forum. I think I have an idea to prevent combat logging.
Okay, logging is cheating. I first played in Open a couple of days ago (not counting once in then past when I accidentally left in open after taking a mission from Sothis/Ceos and got killed). I was fine in Solo but I thought I'd see how it is to be in Open. I had no idea how much different combat is. I didn't know the difference the engineering would make. So I lost my Anaconda once and logged the second time. I wanted to see what I did wrong but after talking with a couple of CMDRs I understood that I had no chance. Simply because I don't devote enough time to upgrade my ship and I'm just not as hardcore a gamer as others. I won't practice as much as others. I don't care to do so cause I don't want to think seriously about anything other than my real-life worries. Then I tested my Fer-de-Lance and since I knew what I was getting into, I stayed and got blasted.

So it's like I stand no chance if I play in Open. But still I think we (simple gamers) have the right for it. We bought the same game after all.

I think that creating certain player levels outside the game (not the competent, elit, dangerous thing) can help prevent combat logging. Like 5 "leagues". We all start in No3. If my win/loss ratio in PvP is 45-55% I stay in the same league. If I win more than 55% I go to league No4 whereas when I get less than 45% I go to No2.
This way, after some cycles, I'll get to play in Open with CMDRs of the same level as me, more or less.
The different "leagues" could also effect the PowerPlay respectively, like level 3 is the base, level 4 = x1.5, level 5 = x2, level 1= x0.5, level 2 = x0.75. So if I'm a rookie and play on the safe side, my deeds won't have the same consequences with a top class player.
Still, a top class trader can be at the same level with a top class pirate, if his ship is engineered to cool down fsd faster and by having stronger shields etc, so it won't end like "traders in level1 and pirates in level5"

That's a general idea, the numbers are just examples but I think that this way, the game would be less frustrating for everyone.
Rookies have the right to play with others without being sure they'll be killed more "sooner" than later and experts can feel more sure their enemy won't log, since they won't be so easy to kill anyway...

Sorry for the lost post after all "

And sorry for making it longer.
I read on the first page a very interesting idea (reached page 5 but it's impossible for me to read all 50-something pages of posts...). The "punishing-pirating" idea (in-universe). Despite the leagues I mention above, I should be able to report a pirate to the System's Security Force and not wait until they come after him if he/she interdicts me (that being a Pirate or an Enemy of the system's faction), with the response time varying depending on the security level of the system.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

From what I understood Anarchy would be tracked, but nothing would come of it. No kinds of fines or Punishment from the C&P system. No bad dings on the Karma front either. At least thats what I gathered from Sandros posts. It should stay that way as well. There is a reason why they are called Anarchy systems. I think he just means to involve any site in space that has some sort of special goings on like the alien stuff.

They could have and should have made those spaces non anarchy in the first place if they were planning on research happening there. I never understood it.

The karma system does need to be thought through carefully, it seems to me that the last set of announcements by Sandro were still in the ideas phase. Anarchy systems by definition shouldn't be subject to normal faction/power C&P, I agree with you here. The pilots federation are a different kettle of fish, they would be interested in any Cmdr v Cmdr no matter where it occurs in the galaxy. I do have a problem with a "karma system" (i.e. trend analysis over time) being used for combat actions however. An improved C&P including PF reputation, bounties & insurance cost could better deal with negative behaviours such as griefing! (Imho). I would base the PF rep on PvP attacks and ship destructions only. A karma system as stated would be useful on top of this for cheating out of the context of the galaxy, e.g. Combat logging. Where trends could be more usefully observed and sanctions could be applied.

Anarchies should be dangerous places in terms of the game environment but not totally off limits from the PF. Unless of course you did not scan your attacker, in which the PF would not know who was to blame anyways. I would still have a some PF penalties including loss of PF reputation & PF bounties being applied for attacking and destroying other PF members. This would mean every PvP encounter will have something riding on it not just for the looser.