Lavecon 2017, what will we get?

[NeilF]

As for how it's a good thing?
Easy, it gives somewhere for pirates and other villenous characters a place to exist in the game without being hamstrung by the bleating of a thousand spineless carebears. If you're worried about it, don't go there.

Couple of points on this?

Surely an anarchy system (or lower security systems) could be better for pirates because they are less likely to meet security? ie: They can pirate another vessel and be far less likely to have security come up to defend the target?

Why would a "good pirate" be illegally destroying CMDR after CMDR? Why would it be illogical or counter production - no matter what system type - if such activity earned them a negative reputation, and a slowling increasing set of penalties? eg: After you've destroyed more than X CMDRs in period Y, you start finding an increasing number of stations won't let you dock there?

Note: And I think the illegal destruction of NPCs should handled exactly the same. Makes sense and would improve gameplay in the same fashion.



As has already been pointed out, the game isn't great at the moment at distinguishing between high and low security systems. Low security systems don't seem to require to make traders reconsider their trip. It should make them outfit accoringly and be getting into the realms of hiring NPC/CMDRs wingmen to pay with the increased profits surely?

 

[nrage]

Possibly... Hope so...

There is the risk if you penalise toxic ganking in non-anarchy systems, then the goto place becomes anarchy systems... ie: Even more starts happening out at alien ruins or the latest alien hot spot in the middle of no where etc etc...

Alien ruins and other "special" sites need another solution, for sure. Perhaps military presence or similar.

I think Frontier were originally hoping it would happen "organically" with player groups taking the role of defence but this only "sort of" happens. The problem here, IMO, is that the "killers" are specialists who have spent most of not all of their game time practising and engineering towards the one goal of killing players. Whereas the typical defender is a part-time defender who mostly does something else in game, even if that something else is PvE bounty hunting and combat zones they simply don't have the practice or finely engineered ship to compete.

Now, if there was a role for a full time defender/bounty hunter who targeted other players (with equivalent CR rewards to other play styles) then things might get more interesting. Then we might start to see specialists on the defender side too, heck some of the current PKer bunch might even switch sides. For this to happen the rewards need to be there, and the tools to actually do the job (some way to track a commander down, which is still fair and cannot be abused - a very hard problem to solve).

 

[NeilF]

Alien ruins and other "special" sites need another solution, for sure. Perhaps military presence or similar.

I think Frontier were originally hoping it would happen "organically" with player groups taking the role of defence but this only "sort of" happens. The problem here, IMO, is that the "killers" are specialists who have spent most of not all of their game time practising and engineering towards the one goal of killing players. Whereas the typical defender is a part-time defender who mostly does something else in game, even if that something else is PvE bounty hunting and combat zones they simply don't have the practice or finely engineered ship to compete.

Now, if there was a role for a full time defender/bounty hunter who targeted other players (with equivalent CR rewards to other play styles) then things might get more interesting. Then we might start to see specialists on the defender side too, heck some of the current PKer bunch might even switch sides. For this to happen the rewards need to be there, and the tools to actually do the job (some way to track a commander down, which is still fair and cannot be abused - a very hard problem to solve).

Fair point... But how would this military presense help? eg: If the gankers were simply camping out the primary star for new arrivals?


And ultimately I have to ask what are we trying to achieve by not holding CMDRs accountable even in anarchy systems? Let's take two scenarios?

1) A group of gankers in an anarchy system (because of a new alien related find) destroying explorer after explorer after explorer. They incur no negative outcome. Not a single action is taken by the game to penalise them, or highlight their behaviour to other CMDRs.

2) After X destructions in Y period, the gankers start incurring penalties. More stations deny them docking. More and more system deny them access. They have a permanent bounty on them. They are highlighted to other CMDRs as know "psychos".


Why is (1) a better outcome than (2)?

Holding CMDRs accountable for their actions in all systems, is surely simpler, logical, and most importantly more productive in it's in game outcome?

 

[iFred]

Needless... Pointless... FAIL!

To clarify:-
- It's just (more) bounties? Fail! I'm sure there's got to be more to penalties than just bounties?
- Anarchy systems are not included? Fail!

Honestly - you should wait until the new system is either explained in detail or implemented. You are doing nothing else than spreading speculations and conclusions. That doesnt help much.

 

[NeilF]

Honestly - you should wait until the new system is either explained in detail or implemented. You are doing nothing else than spreading speculations and conclusions. That doesnt help much.

Fair points... I must admit I always feared a C&P mechanic would for some bizarre, unaccountable reason ignore anarchy systems, so when I saw that, I actually groaned out loud!

My hope is it's a first step... and it will follow through to anarchy system later.

My worry is, it'll be employed in such a fashion it can't or won't... And as such it will be (another) half cocked mechanic.


But you're right. My negativity is possibly unfair/unfounded! BUT, discussing now why it might be an issue to ignore anarchy systems might be beneficial rather than until is set in stone (later)?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Holding CMDRs accountable for their actions in all systems, is surely simpler, logical, and most importantly more productive in it's in game outcome?

Surely this will come when the Karma system gets put in place. Remember, this is one part of the C&P system that is coming.
See it as this: Bounties cannot be applied in Anarchy systems as there are no communication systems to report them. Its just one commanders say over another, and there could possibly be no Pilots federation jurisdiction in Anarchy systems.

At the alien ruins for instance, having report crimes on will do nothing as there is no FTL relay to relay it back. This could be the same for all Anarchy systems.

Basically you go to these systems at your own risk. That is a choice you have to make yourself. It also gives good gameplay opportunities for bounty hunters, Pirates and killers.

There is more to come, and there maybe more to come in 2.4, but they didn't have anything to show/confirm yet as it may not be ready. We shall see.

So instead of complaining, why don't you praise that something is being done. Is it perfect, probably not, but it never will be as people want different things.

 

[NeilF]

You're using game universe arguments than game play arguments? Surely resultant gameplay should always come first? ie: If a mechanic benefits the game then employ it, even if the game universe explanation is questionable.

ie: If a C&P (karma) system would improve game play if employed in anarchy systems (reducing mindless ganking), then do it...


But let's go through those points?

Bounties cannot be applied in Anarchy systems as there are no communication systems to report them. Its just one commanders say over another, and there could possibly be no Pilots federation jurisdiction in Anarchy systems.

You're suggesting if you destroy me, then this information cannot be broadcast anywhere? Therefore your illegal destruction of me cannot be held against you?

But I'm somehow now back at my last station? Information has been transmitted there? Why not the reason for me being there? ie: You illegally destroyed me?

At the alien ruins for instance, having report crimes on will do nothing as there is no FTL relay to relay it back. This could be the same for all Anarchy systems.

Again, somehow I'm back at my last station? Information has been transmitted. And this could include the information that I've been illegally killed.

And it makes total sense the Pilots Federation and Insurance companies would be interested in this, no matter what system type it was...

Basically you go to these systems at your own risk. That is a choice you have to make yourself. It also gives good gameplay opportunities for bounty hunters, Pirates and killers.

Agreed.

But illegal destruction should be a choice and risk of its own. If you illegally destroy CMDR after CMDR that should be a choice/risk you decide to take, and therefore take onboard the negative outcomes those choices incur. eg: More and more stations refusing you docking permission.

What is gained game play wise by habitual illegal destruction ever being ignored? I'd suggest this only resulting in a negative outcome!

There is more to come, and there maybe more to come in 2.4, but they didn't have anything to show/confirm yet as it may not be ready. We shall see.

Agreed! I may well be over reacting to this early news... But...

So instead of complaining, why don't you praise that something is being done. Is it perfect, probably not, but it never will be as people want different things.

Fair point... It is good something is being done. My fear is though we're getting another half-job-done affair...

Why only scraps of news, instead of more concise announcement of where this is ultimately heading? Surely it's better issues/problems are spotted with it sooner rather than later?

 

[iFred]

Fair points... I must admit I always feared a C&P mechanic would for some bizarre, unaccountable reason ignore anarchy systems, so when I saw that, I actually groaned out loud!

My hope is it's a first step... and it will follow through to anarchy system later.

My worry is, it'll be employed in such a fashion it can't or won't... And as such it will be (another) half cocked mechanic.


But you're right. My negativity is possibly unfair/unfounded! BUT, discussing now why it might be an issue to ignore anarchy systems might be beneficial rather than until is set in stone (later)?

We all know that during design phase some ideas seem to be cool and it looks like they are working without problems when implemented. But especially Frontier - we all know that - has a small tendency to implement things in a ... lets say... superficial way to let us (the community) find out in several iterations how things really work and where the bugs are. While the whole bounty-system is not a main feature of 2.4 I rest assured that we will see at least 3 months of corrections and new implementations until this system is finally complete. And yes, we will see lots of uuuhhs and aaahhhs in the forums in the meantime. So why should we waste our time speculating - it´s easier to work with facts. There will be mistakes during design, there will be implementation bugs, there will be false-positives, whatever - I wouldn´t waste to much effort into it until we see it in a beta.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[NeilF]

We all know that during design phase some ideas seem to be cool and it looks like they are working without problems when implemented. But especially Frontier - we all know that - has a small tendency to implement things in a ... lets say... superficial way to let us (the community) find out in several iterations how things really work and where the bugs are. While the whole bounty-system is not a main feature of 2.4 I rest assured that we will see at least 3 months of corrections and new implementations until this system is finally complete. And yes, we will see lots of uuuhhs and aaahhhs in the forums in the meantime. So why should we waste our time speculating - it´s easier to work with facts. There will be mistakes during design, there will be implementation bugs, there will be false-positives, whatever - I wouldn´t waste to much effort into it until we see it in a beta.

Just my 2 cents.

Fair point...

 

[nrage]

Fair point... But how would this military presense help? eg: If the gankers were simply camping out the primary star for new arrivals?

There is no reason security response could not get involved there. It doesn't currently, but it could.

And ultimately I have to ask what are we trying to achieve by not holding CMDRs accountable even in anarchy systems? Let's take two scenarios?

1) A group of gankers in an anarchy system (because of a new alien related find) destroying explorer after explorer after explorer. They incur no negative outcome. Not a single action is taken by the game to penalise them, or highlight their behaviour to other CMDRs.

2) After X destructions in Y period, the gankers start incurring penalties. More stations deny them docking. More and more system deny them access. They have a permanent bounty on them. They are highlighted to other CMDRs as know "psychos".


Why is (1) a better outcome than (2)?

Holding CMDRs accountable for their actions in all systems, is surely simpler, logical, and most importantly more productive in it's in game outcome?

An Anarchy system does not have a local authority so it doesn't make sense (lore) for there to be local bounties, but we're getting pilots federation bounties, right? I see no reason (lore or otherwise) that these shouldn't apply.

That said, I don't think bounties are going to discourage PKers, even once the suicidewinder thing is sorted. Perhaps if pilots federation bounties were much higher (I presume they only apply to player kills) they might start to work, perhaps. It would have to be a lot higher however, because there are plenty of players with 1 billion+ CR.

I think the proposed Karma thing will be more useful.

 

[nrage]

See it as this: Bounties cannot be applied in Anarchy systems as there are no communication systems to report them. Its just one commanders say over another, and there could possibly be no Pilots federation jurisdiction in Anarchy systems.

The player ship itself would communicate the crime, directly to the pilots federation. Or, the player life support could carry a black box recording of the incident.

Pilots federation 'jurisdiction' is over its members, it's not system based.

There are probably other ways this can be explained in "lore" terms.

 

[zuadao]

The player ship itself would communicate the crime, directly to the pilots federation. Or, the player life support could carry a black box recording of the incident.

Pilots federation 'jurisdiction' is over its members, it's not system based.

There are probably other ways this can be explained in "lore" terms.

thats all good and true but the PF would have to trust your ship. since theres not a local beacon that could verify that kill you would simply have no proof of that kill.

not to mention that your ship couldnt actually send that information cause it was blown up.

 

[NeilF]

There is no reason security response could not get involved there. It doesn't currently, but it could.



An Anarchy system does not have a local authority so it doesn't make sense (lore) for there to be local bounties, but we're getting pilots federation bounties, right? I see no reason (lore or otherwise) that these shouldn't apply.

That said, I don't think bounties are going to discourage PKers, even once the suicidewinder thing is sorted. Perhaps if pilots federation bounties were much higher (I presume they only apply to player kills) they might start to work, perhaps. It would have to be a lot higher however, because there are plenty of players with 1 billion+ CR.

I think the proposed Karma thing will be more useful.

Yes, I agree bounties in themselves will do little to change unwanted behaviour. However, once a player reaches a bad enough reputation and gains a permanent (Pilots Federation?) bounty, it doesn't really matter how large it is, because it will achieve two things immediately:-
1) It's a flag to all other CMDRs, there's pscho about.
2) It allows this CMDR to be attacked by any other CMDR anywhere! ie: If a CMDR has habitually illegally destroyed X other CMDRs in Y period, and now has even just a 1000CR Pilots Federation bounty, that will be a red flag to many other CMDR in a combat ship

 

[NeilF]

thats all good and true but the PF would have to trust your ship. since theres not a local beacon that could verify that kill you would simply have no proof of that kill.

not to mention that your ship couldnt actually send that information cause it was blown up.

Trying to reason information cannot be sent isn't reason enough to ignore illegal destruction in Anarchy systems IMHO.

The number one reason for anything in the game should be is it beneficial to the gameplay in the game? And I'd suggest there's no benefit to ignoring illegal destruction of CMDRs (or NPCs) in anarchy systems.


As for your point though, if somehow you can can be beemed back to a station, I can't see why the reason for you being back there can't be included... ie: Illegally destroyed by CMDR XYZ.

 

[zuadao]

Trying to reason information cannot be sent isn't reason enough to ignore illegal destruction in Anarchy systems IMHO.

The number one reason for anything in the game should be is it beneficial to the gameplay in the game? And I'd suggest there's no benefit to ignoring illegal destruction of CMDRs (or NPCs) in anarchy systems.

As for your point though, if somehow you can can be beemed back to a station, I can't see why the reason for you being back there can't be included... ie: Illegally destroyed by CMDR XYZ.

if youre talking about gameplay, a carebear galaxy isnt good for the game. if youre afraid to go open just join a private group.

talking about creating a new ELITE: SAFE.

 

[NeilF]

if youre talking about gameplay, a carebear galaxy isnt good for the game. if youre afraid to go open just join a private group.

talking about creating a new ELITE: SAFE.

Why use such vapid strawman non-points?


Consider two situations:-
1) You pirate a dozen CMDRs and threaten and even destroy a couple - The game outcome? It (basically) overlooks it... You've not made a big enough "ripple" to be noticed.
1) You pirate a dozen CMDRs and destroy all of them - The game outcome? You've now got somewhat of a growing negative reputation, and you're penalised. Continue with your psychotic behaviour and you gain more penalties.

How is this not a fair and reasoned approach? What's unfair about choice and outcome?

ps: I'd even suggest your illegal destruction of NPCs is handled in the same fashion as your illegal destruction of CMDRs! And this is true of any system you are in...

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

The player ship itself would communicate the crime, directly to the pilots federation. Or, the player life support could carry a black box recording of the incident.

Pilots federation 'jurisdiction' is over its members, it's not system based.

There are probably other ways this can be explained in "lore" terms.

I am just trying to find ways to appease Neil. Personally, it doesn't really bother me too much. I can live with the odd little inconsistancy.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

You can't have Illegal attacks in Anarchies. It's lawless, there are no rules.

The idea is that Pilots Federation bounties not applying in Anarchy's is two fold ;-

1) Force Ganking players (I.e. players who take on newbies sidewinders with corvettes) to move to the Anarchy systems.
2) This would make Anarchy System a lot more scary to fly through in open.

The only thing about these changes is that it will take a while for these changes to ripple through the player base.

 

[NeilF]

You can't have Illegal attacks in Anarchies. It's lawless, there are no rules.

The idea is that Pilots Federation bounties not applying in Anarchy's is two fold ;-

1) Force Ganking players (I.e. players who take on newbies sidewinders with corvettes) to move to the Anarchy systems.
2) This would make Anarchy System a lot more scary to fly through in open.

The only thing about these changes is that it will take a while for these changes to ripple through the player base.

The problem is, a lot of the galaxy is such lawless space. Infact 99.999% of it

Worse still there's frequently - as least based on previous examples - reasons for large number of CMDRs to head out to locations in that 99.999% of the galaxy.

Worse still, it's also frequently the reason for our lovely toxic gankers therefore to head out to these locations and destroy as many other CMDRs as possible, happy in the knowledge not a single negative outcome will befall them.

The proposed changes (so far) will not prevent this, but worse still enforce it!


Now, I see no benefit to this approach to C&P. Personally, I see it as far more sensible and benficial to the game, that if you start destroying too many otehr CMDRs illegally, that you then build up a negative reputation, that then starts meaning you incur penalties.

I'm still waiting for anyone to actually give me a logical in game play reason why if the habitual illegal destruction of other CMDRs (& NPCs) was penalised, such that more than X destructions in period Y meant you started to incur penalties (eg: reduced docking permission etc etc...), how this would result in a negative outcome? If you destroy a couple of CMDRs illegally you'll probably get away with it... But do it too often, then there will be a logical and fair outcome... What's the problem?

Piracy is still perfectly valid gameplay. You could even destroy some victims... But habitual psychotic illegal destruction of other CMDRs (& NPCs) results in a negative outcome. The problem?

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

This is one of the measures being put in place to reduce the amount of ganking by overpowered ships within the bubble, where most of this 'Toxic' Behavior happens. It reduced the problems from people being scared in open to people being scared to play in Anarchy systems in open, which I feel is the right balance. Giving players time to get used playing the game before a big war-conda turns up trying to take out an easy mark.