Open Play and Crime and Punishment; a Proposed Holistic Approach

[Mike Reacher]

If we were able to vote on Kai Zen's ideas, I would vote for the whole kit and kaboodle.
It may not be perfect, but it is definitely better than what we have now.
As far as gankers go, an experience was: Me killed by a superior player for the hell of it. He claims to have killed 600 commanders and is proud of it.
I spawned in the nearest station and two more gankers attacked me inside the no fire zone. I returned to the station and logged off.
I was ed, but I had to get over it.
Read my sig. That is me to a T.
This is a great game even as is. It could be better. In real life serial killers could be deleted from ....... where ever. Wont happen.
I guess in-game gankers are just serial killer wishmakers.

 

[Renraiku]

This is a hard ask for two main reasons.
1. The "All modes are equal" people will jump on PP and BgS changes.
2. A PvP flag (opt in) is a poor Idea and every PvP player worth their salt will reject this as it is not good and not in the spirit of the game, "Its dog-eat-dog out there – you need to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. "

I do however like the idea of more tangible system security states.

 

[Dr. Nagi]

As much thought as you have out into this, it all falls apart on one single assumption you made:

Given that this is a boost to earnings in Open rather than a nerf to earnings in the other game modes, the only possible objection to this (and the above suggestion in point 1) that a player might have is because they want to be able to affect other players without running the risk of being opposed. In my view, this isn’t a legitimate objection.

And that's entirely wrong.
While there are who choose to not play in Open because of what you described here, I know a lot of players who actually rather enjoy the "ghost town" you described.
They don't really want to interact with other players, except a few friends they made. For whatever reason they may have for this.
Apart from that, I know many players who are interested in the BGS, but not in pvp. Not in the slightest. And forcing them into Open due to actions having a much bigger effect is a not a good idea. It's basically taking something away from them and they will not go and provide the pvp interested players the content they're looking for.
Rather they will stop doing it, or try finding a place where they keep being undisturbed.
Same thing goes for earnings, that's a very bad idea. Elite wasn't intended in this way, which is also why FDev mentioned they have no plans regarding this.
Blaze your own trail, that includes of having the choice to engage with others, or not. It shouldn't have come with restrictions if you choose no.
Look at World of Wacraft for example, the rewards are not higher for those people who choose to play with pvp enabled, and it works perfectly fine.


Now, to the crime and punishment part:
I've already wrote to you on Distant Radio discord about what EvE online did with the security levels and what you proposed does take a similar-ish approach.
Here's what I would do:
High Security Systems: ATR responding immediatly to attacking a clean CMDR who is not a war target. + Massive loss of reputation with the controlling faction.
Medium Security Systems: ATR responding at continued offenses (Notoriety 5+) + big loss of reputation with controlling faction.
Low Security Systems: Police system like it currently is + some loss of reputation with controlling faction.
Anarchy: Same as it is today.

On that note, ATR does need some buffs because there are ways to avoid them still: "Grombomb" effect on main weapons and way faster engines.
Additionally, stations controlled by factions who are hostile to you due to low reputation must open fire when getting near (not sure if they already do).
As fleetcarriers can provide safe docking ports for criminals: Introduce a fee for parking carriers in systems, with the amount depending on the security level (anarchy being for free).
Changing security levels being part of BGS makes players have an interest to work for making their space safer.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

As usual, i'll offer my counter proposal. That FD make a separate server that is open only. All open only propoents can go play in that. They get everything they wanted... well, except for easy targets.

 

[Renraiku]

SNIP
Look at World of Wacraft for example, the rewards are not higher for those people who choose to play with pvp enabled, and it works perfectly fine.

WoW Doesn't have the BgS and PP mechanics of players who are not flagged able to alter the game in a meaningful way for those that are flagged and vice versa. Poor example, however Your point is made without the analogy,

I wish more people would refrain from using an analogy if it isn't accurate to the situation.

 

[Dr. Nagi]

WoW Doesn't have the BgS and PP mechanics of players who are not flagged able to alter the game in a meaningful way for those that are flagged and vice versa. Poor example, however Your point is made without the analogy,

I wish more people would refrain from using an analogy if it isn't accurate to the situation.

Alter the game in a meaningful way? Imo that's not happening with current BGS.

 

[Renraiku]

Alter the game in a meaningful way? Imo that's not happening with current BGS.

That's your opinion. Just ask those PMF's that have had their opposition run roughshod over them in PG and Solo and not meet them head on in Open. Or the PP crew who couldn't destroy any incoming hauls due to PG and Solo. There are obviously other issues with instancing and such, however that is not the point here. Do you think it has no meaning for them?

 

[Ashnak]

While I appreciate a more constructive approach towards the game community's eternal discussion, I'm afraid I don't like your proposal.

I think not all of your assumptions hold:

More players playing the game in Open mode will make the galaxy more vibrant.

Errrmmm... yes, but. While qualitatively not disputable, I'll doubt you'll see a quantitative effect. According to FD [citation needed], the majority of players already play in Open. The Galaxy is simply too large. The Bubble alone has ~20,000 inhabited systems.

PvP players also deserve the right to have an enjoyable play loop.

But not at the expense of PvE players. Or rather: PvE players also deserve the right to have an enjoyable play loop. That's the classic argument about the limits of freedom. Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.

This right should not extend to consequence-free mayhem.

The game isn't consequence-free right now. But since there are more complaints about gankers than there are from gankers about the consequences, I agree that C&P still needs some balance (yes, that's an understatement).

‘Seal clubbing’ is bad for the game as attacking the new players immediately induces them to either quit the game or go to Solo forever.

Tentatively agree - although it would depend on where the seals came from and what they expected from ED.

Player piracy should be a viable option whereby there is significant wealth gain possible with increased risk to the player to encourage acquisitive piracy over senseless murder.

Partially agree. I disagree about the "player" part, though (see below). The recent hike on some commodity prices could be a step in that direction - but a lawless game style should definitely be viable, also financially.

There should be some meaning to the various system security states: High Security, Medium Security, Low Security and Anarchy systems should all feel different.

YES.

Regarding the rest of your post: I think you make too much of a distinction between players and NPCs. The Galaxy (and even just the bubble) is too large for that - which I think is also (part of) your problem. The (comparatively) handful of players just get lost in the size of the galaxy. ED just doesn't work like other games with a more limited play area - it's not just a matter of quantity, but a different quality. ED needs its NPCs. Which is where I think any changes should start, not with distinguishing between NPCs and players.
So killing an NPC should have exactly the same consequences as killing a player.
On the other side, that would mean we'll need better NPCs. The low end is ok, the current high end is not. There is room at the high end - as is evidenced by high CZ task force and commander NPCs. And yes, high security systems should have their system security at CZ or ATR level.
What I personally don't like is that uninhabited systems are classified as "Anarchy". They're not, they're uninhabited - that's a difference. An Anarchy is a form of government, an uninhabited system has no government.

So, get back MoM and have her work on the AI. The "AI Asp" needs to move from a joke to a real threat for any un- (or lightly) armed trader. An NPC pirate should be able to use ship loadouts (and strategies) similar to a player pirate, including Grom Bombs and anti-thruster rails. And system security in high security systems should be able to bring on a full wing of Guardian shielded FA-off plasma Chieftains within 30 seconds. Which will track and pull any miscreant as long as they're in system or running to a neighbouring non-hostile, non-Anarchy system. For lore reasons, maybe NPCs should be limited to PP equipment within their alignment (Fed/Imp/Alliance/Independent).

 

[Ashnak]

That's your opinion. Just ask those PMF's that have had their opposition run roughshod over them in PG and Solo and not meet them head on in Open. Or the PP crew who couldn't destroy any incoming hauls due to PG and Solo. There are obviously other issues with instancing and such, however that is not the point here. Do you think it has no meaning for them?

I think you're falling into the same trap as a lot of other Open proponents. Just because you are playing in Open and I am playing in Open doesn't mean that I will ever encounter you. Even if we play in the same system, which may be likely if we're working on the same faction (opposed or not). Not even if, for any reason, we happen to be playing at the same time. Instancing may simply decide that we don't belong together, so unless we try to force instancing to move us together (which can be difficult, and even if it works has its limits), we'll never see each other.

 

[Renraiku]

I think you're falling into the same trap as a lot of other Open proponents. Just because you are playing in Open and I am playing in Open doesn't mean that I will ever encounter you. Even if we play in the same system, which may be likely if we're working on the same faction (opposed or not). Not even if, for any reason, we happen to be playing at the same time. Instancing may simply decide that we don't belong together, so unless we try to force instancing to move us together (which can be difficult, and even if it works has its limits), we'll never see each other.

There are obviously other issues with instancing and such, however that is not the point here.

I have had the opportunity to encounter opposition in open.

 

[Ashnak]

There are obviously other issues with instancing and such, however that is not the point here.

I have had the opportunity to encounter opposition in open.

Not saying that it's not possible - but you can't rely on it.

 

[Dr. Nagi]

That's your opinion. Just ask those PMF's that have had their opposition run roughshod over them in PG and Solo and not meet them head on in Open. Or the PP crew who couldn't destroy any incoming hauls due to PG and Solo. There are obviously other issues with instancing and such, however that is not the point here. Do you think it has no meaning for them?

And what exactly are the consequences?
It's not like you can actually lose anything. Maybe access to a certain rare commodity, but that's pretty much it.
There's always another place where you can get what you need. It won't have your name written on it, but it's there.
That's not really meaningful to me.

 

[Renraiku]

And what exactly are the consequences?
It's not like you can actually lose anything. Maybe access to a certain rare commodity, but that's pretty much it.
There's always another place where you can get what you need. It won't have your name written on it, but it's there.
That's not really meaningful to me.

Not completely true or at least not a convenient location. Take Carcosa in Colonia for example. When The Nameless had control (an Anarchy faction), the shipyard offered Federal and Alliance ships for sale, there is nowhere else to buy them in Colonia. When they were ousted, the ships disappeared and now the only place to buy them is in the bubble 22,000 LY away. No carriers cannot stock PP ships.

 

[Renraiku]

Not saying that it's not possible - but you can't rely on it.

More reliable than not having the chance to instance at all with Solo and PG, you would be surprised how often it happens.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

@Ian Doncaster, @Ozric and @Screemonster I'm just curious. Where there any part/s of the OP that you liked? There's certainly quite many hours of effort put into this, so instead of ingrate comments on specific words maybe lighten up your negativity? Also share your own ideas and suggestions!

Yes - I said the bits I liked: ships should drop a percentage of their cargo on destruction, like they did in the previous three games, like the NPC pirates currently act as if they're going to do [1]. I also said that the idea of some sort of official in-game PvP league was also a good one - still waiting for that CQC one they talked about, too! - though the implementation proposed was so exploitable I would never expect actual PvPers to win it.

There were some good ideas in the bounty reform bit, too - but unfortunately they were tied to some really bad ones. See below for how I'd pull them out into a less exploitable proposal.

[1] I'd also get rid of the "stolen" cargo flag - the original Elite gameplay of blowing up pirates and selling the cargo they'd already collected for a bonus should be legitimate! Not that they usually have anything worth selling...

Instead the changes should be focused on ensuring that those who do wish to force others into combat lose the abillity to hide from the consequences and those who wish to be lawful and punish them for those actions should have the incentive to hunt them down. People who run around murdering others have clearly indicated that want pvp. They shouldn't be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. So yes, for me this boils down to "don't let murderers play solo until their bounty has been claimed" and "stop letting people clean modules and swap ships to escape retribution for pvp crime".

Those are both I think good aims. I think a simpler way to achieve them - which, crucially, doesn't make things tougher for "accidental criminals" nor make "exploiting the system" the new ganking - could be:

• Keep the crime and bounty levels as now, except perhaps increasing the multiplier for high notoriety a bit, or capping it higher than ten.
• As in your proposal, make PvP wing bounties shared not cloned, and uncap them.
• PvP bounties can never be paid off at an IF, regardless of notoriety, and automatically become superpower-level. This includes an "Independent Systems Law" virtual superpower for all non-Anarchy Independent factions so that the majority of inhabited space isn't low-consequence.
• Notoriety decays at one per in-game day rather than one per two hours if you have any PvP bounties on any of your ships. (But even at zero, as above, you can't pay the PvP bounty off)
• If you're flying a clean ship, and have PvP bounties in the current superpower jurisdiction, a KWS will clone (not move!) that PvP bounty to your current ship, capped at the cost of your current ship (the cap unfortunately necessary to prevent money generating exploits through declaring bankruptcy on Sidewinders).
• As in your proposal, if you have PvP bounties on any ship, you can only log into Open [2]
• As in your proposal, the positions of people with PvP bounties are shown on the map (as others have said, this is more an aid to non-PvPers to know who/where to avoid!) - this should apply even if they're not flying the bounty ship right now - and notoriety level is shown on an in-game scan to give people a hint as to who to KWS.
• Similar to your proposal, modules on a ship subject to a PvP bounty cannot be cleaned or moved from the ship, though they can be sold off at a large discount. The bounty is subtracted from the ship sale price if the ship is sold, which may go negative.
• As now, Powerplay PvP bounties are tracked separately. Abolish the existing Powerplay entirely and reform it into an Open-only PvP salvage contest (I've posted about this before elsewhere) which generates CC, and a separate PvE delivery/combat mechanism which adjusts priorities for spending of it.
• PvP bounties no longer generate any BGS effect (necessary to avoid exploits)

"Accidental" PvP criminals - whether speeding near a station or careless with a bait Sidewinder in a RES - don't really get punished more than they do now. They're probably going to die immediately anyway, in the ship they committed their "crime" in, and so that clears the bounty, rebuy, flags, etc. all at once, and they're no worse off. Just in case they escape, the interface at an IF or "Hand yourself in" screen should make very clear that the bounty cannot be cleared this way, and point to a Pilots Handbook entry.

Intentional criminals (including PvE criminals who then kill the player bounty hunter who came after them) have to keep their bounty, can gain more, and eventually will have to be accountable for it - no IFs or ship sales to sneak out of it. Even if they "go straight" for a while, they're still risking a KWS bringing it all back if they hang around the jurisdiction their crimes were originally committed in, making it tougher for them to avoid accountability entirely.

Outright gankers quickly end up with a PvP bounty in all four jurisdictions, and are limited to anarchy systems (and friendly fleet carriers, of course) as a result. A KWS would clone four superpower bounties onto their new ship, so there's no escape there.

With the bounties being tied to superpower-level jurisdictions, there's room for RP privateers to side with the Federation and murder the Empire or vice versa, and be locked out of Imperial space but be relatively safe in Federal space. RP bounty hunters on the other side can show up and take them on for big payouts. (This could work well with something like the semi-competitive capship CGs currently going on, and give the bounty-hunting side of the CG some more interesting targets)

[2] Exception: there should probably be a way for PGs to flag themselves as "encourages PvP", and bounties gained solely in those PGs wouldn't lock you into Open.

 

[Dr. Nagi]

Not completely true or at least not a convenient location. Take Carcosa in Colonia for example. When The Nameless had control (an Anarchy faction), the shipyard offered Federal and Alliance ships for sale, there is nowhere else to buy them in Colonia. When they were ousted, the ships disappeared and now the only place to buy them is in the bubble 22,000 LY away. No carriers cannot stock PP ships.

That's a very edge case though.
All in all the consequences are very little.

 

[Renraiku]

That depends on your point of view. For those that RP their player minor factions it's a big deal, for those that simply want to control the place they call home, it's a big deal.

 

[Dr. Nagi]

That depends on your point of view. For those that RP their player minor factions it's a big deal, for those that simply want to control the place they call home, it's a big deal.

Yeah and there are many of those who would like to still be able to do their play in private groups.

 

[Morbad]

Not saying that it's not possible - but you can't rely on it.

If I know, from past experience, that someone is connectable, the odds of me not being instanced with them in the future are extremely low. It either requires a huge number of more preferential peers, or something like someone's block to change.

By and large, if some one has their connection configured correctly and they are anywhere in NA or Europe, my CMDR is going to see their CMDR if we both go to the same place in Open, virtually every time.

That's not really meaningful to me.

It's meaningful to many people, as the BGS constitutes much of the agency we're given and is the only persistent, in game, record of our CMDR's actions or existence beyond their own inventories.

Yeah and there are many of those who would like to still be able to do their play in private groups.

What's that have to do with how meaningful or not the BGS is?

 

[Dr. Nagi]

What's that have to do with how meaningful or not the BGS is?

That's how the discussion started. Forcing them into open would take something away from them, for what gain?
Because you might have an easier time opposing BGS play of other people. But with how little of consequences are involved, I don't feel like it would justify that.