Please stop the bullies at the Community Goals

[LanceLord]

I've already proposed a simple solution in a similar PvPer crying salt thread post.

There needs to be significant penalties and punishment for Cmnders who make a point of hostile engaging:

• non PP faction players
• players without a wanted/bounty criminal status
• players not carrying illicit/illegal cargo
• non hostile players queuing to access star ports/planetary bases who are minding their own business and/or who clearly indicate on comm they're not interested in engagement
• non PP faction players who are clearly doing sand box exploration. And so only have exploration data as the valuable commodity on their ship which can't be acquired or profited from by a hostile engagement encounter
• n00b players and particularly the obvious ones who are broke with low combat/explorer/trader ranks in starter Sideys
• non hostile players with an empty cargo hold
• non hostile players who are non hostile/neutral/independent non PP players flying non combat/commercial vessels. i.e. the likes of a tourist ship like a Dophin/Orca (not Belugia as this has fighter capability), or transporting business/economy passengers within the Bubble.

Basically any non hostile player not of a PP faction, lacking wanted status, and/or not carrying illegal cargo to justify hostile interdiction by NPCs.

If a ganker engages i.e. deliberately tries to provoke PvP e.g. from passive aggressive ramming, to outright attacking another peaceful player for unprovoked reasons, then they should be responsible for paying 100% of ALL ship damages/rebuy cost AND whatever lost cargo to their victim Cmnder once the injured party reaches the rebuy screen.

This rebuy penalty should be assessed across all player ED accounts and platforms.

If they're still unable to pay, then suspend their Open privileges. Restrict their access across all accounts to Solo. Where they have to earn/grind credits to pay off their transgression for unprovoked and unwanted PvP interaction.

That would be a start on re-directing the griefers to ganking their own kind. Blowing up a neutral PP Cmnder who is trying to make a living RPing as a space trucker/space Uber flying a harmless Orca/Dolphin around the galaxy. Just for the lulz. Just because a PvP Cmnder has the OP engineered ship capability and/or need to compensate for something they're lacking irl.

Until FDev address the game imbalance in Open thanks to this sort of PvP ganker tomf*ckery, us PvErs will remain in PvE friendly PGs and/or Solo. Period.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

The typical Pilot's Federation member has a mile long criminal record.

The game goes out of it's way to describe a setting where the Pilots Federation has free reign to run roughshod over everyone else, and even other PF members...apparently because players cannot handle consequences and this is a convenient bit of handwavium around them.

Maybe I'm not typical then, as my record is quite clean. Mostly traffic accident style stuff. Once shot accidentally police ship when it crossed my firing line....

 

[Dillon Fallon]

I've already proposed a simple solution in a similar PvPer crying salt thread post.

If a ganker engages i.e. deliberately tries to provoke PvP by ramming to outright attacking another peaceful player unprovoked, then they should be responsible for paying 100% of ALL ship damages/rebuy cost AND that of whatever cargo to their victim Cmnder once the injured party reaches the rebuy screen.

This rebuy penalty should be assessed across ALL player ED accounts and platforms.

If they're still unable to pay, then suspend their Open privileges. Restrict their access across all accounts to Solo. Where they have to earn/grind credits to pay off their transgression for unprovoked and unwanted PvP interaction.

Never going to happen. In the whole history of this game, Frontier have not made one single change that prevents a player interdicting and destroying another player's ship in open. Not one. Why would they start now?

Also, banning a user from online play in a game with no official rules on player killing? Nope, also not happening.

I don't know what game you're wanting to play, but it's very much apparent that open play in ED isn't your thing. Maybe stop worrying about it and concentrate on something you enjoy.

 

[Valorin]

Another mega-thread is born, raised from the ashes of all the other mega-threads about griefing...
And still, it can't be discussed or denied: griefers are just not worth talking about.

 

[LanceLord]

Yeah. But one can hope for improvements to game balancing right?

I'll argue that it may be possible for FDev to add a flag? to a Cmnder's ship if you take certain NPC station missions. As long as said missions do NOT involve transport of criminal NPCs, NPCs paranoid to being scanned, political refugees (like the systems/factions to which you're delivering said refugees are at war or hostile relations), transport of illicit/illegal cargo like slaves and other prohibited substances etc etc. Which would justify interdiction and/or attack by PP faction Cmnders, or player Cmndera RPing bounty hunters, "white hat" PvP law enforcement/anti ganker Cmnders, pirates and/or criminal Cmnders.

For example: NPC missions which involve simple transport shuttling of neutral/law abiding tourists, business first class, and regular passengers between systems in the Bubble. And the long distance expeditions into deep space as well. if you accept a neutral trade/commercial mission like these, they a "passive" flag status would be attached to your ship (similar to how the wanted/illicit/illegal cargo status is assigned). When traveling, this passive flag would send out a "peaceful/neutral" signal alert to all Cmndrs and NPC pilots alike. If a Cmnder chooses to ignore it and attack another Cmnder with this status, then they would be financially penalized. And be responsible for paying all damages to the victim Cmnder ship if the Cmnder makes it to their destination. Or refund 100% of the victim Cmnder ship rebuy insurance if ship is destroyed.

 

[Babaa Yaga]

The correct response would be to dip two fingers into your own blood, and drag lines across your face as you let naked, furious rage guide your hand in pure white hot vengeance.

Seriously...that is one of the best replies that I have ever seen.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Seriously...that is one of the best replies that I have ever seen.

It was a furious avenging reply.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Yeah. But one can hope for improvements to game balancing right?

I'll argue that it may be possible for FDev to add a flag? to a Cmnder's ship if you take certain NPC station missions. As long as said missions do NOT involve transport of criminal NPCs, NPCs paranoid to being scanned, political refugees (like the systems/factions to which you're delivering said refugees are at war or hostile relations), transport of illicit/illegal cargo like slaves and other prohibited substances etc etc. Which would justify interdiction and/or attack by PP faction Cmnders, or player Cmndera RPing bounty hunters, "white hat" PvP law enforcement/anti ganker Cmnders, pirates and/or criminal Cmnders.

For example: NPC missions which involve simple transport shuttling of neutral/law abiding tourists, business first class, and regular passengers between systems in the Bubble. And the long distance expeditions into deep space as well. if you accept a neutral trade/commercial mission like these, they a "passive" flag status would be attached to your ship (similar to how the wanted/illicit/illegal cargo status is assigned). When traveling, this passive flag would send out a "peaceful/neutral" signal alert to all Cmndrs and NPC pilots alike. If a Cmnder chooses to ignore it and attack another Cmnder with this status, then they would be financially penalized. And be responsible for paying all damages to the victim Cmnder ship if the Cmnder makes it to their destination. Or refund 100% of the victim Cmnder ship rebuy insurance if ship is destroyed.

The problem with this is you're not peaceful or neutral if you take a mission that undermines the influence of my faction or boosts the influence of another faction. This is the way with every player having an impact on faction influence.

Also, you need to explain how this system diffentiates between you, a squadron of players who are uninvolved with anything happening in my system and a squadron of players actively working against my faction. If everyone is clean, and running missions, does that mean no one can touch each other, even if they wanted to? What you're suggesting would make it very difficult for players involved supporting a faction via BGS.

Even commodities are difficult to work into this system. I could be transporting something useful that's in demand, or I could be selling at a loss to damage the controlling system influence, or bringing in thousands of tons of biowaste over time to force an outbreak state. Additionally, with different commodities being having different legal states in the same system sometimes, how do you decide where someone can be blown up for transporting illegal goods? At point of collection and sales, these could be legal, but they could be illegal in most of the rest of the system.

What this wouldn't do is balance things. Potentially you could even bring in a load of exploits for players to use. I think Frontier haven't implemented anything because whatever they do, someone will find an exploit or workaround, or the system would be so restrictive that it would cease to be enjoyable.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yeah. But one can hope for improvements to game balancing right?

I'll argue that it may be possible for FDev to add a flag? to a Cmnder's ship if you take certain NPC station missions. As long as said missions do NOT involve transport of criminal NPCs, NPCs paranoid to being scanned, political refugees (like the systems/factions to which you're delivering said refugees are at war or hostile relations), transport of illicit/illegal cargo like slaves and other prohibited substances etc etc. Which would justify interdiction and/or attack by PP faction Cmnders, or player Cmndera RPing bounty hunters, "white hat" PvP law enforcement/anti ganker Cmnders, pirates and/or criminal Cmnders.

For example: NPC missions which involve simple transport shuttling of neutral/law abiding tourists, business first class, and regular passengers between systems in the Bubble. And the long distance expeditions into deep space as well. if you accept a neutral trade/commercial mission like these, they a "passive" flag status would be attached to your ship (similar to how the wanted/illicit/illegal cargo status is assigned). When traveling, this passive flag would send out a "peaceful/neutral" signal alert to all Cmndrs and NPC pilots alike. If a Cmnder chooses to ignore it and attack another Cmnder with this status, then they would be financially penalized. And be responsible for paying all damages to the victim Cmnder ship if the Cmnder makes it to their destination. Or refund 100% of the victim Cmnder ship rebuy insurance if ship is destroyed.

The problem then becomes that C + P is massively abstracted and convoluted. Whats needed is a C + P thats as near universal as possible that is flexible and allows through player skill either safety or risk. I had an idea for security response times to be based on the proximity to convoy routes, stations or other defined SC areas- this would then have sec forces pop up almost instantly in high sec areas making ganking harder- it also puts the onus on the pilot to a) build a decent ship b) choose its flight path wisely and c) fly defensively. This allows choice in a logical way, promotes skill growth as well as promoting good use of ship building and engineering. No abstract rules required.

 

[Rick6549]

I've already proposed a simple solution in a similar PvPer crying salt thread post.

There needs to be significant penalties and punishment for Cmnders who make a point of hostile engaging:

• non PP faction players
• players without a wanted/bounty criminal status
• players not carrying illicit/illegal cargo
• non hostile players queuing to access star ports/planetary bases who are minding their own business and/or who clearly indicate on comm they're not interested in engagement
• non PP faction players who are clearly doing sand box exploration. And so only have exploration data as the valuable commodity on their ship which can't be acquired or profited from by a hostile engagement encounter
• n00b players and particularly the obvious ones who are broke with low combat/explorer/trader ranks in starter Sideys
• non hostile players with an empty cargo hold
• non hostile players who are non hostile/neutral/independent non PP players flying non combat/commercial vessels. i.e. the likes of a tourist ship like a Dophin/Orca (not Belugia as this has fighter capability), or transporting business/economy passengers within the Bubble.

Basically any non hostile player not of a PP faction, lacking wanted status, and/or not carrying illegal cargo to justify hostile interdiction by NPCs.

If a ganker engages i.e. deliberately tries to provoke PvP e.g. from passive aggressive ramming, to outright attacking another peaceful player for unprovoked reasons, then they should be responsible for paying 100% of ALL ship damages/rebuy cost AND whatever lost cargo to their victim Cmnder once the injured party reaches the rebuy screen.

This rebuy penalty should be assessed across all player ED accounts and platforms.

If they're still unable to pay, then suspend their Open privileges. Restrict their access across all accounts to Solo. Where they have to earn/grind credits to pay off their transgression for unprovoked and unwanted PvP interaction.

That would be a start on re-directing the griefers to ganking their own kind. Blowing up a neutral PP Cmnder who is trying to make a living RPing as a space trucker/space Uber flying a harmless Orca/Dolphin around the galaxy. Just for the lulz. Just because a PvP Cmnder has the OP engineered ship capability and/or need to compensate for something they're lacking irl.

Until FDev address the game imbalance in Open thanks to this sort of PvP ganker tomf*ckery, us PvErs will remain in PvE friendly PGs and/or Solo. Period.

Sorry but you cant tell if someone is a bad person because they blew up your pretend spaceship. And you cant put yourself on some high horse like youre some kind of shining beacon of truth and light because you dont feel like blowing up someones pretend spaceship. And (im not suposed to tell you this) but ganking isnt against the rules, you dont have to have a reason other than you feel like it. If you dont want to face the risk of being blown up, play in pg/solo. Honestly, how people think they can judge someone based on what they do in a video game astounds me

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

We're edging ever closer to the gankers are bad people in real life phase of the thread, I see.

 

[Rick6549]

We're edging ever closer to the gankers are bad people in real life phase of the thread, I see.

Soon we'll hit the bgs open only thing

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

Soon we'll hit the bgs open only thing

I'd settle for Powerplay being open-only.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

I'd settle for Powerplay being open-only.

Shhhh! Did you not see Rubbernuke posting.

 

[Ethaidan]

I've already proposed a simple solution in a similar PvPer crying salt thread post.

There needs to be significant penalties and punishment for Cmnders who make a point of hostile engaging:

• non PP faction players
• players without a wanted/bounty criminal status
• players not carrying illicit/illegal cargo
• non hostile players queuing to access star ports/planetary bases who are minding their own business and/or who clearly indicate on comm they're not interested in engagement
• non PP faction players who are clearly doing sand box exploration. And so only have exploration data as the valuable commodity on their ship which can't be acquired or profited from by a hostile engagement encounter
• n00b players and particularly the obvious ones who are broke with low combat/explorer/trader ranks in starter Sideys
• non hostile players with an empty cargo hold
• non hostile players who are non hostile/neutral/independent non PP players flying non combat/commercial vessels. i.e. the likes of a tourist ship like a Dophin/Orca (not Belugia as this has fighter capability), or transporting business/economy passengers within the Bubble.

Basically any non hostile player not of a PP faction, lacking wanted status, and/or not carrying illegal cargo to justify hostile interdiction by NPCs.

If a ganker engages i.e. deliberately tries to provoke PvP e.g. from passive aggressive ramming, to outright attacking another peaceful player for unprovoked reasons, then they should be responsible for paying 100% of ALL ship damages/rebuy cost AND whatever lost cargo to their victim Cmnder once the injured party reaches the rebuy screen.

This rebuy penalty should be assessed across all player ED accounts and platforms.

If they're still unable to pay, then suspend their Open privileges. Restrict their access across all accounts to Solo. Where they have to earn/grind credits to pay off their transgression for unprovoked and unwanted PvP interaction.

That would be a start on re-directing the griefers to ganking their own kind. Blowing up a neutral PP Cmnder who is trying to make a living RPing as a space trucker/space Uber flying a harmless Orca/Dolphin around the galaxy. Just for the lulz. Just because a PvP Cmnder has the OP engineered ship capability and/or need to compensate for something they're lacking irl.

Until FDev address the game imbalance in Open thanks to this sort of PvP ganker tomf*ckery, us PvErs will remain in PvE friendly PGs and/or Solo. Period.

Well done, quite possibly the most absurd suggestion to date about PvP, complete with an impossible list and ridiculous penalties. So, you'd have FDev completely undermine the BGS as a reason for conflict, and completely eradicate the possibility of piracy from the game? Good luck with that.

 

[LanceLord]

The problem with this is you're not peaceful or neutral if you take a mission that undermines the influence of my faction or boosts the influence of another faction. This is the way with every player having an impact on faction influence.

Also, you need to explain how this system diffentiates between you, a squadron of players who are uninvolved with anything happening in my system and a squadron of players actively working against my faction. If everyone is clean, and running missions, does that mean no one can touch each other, even if they wanted to? What you're suggesting would make it very difficult for players involved supporting a faction via BGS.

Even commodities are difficult to work into this system. I could be transporting something useful that's in demand, or I could be selling at a loss to damage the controlling system influence, or bringing in thousands of tons of biowaste over time to force an outbreak state. Additionally, with different commodities being having different legal states in the same system sometimes, how do you decide where someone can be blown up for transporting illegal goods? At point of collection and sales, these could be legal, but they could be illegal in most of the rest of the system.

What this wouldn't do is balance things. Potentially you could even bring in a load of exploits for players to use. I think Frontier haven't implemented anything because whatever they do, someone will find an exploit or workaround, or the system would be so restrictive that it would cease to be enjoyable.

All very valid points. It seems the only solution is to maintain the separation of church and state. PvP players will happily remain playing in Open. PvE players will happily remain playing in PG and/or Solo. Problem resolved. Now if someone could get the memo out to the OP (and any other PvPers who insist on posting illogical pro PvP arguments as to why their way of game play is most valid), this thread would've been completely unnecessary.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

The starter systems should come with the understanding that you're in there because you're a new player and this is a chance to learn with lesser consequences. It should also be apparent from that where you have such a space, outside it will be dangerous. From what I understand it's not an area that encourages players to stay beyond when they've worked out the basics either.

As for explorers asking for credits being refunded for rebuys. PvPers did the same thing.

Starter systems have been patched because the same gank apologists gave poor reason for murderhobos in Eravate to be allowed. Before that they used the same arguments they're making now for CGs and Deciat or whatever hotspot.

They've been proven wrong already. And in the forums those are the same old people. Another proof that the genepool is stagnating. They should git gud at preserving muh gameplay before 2020.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Only thing unnannounced shooting of other players is going to do in BGS wise is to drive them doing business in Solo or PG. Say I have a mission, someone unceremoniously interdicts me and starts shooting without further talk. I high wake. And then log into solo. And do that mission anyways. But if someone nicely contacts me and explains local situation and what they are doing I might be symphatetic, and ditch that mission. With first way there is pretty little chance for that, as you may need to be quite fast to prevent my Cutter from highwaking away.

 

[Screemonster]

I've already proposed a simple solution in a similar PvPer crying salt thread post.

There needs to be significant penalties and punishment for Cmnders who make a point of hostile engaging:

• non PP faction players
• players without a wanted/bounty criminal status
• players not carrying illicit/illegal cargo
• non hostile players queuing to access star ports/planetary bases who are minding their own business and/or who clearly indicate on comm they're not interested in engagement
• non PP faction players who are clearly doing sand box exploration. And so only have exploration data as the valuable commodity on their ship which can't be acquired or profited from by a hostile engagement encounter
• n00b players and particularly the obvious ones who are broke with low combat/explorer/trader ranks in starter Sideys
• non hostile players with an empty cargo hold
• non hostile players who are non hostile/neutral/independent non PP players flying non combat/commercial vessels. i.e. the likes of a tourist ship like a Dophin/Orca (not Belugia as this has fighter capability), or transporting business/economy passengers within the Bubble.

Basically any non hostile player not of a PP faction, lacking wanted status, and/or not carrying illegal cargo to justify hostile interdiction by NPCs.

If a ganker engages i.e. deliberately tries to provoke PvP e.g. from passive aggressive ramming, to outright attacking another peaceful player for unprovoked reasons, then they should be responsible for paying 100% of ALL ship damages/rebuy cost AND whatever lost cargo to their victim Cmnder once the injured party reaches the rebuy screen.

This rebuy penalty should be assessed across all player ED accounts and platforms.

If they're still unable to pay, then suspend their Open privileges. Restrict their access across all accounts to Solo. Where they have to earn/grind credits to pay off their transgression for unprovoked and unwanted PvP interaction.

That would be a start on re-directing the griefers to ganking their own kind. Blowing up a neutral PP Cmnder who is trying to make a living RPing as a space trucker/space Uber flying a harmless Orca/Dolphin around the galaxy. Just for the lulz. Just because a PvP Cmnder has the OP engineered ship capability and/or need to compensate for something they're lacking irl.

Until FDev address the game imbalance in Open thanks to this sort of PvP ganker tomf*ckery, us PvErs will remain in PvE friendly PGs and/or Solo. Period.

I've come out in favour of some kind of PvP-flagging system with a short list of criteria to determine whether you're protected or not, and while you've got some workable things in this laundry list, there's wat too much "wut" in there for me to support this. Like... "non hostile players queuing to access star ports/planetary bases who are minding their own business and/or who clearly indicate on comm they're not interested in engagement" - how on earth is the game supposed to determine that? These are the kind of rules you could expect to enforce on a garrysmod darkRP server with active human moderation, and Elite is absolutely not that sort of game. You think FDEV have the time or resources to sit and trawl through god knows how many angry reports and trawl through the dead player's comms history to make sure they actually did say "NO KILL I" over comms before exploding? Handling ahelps on a 40-player SS13 server is hectic enough, never mind a game on the scale of ED.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

I'd still say heftier tiered law enforcement would clean up things massively. Say like authorities would not be overly interested on some doing piracy. But piracy&murder would be wholly different thing. BGS wise, if system is NOT in war, blowing up clean other players would bring authority hammer down very fast. Also make serious crimes affect very hard your stance around non anarchistic factions. Superpower wide kill on sight orders, and rank demotions for serious criminal acts. In sense make galaxy work more realistic way. That kind of forces proper roleplay on players too. Systems in war status may demand on arrival you to declare what side you are in conflict, and you will take risk from other sides commanders, you know doing business in warzone is dangerous. Kind of whole system would be one giant combat zone on that regard.