PvP consequences mechanics and combat logging.

[CMDR Mr S]

Hey FD, I kind of sort of noticed that there is a lot of issues with people complaining about 'combat logging'... I will take this out of the obscure reddit post where I have put it and slap it in here, you never know who might read it. I think the issue (e.g. 'combat logging') might be partially fixed with heftier sanctions for murderes. Like you kill a CMDR, you get actively chased down by police and bounty hunters. A LOT. Elite wings and the like. That would bring down the number of people who kill others 'for the lulz'... Kind of like what happens in real life, you kill somebody publicly, there's a good chance police will arrest you and you'll spend the rest of your days in jail.

Now, I see the combat log issue as generated by players that go around and kill others for fun, without a reason. I have been attacked out of the blue by CMDRs without a word of warning while bountyhunting in a RES... I have never combatlogged but I can see why somebody would go, if given the chance, especially if the scenario becomes a 4on1 kind of thing. That's space gang- , not fair play.

So, I think the application of game mechanics that properly prosecute such behavior from players might dissuade anybody who lightly kills other players. You could set rules such as:

A player kills a player of his same faction/power (in his faction territory): (faction and) bounty hunters get on his tail

A player kills a player of an opposed faction/power (in the opposed faction territory): (opp. faction and) bounty hunters get on his tail

A player kills a player with no faction: whatever faction/power sec forces and bounty hunters get on the murderer's

All of the above for a length of time variable, as variable should be the intensity of the reaction, based on the forces ratio (people who gang- should get beaten more than people who go 1on1), so if at the time of the killing the player was in a wing of 4 against 1 player he will get 4 time the probability to get stopped by bountyhunter, faction/power emissaries, and faction/power security.

In brief, something like what happens when you fail missions should happen, just A LOT more aggressive and challenging. That would make people take PvP a lot more seriously. As, IMHO, should be. As a result, PvP should diminish to only when necessary (e.g. assassination, encounters during undermining/powerplay missions etc) minimizing the random 4on1 things and the combat logging issue.

It is a long shot but I thought the mechanic could be interesting.

EDIT: I am now seeing the gang- word has been censored. Wasn't my intention to be offensive but I have no other words to express how I feel about that event happening.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Hahahahahahahahahahha!

not fair play.

In what reality do you feel any part of the galaxy is supposed to enforce fair play?

Excluding the obvious cheat or exploit (for example, combat logging), ED is a cutthroat galaxy and nothing about that is supposed to be 'fair'. If you get killed by a wing of four, you've nobody to blame but yourself for clicking the Open button. CMDRs will kill who they please for whatever reason pleases them and dealing with that is just part of the gameplay of open.

---

That being said, crime and punishment is a joke and security needs to seriously crack down on repeat criminals. With this much I agree fully.
Your specific suggestion though is harsh on accidental hauler splatting docking mishaps. So there should definitely be a scaling element involved.

 

[CMDR Mr S]

Hahahahahahahahahahha!


In what reality do you feel any part of the galaxy is supposed to enforce fair play?

Excluding the obvious cheat or exploit (for example, combat logging), ED is a cutthroat galaxy and nothing about that is supposed to be 'fair'. If you get killed by a wing of four, you've nobody to blame but yourself for clicking the Open button. CMDRs will kill who they please for whatever reason pleases them and dealing with that is just part of the gameplay of open.

---

That being said, crime and punishment is a joke and security needs to seriously crack down on repeat criminals. With this much I agree fully.
Your specific suggestion though is harsh on accidental hauler splatting docking mishaps. So there should definitely be a scaling element involved.

Yes, the galaxy is a dangerous place, thank you CMDR Obvious.

Still I would not think the same persons that go around and kill everybody in ED do the same in real life, and that's because in real life there are consequences, ED presents next to no consequences for 'serial killers' so I was just suggesting those should get some in-game stick from the game itself, unless FD wants new players to be scared away from the game for the amount of ganking that goes on.

And I'm not saying the game should enforce fair play, I'm saying that in AD 3302 serial murderers should be easy target for police, defence forces and bounty hunters. Heck if you get 2 FDL following and trying to kill you for not completing a mission you should get a swarm of elite bountyhunters and police after killing several commanders, especially if it was a group thing.

However, can we focus on the game mechanic I'm trying to propose, instead of transforming this into a griefing/ethics conversation?

Thank you very much.

 

[Hooplah]

Combat logging as I see it is possible if the player disconnects from the internet as in pulling out the RJ-45 cable. Even doing this I wonder if the 15 second timer is still counting down on his ship in-game. It seems that removing the connection might just mean no further commands being transmitted by the player. Just a guess.

Leaving combat by logout/login is acceptable game play with the 15 second delay before activating. That is why the timer was added so as to not restrict the player's usage of logging at any time. Maybe it is frowned upon but that does not make it an exploit or cheating. Aggressors will just have to take their targets out faster versus punishing a player for a game option available to them.

Killing for no reason is probably frowned upon as well. But there is nothing that says there has to be any kind of reason. Make up rules of proper combat etiquette? Go ahead, have a blast. Getting players to honor them? Some will, some won't. Getting FD to make game changes to enforce them? No thanks.

 

[CMDR Mr S]

Well as much as I do not condemn it when the ragequitter is not the one that initiated combat and is being picked on by griefers, combat logging IS an exploit. All you have to do is kill your elitedangerous.exe process and you magically vanish out of the game. That should NOT be allowed, as you would not have that option in reality.

Then, what I was suggesting is just that people who murder people (including me, I've killed my fair share of Commanders) should face harsher consequences. Especially when failing a mission puts high-level ships on your tail for a week or so, but then killing a Commander (affiliated with a major galactic power and/or a minor faction) does not. It is just this that does not make sense to me. Powers and factions should offer protection to people that affiliate themselves to them.

Currently power play only gives me the weekly bonus and access to the special weapon, but aside from that, Powerplay is 'transparent' to my game.

This said, I am really enjoying the discussion. Please keep on posting.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

unless FD wants new players to be scared away from the game for the amount of ganking that goes on.

You're failing to see the point. The point is not 'we need to get a grip on griefers!'. The point is that when the new player clicks that open play button they need to understand that this galaxy will not be fair or nice to them. Herein lies the issue. No amount of cracking down on serial murders is going to fix this deficiency.

So as much as you may not like the idea, this is very much a discussion about griefing and ethics.

 

[CMDR Mr S]

OK then.

 

[Malactus]

You're failing to see the point. The point is not 'we need to get a grip on griefers!'. The point is that when the new player clicks that open play button they need to understand that this galaxy will not be fair or nice to them. Herein lies the issue. No amount of cracking down on serial murders is going to fix this deficiency.

So as much as you may not like the idea, this is very much a discussion about griefing and ethics.

It also works both ways: if a griefer is being chased by players for shooting down newbs, the griefer should also lose his ship . Because they also use combat log right now.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

You're failing to see the point. The point is not 'we need to get a grip on griefers!'. The point is that when the new player clicks that open play button they need to understand that this galaxy will not be fair or nice to them. Herein lies the issue. No amount of cracking down on serial murders is going to fix this deficiency.

So as much as you may not like the idea, this is very much a discussion about griefing and ethics.

I wouldn't disagree that this is about ethics.
Question is, what to do about it. However a certain % of the community feel about it, SOME of the community are here to explore, trade and mine and EXPECT (and rightly so, they're paying customers too) to be able to do so in a vaguely safe manner.
The game as is has frankly too little discouragement for players who are more than happy to run up a bounty, whether that's by targetting players or other trading vessels.

If the game were to stop "trade" players from avoiding combat, it's fairly obvious that said player will:
- Stick to solo mode and thus the chance to interact with other like minded players
- Leave the game entirely
I've got to ask, is this what some players want to happen? Do remember that all players are funding the development of the game, not just the combat oriented players.

IMO, the optimum solution would be a serious overhaul of the laws, as applied in game, meaning that there's significantly more consequence of breaking the law. I put a post up in the suggestions forum about anti-piracy. Do that, you might well bring more players into "open" play.

 

[Politenessman]

Hahahahahahahahahahha!


In what reality do you feel any part of the galaxy is supposed to enforce fair play?

Yep. the Insurance companies. You kill a CMDR who isn't wanted, isn't carrying cargo (to allow for piracy), isn't outside his factional boundaries and isn't doing anything that makes him "fair game" within the game, you are not just wanted, the insurance companies cancel your coverage for a week, 2nd time a month, etc etc - lock it to the player, not the specific ship and pretty soon the problem starts to sort itself out.
No matter how cutthroat the galaxy is, no insurance company would carry the risk of insuring the ships of a murderer.

However, you could go a step further and outlaw (in the Medieval sense) the repeat offender, it puts him outside all of the protections of law - no one may trade with him, sell to him, assist him, provide shelter, supplies or repairs.
The fact is the "open" game is becoming toxic and if Frontier want to get more players to play, they need to start taking steps to clean it up, because it is hard to convince people to buy a game that must be connected to the net, just so they can play solo.

 

[CMDR Mr S]

Needless to say, I like the last two or three posts. And the point Plitenessman was making does make sense. Open is becoming toxic, leaving people that might want to play a social game with the only option of playing a single-player game, unless they are willing to get torn to shreds every 5 minutes by griefers...

 

[Psycho Romeo]

If the game were to stop "trade" players from avoiding combat, it's fairly obvious that said player will:
- Stick to solo mode and thus the chance to interact with other like minded players
- Leave the game entirely
I've got to ask, is this what some players want to happen? Do remember that all players are funding the development of the game, not just the combat oriented players.

Are you aware of private groups, and group modes? Mobius, etc?

isn't doing anything that makes him "fair game" within the game

Every pilot that clicks Open Play immediately becomes fair game. This is what the newbs need to understand when they click the button, and this is what will solve the problem. Amending laws will just make the problem less frequent (which may end up making each occurrence that much louder).

Open is becoming toxic, leaving people that might want to play a social game with the only option of playing a single-player game, unless they are willing to get torn to shreds every 5 minutes by griefers...

The galaxy is toxic. The galaxy and everyone in it are trying to kill you. This is the danger that attracts many of the people who are happy with open to open. If open is a little much for you [the player], then perhaps something easier might be better. Such as any of the rather popular peaceful groups out there.

--

Ramping up the consequence for crime would be great. It does not address the problem of 'griefers', as you put it.

 

[Muffet]

Sincerely, i don't see your point of wanting all that changed while you yourself murder dozens to get your powerplay ranking. Players are not any more especial than the npc ships you killed for those merits, and are technically more human inside the game than you.

Not that this discussion will go anywhere by your mindset of "I don't like the opinions of those that don't agree with me =<".
But the assurance that things won't be changed like you want is good enough for me, the developers gave you tools to never have this happen to you, so use them.
What else, do you actively affect powerplay by undermining and such while in solo? Or just combat-log when players of that faction wants to defend the system/interdicts you from deliviring defenses?

 

[Politenessman]

Are you aware of private groups, and group modes? Mobius, etc?


Every pilot that clicks Open Play immediately becomes fair game. This is what the newbs need to understand when they click the button, and this is what will solve the problem. Amending laws will just make the problem less frequent (which may end up making each occurrence that much louder).


The galaxy is toxic. The galaxy and everyone in it are trying to kill you. This is the danger that attracts many of the people who are happy with open to open. If open is a little much for you [the player], then perhaps something easier might be better. Such as any of the rather popular peaceful groups out there.

--

Ramping up the consequence for crime would be great. It does not address the problem of 'griefers', as you put it.

And this attitude is exactly what will kill the game, why would a newbie join in knowing that they are considered fair game and there are few if any consequences to killing them. All I'm suggesting is moderate consequences for your actions, lose your insurance coverage - surely a big tough hero who goes looking for newbies to kill can accept that the insurance companies won't cover them once they have done it? or perhaps you want it to stay nice and easy?

Without more players joining, natural attrition as players move on to other games, means the money to develop the game and even run the servers runs out and once the game gets a solid reputation for being toxic, no amount of changes will change the reputation.

 

[DanaM]

And this attitude is exactly what will kill the game, why would a newbie join in knowing that they are considered fair game and there are few if any consequences to killing them. All I'm suggesting is moderate consequences for your actions, lose your insurance coverage - surely a big tough hero who goes looking for newbies to kill can accept that the insurance companies won't cover them once they have done it? or perhaps you want it to stay nice and easy?

Without more players joining, natural attrition as players move on to other games, means the money to develop the game and even run the servers runs out and once the game gets a solid reputation for being toxic, no amount of changes will change the reputation.

I disagree. I got my type 6 blown up in open and switched to solo. I'm happy. If I wanted interaction with less risk, there are plenty of private groups available. The game even allows me to create my own. I agree with Psycho Romeo that open should be as "open" and wild and dangerous as it evolves to be. I'll go back from time to time. Glad to know it's there in it's unsanitized form when I want it.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Are you aware of private groups, and group modes? Mobius, etc?
.

I'm very aware of Mobius and am a member.
Does that make a difference to me voicing an opinion?

Furthermore, just which player group do you think should have more right to "Open"?
Remember that I could put this the other way around, i.e. why isn't there a PvP group, or for that matter, why don't they keep to CQC, which was after all built for the purpose.

 

[SuBSynk]

And this attitude is exactly what will kill the game, why would a newbie join in knowing that they are considered fair game and there are few if any consequences to killing them. All I'm suggesting is moderate consequences for your actions, lose your insurance coverage - surely a big tough hero who goes looking for newbies to kill can accept that the insurance companies won't cover them once they have done it? or perhaps you want it to stay nice and easy?

Without more players joining, natural attrition as players move on to other games, means the money to develop the game and even run the servers runs out and once the game gets a solid reputation for being toxic, no amount of changes will change the reputation.

A "newbie" will not and should not feel safe in open play, no-one should feel safe in open play! It is supposed to be a cutthroat galaxy! There already are "moderate" consequences for murder and the concept of insurance going up when you are murdering others makes no sense, logically & lore wise why would it increase...?

The only thing "killing" the game is the people that seem to want to argue, complain then progress to being toxic about the state of open play... If you want a safe journey through this cut throat Galaxy go Solo/Private mode, if you can accept danger may strike at any moment from random players who's actions you cannot control then go open play. There are no servers to run, costs are incredibly low and FD broke even at around 300k units sold. We are now around 1.3 mill units sold. The game is far from dead but people are most definitely being put off by the PvP vs PvE dynamic which is unique in its attempts to police a "openworld" environment and create bizarre restrictions to game-play.

The rep of Elite being toxic is growing and it is due to the completely over the top commander reactions to PvP, death and losing credits in a game based around exactly that!

Most games its GL HF & GG, in Elite its "non consensual PvP = "griefer" ..a very sad state of affairs.

 

[Perseus]

I'm very aware of Mobius and am a member.
Does that make a difference to me voicing an opinion?

Furthermore, just which player group do you think should have more right to "Open"?
Remember that I could put this the other way around, i.e. why isn't there a PvP group, or for that matter, why don't they keep to CQC, which was after all built for the purpose.

With respect, it's called 'open' so I think the group with the right to play it should be open players. The tags for PvP or PvE are essentially meaningless and part of a larger gaming conflict around playing style.
OPEN . . .The very name itself indicates that experiences and actions are across the spectrum of possible human interaction. This paranoia about open being some mindless bloodbath is a fallacy. FD have decided that the game is about space borne pilots trying to survive in a cold, uncaring galaxy. They also put modes in to give players a choice about whether they want the possibility to have random PC encounters or control or omit this completely. Why does there need to be a special PvP group while open exists? It flies in the face of the multi player/blaze your own trail/cut throat galaxy concept that has been promoted as quintessentially ED.

This demand for a specialised PvP group seems to be nothing more than an attempt by the hardcore PvE advocates to change the overall game style flavour; divorced from the overall ethos and thereby making it a sort of victory in the long running war between these two play styles. I understand some people want a wide player base where PC aggression isn't a risk, maybe as a way to endorse peaceful co operation, but this dilutes the core concept of ED. Combat is a part of the game, and whether PC or NPC in nature, the game needs it to work.
Real person risk is a personal choice in the game. Want to play without risk of aggressive PC actions? Go solo, make a group or join the immensely popular and successful Mobius group. Seems like the folks at FD thought about it well in advance of the games release.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

With respect, it's called 'open' so I think the group with the right to play it should be open players. The tags for PvP or PvE are essentially meaningless and part of a larger gaming conflict around playing style.
OPEN . . .The very name itself indicates that experiences and actions are across the spectrum of possible human interaction. This paranoia about open being some mindless bloodbath is a fallacy. FD have decided that the game is about space borne pilots trying to survive in a cold, uncaring galaxy. They also put modes in to give players a choice about whether they want the possibility to have random PC encounters or control or omit this completely. Why does there need to be a special PvP group while open exists? It flies in the face of the multi player/blaze your own trail/cut throat galaxy concept that has been promoted as quintessentially ED.

This demand for a specialised PvP group seems to be nothing more than an attempt by the hardcore PvE advocates to change the overall game style flavour; divorced from the overall ethos and thereby making it a sort of victory in the long running war between these two play styles. I understand some people want a wide player base where PC aggression isn't a risk, maybe as a way to endorse peaceful co operation, but this dilutes the core concept of ED. Combat is a part of the game, and whether PC or NPC in nature, the game needs it to work.
Real person risk is a personal choice in the game. Want to play without risk of aggressive PC actions? Go solo, make a group or join the immensely popular and successful Mobius group. Seems like the folks at FD thought about it well in advance of the games release.

And whilst I understand your opinion, that is CLEARLY not the view of everyone. If it was, solo mode, Mobius, and other similar groups would not exist.
My preferred solution would be to have appropriate laws/rules in the game that seriously discourages piracy and random acts of violence. In the meantime, have a bit of empathy towards the other elements of the player base.

 

[Perseus]

And whilst I understand your opinion, that is CLEARLY not the view of everyone. If it was, solo mode, Mobius, and other similar groups would not exist.
My preferred solution would be to have appropriate laws/rules in the game that seriously discourages piracy and random acts of violence. In the meantime, have a bit of empathy towards the other elements of the player base.

I know it's not the view of everyone and so does FD. The mode options are indicative of this.
I agree that the crime system needs serious work but not to the detriment of the essential game. It's a tough balancing act, no doubt about it, and there will always be people who are not happy.
The fact that different modes exist is an indication that FD know there are some players who have no desire to interact with other people as well as those who would play with selected players - whatever the group criteria for that was. However, they made open as it is for a reason, probably as part of their vision. Rightly or wrongly, all the modes allow a player to interact with the galaxy in the same way so there is no issue in this respect. The problem, as I said in my initial post, is this ancient conflict between PvP and PvE extremists who want their camp established as the primary or official focus of open. Neither of them are! PC interaction, in basically all it's spectrum, is possible in open mode and controllable in the other modes. That in itself is very telling of the obvious marketing strategy of ED.
A bit unfair of you to ask me to have empathy towards all the player base as I already do. I don't have empathy for any group that seeks to impose it's play style on everyone. As Psycho Romeo put it, no one is forcing you to select open mode, especially as other options exist.