Ramming - Yes there is a solution!
- Thread starter Acaelus Thorn
- Start date
This is equivalent to saying "Yes it can. Magic will do it". Only one more variable? Maybe, but how do you arrive at setting a vlue for that variable?
It is not possible to determine a persons intent from what happens in the game.
Say I ram into you. How does the game know whether I did it accidentally or on purpose? Simple answer : it doesnt.
Was I moving and you stationary? No problem, I pull in front of you and stop. You rammed me, but thats not your intent is it?
Was I moving faster than you when I rammed you? Simple, I just move slower than you when i hit you. Then it becomes your fault, but thats not your intent is it?
Did i cause most damage? thats just a function of ship size, speed and shields, nothing to do with intent.
There is no way for the game to prove intent, and without me telling it, it cant.
EDIT : ninja'd.
Last edited:
Well, this...
OP, take a glance at the poll in my sig if you want. I reckon it was quite "neutral", despite me being strongly convinced the nerf was terrible (at the time, at least).
I like Ramming the way it is. (I am a griefer!)
Or if it wasn't such a biased poll: "It doesn't affect me and I don't really care."
Right.
Or if it wasn't such a biased poll: "It doesn't affect me and I don't really care."
Right.
Last edited:
As much as the OP calls for a constructive thread, the comment in the bracket of choosing "Ramming should stay as it is," is provocative for a purpose. Since you are allowed to utilize that sort of sentiment and does indeed employ it as a nomological clause in your argument, I shall do the same.
Learn how to dodge ramming and put pips into shields. There is no reason for you to die to ramming whatsoever unless you do not know how to fly or corner yourself into a situation that allows the former to form an exception.
Learn how to dodge ramming and put pips into shields. There is no reason for you to die to ramming whatsoever unless you do not know how to fly or corner yourself into a situation that allows the former to form an exception.
This. I've only ever experienced it a few times in months of gaming and it really doesn't bother me. Even when I got dive bombed a while back the experience added an interesting dynamic to my slaving run. People need to stop the whining, its pathetic.
A far more important issue in the game is exploiting and hacking. I think that is far more worthy of attention for those concerned about the game
Last edited:
While I'd like to see a solution, I don't want to end up out of pocket due to a complete accident that results in the destruction of another ship.
I have used boost after exiting a station to have another ship fly straight into me, it didn't just happen to be coming the other way, it flew across my path. Had I been travelling at normal speed, we would have barely missed each other but I was boosting which meant that it was pure miscalculation by the other ship's pilot. In my case, it was a NPC but it could just as well have been another player. How would the server know whether it was a deliberate act by me to ram the ship or not?
On other occasions, due to lack of visibility when exiting a station, I have collided with another ship entering. Again, a pure accident caused by the mechanics of the game but, under the proposed rules in this thread, I would be out of pocket due to it. The damage caused to my own ship due to this poor docking/undocking mechanic has already left me out of pocket, 2 slots, wider slots would solve this. Even a set of traffic lights would prevent it, providing the undocking time was increased significantly to allow for delays while waiting for others to enter.
No matter what the case, accidents do happen and if the one who survives is considered at fault, it allows players to to grief using a smaller ship and deliberately flying across the path of the larger one.
A far better suggestion would be to remove the ramming damage completely, even if it only took down your shields but did no physical damage to your ship, it would be far better. Then it would be impossible to destroy a ship by ramming it. Alternatively, a computer override that prevents ramming by reversing the engines briefly if it is attempted until the threat of collision has passed. We have cars now that can apply brakes for you if it detects a chance of collision, we would expect no less in a thousand years time.
I have used boost after exiting a station to have another ship fly straight into me, it didn't just happen to be coming the other way, it flew across my path. Had I been travelling at normal speed, we would have barely missed each other but I was boosting which meant that it was pure miscalculation by the other ship's pilot. In my case, it was a NPC but it could just as well have been another player. How would the server know whether it was a deliberate act by me to ram the ship or not?
On other occasions, due to lack of visibility when exiting a station, I have collided with another ship entering. Again, a pure accident caused by the mechanics of the game but, under the proposed rules in this thread, I would be out of pocket due to it. The damage caused to my own ship due to this poor docking/undocking mechanic has already left me out of pocket, 2 slots, wider slots would solve this. Even a set of traffic lights would prevent it, providing the undocking time was increased significantly to allow for delays while waiting for others to enter.
No matter what the case, accidents do happen and if the one who survives is considered at fault, it allows players to to grief using a smaller ship and deliberately flying across the path of the larger one.
A far better suggestion would be to remove the ramming damage completely, even if it only took down your shields but did no physical damage to your ship, it would be far better. Then it would be impossible to destroy a ship by ramming it. Alternatively, a computer override that prevents ramming by reversing the engines briefly if it is attempted until the threat of collision has passed. We have cars now that can apply brakes for you if it detects a chance of collision, we would expect no less in a thousand years time.
Last edited:
Argh! There's only bonedust left of this horse.
No foolproof detection can be implemented.
Don't put all your money in a huge pile of palladium.
And fly with your eyes open.
No foolproof detection can be implemented.
Don't put all your money in a huge pile of palladium.
And fly with your eyes open.
Assuming you're expecting to be rammed.
The only time it happened to me, I was flying a Vulture in a RES - 4 pips in weapons to maintain firepower - when a player in an Imperial Clipper showed up. We made one mutual close pass and inspection, then I headed off looking for new bounties and left him to go find his own-WHAM!
I'm down to nearly no shields, wondering what the heck happened, and see the Clipper on my scanner heading out from a close pass. "Wait a minute, did he really just deliberately-?"WHAM!
Down to 45% hull this time, I decide to just boost out and leave him to it - I don't willingly attack players and I had over a million credits ready to cash in. Even with full pips in engines no way is my Vulture getting clear of a Clipper anytime soon, and despite some slaloming around asteroids I take one more hit that knocks me to 1% hull, then I'm climbing out of the masslock to hit supercruise. Just as I finally engage my FSD he finishes me off with one laser shot.
Beyond being paranoid enough to put 4 pips into shields every time there's another player around under any circumstances, it's not always possible to avoid or anticipate a ramming attack.
Go off statistics
The game doesn't need to know who did the ramming in order to penalize griefers.
Any ship which is involved in significantly more ramming than other ships should be penalized severely.
Your average newbie may accidentally ram into 1 ship every 1-2 day. Maybe 2 ships.
A griefer is going to be involved in ramming much larger of ships.
The game already collects statistics about number of rams per day. Those at the top are banned.
Problem solved.
The game doesn't need to know who did the ramming in order to penalize griefers.
Any ship which is involved in significantly more ramming than other ships should be penalized severely.
Your average newbie may accidentally ram into 1 ship every 1-2 day. Maybe 2 ships.
A griefer is going to be involved in ramming much larger of ships.
The game already collects statistics about number of rams per day. Those at the top are banned.
Problem solved.
Snakebite
Banned
I Partly agree with the proposal, and here are my thoughts on the matter.
1) I agree it should be possible to determine who rammed who with reasonable accuracy (velocity and vector).
2) Ramming another ship should result in a fine.
3) Ramming another ship to the point that it causes damage should result in a higher fine and compensation to the damaged vessel.
4) Ramming another ship to the point that the ship is destroyed should result in a murder charge.
It seems pretty straightforward to me.
1) I agree it should be possible to determine who rammed who with reasonable accuracy (velocity and vector).
2) Ramming another ship should result in a fine.
3) Ramming another ship to the point that it causes damage should result in a higher fine and compensation to the damaged vessel.
4) Ramming another ship to the point that the ship is destroyed should result in a murder charge.
It seems pretty straightforward to me.
I agree that changes need to be made. I disagree with this analysis as to what the problem is and how to change it.
Ramming is a type of attack. The problem is that, currently speaking, the game does not treat it as an attack.
This has two negative consequences:
-------------------------------------
For Scenario 1:
I was using an Eagle to teach myself how to shoot straight, so I loaded up three fixed cannons and went NPC hunting. I interdicted an NPC pirate Cobra, and got into a good battle. That NPC could dodge. I manage to get him down to 5% hull when I ran out of ammo.
Around this time, system security arrived and started engaging the pirate. The pirate engaged them right back until his shields popped, at which point he engaged in evasive maneuvers. The system security couldn't touch him. The pirate's shield would come back. Then the cycle would repeat.
I managed to kill the NPC pirate by ramming it just as the system security popped its shields.
However: I did not receive any bounty for this.
-------------------------------------
For Scenario 2:
I recently moved from an under-populated area of space to a more heavily populated area. I went to a RES and started bounty hunting with other players for the first time, using my fully upgraded Viper. At first I really enjoyed having a Vulture and Fer-de-lance to watch as fellow bounty hunters. That's part of what I like about Open play: Just watching and enjoying the spectacle of other pilots doing their thing. They were in better ships than me and doing a better job than me. Gives me something to aim towards.
Then the Fer-de-lance started ramming me.
That Fer-de-lance could have just shot me out of the sky if they had wanted to do so. That would have incurred on them a negative bounty for attacking me, as I was not wanted in that system. This would have been fair play in my books. That's part of what makes playing Open exciting.
However, the Fer-de-lance was able to cause me significant hull damage in a couple of ramming attacks, while suffering no penalty. I had no recourse: I can't ram him back, because he's bigger than me. I can't open fire, because he's not wanted and there's a lot of system security around and I wouldn't survive the wanted status. So I decided to flee with 26% hull remaining. As my supercruise charged up, he shot me in the back.
Had he just opened fire on me fairly in such a way that I could fight back from the beginning, I would've been fine with that. I probably would have lost, but I would have enjoyed the challenge of trying to fight back and outmaneuver a skilled opponent in a more powerful ship. Particularly given that the system security would have been firing on him and not me, giving me an advantage, and I could have dodged a lot of fire in the asteroid field. Either way, win or lose, that would have been a fun encounter.
However, that's not what I got. Instead I got rammed down to 26% hull, then shot in the back when I tried to escape. Very unfair, and very unfun.
-------------------------------------
Both of these scenarios are broken because attack ramming is an attack that is not being treated like an attack.
The fix is to take ramming and treat it like an attack.
This should actually be simple enough.
This, to me, seems the most sensible way of understanding and fixing the problems involved with ramming.
Ramming is an attack. It should be treated as such.
Ramming is a type of attack. The problem is that, currently speaking, the game does not treat it as an attack.
This has two negative consequences:
- It allows people to attack others without enjoying the normal positive consequences of attacking, suck as collecting bounties for attacking a wanted party.
- It allows people to attack others without suffering the normal negative consequence of attacking, such as incurring fines and bounties for attacking a neutral party.
-------------------------------------
For Scenario 1:
I was using an Eagle to teach myself how to shoot straight, so I loaded up three fixed cannons and went NPC hunting. I interdicted an NPC pirate Cobra, and got into a good battle. That NPC could dodge. I manage to get him down to 5% hull when I ran out of ammo.
Around this time, system security arrived and started engaging the pirate. The pirate engaged them right back until his shields popped, at which point he engaged in evasive maneuvers. The system security couldn't touch him. The pirate's shield would come back. Then the cycle would repeat.
I managed to kill the NPC pirate by ramming it just as the system security popped its shields.
However: I did not receive any bounty for this.
-------------------------------------
For Scenario 2:
I recently moved from an under-populated area of space to a more heavily populated area. I went to a RES and started bounty hunting with other players for the first time, using my fully upgraded Viper. At first I really enjoyed having a Vulture and Fer-de-lance to watch as fellow bounty hunters. That's part of what I like about Open play: Just watching and enjoying the spectacle of other pilots doing their thing. They were in better ships than me and doing a better job than me. Gives me something to aim towards.
Then the Fer-de-lance started ramming me.
That Fer-de-lance could have just shot me out of the sky if they had wanted to do so. That would have incurred on them a negative bounty for attacking me, as I was not wanted in that system. This would have been fair play in my books. That's part of what makes playing Open exciting.
However, the Fer-de-lance was able to cause me significant hull damage in a couple of ramming attacks, while suffering no penalty. I had no recourse: I can't ram him back, because he's bigger than me. I can't open fire, because he's not wanted and there's a lot of system security around and I wouldn't survive the wanted status. So I decided to flee with 26% hull remaining. As my supercruise charged up, he shot me in the back.
Had he just opened fire on me fairly in such a way that I could fight back from the beginning, I would've been fine with that. I probably would have lost, but I would have enjoyed the challenge of trying to fight back and outmaneuver a skilled opponent in a more powerful ship. Particularly given that the system security would have been firing on him and not me, giving me an advantage, and I could have dodged a lot of fire in the asteroid field. Either way, win or lose, that would have been a fun encounter.
However, that's not what I got. Instead I got rammed down to 26% hull, then shot in the back when I tried to escape. Very unfair, and very unfun.
-------------------------------------
Both of these scenarios are broken because attack ramming is an attack that is not being treated like an attack.
The fix is to take ramming and treat it like an attack.
This should actually be simple enough.
- If there is a collision, the vectors of both ships are known at the time of impact. If one ship's vector passes through the other ship, then that ship is at fault. If both ship's vectors pass through the other ship, they are both at fault.
- If the damage done (to both shields and hull) is under a very low 'glancing blow' threshhold, then no fine, no bounty.
- If the damage done (to both shields and hull) is above the very low 'glancing blow' threshhold but below the also kind of low 'ramming speed' threshhold, then this is an accidental crash, not an attack. Fine, but no bounty.
- If the damage done (to both shields and hull) is above the 'ramming speed' threshhold, then the ram was an attack, and is treated like an attack. If the attack is against a clean target, the attacker is flagged as a pirate, just as they would be for firing on a clean target. If the attack is against a wanted target, and that target is destroyed, then the rammer collects a bounty exactly as if they had destroyed the wanted target with their weapons.
This, to me, seems the most sensible way of understanding and fixing the problems involved with ramming.
Ramming is an attack. It should be treated as such.
Last edited:
How about introducing a module that helps to avoid collisions? These 'ships' can already do it!
Cars that have Crash Avoidance Systems:
• Cadillac SRX
• Jeep Grand Cherokee
• Subaru Legacy
• Subaru Outback
• Volvo S60
• Acura MDX
• Audi A4
• Audi Q5
• Cadillac ATS
• Lexus ES
• Mazda Mazda6
• Mercedes-Benz C-Class
• Volvo XC60
Actually, perhaps it can be a stock FUNCTION, that when enabled, helps avoid crashes but makes the craft less maneuverable since it takes more control of thrusters. Also, the smaller the ships, the more impact the function has since said 'small ships' mass is considerably less than say an Anaconda.
And perhaps it automatically disables when docking is granted, and re-enabled after takeoff.
Cars that have Crash Avoidance Systems:
• Cadillac SRX
• Jeep Grand Cherokee
• Subaru Legacy
• Subaru Outback
• Volvo S60
• Acura MDX
• Audi A4
• Audi Q5
• Cadillac ATS
• Lexus ES
• Mazda Mazda6
• Mercedes-Benz C-Class
• Volvo XC60
Actually, perhaps it can be a stock FUNCTION, that when enabled, helps avoid crashes but makes the craft less maneuverable since it takes more control of thrusters. Also, the smaller the ships, the more impact the function has since said 'small ships' mass is considerably less than say an Anaconda.
And perhaps it automatically disables when docking is granted, and re-enabled after takeoff.
Last edited:
There is no arguing with a closed mind.
I thought it. It must be right.
You don't agree you are a griefer.
I can't do it but FD can.
You don't agree you are a griefer.
I can't do it but FD can.
Most of the arguments on the side of the poll show a lack of understanding of computers and programming. I am sorry to say.
Just want to point out a flaw, Elite Dangerous uses an in-house engine, so more or less anything IS possible, will it work well on p2p where clients can be very laggy? maybe not though there are ways around it.
My main point is though, since it is an in-house engine, ANY chance to net code is possible, might mean they need to make a server or such to verify info or such, but it is possible.