Referal --> Karma / C&P Debate in "Deliberate Ramming" Thread with input from Sandro Sammarco

Referal --> Karma / C&P Debate in "Deliberate Ramming" Thread with input from Sandro Sammarco

Deliberate Ramming

Just thought I'd pop this link here for everyone that enjoys the ever popular debate about the balance of PvP within the "Spirit of the Game", within this example of the debate Lead Developer Sandro Sammarco puts forward some Ideas on a Karma system and calls for feedback , there are posts from some very notorious commanders one being the arch enemy of 'he who must not be named' who I must admit made some surprisingly constructive comments himself.

Enjoy

P.S. be prepared for a very long read.

Edit
one of the highlights for me was this post by MR Sammarco --> #315

Edit 2
List in chronological order of posts by Mr Sammarco
#16
#20
#25
#35 - details and thoughts on karma system
Hello Commander nrage!

Discerning naughty from undesirable would really be such a system's prime function.

so, to spitball a little, here are some potential examples:

* Attacking a wanted ship, no matter how overpowered you were compared to it, would be fine
* Attacking a clean ship when massively overpowered would get minor bad karma
* Repeatedly attacking clean ships that you massively overpowered would get you major bad karma
* Stealing cargo from a clean ship would be fine.
* Being involved in an occasional starport collision would gain you minor bad karma
* Being repeatedly involved in starport collisions over time would get you major bad karma
* Occasionally disconnecting ungracefully in danger would be fine
* Repeatedly disconnecting ungracefully in danger over time would get you major bad karma
* Attacking starports as crew would get you major bad karma

This sort of thing.

Such a system might not be perfectly right in very instance, but punitive measures would increase based on trends over time, which in the end become fairly accurate indicators of intent.

In general, we want to minimise out of game intervention. However, that does not mean that punitive measures would be toothless. We could make life *very* challenging, in ways we currently have not employed, for repeat offenders.

But please remember, as of this moment, this is just discussion, and although we have very positive vibes, there's currently no ETA or guarantee for such a system's arrival.
#39
#43
#63
#75
#90
#106
#111
#131
#150
#288 Probably the most informative of the response posts so reproduced in spoiler below
Hello Commanders!

Thank you for all the constructive criticism and appraisal (remember, attack the argument, not the speaker).

First the CAVEAT: I am not saying when this system is coming, or even that it is coming at all. I am merely discussing the pros and cons of what it might be able to address, and what it would not. It's also not "the fix" to crime and punishment, just one of several options.

However, it’s pretty cool to chew the fat over various development concepts and gather very useful feedback from you folk. We all want the same thing, for the game to be as good as it can be, and it’s important that we try to look at issues from as many different viewpoints as possible.

To address a few persistent issues that I've seen:

* "You are going to ban people for playing your game"

That's not the intention. We want to try our hardest to let Commanders enjoy the game how they want to. However, and it's a big however: Open is a shared game space that we want as many folk to enjoy as possible. We have to decide what is best for the greater good when there are conflicts of interest between Commanders. Just because there are Private Group and Solo mode, does not necessarily mean that Open should be without codes of conduct. We don't tolerate racism, for example.

And there’s the rub: should we tolerate psychopathic/unpleasant behaviour against Commanders (this isn't an issue with AI ships)? Because if we really thought that this behaviour was beyond the pale, then why would we not prevent/punish it?

As I've tried to make to make clear, we currently believe in using in-game sanctions whenever possible. That is to say, we would like to see a system where players can act in unpleasant ways, but where there are suitably appropriate consequences for those actions. For example, the concept of removing any reduction in re-buy costs ( basically meaning you would have to pay the whole amount for a destroyed ship) would, if we decided to use it as a punitive measure, only come at the end of a long, long road of wanton offences.

* "You are going to punish me the moment I step out of line"

No. This is simply not the case.

If we were to do a karma system, it would fundamentally be based on tracking behaviour *over time*, so infrequent indiscretions would factor in only as data points. They still would carry any appropriate immediate penalty, such as gaining a bounty, of course. When actions were logged, they would not instantly dump “bad points” on Commanders, they would affect the power of a positive or negative trend.

Importantly, we would look carefully at each behaviour we wanted to track, and give it its own specific values for karma loss/gain. This value could then be modified by tracked trends of all parties involved that were relevant (to the account level, to mitigate undesirable behaviour keyed off resetting Commanders), interrogating concepts such as how “new” each participant was to the game, what they had been doing in the past, their current karma status, their relationships (including wing members, friends present etc.)

We would also have a wide range of punitive measures to draw upon, and importantly scale up or down, so a Commander would always experience a descent and have plenty of time to moderate their behaviour based on what consequences they were prepared to accept.

* "There's no way you can tell the difference in power/ability/intent using karma"

It's undeniable that working out relative power and reading intent from tracked values is a challenge. But I suspect that the success rate we can achieve would make it more than worth the effort.

It should be made absolutely clear that a trend tracking system would not be a panacea. We are not against looking at the power of authority vessels, system security etc.

But we think that potentially karma could help in a lot of instances that currently are not being addressed because of the long view it would take, assuming that there aren’t horrible holes in it, which is where this kind of discussion comes in very handy. So once again, thank you for your continued interest, passion and feedback!
#315 - pertains to the controversial "hunt other Commanders" marketing material
Hello Commander Genar-Hofoen!




I could, but frankly, you could use multiple interpretations that could all be valid.

For example:

* It means you can attack other Commanders without consequence.
* It means you can attack other Commanders and face consequences.
* It means you can attack other Commanders within limitations on the rules of engagement.
* It means you can attack other Commanders and gain special rewards.

Not very helpful, easy to twist to a particular view.

Clearly, you *can* attack other Commanders, and there *are* consequences. Regardless of what changes we make or don't, this will always be true, so to me it kind of clutters a more interesting discussion: what should the consequences be?

Personally, I'm not advocating banning (or shadow banning), because, as I have said a few times, I would rather the consequences be present in game and in context. I'm also not in favour of insta-all powerful authority ships, as potentially both of these options potentially result in the same thing: a complete shutdown of these kinds of attacks, loss of choice.

I know that some folk would see this as a good thing, and part of me agrees. After all, our concern is the enjoyment of as many players as possible.

But I'm still interested in investigating the prospects of some sort of middle ground, which is where the concept of karma and escalating in game measures comes in. A system in which you are more or less free to act how you want but must face appropriate consequences so that the majority of folk feel that there is *some* form of justice, suitable risk.

Perhaps this is an impossible dilemma, but it's good to hear from all the different viewpoints.
#321

last page searched 52


Review by Obsidianant
 
Last edited:
So I don't see why cheating should have the same consequence as say destroying a target of piracy when unable to extract the cargo. Especially since they clearly do have the ability to know when someone disconnects in combat.

Also, glad about Sandros post confirming the blurb of "or hunt other commanders", maybe the people whining about it just saying it's bad and that there should be bans or some god NPC hunting all people who do it will stop, probably not but one can hope.
 
Last edited:
So I don't see why cheating should have the same consequence as say destroying a target of piracy when unable to extract the cargo. Especially since they clearly do have the ability to know when someone disconnects in combat.

Also, glad about Sandros post confirming the blurb of "or hunt other commanders", maybe the people whining about it just saying it's bad and that there should be bans or some god NPC hunting all people who do it will stop, probably not but one can hope.
Those concerns have been raised and the debate discusses them, I'm just glad to see Mr Sammarco participating in the debate unfortunately I've only managed to get about 23 pages in....not sure what happens later...roll on lunch time.

Your edit caught me mid response....

Second Paragraph ---- s'why I added that particular link [yesnod]
 
Last edited:
Those concerns have been raised and the debate discusses them, I'm just glad to see Mr Sammarco participating in the debate unfortunately I've only managed to get about 23 pages in....not sure what happens later...roll on lunch time.
I'm not reading 20 pages or whatever, can I has a TL;DR on the consequence of combat logging?
 
Last edited:
I'm not reading 20 pages or whatever, can I has a TL;DR on the consequence of combat logging?
Actually I was considering creating a post of links just to Mr Sammarco's responses as these would be from my perspective the most important entries in the debate and they would link back themselves to the points he is addressing.
 
Thanks for sharing TC! V glad to see this subject getting further constructive discussion with dev involvement.
 
TL: DR! I openly admit I'm not following that Karma discussion. Too much tongue waggling and Frontier is going to do whatever it is they want to do. I want to believe it's a good thing that FDev is looking at crime and punishment, but from what I've seen/heard they are only addressing combat logging. Maybe I'm wrong and that's just the hot button issue in that discussion. Can anyone tell me if they are addressing the crime and punishment system in game over all? Let's be honest Cmdrs, the current bounty system is a complete joke. It's is very easily circumvented by using the Suicide-winder (thus its nickname) and having a friend take you out. Effectively there is NO deterent at all from being as hostile, bordering on evil, as one chooses to be.
 
Last edited:
Foolish system but I'll remain unaffected by it.

People still stupidly pledge to power play (open season, karma system shouldnt affect this, just go alliance or one of independent factions. Plenty of targets)

I don't attack low level ships. I go after them in my Viper or gain a bounty and wait for "big ship syndrome" to let another one fall victim to my Viper.

Personally I think people should take responsibility for their own actions in game and play a bit smarter.

But, who am I kidding. Responsibility and self reliance died long ago. 90% of people go running to the powers that be as they can't handle things themselves.
 
Last edited:
Foolish system but I'll remain unaffected by it.

People still stupidly pledge to power play (open season, karma system shouldnt affect this, just go alliance or one of independent factions. Plenty of targets)

I don't attack low level ships. I go after them in my Viper or gain a bounty and wait for "big ship syndrome" to let another one fall victim to my Viper.

Personally I think people should take responsibility for their own actions in game and play a bit smarter.

But, who am I kidding. Responsibility and self reliance died long ago. 90% of people go running to the powers that be as they can't handle things themselves.
People don't want to take responsibility for the actions in real life, why would they be any different in a video game? :x ;)

Also I wouldn't be so quick to assume that you will not be affected by whatever they implement. This is Elite: Dangerous, where everything implemented evetually gets abused. [yesnod]
 
Last edited:
TL: DR! I openly admit I'm not following that Karma discussion. Too much tongue waggling and Frontier is going to do whatever it is they want to do. I want to believe it's a good thing that FDev is looking at crime and punishment, but from what I've seen/heard they are only addressing combat logging. Maybe I'm wrong and that's just the hot button issue in that discussion. Can anyone tell me if they are addressing the crime and punishment system in game over all? Let's be honest Cmdrs, the current bounty system is a complete joke. It's is very easily circumvented by using the Suicide-winder (thus its nickname) and having a friend take you out. Effectively there is NO deterent at all from being as hostile, bordering on evil, as one chooses to be.
Check the highlight link in the op. It's not just about logging.

No I'm not reading the thread either, one of the reasons I lurk on this side of the board is that it's simply too damn noisy on the 'main' board. Any topical thread descends into a thousand voices shouting at once, posting anything is like sending a message in a bottle, actual discussion is all but impossible. Traditional forums with their vertical non-branching threads just can't handle that much traffic imo. I'll let tc wade through and pick out highlights as long as they're willing ;)
 
Lots of interesting insights in there. Actually quite surprised the "insurance" system isn't already somewhat "dynamic" (fly safe and get it reduced, fly reckless and have it increased).

One thing's for sure, the current "crime system" is a joke, and that's an understatement.

Hopefully something's good will come out of this.

Hopefully ...
 
Any topical thread descends into a thousand voices shouting at once, posting anything is like sending a message in a bottle, actual discussion is all but impossible. Traditional forums with their vertical non-branching threads just can't handle that much traffic imo. I'll let tc wade through and pick out highlights as long as they're willing ;)
Thank you for putting in words how I feel about many threads in the main forum. I wasn't quite sure how to accurately describe it, mostly because I don't care enough to bother. But you're right there's too many bleating sheep. In hot button topics, any well thought out response usually gets buried in an avalanche of white noise. Worse still is if an opinion differs from the consensus. Yeeessshh.
 
Also I wouldn't be so quick to assume that you will not be affected by whatever they implement. This is Elite: Dangerous, where everything implemented evetually gets abused. [yesnod]
We will see. I'm not holding breath. Even if they implement this the PvE space truckers will still complain. There are plenty of ways around it.

Don't wanna give me cargo? Guess I'll shoot that FSD out and destroy your life support. Race is on.
 
Let's hope it's not going to be the headline feature of 2.4.

'Elite Dangerous: Karma' doesn't have much of a ring to it
 
Last edited:
TL: DR! I openly admit I'm not following that Karma discussion. Too much tongue waggling and Frontier is going to do whatever it is they want to do. I want to believe it's a good thing that FDev is looking at crime and punishment, but from what I've seen/heard they are only addressing combat logging. Maybe I'm wrong and that's just the hot button issue in that discussion. Can anyone tell me if they are addressing the crime and punishment system in game over all? Let's be honest Cmdrs, the current bounty system is a complete joke. It's is very easily circumvented by using the Suicide-winder (thus its nickname) and having a friend take you out. Effectively there is NO deterent at all from being as hostile, bordering on evil, as one chooses to be.
Hell, there's levels of toxic that players get to that drives people away from the game, and there's never any action really taken. Who wants to start playing a game where everyone is way ahead of you, and can bludgeon you over the head with that advantage without any consequence?

If you look way back you can see Sandro talking about death in ED, where he even lays out the basic definition of "griefing":
actions whose only purpose, outcome and gain is to punish and frustrate other players
Which is a wide net cast over most of what is an excuse for PvP. There's hardly anything to PvP - no rewards, no consequences, no standards, nothing. The bounty system is basically a non-factor - I would spend more on ammunition and repairs that I would get taking out somebody who's killed a half-dozen other players.

All this chest-beating about PvP that the forums reek with is always all the more ridiculous; may as well be cheating at Solitaire and bragging about winning. There's no rules restricting actions, no standards of engagement, it's a free-for-all where you can attack a newbie Sidewinder in a Corvette and call that "PvP". Woo buddy. That's some real emergent gameplay, right there.

The whole environment around it is toxic - the simple fact is, the lack of any actual incentive to engage in PvP means the only reward there is lies in frustrating other players, basically ensuring that it's going to be exclusively attractive to the toxic dregs. Combine that with the lack of rules surrounding it and you've got the recipe for PvP being a scum magnet.
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: HBK
Hell, there's levels of toxic that players get to that drives people away from the game, and there's never any action really taken. Who wants to start playing a game where everyone is way ahead of you, and can bludgeon you over the head with that advantage without any consequence?

If you look way back you can see Sandro talking about death in ED, where he even lays out the basic definition of "griefing":


Which is a wide net cast over most of what is an excuse for PvP. There's hardly anything to PvP - no rewards, no consequences, no standards, nothing. The bounty system is basically a non-factor - I would spend more on ammunition and repairs that I would get taking out somebody who's killed a half-dozen other players.

All this chest-beating about PvP that the forums reek with is always all the more ridiculous; may as well be cheating at Solitaire and bragging about winning. There's no rules restricting actions, no standards of engagement, it's a free-for-all where you can attack a newbie Sidewinder in a Corvette and call that "PvP". Woo buddy. That's some real emergent gameplay, right there.

The whole environment around it is toxic - the simple fact is, the lack of any actual incentive to engage in PvP means the only reward there is lies in frustrating other players, basically ensuring that it's going to be exclusively attractive to the toxic dregs. Combine that with the lack of rules surrounding it and you've got the recipe for PvP being a scum magnet.
That's actually an incredibly good definition of griefing. Something that's generally found lacking. Most attempts I've seen to define it jump straight into the mechanics of griefing, and at once become overly specialised & non-comprehensive.

Then people cling to the narrowed definition - claiming that it's only 'griefing' when you're performing some type of exploit for example.. Which is completely missing the point.

Good work Sandro! :)
 
Well, it's kinda the general definition of griefing.

The, uh, Urban Dictionary definition is actually really spot on for griefer, and it's from 2004.

Someone, usually in an online game, who intentionally, and usually repeatedly, attempts to degrade another's experience or torment them.

Examples of griefing:

1. Player vs player abuse: Singling out the same person and killing them over and over when they are defenseless until they log off.

2. Kill stealing: Repeatedly trying to steal another persons kills so that their time is wasted.

3. Verbal abuse: Spamming a person with vulgar, hateful, or offensive messages.

4. Blocking: Getting in another's way so they cannot move or get out of a particular area.

5. "Training": Triggering many monsters, almost always impossible to fight and survive, with the intention to either run someone out of an area or kill them indirectly if the server is not 'player vs player' enabled.

Griefing in massively multiplayer online role playing games are usually bannable on first offense and less common (though still visibly present).
I made some tiny spelling fixes.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom