The problem with human piracy - A traders perspective

[Iskariot]

In general games with pvp feature players with comparable mindsets with like minded goals within the constraints of a gaming system. You battle against each other because that is what you do in that game. You might steal each others flag to earn points because that is the goal and players on both sides agree on that goal and play the game to achieve that goal. And even though players oppose each other the goal is still agreed upon.

In Elite Dangerous, with piracy, this is not the case and therein lies the problem. Human traders do not feel they are in the game to play victim to human pirates. That is not at all their goal in the game. And they do not really accept the piracy by humans as an acceptable gaming mechanism.

Human traders in Elite do not have a problem at all with AI pirates, because these AI are part of the game world that is constructed to entertain you, immerse you and give you challenges. The AI pirates are emotionless and do what they are programmed for. They will never gloat, they will never abuse, they will never grief, never gank. If they attack you they do not even really profit from your demise. They just do what they have to do. It is not their choice. We accept them like we accept the weather. We don't get mad at a cloud that rains down on us in the street. But we do protest however when someone comes up to us and pours a bucket of water on our heads. And that is how we really perceive human piracy in the game as compared to AI piracy.

Human pirates differ from AI pirates. They have a choice and apparently they have chosen to victimize us. We simply do not trust them and their motivations, not even in a gaming context, because they are more than just a program that runs its course. There are human motivations behind human pirates and even though officially it is called role playing we still perceive their behavior as stealing, as immoral criminal behavior that victimizes peaceful traders. We do so because these humans have a choice and they choose to be thieves, muggers. They choose to do the immoral thing, steal our hard earned cash. We know we should officially accept that as just role playing, but deep within we do not, because it just feels wrong.

Players who are traders are doing their best to earn a buck. They try to get ahead in the game and pour a lot of time and effort into that goal. When human players pretend to be a pirate in Elite, if they attack human traders they still are really victimizing such a trader. They are really sabotaging the efforts of that trader. That trader is a real person who put real time and effort in his trading. The trader is role playing being a trader, he is not role playing being a victim of a human pirate who really profits from his demise. That is not at all what the trader wants, and in fact we could say the human pirates are really stealing from us. That is how it feels anyway. Saying that it is just role playing is meaningless. Because just as in real life, even more so, we feel the human pirate could simply choose not to victimize other hard working humans. He can pirate npc, who have nothing to lose, or he can choose another profession entirely. The fact that he chooses to single out humans and victimize them deep down does not feel like role playing. It feels like griefing, because actually, let's get real... there is no difference. The pirate's goals are totally opposed to our goals. He wants to profit from our 'suffering', our loss. And that we just perceive as immoral, parasitic behavior even in the context of this game.

 

[Amadeus]

I've no problem human plays choosing to be pirates.
However.....

There needs to be more risk for them to do so.
Loss of a ship should not wipe the slate clean.

Eject in a non anarchy zone they you shouldn't be able to keep your ill gotten gains. Back to basic sidewinder and some form of "community service" required to get that.

Security patrols should actively hunt don't people engaging in piracy.
They greater the bounty the greater the attention.

Bounties of human players should be posted on station bulletin boards including their last know position.

All in all make piracy "difficult" otherwise it's going to get boring for all sides.

 

[noldunar]

Well said.

That is exactly why I am looking forward to single player mode which is what I will play exclusively.

 

[Yellonet]

In general games with pvp feature players with comparable mindsets with like minded goals within the constraints of a gaming system. You battle against each other because that is what you do in that game. You might steal each others flag to earn points because that is the goal and players on both sides agree on that goal and play the game to achieve that goal. And even though players oppose each other the goal is still agreed upon.

In Elite Dangerous, with piracy, this is not the case and therein lies the problem. Human traders do not feel they are in the game to play victim to human pirates. That is not at all their goal in the game. And they do not really accept the piracy by humans as an acceptable gaming mechanism.

Human traders in Elite do not have a problem at all with AI pirates, because these AI are part of the game world that is constructed to entertain you, immerse you and give you challenges. The AI pirates are emotionless and do what they are programmed for. They will never gloat, they will never abuse, they will never grief, never gank. If they attack you they do not even really profit from your demise. They just do what they have to do. It is not heir choice. We accept them like we accept the weather. We don't get mad at a cloud that rains down on us in the street. But we do protest however when someone comes up to us and pours a bucket of water on our heads. And that is how we really perceive human piracy in the game as compared to AI piracy.

Human pirates differ from AI pirates. They have a choice and apparently they have chosen to victimize us. We simply do not trust them and their motivations, not even in a gaming context, because they are more than just a program that runs its course. There are human motivations behind human pirates and even though officially it is called role playing we still perceive their behavior as stealing, as immoral criminal behavior that victimizes peaceful traders. We do so because these humans have a choice and they choose to be thieves, muggers. They choose to do the immoral thing, steal our hard earned cash. We know we should officially accept that as just role playing, but deep within we do not, because it just feels wrong.

Players who are traders are doing their best to earn a buck. They try to get ahead in the game and pour a lot of time and effort into that goal. When human players pretend to be a pirate in Elite, if they attack human traders they still are really victimizing such a trader. They are really sabotaging the efforts of that trader. That trader is a real person who put real time and effort in his trading. The trader is role playing being a trader, he is not role playing being a victim of a human pirate who really profits from his demise. That is not at all what the trader wants, and in fact we could say the human pirates are really stealing from us. That is how it feels anyway. Saying that it is just role playing is meaningless. Because just as in real life, even more so, we feel the human pirate could simply choose not to victimize other hard working humans. He can pirate npc, who have nothing to lose, or he can choose another profession entirely. The fact that he chooses to single out humans and victimize them deep down does not feel like role playing. It feels like griefing, because actually, let's get real... there is no difference. The pirate's goals are totally opposed to our goals. He wants to profit from our 'suffering', our loss. And that we just perceive as immoral, parasitic behavior even in the context of this game.

You might want to rephrase that, you are not talking for every trader in the game, you're talking for no one but yourself.

Furthermore, one should not have to accept griefing or other malicious behaviour from other players, but piracy is one of several completely legitimate "adversarial" career choices, if you don't accept that you're sometimes on the receiving end, multiplayer is not for you.

 

[M3SS3NG3R]

Everybody and his dog's problem with player-killing right now is revolved around the fact that there's no mechanisms to keep them in check. No law enforcement, no real bounty system, etc etc. Since we know this is going to change in standard beta, why not wait 15 days and see what will happen?

 

[Commandr Sam]

As a counter point, any trader that wants to enjoy the game for more than 20 minutes will realize that the game has to be built around a risk reward system.

The AI pirates are never going to offer a real risk as after meeting a couple a player will work out how to avoid/run away from these AI. At this point all risk is removed from the risk/reward equation. You will end up with a situation as now in PB 2 where trading is boring as there is no risk of losing cargo.

Some people will want a game where they are the hero and the galaxy revolves around them being the most powerful person in it. Others want a game where each cargo run has a very real risk of being attacked and maybe killed. This is where player/player piracy comes in.

Each to their own but I for one will be playing in the Iron Man All group as I want this to be Elite Dangerous. I do not want this to be a truck driver in space simulation.

 

[forger]

but pirate is a real player too, he put real life hours in mastering his skills and finding places where to ambush traders and where to sell stolen goods(gained necessary reputation for black markets and missions) etc.

anyway i will be trading and don't have a problem with pirates and really do not care at all if they're game generated digital scums or real life one eyed drunks, i would have a problem if someone just blow me up without any reason but pirates are only after your cargo, drop couple tons and go away, treat that like pay roads or taxes - you drop something for them and they let you leave.

however, all players who just kill others must be dealt in a hard way.

so i don't see any problem and i am not planing to be a pirate but their 'prey' let them come, flying in thousands of systems without real challenge is BoRiNg

edit: also you can hire escort and filter most pirates as they will not choose to attack hard targets.

 

[Iskariot]

You might want to rephrase that, you are not talking for every trader in the game, you're talking for no one but yourself.

-> See thread title: a traders perspective
(indeed there is a typo: a trader's perspective)

Furthermore, one should not have to accept griefing or other malicious behaviour from other players, but piracy is one of several completely legitimate "adversarial" career choices, if you don't accept that you're sometimes on the receiving end, multiplayer is not for you.

It feels to me like you have not read what I wrote.
I addressed the ambiguity. That is why I wrote this.

 

[JKF]

Another angle to the OP is loss, due to pirate action, of items that were purchased for real money; assuming of course that FD implement real cash purchases and such purchases could be lost.

The Dutch Supreme Court did rule that theft of virtual items could be considered the same as theft of real world items...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...e-game-theft-earns-real-world-conviction.html
...although in that case the theft also had a real world element to it.

It may one day happen that a commander's loss of a large ship and a fortune in cargo could end up in the courts.

Whilst FD can make players agree to be subject to piracy in the game's terms and conditions it's not something, if I were the pirate, I would like to rely on as a defence since it would be all too easy to show such a term was not mutually beneficial to all parties.

Perhaps if a player chose to be a pirate then they would also grant the right to be the victim of pirates. Thankfully we will have the option to avoid player pirates.

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

In general games with pvp feature players with comparable mindsets with like minded goals within the constraints of a gaming system. You battle against each other because that is what you do in that game. You might steal each others flag to earn points because that is the goal and players on both sides agree on that goal and play the game to achieve that goal. And even though players oppose each other the goal is still agreed upon.

In Elite Dangerous, with piracy, this is not the case and therein lies the problem.

Your opening paragraph is very interesting as it highlights the different kinds of multiplayer mindsets that are at play. In most games where players are pitted against other players, there's an equal objective for both parties to aim for. Like you say, it could be a capture the flag scenario, or earn points for your team.

But when it comes to acts of piracy in the multiplayer setting, there's nothing in it for the trader except maybe a little anxiety and the lure of risk that few crave. But what does he really gain? Nothing really. The game takes care of the justice, which the dead trader may or may not ever hear about.

A while ago I made a suggestion in the game-play and ideas forum that somehow those on the end of a piracy encounter needed to become more activity involved in the whole scenario and subsequent outcome - and not just be another faceless bit part character/victim in the glorious life and times of notorious pirate x.

No, the trader could be given a more active role once the dust has settled and he's back in the station receiving his insurance payout. I suggested that a victim of piracy has the option to contact some sort of npc intelligence network agency and be given exclusive tracking rights on the person that killed him (for a set period of time). The trader now has something that opens up all sorts of avenues for him to go down. He can use that tracking right to exact personal revenge. He could sell that tracking right to a bounty hunter, who on successful completion of an assassination will receive the bounty - and crucially instead of the pirate paying fines (as currently planned), instead he pays compensation to the trader who issued the tracking right. And finally, since the pirate would never know who the trader plans on selling a tracking right against him to, nor its expiration date, the pirate may even contact his victim and buy the right himself, just to have it off his back (it would be annulled).

So it doesn't necessarily alleviate any anguish one experiences when being a victim to an act of piracy, but it does make the victim become an integral player in any subsequent after events should he so chose to. He effectively gets the satisfaction of holding all the cards for a set period of time. I think that's a better way of leveling the playing field so that multiplayer encounters of this kind are no longer emotionally one sided, the predator can become the prey, and the victim the victor, should a set of followup circumstances fall into place.

I think tracking rights would also bring bounty hunters actively into the loop and give them something tangible to use to hunt down specific targets instead of relying on random encounters. Whole scenarios of revenge and retribution can spring up here and create a whole market of interaction between traders, pirates, and bounty hunters.

But the crux of the matter is a mechanism is in place to give some power back to the victim. Whether the victim chooses to use it is their personal choice. Also worth bearing in mind these rights could be used to track the Radiant Dawn's too - i.e. infamous npcs with juicy bounties (but that's beside the point!)

 

[Iskariot]

As a counter point, any trader that wants to enjoy the game for more than 20 minutes will realize that the game has to be built around a risk reward system.

The AI pirates are never going to offer a real risk as after meeting a couple a player will work out how to avoid/run away from these AI. At this point all risk is removed from the risk/reward equation. You will end up with a situation as now in PB 2 where trading is boring as there is no risk of losing cargo.

If that were true then the game would fail, because the universe is huge. How big are the actual chances of encountering human pirates?
Braben acknowledged that player versus AI interaction will be far more common than player versus player interaction. We will meet infinitely more AI pirates than we will meet human pirates.

But that is not actually the point of what I wrote.
I read the many threads about piracy vs griefing and felt there was something interesting going on behind the curtains nobody actually addressed. I tried to look behind that curtain and address it.

Some people will want a game where they are the hero and the galaxy revolves around them being the most powerful person in it. Others want a game where each cargo run has a very real risk of being attacked and maybe killed. This is where player/player piracy comes in.

I do not agree at all. As I said before player/player piracy will be relatively rare in this huge universe. Player vs AI encounters will dominate the universe by far.

Each to their own but I for one will be playing in the Iron Man All group as I want this to be Elite Dangerous. I do not want this to be a truck driver in space simulation.

Me neither and that is not the point I made at all. I never perceived the original elite games as 'truck driver in space' games just because there was no player vs player piracy in the game.

I think you will be truly disappointed if you believe that player/player piracy will have to make your game. You will encounter infinitely more AI pirates.
It is up to FD to create a good and challenging AI and I predict that it is that what will make or brake your experience in this huge unprecedented gaming universe.

 

[Iskariot]

Everybody and his dog's problem with player-killing right now is revolved around the fact that there's no mechanisms to keep them in check. No law enforcement, no real bounty system, etc etc. Since we know this is going to change in standard beta, why not wait 15 days and see what will happen?

That was not the point of what I wrote. This is not about policing and law enforcement and protection of traders. That is an entirely different topic. What I wrote is more about the psychology of player/player piracy and why many people feel conflicted about it.

 

[Iskariot]

Your opening paragraph is very interesting as it highlights the different kinds of multiplayer mindsets that are at play. In most games where players are pitted against other players, there's an equal objective for both parties to aim for. Like you say, it could be a capture the flag scenario, or earn points for your team.

But when it comes to acts of piracy in the multiplayer setting, there's nothing in it for the trader except maybe a little anxiety and the lure of risk that few crave. But what does he really gain? Nothing really. The game takes care of the justice, which the dead trader may or may not ever hear about.

A while ago I made a suggestion in the game-play and ideas forum that somehow those on the end of a piracy encounter needed to become more activity involved in the whole scenario and subsequent outcome - and not just be another faceless bit part character/victim in the glorious life and times of notorious pirate x.

No, the trader could be given a more active role once the dust has settled and he's back in the station receiving his insurance payout. I suggested that a victim of piracy has the option to contact some sort of npc intelligence network agency and be given exclusive tracking rights on the person that killed him (for a set period of time). The trader now has something that opens up all sorts of avenues for him to go down. He can use that tracking right to exact personal revenge. He could sell that tracking right to a bounty hunter, who on successful completion of an assassination will receive the bounty - and crucially instead of the pirate paying fines (as currently planned), instead he pays compensation to the trader who issued the tracking right. And finally, since the pirate would never know who the trader plans to sell a tracking right against him too, or its expiration date, the pirate may even contact his victim and buy the right himself, just to have it off his back (it would be annulled).

So it doesn't necessarily alleviate any anguish one experiences when being a victim to an act of piracy, but it does make the victim become an integral player in any subsequent after events should he so chose to. He effectively gets the satisfaction of holding all the cards for a set period of time. I think that's a better way of leveling the playing field so that multiplayer encounters of this kind are no longer emotionally one sided, the predator can become the prey, and the victim the victor, should a set of followup circumstances fall into place.

I think tracking rights would also bring bounty hunters actively into the loop and give them something tangible to use to hunt down specific targets instead of relying on random encounters. Whole scenarios of revenge and retribution can spring up here and create a whole market of interaction between traders, pirates, and bounty hunters.

But the crux of the matter is a mechanism is in place to give some power back to the victim. Whether the victim chooses to use it is their personal choice. Also worth bearing in mind these rights could be used to track the Radiant Dawn's too - i.e. infamous npcs with juicy bounties (but that's beside the point!)

Those are incredibly interesting ideas.
It would make for a very cool and dynamic game play mechanism.

 

[dasuke]

-> See thread title: a traders perspective





It feels to me like you have not read what I wrote.
I addressed the ambiguity. That is why I wrote this.

Ironically, the absence of an apostrophe in "traders" means that you are, actually, writing in the plural and therefore indicating more than one trader. Perhaps he read things quite rightly

 

[Yellonet]

Ironically, the absence of an apostrophe in "traders" means that you are, actually, writing in the plural and therefore indicating more than one trader. Perhaps he read things quite rightly

Good catch But what I really reacted on was the use of "human traders" and other all including terms mentioned several times in the text, making it seem as though he's speaking for everyone.

 

[dasuke]

Your opening paragraph is very interesting as it highlights the different kinds of multiplayer mindsets that are at play. In most games where players are pitted against other players, there's an equal objective for both parties to aim for. Like you say, it could be a capture the flag scenario, or earn points for your team.

But when it comes to acts of piracy in the multiplayer setting, there's nothing in it for the trader except maybe a little anxiety and the lure of risk that few crave. But what does he really gain? Nothing really. The game takes care of the justice, which the dead trader may or may not ever hear about.

A while ago I made a suggestion in the game-play and ideas forum that somehow those on the end of a piracy encounter needed to become more activity involved in the whole scenario and subsequent outcome - and not just be another faceless bit part character/victim in the glorious life and times of notorious pirate x.

No, the trader could be given a more active role once the dust has settled and he's back in the station receiving his insurance payout. I suggested that a victim of piracy has the option to contact some sort of npc intelligence network agency and be given exclusive tracking rights on the person that killed him (for a set period of time). The trader now has something that opens up all sorts of avenues for him to go down. He can use that tracking right to exact personal revenge. He could sell that tracking right to a bounty hunter, who on successful completion of an assassination will receive the bounty - and crucially instead of the pirate paying fines (as currently planned), instead he pays compensation to the trader who issued the tracking right. And finally, since the pirate would never know who the trader plans to sell a tracking right against him too, or its expiration date, the pirate may even contact his victim and buy the right himself, just to have it off his back (it would be annulled).

So it doesn't necessarily alleviate any anguish one experiences when being a victim to an act of piracy, but it does make the victim become an integral player in any subsequent after events should he so chose to. He effectively gets the satisfaction of holding all the cards for a set period of time. I think that's a better way of leveling the playing field so that multiplayer encounters of this kind are no longer emotionally one sided, the predator can become the prey, and the victim the victor, should a set of followup circumstances fall into place.

I think tracking rights would also bring bounty hunters actively into the loop and give them something tangible to use to hunt down specific targets instead of relying on random encounters. Whole scenarios of revenge and retribution can spring up here and create a whole market of interaction between traders, pirates, and bounty hunters.

But the crux of the matter is a mechanism is in place to give some power back to the victim. Whether the victim chooses to use it is their personal choice. Also worth bearing in mind these rights could be used to track the Radiant Dawn's too - i.e. infamous npcs with juicy bounties (but that's beside the point!)

As a pirate clan leader, I would welcome this system. It excites me to my very bones! Yaaaar!

 

[dasuke]

Good catch But what I really reacted on was the use of "human traders" and other all including terms mentioned several times in the text, making it seem as though he's speaking for everyone.

I agree with you; it was an overly-emotively written piece that, title issues aside, assumes others' views and opinions mirror his/her own.

 

[M3SS3NG3R]

That was not the point of what I wrote. This is not about policing and law enforcement and protection of traders. That is an entirely different topic. What I wrote is more about the psychology of player/player piracy and why many people feel conflicted about it.

Well what exactly is your point? Take out the ability for players to engage in piracy altogether?

Reality is all characters are humans and none of them are AI. Real pirates don't care if your ego can't take the shock that someone is about to pry your precious jewelry from your dead cold fingers. NPC piracy is a compromise to simulate the existence of such characters. The fact that NPCs also lack the ability to engage you emotionally unlike real human beings is a demonstration of the imperfection of current technology. How is that a pro in a game that strives to build a believable world? And you want our experience to be limited to that? If it's possible I'd rather have NPCs that can pass the Turing test so none of us can tell if anybody is human or AI. Then we'll have to take our humiliating defeat to heart instead of hitting a respawn button and pretend it never happened.

 

[Iskariot]

I agree with you; it was an overly-emotively written piece that, title issues aside, assumes others' views and opinions mirror his/her own.

Nope.
Whatever the phrasing it did not even cross my mind that people might believe that I thought to voice the opinion of the universe, because it seems such a ridiculous assumption. I consider it a bit of a waste of time to go on about this.

 

[Iskariot]

Well what exactly is your point? Take out the ability for players to engage in piracy altogether?

No, player piracy should be in the game. Taking it out would be artificial.
I wrote this more as an observation. In the many discussions about player vs player piracy the underlying conflict was never addressed. I just thought about what was really going on, about why with so many people player/player piracy obviously did not sit right. Calling it a legitimate role playing choice never solved the deeper rooted psychological problem. I just asked myself why that was the case.