The problem with human piracy - A traders perspective

[Thelas]

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.

As a player who likes PVP servers in games because I like the evolving challenges that only player to player interaction can bring, and from a standpoint that I'm (usually) not the aggressor in any given situation I disagree with what you say.

You say that players have no issue with AI pirates because they're scripted but take issue with player pirates which is a legitimate career course. I can't understand that logic.

By me accepting a multiplayer session I would be agreeing to the game's ruleset therefore I accept what comes be it good or bad, much like all players joining a game with your flag capture example.

I know there are options to try to avoid people via single player sessions and such but I hope to see as many people as possible in multiplayer to make it a varied game.

AIs never gank? Been interdicted by multiple enemies lots of times who then proceeded to try to attack me. That's ganking (gang killing) right there.

Any losses I suffer from an AI or a player pirate are still losses. In fact I could guarantee a loss from CMDR Pirate would spur me on to do better in trying to outwit him than any AI loss would.

I completely understand that we're all different and have different opinions on what's what but I'm looking forward to testing the hiring of wingmen etc, or maybe forming a small player convoy for protection. This is one example of what I meant earlier by saying about player to player interaction. It's why I've been unable to play single player games for a long time now, single player no longer cuts it for me.

 

[KickahasTier]

Is he really?? I think it's more how you've chosen to define "cooperation" and "competition." Pirate Players can cooperate to improve their competitiveness, as can traders. Trading between stations can be conceptualised as competition; you'll ultimately be shifting commodities that others will thereafter not be able to profit as well from (if the economy shifts as has been suggested it will). Players who cooperate to bring down a large-bountied target will be competing for the last shot to get that bounty, or (if they balance out the kill-steal mechanic) may compete with one another after cooperating on the kill to see who gets the most free-floating cargo.

I think he's doing perfectly fine in his role and it's more your dichotomous conceptualisation of cooperation and competition.

It's easier to conceptualise cooperation and competition as opposites. Down the line (garden path / yellow brick road) everything is related to everything.

The way I have broken it down is

pVp groups vs pVp groups (the current emphasis I see)

and

pVe groups vs AI groups (the original philosophy)

 

[Arindor]

Sadly, most people will be doing trade runs for a while before they turn to violence and intimidation for profit.

Let's face it, trading has far little pay-off with regard profit and ship advancement, making the lure of piracy more tempting. (Just like the original Elite, ED is unbalanced against trading as a career option.) I agree, though, that if you want to role-play a pirate, then you should. Unfortunately, there will be those players who know nothing about RPGing who'll just see ED as another pvp fps, but in space. (Unless, of course they choose to be a space-lane murder. In which case, how do we tell them from griefers and punish accordingly?) I'm looking forward to SB, just to see whether these ideas about justice come to fruition.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Of course players attacking other players gain some satisfaction from that. This is such a fundamental psychological principle, how could it be otherwise? Why would you do it if not for some kind of satisfaction? Are you a machine?

I would attack you because I want to survive. If I am pirate, I need money, badly. I can't trade, therefore I should go out and scoop some cargo. If you don't give it up, I would have wasted my money for fuel and repairs.

You really operate on very narrow POV. Very similarly to some PVPers I might add. As I have said previously, you complement each other, you can't get enough of this barter. They are happy that you are angry, and you feel morally justified calling them jerks. For experienced man in his thirties it feels so fake and plastic.

 

[Cosmos]

a) The assumption as stated is true. You are asking for evidence as if its not a fact that pVp play is all about owning and pwning.

b) I must refrain from making a comment which would break Godwins law. But really free speech should be banned ... really?

I tell you what I think the problem is. People are taking adversarial interactions with other players personally and then get emotionally charged up to the point of hysteria. Arguably, the OPs post was rather more articulate than most.

I've yet to hear a valid explanation for what the difference is between being attacked by an NPC or a human but this doesn't seem very rational:

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

I just can't get animated or upset that someone attacked or over powered me in a computer game.. Often I learn from the experience and see it as a challenge..

I think a paradigm shift is required in how we look at things. At the end of the day perhaps certain MP games aren't for everyone?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Why would you do it if not for some kind of satisfaction? Are you a machine?

Satisfaction, sure .. I give you that.

However not from taking cargo from a player but from taking cargo - period.

Life as a pirate is going to be tough:

• I shoot anything without a bounty and I incur a penalty.
• If I destroy an NPC I receive a larger bounty.
• If I destroy a player then I receive a HUGE bounty. (It's frowned upon by the Elite Federation of Pilots)
• With a sufficiently large bounty the system Police will take an interest in me.
• Once the bounty becomes more substantial bounty-hunters will notice my name. (PC & NPC)
• If I am destroyed in the process I have to pay off my fines out my own purse.
• Finally, I will be welcome at places that would probably rip me off. (Anarchy systems)

No, no violin required, this is the life I choose - the satisfaction comes from beating the odds and remaining alive to tell the tale. The chances of us meeting are slim (space being big and all) but when we do I assure you my name will be remembered.

 

[STABB666]

I want it now daddy, now!

Let's face it, trading has far little pay-off with regard profit and ship advancement, making the lure of piracy more tempting. I agree, though, that if you want to role-play a pirate, then you should. Unfortunately, there will be those players who know nothing about RPGing who'll just see ED as another pvp fps, but in space. (Unless, of course they choose to be a space-lane murder. In which case, how do we tell them from griefers and punish accordingly?) I'm looking forward to SB, just to see whether these ideas about justice come to fruition.

I'm a latecomer to the Beta, so I still have a sidewinder and a pulse laser. I am not a scary Pirate, so I'm taking the better part of valor and waiting till I have a bigger ship, better guns and increasing boredom with flying from station to station for a few hundred measly credits.

 

[KickahasTier]

I tell you what I think the problem is. People are taking adversarial interactions with other players personally and then get emotionally charged up to the point of hysteria.

pVp is it's own reward in this respect, maybe it should be opt in.

I think a paradigm shift is required in how we look at things.

This I really do agree with. I think FD are in a great position to innovate in the online gaming space, and am quite excited to be part of it.

 

[Iskariot]

They engage in sensible moderation though, so I don't see these threads getting banned any time soon.

Exactly. It would be quite insensible to ban such a thread, because the discussion is quite interesting.

most importantly how attacking other player is wrong (really?)

If that is referring to what you perceive to be my opinion, then you are wrong. That is not what I said, that is not what I feel, that is not my opinion.

 

[Half Giant]

The way I see it any on-line community will have a varied population. This forum included. I see bounty hunting and piracy as attempts to give some of the players at one end of the spectrum a constructive involvement in the game. The alternative is to either let them run riot or crack down. I think it is a very interesting experiment. It is the details of piracy consequences that will mean this succeeds or not. Given a typical multi-player game a player might decide to kill other players. In another multi-player game the same player might be given a more interesting set of rules that formalise (however loosely) how they interact with other players. This set of rules could mean that a large portion of the players that, in the first game, get labelled 'griefers' get to challenge other players, get to win, get to lose but all within the fiction of the game. As opposed to standing starkly outside it.

It isn't going to be easy but I know which approach I think is more interesting.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander KickahasTier!

I don't believe that saying adversarial game play - such as piracy - as being part of the core feature set excludes or even minimises co-operative elements from also being part of the same feature set.

We want to encourage co-operative game play, we also want adversarial game play to be meaningful, not spread about willy-nilly to for a casual lark where it can become the de facto method of play.

But the bottom line is that the game is multiplayer and does feature some elements like piracy. I'm not sure what the point would be of having such adversarial elements if we did not address them seriously.

And part of taking them seriously is ensuring they have the correct amount of risk/reward, and have the correct level of importance balanced against all the other ways to play the game.

 

[Cosmos]

This I really do agree with. I think FD are in a great position to innovate in the online gaming space, and am quite excited to be part of it.

I was really suggesting that players like the OP might benefit from looking at things in a different way.

 

[STABB666]

The voice of reason must prevail!

Hello Commander KickahasTier!

I don't believe that saying adversarial game play - such as piracy - as being part of the core feature set excludes or even minimises co-operative elements from also being part of the same feature set.

We want to encourage co-operative game play, we also want adversarial game play to be meaningful, not spread about willy-nilly to for a casual lark where it can become the de facto method of play.

But the bottom line is that the game is multiplayer and does feature some elements like piracy. I'm not sure what the point would be of having such adversarial elements if we did not address them seriously.

And part of taking them seriously is ensuring they have the correct amount of risk/reward, and have the correct level of importance balanced against all the other ways to play the game.

PvE should be renamed 'Pirates vs Everyone' lol

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Exactly. It would be quite insensible to ban such a thread, because the discussion is quite interesting.

If that is referring to what you perceive to be my opinion, then you are wrong. That is not what I said, that is not what I feel, that is not my opinion.

Well, you said that in your opinion player pirates should not target player traders. Or I just misunderstood you completely.

That paragraph was about general attitudes of both camps on ED forums, and one of them includes strong vibe of "we don't want to be attacked by other players for any reason, thank you", while opposition says that anything that makes them harder to exclusively target players is bad.

 

[Cosmos]

Hello Commander KickahasTier!

I don't believe that saying adversarial game play - such as piracy - as being part of the core feature set excludes or even minimises co-operative elements from also being part of the same feature set.

We want to encourage co-operative game play, we also want adversarial game play to be meaningful, not spread about willy-nilly to for a casual lark where it can become the de facto method of play.

But the bottom line is that the game is multiplayer and does feature some elements like piracy. I'm not sure what the point would be of having such adversarial elements if we did not address them seriously.

And part of taking them seriously is ensuring they have the correct amount of risk/reward, and have the correct level of importance balanced against all the other ways to play the game.

One thing we haven't really been able to explore in any serious way is the co-op side of the game and I expect things will really brighten in that respect with the next release. I hope players like the OP embrace playing with others because aside from it being a lot of fun there is also strength in numbers.

 

[Half Giant]

Satisfaction, sure .. I give you that.

However not from taking cargo from a player but from taking cargo - period.

Life as a pirate is going to be tough:

• I shoot anything without a bounty and I incur a penalty.
• If I destroy an NPC I receive a larger bounty.
• If I destroy a player then I receive a HUGE bounty. (It's frowned upon by the Elite Federation of Pilots)
• With a sufficiently large bounty the system Police will take an interest in me.
• Once the bounty becomes more substantial bounty-hunters will notice my name. (PC & NPC)
• If I am destroyed in the process I have to pay off my fines out my own purse.
• Finally, I will be welcome at places that would probably rip me off. (Anarchy systems)

No, no violin required, this is the life I choose - the satisfaction comes from beating the odds and remaining alive to tell the tale. The chances of us meeting are slim (space being big and all) but when we do I assure you my name will be remembered.

Exactly this. And lots of opportunity to tune the level of each penalty. I also think - I may be wrong - that there will be consequences for reputation that exceed ship destruction. So a pirate may also be excluding themselves from certain paths. Although, if that is the case, I'd hope there are other rewards for them.

I suspect what we'll actually see is poor player traders struggling to make a profit but poor player pirates really struggling to get anywhere. I hope for a challenging game where both happen. Sorry.

 

[KickahasTier]

If the net result of cause+effect = crying is the same, then what the Sam Hill does it matter?

End justifies the means eh ..

Intent is important I think... It is a wonderful discussion though. I wish I had enough experience in philosophy to unravel it coherently, or indeed, even time to take part.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

End justifies the means eh ..

Intent is important I think... It is a wonderful discussion though. I wish I had enough experience in philosophy to unravel it coherently, or indeed, even time to take part.

In nutshell it is all about how victim *feels*. I don't see that as part of any game discussion though.

 

[STABB666]

It's all relative...

End justifies the means eh ..

Intent is important I think... It is a wonderful discussion though. I wish I had enough experience in philosophy to unravel it coherently, or indeed, even time to take part.

I'm not saying anything about justification, simply that it boils down to bad guys being in space, we get killed by bad guys and it makes us rather annoyed with them. Does it really matter if it was me that killed you, or a computer? Unless I maybe came to the forums and bleated on about how lame that trader was and how awesome my murder is, I can't see how it can step beyond the story of the game.

 

[Iskariot]

Intent is important I think...

I think so too. Very important.

It is a wonderful discussion though.

I am glad you think so, because that was what I hoped for.
Although some seem to take everything very personal and get extremely emotional about it and even want to ban threads like this.