The problem with the new C&P improvements

[NeilF]

Neil are you still trying to argue that Anarchy system, the one place everyone supposed to go to to have fun because they can't anywhere else, should also have some sort of legal way to punish people?

I understand your point, but let's at least admit that a lot of the fun you describe - and I've witness if over and over recently - is simply individuals in dedicated engineered ships trying to destroy as many other CMDRs trying to make the most of OPEN for no reason other than toxic/cynical purposes. What is beneficial about one or more ships destroying another CMDR in a couple of seconds just for the aggravation it causes to the victim, all at no negative outcome for themselves? All seems very one sided?

We're either going to agree or disagree that the vapid ganking we see all too often in anarchy systems (as is taking place right now at the Thargoid bases) is to be "protected" as useful/noble gameplay, or instead reined in.

If you disagree, and don't think such activity needs reining in, then, that's where our opinions diverge and we're at loggerheads Does it need reining in or not?

I want to see Frontier make System Security absolutely critically important. So that high sec has low profit potential, but is reaosnably safe with a large security force. You can make money, but not as much elsewhere. The benefits are that you won't get shot at much.

However. At the other end is Anarchy. This is like driving through a zombie apocalypse. It's full of bad people. But it's also where the most profitable cargo and missions are. You want to make just endless credits? Come to Anarchy. You might die, sure. That's a distinct possibility. But riches beyond all imagination could be yours.

Right now? System security has NO relevance in the game. None. Which is just frankly bizarre. It should mean everything. Honestly I won't even understand why it doesn't.

Regardless, there has to be dark places. With great profit. And risk. For those who want to play hard. If you want to play safe, stick to the shipping lanes in high sec and enjoy that gradual gain.

And I absolutely agree with at least some of this. System security should make a huge difference...

But while so much gameplay in ED is unfortunately in anarchy systems we surely have to acknowledge players will be headed out there. And if we want this to happen in OPEN (what a shame if they can't?) just because of pointless ganking then where are we trying to get to with the game. Because the logical endpoint is, it will become a matter of course for any player headng to an anarchy location (eg: the current Thargoid ruins) to do so in Mobius... And that is exactly where I've now ended up due to the none-stop-cynical-ganking I'm seeing over and over...

If we want any hope of for example PvP piracy even taking place in anarchy systems, then we need some sort of C&P mechanic to give the "victims" some sort of belief that they'll be "pirated" and not just be mindlessly ganked...? And this would mean some sort of logical C&P mechanic including anarchy systems...

By all means look at #696 and the noddy maths I've put down and comment on what would be negatively effected in your gameplay for example?

 

[NeilF]

Neil, do you even play the game at all? I've become convinced that this is all just a hypothetical argument for you.

As I've suggested a number of times... Pick an actual point I'm making and then point out the logical problems you see with it. This will end up with a far more constructive end point than just making pointless sarcastic "jibes"?

This does of course assume you actually would like to make some logical comments instead of just pointless sarcastic jibes...?


eg: Read through #696? Point out a problem and we can have a nice little polite chat I'm less interested in the pointless sarcastic stuff though TBH!

 

[Truesilver]

There is an answer to that abuse. If you distrust the person with whom you're duelling then ask them to wing up before the duel. You can't get a bounty for killing someone in your wing.

This doesn't just work for strangers you distrust. It's also good for people who regularly meet on Wednesdays outside George Lucas for a fight, but are getting on a bit and sometimes forget to turn report crimes off

Unfortunately winging prevents or hampers some aspects of duelling such as pulsed silent running, cool running builds, specials that affect sensors and specials that have friendly fire triggers.

I won't duel winged, personally.

I want to see Frontier make System Security absolutely critically important. So that high sec has low profit potential, but is reasonably safe with a large security force. You can make money, but not as much elsewhere. The benefits are that you won't get shot at much.

However. At the other end is Anarchy. This is like driving through a zombie apocalypse. It's full of bad people. But it's also where the most profitable cargo and missions are. You want to make just endless credits? Come to Anarchy. You might die, sure. That's a distinct possibility. But riches beyond all imagination could be yours.

Yes, this is exactly how it ought to be, in any mode of play.

 

[kofeyh]

As I've suggested a number of times... Pick an actual point I'm making and then point out the logical problems you see with it as this will end up with a far more constructive end point than just making pointless sarcastic "jibes"?

This does of course assume you actually would like to make some logical comments instead of just pointless sarcastic jibes...

Look I am pretty sure at this point you are either incapable of reading, or intentionally ignoring the meaning of the words people are spending time and effort writing. I just can't tell. Yes, anarchy is supposed to be dangerous. People should go their if they want to profit. The balance for that much higher financial gain, is the risk.

That is how it's supposed to work. It doesn't. But it should. Because system security should be reflected in the BGS. So it treats dangerous places as proftiable places. Where missions pay more. Cargo is worth more. In return players who want to make credits face real risk. This is self regulating as complaints about easy credits dry up as it's really easy to get credits, you might just die a lot in the process.

Want to die less? Or certainly not face the gauntlet. Go to a high sec system. Sure, the pay is lowest, but it is safe. That's what safe gives you, slow but predictable gain. Anarchy? Huge profit potential but it comes with major health risks. Like spontaneous decompression. Numerous explosions. And so on.

Yes, it would attract a lot of players. That's the point. But it gives those who want to make a fast buck, a challenge in return. Just as it always should have. That's the crux of my point. Make system security mean something. Because that's always going to be the easiest thing for commanders to use, and it self regulates.

Right now, system security has virtually no meaning. Which actually imbalances the game. Because there should always be get rich quick schemes, they just have considerable (up to almost impossible) risk. System security would be an exceptional way to make high credit gain a challenge, without needing it to be removed. And anyone wanting to play it safe, of course, can. But it just won't pay as well.

This should scale, from high security all the way down to anarchy. One extreme, to the other. Truckers can pick their risk. From safe. To profit central. Pirates can work high sec systems but that becomes an extreme challenge. It's also not very profitable. Low sec and anarchy though? Hello pay day.

It creates a highly complex outcome, from a very simple base. And folks can elect what point they want to engage. But, I fear this entire response is a bit pointless.

Please, just don't respond. Because after 28 pages it's pretty clear the concept of security and risk just doesn't make sense to you. And I fear any attempts to do this, to help you "get it" are just making the situation worse. I'm sorry.

 

[Riverside]

I broadly agree that there needs to be some sort of system for capturing behaviour in Anarchy systems. The point of introducing the PF bounty & 'karma' system is to capture player behaviour, and potentially to penalise unwanted behaviour.

Personally I try to keep squeaky clean by doing my stuff in Anarchy systems, but in the universe of ED there is an all-seeing entity that watches (FDev) & is capable of delivering payback.

Trying to be always good is very worthy, but being bad can be fun, until it catches up with you. This is the point, I feel.

 

[jasonbarron]

I broadly agree that there needs to be some sort of system for capturing behaviour in Anarchy systems. The point of introducing the PF bounty & 'karma' system is to capture player behaviour, and potentially to penalise unwanted behaviour.

Personally I try to keep squeaky clean by doing my stuff in Anarchy systems, but in the universe of ED there is an all-seeing entity that watches (FDev) & is capable of delivering payback.

Trying to be always good is very worthy, but being bad can be fun, until it catches up with you. This is the point, I feel.

Why mess with Anarchy systems? What gain is there?

@Neil, same question to you

 

[NeilF]

Look I am pretty sure at this point you are either incapable of reading, or intentionally ignoring the meaning of the words people are spending time and effort writing. I just can't tell. Yes, anarchy is supposed to be dangerous. People should go their if they want to profit. The balance for that much higher financial gain, is the risk.

That is how it's supposed to work. It doesn't. But it should. Because system security should be reflected in the BGS. So it treats dangerous places as proftiable places. Where missions pay more. Cargo is worth more. In return players who want to make credits face real risk. This is self regulating as complaints about easy credits dry up as it's really easy to get credits, you might just die a lot in the process.

Want to die less? Or certainly not face the gauntlet. Go to a high sec system. Sure, the pay is lowest, but it is safe. That's what safe gives you, slow but predictable gain. Anarchy? Huge profit potential but it comes with major health risks. Like spontaneous decompression. Numerous explosions. And so on.

Yes, it would attract a lot of players. That's the point. But it gives those who want to make a fast buck, a challenge in return. Just as it always should have. That's the crux of my point. Make system security mean something. Because that's always going to be the easiest thing for commanders to use, and it self regulates.

Please, just don't respond. After 28 pages it's pretty clear the concept of security and risk just doesn't make sense to you. And I fear any attempts to do this, to help you "get it" are just making the situation worse. I'm sorry.

I'll respond even when you've loaded your point with "personal unnecessaries"

Yes system security should affect risk and prices and the BGS etc etc (just as I've already said in this thread)? And if this was confined to the scenarios you seem to be painting it to - for example running a risky trade run to make a good profit at high risk - then I'd be agreeing with you.

However, if we look at the game at the moment (surely the best approach)?:-
1) Traders are not typically running risk trade runs to anarchy systems in OPEN. Why? a) Because the BGS doesn't particurly offer it. b) Because the risk is not a realistic/reasoned risk of I will be pirated for my cargo, but instead I will be blown apart by vastly superior wings of ships for the lolz (...with any consideration of actual piracy?).
2) More importantly, significant number of CMDRs are heading off to anarchy systems because that's where FD have put new content. eg: Thargoid ruins. And this is now where we're currently seeing the goto gank locations... Basically one sided affairs of engineered combat ships cynically destroy as many ill equipped CMDRs not interested in PvP, let alone outfitted for it...

I don't see much skill/gameplay depth in these outcomes? And I ultimately just see OPEN getting more and more damaged by it. You may well disagree... And that's fine...

[Note how I managed all that without any insults or derogatory comments... Even though we seem to disagree?]

Why mess with Anarchy systems? What gain is there?

@Neil, same question to you

Go and visit a Thargoid base in OPEN and watch... Why are other CMDRs turning up there for no other reason than to destroy the CMDRs flying in and landing? What's gained by these very one sided destructions? What's gained by more and more CMDRs quite sensibly using Mobius or SOLO instead? What so productive about this ganking that it shouldn't be reined in? What's unreasonable about psychotic behaviour costing insurance companies a fortune, and quite contrary to the PF mandate being recognised and reacted to?

I watched the FD community live stream unfold for the Thargoid announcement. Ed Lewis quite sensibly wasn't in OPEN, because Wings of engineered combat ships without the slightest interest in the community event, and instead simply using it, arrived simply to blow up as many ships (mostly exploration given the nature) as possible... Completely safe in the knowledge not a single smudge would appear on their records. What gain is there with this current approach? Except for the gankers? The logical conclusion is Mobius will become the defacto play mode all too often... What's to gain from this?

 

[znôrt]

Why mess with Anarchy systems? What gain is there?

@Neil, same question to you

he doesn't get bounties there?

some people get bothered by bounties ... yes they may be annoying in some situations, but generally no issue. i've bounties all over the bubble, not in the few places i care about.

 

[Riverside]

Why mess with Anarchy systems? What gain is there?

@Neil, same question to you

Try thinking of it in a '10 commandments' kind of way. Even with the toilet door closed, you are being watched & judged. Anarchy systems are where you can get away with the most stuff, but I don't think, for a system like this, there need be anywhere to hide. An agreed fight in an Anarchy is one thing (and IMO not to be discouraged), ganking at an ancient site again & again is veering towards the toxic.

As I mentioned in another post I'd be in favour of player led solutions (policing a hotspot) but time has told that this does not happen, the baddies outnumber the goodies. So this feature is being considered to bring a little balance back, because we are unable to do it ourselves.

 

[kofeyh]

I'll respond even when you've loaded your point with "personal unnecessaries"

Yes system security should affect risk and prices and the BGS etc etc (just as I've already said in this thread)? And if this was confined to the scenarios you seem to be painting it to - for example running a risky trade run to make a good profit at high risk - then I'd be agreeing with you.

However, if we look at the game at the moment (surely the best approach)?:-
1) Traders are not typically running risk trade runs to anarchy systems in OPEN. Why? a) Because the BGS doesn't particurly offer it. b) Because the risk is not a realistic/reasoned risk of I will be pirated for my cargo, but instead I will be blown apart by vastly superior wings of ships for the lolz (...with any consideration of actual piracy?).
2) Significant number of CMDRs are heading off to anarchy systems because that's where FD have put new content. eg: Thargoid ruins. And this is now where we're currently seeing the goto gank locations...

I don't see much skill/gameplay depth in these outcomes? You may well disagree... And that's fine...

[Note how I managed all that without any insults or derogatory comments... Even though I seem to disagree with you?]

Imagine if people didn't tell Frontier to keep thargoids out of high sec areas. Oh well. Imagine if you wanted to try and maintain a double standard, then complain about it. Looks like that's certainly happening.

Also my whole point was that system security should mean something. Which you seem to have completely ignored again. And are asking redundant questions.

What I see. Is a commander who is questioning why system security should matter? After complaining that all the new stuff is in Anarchy because other people of a similar mindset had complained they didn't want to be affected. Right after apparently forgetting they told all the pew pew players to sod off to Anarchy. Oh dear.

Has it occurred to you that Frontier have done exactly what people asked them to do? Honestly.

 

[znôrt]

Try thinking of it in a '10 commandments' kind of way.

inb4 some christian roleplayer goes nuts,

equating faction law (you know, a bunch of rich guys paying another bunch of armed guys to dictate what's acceptable in their lawn) with the ten commandments ... well played, sir!

 

[kofeyh]

Try thinking of it in a '10 commandments' kind of way. Even with the toilet door closed, you are being watched & judged. Anarchy systems are where you can get away with the most stuff, but I don't think, for a system like this, there need be anywhere to hide. An agreed fight in an Anarchy is one thing (and IMO not to be discouraged), ganking at an ancient site again & again is veering towards the toxic.

As I mentioned in another post I'd be in favour of player led solutions (policing a hotspot) but time has told that this does not happen, the baddies outnumber the goodies. So this feature is being considered to bring a little balance back, because we are unable to do it ourselves.

The irony of people being told go fight in anarchy systems. And then frontier puts all the new content in Anarchy because commanders don't want it in secure locations because they want to elect to be invaded or not.

Imagine if asking these things of Frontier, endlessly, had consequences? Like the developer doing exactly as asked.

 

[jasonbarron]

Try thinking of it in a '10 commandments' kind of way. Even with the toilet door closed, you are being watched & judged. Anarchy systems are where you can get away with the most stuff, but I don't think, for a system like this, there need be anywhere to hide. An agreed fight in an Anarchy is one thing (and IMO not to be discouraged), ganking at an ancient site again & again is veering towards the toxic.

As I mentioned in another post I'd be in favour of player led solutions (policing a hotspot) but time has told that this does not happen, the baddies outnumber the goodies. So this feature is being considered to bring a little balance back, because we are unable to do it ourselves.

Well, that's about what I figured. Let's just remove Anarchy systems altogether, then, on our quest for the ultimate nanny state

 

[znôrt]

As I mentioned in another post I'd be in favour of player led solutions (policing a hotspot) but time has told that this does not happen, the baddies outnumber the goodies.

not at all, they don't. it doesn't happen because mode switching and combat logging make it impossible.

So this feature is being considered to bring a little balance back, because we are unable to do it ourselves.

it won't. see above.

 

[NeilF]

Imagine if people didn't tell Frontier to keep thargoids out of high sec areas. Oh well. Imagine if you wanted to try and maintain a double standard, then complain about it. Looks like that's certainly happening.

Also my whole point was that system security should mean something. Which you seem to have completely ignored again. And are asking redundant questions.

What I see. Is a commander who is questioning why system security should matter? After complaining that all the new stuff is in Anarchy because other people of a similar mindset had complained they didn't want to be affected.

Has it occurred to you that Frontier have done exactly what people asked them to do? Honestly.

I'll be honest... You're asking questions... I'm trying my best to answer and address them but you just keep suggest I'm ignoring your points over and over... I'm trying...

So we're clearly just at cross purposes... So maybe just agree to disagree.

 

[Riverside]

Well, that's about what I figured. Let's just remove Anarchy systems altogether, then, on our quest for the ultimate nanny state

You should put that suggeston in, see how popular it is.

Kofeyh, If you read the whole post it may become more clear. Or maybe not

not at all, they don't. it doesn't happen because mode switching and combat logging make it impossible.



it won't. see above.

There is a difference between RL & ED, and that's that you can destroy many ships but you cannot kill the Cmdr. They keep coming back. The way to deal with this is to make them not want to play.

 

[NeilF]

Well, that's about what I figured. Let's just remove Anarchy systems altogether, then, on our quest for the ultimate nanny state

Not happy with one strawman you've built a strawman sandwich?

No one's suggesting "remove anarchy states". Even with my proposal - which clearly you don't agree with, which is fine - they'd have a logical place. eg: You could pirate other CMDRs there, safe in the knowledge no security would come to spoil your day. However, my proposal would suggest, if you're using an anarchy system instead just to act like a habitual psychopath, then - shock horror - it might get noticed...

No one's asking for a "nanny state". Myself, I'm simply trying to give OPEN some long overdue cause and effect. Act like a psycho, get treated like a psycho. And with so much content in anachy systems, I see no other way forwards other than to include anarchy systems in this approach.

I can't see how anyone could argue that this would not rein in ganking... What I can see is if people think ganking needs to be reigned in

 

[kofeyh]

I'll be honest... You're asking questions... I'm trying my best to answer and address them but you just keep suggest I'm ignoring your points over and over... I'm trying...

So we're clearly just at cross purposes... So maybe just agree to disagree.

Works for me. I am answering your questions though. It just seems you don't like the answers. The logical place to gate risk, is system security. And that high sec and anarchy allows for two ends of the risk spectrum. The BGS could and should be linked to that, so risk and reward are essentially balanced.

These are all answers, Neil. Very simple ones that can lead to any number of outcomes. This means in Anarchy? Regardless of moral objections, the local power brokers don't really care what you do unless you trash your reputation with them. Which might lead to, I don't know, constant harrasment. But they probably don't care if you shoot at other people.

The problem we have, is essentially people have told Frontier they like being safe so all the risky stuff has to go into Anarchy. Which frontier are now doing. That means you don't get to complain when they put the single biggest risk we will ever face, Thargoids, in a set of sodding Anarchy systems.

They could have made it less of a chore. They didn't, because they did what the loudest in the community asked them to do. Like they always do. That that might not have worked out as intended, probably should temper people from demanding Frontier do one thing, or another. But apparently if you yell a lot, it's apparently hard to listen.

It would be nice if people listened a little more, and shouted a little less. I can dream.

 

[Riverside]

In case you were not aware, I'll enlighten you. Your suggestion is blatant, textbook griefing.

I find the irony hilarious.

[haha]

It is indeed the tactic used by Griefers. However there is no griefing in ED.

 

[NeilF]

Works for me. I am answering your questions though. It just seems you don't like the answers. The logical place to gate risk, is system security. And that high sec and anarchy allows for two ends of the risk spectrum. The BGS could and should be linked to that, so risk and reward are essentially balanced.

I'm all for this...

This means in Anarchy? Regardless of moral objections, the local power brokers don't really care what you do unless you trash your reputation with them. Which might lead to, I don't know, constant harrasment. But they probably don't care if you shoot at other people.

And with my suggestion that's still much the same. You can act like a complete psycho and nothing negative will befall you in anarchy systems. BUT, should you go to more "civlised locations" they may look at your (recent) murderous behaviour and not be too keen to do "business." And with you needlessly costing insurance companies a fortune, and certainly not maintaining the PF's mandate, they too may look dimply upon psychopathic behaviour. It all seems quite "believable" and fair to me at least?

The problem we have, is essentially people have told Frontier they like being safe so all the risky stuff has to go into Anarchy. Which frontier are now doing. That means you don't get to complain when they put the single biggest risk we will ever face, Thargoids, in a set of sodding Anarchy systems.

Now I don't get this? The ganking going on at these current exploration based new locations for example, is far from "safe". Quite the contrary? If FD were making things "safe" there would be a capital ship over every exploration location ready to shoot any CMDRs who shot another. That's clearly not the case...

If I arrive in an anarchy system in an exploration ship, an NPC (these days) will ignore me (at least if I have no cargo), and handing over that cargo will probably mean my safe departure. The same cannot be said at these current location with psychopathic CMDRs. They are unsafe to the extent of just be toxic. No skill or challenge in truth. Just cynical destruction for the lolz. And I don't see how this is beneficial at all.

And it's these gankers I'm primarily concerned about. It's just damaging OPEN imho (anarchy sysems and non-anarchy). The C&P (karma) system I'm supporting IMHO would rein in illegal destruction (while not prevent it), which to my mind is a fair approach at least.