The problem with the new C&P improvements
- Thread starter Earth Ultimatum IV.
- Start date
Fair enough...
Can you give me an example of the gameplay that you believe would be penlised if a C&P (karma) mechanic included "illegal" destruction also in anarchy systems? ie: What you thing needs retaining? Can you give me an example so I can picture it? It could well be there's an entire area/facet of the game I'm overlooking?
Thanks
ps: Let's of course consider probably a huge amount of CMDRs letting their hair down in anarchy systems all too often consists of one or more engineered combat ships, interdicting and destroying completely outclassed ships without a chance of fighting back, only in OPEN because they're desperately trying to make the best of OPEN and not be beaten off to Mobius or SOLO. Personally, by far the most regular destruction I've seen in anarchy systems is gankers destroying victims, safe in tke knowledge they can let "their hair down absolutely safetly no matter how horrible it is".
Last edited:
Im with you. Pilots Federation should not be an omnipotent omniscient godlike entity which becomes the go-to excuse for every hokey lame game design decision ever made. It's space AAA and that's all it should be. PF is simultaneously a shady, secretive, exclusive organization; largely distrusted if begrudgingly tolerated; but somehow is able to issue ironclad edicts to every government, superpower, shipyard, and manufacturer in the entire galaxy, including those who have no regard for any other known human laws? No thanks. If that's your approach just say "a wizard did it" and get it over with, rather than pulling the Pilot's Federation into it. Stop eviscerating the lore for selfish and short-sighted quick fixes.
Sorry chap... I've been polite... Tried reaching out to over and over, but you just seem to have an inability to accept other people may just have different opinions to you...?
You seem unable to deal with this situation in a polite way and instead keep posting personal comments and now childish pictures (even to posts nothing to do with you)?
Look at the post you responded too.. Note how it's being polite and even suggesting there "could well be there's an entire area/facet of the game I'm overlooking?" - And you resort to your same (unfounded) agenda again?
Sorry, I've tried...
Last edited:
I've seen some folks suggesting there should be another organisation who CMDRs can join for more nefarious occupations/roles. That could be an interesting discussion in itself, as long as obvious it leads to "constructive gameplay" of some sort and not just an licence to gank
As for the PF having "influence", it would only take them to have the ears of the insurance companies and I can soon imagine stations/organisations falling into line with their "suggestions"...
Last edited:
I've seen some folks suggesting there should be another organisation who CMDRs can join for more nefarious occupations/roles. That could be an interesting discussion in itself, as long as obvious it leads to "constructive gameplay" of some sort and not just an licence to gank
As for the PF having "influence", it would only take them to have the ears of the insurance companies and I can soon imagine stations/organisations falling into line with their "suggestions"...
I've seen that you write volumes of material about this subject, Neil, and I certainly don't have the time to debate them all in detail with you. I'll admit that you've had some great ideas. But a very important distinction between us exists that informs each of our individual bias' on this issue; you believe ganking is bad and should be made impossible through a ruleset so punitive that it becomes untenable, while I, on the other hand, celebrate ganking in all of its forms and think the ruleset (if we ever see one which I'm betting we won't) needs to mildly curtail it at worst. Ideally, the ruleset would leave plenty of room for ganking/murdering/pillaging, and only restrict it in a manner that makes it slightly more difficult for the "bad guys."
I don't mind the conversation about karma or c&p, it's the value judgment you make that players who like murdering other players are somehow "bad" or "undesirable" and that c&p should be used as a tool to actually weed it out of the game entirely. Penalties=good. Pushing from the game=bad. I'll be pushing back against that mindset on a routine basis if I ever see it taking hold with the powers that be. At the end of the day what people need to remember is that we're all playing a game where gunplay is totally encouraged and that when you're "destroyed" it's still just part of a game. Gankers/murder hobos are just part of the ecology and we all need to learn to get along with one another. Imagine the Serengeti Plain if there were no predators at all; the Wildebeest & Zebra would procreate unchallenged and pretty soon there would be no grass left. Checks and balances my friend, checks and balances.
Last edited:
Then you both want the same thing.
Another option exists. Leave open to those who enjoy it, and wish other's well when they find an environment they'd rather be in. I am not a cheeta, I have risen above. and evolved.
"Murdering" other players is bad when it's motivated by a malicious desire to ruin their enjoyment of the game. We both know what gankers say in places less regulated than this forum, the motivation is clear.
Anti-social behaviour (and individuals, if their urges are so strong as to be uncontainable) should absolutely be driven from any community.
take pvp to anarchy systems then....
Mate. The only way to win a debate is to convince the other party. If they still disagree with you then you have failed.
Last edited:
The entire threads just theory-crafting, wishful thinking and a smattering of hoping the other side gets their play-style ruined. In those circumstances it's entirely possible to just theory-craft that you've won.
Jason. You often make a lot of sense but that analogy was ridiculous.
Too much grass?
Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one
Personally I don't see many positives when individuals destroy others, in completely one sides fights, for no (real) in game reason, simply because they enjoy the notion they've annoyed/frustrated/aggravated someone else...
When the "ruleset" seems to be rather bias to one team it's hard to imagine why one team will bother turning up?
Understood, but when this mindset allows individuals to simply habitually seal club (gank) at no negative outcome at all, it seems the checks and balances maybe haven't been ideally checked and balanced?
Consider all the activity right now in anarchy based locations... CMDRs are actively being sent off to locations where I suspect there's ganking going on regularly. ie: Individuals appearing - without a blemish on their record - destroying as many ships as they can, before than logging off, record still unblemished, simply to rinse and repeat. Surely this isn't sensible balanced gameplay?
I would say the game desperately needs to offer/orchestrate more PvP, improve piracy and introduce a sensible C&P (karma) mechanic (applicable to NPCs and anarchy systems)... Expecting it just "to work" with the beta placeholder mechanics released 2.5yrs ago isn't working IMHO.
Last edited:
The problem is "PvP" covers all manner of things surely? eg:_
- Piracy: ie: Player X interdicting player Y and attempting to steal cargo.
- Powerplay: As limited as it is, PP does push CMDRs against each other.
- Friendly/consensual fights: ie: Players agreeing to have a fight for fun.
- Unwanted interdiction for no other purpose than to destroy the opponent.
Now, personally, most of these for me I'd construe as "legal". ie: The game should not penalise them particularly. It's the last one that's the exception, and I'd hope most people would agree than this is where a C&P (karma) mechanic should come into play. And this is where IMHO we get back to the simple approach of, illegally destroy more than X CMDRs (or NPCs) in period Y, and you start incurring penalties...
I would say it's important that Powerplay combat remains "legal", ideally if possible at logical locations. ie: If you fly off to do something else for a week, it would be a shame if you've got a target on your exploration ship saying "blow me up for the lolz". I think "legal" destruction for PP should be at obvious locations/system in dispute etc between Powers, and not legal elsewhere. That said, some folks who know far more about PP than me have said that's not ideal, so maybe a means of temporarily lowering your PP flag for a period instead so you can take a break and go and do something else for a few days?
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
These example are a little vague on detail but so far so good, more maths/logic would be good here to explain your mechanism. However, basically more "illegitimate ship destructions" negatively affects a cmdr's reputation. I assume your talking about a PF reputation, this would change depending on actions in anarchy as well as governed space. Presumably in governed spaces faction/power reputations would be negatively affected aswell?
This is were I have a problem with your logic. Anarchy systems are out of faction/power jurisdictions, i.e. no faction/power rep loss but you are suggesting that docking is being refused across the board in high security stations. This is arbitrary and flawed logic (which will lead to bad gamplay ultimately IMHO), surely making artificial blocks on cmdrs docking for unrelated reasons to the system or station in question does not make sense here. The background sim runs on actual events in the game, are you willing to upset that.
OK, have an example, Cmdr Pirate destroys a number of NPC and easy target trading Cmdrs, mainly in Empire space. Eventually Cmdr Pirate goes past whatever PF rep threshold set for docking rights in High security, also has a Hostile Empire Rep. Cmdr Pirate travels to federation space where Fed rep is allied, yet all stations in Federation High security systems are now blocked. How does this make any gameplay sense?
Another example, Cmdr Buccaneer is signed up to power play for the Empire. Cmdr Buccaneer destroys are large number of rival power play agents and disprupts neutral trading cmdrs and NPC in the Federation & local non populated anarchy systems. Cmdr Buc. gains positive Empire rep and hostile Fed rep, also gets negative PF rep for illegitimately destroyed neutral cmdrs. This puts cmdr Buc. over your PF docking threshold, on returning to Empire space he is blocked from High secuirty systems, where cmdr Buc. is allied to the controlling faction . This is illogical surely?
I am in favour of faction/power reps determining docking privs. Basically if "hostile" there would be no docking privs, if "unfriendly" there would be partially services. Obviously there could be conflicts of interest depending on faction and power allegiances but these can be sorted out with a few simple rules which i won't go into here. How does faction/power reps governing docking privs not logical or diminish gameplay?
I refer you to the above answer on the increased loss of docking privileges. Agree that PF bounties should be placed for illegitimate ship destructions (n.b. not illegal ship destruction in terms of governed space) in anarchy space, I would have a PF rep as well which would also be affected. If a ship is scanned then a cmdr would be able to view the PF rep so alerting cmdrs to the basic nature of a cmdr. If a ship is not scanned and you are destroyed, then effectively the PF do not know who destroyed you. Would it be logical for a negative rep lost and bounties placed on the aggressor?
Ok don't confuse illegal and illegitimate, there is no legality in anarchy systems. The PF don't have legal powers either but they do have bounty issuing and insurance rebuy powers. Do you see what I mean?
I think I can demonstrate your proposals are not logical in terms of power play, basic game concepts, let alone the background sim. Therefore how can they not effect gameplay negatively? Griefing and ganking are effectively illegal/illegitimate ships destructions in terms of the game. The C&P system cannot distinguish motive, therefore needs to work mathematically & logically. I don't think your systems can easily determine what is ganking/griefing or genunie aggressive gameplay at the end of the day.
Last edited:
Personally I think the "amount of negative reputation" you get from an illegal destruction of a CMDR (or NPC) should be the same no matter what system type. But I can understand calls for it to be scales according to system security? But I do not see how a C&P (karma) mechanic can achieve what it's trying to without including anarchy systems. ie: I don't see why seal clubbing in anarchy systems is some noble gameplay we need to "protect."
Yes the "maths" of this reputation is a debate all unto itself. ie: At what point do any penalties kick in? eg: The most limited amount of say just high security stations denying you docking? Personally? I can only see it working on a scale based on illegal kills per period. And this would have to be based on the worse value based on a number of parallel systems to capture what causes a significant enough "spike".
Here's some completely example maths for the lolz:-
PF Criminal Reputation Calculation. The highest value is taken from these:-
Daily spike: <no of illegal kills over past 24hrs> / 3
Weekly spike: <no of illegal kills over past 168hrs> / 7
Four weekly spike: <no of illegal kills over past 672hrs> / 10
Weekly spike: <no of illegal kills over past 168hrs> / 7
Four weekly spike: <no of illegal kills over past 672hrs> / 10
How the galaxy reacts to you is then deduced:-
Station/System Access
>=1 : Warnings from stations about your reputation
>1.25 : High security stations deny docking.
>1.5 : Medium security stations deny docking. High security system deny permit.
>1.75 : Low security stations deny dockings. Medium and above systems deny permit.
BTW: It wouldn't be as black and white as this I'd imagine, but you get the picture
Pilots Federation Bounty
>1.5 : You have a bounty of some calculated amount making you a viable/legal target for anyone, anywhere.
Pilots Federation Psycho Alert
>1.75 : You are highlighted on scanners as a known "psycho".
Other/alternative penalities
Lots of alternative penalties have been suggested. eg: From Rebuy increase... to OPEN only mode.
>=1 : Warnings from stations about your reputation
>1.25 : High security stations deny docking.
>1.5 : Medium security stations deny docking. High security system deny permit.
>1.75 : Low security stations deny dockings. Medium and above systems deny permit.
BTW: It wouldn't be as black and white as this I'd imagine, but you get the picture
Pilots Federation Bounty
>1.5 : You have a bounty of some calculated amount making you a viable/legal target for anyone, anywhere.
Pilots Federation Psycho Alert
>1.75 : You are highlighted on scanners as a known "psycho".
Other/alternative penalities
Lots of alternative penalties have been suggested. eg: From Rebuy increase... to OPEN only mode.
Now those are just a pee-in-the-wind example of an approach. But the outcome would result in hopefully a predictable and fair outcome to habitual illegal destruction? Ultimately a PF Criminal Reputation you can see on your system panel going up each time you illegally destroy another CMDR (or NPC) and going down over time...
I would say first, is the gameplay outcome desirable? Does the notion as you illegally destroy more and more CMDRs (or NPCs) resulting in more and more station saying "you're not welcome" seem a sensible/effective penalty?
If you say no, then fair enough, I'm more than happy to go with other penalties instead. If you (like me) think its an interesting/effective penalty to deter habitual illegal destruction, then we can surely come up with any number of hand wavium reasons for it? eg: It's the PF behind it - you are a member of the PF - and they are in bed with the insurance companies (& therefore the banks) and therefore have a rather significant voice in the ears of all stations etc?
But I can see your point and if you can think of a better alternative penalty along these lines, I'm all ears
Agreed... But let's go with the noddy maths I've listed above... What gameplay would you propose if negatively, or more importantly, unfairly, affected by it?
Last edited:
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 just. It's an anarchy system. That means anything goes. I don't care if you think it shouldn't. It does anyway. Just stop. This isn't helping. It's ignoring context. Just like you are ignoring context again when you don't get that security of a system should be the context for crime and punishment.
Because this is quite literally EXACTLY what the security of a system SHOULD mean. I genuinely don't understand how such a simple concept, system security, actually escapes you.
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.
Again, I just can't believe 28 pages on you are still banging this drum that's so incredibly irrelevant. lol
I just. It's an anarchy system. That means anything goes. I don't care if you think it shouldn't. It does anyway. Just stop. This isn't helping. It's ignoring context. Just like you are ignoring context again when you don't get that security of a system should be the context for crime and punishment.
Because this is quite literally EXACTLY what the security of a system SHOULD mean. I genuinely don't understand how such a simple concept, system security, actually escapes you.
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.
Again, I just can't believe 28 pages on you are still banging this drum that's so incredibly irrelevant. lol
Neil, do you even play the game at all? I've become convinced that this is all just a hypothetical argument for you.