(Yet another) C&P proposal: preventative v. risk-based penalties

[Theodrid]

Ah, but it's fine to slaughter fields of NPCs and then go back to station for a cuppa?

If you want to start on the indignation train, it's farcical that crime and punishment is being handled by a magical space niceness factor than local authorities because your typical PvE player can't handle the prospect of decent NPCs/AI/Cops without having a nervous breakdown.

But here I am playing along and suggesting ways to make it work.

Now you can either give murderers reason to fear death and be cautious, you can ask them to spend far less time in stations so they have more time to do the murdering business, or you can admit that by enforcing on this, they would have to play less - i.e. restricting their right and ability to play.

I don't care how harsh the reasons to fear death are - what you think is an apt consequence is only apt in the confines of your own desire for revenge. You are playing a game of spite with players that have mastered it...I can see it doing nothing to discourage murder unless you are happy to admit you simply want them to play the game less.

Now, we gonna stay on this merry-go-round?

My god, you do love creating your Imaginary bogeymen made from straw don't you?

Absolutely it should apply to NPC's (I know it won't, a mistake in my opinion though understand the PF lore etc)
Thinking about what you are doing and maybe taking it to another star system is playing less how?
Murderers can still choose to stay right where they are and face the inherent dangers.

Next.

 

[Stigbob]

Ah, but it's fine to slaughter fields of NPCs and then go back to station for a cuppa?

Yes of course provided they are wanted, lawless or its an anarchy.

 

[Mohrgan]

It should be said that, in another thread on this subject, Sandro has mentioned the Notoriety System will only track Player on Player incidents. At least in it's original form. So, at the onset, NPC's are not covered by karma. That makes sense because NPC's are created for us to do our things.

 

[StiTch]

There is all kinds of craziness in this post. "...restricting their right and ability to play." indeed.

Cool story bro, tell it again

My god, you do love creating your Imaginary bogeymen made from straw don't you?

Absolutely it should apply to NPC's
Thinking about what you are doing and maybe taking it to another star system is playing less how?
Murderers can still choose to stay right where they are and face the inherent dangers.
Next.

Penalties for NPC murder...now there's a turn for the books.

Look mate, honestly, you could have it your way and lock all negative karma players from stations in non-anarchy space.

And after about five minutes of the forum patting its own back, the realisation would kick in that nothing is actually changed by it.

But nothing is worth giving up the witch-hunt, right?

It should be said that, in another thread on this subject, Sandro has mentioned the Notoriety System will only track Player on Player incidents. ... That makes sense because NPC's are created for us to do our things.

My god, you do love creating your Imaginary bogeymen made from straw don't you?

Absolutely it should apply to NPC's

Well damn me, vehement insults thrown at me that can't even be consistent.

Anyway.

Anything to discuss from here that isn't "well I don't think OP punishes gankors enough"?

 

[Mohrgan]

Cool story bro, tell it again




Penalties for NPC murder...now there's a turn for the books.

Look mate, honestly, you could have it your way and lock all negative karma players from stations in non-anarchy space.

And after about five minutes of the forum patting its own back, the realisation would kick in that nothing is actually changed by it.

But nothing is worth giving up the witch-hunt, right?

There is all kinds of craziness in this post.

Fortunately, I got the perfect opportunity to '...tell it again.' right away. Lol.

 

[Stigbob]

Penalties for NPC murder...now there's a turn for the books.

Murder bounties have always been a thing.

 

[Omgzzwtf]

Your idea is all very well and good.


But, while trying to clear an accident bounty I'd gained, I managed to casually dock my 20,000,000 rebuy Anaconda, without being noticed.

And then I actually had to chase down security in my sidewinder to get them to notice me. Lol

It actually takes a monumental failure to get scanned these days. I mean, tangle yourself up in the toast rack , or get jammed in the slot sideways type failure.



But yes, I'm all up for making illegal life difficult in higher security areas.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

I've always thought that ships entering the station should be scanned by the station when going through the mail slot, silent running or not. It would change how smuggling worked, you might have to pay off bounties at less secure stations from some pretty seedy dudes at a higher rate, and cargo running would have to be done in special shielded cargo racks that cost more and carry a little less than regular racks.

 

[Theodrid]

Cool story bro, tell it again




Penalties for NPC murder...now there's a turn for the books.

Look mate, honestly, you could have it your way and lock all negative karma players from stations in non-anarchy space.

And after about five minutes of the forum patting its own back, the realisation would kick in that nothing is actually changed by it.

But nothing is worth giving up the witch-hunt, right?

My god Stitch, what 'witch hunt'? This is a Frontier proposal, based on what they have seen through metrics, experience and more. Believe it or not for many PVE players this isn't about 'revenge', this isn't about a 'witch hunt' this isn't about 'banning PVP' or 'stopping all murder/ganking'. This is purely about having a galaxy that makes a little more sense, a pilots federation that is paying insurance finally waking up and the developer saying 'we have to curb this a little'.

All the fuss some of you PVP'ers are kicking up over this, all the mythical enemies you create that want rid of you, or that want this system to end PVP and the like speaks volumes. It says far more to Frontier than I or any other poster ever could, as do the toothless 'as we are' proposal revisions from some PVP'ers.

Listen mate, there are some crazies on the fringes of both sides but just as PVP players in the main do not want to be pitched in with their sides crazies please pay the same courtesy to non PVP'ers.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Using the term "locking out content" for behavioural choices is cherry picking IMO. If I choose to "play my way" by ignoring opportunities for material gathering then I'm "locked out" of Engineers. If I choose to "play my way" by ignoring the rules of any future karma system then I may be "locked out" of certain stations. I see little difference in principle, other than one being a direct result of a play style and the other being a potential consequence. The practicalities are the same. Make a choice, some content is "locked out" unless the play style is modified.

Terminology aside the idea has some merit. It adds gameplay rather than taking it away, which is rarely a bad thing. The cost of failure would have to be significantly higher than for any other station-related transgression, though, otherwise it's no riskier than docking with an active bounty or even pad loitering. At the very least I'd expect any ship destruction to require a full-price rebuy, given that insurance is paid by the EFP and the pilot has not only fallen foul of their member-on-member engagement guidelines but brazenly tried to ignore their docking ban as well.

I believe the Station/Outpost 'scans' you as you enter it's vicinity. Stations will send a text or voice comm to recognize your influence with them. Surly, if they come to know your affiliation with the station's controlling faction, they know who you are, and they know your criminal status. How else would they offer a 'Welcome' message?

A prime example of the game's internal inconsistency. To make it work you have to assume that traffic control and law enforcement are wholly separate entities who never talk to each other, which is a stretch. If and when we get a karma system it will also raise the question of exactly who is enforcing the docking ban, since that's an EFP thing and the patrol ships are mostly local authority vessels.

 

[StiTch]

Murder bounties have always been a thing.

Well yes - as handled by local authorities as a crime, which is how this should be handled, but can't be because if competent local authorities are allowed to exist the player base loses its mind.

I've always thought that ships entering the station should be scanned by the station when going through the mail slot, silent running or not. It would change how smuggling worked, you might have to pay off bounties at less secure stations from some pretty seedy dudes at a higher rate, and cargo running would have to be done in special shielded cargo racks that cost more and carry a little less than regular racks.

All ships being scanned is a little naff, especially in making smuggling remotely exciting, but nothing against the idea of shielded cargo racks on a tradeoff basis - much smaller capacity for instance.

This is purely about having a galaxy that makes a little more sense, a pilots federation that is paying insurance finally waking up and the developer saying 'we have to curb this a little'.

OP and everything I have said has been in encouragement of making sense, and curbing the behaviour by proxy, because some murderers won't be able to keep up with it (and good).

I've said though repeatedly that locking people from stations makes no sense because it wouldn't curb it. I am for once fighting the side of the anti-murderer, but when there's a hint of trying to protect PvP etc. in a post, that's all that gets picked up on.

 

[Theodrid]

Well yes - as handled by local authorities as a crime, which is how this should be handled, but can't be because if competent local authorities are allowed to exist the player base loses its mind.




All ships being scanned is a little naff, especially in making smuggling remotely exciting, but nothing against the idea of shielded cargo racks on a tradeoff basis - much smaller capacity for instance.




OP and everything I have said has been in encouragement of making sense, and curbing the behaviour by proxy, because some murderers won't be able to keep up with it (and good).

I've said though repeatedly that locking people from stations makes no sense because it wouldn't curb it. I am for once fighting the side of the anti-murderer, but when there's a hint of trying to protect PvP etc. in a post, that's all that gets picked up on.

That isn't true Stitch, the problem with your proposal is that it is toothless with the game as it stands. It would require an entire reworking of the smuggling/authority/stations mechanics and that hasn't even been hinted at by Frontier beyond revoking docking. The karma has been hinted at, if you could come up with something with more teeth within, (largely), the existing framework then who knows, even some of us carebears may get behind it.

By the way, I think revoking docking combined with other measures is a bit of a game changer, not least emphasised by the furore against it from some commanders.

 

[NeilF]

False.

As I've said before, karma will hit more CLers than it will gankers.

Fair point... Yes I overlooked it monitoring combat logging. That said, we have no idea what approach FD will take to that metric.

We do know they wish to rein in illegal destruction though, and as you brought it (ships denying docking) up, I personally think a black white docking ban from stations as you hit a significant level is one of many perfect penalties to achieve that.


My only concern about scanning being required to enforce something is, it'll be exploited. It's fairly easy now to sneak into a station in anything but he largest of ships. And surely is if your answer is to increase scanning, then you'll risk negatively effect illegal goods/smuggling?

Hence for me at least, a fairly black and white, sorry, you've reached this level, you're not welcome anymore seems simpler and more effective.


But I really do understand where you're coming from though


ps: We're in the tricky territory of trying to rein in grifers/gankers, while at the same time not trying to screw over some perfectly valid illegal destruction for example through piracy.

 

[StiTch]

Using the term "locking out content" for behavioural choices is cherry picking IMO. If I choose to "play my way" by ignoring opportunities for material gathering then I'm "locked out" of Engineers. If I choose to "play my way" by ignoring the rules of any future karma system then I may be "locked out" of certain stations. I see little difference in principle, other than one being a direct result of a play style and the other being a potential consequence. The practicalities are the same. Make a choice, some content is "locked out" unless the play style is modified.

Terminology aside the idea has some merit. It adds gameplay rather than taking it away, which is rarely a bad thing. The cost of failure would have to be significantly higher than for any other station-related transgression, though, otherwise it's no riskier than docking with an active bounty or even pad loitering. At the very least I'd expect any ship destruction to require a full-price rebuy, given that insurance is paid by the EFP and the pilot has not only fallen foul of their member-on-member engagement guidelines but brazenly tried to ignore their docking ban as well.

I use it specifically because it would be locked out in the form I see it put forward in so much.

Not gathering mats is still choice-based, because you can go do engineers straight away. You just don't immediately have the things. Taking a sandbox game, and making parts of it outright inaccessible for a period of time as a result of playing the sandbox in a certain way, is probably the most ludicrous thing I've heard...not to mention it is surely poor form to then restrict them from stations which may be essential for some reason.

But I hear what you say about adding gameplay instead of deducting it, and I am glad that as far as that goes, you're on board with me.

Yes, make punishments harsh. Yes, full ship rebuys. Yes, various fees. Yes an additional fine/bounty placed within that system. Make them feel like a murderer, not a shoplifter. But for the love of god, nothing as dull as "these doors are closed until you're not so much of a bad boy"

A prime example of the game's internal inconsistency. To make it work you have to assume that traffic control and law enforcement are wholly separate entities who never talk to each other, which is a stretch. If and when we get a karma system it will also raise the question of exactly who is enforcing the docking ban, since that's an EFP thing and the patrol ships are mostly local authority vessels.

Meh, let's just go back to pre-PP, and have bounties that span entire sections of the bubble, yes?

Hence for me at least, a fairly black and white, sorry, you've reached this level, you're not welcome anymore seems simpler and more effective.

A lot of PvE based players probably do, but all you significantly change is the offender's ability to take part in events such as CGs.

There's nothing I can't do in Anarchy - or don't already do in anarchy by accident half the time...

ps: We're in the tricky territory of trying to rein in grifers/gankers, while at the same time not trying to screw over some perfectly valid illegal destruction for example through piracy.

Treat this as engaging/immersive C&P, instead of trying to throw vitriol at those darn PvPers, and it'll be just fine.

My suggestion, for instance, not only adds risk as part of C&P but then provides scope for pirates to be caught up in it without massively breaking things. Even if a pirate falls foul of some borderline situations, that pirate is not then being treated like he's transgressed some hidden game rule, but a functioning member of a criminal society that stepped a little too far and has to sneak his goods in... <3

 

[Jack Schitt]

Not gathering mats is still choice-based, because you can go do engineers straight away. You just don't immediately have the things.

You can go to the station straight away. You just don't immediately have the access rights.

Honestly, I still don't see the practical difference. There is a procedural difference, in that docking restrictions would take away something currently taken for granted -- universal access to stations - so maybe there's a bit of loss aversion that you may feel has to be factored in. Otherwise the game is already full of rules of the form, 'If you do x then you're "locked out" of y' e.g.

• If you remove your fuel scoop then you're "locked out" of fuel scooping.
• If you fly without guns then you're "locked out" of combat.
• If you remove your PAS then you're "locked out" of planetary landings.
• If you don't have sufficient cargo space then you're "locked out" of some haulage missions.
• If you don't have first class cabins you're "locked out" of VIP missions.
• If you don't have sufficient Federal rank then you're "locked out" of some ships.
• If you don't have sufficient Imperial rank then you're "locked out" of other ships.
• If you don't have the right relationship with the controlling faction then you're literally "locked out" of some systems.

What FD may be proposing in extremis is basically this:

• If you don't have an acceptable karma rating then you may be "locked out" of some stations.

It's just another potential rule.

Taking a sandbox game, and making parts of it outright inaccessible for a period of time as a result of playing the sandbox in a certain way, is probably the most ludicrous thing I've heard...

There is precedent for this in ED though. In addition to the bullet points above, players have been effectively "locked out" of bounty hunting CGs because they've inadvertently (or maybe experimentally) destroyed a local authority ship and been saddled with a Wanted status for several days.

not to mention it is surely poor form to then restrict them from stations which may be essential for some reason.

With the possible exception of Jameson Memorial there are few stations in ED whose services aren't also available elsewhere. There might be some stations on the fringe that offer the only repair or restock facility in a radius of x light years, but I'd argue it's poor tactical choice on the part of a pilot who needs such a station but chooses to pee off the EFP in its backyard. Either don't annoy the EFP, or annoy them somewhere where a high-security lockout isn't going to cause too much pain. That's gameplay.

 

[StiTch]

With the possible exception of Jameson Memorial there are few stations in ED whose services aren't also available elsewhere.

I'm gonna leave this particular point here, because this is fundamentally what I was getting at earlier anyway. In essence...it's not punishing enough.

It's dull, and it's uninspired, and it's unengaging...but not punishing. I don't actually see it changing the landscape of murder in that incarnation at all.

All you do is restrict the offender from a CG, or an alien site, or their home system - and these are fundamentally the aspects that should be available to everyone.

Quite notably though you mention "precedent" but it's a precedent that completely agrees with me being wanted somewhere, and having to sneak in, is fine. It's not the same as having a hold full of CG rewards and being categorically turned away because you've been a naughty boy...

 

[FrogsFriend]

The idea of locking new 'exciting and engaging consequences' behind a low Karma rating, i.e. rewarding people for upsetting the rest of the community, does seem a little perverse.

 

[Riverside]

The idea of locking new 'exciting and engaging consequences' behind a low Karma rating, i.e. rewarding people for upsetting the rest of the community, does seem a little perverse.

I agree with this, but if that's what it takes to bring in the extremes then fair enough I'd say. If the majority of the community accept this system as something that adds to their gameplay, it will have a better chance to succeed.

I'd like to see delayed penalties and a degree of RNG so that cause & effect are partly masked. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes your luck runs out early. Adds to the dilemma.

 

[FrogsFriend]

I agree with this, but if that's what it takes to bring in the extremes then fair enough I'd say. If the majority of the community accept this system as something that adds to their gameplay, it will have a better chance to succeed.

I'd like to see delayed penalties and a degree of RNG so that cause & effect are partly masked. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes your luck runs out early. Adds to the dilemma.

Sorry but I can't see any sense at all in rewarding the very behaviour a Karma system is intended to discourage, and the implemented system, in whatever form it actually takes, certainly doesn't need to be attractive to the abusive players in order to be considered a success. Quite the opposite.

And on your second point, I think that breaking (or softening) the link between unacceptable behaviour and its consequences wouldn't help in discouraging people from heading down that path. There needs to be a fairly direct link, or at least direct enough that a player can understand that their own actions are the cause of their misfortune and not just believe that they're suffering because of random 'bad luck'.

I can understand that players who feel their freedom to harass others will be penalised are trying their best to get the system watered-down and made toothless (it appears unlikely they can stop it completely), as evidenced by the many threads already out there, but kudos to the OP for the attempt to turn it full circle and have it actually encourage & reward bad behaviour with more interesting/challenging game play [blah]

 

[Jack Schitt]

The idea of locking new 'exciting and engaging consequences' behind a low Karma rating, i.e. rewarding people for upsetting the rest of the community, does seem a little perverse.

It does seem as though it might encourage some people to drive their karma rating as low as possible just to see how many times they can dodge the po-po in the exciting dock-before-you-pop game. And as I hinted earlier, the only way I can imagine mitigating that would be to make the punishment for actually being scanned so crippling that few will risk it even with ridiculously low odds of failure. At that point, for most players it may as well have been a lockout anyway.

kudos to the OP for the attempt to turn it full circle and have it actually encourage & reward bad behaviour with more interesting/challenging game play [blah]

He's persistent, I'll give him that. And the idea is interesting. I just don't agree with the reasoning he presents for its existence.

As already noted, I don't have a gameplay preference either way. Whether FD wants to do full station lockouts or some sort of re-balanced risk/reward system as the OP suggests makes little difference to me since I play so rarely in Open that I'm unlikely to fall foul of it, or cross paths with anyone who has.

From the perspective of verisimilitude I would certainly lean towards the lockout. "We don't like what you've done, and so you are not welcome here," seems like a simple, believable and straightforward response that anyone can immediately understand. But then I would also like to see that sort of thing applied to criminal activity against NPCs which is something FD are dead set against, at least for the immediate future, so as a PVE player I wouldn't get to experience any aspect of it anyway. I would much rather "karma" be part of a larger, hopefully forthcoming, C&P overhaul and not limited to the EFP but FD have chosen to treat it as a separate player-on-player overlay so wherever they go with it is up to them.

There's also the question of ease of implementation, of course. Even if FD think that OP's "tougher sneaking with harsher punishments" is the best idea ever, it's a whole bunch of extra stuff to code. On the other hand...

IF (karma < threshold) AND (noFireZone = false) THEN CALL goAway
IF (karma < threshold) AND (noFireZone = true) THEN CALL bloodyBigGuns​

...is a lot simpler, and historically FD have tended to favour the simpler solutions.

 

[yodajedifishmaster]

the issue in OP with locking stations: this is because the commander has done so much ganking/ramming/combat logging, for so long it breaks gameplay for others badly and is what someone called 'out of universe'. its a trend of behaviour done for the sole purpose of ruining others gameplay, which is always a concern for any game developer where mp is concerned. FD must be fairly concerned with what they see with their telemetry to be considering this karma system as it stands in sandros post. this also btw gives the lie the those who say griefing and ganking either doesnt exist at all, or is a viable and FD approved playstyle, or is not a big problem. i must admit i thought it was high profile but relatively low frequency and that in the main open was healthy and things like high traffic places and CG were surviving fine despite some poo flinging chimp presence at them. or maybe they just got scared the hotel california thread - lets face it, the solo vs PG vs open thing is 95% gankers wanting open to be mandatory and very little about BGS or other scenarios like loneliness of some friendlier open commanders - might get so big soon that it breaks the forum software...

but the idea is that the bad karma being so high means you are KNOWN and intel sought about you. if you are being stopped docking rights entirely at some stations its because you got too infamous. other consequences should be happening more than jut the normal bounty system and anaemic system security response. you should get wings of bounty hunting npcs interdict you or if more than 15 minutes in one system a naval task force with capital ship and many fighters drops in to say hello just for you. the rebuy screen will become your new neighbour any time you leave port, and even anarchy systems will not be safe - bounty hunter wings of npcs wont fear them. and anarchy being the only place you can dock - well if i was that station i would at least double my prices to you personally. captive market right? its me or dont have repairs and fuel. pay it or leave. and should you start ganking traders in the anarchy system it will cause damage to the anarchy stations economies and THEY may not allow you to dock there either. thats what the karma system means. consequences for out of universe bad behaviour. we remember the worst pirates of the golden age of carribean piracy because they got too famous and came undone as a result. the authorities couldnt ignore it any longer - thats what the karma system will be doing.

the fact it could also be the base of a new overhaul of crime and punishment for IN universe crimes like smuggling and piracy, and also for careers like bounty hunting, is a side benefit and speculation. i would like that. i hope FD can include it long term. but right now they are obviously seeing something worrying which they feel needs to be deterred.