Post by Tanith Low on Feb 28, 2016 21:17:07 GMT
From Sandro himself. Puts a bit of context to the whole "FD endorse griefers" stance.
Hello Commanders!
At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire
I'd like to make a few things clear about our standpoint:
Any changes we might make would not be to punish PVP players or PVE players.
They would be to improve consequence for player choices, which I think sometimes gets a little lost in the heat of the debate.
In Open play, any sort of behaviour is technically allowed (bar hacking or using known exploits). What is potentially missing is appropriate consequence for some actions. For example, pirating a ship and stealing some amount of cargo in a policed jurisdiction is reasonable - you are committing crimes which you might have to pay for. Pirating in anarchy is also fine, including destroying the target ship in the process - the victim should understand the risk of flying outside of legal jurisdictions.
Frankly, none of the above is particularly about player versus player or lack thereof. It's about plausible and consistent game rules.
Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game. The rub is that some folk (myself included, for what it's worth) feel that the consequences of such actions are not commensurate with the act committed. So whilst I want to defend the right of "griefconda" to exist, I want to make sure that there are meaningful responses in the game world to their actions.
This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)
On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?
forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=226764&page=110&p=3583549#post3583549
Interesting huh?
This is pretty much what we've been saying. The added benefit with such things is that it make piracy more viable. You know that if you are interdicted by another player there is less of a chance of them just blowing you away. They probably just want a small amount of your cargo because they know if they kill you it will have a much more serious negative impact.
Hello Commanders!
At the risk of adding more fuel to the fire
I'd like to make a few things clear about our standpoint:
Any changes we might make would not be to punish PVP players or PVE players.
They would be to improve consequence for player choices, which I think sometimes gets a little lost in the heat of the debate.
In Open play, any sort of behaviour is technically allowed (bar hacking or using known exploits). What is potentially missing is appropriate consequence for some actions. For example, pirating a ship and stealing some amount of cargo in a policed jurisdiction is reasonable - you are committing crimes which you might have to pay for. Pirating in anarchy is also fine, including destroying the target ship in the process - the victim should understand the risk of flying outside of legal jurisdictions.
Frankly, none of the above is particularly about player versus player or lack thereof. It's about plausible and consistent game rules.
Now let's take another example: the hypothetical Commander "greifconda" slaughtering the hypothetical Commander "newbwinder" with maniacal glee. The first thing to note is: as an event, it's acceptable within the rules of the game. The rub is that some folk (myself included, for what it's worth) feel that the consequences of such actions are not commensurate with the act committed. So whilst I want to defend the right of "griefconda" to exist, I want to make sure that there are meaningful responses in the game world to their actions.
This is why we're looking at some kind of Pilot's Federation reputation, with some bite (locking off access to starports, increasing insurance costs). It's why we're also looking to enhance the differential between low and high security systems, reducing response times significantly and increasing the strength of authority ships significantly in high security systems (hopefully this should also reduce the cases of lone Eagle authority vessels interdicting powerful player criminals) and looking to get interstellar bounties in (hey, no confirmed guarantee or ETA!)
On a slight tangent, I wonder what folk make of this idea: When committing the murder crime, the insurance re-buy insurance premium of the murderer's vessel is added onto the eventual fine, the idea being to remove the benefits of changing to a cheap vessel then allowing the bounty to be claimed?
forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=226764&page=110&p=3583549#post3583549
Interesting huh?
This is pretty much what we've been saying. The added benefit with such things is that it make piracy more viable. You know that if you are interdicted by another player there is less of a chance of them just blowing you away. They probably just want a small amount of your cargo because they know if they kill you it will have a much more serious negative impact.
