San
Elite
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2007
- Posts
- 3,119
- Location
- That freaking cold place (in RL)
- Society
- OldTimers
- Avatar Name
- Sandal San Tolk
This is putting aside the fundamental discussion whether we like the entire setup or not. It is instead an attempt to establish ways and means to make it work better by doing away with remaining ambiguities which could entrap players in situations they didn't choose to be in. In expectation of some rolling eyeballs as well as near-term finalization of this task to be uncertain, a naming pattern from the realm of software development was chosen (cf. YACC, YAML etc.)
In light of the multitude of preceding discussions, and in defiance of certain perceived audacities "from above" (i.e. like support replying to complaint against harrassment by repeat killing that "you're supposed to round up help"), it is to be established that there are exactly two legitimate motivations for attacking another player in space:
1. The expectation of loot
2. The expectation of a pvp battle
Condition 1 is fulfilled before and ceases to be valid after a player unequipped for combat has been killed once and either was looted or found to not carry lootables. The message that a player was killed is sent through the universe-wide messaging system so everybody is informed. Therefore also pirates not being witness at the scene cannot claim to be unaware.
Condition 2 is established or can be reasonably assumed when both players are armed.
Condition 2 is not established and cannot be assumed when a player did not choose to arm his ship. This means he neither wants to engage in pvp nor in space hunting, which would be grounds for expecting loot.
Taken together this makes a simple pattern which can be detected and transgression prohibited by algorithm: Per single entry into space, a player whose ship is not armed can be shot and killed only once. Afterwards he can no longer be targeted and is free to travel. The sequence restarts if the player lands on a planet and enters space anew. This gives a sense of certainty to the traveller, and saves the pirate unnecessary expenses. A few further conditions are to be checked as follows.
There is a possible exploit in that a player already in unattackable state could take over goods from another player by trading inside a space station. This is either to be prohibited, or the sequence then restarted and the player informed of it. Attaching weapons to the ship or changing to an armed ship while in space also resets the flag. On the other hand, removing an attached weapon (or it becoming unusable by decay) allows for the flag to be set after one kill as per the rule above.
Psychological powerplay by preventing an evidently inferior target from getting on with a planned journey is harrassment and remains harrassment, whether MA currently allows it to happen or not. Their obvious expectation of additional income from it makes it only the less tolerable. Drop this attitude, and there will be a potential for more income from increased activity. Currently there are many players who just avoid space like the plague because they don't like becoming the punching ball of another player's overblown ego and abhor the endorsement of those. The choice to travel through space does NOT constitute an agreement to battle other players. It only constitutes an agreement to bearing the risk of potential loss of carried goods, and is to be understood as disincentive against free transport of said goods. The agreeability of this disincentive again is not subject of this proposal.
As a sidenote, there are reports that the spawning within the safe zone around the SS upon entering space does not always work and players find themselves unexpectedly in the danger zone. This is to be fixed and avoided under all circumstances. A possible solution could be a safety bubble such as the one deployed after using a teleport chip. This should allow for enough time if the player moves towards SS without delay.
Hope this makes sense. For me, it would add certainty of what to expect and the ability to be a lot more relaxed about other folks' attitudes. There is psychology at work here which antagonizes players or groups of players against each other far beyond simple logic. This is to be reckoned with instead of ignored and downplayed. The reward will be much greater than short-sighted profit-taking which only makes players seek to avoid repeat experiences.
In light of the multitude of preceding discussions, and in defiance of certain perceived audacities "from above" (i.e. like support replying to complaint against harrassment by repeat killing that "you're supposed to round up help"), it is to be established that there are exactly two legitimate motivations for attacking another player in space:
1. The expectation of loot
2. The expectation of a pvp battle
Condition 1 is fulfilled before and ceases to be valid after a player unequipped for combat has been killed once and either was looted or found to not carry lootables. The message that a player was killed is sent through the universe-wide messaging system so everybody is informed. Therefore also pirates not being witness at the scene cannot claim to be unaware.
Condition 2 is established or can be reasonably assumed when both players are armed.
Condition 2 is not established and cannot be assumed when a player did not choose to arm his ship. This means he neither wants to engage in pvp nor in space hunting, which would be grounds for expecting loot.
Taken together this makes a simple pattern which can be detected and transgression prohibited by algorithm: Per single entry into space, a player whose ship is not armed can be shot and killed only once. Afterwards he can no longer be targeted and is free to travel. The sequence restarts if the player lands on a planet and enters space anew. This gives a sense of certainty to the traveller, and saves the pirate unnecessary expenses. A few further conditions are to be checked as follows.
There is a possible exploit in that a player already in unattackable state could take over goods from another player by trading inside a space station. This is either to be prohibited, or the sequence then restarted and the player informed of it. Attaching weapons to the ship or changing to an armed ship while in space also resets the flag. On the other hand, removing an attached weapon (or it becoming unusable by decay) allows for the flag to be set after one kill as per the rule above.
Psychological powerplay by preventing an evidently inferior target from getting on with a planned journey is harrassment and remains harrassment, whether MA currently allows it to happen or not. Their obvious expectation of additional income from it makes it only the less tolerable. Drop this attitude, and there will be a potential for more income from increased activity. Currently there are many players who just avoid space like the plague because they don't like becoming the punching ball of another player's overblown ego and abhor the endorsement of those. The choice to travel through space does NOT constitute an agreement to battle other players. It only constitutes an agreement to bearing the risk of potential loss of carried goods, and is to be understood as disincentive against free transport of said goods. The agreeability of this disincentive again is not subject of this proposal.
As a sidenote, there are reports that the spawning within the safe zone around the SS upon entering space does not always work and players find themselves unexpectedly in the danger zone. This is to be fixed and avoided under all circumstances. A possible solution could be a safety bubble such as the one deployed after using a teleport chip. This should allow for enough time if the player moves towards SS without delay.
Hope this makes sense. For me, it would add certainty of what to expect and the ability to be a lot more relaxed about other folks' attitudes. There is psychology at work here which antagonizes players or groups of players against each other far beyond simple logic. This is to be reckoned with instead of ignored and downplayed. The reward will be much greater than short-sighted profit-taking which only makes players seek to avoid repeat experiences.