FDEV and we PLEASE get a real crime/punishment system in place? Here are some fair solutions.



Now, before you write me off, this is a very fair solution to one of the biggest problems in the game. Griefing and non-consensual PvP. This solution is fair for both sides and outlines fixes to the security system that Elite Dangerous, the game that we all love desperately needs.

FDEV can we PLEASE get a real crime/punishment system in place? Here are some fair solutions.


After playing for more than a year now, I have heard CMDRs complain about various parts of the game and things that need to and dont need to be fixed. One thing that is brought up absolutely constantly is the desperate need for a proper crime & punishment system. As it is right now, the game inadvertently allows players to be as naughty as they can be with really little or no consequence. Let's just face it and be honest here. Being wanted means nothing and police AI response (right now) means nothing to wanted CMDRs. Being wanted is a status symbol in the naughty CMDR community and there is literally nothing stopping them from doing what they do (killing traders, noobs, etc.) except for a very small amount of groups like my own that fight them off. This game in its current state has inadvertently built an environment that allows for pirate groups to be a dime a dozen while law enforcement groups are left with no benefit. Griefing players are allowed to kill all they want in starter systems with NO fear of being killed by NPC authorities or having docking issues in the system that they've been murdering CMDRs in.

The solution to this entire issue would be to actually make highsec systems HIGH SEC, basically meaning that the NPC reaction time to an illegal interdiction/murder is immediate and their AI is basically godlike (but still killable) and they come in swarms. High sec police should be military equipped instead of vipers/eagles. High Sec systems should also not allow wanted CMDRs of a certain bounty size to dock (aka save their location, repair, rearm, etc) in their system. Why the heck would they allow known murderers into their homes? I believe that High Sec starports should react to high bounty criminals like they do CMDRs who are enemies of the local faction and have the police force attack on sight if a high bounty criminal attempts to dock.

On the flip side however, lowsec and Anarchy should be absolute pirate havens with no rules and no police response (Anarchy) or very slow/weak response in lowsec. These Anarchy/lowsec systems should generally have very good trade routes and smuggling should be worth double in these systems as IRL the economies would be making their money dealing in illegal goods. Allow for rare goods to receive extra money in these systems to encourage players to take a risk if they want to make more money. CMDRs taking the risk of trading in these dangerous systems in open should be allotted a 10% extra profit dividend for doing so, whether they were pirated or got there safely. With this dividend the trader could give the pirate a little bit of cargo without going broke or having to die trying to escape. That way everyone goes home happy.

This would protect players in secure systems and protect pirates/smugglers in systems that matches their play style. The solution to griefers should not be "just go to solo!" It should be "well just stick to highsec systems." How will we know the security of a system outright? Why not have an indicator on the HUD as to what security the system that we're in is or the system that we're about to jump to is.

This is what the players want and this is what will fix our issues for most of the game population. A real crime/punishment system.

TL:DR - We need a clear distinction between system securities in this game.. Badly. Fixing it this way would allow for a much more rich style of gameplay that would make sense and bring back legitimate trade, safety to the noob systems and an actual risk v. reward system.
 
Last edited:
The "punishment" system is already in place and it's much too severe.

You can get a 30Mil+ credit penalty and or 7 days ban for deliberately being rammed.

It has to be nerfed.
 
The "punishment" system is already in place and it's much too severe.

You can get a 30Mil+ credit penalty and or 7 days ban for deliberately being rammed.

It has to be nerfed.

These are credits that you DONT have to pay and can just kill yourself to remove, there really is NO penalty at all actually. There is no 7 day ban, you can dock all you like at stations that you're wanted at. How can it be severe when it is basically nonexistant?
 
Last edited:
I am sympathetic to a revamped C/P system but, it will not be a panacea that improves the population in open. Say, in open you have systems with strong security, and other that don;t. You would expect players not ready for PvP to linger in the secure systems. But, if the option to go to a Solo or PG still exists, then those environments will still be more attractive to the non-PvP types. A good C/P system will bring a lot of good to the game but, I see very little reason to believe it will re-populate open. Open is what it is, with or without a strong C/P system.

Call for a improvement to the C/P system for what it will do; Improve game play. Not because it will stop the go to solo argument. Who wants to be trapped in secure systems just to be in the magical open? My guess is not too many. Open isn't anything special. It has no lure beyond fighting with Commanders, and it shouldn't.
 
These are credits that you DONT have to pay and can just kill yourself to remove, there really is NO penalty at all actually. There is no 7 day ban, you can dock all you like at stations that you're wanted at. How can it be severe when it is basically nonexistant?

Exactly!
.
Not sure I'd use the terms high sec and low sec as that feels too Eve-ey to me (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, just that this is a different game; I guess it's natural for people to transfer terms though), but I know what you're getting at as they still adequately describe the point you're making. I too firmly believe that the consequences MUST include some form of impact on docking privileges, as well as appropriately scaled heavy authority response, when in policed systems (ie those one would expect to have an appropriate system security in place by virtue of the government in place) as opposed to anarchic systems.
 
Exactly!
.
Not sure I'd use the terms high sec and low sec as that feels too Eve-ey to me.

Lol fair enough, but on the system map it lists security levels in high/low/anarchy :p

They can really call it whatever they like for all I care as long as there are clear lines on what's to be expected when you're in one of those systems.
 
Minus the shouting - the basic idea of tying economic reward to meaningful security (both high and low) has been expressed a few times.
It's something I think could make a big difference to the game and get a lot of existing mechanics working.

@Mohrgan - well to make any of this work the AI has to be able to kill skilled humans - in groups! (Sarah needs to do her worst). AI that dangerous means going to an Anarchy anything less than 'ready to fight for you life' should be suicide in Open or Solo.
You don't have to be restricted to high sec systems.. there are grades of security.. but security level will be a real consideration. Even in Solo / Group going trading in an anarchy will require organization, escorts, hired guns, stealth, RISK! Check out all the co-operative mechanics that just started working right there..
 
I agree with everything but denying docking, I imagine most captains,pilots and commanders are smart enough to fake their ID when requesting docking permission when wanted and thats why the security ships actually scan for the true ship ID.

I would also propose a security ranking above high for extremely important systems like major faction capitals where any incident is responded to almost instantly with very heavy firepower (corvettes, condas, maybe cap ships if you're somewhere like sol and attack an orca or whatever if you have a high bounty) and having the security services and navy actively and aggressively hunt you down in supercruise. I can't imagine the Federation remotely tolerating a wanted ship within 5000ls of Mars and the same for the Empire with Capitol.
 
No.

Before crying because of criminals, make at least a valid risk & reward system.

No one is crying here and the post is actually very fair for both sides of the argument. If you read my post it outlines the risk vs. reward of trading in anarchy systems.
 
Currently Sandro seems to be mulling gank sanctions like:

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!)

I like his idea for adding your own ship's insurance premium into the fine to deter seal clubbers who then Sidewindy-suicide:

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?

All fitting with the universe, but hopefully upping the legit player responses and checks and balances in the high security zones.
 
Last edited:
Lol fair enough, but on the system map it lists security levels in high/low/anarchy :p

They can really call it whatever they like for all I care as long as there are clear lines on what's to be expected when you're in one of those systems.

Well, there you go - shows how much attention I've paid to the details in the system map..... 😂
.
Usually don't look any further than details like station services or commodities, or whether a ring is pristine or not......learn something every day....
 


Now, before you write me off, this is a very fair solution to one of the biggest problems in the game. Griefing and non-consensual PvP. This solution is fair for both sides and outlines fixes to the security system that Elite Dangerous, the game that we all love desperately needs.

FDEV can we PLEASE get a real crime/punishment system in place? Here are some fair solutions.


After playing for more than a year now, I have heard CMDRs complain about various parts of the game and things that need to and dont need to be fixed. One thing that is brought up absolutely constantly is the desperate need for a proper crime & punishment system. As it is right now, the game inadvertently allows players to be as naughty as they can be with really little or no consequence. Let's just face it and be honest here. Being wanted means nothing and police AI response (right now) means nothing to wanted CMDRs. Being wanted is a status symbol in the naughty CMDR community and there is literally nothing stopping them from doing what they do (killing traders, noobs, etc.) except for a very small amount of groups like my own that fight them off. This game in its current state has inadvertently built an environment that allows for pirate groups to be a dime a dozen while law enforcement groups are left with no benefit. Griefing players are allowed to kill all they want in starter systems with NO fear of being killed by NPC authorities or having docking issues in the system that they've been murdering CMDRs in.

The solution to this entire issue would be to actually make highsec systems HIGH SEC, basically meaning that the NPC reaction time to an illegal interdiction/murder is immediate and their AI is basically godlike (but still killable) and they come in swarms. High sec police should be military equipped instead of vipers/eagles. High Sec systems should also not allow wanted CMDRs of a certain bounty size to dock (aka save their location, repair, rearm, etc) in their system. Why the heck would they allow known murderers into their homes? I believe that High Sec starports should react to high bounty criminals like they do CMDRs who are enemies of the local faction and have the police force attack on sight if a high bount criminal attempts to dock.

On the flip side however, lowsec and Anarchy should be absolute pirate havens with no rules and no police response (Anarchy) or very slow/weak response in lowsec. These Anarchy/lowsec systems should generally have very good trade routes and smuggling should be worth double in these systems as IRL the economies would be making their money dealing in illegal goods. Allow for rare goods to receive extra money in these systems to encourage players to take a risk if they want to make more money. CMDRs taking the risk of trading in these dangerous systems in open should be allotted a 10% extra profit dividend for doing so, whether they were pirated or got there safely. With this dividend the trader could give the pirate a little bit of cargo without going broke or having to die trying to escape. That way everyone goes home happy.

This would protect players in secure systems and protect pirates/smugglers in systems that matches their play style. The solution to griefers should not be "just go to solo!" It should be "well just stick to highsec systems." How will we know the security of a system outright? Why not have an indicator on the HUD as to what security the system that we're in is or the system that we're about to jump to is.

This is what the players want and this is what will fix our issues for most of the game population. A real crime/punishment system.

TL:DR - We need a clear distinction between system securities in this game.. Badly. Fixing it this way would allow for a much more rich style of gameplay that would make sense and bring back legitimate trade, safety to the noob systems and an actual risk v. reward system.

We of the Diamond Frogs are actually very happy to offer security to any system having trouble with PK and griefers. It's actually a pretty profitable business and a treasure trove of RP possibilities!

What is your system and the name of the faction ruling it? We can send your leader a list of rates, we're quite affordable.
 
Minus the shouting - the basic idea of tying economic reward to meaningful security (both high and low) has been expressed a few times.
It's something I think could make a big difference to the game and get a lot of existing mechanics working.

@Mohrgan - well to make any of this work the AI has to be able to kill skilled humans - in groups! (Sarah needs to do her worst). AI that dangerous means going to an Anarchy anything less than 'ready to fight for you life' should be suicide in Open or Solo.
You don't have to be restricted to high sec systems.. there are grades of security.. but security level will be a real consideration. Even in Solo / Group going trading in an anarchy will require organization, escorts, hired guns, stealth, RISK! Check out all the co-operative mechanics that just started working right there..

I am totally down with a wiser AI, and that anarchy systems should come with a threat. None of that troubles me. Neither does an improved, more impactful C/P system. My point in the other post was that this is not necessarily a cure for the 'go to solo' situation. I was pointing out that players looking to by-pass PvP wouldn't seriously flock back to open. A change in C/P would just allow for condolences, 'at least they got punished' isn't going to be enough to greatly improve the population numbers in open.
 
Last edited:
We of the Diamond Frogs are actually very happy to offer security to any system having trouble with PK and griefers. It's actually a pretty profitable business and a treasure trove of RP possibilities!

What is your system and the name of the faction ruling it? We can send your leader a list of rates, we're quite affordable.

How much for you to protect 63 G. Capricorni? ;-p

I am totally down with a wiser AI, and that anarchy systems should come with a threat. None of that troubles me. Neither does an improved, more impactful C/P system. My point in the other post was that this is not necessarily a cure for the 'go to solo' situation. I was pointing out that players looking to by-pass PvP wouldn't seriously flock back to open. A change in C/P would just allow for condolences, 'at least they got punished' isn't going to be enough to greatly improve the population numbers in open.

Well with this system, criminal players will be heavily discouraged from being criminals in highsec and be encouraged to be criminals in anarchy. If there is much less of a risk and an added monetery gain for being in open, I think this would encourage a bunch of solo/private players to give open a shot again.
 
How much for you to protect 63 G. Capricorni? ;-p



Well with this system, criminal players will be heavily discouraged from being criminals in highsec and be encouraged to be criminals in anarchy. If there is much less of a risk and an added monetery gain for being in open, I think this would encourage a bunch of solo/private players to give open a shot again.

I would find it a problem if open was incentivized. I believe that FD has ruled this out. If it turns that Anarchy systems are incentivized, people would just take advantage of that increased profit in Solo, or PG's as they do now. Nothing gained in open's population.
 
How much for you to protect 63 G. Capricorni? ;-p

Well, that's the Diamond Frog system, and we are an anarchy, which according to your post has no security and that sort of thing is ok.

Which one are you, we have like six factions. Wasn't even aware player factions could share a home system, so I am sorry if we've been stomping on your interests.
 
Back
Top Bottom