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.


I actually want to agree with part of this about needing some Low sec and High sec systems... but your idea is far too extreme. You literally want safe zones where nothing bad can happen-- and that shouldn't exist. As for penalties for crimes-- so many uninformed people on this issue talking out of a hole. When you are wanted for a large bounty (I'm currently worth 353k in Eravate thanks to the ineptitude of AA in getting rid of me) you get harassed incessantly by the Security Forces. They may not be very good at killing people who are billionaire endgame players (guess who)-- but they are more than enough to cause some frustration for or even kill a less advanced player who's committed the same crimes. I am constantly being interdicted by NPCs and they frequently interfere with me being able to interdict another player (they like to get me when I'm lining up... lol so frustrating). Also, I can't go near a station without being shot at (I could go to Russell but I killed a player as he was leaving the station, so now I'm wanted there too). Anyway, getting shot by all of the NPCs as you are trying to dock does not make things easy, and as I said earlier it would be pretty difficult for anyone but a billionaire endgame player.

Overall these measures are far too extreme, and the reasoning for their necessity is somewhat misinformed. I do believe that there should be systems with better, more dangerous security (and more systems with lucrative rewards + NO security), but that's about as far as we agree on that. Please, won't you people stop shamelessly begging FD for a safespace? Just go find a singleplayer game or a coop-only game if you can't stand non-consensual PvP so much. It's never going to be fair and it shouldn't be.
 
Better distinction between high and low sec systems does seem to be "on the list" as it were.

I just hope it comes with additional incentive to go to anarchies (more trade profits, higher out-of-system bounties, etc etc)

This. High sec should see lower commodity prices, anarchy needs to have a kick up to give adventurous traders something to do. Security levels should actually means something (so pirating in a high sec equals high risk high reward as the goods can be flogged off back in anarchy where prices are better.

In short, most of what is needed, already exists; it's not so much the mechanics at this point, as simply making system security actually means something. For all concerned.
 
This. High sec should see lower commodity prices, anarchy needs to have a kick up to give adventurous traders something to do. Security levels should actually means something (so pirating in a high sec equals high risk high reward as the goods can be flogged off back in anarchy where prices are better.

In short, most of what is needed, already exists; it's not so much the mechanics at this point, as simply making system security actually means something. For all concerned.

Not quite as simple though as saying prices should simply be lower in high sec. Not all commodities would be sourced from within high sec space would they? High sec does not simply mean that prices should be lower, in the same way that it does not automatically follow that prices would always be high in anarchic space. Logically, prices should be driven by distance from the commodity's source, or its rarity, irrespective of security status. The security status should surely actually affect the costs of trading (eg having to pay for escort ships or weapon loadouts and ammo that reduce your cargo capacity), and thereby the profit margin rather than the value of the commodity. Security state might affect the availability of certain commodities from time to time though, and that in turn can affect availability, driving prices up, but that can just as easily occur in a high sec system at war as it can in an anarchic system, surely? Point is, I guess, it's not as simple as just saying prices should be higher or lower by virtue of a system being high sec or anarchic.
 
Nah Open is dead because efficiency and profit > multiplayer for progressing.

There is no reason to farm or do anything progression wise in Open, because Solo is god mode at that. Hence, Open is dead. Only masochists play Open because of the current Crime system. Even with Silk's suggestions, it means nothing to reviving Open as much as he hopes because Solo is still the holy grail of efficiency.

All this suggestion does is make low sec and high sec differentiate. It does nothing to bring people from Solo into Open or stop people leaving Open to farm easily in Solo. There is a solution to this problem but it's completely off the table and not even worth discussion on these 1 way street forums (You could also call them progressive leftist forums!)


If profit is the motivator you're right. That's my very point. C/P system improvements will be good for the game, but it won't shift the population. I am completely against incentivizing open. Open should be able to support itself. I can't see a logical reason for FD to promote any of the modes. Just let people choose, and the galaxy will be fine. All of this debate is based on some notion that open needs to be maintained. It doesn't. It can and will only support those players that enjoy it's environment. The game doesn't need to be played by open's standard, it's to be played by each player's interests.
 
All of this debate is based on some notion that open needs to be maintained.

How many "Open vs ___" threads have there been just this month? 6? 8?

The "problem" some see is that not enough people are in open. The solution? Usually find some way to try and pressure people to play in open. Why? Well, because Open is the "real" game where real men play.

I believe a better C&P system would benefit the game and some of the OPs suggestions sound good to me.

To people who self-identify as PvP proponents, consider this: how long have you been posting about how ED is dying due to everyone not being forced to play in Open? Earlier today, someone posted "Mobius is sucking the life out of Open because blah blah..."

What have you accomplished? Will 10 years of 6 threads a week change the economics of game sales? Some people aren't interested in playing a game with you. Frontier knows this, but still wants those people as customers, hence other modes. These aren't going away.

If you want more people in Open, you'll have to make them WANT to play in Open. Until you can offer Frontier a suggestion on how to do that or figure out how to make that happen, you're just farting in the wind.
 
I am constantly being interdicted by NPCs and they frequently interfere with me being able to interdict another player (they like to get me when I'm lining up... lol so frustrating). Also, I can't go near a station without being shot at (I could go to Russell but I killed a player as he was leaving the station, so now I'm wanted there too). Anyway, getting shot by all of the NPCs as you are trying to dock does not make things easy, and as I said earlier it would be pretty difficult for anyone but a billionaire endgame player.

Well, I think Powerplay npc's are more crazy about rate of interdictions, Security npc's aint are even close to that level. Oh, and you can land on any stations you want, no matter if wanted or not. Thing is, if wanted, just dont let get scanned by npc's before docking. Of course they will open fire, as soon they find that they got wanted hot dog over there!



These changes you mention, would certainly add some flava into game, you got there right. This been already asked few times, but you had to start another thread... Great. Who knows, maybe this push FD's fixes priorities in this way.

But... You just wants (godlike almost like u said) army of npc's in order to aid ya, right? What, railgun zombie wings are not enough? :) Bhunters in past liked to use often Npc's help in combat, to gain aid from them against Wanted's, when "Crimes ON" worked somehow. It started with vipers & eagles usualy, but if you killed one, anacondas jumped in, like up to 3 of them. On top of that, you had wing of players after ya six. To counter it, one had to ignore them completly and focus only on human tagets. I dont really mind to see something similar again. It wont stop the killing. Nothing will.

P.S
I think you like the word "Naugthy".... Can we have this one instead of "wanted" on HUD? FD plss.
 
Well, I think Powerplay npc's are more crazy about rate of interdictions, Security npc's aint are even close to that level. Oh, and you can land on any stations you want, no matter if wanted or not. Thing is, if wanted, just dont let get scanned by npc's before docking. Of course they will open fire, as soon they find that they got wanted hot dog over there!




These changes you mention, would certainly add some flava into game, you got there right. This been already asked few times, but you had to start another thread... Great. Who knows, maybe this push FD's fixes priorities in this way.

But... You just wants (godlike almost like u said) army of npc's in order to aid ya, right? What, railgun zombie wings are not enough? :) Bhunters in past liked to use often Npc's help in combat, to gain aid from them against Wanted's, when "Crimes ON" worked somehow. It started with vipers & eagles usualy, but if you killed one, anacondas jumped in, like up to 3 of them. On top of that, you had wing of players after ya six. To counter it, one had to ignore them completly and focus only on human tagets. I dont really mind to see something similar again. It wont stop the killing. Nothing will.

P.S
I think you like the word "Naugthy".... Can we have this one instead of "wanted" on HUD? FD plss.

I never said I couldn't land, I said it would be very difficult for a weaker player (most people) to land under those conditions (and those conditions do not involve scans. I immediately get attacked by every NPC as soon as I enter the instance for a few seconds). I never actually get scanned in the situation I'm describing. Happened just earlier tonight actually too. Also, you attributed my constant NPC interdictions to PowerPlay-- I am not aligned with a PowerPlay faction ;)
 
Last edited:
Would totally support the idea to my opinion would really make the game better. And could potentially suit different play styles better and I'd finally be safe from the prying hands of interdictions.
 
I never said I couldn't land, I said it would be very difficult for a weaker player (most people) to land under those conditions (and those conditions do not involve scans. I immediately get attacked by every NPC as soon as I enter the instance for a few seconds). I never actually get scanned in the situation I'm describing. Happened just earlier tonight actually too. Also, you attributed my constant NPC interdictions to PowerPlay-- I am not aligned with a PowerPlay faction ;)

I see. If npcs KOS you right away, I assume they where red on radars then. Yours Reputation must being not too well with Feds itself or some of Eravate fractions I assume? I ask Bcuz I was there tonight too, still was able to land without any problems on any station despite being most wanted. I think anwser is fact that Im not have hostile status to any of fractions over there.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you missed Sandros comments made on this topic last month?

I very much doubt that FDev will be offering any incentives to play in open over the other modes, but they have indicated that a stronger NPC response would be desirable as well as locking criminal players out of anything but Anarchic stations.

I believe it was also suggested that bounties generated from the murder of players would be much heavier and would not be lost on use of a suicidewinder...
 
Last edited:
Wait, what happened to the faction wide crime?

To me, it would be quite normal for factions such as Federation, Empire and Alliance to have common security so that individuals who make crime in one faction should be wanted in all systems where this faction holds systems.
 
I'd love to see the security of system actually mean something.

Anarchy system should be entered knowing you will have to fight for your life.

Hi population, wealthy democracy systems should be safe, any pirates/bounties should be actively hunted down by local enforcers.

We had this is the original '84 game and I'd love to see it in ED as you'd get all sorts of gameplay emerging from that dynamic but I get the feeling FD are not interested as it might alter their vision for the game...... Blaze your own trail and all that, they may see this as restricting player movement?
 
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?

If you're scanned, you get shot at. Maybe you missed that part.
You also get instantly shot at by the station the moment the ramming vessel blows up. So if you can't escape quick enough (one or the other way) that is effectively money that you have to pay, thus it's punishment.

So apart from fixing the NPCs wanted status for ramming and the DC cheating (speeding is not indicated) there are no issues with too less penalty.
 
Last edited:
I. Agree that the crime and punishment needs some work and the responses should reflect on the system security rating. Like the idea of a fast and lethal response to introductions and dogfights. Got another three suggestions though that I think would develop the bounty hunter career as a viable option.

1. To allow factions to issue kill missions on cmdrs who kill other cmdrs, and mark these cmdrs on the map from their last docked station. I think it would be interesting how some will live off the land and give the fugitive feel to the activity and allow bounty hunters to find patterns of play to hunt down their pray. I also think the missions should have a life span of a few weeks to allow multiple Cmdr to engadge the target. You could issue a leader board in systems for Cmdr who are successful in the mission.

2. an introduction of an allignment system from 'Lawful > good > neutral > bad > evil' much like the role playing games of old. To enter a system and know that the Cmdr circling the star is a nasty piece of work would give u some indication of his intent.

3. Allow cmdrs to show their intent while in a system much like the old jolly Rodger, crimes committed while not flying the JR will give a double hit to the allignment of a player.

Just some thoughts from the wold of valleys

fly safe out there Cmdr, there be dragons
 
Last edited:
This. High sec should see lower commodity prices, anarchy needs to have a kick up to give adventurous traders something to do. Security levels should actually means something (so pirating in a high sec equals high risk high reward as the goods can be flogged off back in anarchy where prices are better.

In short, most of what is needed, already exists; it's not so much the mechanics at this point, as simply making system security actually means something. For all concerned.

Definitely. More risk should always have a much higher payoff so anarchy should always give the most profit. On the other side of the coin though, smugglng should be doubled in these systems too for pirates to make more money for their work and give safe havens to smugglers selling illegal goods.
 
Wait, what happened to the faction wide crime?

To me, it would be quite normal for factions such as Federation, Empire and Alliance to have common security so that individuals who make crime in one faction should be wanted in all systems where this faction holds systems.

It's all gone! It needs to return and have police follow you around like they do if you leave a power. With these improvements to the crime and punishment system, you wouldn't have as many toxic players killing noobs and defenseless traders in High Sec systems.
 
Having more effective policing, in systems with the resources to do so, would be a good step up. We can bounty hunt, so one would assume that the police can do the same.

It could work by having patrolling security vessels giving you warnings in Supercruise. If your crimes are minor, they might just ask you to pay your fines or suffer the consequences. If you are banned from a system for murder (or a minor or major faction or even Power), they may ask you to leave and then chase you down to destroy you.

In high-population and high-tec systems the police presence may be high and they could be in ships not available to players and using weapons beyond what we can buy. In poorer, lower security systems they might fly the same that we do.

The stations should not give permission to land to anyone with certain types of crime or amounts of bounty on their records in that system. After all, the stations depend on trade for prosperity, and that requires security. Which there is none of at the moment.

We need real consequences to criminal behaviour, in effect, based on the security level of the systems it happens in. That should take care of much of the non-consentual PvP.

:D S
 
So when will the punishment system be fixed and the speeding mechanic abolished?
Again, I was just attacked by an NPC while docking, I got a 95CR fine and the perpetrator wasn't even blown to pieces by the stations defenses.
 
Proper distinction between high and low sec systems and behavioural differences between police forces as well as in trade value depending on system security has long been a wish of mine.
 
Back
Top Bottom