The problem with the new C&P improvements

[Luniticisi]

Just wait until the first person works out they can cause another player to wear a huge bounty cost by flying in front of people in a RES site, to trigger a bounty and then suicide on cops. Which then follows the originator of that friendly fire across the entire galaxy. They can't go anywhere, without that bounty following them.

Should make combat CGs fascinating. And people complain about cops flying in the way! lol. Ahh well. Nothing is perfect, right?

But you are right. I'm sure only the "bad people" will end up wearing the costs and this couldn't possibly have unintended consequences. Just like speeding in stations, right? Oh.

As far as I am aware (which is about as much as anyone else here) .. This 'punishment' (the re-buy thing) is only going to be applied if you "Kill" a pilot who has no reason to be attacked (i.e - no wanted status) not every PvP encounter.

But as has been pointed out We don't know yet

 

[kofeyh]

As far as I am aware (which is about as much as anyone else here) .. This 'punishment' (the re-buy thing) is only going to be applied if you "Kill" a pilot who has no reason to be attacked (i.e - no wanted status) not every PvP encounter.

But as has been pointed out We don't know yet

You missed where I gave a simple griefing example. So yes, in fact that would be the outcome. If you hit a non-wanted commander who then suicides, you are then going to get a global bounty. Busy CGs can see occasional accidental friendly fire. That now takes on a whole new meaning.

Not saying it's a bad thing that friendly fire now has very harsh consequences, at least for commander related incidents. Would be good to see this extend to security forces, so it wasn't so incredibly commander miopic. But I digress.

We shall see how Frontier have considered the potentials for their proposed changes and what they have done to hopefully mitigate some of the more obvious ways people could abuse it. Or if they have at all. I do hope so.

 

[Luniticisi]

You missed where I gave a simple griefing example. So yes, in fact that would be the outcome. If you hit a non-wanted commander who then suicides, you are then going to get a global bounty. Busy CGs can see occasional accidental friendly fire. That now takes on a whole new meaning.

We shall see how Frontier have considered the potentials for their proposed changes. Or if they have at all. I do hope so.

I'm quite happy to wait and see what FD have implemented before I cry fowl.

 

[kofeyh]

I'm quite happy to wait and see what FD have implemented before I cry fowl.

Foul? Crying chickens might not be appropriate.

And, agree. I guess I just see how this might not work out as intended.

 

[Luniticisi]

Foul? Crying chickens might not be appropriate.

And, agree. I guess I just see how this might not work out as intended.

It's always possible that the introduction of this feature may well be a complete mess at first, we just have to wait and see how FD have handled it.


Edit - I meant forcing chickens out of my tear ducts .. I thought you would have guessed that! .. man this forum!

 

[Kaocraft]

Really? He kills people if the price is right. He's not obliged to work for the local law enforcement, he works for the highest bidder. He hangs around a well known ganster's palace. He shoots at Jedi or pretty much anyone he wants to. Sure sounds like an outlaw. And while he wouldn't go on a system wide massacre he can and will murder a person if that person has a big enough bounty placed on his head, they don't have to be wanted by the law.

Han Solo is another example of an outlaw who also murdered Greedo in cold blood and yet he can dock in civilised more or less medium security systems as long as he changes his ship's name and ID. Although technically he did kill Greedo in Star War's version of an Anarchy system so fair play to Han

The highest bidder in almost all cases being the Empire. He's not an outlaw he works for the government. I'm sure there are places where he can't get docking permission or is otherwise forced to operate clandestinely, but they're going to be fringe locations which lack the power to do anything about it anyway, because he's got Imperial backing everywhere else.

Han Solo, meanwhile, *is* an outlaw, which is why he's constantly being tracked, harassed, and hunted wherever he goes. The only major non-anarchic port he ever docks at is Coruscant, and that's only because his childhood friend is the head of state. And he still gets betrayed and captured anyway.

 

[Luniticisi]

The only major non-anarchic port he ever docks at is Coruscant, and that's only because his childhood friend is the head of state. And he still gets betrayed and captured anyway.

Surely you mean Cloud City/Bespin ?

 

[lenna]

Surely you mean Cloud City/Bespin ?

Not only that, but technically Han Solo is just a smuggler - if we are looking for relevant comparisons wrt the C&P changes you probably want to be looking for real Pirate examples.

Yes, Han Solo shot Greedo but it was technically self defence - Greedo was going to kill him, and it was not over a real "legal" bounty but rather a criminal "loan"/"debt".

 

[Riverside]

Not only that, but technically Han Solo is just a smuggler - if we are looking for relevant comparisons wrt the C&P changes you probably want to be looking for real Pirate examples.

Yes, Han Solo shot Greedo but it was technically self defence - Greedo was going to kill him, and it was not over a real "legal" bounty but rather a criminal "loan"/"debt".

In Dark Matter they 'mask the ship ID' if they need a convenient plot device. IIRC Firefly used a similar concept once or twice. Given that this new rule has come about as a result of player behaviour I'm not sure we can apply many existing sci-fi rules.

What it certainly does is demonstrate that FDev are more in favour of co-op PvE than PvP as a primary motivator for play, although both are still supported of course.

 

[Luniticisi]

What it certainly does is demonstrate that FDev are more in favour of co-op PvE than PvP as a primary motivator for play, although both are still supported of course.

From pretty early on it was clear to most that this was indeed DBOBE's vision .. "PVP will be rare and meaningful" comes to mind.

 

[Riverside]

From pretty early on it was clear to most that this was indeed DBOBE's vision .. "PVP will be rare and meaningful" comes to mind.

If you play the game without seeking out high traffic areas particularly (follow your own path), I think it's still a valid, albeit idealistic statement. The game has evolved taking player behaviour into account though, and experience helps players find (and avoid) each other.

 

[Stinja]

... so I can avoid attacking people who are not interested in a fight.

Sounds like you want an Open PvE mode.

Then any CMDR who does not want PvP can go into OpenPvE; those that want PvP go into OpenPvP, and every target you shoot at will be a PvPer. Total win-win for you.

Maybe another option is to allow the Kill Warrant Scanner show the target's report crimes status - if you really need to know, then equip one.
Afterall very little is "free", so I don't think an icon change on the radar is a good solution (and would just be abused by griefers in some way).

I'm happy to wait for details before commenting more, but it is fascinating reading the back and forth.

 

[Luniticisi]

If you play the game without seeking out high traffic areas particularly (follow your own path), I think it's still a valid, albeit idealistic statement. The game has evolved taking player behaviour into account though, and experience helps players find (and avoid) each other.

Very true, I was just saying that the original vision for Elite: Dangerous was for more of a Co-Op experience.

It's very clear that that vision wasn't what ended up happening as most additions have been (in my view) PvP based .. that being said, FD may well be reversing that trend as the numbers of players who prefer PvE seem to outweigh that of the PvP focused crowd.

We'll have to see.

 

[lenna]

most additions have been (in my view) PvP based

Like?

IMO the ONLY PvP based addition really was CQC... the rest have equal if not more PvE relevance.

 

[Luniticisi]

Like?

IMO the ONLY PvP based addition really was CQC... the rest have equal if not more PvE relevance.

you are right, i should rephrase that, Most of the additions have been combat based, my logic was that combat favors the PvP crowd.

Probably a wide net set there, wrong on my part.

 

[NeilF]

There seems to be a lot of discussion here about competitive/consensual PvP? I still think a system in the bubble should be put aside for arena combat. Put a few arena locations in a system with the premise of it being for TV. Any combat in those zones is "legal" and in fact rebuys are even covered (to some degree).

They could offer different flavours (in middle of open space, in an asteroid belt, or around some of the CQC asset locations we now have).

This could make "friendly" PvP far easier to find and take part in. As well as cheaper

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

There seems to be a lot of discussion here about competitive/consensual PvP? I still think a system in the bubble should be put aside for arena combat. Put a few arena locations in a system with the premise of it being for TV. Any combat in those zones is "legal" and in fact rebuys are even covered (to some degree).

They could offer different flavours (in middle of open space, in an asteroid belt, or around some of the CQC asset locations we now have).

This could make "friendly" PvP far easier to find and take part in. As well as cheaper

Like all those anarchy systems?

 

[Mohrgan]

There seems to be a lot of discussion here about competitive/consensual PvP? I still think a system in the bubble should be put aside for arena combat. Put a few arena locations in a system with the premise of it being for TV. Any combat in those zones is "legal" and in fact rebuys are even covered (to some degree).

They could offer different flavours (in middle of open space, in an asteroid belt, or around some of the CQC asset locations we now have).

This could make "friendly" PvP far easier to find and take part in. As well as cheaper

Apparently, and I learned this tidbit in this very thread, it is too much trouble to go even to a local Anarchy system, let alone one of a few Arena systems. That might even take two jumps......

 

[DaveB]

Folks have been talking about "report crimes" trolling, and talking about timeouts etc.. Simple solution, make it only check your "report crimes" status on instance connection and for as long as you're in the instance, it sticks. If you want to change it, you'll have to set it before arriving in the instance and any further change you then make will be ineffective until you leave.

 

[NeilF]

Like all those anarchy systems?

No... Because anarchy systems should be included in the C&P (karma) mechanics. It makes no sense to exclude them!

1) Why would the Pilots Federation/insurance companies ignore illegal destruction anywhere?
2) Why would FD permit gankers to still farm locations like alien ruins for not good reason at all?


If you can explain to me any logical reason why habitual illegal destruction in an anarchy system makes sense from a game universe point of view, or a gameplay point of view, I'd love to hear it...

Apparently, and I learned this tidbit in this very thread, it is too much trouble to go even to a local Anarchy system, let alone one of a few Arena systems. That might even take two jumps......

Even if it means no/discounted rebuys thanks to the TV companies?