New Crime & Punishment Will Be Broken If You Fly with CRIMES OFF

[Bortas]

So, are you seriously saying that my choice if I'm attacked by gankers, is either get a bounty or get help from the police?

Sure thing, how are the authorities supposed to know about a crime being commited against you, thereby granting you the right of self defence, if you don't report it?

And why wouldn't you want the police's help, if you are being ganked, as you call it? Consensual PvP? Sure... talk to your opponent first to make sure, he has his transponder disabled, before engaging, or meet in an anarchy, if you don't trust him.

 

[Powderpanic]

Crimes and off on the fly is broken as hell and will be exploited by low skill tier PVP groups.

Groups who will either continue using crimes on, while actively trying to gank others. Because they need the NPC support.

Or they will run with crimes off until they are about to lose, flick crimes on and have ATR show up to win their battles after their first player dies.

 

[StiTch]

I suppose this is an edge case, because how often will you be clean, and at the same time attacked by a clean ship?

Actually fairly frequently. After FD removed major faction-wide bounties for PP, you're clean pretty much the moment you jump into a new system; finding "wanted" players is fairly uncommon outside of CG areas and the like, where they will go on a killing spree and not care.

...how would you suggest FD fix it? if they got a bounty for attacking you then that means the crime would have to have been reported... but you chose NOT to report the crime.... its not like they would report themselves.

"Report crimes but do not summon assistance", as per Truesilver's suggestion.

They would be marked as wanted - however the cops would simply not be summoned.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

So, just for the record, you believe that if a person flies with crimes against me off in a secure system, it's perfectly appropriate they cannot defend themselves against another clean player if attacked, and you think this is fine and working as intended. Please answer, yes or no. If you answer yes, then we literally have nothing further to discuss, we differ on a level way beyond what can be argued out in a forum.

I refuse to bow to your terms.

It's really quite simple and any argument further confirms my belief that this thread is just more meta-gaming.

If you actively choose to fly to a star system with report crimes against me off - that's entirely your responsibility. No one else switched it off but you. If you then subsequently get attacked by a clean player who stays clean because you chose to switch Report Crimes Against Me off, then why is it a surprise that YOU then become Wanted - even if you are defending yourself.

Here's a mind-scrambling idea for you : beating a hasty retreat when the odds are against you is a perfectly valid PvP move. i.e. : if you've actively chosen to be caught with your pants down and you can't actively fight back or don't want to deal with the consequences of YOUR decision, then hi-wake out of there. You can always return after switching Report Crimes Against Me on and if they attack you again you can legally retaliate.

 

[Aashenfox]

Sure thing, how are the authorities supposed to know about a crime being commited against you

BEcause this is a game, and setting report crimes, simply changes a few bits in memory. There is no actual phone call to the police ya know.

 

[Zak Gordon]

SO, does the System's 'law level' (or whatever it is called) have ANY bearing on this situation?

I would hope that in a high law system this could be seen as fair rules, but in an anarchy system would need some added 'shades of grey' to allow the right response etc.

 

[Aashenfox]

I refuse to bow to your terms.

It's really quite simple and any argument further confirms my belief that this thread is just more meta-gaming.

If you actively choose to fly to a star system with report crimes against me off - that's entirely your responsibility. No one else switched it off but you. If you then subsequently get attacked by a clean player who stays clean because you chose to switch Report Crimes Against Me off, then why is it a surprise that YOU then become Wanted - even if you are defending yourself.

Here's a mind-scrambling idea for you : beating a hasty retreat when the odds are against you is a perfectly valid PvP move. i.e. : if you've actively chosen to be caught with your pants down and you can't actively fight back or don't want to deal with the consequences of YOUR decision, then hi-wake out of there. You can always return after switching Report Crimes Against Me on and if they attack you again you can legally retaliate.

I'd prefer FD make the mechanic make more sense than have to run, then change a switch, then find the players again, really, I can't believe you even suggested this is the best way it can be. Enough, like I say, nothing further to discuss.

SO, does the System's 'law level' (or whatever it is called) have ANY bearing on this situation?

I would hope that in a high law system this could be seen as fair rules, but in an anarchy system would need some added 'shades of grey' to allow the right response etc.

No, the only tihng that matters is secure or anarchy, policed or non-policed.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Actually fairly frequently. After FD removed major faction-wide bounties for PP, you're clean pretty much the moment you jump into a new system; finding "wanted" players is fairly uncommon outside of CG areas and the like, where they will go on a killing spree and not care.

"Report crimes but do not summon assistance", as per Truesilver's suggestion.

They would be marked as wanted - however the cops would simply not be summoned.

ok sorry missed that (its a big thread) I suppose that makes sense but would need to be a 3rd option not getting rid of the existing option....
actually ok it doesnt..... at least not for me, however i am not a PvPer.... it seems to me that if it replaced do not report crimes against me with - do not assist me - then actually that would be a massive blow for friendly PvP. (which is fine with me, but not great for PvP as a whole i would imagine)

 

[Lateralus]

ok but how do you fix it? (from a role play point of view).

This is not fixable, you can't simultaneously turn all anarchy systems into a player hotspot, the galaxy is too large.

I just cant see a mechanical reason on how it could work that a ship becomes wanted if no one reports the crime to make them wanted.

I don't think you understand what I mean, I'm not suggesting anyone gets wanted here. I'm merely suggesting that those defending themselves from an attack do not get an infraction, fine or bounty regardless of their crime reporting status, because why should they? They were attacked.

The attacker wouldn't get an infraction either because the person they are attacking has crimes off, this would be the same as it is now.

 

[killminster]

Working my way through this thread I've just come to the last couple of pages and the sensible folks have already expressed the point I was going to make.

I can totally see the OP's frustration with the current system and was going to suggest a compromise that the report crimes ON/OFF feature be tweaked so that it's part of a justice network that while it will log crimes against you it also grasses you up and logs the crimes you commit as well, even things like carrying contraband, a very good reason for having it turned off if you're thinking of doing anything illegal.

This would eliminate the perverse situation the OP finds themselves in by being considered a criminal by merely defending themself. However this would still mean a police response which is why they have report crimes OFF in the first place.

Unfortunately I think the only way around this is to fly in anarchy systems where there is no law enforcement present. The whole point of having any kind of crime reporting system is to notify the authorities and get them involved, through fines or bounties and direct intervention.

If the OP really doesn't want this to happen then all they have to do is make anarchies their designated PVP playground and accept that policed systems are going to be policed. Oh and have report crimes turned ON of course.

I think if all players accepted this compromise, yeah I know COMPROMISE!?!11, then open would be a much more fun place to be and anarchy space would be a much more exciting and frightening experience.

 

[AbsinthSvK]

wait what? this topic with 146 Replies and 53 people talking about something when someone turn off CRIMES?

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I'd prefer FD make the mechanic make more sense than have to run, then change a switch, then find the players again, really, I can't believe you even suggested this is the best way it can be. Enough, like I say, nothing further to discuss.

"LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" is not a good way to discuss things.

It all boils down to whether an action is legal or not in a star system where there is a system of law. That's any star system with a Security higher than Anarchy.

What's being asked for here is a way of circumventing a star system's law, in order to facilitate/increase the amount of "organic" (lol) PvP in places where said law can act against such.

 

[stripealipe]

Not sure if its been said before, but we need a clear indicator of whether a ship has crimes turned on or off once it has been scanned. This way we can make an informed decision as to whether you engage someone or not.

 

[xondk]

So based on a fight I had the other night, I think the new crime and punishment system will be broken for anyone who chooses to fly with CRIMES OFF. Here's what happened...

I was flying at CG, was not WANTED, and I had my REPORT CRIMES OFF. I get interdicted by a wing of two FDL's that were also not WANTED. I submit, and they proceed to open fire on me. I return fire, and because they had crimes on, I became WANTED. The cops show up and start shooting at me too. I end up killing both CMDR FDL's. Now, in the new system, if I understand it right, the next time I die I'm going to have to pay for a portion of their rebuys. How exactly is that right? I was attacked, but because I had CRIMES OFF, I now have to pay millions of credits for successfully defending myself?

Is this broken or am I not understanding it right?

Hmmm an engaged target should not trigger crimes last I checked.

So you should make sure there is a bug report appropriately so this can be fixed.

 

[StiTch]

it seems to me that if it replaced do not report crimes against me with - do not assist me - then actually that would be a massive blow for friendly PvP. (which is fine with me, but not great for PvP as a whole i would imagine)

Yeah, it needs a third option rather than blitzing "don't report crimes".

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Hmmm an engaged target should not trigger crimes last I checked.

So you should make sure there is a bug report appropriately so this can be fixed.

No really it's working as intended : the engaged target had switched off the only thing which could enable said engaged target to legally defend themselves against attack: Report Crimes Against Me. In a star system with an active system of law.

And they want to be able to circumvent that system of law.

 

[Jukelo]

But you ARE defending yourself from attack, regardless what 1 or zero is set in memory at the time. This is exactly the issue.

You may see it that way, but what matters is what the rules of the game state. And since a game needs to have clear-cut rules, we have a very simple system which works well for everyone (and fits quite well with the dystopian, arbitrary, shoot-first mentality that permeates the universe of ED): if you don't want the law to side with you, turn crimes off. If the opposition turns crimes on and are clean, well, you did shoot first as far as the crime system is concerned and that is all that matters. It is entirely fair since you had the option of using it to your advantage in the first place but opted out from your own volition.

Now of course that can interfere with casual, for-shoots-and-giggles PVP if somebody is acting in bad faith and has their crimes ON, but again that is entirely fair. You know how I always repeat to the Mobius whingers when somebody invades their group, that private groups give the owner 100% control over who gets in and therefore that it's their responsibility alone if someone manages to worm their way into the group to break their gentleman's agreement? The exact same happens here. If someone is abusing your trust, simply don't engage in PVP with them, or at least not on your usual gentleman's terms while your pants are down and your crimes are OFF. Or do it in an anarchy system, where all of that is irrelevant.

But the heart of the matter really is that PVP is a means to an end, not the end itself. If you engage in PVP for the sake of PVP and open yourself up to abuse by turning off crime reporting, don't be surprised when somebody who does see PVP as just a means to an end (so, to kill you, rather than just enjoy a good fight) uses every tool at their disposal to achieve their goal.

 

[Lateralus]

No really it's working as intended : the engaged target had switched off the only thing which could enable said engaged target to legally defend themselves against attack: Report Crimes Against Me. In a star system with an active system of law.

And they want to be able to circumvent that system of law.

Nobody is trying to circumvent anything.. we're suggesting that defending yourself from attack should not be considered a crime. Forget about 'crime reporting' for a second; why should self-defence be a crime in the first place?

 

[Zak Gordon]

No, the only tihng that matters is secure or anarchy, policed or non-policed.

So did this situation have the right situation for the response seen? Police got involved in the Op's description, so it must have been a 'policed' system. I guess it was also a 'secure' system perhaps?

 

[CMDR Carbo]

I also have a bit trouble with the suggestion of "Report crimes against me but don't send a security response".

That somehow invalidates system security, that are sent out to investigate when a crime is reported.