I see what you mean
If they don't feel like repeating one sentence, I guess I can feel free to skip reading 30 pages of discussion to find what it is they're talking about
How about a beer?
Sure, you buyin'?
New Crime & Punishment Will Be Broken If You Fly with CRIMES OFF
- Thread starter Nightshady
- Start date
Sure, you buyin'?
In the example the OP states it would have shown the other player shot first, had it been switched on. This is the sequence of events:
One clean player shoots at another, this event is not recorded as a crime (it should have been).
The aggrieved player (the OP) returns fire but it is recorded as the first shot and so marked as a criminal act.
It doesn't need to be a long list
It brings me back to the point that a criminal should be able to hotwire this and turn it off.
Thing is, I like features or even foibles that enable interesting gameplay. I class the OP's scenario as interesting gameplay. The player was tricked into getting himself a bounty. I'd hope that someone would only fall for that once, and I absolutely do not want that opportunity removed from the game.
It brings me back to the point that a criminal should be able to hotwire this and turn it off.
Thing is, I like features or even foibles that enable interesting gameplay. I class the OP's scenario as interesting gameplay. The player was tricked into getting himself a bounty. I'd hope that someone would only fall for that once, and I absolutely do not want that opportunity removed from the game.
I agree with all of this.
I'm buyin', just pardon me for ordering warm beer with juice, lemon and honey - countering flu is all there is to it.Sure, you buyin'?
In the example the OP states it would have shown the other player shot first, had it been switched on. This is the sequence of events:
One clean player shoots at another, this event is not recorded as a crime (it should have been).
The aggrieved player (the OP) returns fire but it is recorded as the first shot and so marked as a criminal act.
It doesn't need to be a long list
If you change "recorded" to "reported" in your post, then I agree.
I agree completely that intereting ambushes and stuff like that need to be a thing, but I feel that the more important facet of this is to support 'fair and fun' over 'cruel and unusual'
Let's not forget, the simple act of forgetting to turn crimes on, does not just mean you have no recourse, it means that IF you retaliate, you as the VICTIM, bear the full brunt of the new C&P system, which has an EXPLICIT intention to combat the griefing the victim received (or at least, to introduce consequences for ebing a butt). Whether you think the universe shoudl be fair or not, you cannot seriously think that FD intended this to be the case.
Anyone else got any bright ideas?
Ew, ok, I'm a lager lout meself, no worries. See you at teh bar in a bit. Cheers!
Let's not forget, the simple act of forgetting to turn crimes on, does not just mean you have no recourse, it means that IF you retaliate, you as the VICTIM, bear the full brunt of the new C&P system, which has an EXPLICIT intention to combat the griefing the victim received (or at least, to introduce consequences for ebing a butt). Whether you think the universe shoudl be fair or not, you cannot seriously think that FD intended this to be the case.
Anyone else got any bright ideas?
I'm buyin', just pardon me for ordering warm beer with juice, lemon and honey - countering flu is all there is to it.
Ew, ok, I'm a lager lout meself, no worries. See you at teh bar in a bit. Cheers!
Last edited:
Someone say
https://imgur.com/a/MAjb1
https://imgur.com/a/MAjb1
But you didn't have to turn it off in the first place...
Yeh I did, I don't want police interfering with my crap, dude, come on, that's not hard to understand. It takes me 10 minutes to assassinate a deadly Corvette in the courier, no way I'm not going to get police 'help', which is very annoying. Furthermore, I want players to be able to interdict me and fight ME, not me and the police. Come on, you know it. I'm a forgetful person, after two years I still need the landing gear reminder frequently, I still sometimes forget to ask permission to dock, etc. It's too much to ask in a video game that's supposed to be fun, too have yet another switch to remember, and on the off chance you forget, it literally REVERSES the point of cnp.
Last edited:
Basically, crimes for me is a "you're on your own, whatever happens" switch, and that's how I use it. Now it's going to be, "you're on your own and if you get grieved, the new cnp not only won't WORK, it'll be applied to YOU". I don't think that's reasonable or how the game is supposed to work.
Then you need to accept the consequences of your choice. The system is designed for a purpose, you are using it for something it wasn't intended to do. The mechanism won't stop you getting a bounty.
See above, I don't think these are intended consequences. On the contrary, I think your interpretation is clearly not intended.
Last edited:
Since you're all for consequences, how do you feel about all ships reporting all crimes, even their own. Wouldn't it be better to have to turn crimes off completely to do anything dubious whatsoever? Now that sounds even intended.
edit: I see. In that case, I don't need to argue the toss with you, it seems you support one of my favored solutions. Apologies for not noticing this before, because as I've said, morals and fairness aren't really the bottom line if a solution that all can live with is viable.
edit: I see. In that case, I don't need to argue the toss with you, it seems you support one of my favored solutions. Apologies for not noticing this before, because as I've said, morals and fairness aren't really the bottom line if a solution that all can live with is viable.
Last edited:
Since you're all for consequences, how do you feel about all ships reporting all crimes, even their own. Wouldn't it be better to have to turn crimes off completely to do anything dubious whatsoever? Now that sounds even intended.
edit: I see. In that case, I don't need to argue the toss with you, it seems you support one of my favored solutions. Apologies for not noticing this before, because as I've said, morals and fairness aren't really the bottom line if a solution that all can live with is viable.
My first post in this thread.
It does seem odd that you have to fire on an attacker to find out whether or not you are going to incur a bounty. If you do not know until after you fire on a clean ship whether or not they have crimes turned on or off then firing on a clean ship is risky. It is possible that FD intended that firing on a clean ship is risky but it does seem to open the door to people griefing PvP players.
Yes yes, my apologies (see edit above, and I can't rep you again after repping you in that other thread, or I would). I'm still surprised I've been unable to convince you how wrong this is, but like I say, that really isn't important at the end of the day.
Thanks for a civilised, entertaining duel.
Last edited:
Not if they pay attention and make sensible choices rather than just doing stuff because someone cool does it.
Griefing (or at least laying a trap like this) is emergent content. It's no different than before but now bounties will be harder to get rid of it matters more. As it should
Fly carefully, pay attention to your surroundings, trust no one. These are basic tenants every Open player should be aware of.
Firing on a clean ship is risky. It doesn't matter if they have report crimes turned on or not. The attacker is always in the wrong. The only question is whether the target reports it.