tbh I think it's more about the bounties, they won't be so easy to get rid of in 3.0.
Report crimes should also report one's own crimes...
- Thread starter Aashenfox
- Start date
tbh I think it's more about the bounties, they won't be so easy to get rid of in 3.0.
No worries!
if someone without report crimes gets attacked whilst going about their bizz, then nothing happens to the aggressor. If that person then shoots back (and their attacker has report crimes ON) then THEY get flagged as the criminal, and get whacked by authority ships.. completely unfair if they're just defending themselves.
Bit like me walking to a shop. Get attacked, defend myself, then getting arrested and prosecuted for attacking the mugger 'for no reason'.
One always has a right to defend themselves.
This is only a PvP issue, I don't think it affects PvE at all so it should work, but I'm not convinced having it default to crimes off rather than on would suit as many circumstances.
If I get attacked by another player I absolutely want to inconvenience them as much as possible, I would want them to gain a bounty & be distracted by the police (if I were clean, I usually am).
I think I would rather have no change than have another player effectively control my ability to report crimes. I can see plenty of situations where it would work though.
I did not suggest to have it default to crimes off. Everything in the game will be as it is now except that firing on a clean CMDR ship that has crimes off will mean they (and only they) can fire back at you without incurring fines or a bounty or summoning a police response. Call it a self defence protocol.
There would be no way another player can control your ability to report crimes unless you attack them first and they're clean but with crimes off (a very specific set of parameters here). In that case you simply lose your right to play the victim of a crime, I would think that's fair enough.
Last edited:
That sounds fine too and is the third potential solution I support. I think the suggestion in the op would be even less coding effort though, but I'm not sure.
I can also support the suggestion that there is a third option 'no response'.
We have a 2x2 grid of options, with the four choices (each player, report crimes on or off) and a result for each action. In the cases where the players match it doesn't matter (for this thread).
So the two we are interested in are when the attacker is 'on' and the victim is 'off' (the original problem) and the reverse.
The proposal in the OP is that if their status differs, report crimes are effectively on for all (the police get called, the attacker becomes wanted). I agree with this.
In your proposal Martian (if I've understood correctly) if they differ report crimes are effectively off for all. No bounties, no police are called.
This is what I meant by not wanting the other player to control my choice. You think the failsafe should be off, I think the failsafe should be on. Both are valid outcomes.
I hope that makes more sense
Last edited:
Ah, I understand what you mean now. My proposal only concerns the situation where the attacker has crimes on and the attackee has crimes off. All other situations would remain as they are now. I only want to make self-defence a neutral activity for somebody with crimes off in order to eliminate this as a trolling tool - meaning that nobody in that situation should be getting fines/bounties/cops involved.We have a 2x2 grid of options, with the four choices (each player, report crimes on or off) and a result for each action. In the cases where the players match it doesn't matter (for this thread).
So the two we are interested in are when the attacker is 'on' and the victim is 'off' (the original problem) and the reverse.
The proposal in the OP is that if their status differs, report crimes are effectively on for all (the police get called, the attacker becomes wanted). I agree with this.
In your proposal Martian (if I've understood correctly) if they differ report crimes are effectively off for all. No bounties, no police are called.
This is what I meant by not wanting the other player to control my choice. You think the failsafe should be off, I think the failsafe should be on. Both are valid outcomes.
I hope that makes more sense
Logic/game lore-wise the attacker with crimes on won't be done for committing a crime since his target has crime reports off but neither will he be allowed the protection of the law for what is after all assault on a random stranger. The dystopian law enforcement of ED is basically saying at that point, yeah that's between those two CMDRs, none of them warrant our protection.
Hopefully that makes a bit more sense. If it's too complicated to program though I'd be perfectly fine with Ashenfox's proposal.
This is a test for Martian's suggestion, not the one in the OP.
The fixed criteria is that it's PvP, and both Cmdrs are clean at the start. I'm going to assume 1v1 for simplicity.
One is the 'attacker', they fire first. The other is the 'victim', they are hit first.
The Attacker has report crimes (RC) on, the victim has it off. The first shot doesn't make the attacker wanted but it's established who is the attacker and who is the victim, this disables the attacker's RC because they committed a crime.
First test will be Nightshady's situation, victim is up for a fight.
The victim is magnanimous. From this point on the outcome is the same as if they both have RC off.
Second test will be a smuggler, the victim doesn't want a PvP fight.
The victim is aggrieved and wishes the attacker to gain a bounty but doesn't want the police to scan their illegal cargo. The smuggler is forced to accept that no police means no bounty on the attacker either. This just transfers the problem from one type of player to another.
So Martian's suggestion becomes:
Allow the PvPer to have some fun in policed space at the Smuggler's expense. I think if there is (on average) a section of the playerbase capable of handling the consequences of gaining a bounty and the Police on their tail it's the PvPer and that (on average) the Smugglers are less likely to be able to deal with it.
On balance I'd have to come down in support of the smuggler wanting their attacker to be inconvenienced with a bounty (but not involve the police) over the magnanimous PvPer not wanting their attacker to gain a bounty.
The fixed criteria is that it's PvP, and both Cmdrs are clean at the start. I'm going to assume 1v1 for simplicity.
One is the 'attacker', they fire first. The other is the 'victim', they are hit first.
The Attacker has report crimes (RC) on, the victim has it off. The first shot doesn't make the attacker wanted but it's established who is the attacker and who is the victim, this disables the attacker's RC because they committed a crime.
First test will be Nightshady's situation, victim is up for a fight.
The victim is magnanimous. From this point on the outcome is the same as if they both have RC off.
Second test will be a smuggler, the victim doesn't want a PvP fight.
The victim is aggrieved and wishes the attacker to gain a bounty but doesn't want the police to scan their illegal cargo. The smuggler is forced to accept that no police means no bounty on the attacker either. This just transfers the problem from one type of player to another.
So Martian's suggestion becomes:
Allow the PvPer to have some fun in policed space at the Smuggler's expense. I think if there is (on average) a section of the playerbase capable of handling the consequences of gaining a bounty and the Police on their tail it's the PvPer and that (on average) the Smugglers are less likely to be able to deal with it.
On balance I'd have to come down in support of the smuggler wanting their attacker to be inconvenienced with a bounty (but not involve the police) over the magnanimous PvPer not wanting their attacker to gain a bounty.
Last edited:
Okay let's have a look at that Smuggler more closely.
In the game right now, in the same test as above, the attacker gains no bounty, the police are not called, the smuggler doesn't return fire so both stay clean. Same result as Martian's suggestion
So the Smuggler loses out (or rather doesn't gain) compared to the suggestion in the OP, I think I'm okay with this
You win Martian, your idea is best idea
In the game right now, in the same test as above, the attacker gains no bounty, the police are not called, the smuggler doesn't return fire so both stay clean. Same result as Martian's suggestion
So the Smuggler loses out (or rather doesn't gain) compared to the suggestion in the OP, I think I'm okay with this
You win Martian, your idea is best idea
Last edited:
Can't I just get the option of: "Report Crimes But No Police Response"?
Simple yet effective. I can see no problems with having this as an option.
Are you happy for the other guy to get a bounty?
Why is the police response an issue anyway? You have not explained this as far as I am aware. They will not attack you unless you are wanted, seems to me it's up to the police whether or not they respond, not you effectively saying 'don't worry, I got this'.
I would like to stress that I am not being anti-, I'd like to understand the logic behind the request.
The response is relevant simply because if I could choose to have no response, I would fly with crimes on all the time and the situation in the op would never arise. I agree it's a less elegant solution to that in the op, but I still find it an acceptable solution.
I also think it's justifiable at a stretch if u use a little imagination. I'm a high ranking member of the federation trade and mercenary navy, as well as a decorated member of the PF with a high combat rating. One could easily say that the police consider a response is already in place (me).
Last edited:
Report crimes reporting one's own crimes is a bit heavy handed, but not beyond the realm of what we've already got. It does make some sense that it would be similarly nanny-state as the navigational and flight assist computers that we cannot turn off or bypass.
That said, I'm not in favor of it. I'd rather the current arbitrariness be reduced, not used as a pretense for more.
I see a pretty huge problem with it.
Can you imagine calling emergency services, reporting an assault, then expecting them to be any less likely to show up because you asked them not to come?
Your CMDR isn't a member of the local jurisdiction's security forces, and even if he were, would likely have all sorts of obligations and procedures to go through.
While I can certainly envision scenarios where there would be a failure to respond, or security forces willing to break protocol, it certainly wouldn't be something I'd have as an optional preset in a menu.
That said, I'm not in favor of it. I'd rather the current arbitrariness be reduced, not used as a pretense for more.
I see a pretty huge problem with it.
Can you imagine calling emergency services, reporting an assault, then expecting them to be any less likely to show up because you asked them not to come?
Your CMDR isn't a member of the local jurisdiction's security forces, and even if he were, would likely have all sorts of obligations and procedures to go through.
While I can certainly envision scenarios where there would be a failure to respond, or security forces willing to break protocol, it certainly wouldn't be something I'd have as an optional preset in a menu.
Something to consider in people's thinking is Wings.
What would happen if you are in a wing - do all your wing mates get the same privilege or something else?
What would happen if the 'bad guys' are in a wing - are you allowed to attack the whole wing, and not just the one person who attacked you?
What happens if a wing member leaves a wing, if your wing mate leaves, can they still attack the bad guy(s) ? If a bad guy wing member leaves their wing, can you still attack them?
What would happen if you are in a wing - do all your wing mates get the same privilege or something else?
What would happen if the 'bad guys' are in a wing - are you allowed to attack the whole wing, and not just the one person who attacked you?
What happens if a wing member leaves a wing, if your wing mate leaves, can they still attack the bad guy(s) ? If a bad guy wing member leaves their wing, can you still attack them?
I agree it's a stretch, but something needs to change, no? There cannot be a situation where defending yourself from unprovoked attempted murder is illegal.
So how about a new mechanism that simply identifies aggressor and victim and maintains that relationship regardless of crimes status? Any ideas?
I object to this idea because the system as-is is fine and working.
Choosing to have RCAM switched on or off is one of the nuances of the game. It is a double-edged sword and if one chooses to switch RCAM off, then quite rightly so one needs to be aware of how that affects your situation whilst you're in a star system with Law.
If a pilot has RCAM switched off, they have chosen to not be protected by Law Enforcement - at the same time, if they are attacked in said star system, they have forgone their right to legally retaliate - regardless if they have been attacked first.
THAT, is the double-edged sword.
Local Law Enforcement needs to act on crimes within a star system. If they didn't, well, we might as well just get rid of Law in every star system and make them all Anarchy.
Choosing to have RCAM switched on or off is one of the nuances of the game. It is a double-edged sword and if one chooses to switch RCAM off, then quite rightly so one needs to be aware of how that affects your situation whilst you're in a star system with Law.
If a pilot has RCAM switched off, they have chosen to not be protected by Law Enforcement - at the same time, if they are attacked in said star system, they have forgone their right to legally retaliate - regardless if they have been attacked first.
THAT, is the double-edged sword.
Local Law Enforcement needs to act on crimes within a star system. If they didn't, well, we might as well just get rid of Law in every star system and make them all Anarchy.
You make a good point which I excluded (deliberately) in my earlier rambling thought process.
Earlier I discussed how the system should fail-safe (which mode it should default to) in the event of a mismatch, and that I believe it should default to RP on, as the OP's suggestion would. I think it would solve the wing (or just more than 1on1) scenario too. If anyone involved has RC on, it reports any crime (whether attacker or victim) for that ship/wing.
To me this makes more sense than having it default to off.
I think you make an excellent point here, I can imagine there are some players who would want exactly this.