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

[Genar-Hofoen]

You fail to account for the fact that only one half of the OP's scenario was expecting a friendly go at each other. The OP never established an agreement with his attackers, he just assumed everybody flew around with RC off, or was mistaken about what that switch did.

His attackers are in no way PvP trouble makers. They were in open, where shooting at other Commanders is expected. Especially if they come across a lone Commander that resolves out as "Lawless". This issue is simply a misunderstanding of what that RC switch does, and is for.

I'll go further than you and accuse the various rabid PvP'ers here of meta-gaming Frontier in order to fundamentally change the meaning of what a star system with Law, is, because they see what 3.0 brings and don't like it one little bit.

And Frontier would be extremely naive - again - if they bowed to these demands for change.

 

[John Xenir]

You fail to account for the fact that only one half of the OP's scenario was expecting a friendly go at each other. The OP never established an agreement with his attackers, he just assumed everybody flew around with RC off, or was mistaken about what that switch did.

Is there any evidence of what OP expected and what his assumption was? Please bring it forth if it's not your projection and nothing less.

 

[Maro-Val]

It's illegal because Law Enforcement needs to happen in star systems with Law. Otherwise all star systems might as well be Anarchies.

Guys like the above reminds me back then, when me and others where asking for a buff in all ship jump ranges so we can save a bit of real life time and ohhh the rage.. What was told back then from those folks (like the above) was unbelievable.
From space is big and travel was allready too fast, to stars will be reached that never meant to be, to completely broke the game if things like this happens, or that the galaxy would shrink and cause a time paradox that would unravel the very fabric of the space time continuum lol.

Nowdays ofc because IT IS A GAME and not real life, i can easily do 65 LY jumps and their mouth is shut on the matter. I expect the same thing to happen sooner or later with the issue that is mentioned in the OP.

 

[Mohrgan]

Wait, first you want to prove me wrong and convince me to your point of view, and then you state you don't have to prove your point of view? Then how do you want to convince me to your point of view?


No, you don't have to. We understand how it works.


And what is it that the OP thought it did, remind me? Cause I get a feeling you've no idea what you're talking about.


We've got that on the first page, thank you for your redundant explanation.


The explain why is murder punished.


I know, right?
And yet slavery is mostly illegal in Elite.
And yet murder is considered illegal in Elite.
And yet police is erected to ensure law is respected in Elite.

But what do I know of constitutional rights in video games.


I've found these, would two do better instead of one?

Spoiler

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/619E25gVtfL._SL1500_.jpg

You're on your own, Pal. I don't owe you a fig of any explanation. In time you'll connect the dots, I'm not responisble for your education, nor your manners, which both seem sorely lacking. I'm not wasting another key stroke on you. Good day to you, Sir. I said good day. o7

 

[John Xenir]

(...)
If they don't honour the arrangement - then perhaps you PvP'ers can do the very thing you spout off about constantly - police yourselves. By that I mean sanction the 'dishonourable' PvP'ers until they get the message that the PvP crowd as a collective won't tolerate that kind of 'dishonour'.

I'm sorry, which part of my combat rank of "mostly harmless" speaks of me as a PvPer?

 

[Mohrgan]

Is there any evidence of what OP expected and what his assumption was? Please bring it forth if it's not your projection and nothing less.

Yeah, in the OP. Try reading it.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Is there any evidence of what OP expected and what his assumption was? Please bring it forth if it's not your projection and nothing less.

The OP's faux surprise and expectations are very apparent. Perhaps re-read what was written.

 

[John Xenir]

You're on your own, Pal. I don't owe you a fig of any explanation. In time you'll connect the dots, I'm not responisble for your education, nor your manners, which both seem sorely lacking. I'm not wasting another key stroke on you. Good day to you, Sir. I said good day. o7

And here I thought explaining of one's point of view was the sole purpose of discussion.
Sorry to see you go, don't let the door hit you on your way out.

 

[Mohrgan]

The OP's faux surprise and expectations are very apparent. Perhaps re-read what was written.

And, you'll notice he hasn't been around defending his position either.

 

[John Xenir]

The OP's faux surprise and expectations are very apparent. Perhaps re-read what was written.

Why don't we do that together, shall we?

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?

Now please explain to me, which part of this post suggests he was expecting consented PvP on both sides, and which part clearly shows he assumed everyone flies with CR off.
That's probably a question for Mohrgan as that's his insinuation.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Everyone,

discussion is fine, but this is getting a bit too personal, so please keep your posts civil.

Discuss the points and do not make personal references.

Thanks.

 

[John Xenir]

You're right, Ian.

I'll explain my stance briefly:
New C&P consequences should increase.
One's right to self-defense shouldn't be dependent on reporting crime against him.

If someone disagrees, I'm fine with it as we have different opinions =)

 

[Riverside]

but is it a dilemma? it should be assumed on by default, and as a law abiding citizen you're not supposed to fire on clean targets anyway. if you commit a crime on a random stranger you shouldn't be expecting him to be happy about it. in the case of pvp, there are a few places for undisturbed violence to use, outside of jurisdiction, and it can be arranged. making the flag visible would make undisturbed violence 'safe' anywhere, which is just more convenient, and the whole point of the toggle.

I don't disagree but that isn't the way it's worked out in the game. Here we have a bunch of Cmdrs (of which the Op is one) who think having report crimes off is something everyone should do (everyone they encounter at least), and that they can still defend themselves if fired upon with it set that way.

If you have a PvP flag you can still be griefed (ramming, pad blocking etc) but now you can't retaliate, only grief them back. It removes fun, legitimate gameplay (which is already easy to avoid if you don't want it via the player black/whitelists). There has been lots of discussion on this too in other threads. but basically there is a small benefit and a significant cost.

If you have no report crimes toggle at all then it removes a handy feature but consensual PvP can still be done undisturbed in anarchy systems. There is a small benefit and a small cost.


Given what we know about how players are using this toggle the path of least resistance (if a change is going to be made at all, if FDev want to please the most people) is to simply remove it, and remove any misunderstandings over how it works.

 

[Mohrgan]

I don't disagree but that isn't the way it's worked out in the game. Here we have a bunch of Cmdrs (of which the Op is one) who think having report crimes off is something everyone should do (everyone they encounter at least), and that they can still defend themselves if fired upon with it set that way.

If you have a PvP flag you can still be griefed (ramming, pad blocking etc) but now you can't retaliate, only grief them back. It removes fun, legitimate gameplay (which is already easy to avoid if you don't want it via the player black/whitelists). There has been lots of discussion on this too in other threads. but basically there is a small benefit and a significant cost.

If you have no report crimes toggle at all then it removes a handy feature but consensual PvP can still be done undisturbed in anarchy systems. There is a small benefit and a small cost.


Given what we know about how players are using this toggle the path of least resistance (if a change is going to be made at all, if FDev want to please the most people) is to simply remove it, and remove any misunderstandings over how it works.

I find creating a "Report crimes but don't send the Authorities" switch an appropriate response as well. I don't know how much effort creating one would take, but if the effort required is low enough it couldn't hurt.

 

[Riverside]

I find creating a "Report crimes but don't send the Authorities" switch an appropriate response as well. I don't know how much effort creating one would take, but if the effort required is low enough it couldn't hurt.

In the OP's scenario the attackers would gain a bounty. Solves that one edge case but the potential for confusion remains.

Personally I don't believe it's up to the Cmdr to decide whether the police respond to a crime scene, it's up to the police themselves.

 

[Mohrgan]

In the OP's scenario the attackers would gain a bounty. Solves that one edge case but the potential for confusion remains.

Personally I don't believe it's up to the Cmdr to decide whether the police respond to a crime scene, it's up to the police themselves.

I have some sympathy for the PvP guys. Going around looking for fights, shouldn't automatically make someone a criminal. There has to be a middle ground for those that find PvP the real reason they play the game. Anarchy systems as the only recourse seems onerous. I like the RC switch, dropping it because some players don't use it right is like the bathwater/baby thing.

 

[Riverside]

I have some sympathy for the PvP guys. Going around looking for fights, shouldn't automatically make someone a criminal. There has to be a middle ground for those that find PvP the real reason they play the game. Anarchy systems as the only recourse seems onerous. I like the RC switch, dropping it because some players don't use it right is like the bathwater/baby thing.

We're discussing that here:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/404982-Report-crimes-should-also-report-one-s-own-crimes

 

[Riverside]

That's true, and I agree with you 99.9999%. The part where it starts to get a little grey area is that if a "cop" is shooting at a bad guy, the bad guy doesn't suddenly get the "right" to kill the cop. This game allows us to respond to crimes and administer justice. Not "cops" EXACTLY, but bounty hunters. I'm not defending the way the game was designed really - I agree it's quite odd. But the bounty hunter was playing 100% within the confines of the law in this case. He didn't have the "right", in the legal sense, to defend himself against someone enforcing the law.

The cop will only fire on you if you are wanted. We are discussing scenarios where both Cmdrs are initially clean. I'm pretty sure this isn't a PvE issue.

 

[Jukelo]

I'm trying to figure what the split is between players who so rarely engage in PvP that they literally cannot see Nightshady's point and those who are doing their level best to obfuscate and infuriate knowing full well what this means to PvP. Dangerous Discussion has become a pitiable waste of time for anyone trying to get information or share a legitimate concern.

I simply argue that in the current state, the way RCAM works allows someone to exploit somebody else's trust (aka gullibility), which is a good thing. It also punishes people who fail at situational awareness and forget to turn it off, which again is a good thing.
Changing it to catter to a game style that is not what ED is about (context-less PVP for the sake of PVP with no intereference from the police), at the cost of the previous aspects, shouldn't be on the cards, especially considering what the OP wants is already possible (at a cost): do your thing in anarchy.

 

[Aashenfox]

I don't see it as a pvp issue, I see it as an 'open' issue.