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

[RagingxPenguin]

The amount of times I've read on these forums that the Sys Auth Vehicles are next to worthless - this message repeatedly put across by an awful lot of the usual suspect rabid PvP'ers.

And now suddenly! NPC cops are big and scary and having them with you gives you the upper hand!

Convinced of the sincerity of all the complainers about RCAM I am not.

And we're back full circle with "The premise is pulling a clean ship that has crimes off while the attacking ship has crimes on and is clean." - and the response : If someone turns RCAM off it's their responsibility as they chose to do so. Then they attacked a still-clean ship or ships, and are all surprised when they get marked Wanted. The reason they had RCAM off, is, quite frankly, hubris. Hubris and arrogance.

But instead of owning their mistake? Nah. Let's try to meta-game Frontier to make a fundamental change to the game rules. All because of hubris.

The PvP community runs crimes off so they don't have police interfere. As shown in Nightshadys other video in the PvP section (When ganks go bad) it is exactly what I've stated.


If people win or destroy/clear an instance with police assistance and proceed to express their "skill" they'll be told to talk a long walk off a short pier.

The security ships generally aren't much of a threat. But more often then not are more dangerous than person who called them simply due to sheer numbers. Trying to dodge your attacker and four+ other ships shooting you is no small feat.

This probably wasn't worth explaining...

 

[Helvellyn]

Crimes on, everything gets treated as you expect. No issues. Crimes off though, you can get penalised beyond just the consequences of the fight for defending yourself? That's a bit of a dubious mechanic. I'm not going to compare with real-world examples, in the real world there'll be an investigation if you get murdered or vanish, you don't have to shout to the police and you can't leave something in your will to tell them to ignore your death. Asking for turning crimes off to not have any negative consequences beyond no police assistance and no bounty on your attackers (assuming everyone is clean to begin with) is not in any way unreasonable IMO.

 

[RagingxPenguin]

Crimes on, everything gets treated as you expect. No issues. Crimes off though, you can get penalised beyond just the consequences of the fight for defending yourself? That's a bit of a dubious mechanic. I'm not going to compare with real-world examples, in the real world there'll be an investigation if you get murdered or vanish, you don't have to shout to the police and you can't leave something in your will to tell them to ignore your death. Asking for turning crimes off to not have any negative consequences beyond no police assistance and no bounty on your attackers (assuming everyone is clean to begin with) is not in any way unreasonable IMO.

In my eyes if you get shot first by a clean ship with crimes off no police should respond. You've agreed more or less to have no assistance and your attacker, being the one who fired first should also not get police help when fire is returned.

They've shot a clean ship. Breaking the law first.

 

[Schmack]

Lulz.
PvP is rarely organized by sitting there pre-checking if crimes are on or not.

Its a handi-cap.

Man this thread is just too funny..

The premise is pulling a clean ship that has crimes off while the attacking ship has crimes on and is clean.

You are initiating combat knowing you have the upper hand in with police assistance.

Not sure how that isn't easy mode?

Unless you have extra sensory perception, how would you know the ship you pulled has RCAM turned off?

Crimes on, everything gets treated as you expect. No issues. Crimes off though, you can get penalised beyond just the consequences of the fight for defending yourself? That's a bit of a dubious mechanic. I'm not going to compare with real-world examples, in the real world there'll be an investigation if you get murdered or vanish, you don't have to shout to the police and you can't leave something in your will to tell them to ignore your death. Asking for turning crimes off to not have any negative consequences beyond no police assistance and no bounty on your attackers (assuming everyone is clean to begin with) is not in any way unreasonable IMO.

Not true. If no crime is reported by anyone, ever... nothing ever gets done about it. The "investigation" only occurs because something has been reported.

It's not magic.

What you're suggesting is that "do not report crimes against me" really just means "do not report crimes against me... unless someone commits a crime against me".

 

[Helvellyn]

Not true. If no crime is reported by anyone, ever... nothing ever gets done about it. The "investigation" only occurs because something has been reported.

It's not magic.

Depends what you define as "reporting", investigations can and will get started without there being a suspicion of a crime. Anyway the point is that it's already not comparable to the real world, where your disappearance will get investigated sooner or later (even if nothing is found) - there's no real word equivalent of crimes off.

What you're suggesting is that "do not report crimes against me" really just means "do not report crimes against me... unless someone commits a crime against me".

No, I'm not. That's the same as having reporting crimes on - the police show up and a bounty gets set against the person who fired first. The OP isn't asking for any help, or any penalties against his attacker, just not to be penalised himself beyond being damaged or destroyed by his attackers.

 

[Schmack]

Depends what you define as "reporting", investigations can and will get started without there being a suspicion of a crime. Anyway the point is that it's already not comparable to the real world, where your disappearance will get investigated sooner or later (even if nothing is found) - there's no real word equivalent of crimes off.

Someone had to report someone missing, whether it was civilian or police. Someone has to file a report.

No, I'm not. That's the same as having reporting crimes on - the police show up and a bounty gets set against the person who fired first. The OP isn't asking for any help, or any penalties against his attacker, just not to be penalised himself beyond being damaged or destroyed by his attackers.

He's shooting a ship that isn't wanted. He's decided the ship that shot him should not be wanted and felt it was wrong that the other ship didn't comply.

 

[RagingxPenguin]

He was clean prior to the engagement. How is that unreasonable?

 

[Nagual]

No, I'm not. That's the same as having reporting crimes on - the police show up and a bounty gets set against the person who fired first. The OP isn't asking for any help, or any penalties against his attacker, just not to be penalised himself beyond being damaged or destroyed by his attackers.

In essence, the OP is asking for an invisible Wanted tag on his attacker. One that allows only him to attack the 'clean' ships. I've mentioned this before, but what about wings? What about people involved in the conflict then leave the wing. Are they still allowed to fight? If not why not. The current system, while it may not be perfect, works. The changes that some people are requesting would potentially cause more ripples in the pond than you could count.

 

[Helvellyn]

In essence, the OP is asking for an invisible Wanted tag on his attacker. One that allows only him to attack the 'clean' ships. I've mentioned this before, but what about wings? What about people involved in the conflict then leave the wing. Are they still allowed to fight? If not why not. The current system, while it may not be perfect, works. The changes that some people are requesting would potentially cause more ripples in the pond than you could count.

Not attack, respond to an attack, and that's a very important difference. He's not said he wants to open fire unprovoked on clean players. That defending yourself whilst clean can result in you getting penalised shows that the current system doesn't really work, although whether it's broken enough to merit doing anything about, possibly not.

How it would all work out with wings is a valid question, I can't answer that one (I'm too unsociable to have ever flown in a wing so I don't even know how it works now). If it throws up too many complexities then, fair enough.

 

[Helvellyn]

Someone had to report someone missing, whether it was civilian or police. Someone has to file a report.

The police have to find out that there's something to be investigated, which might include them simply stumbling upon some evidence something is up.

He's shooting a ship that isn't wanted. He's decided the ship that shot him should not be wanted and felt it was wrong that the other ship didn't comply.

Yes, that's how it works. I know that. I don't see why people seem to think it's fine how it works though. He's not claimed that he expects completely the opposite treatment. From a gameplay perspective is the current mechanic, where you can be clean and retaliate in self-defence and get a bounty, a good or bad one? Knowing this situation would you design it like that (issues with wings notwithstanding), and if so, why?

 

[nrage]

I am not a PvP player, and I fly with report crimes ON just about all the time, so I don't really even have a horse in this race. That said, I am a software engineer so I do like to "design" things in my spare time.

IMO, the game would better if there was a system in place where you were not branded a criminal for returning fire, no matter what report crimes setting they have.

Report Crimes is what it is, and operates how it current does. No-one really seems unclear on this point. But, like a lot of Elite's Crime & Punishment system it lacks a bit of finesse. I mean, loitering results in death .. black and white with no shades of grey anywhere to be seen.

Here's what I propose. If player A opens fire on player B (who has report crimes off) and A does the same level of damage that would typically trigger a bounty (whatever that level becomes in 3.0) then they go orange to B (not red, not wanted, just orange). Think of this state as "hostile" but not wanted. It would only be visible to B (and their wing). B (and wing) could return fire without triggering wanted/authority response, regardless of the state of A's report crimes. To any outside observers A and B (and wings) would still be clean (or whatever state they had to start with).

I can't see any real downsides to such a system. Players won't be able to pull any toggle report crimes tricks any longer, under such a system and situations such as in the OP would play out much more naturally. You would not be able to use it to trick someone into making themselves wanted any more than you can already do by flying into the path of their lasers with report crimes on.

I've read some of the IRL arguments made in this thread but IMO they hold no water for a few different reasons. First, this is a game, and the point is for everyone to have fun - the change suggested would increase fun for some with no cost in fun to anyone else. Second, we're talking about over 1000 years into the future so what we do now really has little bearing, case in point "loitering = death". Third, and this is aimed at those arguments that "Report Crimes Off" is equivalent to turning off your cameras so that you have no evidence of a crime.. it's called "Report" crimes off, not "Record" crimes off. In 3303 I would expect all ships to have a mandatory black box style system which constantly gathers data, no matter what. All the switch does is stop it transmitting to the authorities when a "crime" occurs.

If we really wanted, A could report the "crime" but when the authority arrives B's ship transmits their data showing the initial transgression was by A and the authority opens fire on them instead.

 

[Faded Glory]

For the average Joe this makes perfectly sense. But the way I understood the OP he's looking for a way to defend himself without getting any help from the police. Meanwhile I've realized this is currently not possible without fairly insane repercussions and I think it's high time to discuss a way to realize exactly that, not necessarily a fundamental change to the RCAM switch. The current situation simply isn't in the spirit of the ever so often stressed "blaze your own trail".

They can... Fly in an anarchy system and they get exactly what they are asking for, the ability to defend themselves against any and all comers with no 'legal' consequences and no help from any authorities.

While they are flying in 'lawful' space, they are subject to the rules of the game which are there (and the same) for everybody. Of course, the logical thing to do would be to petition FD to make an additional option (as already suggested), "Report Crimes Against Me : ON (No system authority response requested). Sandro was asked about it once in a live screen and didn't seem totally against the idea.

 

[Aashenfox]

If the OP was being straight with us all they'd ask for is a PvP flag...

That is after all what they are asking for.

I don't want that or think it would be good for the game.

 

[Aashenfox]

The amount of times I've read on these forums that the Sys Auth Vehicles are next to worthless - this message repeatedly put across by an awful lot of the usual suspect rabid PvP'ers.

And now suddenly! NPC cops are big and scary and having them with you gives you the upper hand!

Convinced of the sincerity of all the complainers about RCAM I am not.

And we're back full circle with "The premise is pulling a clean ship that has crimes off while the attacking ship has crimes on and is clean." - and the response : If someone turns RCAM off it's their responsibility as they chose to do so. Then they attacked a still-clean ship or ships, and are all surprised when they get marked Wanted. The reason they had RCAM off, is, quite frankly, hubris. Hubris and arrogance.

But instead of owning their mistake? Nah. Let's try to meta-game Frontier to make a fundamental change to the game rules. All because of hubris.

I love how you keep describing the system as it is now. We all know how it is now, that's why we're having this dicscussion.

YOu want to be able to grief people who turn crimes off for free, it's cool, I understand how that could be fun for the really maladjusted types. But I will do everything I can to get this idiotic loophole closed.

 

[kofeyh]

They've shot a clean ship. Breaking the law first.

Guys. This is not complicated. Stop making it complecated and misrepresnting.

Turning report crimes off means if you are attacked, even if clean, there is no crime reported. There is no crime. You have expressly said there is no crime. It is a light switch; on, off. You cannot return fire, legally, even if you are shot at.

This is not difficult. It's not 11 pages of diatribe. It is a toggle; is it illegal to shoot me? yes/ no. There is no law broken when a clean ship is fired upon with report crimes off. That's it's intent.

The problem; is people assuming the other party will reciprocate. Apparently this also includes the developer. Either way; if you want the legal right to defend being attacked you have to have report crimes on. This isn't negotiable.

To change this; requires a legal right to defend with lethal force, where none exists.

 

[Aashenfox]

Guys. This is not complicated. Stop making it complecated and misrepresnting.

Turning report crimes off means if you are attacked, even if clean, there is no crime reported. There is no crime. You have expressly said there is no crime. It is a light switch; on, off. You cannot return fire, legally, even if you are shot at.

This is not difficult. It's not 11 pages of diatribe. It is a toggle; is it illegal to shoot me? yes/ no. There is no law broken when a clean ship is fired upon with report crimes off. That's it's intent.

The problem; is people assuming the other party will reciprocate. Apparently this also includes the developer. Either way; if you want the legal right to defend being attacked you have to have report crimes on. This isn't negotiable.

To change this; requires a legal right to defend with lethal force, where none exists.

We know how it works now, it's obviously broken due to the situation you describe (someone can be attacked and not be able to defend themselves because no crime has actually been reported, somehow in the future, it is not possible to resolve issues after the fact, in the case of self defense from murder?), it's broken and stupid, how can you justify that it's ok that griefers not only get to grief for free under this particular circumstance, but actually get a penalty applied to their victim if they defend themselves, reversing the point of CNP in the first place? Can you actually think of anything more backwards that you've ever heard of?

 

[kofeyh]

I love how you keep describing the system as it is now. We all know how it is now, that's why we're having this dicscussion.

YOu want to be able to grief people, it's cool, but I will do everything I can to get this idiotic loophole closed. When that happens I'll be here to quote you, that you thought the old system was fair and not at all insane.

And has been explained, repeatedly; this is not a loophole. It's intentional mechanics. This is done because the legal system cannot understand motive. It cannot understand context. It can understand the light switch that is report crimes, though.

So. Again. Report crimes on, means being shot at when clean, will be reported, the attacker will be free to engage the antagonist once they become wanted. Report crimes off, means there is no crime; ergo no right to return fire.

That toggle has to be 100% clear and meaningful. That people don't understand this is a choice, with consequences, isn't the developers problem to solve. Indeed, it's why we are here. People endlessly demanding "something must simply be done about bad people", rather than a far more meaningful "let's make the system work for bad people and not bad people".

If you weren't all name calling and being entirely selfish, maybe we'd have got traction on that after 3 years. Instead of just scape-goat and endless persecution of "bad people". Holy god.

 

[kofeyh]

We know how it works now, it's obviously broken due to the situation you describe (someone can be attacked and not be able to defend themselves because no crime has actually been reported, somehow in the future, it is not possible to resolve issues after the fact, in the case of self defense from murder?), it's broken and stupid, you must be out of your mind to think it's ok that griefers not only get to grief for free under this particular circumstance, but actually get a penalty applied to their victim if they defend themselves, reversing the point of CNP in the first place. Can you actually think of anything more backwards that you've ever heard of?

You know what, this "something simply must be done" garbage? I am over it. I don't care. Turn report crimes on, if you want to have legal recourse. If you don't, leave it off. I don't care. I really have entirely stopped caring. Don't give me this "greifer" twaddle. It's irrelevant.

If you turn crimes off, that's what it does. It does what it says. Changing that, means a fundamental change to the legal system. One that has massive consequences, that I am sure you've not thought about at all.

It's been this way, since it was added. It's never changed. Could it? Should it? Yeah I'm sure Frontier will get right on that, after they spent considerable time responding to the desire to endlessly persecute commanders.

The issue here, is commanders who want their cake (the ability to avoid consequence) and eat it (force others to have a consequence when it suits). People are using report crimes to 'toggle' cops, and that's not it's intent. It's designed to, essentially, say if being shot at is considered a criminal act. I don't care if you think it should or shouldn't be. That's what the game does.

So changing that, is really, really, not a trivial thing to do. And people shooting a clean commander, who has report crimes off? Are not breaking the law. Again; don't care if you personally have an issue with that; it's designed that way on purpose.

 

[Aashenfox]

And has been explained, repeatedly; this is not a loophole. It's intentional mechanics. This is done because the legal system cannot understand motive. It cannot understand context. It can understand the light switch that is report crimes, though.

So. Again. Report crimes on, means being shot at when clean, will be reported, the attacker will be free to engage the antagonist once they become wanted. Report crimes off, means there is no crime; ergo no right to return fire.

That toggle has to be 100% clear and meaningful. That people don't understand this is a choice, with consequences, isn't the developers problem to solve. Indeed, it's why we are here. People endlessly demanding "something must simply be done about bad people", rather than a far more meaningful "let's make the system work for bad people and not bad people".

If you weren't all name calling and being entirely selfish, maybe we'd have got traction on that after 3 years. Holy god.

lol. name calling and selfish? Please explain where I called some a name. Saying I think it's insane is not calling anyone a name.

None of what you said changes the case where getting off murder because you called it in first beacuse that's how the INSANE legal system works in Elite, is ridiculous. We know and accept the consequences of the button, the police don't show up if you get attacked, THAT is the purpose of the button. Nowhere in the manual does it say 'be careful, this will invalidate your basic riht to selfl defense' and it is OBVIOUSLY unintended.

 

[RagingxPenguin]

Personally it doesn't matter

Just rick roll the crimes on guys and carry on. We do it now. We'll do it in 3.0.

Those that don't do PvP won't be able to understand.


I did like the fact they added a timer and local warning for when people engaged crimes though.