Yeh, let's check here, OP gets griefed using a loophole, gets killed AND fined, and yeh, it's not about griefing, ok mate, see you in the next thread. Thanks for your participation.
Last edited:
New Crime & Punishment Will Be Broken If You Fly with CRIMES OFF
- Thread starter Nightshady
- Start date
Yeh, let's check here, OP gets griefed using a loophole, gets killed AND fined, and yeh, it's not about griefing, ok mate, see you in the next thread. Thanks for your participation.
The real life examples are not because I'm citing real legal situations, but to bring an analogue into people's minds of what is happening in the video game.
And that analogue is...
Someone attacks you in the street, and you cannot defend yourself, you can only run and/or call the police, and if you get killed before managing to do either, when you could have defended yourself, well tough crap buddy-o, your kids are growing up without a father because you can't touch that person before informing the police of the crime they've commited. What's not hard to understand about how insane that is? I'm not saying Elite should be like real life, I'm not saying life should be like elite, I'm simply illustrating how insane it is. If you don't think that's wrong, well, hey, that's cool. Your opinion is noted in the thread.
Nothing invalidates the basic right of self defense.
Self defense as even my antogonists have pointed out, is a response that is reasonable to protect ones own life. The OP's response was reasonable (in fact it wasn't enough, he got murdered), and yet, he got a fine, and his killers laughed into the sunset. No, that's perfectly fine, that's how everythign should be! lol.
Last edited:
Wouldn't say greifed. Both of his aggressors died.
Not seeing how the suggestion is game breaking. Some people are really reaching here...
I'm muting you for a bit; ignoring context and name calling. This has nothing to do with 'griefing' and everything to do with a consistent, working outcome. The endless blame (now it's magically my fault) is really ordinary. Take a breath.
For reference; we do not know if a commander has RC on, or off; there is a global announce if it changes, but we do not know if it's turned on. That's the bit that Frontier could change? Add a status icon to the targeting system that shows crime report state. People can then make an informed decision. Do I engage, facing bounty? Or do I leave to avoid the bounty.
So how the heck you get "griefing" out of commanders shooting at a ship (presumably expecting to get a bounty) and not simply because RC is off, I have no idea. Is the system perfect? No. But it's a simple toggle and thus very low complexity. And that's still important. Turn it on, you can shoot back. Turn it off, you can still shoot back but you'll get a bounty. I guess it depends on how much one's honour is worth?
Changing that is non-trivial. Ignore that all you want. It's not trivial to change how the law works. It's super easy to just slap a bounty on things, tho.
Last edited:
I really think that the Report crime button should be called "Bad CMDR mode" when you want to turn it off to become rogue.
How can I be ignoring the context when I'm simply stating what happened in the OP? It;s right there on page 1? lol, whatever. Why don't you ask the OP if he thinks it was a griefing attempt?
Sounds like you support my suggestion which would solve this...
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...rt-crimes-should-also-report-one-s-own-crimes
Last edited:
Whether he died or not is what's important here? I mixed up two cases, sorry for the confusion, yes, the op won. But as I say, who killed who isn't relevant here. His response was appropriate in terms of basic self defense, no?
If they had killed him, would that somehow change the case in your eyes?
Last edited:
Perhaps the button can be called "Risky mode"?
Oh no absolutely. I run crimes off always also and sometimes it's frustrating when being shot by clean ships.
I prefer 'naughty' mode, but hey, I can go with that!
I am the one who willingly refuses to take responsibility for my actions. Then tries to get Frontier to change the game to suit my hubris.
I don't see how it makes any difference if the 'griefers' are aware or not of the status of another pilot. I venture they couldn't care less. No doubt when they realise what's happened they will find it amusing, but that isn't the point. The point is the effect on the victim, not whether or not the attackers had intent to game the system, the only thing that matters is that they had intent to kill the other commander and he couldn't legally defend himself.
Calling yourself a victim when you chose to have RCAM off is messing with my mind.
Isn't the issue really just that the game can't be clever enough?
I think we understand the "report crimes against me" flag, and it does do exactly what it says. But I have some sympathy with the OP suggestion that returning fire after he's been fired at shouldn't be regarded as a crime and therefore shouldn't be "reported" by the other's RCAM flag even if it's set.
The trouble is, we're now wanting the game to judge whether opening fire is an act of self defence or not. At the moment it makes no attempt to do this. As a programmer I recoil from the idea in horror: it looks very hard to do reliably and I would anticipate an endless stream of bugs and exploits from an imperfect implementation. In OP the situation might be clear, but there would be lots of grey-area cases too.
ED is amazing and does many complex game mechanics really well. I think we may get taken in by the feeling of realism and start expecting too much. In the present case we're asking that it should make judgements which might sometimes be tricky for a human being. (What if someone fires a dumbfire missile past my nose without hitting? Can I let loose with the lasers then?)
I therefore think it's better to stick with the present implementation which is well understood. This thread has hopefully pointed out a pitfall so we can avoid it. I'm certainly being more careful now about switching that flag back on after I've had it switched off for hunting pirates.
I think we understand the "report crimes against me" flag, and it does do exactly what it says. But I have some sympathy with the OP suggestion that returning fire after he's been fired at shouldn't be regarded as a crime and therefore shouldn't be "reported" by the other's RCAM flag even if it's set.
The trouble is, we're now wanting the game to judge whether opening fire is an act of self defence or not. At the moment it makes no attempt to do this. As a programmer I recoil from the idea in horror: it looks very hard to do reliably and I would anticipate an endless stream of bugs and exploits from an imperfect implementation. In OP the situation might be clear, but there would be lots of grey-area cases too.
ED is amazing and does many complex game mechanics really well. I think we may get taken in by the feeling of realism and start expecting too much. In the present case we're asking that it should make judgements which might sometimes be tricky for a human being. (What if someone fires a dumbfire missile past my nose without hitting? Can I let loose with the lasers then?)
I therefore think it's better to stick with the present implementation which is well understood. This thread has hopefully pointed out a pitfall so we can avoid it. I'm certainly being more careful now about switching that flag back on after I've had it switched off for hunting pirates.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I cant believe this thread is still going..... numerous suggestions have been made, and now put forward in the suggestions thread. surely it is down to FD to decide now how they want it to work?
(that said, I shall award myself 10 hypocrisy points
)
there is another suggestion which had not been made last time i posted at least - it may have happened since.
Bear in mind as i have said before, I LIKE the other suggestions - either a 3rd option of report crimes but do not request assistance (for bounty hunting) OR making report crimes report ALL crimes including your own........
however IF FD do not like these ideas for what ever reason perhaps make disabling crime reporting a crime in and of itself? - Maybe it could just be a fine-able offence rather than a bounty but I am thinking lore wise any system which causes the crime reporting to get in a muddle you could imagine the authorities not liking it being messed with.
hell, it is a crime to drive with no seatbelt or crash hat on a motorbike (in the UK) so i could easily imagine using similar logic it is a crime to turn off crime reporting.
what is the point of that?? well, IF FD decide they do not want to change the system from how it is now, then, by making it a fineable crime to disable, then it can even be written into the game lore that "disabling reporting crimes is an offence as it causes issues with pilots wanting to defend themselves when attacked by a ship without a bounty".
the mechanics would stay exactly as they are but at least now we have an in game context as to why it makes sense that the system is broken.
for some none of the above matters and some people here may even not understand why ingame context is a nice thing to have... but for others like myself, I like there to be in game lore reasons for why things work how they work.
The fine need not be an earth shattering amount - and only given out IF you are scanned by a ship..
just an idea.... and as i said, i dont mind the other ideas put forward myself... but I am just trying not to get into the circular arguments and bickering - like i do in any threads about the economy and BGS balance or the modes
(that said, I shall award myself 10 hypocrisy points
)there is another suggestion which had not been made last time i posted at least - it may have happened since.
Bear in mind as i have said before, I LIKE the other suggestions - either a 3rd option of report crimes but do not request assistance (for bounty hunting) OR making report crimes report ALL crimes including your own........
however IF FD do not like these ideas for what ever reason perhaps make disabling crime reporting a crime in and of itself? - Maybe it could just be a fine-able offence rather than a bounty but I am thinking lore wise any system which causes the crime reporting to get in a muddle you could imagine the authorities not liking it being messed with.
hell, it is a crime to drive with no seatbelt or crash hat on a motorbike (in the UK) so i could easily imagine using similar logic it is a crime to turn off crime reporting.
what is the point of that?? well, IF FD decide they do not want to change the system from how it is now, then, by making it a fineable crime to disable, then it can even be written into the game lore that "disabling reporting crimes is an offence as it causes issues with pilots wanting to defend themselves when attacked by a ship without a bounty".
the mechanics would stay exactly as they are but at least now we have an in game context as to why it makes sense that the system is broken.
for some none of the above matters and some people here may even not understand why ingame context is a nice thing to have... but for others like myself, I like there to be in game lore reasons for why things work how they work.
The fine need not be an earth shattering amount - and only given out IF you are scanned by a ship..
just an idea.... and as i said, i dont mind the other ideas put forward myself... but I am just trying not to get into the circular arguments and bickering - like i do in any threads about the economy and BGS balance or the modes
Last edited:
Think of it this way - by disabling that setting, you were effectively making yourself Lawless i.e. fair game. If you want to avoid this, map the Report Crimes to a key, and in your described scenario enable it briefly so they get wanted and you can return fire.....
It's like saying, "It's not fair I can't see in the dark" but in fact you refuse to turn on the head lights....
It's like saying, "It's not fair I can't see in the dark" but in fact you refuse to turn on the head lights....
You and me both
I've even thrown "exploit" once or twice and nobody batted an eye, which makes me think people just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.
Still, I don't know what I would be doing at work in those quiet moment if it wasn't for this thread [big grin]
Sorry, if some see this as obfuscating , but just stating the obvious.
The mechanics are straight forward and have been around from day 1:
(1) If A is "clean" - Attacking A results in a penalty (let's not kid around, ED 101).
(2) Exception is "report crimes" off - A can then be attacked without consequence (honestly, we all know this. It was also debated at length in the C & P focus feedback thread).
(3) B can then attack A with no consequences (no surprise there).
(4) A then decides to fight back, but B is "clean" (and hasn't done anything wrong) - go to rule (1).
Solution (and it's simple) - Don't turn off "report crimes" unless you want to engage in consensual P v P or are a thrill-seeker. Are you hard done by if you do turn it off and then can't defend yourself without getting a penalty? Not a bit.
The mechanics are straight forward and have been around from day 1:
(1) If A is "clean" - Attacking A results in a penalty (let's not kid around, ED 101).
(2) Exception is "report crimes" off - A can then be attacked without consequence (honestly, we all know this. It was also debated at length in the C & P focus feedback thread).
(3) B can then attack A with no consequences (no surprise there).
(4) A then decides to fight back, but B is "clean" (and hasn't done anything wrong) - go to rule (1).
Solution (and it's simple) - Don't turn off "report crimes" unless you want to engage in consensual P v P or are a thrill-seeker. Are you hard done by if you do turn it off and then can't defend yourself without getting a penalty? Not a bit.
Last edited:
Just for the record:
RCAM was put there so that PvP-only crowd could have a go at each other without invoking police response (why they couldn't do that in lawless space is beyond me).
As such, it's quite disconnected from C&P and that's fine as long as PvP-only crowd disables this for each other.
Problem starts when one of the sides has it on - then the completely lore-isolating RCAM gets in the way of in-lore C&P.
Hope that helps underline what appears to be the core of this discussion.
RCAM was put there so that PvP-only crowd could have a go at each other without invoking police response (why they couldn't do that in lawless space is beyond me).
As such, it's quite disconnected from C&P and that's fine as long as PvP-only crowd disables this for each other.
Problem starts when one of the sides has it on - then the completely lore-isolating RCAM gets in the way of in-lore C&P.
Hope that helps underline what appears to be the core of this discussion.
Nobody misunderstood anything, we know how it is now, and realised how it would be affected when the new CnP comes in, and believe it should be changed. Do you really think this is ok and within the realm of reason? If so, ok, no worries, but I and many others don't.
I can put it another way as well. Should there be any situation in which it is illegal to defend yourself in a reasonable way from someone trying to kill you? No. Bish bash bosh, thread done.