New Crime & Punishment Will Be Broken If You Fly with CRIMES OFF
- Thread starter Nightshady
- Start date
Yes...
...and edited my post to be a little nicer, but still stating the obvious.
ok, hypothetical question. If you were designing a CnP system for a game, would you design into it, this particular case where someone is penalised for defending themselves from unprovoked attack in a perfectly fair engagement? Would that seem logical to you?
Humor me and do an Einstein-like thought experiment.
What would happen if Frontier turned RCAM off today?
Answer:
1) Crime and punishment would continue to work indifferently of RCAM.
2) PvP-only people would be surprised they can no longer fight against their friends in lawful systems without invoking police response.
3) Shooting clean player would invoke the same police response.
Conclusion? RCAM is isolated from C&P because it was requested by PvP-only people that wanted to have "loreless" pew-pew-ground.
If anything, I say remove it completely and if PvP-only crowd wants to have a fight, there are billions of empty systems where they can.
But I'm not debating who's right or wrong here anymore. Just trying to get the discussion back on track. Maybe it works.
What would happen if Frontier turned RCAM off today?
Answer:
1) Crime and punishment would continue to work indifferently of RCAM.
2) PvP-only people would be surprised they can no longer fight against their friends in lawful systems without invoking police response.
3) Shooting clean player would invoke the same police response.
Conclusion? RCAM is isolated from C&P because it was requested by PvP-only people that wanted to have "loreless" pew-pew-ground.
If anything, I say remove it completely and if PvP-only crowd wants to have a fight, there are billions of empty systems where they can.
But I'm not debating who's right or wrong here anymore. Just trying to get the discussion back on track. Maybe it works.
I agree with your conclusion, but I think that would be worse than what we have now. At least the OP is an isolated case. I don't want police help with my kills of NPCs, which is something I do a LOT of. Getting griefed in the way described in the OP would be a very rare thing, so I say I could live with it rather than not being able to play without police interference. I need a more elegant solution than that.
Isn't that the point? It's not an "unprovoked" attack. By turning "report crimes" off you are basically saying "you can attack me without consequence". That's why P v P's agree in advance to turn it off.
As to fighting back, can if you like, but if the attacker is "clean" (and hasn't in fact done anything wrong by taking a shot), then you cop it sweet. Can see the attacker is "clean" (or not) in the HUD so no excuse for thinking you're not going to get hit with a penalty if you fight back.
Do I think it's fair? Probably doesn't matter what I think, but for what it's worth, I don't think it's unfair.
Last edited:
Really fail to see that the "discussion" is about. It aint broke, has worked like this for ages, it isnt related to the new C&P except a slight change in the money.
Some people want a change, some people dont think its worth a programmers time. Post it in suggestions, let FD decide . Discussion complete ?
You misunderstood, or perhaps I worded it wrongly. By saying "turn it off" I mean getting rid of RCAM completely. So that PvP without consequences is only possible where no police presence is. Unpopulated, lawless space, that is. Or anarchy systems.
Should you happen to open fire in system with police presence, your actions are always reported because crime reporting cannot be affected by player and always works. And I believe that's what the game initially had.
See my post on RCAM vs C&P.
Well, you're right, actually.
C&P isn't broken, works as intended, provided all players involved in combat have RCAM turned on.
RCAM works as intended, too, provided all combat players have it off.
The problem starts when one players has it on, other has it off - in which instance we have this sort of half-implemented justice system working for one player, and not working (or actually working the opposite way) for another.
I see it as a direct proof of two, mutually-exclusive systems clashing in an unintended scenario.
You may agree or not - fine by me.
Last edited:
It's not really any more broken now than it ever was, the simple way to avoid a bounty for defending yourself is, turn report crimes on, and let them shoot you if you want to return fire. These days, they will even see that you did, if they stop shooting then you have time to negotiate an agreed PvP encounter, (i.e. tell them to confirm theirs is off, by switching it on then off again, or just off if it was already on). One way or another you will know where they stand.
The only down side is if you don't want cops showing up, there isn't currently a mechanism in place to allow reporting crimes without assistance, and IMO there should be. FYI there was this suggestion I'm aware of (which Sandro also replied to) posted in May last year, course it's locked now. I suspect it's yet another one of those things that will just keep being suggested, as it could be improved, and people would like to see it improved.
The only down side is if you don't want cops showing up, there isn't currently a mechanism in place to allow reporting crimes without assistance, and IMO there should be. FYI there was this suggestion I'm aware of (which Sandro also replied to) posted in May last year, course it's locked now. I suspect it's yet another one of those things that will just keep being suggested, as it could be improved, and people would like to see it improved.
We did, last week. The discussion for the record is whether there should be any circumstance under which you are penalised for a reasonable response in self defense of attempted murder. Some people really think that it's ok for there to be a circumstance where you cannot. In a video game. With spaceships.
You can't turn crimes on on the fly any more.
Maybe I don't get it, sorry if I'm being thick... What about the scenario that I take an assassination for a pirate corvette, I drop in, identify my target, open fire. The enemy shoots back at me, gets himself even more wanted, popo turn up. I don't want the popo turning up to help me. That's why I fly with crimes off, nothing to do with PVP, but I DO agree, that a solution is to say that there is a mechanism IN THE CASE OF PVP where the agressor/defender relatoinship is always identified and in secure space a response is always called, forcing them to do mutual pvp in anarchy systems, that works for me, I just want to avoid police coming and taking out half the wing of 4 vultures that I'm fighting when I totally didn't want or need their help.
Yep. One of the things discussed and adopted in the C & P focus feedback thread - basically to stop a player who has agreed to P v P ambushing others by turning it on mid-fight. More important now given the new C & P system proposed by FD.
Incidentally, consensual P v P is one of the reasons I support the "report crimes" function. I don't do much P v P (actually very little), but no reason to banish P v P'ers to anarchy. Let them have a scrap anywhere without consequence if they want. Other players can seek the protection of the C & P system, just leave "report crimes" on. And, reading your post above, notice we disagree on this point too, but I'm not being contrary for the sake of it (really), just happen to think the current system is ok.
Last edited:
Nah, you're good mate, I sometimes fail to express my thoughts precisely enough.
I didn't want to say "the solution is getting rid of RCAM" - your solution is far better, hence my vote "yes" for it.
What I intended to say is that RCAM function was slapped per PvP-crowd's request which caused the described discrepancy against built-in C&P, and it shouldn't have been slapped-in so quickly and without testing.
That's what I mean and failed at expressing
Last edited:
Well that was a pretty stupid decision. I guess it doesn't matter if someone who didn't agree to PvP forgot it was off, until they're fired upon, where upon it's too late, I'm sure Greifers jumped on board with this in a hear-beat, since it serves their interests, and considering it's also likely it's Griefers that also created the problem that was meant to be addressed by this, in the first place.
Quite, this is really what this is all about. The situation in the op flies directly in the face of the whole point of CnP. Regardless of morality, that is the main reason it needs addressing.
That's why this is all just nothing more than meta-gaming Frontier - one little bit at a time. Either that or a simplistic and naive demand to stomp over the in-game believability to suit the hubristic needs of rabid PvP'ers/Griefers to remove star system cops from their blinkered-vision gaming style.
I don't even pvp. lol. You really think we want something that we don't want...
I need to understand why, it's driving me crazy how you keep saying things like get out of jail free, and 'pvpers hubris' and all those other things that simply have nothing to do with the problem.
How do you end up at the conclusion that turning off an arbitrary switch invalidates a basic constitutional right of any evolved legal system? It has nothing to do with pvp or even the game. It;s a basic human questoin, human to human, how can you think this is fair and right? That a circumstance exists which gives a murderer NOT ONLY a get out of jail free card, but penalises the victim? How is that logical in any logical universe!? Please don't tell me again how the switch works 'now'. Can you envision any satisfactory scenario that solves all issues, IF you assume that some change is needed?
Last edited:
Don't forget.
That's like saying 'don't forget to duck' to someone who has no idea when, or even if, a bullet is coming.
Last edited:
I really think you missed the point of the OP.. completely. And calling PvP'ers "rabid" doesn't really further your argument..
