MillennialDawn
Banned
I have seldom used the Kill Warrant Scanner.
Having said that, I, for one, think the changes proposed make sense. The proposed compromise is also good. I'm not too concerned about reputation and factions, or the Background Simulator... There're plenty of ways to increase reputations with factions, and none of them require a Kill Warrant Scanner. Others who use the KWS frequently will know better than me what the issues are, and are clearly voicing their concerns presently - a lot more effectively than I every could. However, from my perspective, it makes perfectly logical sense that a KWS only reveals the bounties that are wanted in a specific jurisdiction.
If one reflects on real life, there are jurisdictions in the world that will not arrest or extradite wanted criminals to other countries. Why people on this forum seem to find it hard to accept something that exists in reality, is not clear to me. Yet, it's also true that some countries have extradition treaties with each other, and criminals will be detained and extradited if captured by local law enforcement.
For the purposes of Elite: Dangerous, I'm assuming that these opposing superpowers do not have such treaties agreed - except for the most notorious criminals who have triggered a galaxy wide bounty. On such individuals, it may be expected that a Bounty Hunter should be able to collect all bounties from every jurisdiction - besides Anarchy. A Bounty Hunter should *not* have to break the law when collecting a galaxy wide bounty for the most notorious criminal.
Anarchy systems should be completely lawless (and dangerous - increase the risk!) - it should remain impossible to collect bounties by means of the KWS in these (and Compromised Nav Beacon) Systems.
JURISDICTION
One of the problems with Elite: Dangerous is the lack of consistency. Jurisdiction is a major problem. On some issues - such as collecting bounties - there appears to be a separating of jurisdictions. And yet, in other areas - such as allegiance, military, etc. - there is no consistency. A player is *not* required to pledge allegiance to a specific Superpower, and can freely build up ranks in either military. At the same times as building up ranks in the Federation, the player can be PLEDGED to a Power belonging to the Empire or some other faction (pretty ridiculous). Yet, in law enforcement, suddenly there are jurisdictional issues at play... On the one hand the player is a citizen of the universe, but on matters of crime they are subject to jurisdictions... This is crazy.
What needs to happen, in my opinion, is that players must become aligned with certain Powers or factions - which then debars the player from participating in activities belonging to the other Powers/Factions (perhaps with some other means of obtaining rank - honorary awards, financial contributions...). Of course, a player must be able to defect - much like it's possible to do so in Power-Play. The consequences of a defection will be loss of all rank and titles (and loss of access to buying certain ships), and a lengthy period of real time before the player can defect again to an opposing power. Frontier has done a bit of a bodge-job by trying to implement this sort of mechanism into Power-play... Ultimately, this, and other things, are what has led to all sorts of problems.
ELITE: DANGEROUS - SINGLE PLAYER OR MULTIPLAYER?
It appears to me that this issue surrounding the KWS comes back to an issue that has long been debated - is Elite a single player game or multiplayer (MMO) game? The reality is that Elite: Dangerous is built upon the foundations or Frontier Elite and Frontier First Encounters. The crime system from these single player games is pretty much what was brought into Elite: Dangerous. I believe I'm right in stating that Elite: Dangerous was originally going to be a single player game, and this is clearly reflected in the state of the game as it is today. The Kill Warrant Scanner, as has been highlighted sufficiently by other comments, was clearly designed for a single player (Player v Environment) game.
Frontier, for various reasons, opted to go for a game design that sought to appeal to those who desired a single player experience, and others who wanted a multiplayer experience. Instead of providing a single player game with access to multiplayer servers, Frontier chose to market Elite: Dangerous as an MMO (with optional Solo mode). It appears, from what I've seen, that Frontier didn't bother to change much of the game mechanics to transform it into a multiplayer experience - it still pretty much plays like a single player game.
However, it looks like Frontier are now in the process of trying to shape Elite: Dangerous into a proper MMO (while still trying to cater to all, and please everyone - no clear vision for the direction of the game - the loudest voices of complaint win the day) - with the right mechanics to deal with all the issues that come with having PvP. This, inevitably, leads to conflict - between those who want the single player experience in Solo, and the others who prefer to play in Open. Which mode wins out in the end? Frontier must decide whether they want to continue the game as an MMO, or revert to it being purely Solo - single player. It's probably not plausible for Frontier to revert to a true single player game after all of this time and investment. Therefore, the multiplayer - Open - will probably win the day. Perhaps the time has come for Solo to be completely abolished, permitting only one play method - Open.
Last edited:
