Proposal Discussion Kill Warrant Scanner Feedback

[MillennialDawn]

...anarchies become safe havens for criminals, as there's no superpower aligned with anarchy jurisdictions. Whilst there is a reasonable logic to this, it's a pretty significant change.

When in deep space - in a system that contains no Nav Beacon, no stations, no population - nothing, for some reason these are categorised as 'Anarchy'. In fact, these systems are LAWLESS. Anarchy systems have got some semblance of law - just chaotic and not very effective (I think that Space Stations operate far too smoothly in Anarchy systems...). While it may be plausible to permit bounty hunting via KWS in an anarchy system, I would further suggest that completely empty systems are categorised as LAWLESS (no KWS function at all).

Furthermore, this would permit EMPTY systems in and around the 'bubble' to be utilised by outcast groups - factionless groups - with hidden pirate bases in asteroids, etc., (ideally to be discovered by players, and not simply revealed on the map).

Many of the pirate bases currently existing in certain areas of occupied space should be moved to empty systems - these systems should be the 'safe havens' for criminals (that's what I'd like to see, at any rate...).

Otherwise, let Anarchy systems alone - safe havens for criminals. Increase the risk in Anarchy systems. Commanders who want to fly without shields or weapons already have enough systems to fly in safely...

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I do think the loss of KWS bounties in Anarchies and unpopulated systems would be a big one.

Not just in terms of gameplay, but for a whole genre of bounty hunting lore - tracking villainous scum across vast unpopulated wastes, into lawless dens of iniquity, and gunning them down.
You can flee from the law, but you can't escape justice!!

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

When in deep space - in a system that contains no Nav Beacon, no stations, no population - nothing, for some reason these are categorised as 'Anarchy'. In fact, these systems are LAWLESS. Anarchy systems have got some semblance of law - just chaotic and not very effective (I think that Space Stations operate far too smoothly in Anarchy systems...). While it may be plausible to permit bounty hunting via KWS in an anarchy system, I would further suggest that completely empty systems are categorised as LAWLESS (no KWS function at all).

Furthermore, this would permit EMPTY systems in and around the 'bubble' to be utilised by outcast groups - faction-less groups - with hidden pirate bases in asteroids, etc., (ideally to be discovered by players, and not simply revealed on the map).

Many of the pirate bases currently existing in certain areas of occupied space should be moved to empty systems - these systems should be the 'safe havens' for criminals (that's what I'd like to see, at any rate...).

Otherwise, let Anarchy systems alone - safe havens for criminals. Increase the risk in Anarchy systems. Commanders who want to fly without shields or weapons already have enough systems to fly in safely...

I agree with this. Have hidden pirate bases in these "empty systems" without any Nav beacon, no known population etc. That could add a lot to some roleplaying.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

what i miss here, or didn't understand:
some systems have a mix of all superpower aligned minor factions.

what if i want to support a minor faction, that is not aligned with the same superpower as the ruling faction in that system?
will the KWS now reveal bounties issued by that minor faction or not?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I do think the loss of KWS bounties in Anarchies and unpopulated systems would be a big one.

Not just in terms of gameplay, but for a whole genre of bounty hunting lore - tracking villainous scum across vast unpopulated wastes, into lawless dens of iniquity, and gunning them down.
You can flee from the law, but you can't escape justice!!

Maybe have the KWS work in an anarchy, but to claim the bounty you need to scoop up a data core or something as you need proof, normal methods don't work in anarchies.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

what i miss here, or didn't understand:
some systems have a mix of all superpower aligned minor factions.

what if i want to support a minor faction, that is not aligned with the same superpower as the ruling faction in that system?
will the KWS now reveal bounties issued by that minor faction or not?

The controlling faction determines what you get.

What isn't entirely clear is whether that is the controlling faction for the system as a whole or the faction that controls the area of space you happen to be in.

Maybe have the KWS work in an anarchy, but to claim the bounty you need to scoop up a data core or something as you need proof, normal methods don't work in anarchies.

Make the kill for show - deliver the Black Box for dough. That'd work, or something like it.

 

[MillennialDawn]

Maybe have the KWS work in an anarchy, but to claim the bounty you need to scoop up a data core or something as you need proof, normal methods don't work in anarchies.

Good idea..

 

[Marcus Tullius]

My two cents:

First of all: from history of bounty hunting in US, the bounty is paid by government for bringing the criminal to justice, not from money taken by criminal in detention center. There is no need a relation between them in the game.

Second: the argument that multiple bounties are too harsh for criminal, no it’s not too harsh a gang of 4 FDLs to kill an unarmed T9 for no reason; a Corvette to kill sideys in starting systems, but it is too harsh for people doing this to feel the consequences for their actions. Why we are bothering with C&P at all? Better leave as it is now.

 

[MillennialDawn]

My two cents:

...

...the argument that multiple bounties are too harsh for criminal, no it’s not too harsh a gang of 4 FDLs to kill an unarmed T9 for no reason; a Corvette to kill sideys in starting systems, but it is too harsh for people doing this to feel the consequences for their actions. Why we are bothering with C&P at all? Better leave as it is now.

I like it +1

 

[raymondo the great]

We have some choices. We could just say "it's a game, when you respawn, you pay all associated legal costs, even if it doesn't make complete sense). Doing this would allow us to keep the Kill Warrant scanner pretty much identical to how it currently functions. We'd also be saying, "receive multiple faction bounties against your ship at your peril - you'll pay for all of them when the Kill Warrant Scanner comes a callin', and they never expire.

We have instant transport across the galaxy and you are worried about if paying all bounties at once makes sense? In all honesty that "doesn't make sense"! There is an easy explanation anyway...extradition...you get passed around from one to the other serving out your sentences and you end up in the last one and that part is abstracted out due to multiplayer persistent universe.

I'm talking here as someone who has in the past (back when crime paid) run up huge bounties murdering every cop who came to stop me. And if I get killed and have to pay up all at once...fair enough I say! I can't see what is so wrong with that! If you are worried about the bounties accumulating too much then the only problem is the bounties would be too high...that should be an easy fix no? And exactly what the beta was supposed to be for? But ultimately in any crime system punished by payments you are going to end up where people run up huge penalties. You either have to accept that or figure out an entirely new C&P system that doesn't involve money! Or just reset to the one currently in live...

Seriously the only problem with people paying them all in one go is that the nerf hammer has been applied so much to illegal activities that you can make better money doing just about anything in game other than being a criminal!

 

[raymondo the great]

However, such a change would make it very difficult to support a faction via bounty hunting if it was aligned to a different superpower than the faction controlling the system (basically, the KWS would never reveal bounties issued by the non-controlling faction).

In addition, anarchies become safe havens for criminals, as there's no superpower aligned with anarchy jurisdictions. Whilst there is a reasonable logic to this, it's a pretty significant change.

Have you thought about how this would impact new player groups? Given you (FDev) used to just give groups control and now it has to be earned, and often to start with what is the best way to up the smallest factions influence? Bounty hunting.

The system you are proposing would seem to make having a new player faction not aligned to the current controlling factions superpower an uninviting proposition at best! And given that systems were given away like candy early on that seems to be a nasty case of pulling the ladder up after the old groups. And given the extra group content promised for this year it's likely you'll have more people wanting their group in game not less!

Unless you are totally redoing player factions so we all start the same place again in which case feel free to say so and ignore...

 

[Martin Schou]

In addition, anarchies become safe havens for criminals, as there's no superpower aligned with anarchy jurisdictions. Whilst there is a reasonable logic to this, it's a pretty significant change.

That doesn't square with the realities of the game itself. There are anarchies in the Alliance, Empire and Federation. How this is supposed to work is beyond me, but the fact of the matter is that the game has anarchy factions aligned with all three superpowers.

 

[Mephane]

Hello Commanders!

Thank you for your continued interest and discussion.

For clarity, I'm going to list the major issues folk have, as I'm seeing it currently.

Note: Controlling faction = the faction with the most influence, whose jurisdiction covers all deep space within a system.

A) The revised proposal does not allow me to earn as many credits as the 2.4 system. Because I can only detect bounties aligned with the controlling faction's superpower (counting independent as a superpower for this purpose only), I am potentially missing out on detecting lots of bounties.

B) The revised proposal does not allow me to gain as much reputation as the 2.4 system. Because reputation is gained by handing in bounty claims, I cannot detect and gather claims for factions that do not match the controlling faction's aligned superpower.

C) The revised system loses reputation gaining tactics compared to the 2.4 system. Any sort of mechanic combining bounties loses the ability for me to choose which bounty I hand in and which one I ditch, controlling who gets reputation. In addition, not being able to detect all bounties in a system means that I can't ever choose to hand in bounties for factions that do not match the controlling faction's aligned superpower.

D) The revised system makes anarchy systems useless for bounty hunters compared to the 2.4 system. Because the KWS detects crimes lined to the controlling faction's superpower, and anarchies (jurisdictions created by criminal factions) are not connected to superpowers (even independents as a superpower), then no bounties are detected.

Have I missed anything?

What if the KWS revealed all bounties of factions that have a presence in the current system? For PvE that would make them essentially the same as before (factions in anarchy systems can still issue bounties, as currently revealed with the KWS already), for PvP that means if a player commits lots of crimes in a single system, they will have to pay for all of that if they get destroyed. So they might be encouraged to move around a bit once their bounties get too high, which is what you'd expect in reality, too.

 

[wstephenson]

When in deep space - in a system that contains no Nav Beacon, no stations, no population - nothing, for some reason these are categorised as 'Anarchy'. In fact, these systems are LAWLESS. Anarchy systems have got some semblance of law - just chaotic and not very effective (I think that Space Stations operate far too smoothly in Anarchy systems...). While it may be plausible to permit bounty hunting via KWS in an anarchy system, I would further suggest that completely empty systems are categorised as LAWLESS (no KWS function at all).

Furthermore, this would permit EMPTY systems in and around the 'bubble' to be utilised by outcast groups - factionless groups - with hidden pirate bases in asteroids, etc., (ideally to be discovered by players, and not simply revealed on the map).

Many of the pirate bases currently existing in certain areas of occupied space should be moved to empty systems - these systems should be the 'safe havens' for criminals (that's what I'd like to see, at any rate...).

If (and this is a big if) the KWS mechanism was modified in such a way as to make any faction-controlled space very risky to highly criminal pilots, then your Lawless, KWS-safe systems could be implemented by a new class of base (Eddie, are you reading this, I hear you're quite the specialist at modified bases?), the 'shell base'. Asteroid bases or outposts, these would be dark until discovered. An automated docking control as used at Engineers would be functional. They would have to be fuelled and supplied by players in the same way that Thargoid-damaged bases track commodities. Once fuelled with a stock of Hydrogen Fuel, the lights would come on (like in starport hangars) and they would provide refuelling to fugitive Commanders, no questions asked. A range of Machinery/Tech commodities would provide ship repair services, and Battle Weapons would stock the rearmament functions. Once depleted, these service would go dark until restocked. All higher level services like Commodities and Contacts would be absent. But they would provide a safe toehold and place to for those on the fringes of Galactic society, and since they would not appear on the map (except as a bookmark to those in the know) they would naturally form valuable resources to player groups and Powerplay groups, and encourage teamwork to keep forward operating bases near to systems to prey on supplied using freighters.

It's hardly the 'player driven economy' the EVE set keep asking for, but it would give players a bit of agency and a place to hide from KWS-equipped bounty hunters. What do you think?

 

[MillennialDawn]

If (and this is a big if) the KWS mechanism was modified in such a way as to make any faction-controlled space very risky to highly criminal pilots, then your Lawless, KWS-safe systems could be implemented by a new class of base (Eddie, are you reading this, I hear you're quite the specialist at modified bases?), the 'shell base'. Asteroid bases or outposts, these would be dark until discovered. An automated docking control as used at Engineers would be functional. They would have to be fuelled and supplied by players in the same way that Thargoid-damaged bases track commodities. Once fuelled with a stock of Hydrogen Fuel, the lights would come on (like in starport hangars) and they would provide refuelling to fugitive Commanders, no questions asked. A range of Machinery/Tech commodities would provide ship repair services, and Battle Weapons would stock the rearmament functions. Once depleted, these service would go dark until restocked. All higher level services like Commodities and Contacts would be absent. But they would provide a safe toehold and place to for those on the fringes of Galactic society, and since they would not appear on the map (except as a bookmark to those in the know) they would naturally form valuable resources to player groups and Powerplay groups, and encourage teamwork to keep forward operating bases near to systems to prey on supplied using freighters.

It's hardly the 'player driven economy' the EVE set keep asking for, but it would give players a bit of agency and a place to hide from KWS-equipped bounty hunters. What do you think?

Wow, you come up with some pretty good ideas - stuff I'd have never thunk of. It'd be nice if Frontier implemented such ideas. Sadly...

Nevertheless +1

 

[Kilostream]

....Have I missed anything?....

I don't think so - but a key thing to keep hold of is keep it simple - if you have a KWS fitted and you complete a scan, you get ALL the bounties.

If that can't work with C&P changes you've planned, then separate the issues, don't ruin one to accommodate the other.

If it ain't broke, don't break it!

 

[Gimi]

Hello Commander Max Factor!

A large part of me agrees, hence the revised proposal. However, such a change would make it very difficult to support a faction via bounty hunting if it was aligned to a different superpower than the faction controlling the system (basically, the KWS would never reveal bounties issued by the non-controlling faction).

In addition, anarchies become safe havens for criminals, as there's no superpower aligned with anarchy jurisdictions. Whilst there is a reasonable logic to this, it's a pretty significant change.

Would it be possible to select a faction/factions, similar to the way we select factions in combat zones, when you don't want the default behaviour of the KWS.
So you would be programming your KWS to connect to a certain faction you wish to support.
I think this makes sense and be even more realistic. It would be player choice.
You could use the same menu that is used for selecting factions in combat zones as well.
It's not used outside combat zones as is.

Just an idea, and probably to much of a change for 3.0.

 

[nrage]

...the one element that does not fare so well is the Commander wishing to support a single faction in a system when it does not share the same superpower alignment as the controlling faction (basically, you'd have t look for nearby systems for appropriate bounties).

...However, such a change would make it very difficult to support a faction via bounty hunting if it was aligned to a different superpower than the faction controlling the system (basically, the KWS would never reveal bounties issued by the non-controlling faction).

In addition, anarchies become safe havens for criminals, as there's no superpower aligned with anarchy jurisdictions. Whilst there is a reasonable logic to this, it's a pretty significant change.

The edge cases are where these issues hit particularly hard, like..

How would a player support an anarchy faction which exists in only one system which is itself currently controlled by (anarchy|independent|superpower)?

If they control a station we could sell stolen goods to them, but what if they don't? You can still carry out missions for them, but this can be a frustratingly slow way of supporting them depending on the missions being generated. Perhaps the answer is, that we need a new way to support anarchy factions?

What are anarchy factions doing issuing bounties anyway.. surely they should issue "hits" instead?

Perhaps they issue/redeem combat bonds for authority ships killed in any system they inhabit?

 

[SciTrekker]

What we're investigating is improving multi-factional legal costs (just why would a Federal detention process care about Imperial infractions, plus maybe avoiding massive multi-faction mega bounties that guarantee ship loss). These two elements currently stand in opposition to the way that the crime update works.

A Federal detention process might not care about Imperial infractions - unless they had an incentive.
Example:

"Cmdr Lawbreaker,
We're processing your release from this [current Power: Federal] detention center.
Payment of 27,556,813 CR is required.
Upon payment, we'll release your [ship: Federal Corvette] [ship name: Fancy Dancy].

Cmdr Lawbreaker, you also appear to have been naughty in [other Power: Empire] space.
Extradition papers are in progress. However,...

We could stop that process for 1,000,000 CR (added to your ship's recovery fees).
Should we continue the extradition process, the [other Power: Empire] will assess an additional 32,109,521 CR."

PAY || DON'T PAY
​

We have some choices. We could just say "it's a game, when you respawn, you pay all associated legal costs, even if it doesn't make complete sense). Doing this would allow us to keep the Kill Warrant scanner pretty much identical to how it currently functions. We'd also be saying, "receive multiple faction bounties against your ship at your peril - you'll pay for all of them when the Kill Warrant Scanner comes a callin', and they never expire.

"No problem," said the upright citizen.


Good luck with whatever you choose to do.

 

[nrage]

OK - so you scan a perp and get a large Fed bounty but also some minor independent faction bounties and maybe even a smaller Empire bounty too. For PVE (where the NPC doesn't really get sent to a detention center) that's job done surely? KWS unnafected by 3.0 for PVE? For PVP you seem to have a problem because a) why would the Federal detention center care about those other infractions and b) the player might go bankrupt too easily if they're hit with ALL the bounties. So why can't the Federal detention center the PVP perp is sent to just process and reclaim the Federal bounties, as you say "not caring about the other bounties" (leaving them in the bounty hunter's transactions tab for the bounty hunter to claim later from those other independent and Empire systems like it does in 2.4)?

I was thinking along the same lines earlier:

.. There is no reason the bounty paid to the collector and the fine paid by the perpetrator need to be the same.

Sure, in your example, the perp still has the empire bounty on their ship, and it can be collected again by a player killing them in Empire space. So, is this an issue, is it exploitable? I don't think it is. The player with these bounties is not going to want to be killed, not even by their friend, right? If they were they would have to pay rebuy on the specific ship (so cannot sidewinder it) plus the bounty itself, and it's far cheaper to use an interstellar factor instead. Plus, as bounty payouts are capped at 2mil it's unlikely to make any economic sense, as they would lose more than they gained in the process, right?

So, why not have the perp pay only the fed/local bounties and retain the empire bounty, but pay the collector the full amount fed+emp+local etc. Sure, there is a slight disconnect there, and it's not super elegant. But, from each players perspective it's solid/sensible, it's only if they get together and compare notes that the disconnect becomes apparent, and the chances of that are small. In 6 months everyone will have forgotten this tiny detail and everyone will be happy, no?