R.I.P. Criminal Gameplay

Doctor Zajo

Doctor Zajo
Yeah this needs to be hot fixed ASAP. I am totally fine with consequences for crime, but damn FD don't outright discourage me from playing how I want.

It is almost like you don't want criminals in the game at all now. If that is the case, then just remove all criminal NPCs and remove the option to join activities like smuggling and pirating in the group finder tool (or whatever it is called).

There should be something for the criminals FD. And the least of that should be full access to services in Anarchy systems.
 

Mengy

Mengy
Cmdr Eagleboy said:
Not really seeing it that way. Hot modules were issue even in anarchies before.
Click to expand...

No it definitely goes against what Sandro described during the beta, that anarchy systems would become havens for criminals. The reason for that was due to criminals having access to services there which superpower systems locked them out from. Now, in 3.03, even anarchy systems lock out services too.

It's a shortsighted change and Frontier should reverse it quickly IMHO. The system is called Crime & Punishment, not just Punishment. The intent of this new system was to both give crime consequences but to also enhance criminal game play too. I feel that Frontier has lost sight of the latter.
 
Last edited:

Tall_Toot

Tall_Toot
Agree with OP completely. But I think an anarchy system should be feel more like trying to get bits from some backwater dive than Tesco's.

An anarchy system could have fewer services, or charge more, or not be able to repair certain components, or expect a service/ stuff in return instead (you owe the local faction a favour or three....), or....

Sorry, just suffering from a case of emergent gameplay again.

I'll go take my meds now.
 
Last edited:

c00ky1970

c00ky1970
I think that this amendment is actually down to the coding, i.e. I don't think the intention as to lock people out of outfitting in Anarchy systems with 3.0.3 its a consequence of how they enacted locking people out of outfitting, for me it seems that its a binary Yes or No setting type thing and the ramifications that checking if its an Anarchy system weren't in the code.

Aside from that I firmly believe that Anarchies should be the haven of ne'er do wells, rapscallions and general dregs and what they get up to in those stations should be a matter between them and their consciences. I want to know that if I am ever stupid enough to wander about in an Anarchy in open then the the players there can really unleash hot death with impunity and carry a massive bounty on their ships heads.

I don't know if there was some sneaky back door method that could be employed with outfitting that could circumvent some aspect of C&P which is why this was just deployed as a blanket switch, or just FDev thinking they were helping players by assuming everyone wants to pay off a bounty when they incurr it, nice for us nice players but not for those aforementioned rapscallions....
 

o'moylan

o'moylan
This is the first time I have ever even thought about putting down the joystick and walking away.

Anything should go in Open Mode.
The C&P system cost FD a lot of time and resources.
It does not work for me.
Without getting into details, this has killed 90% of my game play.
I'm sitting in Rhea in a Cutter staring aimlessly at the screen.
I have put my Corvette and FDL on blocks in my back yard.

This stinks
 

Cmdr Esteban

Cmdr Esteban
Tall_Toot said:
Agree with OP completely. But I think an anarchy system should be more feel more like trying to get bits from some backwater dive than Tesco's.

An anarchy system could have fewer services, or charge more, or not be able to repair certain components, or expect a service/ stuff in return instead (you owe the local faction a favour or three....), or....

Sorry, just suffering from a case of emergent gameplay again.

I'll go take my meds now.
Click to expand...

Forget the meds, those are all very excellent ideas!

:)
 

Sylow

Sylow
Hmm... it's really strange. All of the time here, when somebody said just one word about feeling perhaps unfairly killed by another player, there was a crowd of people chanting "git gud" and "adjust", sometimes followed by something with the word "consequences" in them.
.
Now, it might be just me, but i don't see any issue here. Now crime has consequences. Not paying off fines is your very own choice, the outfitting being locked is a consequence of that. Somebody who doesn't aim to be a career criminal is not affected by this change at all. Somebody who intends to have a ship with big bounty on it simply needs to have a second ship for other purposes, which he can refit when changes are needed.
.
That's adjusting at a very low level, it's not complicated or anything, i see no issue here. So in my eyes, it's not just the same people who previously were in the "git gud and adjust" chorus now suddenly switched to the worlds smallest violin. Anyways, all you "tough guys" who now can't handle the heat, you don't have to worry: your river of tears already was heard by Frontier, they already work to find ways to ease your incredible pain.
.
 

Deleted member 115407

D
Sylow said:
Hmm... it's really strange. All of the time here, when somebody said just one word about feeling perhaps unfairly killed by another player, there was a crowd of people chanting "git gud" and "adjust", sometimes followed by something with the word "consequences" in them.
.
Now, it might be just me, but i don't see any issue here. Now crime has consequences. Not paying off fines is your very own choice, the outfitting being locked is a consequence of that. Somebody who doesn't aim to be a career criminal is not affected by this change at all. Somebody who intends to have a ship with big bounty on it simply needs to have a second ship for other purposes, which he can refit when changes are needed.
.
That's adjusting at a very low level, it's not complicated or anything, i see no issue here. So in my eyes, it's not just the same people who previously were in the "git gud and adjust" chorus now suddenly switched to the worlds smallest violin. Anyways, all you "tough guys" who now can't handle the heat, you don't have to worry: your river of tears already was heard by Frontier, they already work to find ways to ease your incredible pain.
.
Click to expand...

This conversation isn't about rejecting consequences. We like the consequences. Love them. I personally want to have the consequence's illegitimate welfare babies.

This conversation is about the nonsensical decision to lock criminals out of outfitting in Anarchy jurisdictions, which are supposed to be the havens for for criminals where they can get on about their business, unmolested by fancy-pants law abiders.
 

Daniel Cloudsifter

Daniel Cloudsifter
nathdixon92 said:
So while I've enjoyed the Crime and Punishment changes thus far as giving us criminals something more to think about when flying around the galaxy committing villainous acts and were really looking forward to the new KWS and Superpower bounty system. Once again FDev have dropped a massive steaming dump in our cornflakes this morning.

http://i66.tinypic.com/166btqs.jpg

Locking players out of outiftting in Anarchy systems for being wanted? In what world does that make sense?

Anarchy systems should be the last bastions for criminals where anything goes and with no restrictions.

Some of you will probably start tooting "crime now has consequence" and yes, i fully agree but Anarchy jurisdictions dont have crime - they are lawless so it makes no sense whatsoever for this change.
Click to expand...

I do like the new super power bounties, and how once you've victimized (even petty crimes) multiple affiliated factions (more than 5) you get the SP bounty and are wanted everywhere.

But yes, this outfitting restriction - I don't get it. Couldn't they just mark all modules that were on a criminal ship "hot" but still allow them to be put in storage? And any clean items put on a hot ship instantly become "hot"? It might make it more of a pain to clear your bounties of all the modules, but at least it would let criminals who want to have dedicated criminal ship still customize it while in their anarchy safe place.

Hopefully, this is just a placeholder annoyance that will be removed when they fully solve the underlying problems.
 

Sylow

Sylow
vindelanos said:
This conversation isn't about rejecting consequences. We like the consequences. Love them. I personally want to have the consequence's illegitimate welfare babies.

This conversation is about the nonsensical decision to lock criminals out of outfitting in Anarchy jurisdictions, which are supposed to be the havens for for criminals where they can get on about their business, unmolested by fancy-pants law abiders.
Click to expand...
.
Your ship is hot, your outfitter doesn't want to modify it. You need an in-game in-character immersion-friendly reason? No matter how anarchistic the system is, the outfitter still has to buy ist materials somewhere. Maybe the railgun you want to buy is not made in an anarchistic extraction system, but in a high security industrial system nearby. So to not off potential suppliers, the outfitter doesn't work on hot ships. (But is more than eager to help you on your other ship, which is not wanted. )
.
I mean, FD even made it clear that it is a -temporary- fix for a current problem. They already said that it's not the final solution. But despite all of this, all the "real criminals" and "tough guys" here now act like they were caught with the fingers in the cookie jar and the world is ending because mommy sent them to bed early.
.
 

Daniel Cloudsifter

Daniel Cloudsifter
vindelanos said:
This conversation isn't about rejecting consequences. We like the consequences. Love them. I personally want to have the consequence's illegitimate welfare babies.

This conversation is about the nonsensical decision to lock criminals out of outfitting in Anarchy jurisdictions, which are supposed to be the havens for for criminals where they can get on about their business, unmolested by fancy-pants law abiders.
Click to expand...

I guess the Devs thought it was a better way of handling the hot module issue than allow you to continue outfitting and just mark anything hot that was ever put on a criminal ship. I can see some people complaining about that.

Again, I hope this is a temporary solution, because it doesn't make any logical sense and hampers criminal game play.
 

Deleted member 115407

D
jasonbarron said:
It gets harder and harder to defend Fdev's decisions and abilities, doesn't it? This is just laughable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when decisions like this get made, they feel knee-jerk and not completely thought out.

"Hey, a bunch of people are throwing tantrums over hot modules."
"Eff it, let's just lock them out of outfitting then."
 

jasonbarron

jasonbarron
vindelanos said:
Yeah, when decisions like this get made, they feel knee-jerk and not completely thought out.

"Hey, a bunch of people are throwing tantrums over hot modules."
"Eff it, let's just lock them out of outfitting then."
Click to expand...

I think "knee jerk reaction" is becoming a real pattern lately. I wonder if Ed is getting as tired of telling the community that "We're taking the feature off the shelf for a few weeks while we look into it" as I am of reading it?
 

Deleted member 115407

D
Sylow said:
.
Your ship is hot, your outfitter doesn't want to modify it. You need an in-game in-character immersion-friendly reason? No matter how anarchistic the system is, the outfitter still has to buy ist materials somewhere. Maybe the railgun you want to buy is not made in an anarchistic extraction system, but in a high security industrial system nearby. So to not off potential suppliers, the outfitter doesn't work on hot ships. (But is more than eager to help you on your other ship, which is not wanted. )
Click to expand...

No. Outfitters in Anarchy should allow criminal players to outfit their ships. That's the whole point of having Anarchy in this game.

I mean, FD even made it clear that it is a -temporary- fix for a current problem. They already said that it's not the final solution. But despite all of this, all the "real criminals" and "tough guys" here now act like they were caught with the fingers in the cookie jar and the world is ending because mommy sent them to bed early.
.
Click to expand...

Did they? I don't recall this being advertised as a temporary fix. As a matter of fact when Ed responded today he didn't say anything like "Don't worry guys, it's just temporary."

We're not whining or crying about consequences. We're not butt-hurt because we got caught with our hand in the cookie jar. We're providing feedback on a decision that goes entirely against the enabling and encouragement of criminal gameplay, which was supposed to be one of the features of 3.0 and beyond.

P.S. Stop putting dots between your paragraphs. Dots between paragraphs triggers me.
 

Bortas

Bortas
Calm down. It's ridiculous and clearly an oversight. They tried to fix a problem and thereby created another one. 100% sure it will be fixed with the next update. Hope it will come soon... soon as in this week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom