When the game creates scenarios where the only option to resolve a bounty that originally started with a 400 cr fine, is by seeking assisted suicide, then no I don't think you get where I am coming from and yes maybe this is a bit much. Yes the commander had an insufficient FSD for the system, however:
a) this is permitted by the game and is not a specific issue ordinarily
b) there are no warnings when transferring ships with insufficient FSD potential to leave the system
c) mechanics previously permitted suitable modules (or another ship) to be transferred in, obviating the issue entirely
d) there is artificial scarcity of modules at a great many stations
This has nothing to do with hand-holding, m8. It's Frontier not considering the consequences of simply denying access to mechanics that are based on a set of prior assumptions, without changing those assumptions. An edge case issue caused by Sandy turning crap off, and not immediately recognising that people could quite trivially be locked as a consequence. Before this, we had the people running low on fuel being stuck and unable to action the required mechanics to resolve the bounty.
We don't need C&P to be an inconsistent, complicated, locking outcome because people confuse that with "difficulty". There are a ton of very constructive ways the game can present challenges, and not hold your hand in the process. Trapping absent minded commanders in systems because mechanics are not keeping pace with changes, is not one of them. There are major changes shipping in minor updates; it's not a good look.
When you remove all choice from a commander, I draw the line. As should anyone. The consequences for the crime are sufficient and barbaric enough as it is, and have otherwise been actually considered a positive move. This locking commanders in systems business, is no such thing.
I am quite satisfied this is on Sandy's radar; it should be.
To be perfectly honest, we're not that far off being on the same page. I would agree some tweaking is possible and
might be in order and like you, I'm sure it is on Sandy's radar.
Now, where I suspect you will not agree with me is that I don't think the possibility of stranding a ship by transferring it to a system it can't jump out of it and then getting it "hot" should be removed. Bear with me while I explain, maybe we'll discover more common ground than I think.
Whether or not a ship has the capability to leave a system under its own power
should be a consideration when deciding to transfer it there. It should be something a pilot bears in mind when they contemplate skimping on FSD to squeeze out a few extra m/s or save a few watts of power. However, the situation of being stranded with no option
at all but to seek out a cop and actively pursue a rebuy screen could maybe be slightly mitigated. And it seems to me that by unlocking the
shipyard alone under anon access enough mitigation would be in place. Lore for that would make sense, the ship you arrived in is "hot" but
you aren't. Once you're off that hot ship you can walk into the shipyard office and make deals involving other ships, you just can't take the hot ship into any of the outfitting bays.
With this change you can retrieve a stored ship or have one freighted in, even buy yourself a new one and thus, once you're in a different ship you're out from under anon access and can turn in your bounty vouchers or combat bonds, claim mission rewards etc. You can leave.
Only the hot ship is "stuck" there, because you can't ship it out without it getting impounded, but you aren't. You can continue to use it locally, albeit with "wanted" status and the hassle that comes with that, even to fly missions (which don't involve cargo cans, because you have to accept and turn in the mission from the cockpit of a different ship) or whatever else you want, you just can't get it out of there without answering for the crime.
Now, a player may choose to go get themselves blown up by a cop rather than continue this way, but that way they at least have a choice, they aren't locked in to a course of action, which I understand to be your biggest objection to the current state. However, the need for forethought has not been entirely eliminated, because by shipping in a vessel which can't leave under its own power they are still putting that asset at risk, but ONLY that asset. If the pilot chooses to continue their gameplay in another ship, they can. If they have enough credits (and either the patience to re-engineer or enough stored modules in hand) they can recreate that build as a clean ship and just write off the stuck one. Or, later in their game, they may decide they simply must have
that ship out from under its lockdown, fly back there and THEN go get it blown up to clear its bounty.
We avoid nerfing the consequence of that lack of forethought entirely, yet we do not give the player the frustration of
forcing them to deliberately go out and seek a losing engagement - they do have other, albeit expensive, options.
Would that satisfy your concerns? It certainly would mine and would be a "fix" I could get behind.
