Obsidian Ant NEW VIDEO - Crime and Punishment is Flawed

[Genar-Hofoen]

Genuine question; do you honestly believe that players getting trapped in a system with no recourse but death, was an intended design decision?

Genuine answer : for too long players have been able to min-max their ships with little or no consequence. Now, there are genuine consequences for making decisions like undersizing the FSD.

I have no idea if Frontier even thought about undersized FSD's in ships - but I hope they do absolutely nothing to try to counter that, because 1) it's a really great addition to the game in terms of having to plan way ahead of your intended activity, which 2) actually adds some genuine cons to the pro's of min-maxing a ship. Finally 3) It genuinely adds some genuine additional depth to the game.

 

[Valorin]

Genuine question; do you honestly believe that players getting trapped in a system with no recourse but death, was an intended design decision?

Actually exactly that happens when you forgot to fuel up or to fit a fuel scoop on an exploration trip. I am not sure what to think about the C&P way of getting trapped in a system. Somehow it's just a reap what you sew, but on the other hand it's too easy to get a bounty by accident. I guess that's the problem for me.

Yeah, I think a murderer deserves being stuck in a system. It's cause and effect on a scale I'd support.

EDIT: I am also not sure if your video wasn't a bit to early. There's a feedback forum open for exactly this topic at the moment and I guess we can talk more about this when the next version of C&P will be pushed.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

Genuine answer : for too long players have been able to min-max their ships with little or no consequence. Now, there are genuine consequences for making decisions like undersizing the FSD.

I have no idea if Frontier even thought about undersized FSD's in ships - but I hope they do absolutely nothing to try to counter that, because 1) it's a really great addition to the game in terms of having to plan way ahead of your intended activity, which 2) actually adds some genuine cons to the pro's of min-maxing a ship. Finally 3) It genuinely adds some genuine additional depth to the game.

I'm all for depth, so long as it as intended and logical gameplay to support it. It's quite right that a player who underfits there ship should potentially find themselves in trouble. However it doesn't seem right, that punishment for this is a "side effect" and the only way out is "suicide".

Like you, I want to see added depth and consequence in the game, but it needs to be a bit better thought out than the current iteration. Impounding "stuck" ships would be a good option for example (and I am sure there are many more options). Makes logical sense, both in terms for in-world lore and in terms of gameplay loops.

I'm certainly not saying there shouldn't be consequences in the game, there actually needs to be a whole lot more of them. But they shouldn't be "side effects" of other mechanics.

 

[CMDR Carbo]

Getting blown up and having to go back to a Sidewinder is a gameloop. Getting stuck and having to commit suicide actually breaks the game loop.

On the other hand you could argument that getting yourself stuck by your own manipulation of fitting a FSD that can't jump out of the system despite better knowledge isn't a natural occurrence, so it's kind of fitting that you have to get yourself unstuck by your own doing.

Some of the other points you bring up in your video should be easily solvable.

SLF friendly fire could be ignored if the SLFs victim isn't your active target. I think something similar exists for turreted weapons?

Also, they should remove getting a penalty for murder if an enemy is destroyed by another ship after a friendly fire incident.

I think friendly fire should have consequences, and deliberate fitting a FSD that doesn't allow you to jump out should have consequences, too. Optionally, you can be given a warning that the jump range of the FSD isn't enough to reach the closest star when you fit a FSD, but that isn't a 100% guarantee to avoid getting stuck in a small cluster of stars.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Genuine answer : for too long players have been able to min-max their ships with little or no consequence. Now, there are genuine consequences for making decisions like undersizing the FSD.

I have no idea if Frontier even thought about undersized FSD's in ships - but I hope they do absolutely nothing to try to counter that, because 1) it's a really great addition to the game in terms of having to plan way ahead of your intended activity, which 2) actually adds some genuine cons to the pro's of min-maxing a ship. Finally 3) It genuinely adds some genuine additional depth to the game.

This.

I think it's funny that PvE'rs all of a sudden are champions of combat build min-maxing. Some of these folks who, before all of this, loudly decried the fact that combat builds "had to make no compromises".

 

[Stealthie]

Getting blown up and having to go back to a Sidewinder is a gameloop. Getting stuck and having to commit suicide actually breaks the game loop.

This is totally ironic, because one of the intentions of the new C&P systems was to remove the suicidewinder exploit. It's certainly achieved that goal - but left open a case where people still have to commit suicide.

I'd be very, very surprised if this was intended design.

Instead of the player getting stuck, I would be in favour of the player having their ship impounded and given a cheap ship with capable jump range. This could work as a "surrender" or "turn-over ship" option at the local station. They then only get the ship back when they are able to clear the bounty. This way, there is still consequence (as there should be), and the game retains a gameloop that doesn't require suicide.

I guess it's subjective but the main thing, for me, is the opacity of the system.

I guess it's possible that a newbie might not understand the perils of flying without re-buy but the whole thing is "in your face" enough that it soon becomes apparent that it's always good to have a bank-balance bigger than the insurance cost of the ship you're flying.

By contrast, the perils of flying a fixed-range ship with regard to C&P are almost unknowable until you fall victim to them.

Is it smart for me to rock-up in a system, in my Beluga, and swap the fuel-scoop for an extra passenger cabin?
Do I run the risk of stranding my Beluga (and, possibly, myself) if I get a fine for bumping into another ship as I go through the mailslot?
Will I end up having to attempt to travel to a different jurisdiction to pay off the fine?
Do I need the Fuel-Rats on speed-dial?

Honestly, if I ended-up stranded somewhere while flying my Corvette, I think I'd probably prefer to just stop playing the game completely until such time that things change rather than suiciding and then selecting a starter Sidey just to escape the system.
After the time and effort I put into buying and engineering a half-decent ship I am just flat-out not going to dispose of it as a "penalty" for some offence.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Genuine question; do you honestly believe that players getting trapped in a system with no recourse but death, was an intended design decision?

If it was their choice?

That's why FD can't win this. They offer choice and players fall deep into pond, they should...do what exactly?

I am interested in debate of course. I personally don't expect to agree, but choices in outfitting why many people care about outfitting right?

 

[amigacooke]

As a long term solution, should the police be able to 'overpower' a player without destroying the ship. That way the player would end up in the detention centre and would either have to pay off the required amount to get the ship back, or take the free sidewinder.

 

[Jukelo]

Jack Shaftoe's done the best job of it here --> https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ide-to-Crime-amp-Punishment-(updated-for-3-0)

One look at that flowchart tells the whole story. This new system is complex. Unnecessarily so, if you ask me.

It's funny because I know exactly how the C&P works without the need for a flowchart, simply from reading and understanding what Sandro has written about it. But when I look at that flowchart I'm probably as confused as anyone, so I'm afraid Uncle Jack missed the mark here. A flowchart is meant to make a complex process clearer, this has the opposite effect: we have a simpler process and a messy flowchart.

Please remember that the FSD might be damaged/destroyed, not the same as foolish min/maxing design decisions. Lots of places have no repair facilities.

Having to clear off two hundred credit fines, with time lost is a little silly...

You can always reboot and repair to get your FSD back to working order.

 

[CMDR Carbo]

Is it smart for me to rock-up in a system, in my Beluga, and swap the fuel-scoop for an extra passenger cabin?
Do I run the risk of stranding my Beluga (and, possibly, myself) if I get a fine for bumping into another ship as I go through the mailslot?
Will I end up having to attempt to travel to a different jurisdiction to pay off the fine?
Do I need the Fuel-Rats on speed-dial?

That problem was actually way more concerning but they countered it by letting you refuel everywhere.

 

[Stealthie]

As a long term solution, should the police be able to 'overpower' a player without destroying the ship. That way the player would end up in the detention centre and would either have to pay off the required amount to get the ship back, or take the free sidewinder.

That's something else I was thinking about...

The old X-Wing games gave you lasers for making thinks go boom and Ion Cannons for disabling ship systems.

Maybe ED should have something similar?
They'd be handy for pirates to use with reduced risk of destroying their targets and cop ships could use them to subdue a criminal without destroying their ship.

With that done, you could implement some kind of system where, as you say, the hot ship gets impounded and the player has to pay some debt before they get it back again.

 

[ThePunisher]

Agree 100%. The new system has taken the annoyance of stray friendly fire and turned it into a ridiculous drudge.

The inability to pay off low level fines and bounties in the system is just pathetic. Having to find an interstellar factor to pay off a 200 credit fine is ridiculous.

Clearly, there should be a threshold - below a couple of K, you should be able to pay off the fines in system at the regular contact. Above the threshold - fine, now kick in the blocked services, having to go somewhere to pay them off..

Right now we have the situation where the sanction for murder is the same as that for parking in the wrong bay. come on.

if you get a fine in the system your in not a bounty, you can go to the station and pay it off, you dont need to go to a low security to pay it off. I dont get what the issue is because i got 2 fines yesterday in a haz res by mistake, did not get a wanted bounty just 2 fines and paid them off at the station.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I'm all for depth, so long as it as intended and logical gameplay to support it. It's quite right that a player who underfits there ship should potentially find themselves in trouble. However it doesn't seem right, that punishment for this is a "side effect" and the only way out is "suicide".

Like you, I want to see added depth and consequence in the game, but it needs to be a bit better thought out than the current iteration. Impounding "stuck" ships would be a good option for example (and I am sure there are many more options). Makes logical sense, both in terms for in-world lore and in terms of gameplay loops.

I'm certainly not saying there shouldn't be consequences in the game, there actually needs to be a whole lot more of them. But they shouldn't be "side effects" of other mechanics.

It is completely logical that if one decides to min-max a ship including an undersized FSD, that they get stranded if they haven't thought their decision through beforehand.

Don't walk into a room with a notice on it saying "Rotating Knives - Do Not Enter".

And I say this as someone who has a Vulture 100% engineered to be a vicious death tank which also has an undersized FSD. This Vulture is min-maxed to the hilt in terms of shields and armour, thrusters, power plant, distributor, the works. Plus a deliberately undersized FSD to compensate for the extra weight added by the heavy duty armour etc.

I'm now considering not undersizing the FSD any longer because of C&P - and I like that I now have to think twice before climbing into this monster. So, back to thinking FDEV are actually going in the right direction here, albeit with some minor tweaking required.

 

[Jex =TE=]

I don't think it's really down to whether a player getrs stuck or not it's the fact that it can happen at all and is ridiculous that's the issue here. It doesn't make logical sense that you can't leave the skybox you're in without killing yourself.

You can't just SC to a new star, the skybox doesn't allow that. So in 3300 humanity has regressed so much that with a 200cr fine you must kill yourself.

I suppose if you think about it, in a universe where you're instantly cloned and never can actually die, who cares if you kill yourself. Life is cheap and nobody can die so why have a murder crime at all? Murdered who exactly? You're alive!

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

This.

I think it's funny that PvE'rs all of a sudden are champions of combat build min-maxing. Some of these folks who, before all of this, loudly decried the fact that combat builds "had to make no compromises".

To be fair min maxing without consequences have been kinda run of the mill approach of many youtubers and other 'personas' in community.

And it is shared blame. Smart configurations? Decisions? There are lot of videos but I suspect they aren't that popular as someone who just tells what you need to get for that hot trashy Anaconda.

It has been advertised gameplay via community for some time now and I can't blame people come out disappointed when FD changes rules as they always do.

 

[Stealthie]

That problem was actually way more concerning but they countered it by letting you refuel everywhere.

Uhuh, it was certainly a lot worse, briefly, during 3.03.

The point, though, is that a player has no way of knowing what the consequences of their actions might be when it comes to C&P.

It's reasonable to say "It's your own fault" if you fly without re-buy 'cos the risks and consequences are made perfectly apparent.
That's not the case with C&P though.

Maybe the solution is as simple as creating some kind of straightforward guide to C&P which is available to read in Galnet?
I don't think it's reasonable for a game to have situations where it can go "Aha! Gotcha!" without the player knowing it might happen.
That kind of thing was getting old back in the days of Jet-Set Willy.

 

[Lightspeed]

Sandro, you must publish a flow chart for your C&P for us all to see. That will:

(1) Clarify what the rules and consequences are for everybody;

(2) Identify the failures where attention to the system is required.

Without this, we are all floundering. I'm assuming one doesn't exist already, somewhere ?

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Sandro, you must publish a flow chart for your C&P for us all to see. That will:

(1) Clarify what the rules and consequences are for everybody;

(2) Identify the failures where attention to the system is required.

Without this, we are all floundering. I'm assuming one doesn't exist already, somewhere ?

What's not to understand about C&P?

 

[John Xenir]

An underpowered FSD wouldn't let a player jump out of a system to start with. Now, there is a consequence to the action. Not seeing the problem.

I'm sorry, Sir, what consequences are you talking about?

Do you lose your ship's engineered modules and have them replaced with stock ones upon death, forcing you to re-engineer them from scratch? NOPE.
Do you have bounties stock up on you to the point that a station revokes your right to land and opens fire as soon as you enter its turrets range? NOPE.
Do you lose your ship entirely upon death, and are forced to buy it again and all modules from scratch? NOPE.
Do you experience lack of possibilities to pay the bounty, and a need to slowly grind reputation with unfriendly faction through killing their opponents first, so that they even reconsider letting you in on the station and starting to work your way back with them through missions? NOPE.
Do you experience trouble in getting into lawful system as a criminal, and have a lot of trouble shortly after you jump in, and around stations? NOPE.
Did you have any lawful system revoke your jump-in licence after you've caused enough stir in said system? NOPE.

So what are these "consequences" you're speaking of?
I haven't seen consequences in this game since I can remember.

None of it matters in a long run if you can simply pay off bounties and continue doing illegal missions for eternity - where are the consequences in that??
None of it matters in a long run if you can dock with a station owned by faction that hates you so much you shouldn't be even able to enter its no-fire zone - where are the consequences in that??
None of it matters in a long run if you can just switch the ship and turn devil into an angel - where are the consequences for that??

You don't see a problem here?
I can see a lot of problems, which I could describe as a result of Frontier focusing their efforts in the totally wrong place.

We don't need even more complicated Crime and Punishment system.
We need more simple one!
We need consequences to actually BE consequences:
- if you're a criminal, you shouldn't be allowed to dock in a station belonging to faction that's openly hostile towards you - these are consequences;
- if you're a criminal that even approaches said stations, you should be fired upon by station's turrets as soon as you enter their range - these are consequences;
- if that doesn't stop you from killing left and right, said faction should have the right to revoke your system jump-in permit - these are consequences;
- if bounties are stacking up on your head, you shouldn't be able to pay them off anywhere - these are consequences;
- if your bounties are high, you should have NPC and player bounty hunters actively hunting you - these are consequences;
- if you get killed and your bounties cleared, you still shouldn't dock in a station owned by faction openly hostile towards you - these are consequences;
- if you can't dock at sufficient number of lawful systems, you should not have access to grade A modules available only there - these are consequences;
- if you want to come back to lawful space, after months of shooting everything in gun range, you should be able to do so - but after significant time invested in getting your reputation back - these are consequences.

I'm not sure about you, but what I've pointed out above seems to me like consequences. Not sure what it is you are talking about though, haven't seen that in the game yet.

 

[Lightspeed]

What's not to understand about C&P?

A visual is important to remove unnecessary complexities and identify problems clearly. It assists clear thinking.