Be Warned

[Aashenfox]

Since you're not wanted, it doesn't look like a C&P thing.

What is your reputation with Alioth Independents? Did you kill too many of their criminals maybe?

This is a new bug with 3.2. It's happened to me twice in a week. They just turn on you for no reason. I'm not the only one to report it.
It is definitely not that I just didn't realise that I hit one, or didn't realise that I was committing a crime. I haven't had any notoriety for months, and I had no fines or anything even slightly dodgy outstanding at either time.

This is definitely a new 'thing'.

 

[Stealthie]

When things happen that are not supposed to, file a bug report and help FDev make it a better system.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/449417-Sent-to-Detention-Centre-after-paying-fine

Still waiting for somebody from FDev to clarify whether this is intended behaviour or not.

I made another bug report about unwarranted attacks from cops which got merged into another thread so I've got no idea how that's progressing.

 

[Andovar]

I don't understand why they don't flip this mechanic, and charge you the fee up front, when you try and store a hot module.
A simple dialog popup that says "Warning, this module has security issues. There is a 809,000cr storage fee. Store module? Y/N"

Then there's none of this confusion over an apparently exorbitant fee for a small cr fine.
You'd know up front, and be given the option to decline storage.

 

[Sylveria]

I don't understand why they don't flip this mechanic, and charge you the fee up front, when you try and store a hot module.
A simple dialog popup that says "Warning, this module has security issues. There is a 809,000cr storage fee. Store module? Y/N"

Then there's none of this confusion over an apparently exorbitant fee for a small cr fine.
You'd know up front, and be given the option to decline storage.

Because in-game dialog popups would be too obvious, as players wouldn't have as much to complain about anymore/less infighting on the forums?

Kinda like a nice big one that warns the player when they log into Open they may be fired upon by other players for any reason whatsoever... so they simply log into PG/Solo instead of the daily/weekly public posts complaining about "how their Noobaconda got destroyed without provocation in Open". I mean, after all- if the information was simply available to you in game without having to cryptically research everything on Google or elsewhere, the forums would be at least a quarter the present size. Also "Because the game doesn't hold your hand!!!" No, a simple dialog popup isn't "hand-holding" it's basic information that should be relayed to the player so they can make appropriate choices.

Frontier simply has a history of creating a lot of their own problems/drama by avoiding addressing issues promptly and directly.

Anyone who's been around here more than a couple of weeks can tell you that.

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

I don't understand why they don't flip this mechanic, and charge you the fee up front, when you try and store a hot module.
A simple dialog popup that says "Warning, this module has security issues. There is a 809,000cr storage fee. Store module? Y/N"

Then there's none of this confusion over an apparently exorbitant fee for a small cr fine.
You'd know up front, and be given the option to decline storage.

While I like your idea, it really should be an image of a skeezy outfitting dockworker extorting the money out of you! "Hey, buddy, you wants to store this hot module here, you'z got's to pay me."

 

[Stealthie]

Because in-game dialog popups would be too obvious, as players wouldn't have as much to complain about anymore/less infighting on the forums?

Kinda like a nice big one that warns the player when they log into Open they may be fired upon by other players for any reason whatsoever... so they simply log into PG/Solo instead of the daily/weekly public posts complaining about "how their Noobaconda got destroyed without provocation in Open". I mean, after all- if the information was simply available to you in game without having to cryptically research everything on Google or elsewhere, the forums would be at least a quarter the present size. Also "Because the game doesn't hold your hand!!!" No, a simple dialog popup isn't "hand-holding" it's basic information that should be relayed to the player so they can make appropriate choices.

Frontier simply has a history of creating a lot of their own problems/drama by avoiding addressing issues promptly and directly.

Anyone who's been around here more than a couple of weeks can tell you that.

Uhuh,

It does seem like an undue amount of ED's gameplay is designed with some kind of "Gotcha!" intent in mind.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

If it's an unengineerable module, just sell the stupid thing and buy a new, clean one. Or just buy a new clean one and forget about the dirty one.

I said it from day one that the whole "hot ship/hot module" idea was pure idiocy. Ships don't commit crimes, pilots do.

The The Fokker Dr I did not shoot down 80 pilots. Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen did.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

It's to discourage just buying a new, clean ship and switching the modules from the old ship over to it, rather than pay the bounty.

That's just a matter of the size of the bounty to make it worthwhile

 

[metatheurgist]

I said it from day one that the whole "hot ship/hot module" idea was pure idiocy. Ships don't commit crimes, pilots do.

Yep, it's backwards. Ships should have notoriety, Commanders - crimes. Classic FD design.

 

[[VR] DDM_Reaper20]

There are some bug reports and known issues of system authorities attacking without reason. If you can, drop ticket to support, especially if you didn't hit them with weapons accidentally.

Happened to me twice already. I KNOW I didn't hit them, because I had no bounty, not even a fine from anything else, I was squeaky clean.

I chalked it up to a mistake being made, and low-waked outta there (fortunately, my mission runner Anaconda could not be detained by their Vipers...).

 

[gpcustoms]

Sorry to hear about the experience but most of these words of wisdom from your fellow players are said with experience so as to save you some pain. The mechanics of the game don't have to make sense at all to any of us depending on our point of view. My own 2 cents is if fined,...pay it in that system right away before you forget or decide to blow it off.

 

[Stealthie]

I said it from day one that the whole "hot ship/hot module" idea was pure idiocy. Ships don't commit crimes, pilots do.

I genuinely cringe whenever somebody says something like this... because I suggested this years ago (and I've never seen anybody else suggest it) and FDev have now implemented it.

In my defence, my point was that a ship should be held responsible for a crime initially, until the identity of the culprit could be established.

In practice, let's say you're flying an FdL and commit some crimes.
While you're flying your FdL the cops would be on the look-out for it and you'd attract them whatever else you did.
You drop into a USS and after a certain time the cops would show up.
You interdict another ship and the cops would show up.
You show up at a RES and the cops will show up.
You show up at a station and, perhaps, you'd have to dock quickly, before your ship is recognised.

The point is, it'd be your ship that everybody's looking for.
You'd be able to get to a station, dock, swap ships and then you'd be in the clear.
Ideally, you'd swap ships in an anarchy, where nobody'd care if your ship was "hot".

However, if you got scanned, either by a station or another ship, this would all change.

Once you'd been scanned, the authorities would know it was you flying the "hot" ship and the crimes would then be on you rather than the ship.
You could then fly any ship you wanted to but if you got scanned, again either by a station or ship, you'd be treated in a manner proportional to all the crimes you committed.

So, yeah.
I like the idea of having "hot" ships, but it should only be the first step of a sensible C&P system which is ultimately designed to hold the pilot responsible for their actions.

 

[Factabulous]

I genuinely cringe whenever somebody says something like this... because I suggested this years ago (and I've never seen anybody else suggest it) and FDev have now implemented it.

Lynch him!

(phew, I thought it was a forum idea, good to know who suggested it)

 

[Ian Skippy]

Was in my Anaconda and had finally scrapped together enough mats and components to get a Guardian FSD booster. All of my previous fines and bounties had been paid off at an Interstellar Factors Contact and I was heading to the Guardian Broker when I was interdicted. Submitted and killed the NPC, but in the process of collecting the components that were dropped I hit the fire button in error and hit a nearby security ship. I received a 100 Cr bounty, which was fair enough. Jumped to the Guardian Broker system and docked. Bought the FSD Booster, but wasn't sure how to apply it.

Went into outfitting and before I tried anything (and screwed things up) I wanted to store my Class 6 fully-engineered FSD. When I highlighted the FSD it said, "Legal Issues." No biggie, just a hundred credit fine so I stored the FSD.

Eventually, I spotted the FSD Booster category in the store and bought the 10+ LY Guardian FSD booster. Then I went back to get my stored FSD. It would not let me install the FSD saying "Module cannot be fitted for legal reasons." I found the option to "Clean Module" so I selected that and saw it would cost me 809,000 credits.

Jaw on the floor, I paid it and reinstalled the FSD to see that it once again it has the label "Legal Issues." Again, the only thing against me at that time was an unpaid 100 Cr fine.

Simple math tells me I paid an 8090% premium on the original fine to reinstall just one component on my ship.

When the initial suggestion of putting a fine on ships was made, I said it was a dumb idea. This is now simply absurd.

Why do you do that? I just dobt get it. There are two approaches: clean module and pay fine/bounty. Depending on your fines, one is better than the other. Why do the silly thing then complain you did the silly thing? You even specifically mentioned being surprised by how expensive things are, why not stop and think if you are really doing the right thing.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Yep, it's backwards. Ships should have notoriety, Commanders - crimes. Classic FD design.

So you just switch to a sidey, thereby resetting notoriety to zero, pay off bounties and get back into the griefconda, which is notorious still but no longer wanted.

The 'lets make it simple' ideas are often not as good as they seem.

 

[NeilF]

Hot ships... Hot modules... Hmmm...

Hammer? Nut?

 

[Lightspeed]

I genuinely cringe whenever somebody says something like this... because I suggested this years ago (and I've never seen anybody else suggest it) and FDev have now implemented it.

In my defence, my point was that a ship should be held responsible for a crime initially, until the identity of the culprit could be established.

In practice, let's say you're flying an FdL and commit some crimes.
While you're flying your FdL the cops would be on the look-out for it and you'd attract them whatever else you did.
You drop into a USS and after a certain time the cops would show up.
You interdict another ship and the cops would show up.
You show up at a RES and the cops will show up.
You show up at a station and, perhaps, you'd have to dock quickly, before your ship is recognised.

The point is, it'd be your ship that everybody's looking for.
You'd be able to get to a station, dock, swap ships and then you'd be in the clear.
Ideally, you'd swap ships in an anarchy, where nobody'd care if your ship was "hot".

However, if you got scanned, either by a station or another ship, this would all change.

Once you'd been scanned, the authorities would know it was you flying the "hot" ship and the crimes would then be on you rather than the ship.
You could then fly any ship you wanted to but if you got scanned, again either by a station or ship, you'd be treated in a manner proportional to all the crimes you committed.

So, yeah.
I like the idea of having "hot" ships, but it should only be the first step of a sensible C&P system which is ultimately designed to hold the pilot responsible for their actions.

Aha, the truth is out ! Not so much about you, as about Sandro. He said in a livestream (in the dim past) that "someone" suggested applying the crime to the ship, not to the person. What he neglected to say was that he ignored the rest of the suggestion and took it completely out of context !

 

[Andovar]

Hot ships... Hot modules... Hmmm...

Hammer? Nut?

I'm glad you used 'nut' in the second part of your analogy, because there's been a few occasions where I've used a hammer on a screw.

 

[metatheurgist]

So you just switch to a sidey, thereby resetting notoriety to zero, pay off bounties and get back into the griefconda, which is notorious still but no longer wanted.

The 'lets make it simple' ideas are often not as good as they seem.

Who says you should be able to just pay off bounties?

 

[Ian Skippy]

Who says you should be able to just pay off bounties?

Err, that is one of the things about notoriety. If you want to block the ability to pay it off even at notoriety 0, enjoy the complete meltdown of the forum when people experience what that means.