C&P...Does it work?
- Thread starter Hooplah
- Start date
Yes I'm sure besieger has his share of groupies.
Your pulse laser malfunctioned.... that's not much punishment.
But of course, you open only advocates would never use PG or solo right? Ooops, you do when it suits your purposes!
Cool.
The consequences are ship based (which is just weird and has no RL analogs).
The consequences can be circumvented without significant effort.
No significant deterrence occurs.
Seems like a failure on its face.
Suggesting that C&P had nothing to do with player to player interaction is not valid. If it were, there would be no "consequence" for PK behavior. There is, however ineffectual.
If it's a BGS deterrence that is wanted for C&P, a diminishing returns model on cop killing could be implemented.
If it's a deterrence to PK behavior that is wanted, an OPEN PVE server would solve the problem.
The consequences can be circumvented without significant effort.
No significant deterrence occurs.
Seems like a failure on its face.
Suggesting that C&P had nothing to do with player to player interaction is not valid. If it were, there would be no "consequence" for PK behavior. There is, however ineffectual.
If it's a BGS deterrence that is wanted for C&P, a diminishing returns model on cop killing could be implemented.
If it's a deterrence to PK behavior that is wanted, an OPEN PVE server would solve the problem.
This certainly is a difference for some people. But this is not something the C&P system can deal with - it is not a crime to have not yet killed someone, so C&P can only react after - from the point of view of the victim - it is too late.
People who don't want to be killed by other players are already provided for through the Modes system.
Not strictly true, since it's not a subscription game.
This is again, not a C&P issue. If someone can instance with you they can cause danger to you in a variety of ways. Preventing new players instancing with experienced players would also prevent interactions like "donating high value goods" or "refuelling them" or "winging up to clean out a RES" or various other ways in which new players can benefit from being with an experienced player.
Again, the Modes system allows people to avoid instancing with others if they don't want to. That's what it's for.
Plus, of course, an experienced player with a reset account could grab themselves an A-rated Eagle in under an hour, which is plenty of overkill for a beginner in a Freewinder ... while maintaining a Harmless-Aimless-Penniless rank set.
This gives very silly outcomes when it comes to protecting beginners if you take it absolutely literally.
Cutter pilot shoots down Sidewinder beginner: loss to beginner is 0 credits (rebuy) and maybe a few hundred credits of cargo. The Cutter pilot has already "lost" more of that on ammunition, never mind the actual bounty.
Cutter pilot shoots down another A-rated Cutter: loss to player shot down is 50 million credits rebuy (assuming notoriety zero for killer, discounted otherwise)
So making the penalty proportional to the loss of the victim would strongly incentivise shooting down freewinders (they're really cheap to replace and don't carry much cargo) and strongly disincentivise picking on ships your own size or bigger.
Frontier correctly have done it the other way round: picking on smaller ships gives you an extremely substantial bounty, while kills of similar or larger ships still attract a decent bounty. In either case, the person killed by a habitual murderer gets a discount on their rebuy, regardless of what their killer was flying.
But also...
- A-rated combat Cutter rebuy is 50 million
- Trade T-9 rebuy is about 6 million (with paper shields and 750t cargo)
- let's say it's carrying Palladium bought at 13k/tonne, so its cargo is worth about 10 million.
At notoriety 10, which habitual killers will mostly have:
- the Cutter gets a 44 million credit bounty (probably a bit more than that, because engineering is factored in here)
- the T-9 pilots loses 10 million credits in cargo (and gets a significant discount on the 6 million rebuy)
So the Cutter gets punished approximately 3x as much as the loss they caused their victim. They start getting a greater punishment at around notoriety 3 or 4.
In other words ... the existing C&P system is already doing what you're asking for in this point (with this combination of ships). It could be made 3 times more lenient and *still* meet your requirement.
Is it, perhaps, completely irrelevant to the T-9 pilot how much their killer has to pay out for doing it? I think it probably is. Again, C&P is not what the T-9 pilot actually wants...
I wonder on what bounties and fines are applied...
I wonder what block function does and what P2P allow people to do...
I wonder what would be the benefit of notoriety to balance more risk and restriction...
Also, why should players be locked out of a mode for playing the way they want within the game rules and mechanics ? Or are you suggesting that all modes should not be equally valid choices ?
I generally stay on the right side of the law, though I have been known to haul in beer to the Theocrats, or light up someone’s night with a stray ball of plasma. Does C&P work...
Insofar as does a crime generate a fine? It always did. Is it a deterrent to criminal behavior?
For me it’s just a nuisance. Locking out menu functions until Ipay my fines? I pay them anyways, just liked doing it in a different order.
I do miss “standing in the corner”, jumping one system over to hang around a star for 9 minutes to clear my name, as it’s almost always more than 9 minutes to the nearest IF.
Does it make me hesitant to engage in criminal mischief? No. That is a function of my own character.
I generally stay on the right side of the law, though I have been known to haul in beer to the Theocrats, or light up someone’s night with a stray ball of plasma. Does C&P work...
Insofar as does a crime generate a fine? It always did. Is it a deterrent to criminal behavior?
For me it’s just a nuisance. Locking out menu functions until Ipay my fines? I pay them anyways, just liked doing it in a different order.
I do miss “standing in the corner”, jumping one system over to hang around a star for 9 minutes to clear my name, as it’s almost always more than 9 minutes to the nearest IF.
Does it make me hesitant to engage in criminal mischief? No. That is a function of my own character.
Insofar as does a crime generate a fine? It always did. Is it a deterrent to criminal behavior?
For me it’s just a nuisance. Locking out menu functions until Ipay my fines? I pay them anyways, just liked doing it in a different order.
I do miss “standing in the corner”, jumping one system over to hang around a star for 9 minutes to clear my name, as it’s almost always more than 9 minutes to the nearest IF.
Does it make me hesitant to engage in criminal mischief? No. That is a function of my own character.
I generally stay on the right side of the law, though I have been known to haul in beer to the Theocrats, or light up someone’s night with a stray ball of plasma. Does C&P work...
Insofar as does a crime generate a fine? It always did. Is it a deterrent to criminal behavior?
For me it’s just a nuisance. Locking out menu functions until Ipay my fines? I pay them anyways, just liked doing it in a different order.
I do miss “standing in the corner”, jumping one system over to hang around a star for 9 minutes to clear my name, as it’s almost always more than 9 minutes to the nearest IF.
Does it make me hesitant to engage in criminal mischief? No. That is a function of my own character.
I'm suggesting killing players in Open mode should lock you in Open mode until notoriety is cleared. If notoriety is gained from killing NPCs then this does not apply.
That's where the "P" in "C&P" becomes important.
If the punishment doesn't create a sufficient deterrent to cause somebody to, at least, think twice about carrying out a criminal act then C&P isn't fit for purpose.
Right now, we have a system which allows people to think "I can get away with doing X amount of crimes before it'll be a big deal" and that means the player can predict the likely consequences of a crime.
Imagine a system whereby there was, say, a 10% chance that destroying a lawful ship resulted in your own ship being destroyed with no rebuy?
What do you think that'd do to the number of frivolous "for the lulz" kills?
Seems likely that it'd force people to consider whether any kill was worth the risk that it would incur.
That's NOT to say I'd advocate such a system.
I'm just using it as an example of the effect a suitable deterrent should have.
It should, however, be the ethos of how a credible C&P system - one that considers every relevant factor - should present itself to a would-be criminal.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
No.
The "getaway car" is a very old trope.
James Bond didn't even do that, he had that license plate flipper.
Since they nerfed notoriety to countdown whilst you are in dock it doesn't really mean very much.
A friend and I were having a good chuckle the other day at seeing a very vocal Open-Only forum poster playing in Solo, according to our Friends List.
On topic: yeah it's fine, haven't got much problem with it.
I guess the same should apply on the victim then ?
The punishment doesn't create a sufficient deterrent to cause somebody to, at least, think twice about ship outfit in order to survive in a cut throat galaxy.
A credible C&P system would take in consideration a "Reward" aspect for criminal.
It might encourage the use of slightly cheaper ships, perhaps, but otherwise I doubt it would make a lot of difference.
Here's a 20 million (plus a few cheap materials) murder machine - https://s.orbis.zone/13bi
Doesn't stand a chance in a PvP fight versus a proper ship (though with minor inexpensive modifications it should be able to escape easily enough), but could still shred a poorly-shielded T-9 faster than it can charge a high-wake (and would do it considerably faster with some cheap G3/4 engineering on those frags, too).
You could have a 100% chance of a Coriolis station dropping in 1 second after the murder and opening fire with all guns, and no rebuy allowed, and it still wouldn't be a particularly good deterrent for an attacker like that.
(Conversely, if there was a 10% chance that a station ramming victim lost their ship entirely, that would get way more popular)
Deterrents really don't work in a video game where death is a minor inconvenience, resources are only limited by the time needed to obtain them, and people can temporarily or permanently opt out of the system entirely.
Doncha think getting your ship blown up already achieves that?
Personally, I think it'd be great if, say, there was a little fluffy bubble of "safe" systems (perhaps around Sol, Achenar and Alioth) where newbies would start off and where, to be blunt, ganking would be eradicated with extreme prejudice.
The opportunities, and rewards, to be found in these areas would, however, be limited.
The big opportunities, and the big earners, would be found outside these bubbles so that, eventually, every newbie would take their first steps into the big bad world.
Ultimately, this is going to lead players to less safe places, where they will get the poop kicked out of them if they aren't suitably prepared.
Right now, we have a system that's equally accommodating to criminals everywhere in the lawful galaxy and which provides entirely lawless areas where players can pretty-much get away with anything.
That needs to be re-balanced so that there are areas where NO crime is tolerated, in just the same way that there are areas where almost all crime is tolerated.
People go on about how ED is supposed to be "the wild west" but the wild west was only called that because of the gigantic differences between it and the civilised east (of the USA).
For me, ED should get rid of the vast majority of convoluted crap related to the current C&P shambles and simply replace it with systems where every star system has it's own level of law-enforcement - basically, with things getting less and less lawful as you get further from the 3 capitals.
There should be vast areas of the bubble which really are the "wild west" but there should also be areas which are almost entirely safe, for those who want that.
Seems like it's just as selfish to insist that the entire bubble should be "dangerous" as it is to suggest that PvP should be completely eradicated.
Deterrents don't work in video games where death is a minor deterrent.
Circular logic, right there.
All you're doing is telling me that even harsher deterrents are required.
Personally, I don't think that's really necessary.
All that's necessary is to create a system that provides plenty of opportunity for players to cause mayhem BUT also has areas where criminal activity has a high risk attached.
Achieve that and the casual murder hobos simply won't bother taking the risk of causing trouble in the "safe zones" because there'll be plenty for them to do elsewhere.
And, of course, they can still try to do bad things in the "safe zones" but that should come with meaningful risks - risks sufficient to make them think twice about doing it.
Well actually frontier ignored suggestions made by the PVP groups the only idea that actually got taken on board was the prison system
If it were down to me there would be a difference in police response depending on high med low and none
id have ATR in high for an interdiction assault or kill
in Medium i would have police on interdict and assault and ATR on a Kill
Low just a police response on assault and murder nothing for the interdiction
None id have zero response but i would expect things to balance in the other direction too the Carebears cant have it all their own way like CG's been held at Medium and lows all the time so pirate players actually have somewhere to rob people
Bountys should be smaller in medium low and none zones station guns should not be instawin and there should be better ways of extracting cargo from players without killing them trying to blow up engines so they cant run or disabling their point defence so hatch breakers can do their job a bounty system more like Eves where it only goes down by a portion of the value of the ship they were killed in and its not actually payable by the pirate and get rid of the crappy anon access you manage to dock without getting scanned then you should get full access
If it were down to me there would be a difference in police response depending on high med low and none
id have ATR in high for an interdiction assault or kill
in Medium i would have police on interdict and assault and ATR on a Kill
Low just a police response on assault and murder nothing for the interdiction
None id have zero response but i would expect things to balance in the other direction too the Carebears cant have it all their own way like CG's been held at Medium and lows all the time so pirate players actually have somewhere to rob people
Bountys should be smaller in medium low and none zones station guns should not be instawin and there should be better ways of extracting cargo from players without killing them trying to blow up engines so they cant run or disabling their point defence so hatch breakers can do their job a bounty system more like Eves where it only goes down by a portion of the value of the ship they were killed in and its not actually payable by the pirate and get rid of the crappy anon access you manage to dock without getting scanned then you should get full access
Substitute "non-permanent" for "a minor inconvenience", then. That's the key point.
The point is that in the real world people do not generally throw themselves in front of lorries to try to get the driver a manslaughter conviction, or demand their sentence be commuted to execution in lieu of paying their library fine because that's less of a problem for them. These are not "exploits" real C&P systems have to deal with, for obvious reasons. But Elite Dangerous has to find a way of dealing with both, and many more.
That means that basic concepts from the real world justice systems like "punishment" or "deterrence" or "rehabilitation" do not have a useful meaning in the context of the game.
Right. And this "high risk" is? What could they plausibly implement that would actually be a high risk in the context of Elite Dangerous? Given that as I pointed out above "guaranteed total loss of ship" is not really enough.
Frontier have already provided a way to get "high security" areas where all the really dangerous attackers have been "deterred" in the main menu, under "S".
You really haven't thought it through, have you?
What do you think is gonna happen if people DO take this marvelous advice?
You think Open is going to be better or worse if the only people populating it are those looking for PvP combat?
Bear in mind that Open is purely a concession to PvP already.
There is NOTHING to compel non-PvP players to remain in Open.
The only reason a non-PvP player remains in Open is for the social aspect of the game.
Do you know much about hunting?
For an eco-system to be viable there needs to be a balance between predators and prey.
You need to create areas where prey can flourish and/or you need to cull predators regularly.
If you fail to do either of these things, the prey population gets decimated, there's nothing for the predators to eat and they all die off too.
In game terms, in case you need this spelling out, that means the "prey" WILL clear off to Solo, there'll be nothing for the "predators" to do (except fight with each other) and when they get bored of that they'll probably go looking for a more interesting game to play.
Seems like it's be far better to try and make Open acceptable for the broadest number of players possible, thus offering the "prey" the largest opportunity for interaction with other players while, at the same time, providing the "predators" with the largest possible pool of "prey".
Let's face it, right now you don't see anybody complaining that ED's legal system makes PvP impossible.
That would seem to suggest that the game's skewed in favour of PvP and needs adjusting in favour of the "prey", even if it's only by a small amount, in specific areas.
I really don't think having a car impounded is the biggest fear of a convicted felon. It's the time out of circulation. Criminals using their own registered car to commit crimes have bigger challenges than "my car is wanted".No.
The "getaway car" is a very old trope.
James Bond didn't even do that, he had that license plate flipper.