C&P...Does it work?

[Stealthie]

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".

The only significance the ship should have, in the entire process, is that it should be what the authorities are looking for initially... until they have better information.

In practical terms, if you do a crime in your FdL, plod should come looking for you whenever you're flying your FdL.
You park it up and you're free to go about your business in any other ship.
Alternatively, if you get scanned while you're in your FdL, plod knows it's you who did the crime and then you're Wanted regardless of what ship you're flying.

A lot of the convoluted junk associated with C&P is there to stop players from just selling the hull of a Wanted ship, replacing it and starting again but, frankly, that's completely unnecessary IMO.

If it was me, I'd just set it up so you flat-out cannot sell or modify a Wanted ship in lawful systems.
There would, however, be "black market shipyards" in Anarchies where you'd be able to modify a Wanted ship, and sell a Wanted hull - at a suitably reduced cost.

About the only thing that did sting about C&P was when criminals found themselves stuck in a system and unable to fit a fuel-scoop and decent FSD which allowed them to travel to an IF.
This should have remained in the game.
You put yourself in that position, that's your problem.
Get yourself exploded and take the "sidey in your starter system" option to get out of it.
That's a suitable punishment, right there.
You want to avoid it, build a ship that can fight and travel.

 

[metatheurgist]

The only significance the ship should have, in the entire process, is that it should be what the authorities are looking for initially... until they have better information.

In practical terms, if you do a crime in your FdL, plod should come looking for you whenever you're flying your FdL.
You park it up and you're free to go about your business in any other ship.
Alternatively, if you get scanned while you're in your FdL, plod knows it's you who did the crime and then you're Wanted regardless of what ship you're flying.

That's right. Notoriety should be on the ship, which should wear off when crimes are no longer committed in it so there is no longer a "Be On The Lookout" for it. Like I said earlier, it's nonsense. Nothing more need to be articulated about the new C+P.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

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".

It's how they find you, your vehicle.
It's an old trope in almost every movie involving a car chase.

Canonball Run 2 is one of my favorite examples.



[video=youtube;Hi4ccVBsZEM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi4ccVBsZEM[/video]

 

[Marcus Tullius]

Pff, I really hate to be involved in such discussions. Look guys, I’m not talking about PvP/PvE; newbies/old players; open/PG/solo etc. In case of Elite any design suitable for any of dedicated groups of players is a bad game design. There are plenty of PvP games out there and there are a lot of PvE ones. ED is a complex game and as such it must aim for average players - not for PvPers, neither for explorers, nor for traders. There is no best solution in term of C&P if you look on the game from the perspective of dedicated activity player. Any solution making live in ED comfortable for one of the groups will harm the game. ED is a MMO game and to be developed as such in the future, it must encourage the players to play in open. And here comes C&P: a system regulating player to player interactions in such a way that everyone to be able to find his place in open. I said *to be able*, not *to be free*. Neither Wild West nor carebear utopia – any of this will push the game to other’s games segments and ED will slowly die.

It’s not about my playstyle or yours, have you seen what happened with exploration? A huge sh*tstorm from dedicated explorers pulled out of their area of comfort by new exploration mechanic, whish on the other side, will make the exploration a lot more interesting for average players. LOL, I’m very optimistic about the future of the game if someone in FD has balls for such decision and I expect C&P revision quite soon. The C&P system needs an optimal solution just like the solution for exploration: the solution for average players.

 

[Stealthie]

Any solution making live in ED comfortable for one of the groups will harm the game. ED is a MMO game and to be developed as such in the future, it must encourage the players to play in open. And here comes C&P: a system regulating player to player interactions in such a way that everyone to be able to find his place in open. I said *to be able*, not *to be free*. Neither Wild West nor carebear utopia – any of this will push the game to other’s games segments and ED will slowly die.

That's all there is to it, really.

ED currently operates a system that doesn't ever penalise criminal behaviour meaningfully and sometimes overlooks it completely - regardless of whether or not PvPers believe this to be the case.
There is currently nothing to compel non-PvPers to play in Open aside from the possibility of social interaction with other players.

Both of these things should be addressed.
There should be genuinely "high security" systems in the game to counter-balance Anarchies and there should be stuff to entice non-PvP players into Open.

I wouldn't go as far as to say "the game will die without it" but it does mean it's relying on the good nature (or, perhaps, naivety) of non-PvP players to continue to playing in Open rather than providing any compelling reasons for them to do so.

 

[Tiili]

As a criminal player, I think there should be a lot more ways for bounty hunters to track me down and they should get the total bounty reward to make it a lot more appealing than farming RES site NPCs, this would encourage wing play for both sides of the law and make C&P a real part of the PVP gameplay of Elite.
At the moment a bounty hunters repair and ammo bills are often bigger than the reward he gets.

Piracy still needs a few changes/fixes for commander interactions(CG goals for pirates! Disappearing loot when robbery victim leaves instance, trade mission/CG bonuses for traders playing in Open that would be lost if the commander swaps to solo/pg so combat logging would be a bad choice and losing a few tons wouldn't matter as much, SC manifest scanner?..) to work properly, then we could have a real cops & robbers space game that makes sense but wouldn't require drastic changes to the game.

 

[Stealthie]

That's right. Notoriety should be on the ship, which should wear off when crimes are no longer committed in it so there is no longer a "Be On The Lookout" for it. Like I said earlier, it's nonsense. Nothing more need to be articulated about the new C+P.

Yep, was gonna say that notoriety should simply be used as a variable to decide how much attention a Wanted ship gets.

Also, if it was up to me, notoriety wouldn't ever decay automatically.
It'd be imposed by the controlling faction in the system where a crime was committed and if you want to reduce it you'd have to risk doing lawful things for that faction to reduce the notoriety to whatever level you're comfortable with.

 

[Stealthie]

Piracy still needs a few changes/fixes for commander interactions(CG goals for pirates! Disappearing loot when robbery victim leaves instance, trade mission/CG bonuses for traders playing in Open that would be lost if the commander swaps to solo/pg so combat logging would be a bad choice and losing a few tons wouldn't matter as much, SC manifest scanner?..) to work properly, then we could have a real cops & robbers space game that makes sense but wouldn't require drastic changes to the game.

See, this leads to another completely unrelated thing which could become a big part of the gameplay.

If FDev actually nurtured the concept of intentional "gold rushes" rather than just nerfing unintentional ones, it could create all sorts of possibilities.

Firstly, if gold-rushes were predictable, and regulated, it'd become routine for players to head for them to make some credits while they lasted.
Secondly, if the gold-rushes were intentional, FDev could set it up so extra NPC traffic is generated in these systems, representative of whatever the gold-rush is.

That'd allow players to locate the gold-rushes fairly easily which, like CGs, would create a hot-spot of activity for all sorts of PvP and it'd provide opportunities for piracy against both NPC and player ships.

Players who knew what they were doing would be able to sniff out a gold-rush and they'd know there were NPC and player ships to pirate, murder-hobos would know there were targets there and bounty-hunters would know there'd be criminals there.

Hell, maybe they could make the gold-rushes Open-only (somehow) to ensure the desired result?

 

[Brrokk]

Gold rushes are predictable and players who know what they're doing can sniff them out.

The easiest recipe at the moment is "An extraction system in Boom with a nearby non-Extraction system".

There are other recipes.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

You really haven't thought it through, have you?

Are you going to answer my question about what would actually be "high risk" to an experienced player looking to kill weak traders? It's all very well hypothesising how great it would be if it existed but if you can't suggest an actual "high risk" environment that would actually meaningfully deter people from doing that there's not a lot of point.

Bonuses for a "high risk" environment that isn't trivially exploitable to cause more trouble than just shooting at people would have.

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?

I think Open will be better if the people who hate the concept of being involved in even occasional PvP combat don't play in Open and don't try to make Open like Solo - and I don't really care what mode other people play in.

I also think - based on the people I've met in Open - that there are far more people (like me) who are happy for PvP to occur (even to them, sometimes) but don't regularly seek it out or start fights just because they can. If after four years - most of it under a less strict C&P system than we have now - the PvPers haven't "driven everyone else out of Open" (as confidently predicted since day 1) ... I don't think it's at all likely to happen in the next four either.

If someone came up with the suggestion that "Solo doesn't have enough social interaction. We should be allowed to instance with people." ... then we'd all suggest that they played in a more appropriate mode, either Open or a PG set up to their preferences. But somehow if people say "Open has too many different types of interaction. They should be restricted." ... then suggesting they use an existing mode with restrictions on types of interaction is a bad thing?

But sure, keep up the predictions that "PvPers will kill Open". I'll hang them up next to my collection of "game is doomed" posts.

There is currently nothing to compel non-PvPers to play in Open aside from the possibility of social interaction with other players.

The possibility of social interaction is a pretty big draw for some people. And since in my estimation >99.9% of players in Open don't try to kill you on sight (amazing!), you can get quite a bit of it, too. Why would there need to be any more benefit?

 

[Marra Morgan]

I think Open will be better if the people who hate the concept of being involved in even occasional PvP combat don't play in Open and don't try to make Open like Solo - and I don't really care what mode other people play in.

Spot on, Ian.

I also think - based on the people I've met in Open - that there are far more people (like me) who are happy for PvP to occur (even to them, sometimes) but don't regularly seek it out or start fights just because they can.

Yep. This is the attitude of everyone on my Friend List, all Open players for the majority of their game-time.

 

[TheSynopticVision]

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.

lol, punishments for losing at a game. Unbelievable how griefers always accuse PvE people to be "unable to tell reality apart from a game", while they are always happy to say stuff like "but muh growth mentality!", "apex predators!" with a straight face.

 

[Stigbob]

lol, punishments for losing at a game. Unbelievable how griefers always accuse PvE people to be "unable to tell reality apart from a game", while they are always happy to say stuff like "but muh growth mentality!", "apex predators!" with a straight face.

Is that any different to wanting punishments for the people who actually win at the PVP part of the game ?.

Seems daft to me, its a video game you are either having fun or doing it wrong.

 

[NecasekO]

While the new C&P system brought some good changes like prison ships and limited services for wanted criminals, overall it doesn't work (IMO) for several reasons:

1. The system of bounties on ships and hot modules is unintuitive and too complex to understand for "casual criminals", often causing massive headaches for making trivial mistakes. Add the fact that FDev have not fixed some long standing issues like assigning murder bounties for ships that a player hits once and then get destroyed by NPC pirates, or blaming a clean CMDR going 105 m/s for the destruction of a ship that hits them from behind at 500+ m/s. This system also brought a whole bunch of new issues like powerplay bounties or crimes commited in SRV or multicrew which it simply can't handle in a logical way.

2. Bounties do not work as a deterrent for "end game" players - money is worthless for someone who has all the ships they want and several billion in spare cash, AND experienced players in good ships do not get destroyed if they don't want to. As seen from bounty boards in some systems that show CMDRs with bounties in hundreds of millions or more, there are lots of players who simply don't care (or even enjoy) having a ridiculously high bounty.

All I would want from a C&P system would be something easy to understand, not too intrusive if I accidentally cause some damage once in a while, and something that would make "murderhobos" think twice before attacking a clean ship in a high security system. The last part is the most important bit IMO that is still missing.

 

[Stigbob]

While the new C&P system brought some good changes like prison ships and limited services for wanted criminals, overall it doesn't work (IMO) for several reasons:

1. The system of bounties on ships and hot modules is unintuitive and too complex to understand for "casual criminals", often causing massive headaches for making trivial mistakes. Add the fact that FDev have not fixed some long standing issues like assigning murder bounties for ships that a player hits once and then get destroyed by NPC pirates, or blaming a clean CMDR going 105 m/s for the destruction of a ship that hits them from behind at 500+ m/s. This system also brought a whole bunch of new issues like powerplay bounties or crimes commited in SRV or multicrew which it simply can't handle in a logical way.

If you make a mistake go sort it out, don't go on a rampage or ignore it and you will be fine.

2. Bounties do not work as a deterrent for "end game" players - money is worthless for someone who has all the ships they want and several billion in spare cash, AND experienced players in good ships do not get destroyed if they don't want to. As seen from bounty boards in some systems that show CMDRs with bounties in hundreds of millions or more, there are lots of players who simply don't care (or even enjoy) having a ridiculously high bounty.

Which is why the rebuy increases, bounty scales to ship difference, notoriety exists, the bounty claim exploit was nerfed and ATR were introduced.

All I would want from a C&P system would be something easy to understand, not too intrusive if I accidentally cause some damage once in a while, and something that would make "murderhobos" think twice before attacking a clean ship in a high security system. The last part is the most important bit IMO that is still missing.

Player killers do think twice now, they've said so in this thread.

 

[Underhook]

Yes crime and punishment works. Now actions against the law result in consequences.

Which is balanced because Pirate player factions can retaliate against the authorities by attacking and destroying stations forcing the authorities to pardon them ..........

 

[TheSynopticVision]

Is that any different to wanting punishments for the people who actually win at the PVP part of the game ?.

Seems daft to me, its a video game you are either having fun or doing it wrong.

Exactly. You said it. Trouble is:

- PvEers' "fun" has no impact whatsoever on any other player. So much so that they could play solo and their "fun level" be exactly the same.
- Griefer's "fun" is directly dependent on lessening someone else's fun -- the more unhappy with the game experience (of losing their ship) my target is, the more fun I have (the basic principle of salt-mining).

In my experience with them, even children in their games understand this basic asymmetry (peaceful independent playing against games aimed at bothering others) but most people here seem to have a very hard time with it.

Note: I say Griefers, not PvPers. PvP is great fun. How do you tell the difference (in the context of the theme at hand: Crime and Punishment)? Simple: my target has Crimes Off? PvP target. My target has Crimes On? Very likely not looking for PvP in this precise moment, so if I choose to engage I'm after the salt, not after the PvP experience. And therefore you are eligible for "punishment".

 

[NecasekO]

If you make a mistake go sort it out, don't go on a rampage or ignore it and you will be fine.



Which is why the rebuy increases, bounty scales to ship difference, notoriety exists, the bounty claim exploit was nerfed and ATR were introduced.



Player killers do think twice now, they've said so in this thread.

With all due respect, my experience is quite different from yours.

I participate in a lot of CGs and get attacked by random strangers every week, regardless of security level. I see wanted CMDRs with bounties in millions roaming around high security systems, interdicting and attacking clean ships.

I have never seen and ATR ship since they were introduced. They don't drive wanted CMDRs out of secure systems and they don't help clean CMDRs in time.

When I did bounty hunting for a CG in the California nebula, I accidentally hit a clean ship, causing so little damage that it didn't even trigger a fine. However, several minutes later I received a murder bounty when that ship got killed by NPCs. This means I also got notoriety, with the nearest IF being over 200 Ly away and prison ship around the same distance. As I said, major headache caused by a small mistake and game bugs.

I'm all for crimes having consequences, but currently they are very inappropriate. And ship bound bounties don't make sense in a world where you can get pilot identity from any ship with basic scan.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The C + P touches on a lot of ED problems, but really the main one comes down to credits and how easy they are to get. Sort that out and C + P becomes more harsh because if you are caught and killed you would run the risk of bankruptcy.

Example:

BGS cleansing in a G5 Corvette each NPC kill is 500,000 credits. I an average BGS campaign you can expect to kill 1000 NPCs, so the net cost is 500 million. With todays wing missions that is an evenings work to pay off after notoriety has gone, or sell the ship and do some rock hopping for a night.

I don't have a lot of time and have wonky internet, so I can't do that and I have to budget. I can't afford 500 million so it forces you to use smaller / cheaper ships that can be thrown away. For example a Vulture is much, much cheaper to BGS in, but its also much slower making C + P work indirectly via restricted credits and ship capability. You can mow down 10 sec ships of any capability in the space of ten minutes in the Corvette- in the Vulture you have to be much more careful and choosy. In turn this would balance BGS murder better, as top end ships would become a luxury rather than the norm.

Plus, ATR needs to be less predictable. Currently it acts as a cap but after a while you know where that ceiling is. It would spice things up if ATR were in SC or that they randomly drop in after a threshold- a recent situation had me surrounded in a ring of ATR with a BH dropping in for good measure and I felt like a proper bad person for once (and me spanking the boost button like a jazzed up monkey).

 

[Bigmaec]

Are you going to answer my question about what would actually be "high risk" to an experienced player looking to kill weak traders? It's all very well hypothesising how great it would be if it existed but if you can't suggest an actual "high risk" environment that would actually meaningfully deter people from doing that there's not a lot of point.

Bonuses for a "high risk" environment that isn't trivially exploitable to cause more trouble than just shooting at people would have.


I think Open will be better if the people who hate the concept of being involved in even occasional PvP combat don't play in Open and don't try to make Open like Solo - and I don't really care what mode other people play in.

I also think - based on the people I've met in Open - that there are far more people (like me) who are happy for PvP to occur (even to them, sometimes) but don't regularly seek it out or start fights just because they can. If after four years - most of it under a less strict C&P system than we have now - the PvPers haven't "driven everyone else out of Open" (as confidently predicted since day 1) ... I don't think it's at all likely to happen in the next four either.

If someone came up with the suggestion that "Solo doesn't have enough social interaction. We should be allowed to instance with people." ... then we'd all suggest that they played in a more appropriate mode, either Open or a PG set up to their preferences. But somehow if people say "Open has too many different types of interaction. They should be restricted." ... then suggesting they use an existing mode with restrictions on types of interaction is a bad thing?

But sure, keep up the predictions that "PvPers will kill Open". I'll hang them up next to my collection of "game is doomed" posts.


The possibility of social interaction is a pretty big draw for some people. And since in my estimation >99.9% of players in Open don't try to kill you on sight (amazing!), you can get quite a bit of it, too. Why would there need to be any more benefit?