C&P...Does it work?

[Ian Doncaster]

- 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.

Because of how all the BGS elements interact, there are surprisingly few PvE actions in the game that have "no impact whatsoever" on other players. Exploration is okay as long as you don't sell the data, I guess, and if you didn't get any first discoveries you could safely sell the data to a faction in War to avoid influence effects. But very few people are that "considerate" of avoiding affecting other players.

There have been plenty of mega-threads about UA-bombing and about Lockdowns, that used the g-word to describe the people who caused them, despite the cause being purely PvE actions and not requiring instancing with the players affected at all. (For that matter, people have demanded punishment for players who sit quietly docked at stations, because it was interfering with their gameplay ...)

There were also plenty of people complaining a few months back about being unable to find Palladium for their missions and suffering rep loss, wasted time, etc. Why couldn't they find Palladium? Because other players had bought it first and it only restocks slowly. I'm sure the people who bought it all up were just having "fun" without caring about how it would affect other traders in the same universe (and why should they have to?) ... at least in that case the g-word was avoided, though.

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".

Before the suicidewinder exploit was closed, a lot of stereotypical griefers (Cutter, shoot at weak trade ships) went around mostly Clean - because they cleared the bounties they did get quickly - and with Crimes On (so you couldn't preemptively shoot them without getting wanted and the cops after you - a minor inconvenience, but still a bit annoying)

But sure, the people trying to keep them out of the system were "griefers" for attacking a (momentarily) Clean ship with Crimes On and deserved "punishment".

(Station-rammers all fly Clean ships with Crimes On, but the griefers who kill those poor harmless injured Sidewinders do actually face punishment, so that's okay, right?)

Or what about getting attacked by a wing of two players:
- player 1 has Crimes Off (or is just plain Wanted) and is in a PvP-fit ship
- player 2 is Clean, has Crimes On, and has a regen beam. They never directly attack you, just heal player 1.
Griefing to shoot down Player 2 so that you can get through Player 1's shields? Totally, right.

If you want to actually be even semi-effective at protecting traders and explorers from hostile players, you need to be willing to attack them when they're currently Clean, or you're open to all sorts of really easy exploits against your moral code.

...

Conversely, my *primary* reason for flying around with Crimes Off is that I don't want the cops showing up and chasing off the NPC pirate/assassin I'm fighting, and nothing to do with PvP at all. As it happens, I don't mind being attacked by players either, but it doesn't automatically follow.

Plus there's no way to determine whether a player has Crimes Off or On without either committing a crime against them or watching them change the setting in front of you - hardly reliable even if it was an actual PvP flag rather than a multi-use setting ...

 

[TheSynopticVision]

Because of how all the BGS elements interact, there are surprisingly few PvE actions in the game that have "no impact whatsoever" on other players. Exploration is okay as long as you don't sell the data, I guess, and if you didn't get any first discoveries you could safely sell the data to a faction in War to avoid influence effects. But very few people are that "considerate" of avoiding affecting other players.

There have been plenty of mega-threads about UA-bombing and about Lockdowns, that used the g-word to describe the people who caused them, despite the cause being purely PvE actions and not requiring instancing with the players affected at all. (For that matter, people have demanded punishment for players who sit quietly docked at stations, because it was interfering with their gameplay ...)

There were also plenty of people complaining a few months back about being unable to find Palladium for their missions and suffering rep loss, wasted time, etc. Why couldn't they find Palladium? Because other players had bought it first and it only restocks slowly. I'm sure the people who bought it all up were just having "fun" without caring about how it would affect other traders in the same universe (and why should they have to?) ... at least in that case the g-word was avoided, though.

Well, context matters. Leaving aside UA-bombing (that's not a thing anymore, making things simpler), there is a big difference between the actions of many going around their business having an indirect effect on CMDR X, and the action of one having the explicit intention to have an effect on CMDR X. To complain against unknown people that I cannot find palladium because they bought it all is frankly quite stupid, and you can't really compare it with the direct complaint against a specific person who targeted me.

Or what about getting attacked by a wing of two players:
- player 1 has Crimes Off (or is just plain Wanted) and is in a PvP-fit ship
- player 2 is Clean, has Crimes On, and has a regen beam. They never directly attack you, just heal player 1.
Griefing to shoot down Player 2 so that you can get through Player 1's shields? Totally, right.

If you want to actually be even semi-effective at protecting traders and explorers from hostile players, you need to be willing to attack them when they're currently Clean, or you're open to all sorts of really easy exploits against your moral code.

I have no problem with this. Of course there are limit cases, but I doubt that the present system is engineered to deal with them. There's always going to be someone finding a loophole. But this brings me to...

Plus there's no way to determine whether a player has Crimes Off or On without either committing a crime against them or watching them change the setting in front of you - hardly reliable even if it was an actual PvP flag rather than a multi-use setting ...

Exactly, and IMO this is the biggest and most EASILY fixable issue with C&P atm. In the old feedback forum for C&P I said many times that there should absolutely be a way for the attacker to determine the Crimes On/Off status of the target. It really should not be hard to implement, it's just an extra line in the bottom left of the UI. In this way you remove a lot of exploitable grey areas: you KNOW if you're going to get wanted for opening fire, and the consequences are on you. In the case you make above, if you're not willing to get a bounty for attacking the healing guy, you just high wake away.

 

[Stealthie]

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.

Seems like it would be better to first establish whether we agree that criminals should face significant consequences before discussing the details of what those consequences might be.
After all, if you don't think they should, I'd be wasting my time in offering suggestions of what those consequences might be.

Having said that, I already provided an example of one such "high-risk consequence", whereby if a player decided to optimise their ship for some activity by removing their fuel-scoop and/or downsizing their FSD and found themselves trapped in a system after committing a crime they'd have no option other than self-destruct and take the free sidey option, thus abandoning their ship.

This was something I'd consider to be a meaningful consequence and led to people squealing like babies until FDev modified the system so it couldn't happen any more.

Meanwhile, if an explorer gets trapped in a system as a result of their poor decisions, they continue to have no other option than to self-destruct in order to escape that system.

Weird, huh?

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.

Charming.

That's right up there with "PvPers should go play CQC" in terms of narrow-minded arrogance.

Personally, I'd rather try to create an environment that worked for the largest possible number of players.

Given that there are thousands of populated systems in the bubble, I can't help wondering why anybody would think it'd be a big deal if a couple of dozen of those systems were genuinely "high-security" places where crime would be met with a zero-tolerance approach.
To insist that the entire galaxy only imposes the rules that you approve of seems kind of selfish to me.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Charming.

That's right up there with "PvPers should go play CQC" in terms of narrow-minded arrogance.

I don't believe it is, in the slightest. He's simply reiterating the intended design of the game.

Personally, I'd rather try to create an environment that worked for the largest possible number of players.

FDev beat you to it by creating 3 modes of play for you to choose, depending on your appetite for interaction with other players.

 

[NecasekO]

Given that there are thousands of populated systems in the bubble, I can't help wondering why anybody would think it'd be a big deal if a couple of dozen of those systems were genuinely "high-security" places where crime would be met with a zero-tolerance approach.
To insist that the entire galaxy only imposes the rules that you approve of seems kind of selfish to me.

While I agree with your points, be careful what you wish for. After all, station ramming is the result of there being harsh and immediate punishment for certain crimes (destroy a ship in collision near station).

If you go too far, the game then becomes tricking other players into committing crimes and laughing as they get destroyed or deported dozens of Lys away.

There absolutely should be secure spaces, but it needs to go hand in hand with implementing a more nuanced system of crime levels and appropriate punishments, including some sort of long term criminal record tracking.

 

[Stigbob]

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.

​

​

Then they can opt out of any PVP interaction without losing out at all.

​

- 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).

​

​

Which is why people should use mode selection and block however they see fit. Everyone has the tools to tailor the game to their preferences already.

​

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.

The thing I don't understand is why anyone who dislikes PVP would log into open instead of mobius or solo. Its a self inflicted problem.

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.

Wake out as soon as you make an FF mistake, go pay the fine via anon access. No factor required just avoid handing yourself in or getting scanned.

 

[Stealthie]

I don't believe it is, in the slightest. He's simply reiterating the intended design of the game.

No, you're both simply asserting that the current iteration of the game's environment is the intended design.

Which, of course, is demonstrably false given that we have constant updates, patches, bug-fixes and revisions.

Feel free to assert your opinion but don't try and dress it up as something it's not.

 

[Marra Morgan]

No, you're both simply asserting that the current iteration of the game's environment is the intended design.

Which, of course, is demonstrably false given that we have constant updates, patches, bug-fixes and revisions.

Feel free to assert your opinion but don't try and dress it up as something it's not.

I haven't seen any updates to the modes system, which is what we were reiterating upon.

Unless I've missed something that you know of?

 

[Stealthie]

While I agree with your points, be careful what you wish for. After all, station ramming is the result of there being harsh and immediate punishment for certain crimes (destroy a ship in collision near station).

If you go too far, the game then becomes tricking other players into committing crimes and laughing as they get destroyed or deported dozens of Lys away.

Poorly implemented rules aren't an argument for less rules, though.
They're simply an argument for better rules.

Like I've said, if it was up to me I'd try to remove a lot of the poop we currently have.
Fundamentally, I'd rather have a system where basic rules were rigidly enforced in certain areas, and where those rules were enforced less rigidly the further away from those places you traveled.

The intention would primarily be to create a diverse galaxy where there were noticeably different environments for players to traverse.

Travelling around the ED galaxy should (IMO) be like going from, say, Switzerland to Spain to New York to Brazil to Somalia to Uganda.
I think it'd be better if everywhere wasn't just "Brazil".

I haven't seen any updates to the modes system, which is what we were reiterating upon.

Unless I've missed something that you know of?

Apparently you missed the recent update to C&P which applied to all modes.

 

[Bigmaec]

The thing I don't understand is why anyone who dislikes PVP would log into open instead of mobius or solo. Its a self inflicted problem.

That. I don't get that either. Why do people log into open, and then log out the moment they see a Fer-de-Lance in supercruise?
Why? Just click solo/PG and be done with that...

 

[TheSynopticVision]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Then they can opt out of any PVP interaction without losing out at all.

​

Which is why people should use mode selection and block however they see fit. Everyone has the tools to tailor the game to their preferences already.

The thing I don't understand is why anyone who dislikes PVP would log into open instead of mobius or solo. Its a self inflicted problem.

​

You keep confusing PvP with Griefing, which is ironic since usually the PvPers' line of defense is precisely that of mocking those "carebears" for whom all PvP is griefing. I made it very clear that there are differences.

Many people would like a meaningful PvP-rich environment minus the griefing: meaningful powerplay conflict, BGS wars, Imperials vs Feds, piracy... you name it, down to organized PvP tournaments.


So yes, there are PvE-only oriented players who would do well to hang out in Solo (and many many thousands do just that). But there are also others for whom "fun" means to have meaningful PvP interactions, rather than being blown up while in their D-rated Asp. In order to somewhat "protect" them (or better, to deter the attacker) the game introduces penalties for crime. Not for PvP: crime.

Which brings us back to my initial opinion that, as it stands, the C&P system does not really deter anyone, since the "punishments" are mild and very easily avoidable. And now you'll say that all griefers have left the game back in January because of the draconian new C&P system, but I'm not following you into this particular fantasy world.​

 

[Stealthie]

The thing I don't understand is why anyone who dislikes PVP would log into open instead of mobius or solo. Its a self inflicted problem.

You don't understand why people would play a multiplayer game in the mode which provides them with the opportunity to interact with the widest variety of other players?
A game which, we're told, is intended to allow us to "blaze our own trail", regardless of whether that's combat, trading or exploration etc.

Part of me hopes that all non-PvP players do have this realisation and abandon Open entirely.
The more sensible part of me realises this'd be a bad thing for the game, overall, though.

Said it beforebut I'd bet my house that the main reason FDev won't create an official PvE mode is because they know it'd kill Open stone-dead.
That should tell you something about people's motivations for using Open, and who'd be most affected if they didn't.

 

[Factabulous]

Said it beforebut I'd bet my house that the main reason FDev won't create an official PvE mode is because they know it'd kill Open stone-dead.
That should tell you something about people's motivations for using Open, and who'd be most affected if they didn't.

What did you reply last time someone said: 'what about Moebius?' Is there any point in an 'official' PvE mode when Moebius is so well known for those who want that? And despite Moebius being so well known - Open isn't dead*.

* well, it wasn't last time I logged in there accidentally - only reason I don't use it more is all the rubber banding and slow SC drops, not any ganking or griefing

 

[Jukelo]

The C&P fixed the suicidewinder exploit, so I'd say it does work.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Seems like it would be better to first establish whether we agree that criminals should face significant consequences before discussing the details of what those consequences might be.
After all, if you don't think they should, I'd be wasting my time in offering suggestions of what those consequences might be.

I'm not opposed to the principle of having genuinely high-security systems *if* it can actually be done. More diversity in systems is a good thing, and there are certainly systems which in lore *should* be completely safe. But the lore doesn't have to deal with it being a game.

My requirements would be:
- actually makes the systems high-security by deterring even those criminals who are familiar with the system
- doesn't make it easy to stick the punishment onto your victim
- doesn't restrict "lawful" PvP bounty hunters *more* than it restricts "griefers"
- (obvious, but worth stating) can be reliably made fully-automated
and I think the second requirement is more important than the first given how well station-ramming "fixes" have worked out.

I don't think that's actually possible based on any of the suggestions for "better C&P" I've seen on these forums over the years, but maybe there's still one to come.

About all I can think of is preventing instancing in those systems between people who aren't already winged up / same squadron / friendslist / whatever outside of the supercruise instance ... and, well, that's not really adding a lot over what Solo/PG already provides.

Having said that, I already provided an example of one such "high-risk consequence", whereby if a player decided to optimise their ship for some activity by removing their fuel-scoop and/or downsizing their FSD and found themselves trapped in a system after committing a crime they'd have no option other than self-destruct and take the free sidey option, thus abandoning their ship.

That's not a high-risk consequence, though. That's a (potentially) high-impact consequence, but it's low-likelihood to anyone who understands the system because they can just not do the things which lead to them being trapped in the first place.

Deterring people from fitting 2D FSDs is not the same as deterring them from fitting properly-sized FSDs and shooting at traders. (It's not as if you need the extremely marginal speed and agility advantage that a downsized FSD gives to shoot a trade ship)

They also have (and had, back before Frontier introduced "turn yourself in") the option to get shot down and have their bounty claimed: keep the ship, at a higher cost. Their friends could even wing-mission them some money until they could afford the inflated rebuy, if necessary.

...and of course with post-3.0 engineering and credit earning rates, an experienced player can rebuild a completely lost ship pretty quickly anyway, especially if they designed it to be cheap.

This was something I'd consider to be a meaningful consequence and led to people squealing like babies until FDev modified the system so it couldn't happen any more.

Yes. But note who was doing most of the "squealing" (and still is about the current C&P): occasional and sometimes unintentional petty criminals who weren't used to the system. See also: the Gnosis, where the C&P system correctly and as documented transported criminals a long way away to stop them doing it again ... it was not the people who were there to shoot down other players who were complaining! But it certainly deterred people from their heinous crime of attacking innocent Thargoids. There were threads for days of people saying "I was deterred".

A system doesn't work as a long-term deterrent if the inexperienced can't be deterred by something they don't yet know about and the experienced can plan to minimise their losses from it (by using cheap but still capable disposable ships, for example, or by fitting a slightly larger FSD so that they can jump out of the system again).

Personally, I'd rather try to create an environment that worked for the largest possible number of players.

So am I - and so, I expect, are Frontier. But it's clearly never going to suit everyone because people have very different requirements.

 

[Stealthie]

What did you reply last time someone said: 'what about Moebius?' Is there any point in an 'official' PvE mode when Moebius is so well known for those who want that? And despite Moebius being so well known - Open isn't dead*.

* well, it wasn't last time I logged in there accidentally - only reason I don't use it more is all the rubber banding and slow SC drops, not any ganking or griefing

I have no idea what I might have said.

If you know, perhaps you could remind me and we can discuss it.

In general, I tend to think Mobius is a good idea but I don't think a 3rd-party solution is a substitute for an official alternative.

It's also kind of ironic that you ask why people might choose Open instead of Mobius... and then go on to offer an example of why, yourself.

Course, if we're honest, that's certainly not a good reason.
The main reason so many players use Open is simply because it provides the biggest opportunity for multiplayer interactions (of any kind) in a multiplayer game - even if that comes with some risk of PvP.

 

[Stealthie]

See also: the Gnosis, where the C&P system correctly and as documented transported criminals a long way away to stop them doing it again ... it was not the people who were there to shoot down other players who were complaining! But it certainly deterred people from their heinous crime of attacking innocent Thargoids. There were threads for days of people saying "I was deterred".

It's a bit silly to cite an example of improperly functioning rules as an example of why rules are bad.

Poorly implemented rules aren't an argument against rules.
They're an argument for better rules.

 

[Stigbob]

You don't understand why people would play a multiplayer game in the mode which provides them with the opportunity to interact with the widest variety of other players?
A game which, we're told, is intended to allow us to "blaze our own trail", regardless of whether that's combat, trading or exploration etc.

Mobius is always there for that.

If you choose open you accept that you are in a mode where other players can also blaze their own trail even if that means shooting everyone they see. You always have the block function to get rid of anyone you don't want to play with.

Part of me hopes that all non-PvP players do have this realisation and abandon Open entirely.
The more sensible part of me realises this'd be a bad thing for the game, overall, though.

Said it beforebut I'd bet my house that the main reason FDev won't create an official PvE mode is because they know it'd kill Open stone-dead.
That should tell you something about people's motivations for using Open, and who'd be most affected if they didn't.

They've no need to change it they already fixed it at an early design stage. The only thing you lack is the ability to dictate how anyone else plays the game, which is sensible as that would be a bad idea.

 

[Stealthie]

Mobius is always there for that.

If you choose open you accept that you are in a mode where other players can also blaze their own trail even if that means shooting everyone they see. You always have the block function to get rid of anyone you don't want to play with.

Erm, okay.

You commented that you didn't understand why people who aren't interested in PvP might use Open.
That's what I provided an explanation for.

They've no need to change it they already fixed it at an early design stage. The only thing you lack is the ability to dictate how anyone else plays the game, which is sensible as that would be a bad idea.

What a strange thing to say.

First you're suggesting that people who don't enjoy PvP should use a different mode and then you're saying it'd be a bad idea for FDev to create a mode for people who don't enjoy PvP.

I'm also not sure how advocating that could be seen as me attempting to "dictate how anybody else plays the game".

 

[Stigbob]

Erm, okay.

You commented that you didn't understand why people who aren't interested in PvP might use Open.
That's what I provided an explanation for.

If you want open without PVP then Mobius is the right choice. Open would be a mistake if that's what you want.

What a strange thing to say.

First you're suggesting that people who don't enjoy PvP should use a different mode and then you're saying it'd be a bad idea for FDev to create a mode for people who don't enjoy PvP.

I'm also not sure how advocating that could be seen as me attempting to "dictate how anybody else plays the game".

They don't need to create a new mode Mobius already exists.

I'm saying you should make your own choices and live with them. The key to protecting yourself from the repercussions of poor choices is making good choices not limiting other players.