Deliberately swapping out your FSD for an unusable one, however, is not a simple accidental mistake. It's just a no-common-sense poor decision without regard for future consequences. Those who don't plan and think ahead will not make it in Elite: Dangerous.
Deliberately swapping out your FSD for an unusable one, however, is not a simple accidental mistake. It's just a no-common-sense poor decision without regard for future consequences. Those who don't plan and think ahead will not make it in Elite: Dangerous.
Actually, more to the "problem" is that bounties are issued for infractions. Scan a private data point, bounty. Hit the ship again after a weapons infraction (easy to do with MCs or turrets on auto), bounty. The minute the cops turn agro, there's a bounty issued, not a fine. Kill orders should ONLY be issued for the most heinous crimes, but they are issued for speeding ticket type offenses. So my analogy still is spot on. The changes coming are appropriate and will fix exactly what I am referring to, and FDev has to agree with my assessment because they are doing exactly what needs to be done to fix it.
At worst we can agree to disagree.
Last edited:
Both gamey and dumb. This thread really takes the cake, doesn't it? One thing that seems clear to me is that this is not the outcome Fdev intended, but rather an unintended consequence, and that even if it takes a while to redress the issue, they'll eventually get around to fixing it. It's funny to see so many people with a hard-on for combat pilots gleefully gloating over some pilot's predicament when its just some uniformed Pvers who are being caught out on simple infractions, not hardened PKers or anything.
oh, even the mighty Ant has picked up this topic for his vblog.
while i still think, it was the OPs own fault for ending up in the system,
i do also think, that there is no reason that someone with zero notoriety should not be able to pay off his "bounty" in the system where it was issued - especially when the smallest bounty is less, then the highest fine
while i still think, it was the OPs own fault for ending up in the system,
i do also think, that there is no reason that someone with zero notoriety should not be able to pay off his "bounty" in the system where it was issued - especially when the smallest bounty is less, then the highest fine
(And many more posts in this thread from the same author expressing the same sentiment)
I get where you're coming from, kofeyh, I really do. But at the same time...
You've been around in this game a while. You've seen all the early reviewers practically g out over the awesome visuals and the sense of scale but ALSO over the fact that ED does not hold your hand at all. This is very much a "trademark" of the Elite experience, the "root, hog, or die" approach. The fact that you can screw up badly enough to lose everything, no matter how many hours of grind, no matter how many displays of awesome skill it took you to get it. Ultimately there is absolutely no escape from the consequences of your decisions in-game, no going back to a previous save-spot, no "restart the level" and those consequences can be a lot more serious than changing your righteous/wicked balance or selecting an alternate ending with different party members alive when you run the final "beat the game" cut scene. You absolutely can find yourself starting over from an "oops" that you didn't realize in advance would carry quite the repercussions that it does.
This is part of what makes this game "Elite" and not "some other game".
You and I have both seen the outrage on these very forums at places where the game got supposedly "dumbed down" so please, let's not go down the route of sticking warnings on cups that the coffee inside them is hot, or forcing places to scale back the heat on the supposedly "hot" water for tea so far that whatever lukewarm tincture eventually emerges it couldn't be called "tea" by any stretch.
Give folks A warning label, by all means. ONE warning label. Right at the start of the game. Big red letters. "You can set up non-survivable situations for yourself in this game. The game won't stop you. Sometimes it will even help you to be dumb. Getting there unprepared can cause you to lose everything. This is your only warning."
ETA: Apparently the present participle of "to freak out" gets censored into a form of inflammatory arthritis caused by elevated levels of uric acid. Who knew? The forum-thargoids must be laughing their carapaces off.
Last edited:
Well said and repped!
From the moment you find yourself in that bright shiny brand new Sidewinder for the first time, you are one your own. No one is going to hold your hand, no one is going to wipe away the tears, no one is going to make life in Elite easy for you. That is the design of the game, hell it is even the catchcry of the game "Take control of your own Starship in a cutthroat galaxy". Having the forums full of players complaining they were punished by FD for doing something stupid like the OP or even losing a ship when you don't have the credits to cover insurance is one thing. But then to read sympathetic apologist posts from experienced Commanders saying that it is all the fault of FD is just wrong and I think doing the community a massive disservice.
On this topic: should have FD anticipated that someone might modify their ship in such a way it can't jump out of a system might result in them being marooned if they break the law. I am sure it may have been discussed, but then rightly dismissed as they thought anyone stupid enough to get into that situation probably deserved some egg on their face. Was the OP marooned, of course he wasn't, he just needed to be destroyed by another ship from that faction (which he did remember). And players can't throw the 'I didn't know' excuse around if they also state they have had the time to progress enough to get a decent ship and also did enough research on tweaking their ship (which the OP evidently did, he must have read somewhere about the apparent advantages of putting the smallest FSD on a ship to reduce power and increase speed).
This all reminds me of one of the very first programming courses I did in the military way way back. The sweet civilian instructor looked at us and said "Gentlemen, it doesn't matter how careful you are, how many times you review and adjust your code, someone will find that right combination of keys, or that one action that will break the program. You can't program against STUPID"
Maxim 48: If it ain't broke, it hasn't been issued to the infantry.
it reminds me of the thing where factions sent you off to kill skimmers that turned out to belong to them and then they issue bounties against you while simultaneously trying to give you much larger rewards. people swore blind on here it was intended, or "faction intrigue" or whatever until the devs said lol no and tried to patch it out a while ago (did it ever go away, btw?)
and here we have horribly convoluted chains of causation which result in an outcome literally nobody who had never played the game before would reasonably predict would happen, much less most regular players for that matter. and not a sausage ingame, or in the manual about it. just "well, it's on the forums" despite multiple people pointing out that not everybody is on the forum. and one of the devs themselves sounding utterly unsure of how his setup is supposed to work.
nah, this is gonna get patched out.
/ edit - there's now a link to this on the launcher https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=423 it doesn't exactly cover anything in depth though, certainly not something like this situation being discussed, and i mean even the language used is just odd, with the all too familiar assumption that the reader knows what they're referring to throughout.
"fines never mature into bounties and bounties never become dormant or expire."
dormant? okay, what is a dormant bounty? how is it different from an expired one? what are the circumstances as to how this even happens?
and so on.
Last edited:
In this case, YES!
It's not that the OP bought a stock ship with too low a FSD to get out of the system he was in, that would be a game mechanic's issue.
He deliberately removed the adequate FSD & replaced it with one that clearly wasn't up to the job.
To me that's not a game design fault, it's part of the C&P consequence that FD have quite rightly introduced. It's all on the OP, no one else to blame here!
I disagree, it's an edge case that FDev didn't think would/could happen. I've said it before, I'll say it again, the real problem is that most infractions end up getting a bounty/kill order issued, which prevents players from simply paying their fines and clearing their ship. If the CMDR had murdered another pilot, that's one thing, but this was a traffic type ticket that got him stuck, because of this oversight by FDev.
Agreed. And that's exactly why they are going to make minor bounties (aka non-murder bounties) payable at the local security contact. A very reasonable and welcome change.
The solution to these conundrums is never a "moral of the story" lesson. It's always an action to remedy the specific issue.
Oddly outfitting doesn't allow you to fit 2 FSDs nor put thrusters on that are too small for your hull. Why not? It would still be your choice.
You should not be able to outfit an FSD that will not allow you to leave the system unless you have the ability to change it.
Can't the OP simply chose to start back at Trevithick dock and find his way back? Is that no longer in the game?
Oddly outfitting doesn't allow you to fit 2 FSDs nor put thrusters on that are too small for your hull. Why not? It would still be your choice.
You should not be able to outfit an FSD that will not allow you to leave the system unless you have the ability to change it.
Can't the OP simply chose to start back at Trevithick dock and find his way back? Is that no longer in the game?
This makes zero sense. It say that cmdrs may be stupid and therefore is needed change things ... but this is not how Elite work from start, this game 'rewards' bad cmdrs decisions with rebuy screen. And if you first cripple your ship and then go to action which can end with your illegal act, then 'reward' which you get should be appropriate. (I don't see need change C&P due OP complain) It's like (edit .. it is worse as) flying without insurance ...
Last edited:
I'm not saying that the C&P is perfect, I'm sure that FD will make it even more idiot proof than it really should be. But in my opinion, the Fdevs have better things to look at, rather than trying to cure stupid!
When the game creates scenarios where the only option to resolve a bounty that originally started with a 400 cr fine, is by seeking assisted suicide, then no I don't think you get where I am coming from and yes maybe this is a bit much. Yes the commander had an insufficient FSD for the system, however:
a) this is permitted by the game and is not a specific issue ordinarily
b) there are no warnings when transferring ships with insufficient FSD potential to leave the system
c) mechanics previously permitted suitable modules (or another ship) to be transferred in, obviating the issue entirely
d) there is artificial scarcity of modules at a great many stations
This has nothing to do with hand-holding, m8. It's Frontier not considering the consequences of simply denying access to mechanics that are based on a set of prior assumptions, without changing those assumptions. An edge case issue caused by Sandy turning crap off, and not immediately recognising that people could quite trivially be locked as a consequence. Before this, we had the people running low on fuel being stuck and unable to action the required mechanics to resolve the bounty.
We don't need C&P to be an inconsistent, complicated, locking outcome because people confuse that with "difficulty". There are a ton of very constructive ways the game can present challenges, and not hold your hand in the process. Trapping absent minded commanders in systems because mechanics are not keeping pace with changes, is not one of them. There are major changes shipping in minor updates; it's not a good look.
When you remove all choice from a commander, I draw the line. As should anyone. The consequences for the crime are sufficient and barbaric enough as it is, and have otherwise been actually considered a positive move. This locking commanders in systems business, is no such thing.
I am quite satisfied this is on Sandy's radar; it should be.
Last edited:
Well according to some here, yes the Devs had better stop everything they are doing, and exhaustively examine every aspect of the game, using every permutation of ships/modules to ensure that every the most stupid player isn't inconvenienced in any way. After all having someone be responsible for their actions is such an outdated idea.
.. we're not going to agree. So agree to disagree. Nice logical fallacies, by the way. o7
Last edited:
Yes, not hand holding is kind of a trademark of ED. But the question is, is this design any good that way? Is it the best way to make the player self destruct, because he ran out of fuel with no means to help himself (apart from out of game resources)? Is the need to suicide to less than 1000 Cr. bounty any good?
There has to be challenge in a game obviously and the game needs to consider the failing of a player. But suicide being the only option in those cases, is the cheap way out from a game makers perspective and the most not-fun way for the player. In case of ED it is also not 100% in-line with the game world.
Again, it is not so much about OP being marooned due to his choice, but more of the severe consequence of a minor infraction. By the recent changes from FDev they considered this very fact.
Last edited:
Yeah a kind of HAZOP process for this sort of thing. FDev have been working on this game for a while now, and none of the situations (FSD too small, friendly fire, running out of fuel etc.) are things that haven't come up hundreds of times already. They should consider the things (within reason) that could go wrong and the consequences and decide what (if anything) to do about them.
I like the new C&P in general, but some of the flaws in it are things that really should have been spotted and resolved during internal testing or beta or even in discussions during development.