Does any crime against a player attract a PF bounty these days? (i.e even just assault?)
COMPLETED CG Brewer Corporation Planetary Survey Initiative (Exploration)
- Thread starter Kietrax
- Start date
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
I have no idea to be honest.
I was under the impression PF bounties came from killing other commanders, but assault was local jurisdiction, in which case the latter would cause lockdown.
Yes, I think it has, though.
The Extension of the campaign by Brewer (=FD) is or would be a logical reaction following the lockdown.
When going back in history, there are examples of international science efforts or other events, that where delayed. Remember the 2020 Tokyo Olympics in 2021 or the delayed start of the James Webb telescope due to COVID.
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
It's been so long since I've fought other people. My recollection was that it had to be attacking ships that belonged to the controlling faction to lower the security of a system.
Even if a fine is issued by local jurisdiction for assaulting another Cmdr they're not aligned to the faction. Local Jurisdiction put out fines for lots of things that don't contribute to lockdown.
This is not real life, and is a game. Games have constraints, otherwise whats the point? Next time FD might as well just keep it open until it gets to where they want it to be.
100% this. Don't give the illusion of choice by allowing use of mechanisms which run counter to an established goal. That just wastes people's time.
The 'established goal' was completed as soon as the CG hit Tier 1. fdev just tweaked the end-date because people like to complain, and they were trying to minimise that, despite 11 years of knowing it won't work 
Everyone should just get on with mining the salt while it lasts
Everyone should just get on with mining the salt while it lasts
Of course it's a game, but it's a game that simulates something. That's why I think an intervention that corresponds to a logical reaction - simulates one - is acceptable. Especially because it is also within the the borders of the game mechanics.
It would be different if FD had simply written in a message that I had dealt with the lockdown in some way and ended it.
(I would also be happy with the result if FD had done nothing (I submitted my reports long ago), but I think the reaction in from of the extension is ok)
if i was part of the player activity with the intention to target and disrupt the cg, and i would succeed using legitimate ingame mechanics and gameplay, and fdev decided they will undermine my efforts and extend the cg and just now additionally invite people to work against me
i would probably be angy
but not surprised
is this the best handling of the situation? is this being fair towards everyone or just a group of players? is this leveling the field or a nudge towards the desired outcome instead of the actual result of gameplay?
you could argue that fdev didnt disable the opposition per se, but if there were two conflicting cgs and it would get extended because the desired outcome wasnt there, how would that look? is it that different situation?
low pop system, no bounty hunting cg to accompany, seems to me like the cg was a little borked from the start, there never was any idea nor plan for any real opposition to happen, and this is more of a "lets get this over with and try to angy as few people as possible" situation with no real universally good outcome.
it is what it is™
and its only february
i would probably be angy
but not surprised
is this the best handling of the situation? is this being fair towards everyone or just a group of players? is this leveling the field or a nudge towards the desired outcome instead of the actual result of gameplay?
you could argue that fdev didnt disable the opposition per se, but if there were two conflicting cgs and it would get extended because the desired outcome wasnt there, how would that look? is it that different situation?
low pop system, no bounty hunting cg to accompany, seems to me like the cg was a little borked from the start, there never was any idea nor plan for any real opposition to happen, and this is more of a "lets get this over with and try to angy as few people as possible" situation with no real universally good outcome.
it is what it is™
and its only february
Last edited:
You have a secret group of players as well!
There's the problem, it never has been a constraint. I remember when I spent nearly 2 weeks hauling much needed supplies out to Jaques in Colonia in my Python, 17ly per jump, just short of destination, 2 days to go in CG, log on next day and it's finished early and I got nothing and had to sell my stuff at a loss, but I didn't because I dumped it all in the interior of the station.....anyway yeah it's never really been a constraint, more like a guideline.
if i was part of the player activity with the intention to target and disrupt the cg, and i would succeed using legitimate ingame mechanics and gameplay, and fdev decided they will undermine my efforts and extend the cg and just now additionally invite people to work against me
i would be probably be angy
but not surprised
is this the best handling of the situation? is this being fair towards everyone or just a group of players? is this leveling the field or a nudge towards the desired outcome instead of the actual result of gameplay?
you could argue that fdev didnt disable the opposition per se, but if there were two conflicting cgs and it would get extended because the desired outcome wasnt there, how would that look? is it that different situation?
low pop system, no bounty hunting cg to accompany, seems to me like the cg was a little borked from the start, there never was any idea nor plan for any real opposition to happen, and this is more of a "lets get this over with and try to angy as few people as possible" situation with no real universally good outcome.
it is what it is™
and its only february
I am with you. When your way of playing the game is to disrupt or target an ingame event - which is totally ok in my view - and you suceeded in this (what you did!), you have to „live with the consequences“ that „the autorities“ in that simulated world react. What they did.
And it is still possible, that the attackers will succeed (correct me, if I am wrong).
Last edited:
our idea of ingame response varies.
when there is an ingame system that responds to player activity, and gms decide to bypass that, i dont consider that a consequence of ingame authorities...
brewers deciding to accept data for a few days longer is in game effect, but it is a consequence of out of game authorities.
somebody indeed couldnt live with the consequences...
This is the first CG that has really irritated me. It was advertised that you could do a minimal contribution and then get one of those pre-engineered surface scanners. So I took the time to fly to turn-in ship (5 jumps in a 70 ly jumping Mandalay), gathering more data on the way, only to find that Universal Cartographics was locked down due to pirate activity.
Whatever. With the way engineering mats are flowing in with all the care packages from PP ranks, I didn't really need this. I just thought it would be fun to do this quick turn in. Thanks for wasting my time, FDEV.
Whatever. With the way engineering mats are flowing in with all the care packages from PP ranks, I didn't really need this. I just thought it would be fun to do this quick turn in. Thanks for wasting my time, FDEV.
lockdown is a result of player activity
you yourself said that to qualify you would need minimal contribution, yet instead of turning that minimal in and then going for an exploration spree you decided you will take your time with all the hand ins
the cg has already been extended (by the fdev you are trashing) and players are working on lifting the lockdown
poor you :c
source: https://inara.cz/elite/starsystem/95625/
Isn't infrastructure failure supposed to be a random BGS event??
I would say it is random here because it's an economy state rather than security (I think). And players have not been tanking Brewer Logistics' economy, which as you can (also) see has been pushed into Investment (in fact was yesterday as well).
I've only seen one infrastructure failure event since PP 2.0 started so I did get the impression that it's kinda rare.
Very odd though that the second occurrence I've ever encountered is in the middle of a contested CG.