Crime and Punishment not fit for purpose - needs overhauling

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
My point was partly from an ideal ED (as in the game is credit poor and engineering is limited) but also (I think as I said in another post) if you lock out legal money making missions you can't grind out legal money- so there would be a point where criminals would have limited choices and getting top end ships is harder.
That would be entirely different game though. I understand what you're saying but that would be a complete rethinking of the game's economy. And even then I'm not convinced you can even make an MMO-ish game where players are strapped for cash. In every game with an economy the people who play regularly are incredibly cash rich. So the only people who would suffer these consequences are newer/inexperienced players that don't know what they're doing.

In the end you'll be back to square one: billionaires in FDLs fighting whoever they want with no risk/reward in play.

And? Thats up to them risking coming back- I'd also point out that they are spending less time in legal systems. You might not like how they play but its not against the rules either.
And... it doesn't stop them from visiting legal systems whenever they feel like it. So then what's the point? Roleplay? Unlawful players grinding for credits/rep/etc aren't an issue at all.

If they don't bother then again, its on them for not even trying in a game that frankly does not care about killing. If these guys knew the drill to escape, did some homework on least traveled systems and swapped to a more survivable ship they'd be fine. Like it or not you can't cut out the possibility of an NPC or player attacking you in ED.
It's true that the game doesn't care about killing. And it's also true that the game doesn't care about organic PvP. The fact that someone can hop into solo/group and invisibly affect the BGS or Power Play completely removes anything interesting about it as competitive territory control IMO.

So, yes, it's "on them" for not wanting to learn gameplay they're not interested in.
And it's on pirates/gankers for zero risk attacks on space dads who don't stand a chance.

The result? PvP is avoided by going invisible in solo/group nullifying true competition over resources. And organic PvP is zero risk, skill-less, and boring. Everyone loses.
 
You're not wrong in principle but the part about "if you want to be in open with such high stakes" is the key point of contention IMO. A lot of people don't want to play a high stakes open world MMO. High stakes are only fun if you enjoy that aspect of the game. That is to say you enjoy cat & mouse gameplay, combat mechanics, and adversarial gameplay overall.

It's just not the game they signed up for and there are various legit reasons why.

Games like Eve, Tarkov, DayZ, etc establish very early on that it's a high stakes game where you'll lose your stuff constantly. And no one there complains about KoS because it's part of the game.
I do find it interesting how this opinion has taken root in Elite, because as you point out, in other games people don't complain. But what makes it "part of the game" in those and not Elite? When the game gives you full control over what level of player opposition you might see, why does this keep coming up?

You mention that those games "establish very early on" the stakes, and Elite could certainly do a better job of communicating the power gap between NPCs and players and how to deal with that. But I also wonder if giving that choice did somehow lead to the idea that being completely safe in Solo is the "true" game, and therefore Open is out of place for going against that. The game gives effectively no useful information on how to survive these encounters, yet there's a big button on the main menu that says "never get attacked again". I wonder if those other games would see similar effects if they also included a button to deny all player opposition.
 
Security rams their fist in my face
High-sec should be completely unsurvivable for me. Winning interdiction mini-game is impossible. I should be attacked by ships that perma-lock my FSD and have 100,000 DPS.
😂
Most, if not all of what you talk about is good, except for this which I dislike- mainly because then ships become gamey and more powerful than stations.

I can see the logic, ATR would not be required if engineering was not so crazy. Since we do there are other ways of achieving this without extreme solutions.

So what can be done? For me ATR should become random and not system level only. They currently have no BGS persistence, so what needs to happen is at certain thresholds they become 'unchained' and free roaming -where you go at least one will pop up and follow you about, drop when you do and be a nuisance. Things like this https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-npc-player-scan-spawns-an-atr-vessel.533172/ would also help because then all a trader needs to do is survive long enough to scan someone (but this relies on a trader willing to actually touch the controls). If you changed it so that trigger the highest ATR response possible (full wing, NPC pre locked on, instadrop) which would be fairer as it gives the attacker a way to avoid it. IIRC at least once (although it might have been chance) I was hit with a FSD disrupting effect from ATR- but using what we have (Grompedoes) are enough.

In this manner C+P at the top end then follows you rather than being system only and tied locally.
 
That would be entirely different game though. I understand what you're saying but that would be a complete rethinking of the game's economy. And even then I'm not convinced you can even make an MMO-ish game where players are strapped for cash. In every game with an economy the people who play regularly are incredibly cash rich. So the only people who would suffer these consequences are newer/inexperienced players that don't know what they're doing.

In the end you'll be back to square one: billionaires in FDLs fighting whoever they want with no risk/reward in play.
In the end you can't stop people doing what they want. If a pirate becomes rich doing pirate things, thats them playing the game. Bear in mind too this also is from a game where engineering is low, and that the BGS would make criminal missions much harder (and that pirates would have to scavenge more or risk more to get rich).

For C+P to work like people want requires a total reset because its the backbone of the game and a lot of problems have come about because FD did not think long term.

And... it doesn't stop them from visiting legal systems whenever they feel like it. So then what's the point? Roleplay? Unlawful players grinding for credits/rep/etc aren't an issue at all.
You can't lock out people because they shoot at you in ways you don't like or understand. If thats your mindset then you have solo or PG.

It's true that the game doesn't care about killing. And it's also true that the game doesn't care about organic PvP. The fact that someone can hop into solo/group and invisibly affect the BGS or Power Play completely removes anything interesting about it as competitive territory control IMO.

So, yes, it's "on them" for not wanting to learn gameplay they're not interested in.
And it's on pirates/gankers for zero risk attacks on space dads who don't stand a chance.

The result? PvP is avoided by going invisible in solo/group nullifying true competition over resources. And organic PvP is zero risk, skill-less, and boring. Everyone loses.
Ganking would not live in peoples heads rent free if everyone knew how to avoid it or deal with it. You do have other modes for that, but if low level ganking was nullified at nearly every turn how long would it be before they got nothing out of it?
 
My two biggest questions around C&P are these.

1. Why in a high security systems can you still gank, murder and attack others freely at will? surely certain areas even though it might be lore breaking should have a weapons disabled grid or tech?

2. Why is there no crime bad guy career route? Plenty of people want to gank, murder and steal why are the mechanics in game not sorted for this yet?dw

3. Why have some of the features and mechanics for being a bad buy not been copied across from Frontier Elite II and First Encounters?


I honest think Powerplay 2.0 being open only or this brand new feature coming in january needs to be PvP related, implementing a proper PvP mode will give the players who want to fight eachother a way to do it. This would solve a few C&P problems but the system needs a strict rework.
 
I do find it interesting how this opinion has taken root in Elite, because as you point out, in other games people don't complain. But what makes it "part of the game" in those and not Elite? When the game gives you full control over what level of player opposition you might see, why does this keep coming up?
Good question tbh. I think it's because Elite is a pretty easy and chill game. So it attracts a lot of players who log on to relax in a low intensity setting.

In DayZ it probably takes 10-20 hours just figuring how to reliably not starve as a fresh spawn lol. You're dying over and over and over again. The game also has modded servers including PvE-only. They're pretty much identical conceptually as Mobius in Elite. Some of them do allow PvP but with strict rules around roleplay. I personally don't find that interesting but a big chunk of the community plays on those servers. So when you log on you can pick which experience you're up for.

Eve Online heavily discourages solo play in general. You'll simply run out of things to do if you play solo and it'll take forever to make progress. The entire game is built around people joining corporations/organizations. Everything the game is manufactured by players (every component, every ship, seriously) and since the economy is player driven you can't make progress on your own. If you're not into PvP (say you like mining/industry) then you join a corporation where players will protect you. The whole game is built around that. So non-PvPers get their fix while PvPers protect them.

Tarkov is a shooter with short (30-45 minute) instanced raids where you go out and fight other players. The whole basis of the game was PvP so no one would get upset by being attacked. I said "was" because - guess what - they just added a PvE only mode and it's super popular.

2 out of 3 have non-PvP modes but what makes Elite unique is that non-PvP modes can affect PvP modes (BGS, economy, Power Play, community goals).

Which brings us back to C+P. It's simply not needed in those games because everyone knows what they're getting into. Eve Online is the only one of those where the losses can be as bad as Elite. An explorer losing literal months of exploration earnings is not common in most games.

As others have said the C+P system simply can't solve for those losses... unless unless it actually penalizes the killer with the amount they destroyed. That would actually be hilarious. They should do that. Kill an explorer with 500 million in earnings? You now owe the Pilot's Federation 500 million credits 😂😂😂
 
1. Why in a high security systems can you still gank, murder and attack others freely at will? surely certain areas even though it might be lore breaking should have a weapons disabled grid or tech?
Depending on how you look at it:

1: because you can enter systems to begin with

2: because C+P is reactive

In high sec ships still have to interdict you, or scan you to know you are 'bad'. Even when you are hostile (and they come at you in SC) there is still a 30 second or so window where a target can be blown up. When I would BGS murder in high sec I'd always pick the softest targets because time is always against you.
 
Depending on how you look at it:

1: because you can enter systems to begin with

2: because C+P is reactive

In high sec ships still have to interdict you, or scan you to know you are 'bad'. Even when you are hostile (and they come at you in SC) there is still a 30 second or so window where a target can be blown up. When I would BGS murder in high sec I'd always pick the softest targets because time is always against you.

The problem with the reactive side of it is doing crime stuff is just as easy in high security systems as it is low systems there really isn't a balance. In my mind it should be harder to commit crime in a high security system. The reactive system doesn't protect commanders at all. If you're in a freighter by the time an engineered NPC or player has lasered you down you're pretty much dead or floating debris before the police for example pop in. I find it mad engineer bases aren't no fire zones. There's a famous commander named after a film starring a wizard, no idea if he still plays the game but the commander was famous for camping engineer bases in open. Surely in this high tech sci fi universe someone that notorious wouldn't even be able to get near a populated system eventually.

Until C&P works better people will continue to combat log and play in solo or private.
 
The problem with the reactive side of it is doing crime stuff is just as easy in high security systems as it is low systems there really isn't a balance. In my mind it should be harder to commit crime in a high security system. The reactive system doesn't protect commanders at all. If you're in a freighter by the time an engineered NPC or player has lasered you down you're pretty much dead or floating debris before the police for example pop in. I find it mad engineer bases aren't no fire zones. There's a famous commander named after a film starring a wizard, no idea if he still plays the game but the commander was famous for camping engineer bases in open. Surely in this high tech sci fi universe someone that notorious wouldn't even be able to get near a populated system eventually.

Until C&P works better people will continue to combat log and play in solo or private.
The issue camping bases is that ATR from my own tests long ago do not spawn above surfaces and that its a no mans land.

You can change todays reactive C+P like how I suggested earlier- make it so that persistent attackers are pursued (so sec is always local to the player involved). This is already in game with FCs and hostile commanders- when FCs were in beta I'd land with ATR buzzing around the FC, log off and log back in and they'd still be there. I'd take off and escape with a damaged ship and no shield.

My problem is that some players don't even bother to learn or build to survive plugging that gap before C+P can even start. As I repeatedly say, no C+P system is totally safe for players- it takes some input from players and ED has a multitude of ways to avoid destruction.
 
There's a famous commander named after a film starring a wizard, no idea if he still plays the game
The myth... the legend...
 

Attachments

  • 1726471786516.png
    1726471786516.png
    111.1 KB · Views: 33
Until C&P works better people will continue to combat log and play in solo or private.
I disagree...

I don't care about "combat logging", particularly when whined about because a soft target cut the cord, tough luck, maybe next time... Such is life...

As for playing in solo or PG, that is what choice is about, isn't it?

I doubt I'd lose to a single gank in the ships I fly around in normally, I even kept a SPEAR wing busy for a few minutes in an unshielded, unarmoured, small ship, in the past, only losing so soon because of ghosting on my throttle... (That was the end of the X56) (Those were the 'fun days' in Colonia, when SPEAR came to clean out the hardened criminals, they still attacked me, in an unarmed ship, KWS 4 times, and I didn't even have a fine... Blew me up anyway... Kept them busy long enough to have others in the squadron to leave the system though!)

But, the choice to not play with everyone has nothing to do with C&P in the main, only to do with enjoying playing without pointless interruptions from all & sundry (I was going to be less polite...)

It is the same old debate in the Hotel, just being polished a little here, after all.
 
Last edited:
There's a famous commander named after a film starring a wizard, no idea if he still plays the game but the commander was famous for camping engineer bases in open.
Allegedly now enjoying the freedom to play as they wish in SC (along with most of SDC too, if sources are correct)
 
Which would be fair enough if there was any benefit to the fighter escort.
5% trade bonus vouchers! ("Fighter escort" sounds too much like hard work, but sitting in a station so 3 traders can combine SCO with wing nav lock and near-teleport from star to station has got to be worth some token payout and does more to keep them safe, right?)

But as soon as you introduce a PvP blockade everything changes:
  • Most of the time the only option is to high-wake and therefore not accomplish the objective.
  • Escaping a competent ganker does take some skill. You can't just boost forward and leave.
  • The attacker risks absolutely nothing and there's no practical way to make them leave the system.
That's the big difference between your FE2 example and what we're talking about here.
Not really. All of those points are absolutely identical to the FE2 case:
- if you can't defeat your attacker, your only option is to high-wake (which in FE2 isn't endlessly repeatable and will fail things like mission timers much more rapidly than in ED)
- a pirate attack in FE2 is not meaningfully escapable in normal space (if you had a faster ship and were willing to fly two days real-time to the station to not trigger the re-intercept, maybe?)
- pirates in FE2 also risk absolutely nothing (sure, you can kill them, but they're NPCs) and if a system has pirates it'll have pirates the next time too

The more important difference is that a PvE encounter is designed to be winnable [1] and a PvP encounter is almost by definition not winnable for both sides.

Similarly when the Thargoid Scythes were briefly intercepting passenger traffic in supercruise well clear of the previous Thargoid Zones, or going back much further, NPC pirates would interdict and attack returning explorers, that wasn't popular despite not being PvP. [2] The problem isn't that it's PvP, the problem is that it's a required potentially-losable encounter for the player, and ED isn't really set up to make those an expectation.

[1] Though even then FE2's early game was brutal. Same reverse difficulty curve as ED, but it started off a lot tougher. Even as an experienced player starting a new run I'd die considerably more in the first few hours of an FE2 game than I have in ED at all.
[2] Arguably it was way less popular, precisely because NPCs are way more common than hostile players, even in Open. Back when NPCs would attack explorers I flew with an escort wing and we got regular business. Once NPCs stopped attacking explorers, the hypothetical of a player attack was far too irrelevant to keep the group going.

Good question tbh. I think it's because Elite is a pretty easy and chill game. So it attracts a lot of players who log on to relax in a low intensity setting.
This is the key bit (and why above I suggested that maybe interdiction should be removed entirely from the game as just not fitting with the direction it's gone in).
Good game, terrible Elite sequel, is I think my general opinion nowadays.

An explorer losing literal months of exploration earnings is not common in most games.
Exploration is impossibly hard to balance risks for, even ignoring PvP, because of that. Again to fit with the "pretty chill game" they should really just make exploration data not lost on death: you're not supposed to be able to die while exploring, so why punish someone who manages it beyond "you're now tens of thousands of LY away from where you wanted to explore"

As others have said the C+P system simply can't solve for those losses... unless unless it actually penalizes the killer with the amount they destroyed. That would actually be hilarious. They should do that. Kill an explorer with 500 million in earnings? You now owe the Pilot's Federation 500 million credits
That wouldn't help the explorer "oh no, my killer has to grind for a couple of hours and I still lost months of scans" [1] and would be really easy for Sidewinder-station-rammers to exploit by picking up a bunch of Stratum exobio scans to quickly cost their victim a billion credits (speeding is a crime, punishable by death)

[1] This is essentially what we're always discussing when talking about punishments of this sort for PvPers: how many minutes or hours PvE grinding buys you various sorts of "unpopular" PvP kills as an indulgence. Could we go further and make it an earning opportunity for Frontier? 1000 ARX buys you one "punishment-free" PvP kill? Buy ten get one free? Halve the cost per kill if you use the Python 2 Ganker Pack with complementary shipkit and paintwork to carry it out?

In my mind it should be harder to commit crime in a high security system. [...] but the commander was famous for camping engineer bases in open.
Most engineer bases aren't in high-security systems (of the starting five, for example, two are low security, one is Anarchy, one is high security, and one is medium)

Are you saying it's absolutely fine for someone to blow up players trying to engineer their ship at Eurybia (Ryder), pretty much okay at Khun (Martuuk) or Wolf 397 (McQuinn), maybe allowed as an occasional treat at Wyrd (Dweller), and definitely out of bounds at Deciat (Farseer) - at least, unless someone gives the Deciat Blue Dragons a big BGS push?

If not, system security level is basically an irrelevance for PvP prevention, at least in terms of the actual hotspot systems.
 
2 out of 3 have non-PvP modes but what makes Elite unique is that non-PvP modes can affect PvP modes (BGS, economy, Power Play, community goals).
I would disagree as BGS,economy, PP and CG are not PVP orientated they are PVE orientated.
They all can be done and completed with no PVP and it's quicker.
There isn't 1 result in any of the scenarios where killing a Commander gives you better rewards, than killing a NPC.
They are all about filling a pot not spending hours hunting for a commander .
Even in PP it doesn't state killing a non NPC gets you better rewards , you can blow up any enemy ships and NPC's are more plentiful and easier found.
Fine if you want to follow along that line of thinking, I'm happy because I will fill up my pots quicker and win more times.
Back to C&P , make it risky I'm happy with that bit it needs to be for both sides as it stands it's one sided.
But also there isn't a pathline really for the criminal line of playing. Everyone is expected to be a good guy ?? A bit like demolition man but in space
 
PP and CG are not PVP orientated
PvP moderates CGs and PP though. The former has NPCs that are very weak (for a reason in PP CZs) but also has weak NPCs that do practically nothing strategically. I'd love to think CGs actually had a default opposition too- for example people who don't like the CG benefactor but have no other way to oppose.

For PvE to actually be self moderating it needs to have more teeth and be more complex (one example of this being better C+P).
 
That would be entirely different game though. I understand what you're saying but that would be a complete rethinking of the game's economy. And even then I'm not convinced you can even make an MMO-ish game where players are strapped for cash. In every game with an economy the people who play regularly are incredibly cash rich. So the only people who would suffer these consequences are newer/inexperienced players that don't know what they're doing.

Frontier’s destruction of their Economic Simulation, in a vain attempt to appease an unappeasable demographic of the playerbase, is especially frustrating due to how quickly players latched onto manipulating the Background Simulation as proverbial “endgame” content. Doubly so, since we did it before we reached the largest ships, and income inflation became out of control. The BGS used to be a marvelous credit sink if you wanted to be effective at it.

If only Frontier had stick to initial impulses, and also implemented their second phase of the initial C&P system, which dealt with PvP crimes, this game could’ve thrived as a living world to immerse yourself into. Instead we get… this, which succeeds not on its merits, but due it’s proverbial competitions’ many failures.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom