Just because a system isn't labeled as Anarchy doesn't mean it actually isn't
lol Guess someone better let Fdev know then, clearly the BGS is just lying to us
, and the security force is ridiculous. Stations don't know criminals, and security force have incredibly short memories, only apply to that one system pretty much, and if your ship is destroyed, that's it. And your insurance still covers it. That's like a guy going on a killing spree, then crashing his car, and the cop on scene says "Well, you're free to go, wanna borrow my phone to call your insurance company to get a new one?"
Stations *do* know criminals - go ahead, try and dock when "Wanted" without using silent running - , but yes, it's as you say: it's easily circumvented by the lousy suicidewinder exploit. It's something I think needs changing, and I believe Fdev's aware of it as an issue as well. I'd even bet I've seen Sandro say there's plans to deal with it? Not certain though.
You are comparing a scripted NPC interaction with what happens with players? You do know that that's cosmetic right? Try explaining how the system works for non spontaneously spawned inhabitants? Let's say Player A attacks and kills (or even robs) from Trader player B in a high security system, then goes anywhere else? Give me a play by play.
Shouldn't that be robs (or even kills) player B?
Seems like robbing a player's far less an offense than killing one, surely....
Anyway, sure, I perhaps see the need for lasting consequences for committing crimes, maybe even have Wanted status spread across major factions rather than only minor ones, with a possibility of becoming so notorious that you'd be wanted even in independent non-anarchy systems. (Hopefully that won't include accidentally bumping into other ships near an airlock or accidentally strafing security ships at a RES....) But your claim that those things just didn't exist at all in this game was erroneous.
But where's the line? That's the problem with statements about people being to blame for crimes against them. When is enough enough? Only when prepared enough to win? You said:
What if they have shielding and weapons, but not enough to win? Or the skill to win? Or the pirate has faster thrusters? How much is enough that you don't consider them deserving of loss, and those who deserve some sympathy for their loss? Or at least some kind of police response?
I don't believe I said anything about people being *to blame* for crimes against them. But they *are* setting themselves up if they foolishly go about outside the confines of their homes without any means of self-defense or at *least* awareness of their surroundings.
If I wander around in a Type 7 in Open near a pirate hot-zone (for an NPC example let's say a Compromised Nav Beacon) with full loads of Palladium, with no shielding or weapons (which can be clearly scanned from supercruise), is it *really* not my fault if I get jumped and robbed and even blown up? As opposed to avoiding those areas, or if I
must go through those areas, bringing shielding and weapons and A-rated thrusters and having a nearby system ready to High-wake to if all that is not enough? Sure, having to resort to High-wake is most common in the face of Engineering, but that's a problem with the root issue of Engineering being overpowered as hell.
There's a
world of difference between blithely believing you're always safe just because security forces are around, and being prepared for anything.
You can flip things on their head here, too: how successful would a pirate be if they had no shielding or weapons or just sucked really bad at flying their ship? Is it the pirate's fault if the target has no shielding and E-rated thrusters and hasn't taught themselves about the basics of combat? Yes, the pirate *is to blame for committing a crime*, but they are NOT to be held responsible for whether the victim has prepared themselves and has any common sense.
p.s. NPC police responses can be pretty darn quick ingame, I've seen a few youtube videos of PvP that you can find where would-be aggressors get pounced on by NPC security and have to abort.
If you had read what I was saying before:
Notice now I acknowledge crimes will happen? It's just that with a justice system, it's a comfort to know there's the possibility of justice when crimes do happen. A justice system also deters the criminals who are too scared to take the risk from harming other people, and keeps those unskilled enough to be successful away. This was my main point, and that statement I was responding to coupled with a lack of justice system is saying that Open is for PVPers. He's specifically saying he lacks much sympathy for people without the skill to win in combat.
I'm confused. Are you hung up on the idea that Open is for PvPers? 'Cause that's rather the *entire point* of having Open mode.
If you sign up for a PvP mode and lack piloting competency - like, you're the kind of pilot who winds up boosting into the sides of stations when trying to dock and blowing yourself up - then yeah, Sandro has no sympathy for you. And he shouldn't. That's what PvP is about: competition from other real live people.
A justice system and the presence of security forces are *not* supposed to be enablers for anyone wanting to blithely stroll about like an innocent sheep through a forest full of wolves.
Even in purely PvE mode, you can expect to get attacked by NPC pirates pretty regularly the moment you carry any kind of cargo. Is it the *NPC's* fault if you get blown up because you didn't prepare or just outright got outplayed by the computer? *YES*, the NPC pirate is *to blame* for attacking you - that's why it gets Wanted status - but that's no excuse if you get killed by that pirate through your own poor piloting. That's not something that justice/security system should provide a crutch for.
At the end of a day, this is a game. Some level of "Yes, you do have to fight back yourself and succeed on your own merits" is to be expected compared to the real world.
__
You first quoted just what I said. I told you to look at context and then you look at just what I said yet again. I was replying to someone who said there should be PVE ONLY OPEN. That is the context of my comment. How does he imagine that working given the games physics and mechanics? Should players be coded so their guns don't damage each other, their collision physics are disabled? How would you enforce it if we all just have to 'be good sports'. That is context.
I can't help but feel you're being obtuse. I highly doubt he meant that to be "let's get rid of Open entirely and replace it with this". As to how it works, if you know anything at *all* about Mobius, how it works, and the high success it's had over *years* of existence, that should fully answer all your questions about how it works. There's no necessity to play with any physics or mechanics, no need to have no friendly fire or messing around with collision physics. It merely takes a relatively small amount of moderation to enforce any rules of PvE. Fdev quite clearly has a fully capable and talented support team, so that'd be a small worry.
If 1 single player with the help of a few friends can run Mobius successfully for what's approaching 40,000 active members (I do believe inactive players are politely removed from the group to make way for new ones, to help remedy the problem of the 20k player limit per group) for a couple years now, there's no way that Frontier can't handle something like that themselves.
Blithely ignoring the context is a great way to be asinine yourself.
Except for how I haven't ignored the context once. You just seem to forget what your own provided context is.
