Forcing targets into an instance or out of solo

[Snakebite]

One of the problems for us Bounty Hunters is that we could in theory waste an awful lot of time tracking down a target that is either hiding out in Solo mode or is simply being placed into a different 'instance'.

This is a serious flaw in the bounty hunting role that needs a remedy.

I propose that bounty hunters should be able to designate a certain number of players, perhaps half a dozen as 'targets' which the instancing algorithms will then attempt to instance together, in the same way as it currently does with people on our friends list. That way a bounty hunter can be pretty sure that he's not wasting his time chasing 'ghosts'.

It seems outrageous to me that someone can pirate (or even grief) another player in Open, but then hide from a bounty hunter in Solo, this just should not be permissible.
I therefore propose that a player who earns a bounty from attacking another player should NOT be able to hide from the consequences of his actions by hiding out in solo mode. And be forced back into open when a bounty hunter that has him tagged comes within range.

 

[CMDR Ashylnn D'Elyse]

I'm all for it but it seems like it would be a bear of a task to implement.

 

[Jorlin]

you'll never know my opinion...
i don't answer public polls

 

[Stigbob]

Let people play how they like, any proposition involving the words forcing and other players is a no no (except griefers they need to be horsewhipped, publicly with a very large horsewhip or whips, or a cat-o-nine tails if the cat-o-twenty tails is unavailable).

 

[Wicz]

This again?

/facepalm

 

[Renegade Roach]

Kind of like the idea. Limit it to 3 targets, make it so that once a target is selected it cannot be changed for (eg) a week, unless it looses its bounty. Rather than forcing them into open just matchmake the BH with that target as a priority in whatever mode the target is in, so essentially creating a private group if they were solo.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Let people play how they like, any proposition involving the words forcing and other players is a no no (except griefers they need to be horsewhipped, publicly with a very large horsewhip or whips, or a cat-o-nine tails if the cat-o-twenty tails is unavailable).

I agree with Stigbob.

A better solution, to my mind, would be to not report the activity of wanteds playing in Solo so bounty hunters don't go looking for them. Instead of locking them into Open/Solo, instead lock the clock on their bounty. Have it non-repayable until the clock has counted down (say, 7 days) and they need to literally put in 7 days worth of game time in Open before they can repay it.

 

[Arkantes]

If you look at the DDA, https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6276 :

Multiplayer - crimes against human commanders that cause a bounty to exist make the criminal able to be matched with any other human commander present in the “all players” group

Looks like FD had that idea in mind a long time ago...

 

[beelbeebub]

I agree with Stigbob.

A better solution, to my mind, would be to not report the activity of wanteds playing in Solo so bounty hunters don't go looking for them. Instead of locking them into Open/Solo, instead lock the clock on their bounty. Have it non-repayable until the clock has counted down (say, 7 days) and they need to literally put in 7 days worth of game time in Open before they can repay it.

not a bad idea, maybe the clock stops when you go into solo and can only be restarted by a) putting in an hour in Open or b) putting in as much time in Open as you put in Solo.
.
In fact the 7 day timer needs to have at least an hour or two of op[en play as well otherwise someone could "hide" by not playing for 7 days then pay off immediately on logging on. if the "pay off" criteria were, 7 days and at least an hour in Open, it would make sense.

 

[Lobstris]

As Arkantes says, this was in the DDA. It should be implemented to make bounty hunters lives easier.

 

[Arthur Z.]

Forcing people to Open will never happen simply because of internet traffic. Imagine if you're on a 3G modem with limited bandwith, you will be on your limit in no time if you are forced to Open. And please don't say "Well you shouldn't commit crime if you're on a modem"!

 

[Darkphoenix]

As much as I think the abuse of pirates hiding in solo is a possibility (unlikely though as there are no human targets in solo) I also see that there is definite potential for abuse in the system that you propose. Nothing I would like to see more than some types get their just deserts, but I do not think this is a viable solution.

 

[Renegade Roach]

As much as I think the abuse of pirates hiding in solo is a possibility (unlikely though as there are no human targets in solo) I also see that there is definite potential for abuse in the system that you propose. Nothing I would like to see more than some types get their just deserts, but I do not think this is a viable solution.

How do you see it being abused? It would be difficult if it were limited to a small number of wanted targets. You would firstly need to know a commanders name, and then also know that they were wanted as well as having an idea where they operate. I'm assuming you mean people somehow using it to grief players who pick up incidental bounties for friendly fire incidents and the like. Given the above it would be unlikely to have much impact on them.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
I therefore propose that a player who earns a bounty from attacking another player should NOT be able to hide from the consequences of his actions by hiding out in solo mode. And be forced back into open when a bounty hunter that has him tagged comes within range.

I understand your intention and I understand that the whole bounty hunting/crime system isn't working, but forcing players to play the game in a certain way is the wrong way - in my opinion. It's wrong to force players into open. Players should be able to play the game the way they want. If the want to trade in Solo - fine. If they want to PvP in open and trade in Solo - fine. If they want to hide from player bounty hunters in Solo - fine.
The problem, in my opinion is, that if you force one group of players into a certain mode other player groups will start demanding forcing other groups into certain play modes as well. (Haven't read the replies in this thread, but I would be surprised if pirates didn't demand traders to be forced into open).

So, for me, it's fine as it is now. FD should change a lot regarding crimes and bounty hunting, but forcing players into something isn't the right way to go.
There should be much more NPC ships flying around. In in-game reality finding a specific ship would be probably close to impossible in systems with billions of inhabitants. So, for me players in Solo are simply part of the huge amount of ships that the game can't display. An other ship lost in the sea of the million ships that keep the systems running without being noticed, without being seen.

If a player wants to play solo he should always be able to do so. No player should have the option to track a player unless both player agree to be tracked by the other (friends). No player should be forced to something. This is a game.

 

[Snakebite]

As much as I think the abuse of pirates hiding in solo is a possibility (unlikely though as there are no human targets in solo) I also see that there is definite potential for abuse in the system that you propose. Nothing I would like to see more than some types get their just deserts, but I do not think this is a viable solution.

How so ? The abuse I mean ?

 

[nedeaalex]

This one is a no-brainer. If you have more than 10 mil or so you should be forced into open. Don't like it? Then stop murdering innocent NPC's who can't put up a fight and come to Open. Ill show you how we handle pirates here. My Vulture is waiting in the hangar and i just bought some new painting fot it so if you even so much as scratch my paintjob you will pay with one finger for each scratch

 

[CMDR Kolibri]

Not ever going to happen.

 

[Lobstris]

No player should be forced to something. This is a game.

It's meant to be a multiplayer game. With danger and the potential for conflict with others. Even played solo, there should be pirates and nasty people and things standing in the way of the player. Else what have you got? A less graphically impressive SpaceEngine where everyone wins and rakes in vitual gold with no risk? Wow. Great.
.
I'm all for player choice, but if I buy into a game that has lasers, missiles etc. I'd expect to get shot at sometimes. Likewise if the game has a system of crime and punishment I will occasionally fall foul of the law, by choice or by accident, and I'd expect that people who try to make money from that would be given the chance to do so, especially if the crime was committed in open play against another player.
.
Yes it's a game, but for the sake of gameplay, certain things should be permissible, even if not equitable to an individual.
.
(Again this proble goes away with separate solo and open accounts Frontier...)

 

[Darkphoenix]

How so ? The abuse I mean ?

I spot a potential target and fly in his LOS at a RES to force him to get a bounty then add him to my "you can't hide from me list" Then proceed to follow target wherever he goes and if he chooses to change modes to go pay off his bounty it wouldn't matter because I know I have got him as he is in a vastly outclassed ship (think Fer de Lance vs. Sidewinder) . It essentially gives an abuser a tool to ensure that they can grief people making sure they have zero possibility of eluding you. Which is just wrong, if someone wants to pay off a bounty in solo they should be able to. Now......if you proposed that Bounties under X amount were not valid targets then and only then could I not see potential abuse. I rather do like the idea of a timer for the really bad boys of the galaxy. At least that way there would be some real possible consequences to random murder for the sake of it. Of course, the penalties for murder should be a lot stiffer in my opinion also and all stations should not want such riff raff around unless they are anarchy systems a.k.a. hives of scum and villainy.

 

[Xananan]

I mostly like the proposal, but......

define 'bad guy'. Someone who has proven countless times they will just interdict anything and kill on sight? How do you quantify that? If it's a repeat offender it could be a reason to force them into instances against bounty hunters. But then again, a bounty hunter would have to be able to pick their target from something like galnet (the top five bounties in the system list) and such. If you don't make it clear enough, it might become a problem for the everyday player and if you define it too well people will find ways to abuse the everlasting snot out of it.

Secondly, not being a BH myself, how would you even stop a target from just keeping running, even if you get them interdicted and into an instance? I don't really see any solid mechanics in place, the only thing you really can seem do is get into something fast and heavy like a clipper and hope you can blast their shield down before they get to recharge it and warp off. That's assuming all mass bugs have been fixed yet, haven't really been keeping up with that much lately.


In a way I even like the 'lock to open' idea, but I'd like to see it executed in a way where you maybe get to 'invade' a high bounty target's solo game, sort of like Dark Souls invasions were intended (giving them a proper warning as they log into solo of course and under the pretense that these are verified 'bad guys' as you called them, i.e. they have recklessly killed players instead of just having gained a PvE bounty in solo itself)


Either way this seems like an enormous task and may not even be possible. Not to mention the too-close-for-comfort proximity to the eternal solo vs open debate this is in.