Just because you committed a crime does not exonerate YOU.
You are proposing that any stray shots or friendly fire should cause automatic arrest to whoever fired the shot. This could lead to events even worse than "suicidewinders." If I want to grief someone, I simply fly into a battle between two consensual PVPers. If either of them hit me on accident (Because I am trying to get into their line of fire), then they are instantly "arrested" by the game. This is far more inconvenient than having to flee station security if you hit a suicidewinder, where at least you have a chance to get away. And furthermore, now the griefer doesn't have to deal with a rebuy, either. (At least "suicidewinders" are forced to click through the game over screen)
I'm not a genius and don't know much of the mechanics of the game, so I put the suggestion here to identify its weaknesses.
And that near Felicity fly pirates NPC? Is her zone a mining zone or a lighthouse?
She's an engineer. She's the first engineer new players get access to, so it's a hub of underpowered ships.
I think you misunderstood him. Rather, he said that it is not against the rules of the game and for this you can not be banned.
And I suggest that it is against the rules of the game?
Who forbids you to do this? I heard that many people buy a sidewinder and die on it themselves, it's their right.
I don't know if antiriad is referring to
this, but in this video he talks about how making things go wrong for other people is part of the tradition of elite. That's part of why I think it's best to approach the problem of ganking from the perspective of "what can players do." Fuel was designed to cause players extreme difficulty if not managed well, or if they went too far and broke a fuel scoop. This fueled the creation of the fuel rats, and I think we're better off with that than if we had a system where fuel was "easier" or you didn't have to worry about fuel.
Why? This is exactly the case in the sentence !
This was the series of events:
- The type 9 interdicts the victim
- Type 9 demands that victim hands over cargo
- Victim refuses and fires on type 9 in order to defend their cargo
- Type 9 destroys the victim
Are you saying that because the victim fired first, they are at fault? Do you think people should not be allowed to protect their cargo? It's just a technicality that the victim drew first blood.
I understand YOU, it's YOUR charm that gives all the disadvantages of this. Do you want to get only the pluses without the minuses? Or is this an attempt to cheat the game?
Spider-Man doing good deeds and was wearing a mask so everyone can see that he is a spider-man. Spy can easily be killed by his own because they do not know that he is for them.
This is YOUR game and it is YOU who knows what YOU are risking. Do you want to reduce the risk? Join the Force officially!
(I'm sorry, but that's kind of a different topic.)
So much effort has been put into the BGS by the developers. Why shouldn't players interact with this?
The above asked about the development time of this, this can only be determined by the developers themselves and only THEY.
I always try to give a suggestion for minimal game code changes.
Check the attacker cargo scanner and the presence of the goods, the appearance of a bunch of ATR firing missiles anti FSD and anti-engine, I do not think that is much, but it's not for me to decide.
I'm not sure if you really are giving suggestions with minimal code changes. What you suggested would need a lot of flags and a new event sequence. And that adds load, because you then need things checking for flags. Consoles are already starting to lag, do you want to put more stress on these systems, especially on top of all the changes happening in Odyssey? In a P2P networked game?? I swear, some people think frames per second is a dial a developer turns until it's the right speed.
And it's nice to say that only the developers can determine this (And apparently fdev are the only ones who know how to estimate software design times?
show me the secret gantt charts fdev) but suggestions should be feasible. I might have a super cool idea for 5 new alien species that have 20 different system states or whatever, and no matter how good my idea is it would be laughable to think that the developer would pick it up because that would require massive development time, especially with the way they roll lore changes into the universe. However, if you propose a change of "make the galaxy map UI for thargoid systems a color that stands out more since it's hard to see on LCD", or even "tweak the price of void opals so it's less OP," it's more likely to be picked up even though it's bland, since the development time is very small. Even in the case of the second one, which takes a short amount of time to code, it would take a lot of time in design and testing to make sure that the change was necessary, and that any changes wouldn't negatively impact other parts of the game.
What you're suggesting will change gameplay for almost every single player who uses PVP. Fdev is deliberate about how it rolls out even changes to the economy, because of the ripple effects. If they were to seriously consider a insta-death system for nonconsensual PVP (to include consensual PVP falling under BGS, situations where traders manage to get first blood on pirates, and situations where players get first blood on gankers), this would completely change how the game is played. Even if the change was good, any major change to a game this old is going to drive away at least part of the player base.
So, even changes like "have more system authority vessels attack player based on notoriety" may seem simple, but now you have to:
- Create a way for NPCs to work in wings
- Ensure NPCs do not crash into each other while in wings
- Have a check for notoriety level and system security upon interdiction of player by system authorities
- Manage the consequences of frame rates for edge-cases (large wing of PCs and large wing of NPCs)
- Ensure all of that works across consoles and PC
