Obsidian Ant on Pilots Federation idea

[NeilF]

They're going to have to answer to the Coca Cola Company....

Any excuse to watch some of that film is a good one...

Seemingly the illogical behaviour of the Pilot's Federation and Insurance Companys in ED means they don't even want anyone to answer to the Coca-Cola company "CMDR X is at it again, he's destroyed 156 other PF members this week... Should we try and stop him as he's needlessly destroying other CMDRs? Ummm... nah!" / "Shall we try and stop him as he's needlessly costing us a fortune? Ummm... nah!"

 

[Ziljan]

I think we can have criminal game play without going as far as throwing CMDRs out of the PF. This seems to throw a bone at the end to criminals, but primarily aimed at eliminating certain "undesired" valid gameplay from the game. Why don't we instead just flush out better how jurisdictions work?

I don't think he means to just throw people out of the PF and into the void. He's saying that the PF shouldn't be in every system, because that is silly and unrealistic. I agree that jurisdictions need to redone, made more universal among associated types. Federation bounties should apply to all federation systems, alliance to alliance, etc, and PF bounties should apply everywhere that the PF holds sway. What OA is saying is that the PF bounties shouldn't hold sway in truly independent systems or anarchies. It's really quiet silly that the PF is used in wholly lawless and unaffiliated places.

Imagine the reception youd recieve if you took the 50 most effective commanders at BGS-solo-only manipulation, sat them down and said, "now you have to do PvP too, and also he odds ain't gonna be good" How do you think that would go over? You can't even get PP to agree to play in open.

You make a somewhat valid point here, except that I don't think that OA is trying to make "harder" for criminals, nor is he telling them they even need to stop being criminals. I think he's trying to make it better in lawless and independent places and worse in lawful places. If you notice, he is also talking about making it just as hard for lawful types to head to anarchy and low sec places where they would likely be treated with at best icy suspicion and at worst as potential BHs that are KOS.

As for doing BGS homework, well no one is forcing you to get affiliated. You could stay truly indep and gankery, but if you want services like rearming and UC, then you'd need to head to a station that serviced criminals without qualms.

 

[Sooden]

The way I see it, it would be an interesting balancing act of profits. The potential for greater profits is there, but let's face it, most criminals are poor. Only the big dogs make the big bucks.
.

''the big dogs''... I so hope if this happens, it was like that... Something you could fail at if your not good enough, if you made the wrong life choices.... This included killing NPC (criminally), as i wanna be a baddy, but i will not club seals.
The fights i get into are normally report crimes off on both side (seem to be a default for some PvPer), equally match and death is not always the outcome.

So, if i haven't got the skillz to make it in 'Outlaw's federation'... gonna have to lie low and get back on the pilot federations good side (but lets face it, i'm the best )

 

[Faybs]

I don't see how having 2 equivalent federations would stop you from playing your way. As for extra work, the game is a work in progress (see mining and exploration for examples). Compared to space legs and atmospheric landing, this would be easy.

That't my point exactly - in order to not block people from playing their way, the "real" PF and the "shadow" PF would have to be functionally the same. There may be some cosmetic differences between the two, but FDev would have to give players the ability to use all station services for both kinds of pilots federation (just not on the same station, but that's not much of a problem when there are thousands of star systems in the bubble alone so finding an alternative should be simple). And also, while the real PF may not want to deal with ex-members, there's no reason why the shadow PF wouldn't want to deal with real PF members. Which means that at the end of the day FDev did all the work of setting up a shadow PF for nothing, since the difference between the two is tiny.

 

[Sooden]

And why do you think such expulsion would happen because of a 300 credit bounty?

This isn't a zero-sum binary situation. "Cross the line and you're out forever!" You'd be warned, probably several times, that you are in danger of losing your PF privilages if you continue such actions, and only after ignoring those and continuing to build up your notoriety would action be taken.

yup /\ this. i think it would be a very deliberate act on the criminals part, maybe even hard work (at least time) to get expelled.

 

[Stealthie]

Just watched the O-ant vid.

Don't know if this has been pointed out already but there is a substantial number of players who post on this forum complaining that they got killed for a 300 credit bounty by system Auth.

Can you imagine the uproar if these same number of players were denied access to Galmap or every station?

Genuine question. In your heart of hearts do you think the player base this suggestion has developed from is emotionally mature enough to deal with that level of consequence?

Do you envisage a system where somebody would be kicked out of the PF for a single incident?

Cos, I don't.

I envisage a system where doing things that conflict with the PF charter would gradually reduce your standing in the PF, much like what currently happens with faction rep, and eventually lead to getting booted out of the PF.

That's not the sort of thing that's going to happen suddenly, without warning, and come as a shock to anybody.

 

[Ouberos]

I just see this entire discussion as symptomatic of the victim mentality that pervades some players.

On the whole I try to keep a fair mind toward players that play in other modes. I play as a Pirate and sometimes PvP pirate CG's or elsewhere but usually don't blow people up because I don't see the point but I *will* do this if someone runs more than once or otherwise messes me around. Conversely I will do everything possible to run away when faced with a combat fit FDL or other meta ship because I'm usually flying a non combat ship.

In other words, I accept the risk and roll with the punches. Some days I'm the bug, some days I'm the windscreen.

Not knowing what's round the next corner is *drum roll please*

Exciting

If you can't accept that, stay out of Open.

Stop trying to change MY game because you can't handle it.

Go play farming world or goat simulator or whatever else lame excuse for consensual stroke play will actually satisfy your needs.

Genuinely do not understand why the game has to change every time the players decide adapting is too hard.

Harsh words but seriously, O-Ant is just pitching for a game that doesn't exist yet. He should kick start it himself if he wants to play it.

 

[Han Zulu]

Do you envisage a system where somebody would be kicked out of the PF for a single incident?

Cos, I don't.

I envisage a system where doing things that conflict with the PF charter would gradually reduce your standing in the PF, much like what currently happens with faction rep, and eventually lead to getting booted out of the PF.

That's not the sort of thing that's going to happen suddenly, without warning, and come as a shock to anybody.

Like a rank you can gain and also lose, or karma scale.

 

[Stealthie]

I just see this entire discussion as symptomatic of the victim mentality that pervades some players.

Oddly enough, I see this sort of comment as symptomatic of the defensiveness and paranoia that pervades the PvP community.

Cast your mind back to playing Elite, back in 1984 (if you can).
You were docked at Lave and there were a variety of opportunities to make credits.
One tempting way to earn credits was to buy Computers and deliver them to Riedquat.
The only problem was, Riedquat was an anarchy and anarchies were scary and dangerous and players didn't go to anarchies unless they had a tough ship and knew how to fly it.
Most players were properly frightened of anarchies and went out of their way to avoid them.

This (or, a more complex, nuanced interpretation of it) is something that's always been lacking in ED.

Anarchies, in ED, are... nothing.

If a system could be devised which not only punished players for their offences but also offered new and attractive opportunities as a criminal, with anarchies being the "safe zone" for outlaws in the same way that high-sec systems would be for lawful players and both having things in them which might tempt the "opposition" into venturing into "enemy territory" then I think that'd go a long way toward adding more depth and strategy to the game.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Losing rank, and losing the ability to buy further ships from said factions yes. By all means, thats something that is viable, but removing engineer acess?

I think you're straying into dangerous territory with that suggestion. It's quite a snarky one and the intent behind it has not gone unoticed.

Lore wise the Engineers aren’t exactly on the side of truth, justice, and the white hat way. Funny people would think criminal players should lose access. The Engineers themselves wouldn’t want that. [haha]

 

[Ian Skippy]

Imagine losing Fed and Imp Rank, Permits and Engineer access because you murdered one too many commanders. Basically a CMDR reset.

Imagine adding criminal engineers, and underground shipyards selling only to criminals. Basically adding depth to the game.

 

[Poseidal]

Imagine adding criminal engineers, and underground shipyards selling only to criminals. Basically adding depth to the game.

The current engineers are already kind of dodgy themselves already really...

 

[Captain Thea Kreutzer]

Criminals should be treated as criminals. As was stated in the video pilots federation was created to stop pirates and murderers its pretty hypocritical too allow them in there ranks nowadays.

 

[Ouberos]

Oddly enough, I see this sort of comment as symptomatic of the defensiveness and paranoia that pervades the PvP community.

Cast your mind back to playing Elite, back in 1984 (if you can).
You were docked at Lave and there were a variety of opportunities to make credits.
One tempting way to earn credits was to buy Computers and deliver them to Riedquat.
The only problem was, Riedquat was an anarchy and anarchies were scary and dangerous and players didn't go to anarchies unless they had a tough ship and knew how to fly it.
Most players were properly frightened of anarchies and went out of their way to avoid them.

This (or, a more complex, nuanced interpretation of it) is something that's always been lacking in ED.

Anarchies, in ED, are... nothing.

If a system could be devised which not only punished players for their offences but also offered new and attractive opportunities as a criminal, with anarchies being the "safe zone" for outlaws in the same way that high-sec systems would be for lawful players and both having things in them which might tempt the "opposition" into venturing into "enemy territory" then I think that'd go a long way toward adding more depth and strategy to the game.

Mate I'm 43, I played the original Elite, I liked it but it wasn't that good.

Your remembering it wrong.

 

[Ouberos]

Criminals should be treated as criminals. As was stated in the video pilots federation was created to stop pirates and murderers its pretty hypocritical too allow them in there ranks nowadays.

Oh yeah, the original ranking system was all about combat wasn't it?

We should chuck out all this other dross and take it back to its true pew pew roots.

Derp.

 

[M00ka]

I just see this entire discussion as symptomatic of the victim mentality that pervades some players.

On the whole I try to keep a fair mind toward players that play in other modes. I play as a Pirate and sometimes PvP pirate CG's or elsewhere but usually don't blow people up because I don't see the point but I *will* do this if someone runs more than once or otherwise messes me around. Conversely I will do everything possible to run away when faced with a combat fit FDL or other meta ship because I'm usually flying a non combat ship.

In other words, I accept the risk and roll with the punches. Some days I'm the bug, some days I'm the windscreen.

Not knowing what's round the next corner is *drum roll please*

Exciting

If you can't accept that, stay out of Open.

Stop trying to change MY game because you can't handle it.

Go play farming world or goat simulator or whatever else lame excuse for consensual stroke play will actually satisfy your needs.

Genuinely do not understand why the game has to change every time the players decide adapting is too hard.

Harsh words but seriously, O-Ant is just pitching for a game that doesn't exist yet. He should kick start it himself if he wants to play it.

So how would the proposal affect you? You are a pirate, you are the most common criminal element in the galaxy. You would be part of the Pirates Fraternity (or whatever they call it). You would still have access to stations, to ships, to outfitting, to Engineers - only those would probably be more tailored to your chosen profession. You would be free to roam anywhere in the galaxy, the only difference is that you would encounter a much greater risk in High and maybe Medium Security systems. Furthermore, since your Pirate Fraternity is based and operates out of Anarchy Space, you and your brethren effectively control 99.999999% of the galaxy.

You will still be able to attack anyone you want, to prey on the weak and the mighty as you see fit, to plunder, to murder if they don't obey your demands. You will still encounter ships that are superior to yours and ships that have no defences what so ever.

It really does seem you are the one who is refusing to adapt!

 

[Sooden]

Imagine adding criminal engineers, and underground shipyards selling only to criminals. Basically adding depth to the game.

imagine a experimental effect to hatch barkers, offered by such scoundrels that would steal data half the community would fall apart.
(some commanders not willing to defend against it, but still playing in open, having all there encoded data siphoned off)

some fun game-play ideas are to difficult from some players, and Fdev keeps away from them.. reducing depth

 

[Ouberos]

So how would the proposal affect you? You are a pirate, you are the most common criminal element in the galaxy. You would be part of the Pirates Fraternity (or whatever they call it). You would still have access to stations, to ships, to outfitting, to Engineers - only those would probably be more tailored to your chosen profession. You would be free to roam anywhere in the galaxy, the only difference is that you would encounter a much greater risk in High and maybe Medium Security systems. Furthermore, since your Pirate Fraternity is based and operates out of Anarchy Space, you and your brethren effectively control 99.999999% of the galaxy.

You will still be able to attack anyone you want, to prey on the weak and the mighty as you see fit, to plunder, to murder if they don't obey your demands. You will still encounter ships that are superior to yours and ships that have no defences what so ever.

It really does seem you are the one who is refusing to adapt!

You are literally describing another game.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Why make a complete system for murderhoboes... This doesn't make any sense.

Pirate factions and anarchies are political. They are not aimless space vampires ganking for the lulz.

 

[mossfoot]

So how would the proposal affect you? You are a pirate, you are the most common criminal element in the galaxy. You would be part of the Pirates Fraternity (or whatever they call it). You would still have access to stations, to ships, to outfitting, to Engineers - only those would probably be more tailored to your chosen profession. You would be free to roam anywhere in the galaxy, the only difference is that you would encounter a much greater risk in High and maybe Medium Security systems. Furthermore, since your Pirate Fraternity is based and operates out of Anarchy Space, you and your brethren effectively control 99.999999% of the galaxy.

You will still be able to attack anyone you want, to prey on the weak and the mighty as you see fit, to plunder, to murder if they don't obey your demands. You will still encounter ships that are superior to yours and ships that have no defences what so ever.

It really does seem you are the one who is refusing to adapt!

Exactly! You have to look at the fact that a lot of priates and PvPers are actually going to be very much behind this. It's not going to take away your gameplay, it will only add variety to it. It's not even going to force you to "choose" one side or the other.

Ideally, it would compensate for anything taken away by the PF with a similar version that the pirates would use. There would be limitations, yes, restrictions--but also alternatives (some of which the PF would not have access to at all).

The key is not to be blinded by only looking at this as some kind of punishment, because it's not. There are consequences in there, sure, but ones that make sense within the worlds, but, more importantly, makes sense within the gameplay.

Imagine you've been kicked off the internet (somehow) because of your nefarious deeds and someone comes along and says, "Psst! Ever heard of the Dark Web?" and suddenly you've got a whole other world of possibilities open up.