Realistic Interactions and Docking with a Station.

[Goose4291]

I've been thinking about the whole fact that at the moment you can dock with impunity despite having a 1 million credit bounty in a system and how this conflicts with Frontier's original plan regarding pushing reprobates out to the rim/less savoury regions of space and how this could be corrected (because lets, be fair it does break a bit of the immersion for the RP'ers and seems a tad ridiculous that I could blockade a CG and be welcomed in with open arms).
Below is my proposed method to correct this in a reasonable, balanced lore friendly way. with only one thing I thnk requiring further clarification.

Notes:
1. The additional station/outpost scan would only occur in the letterbox/above the outpost pad, but would only scan for outstanding warrants (so wouldn't cargo scan you, not affecting any smuggling types).
2. There would need to be a threshold bounty figure/fines figure at which the 'go away' response would kick in, which is the only figure I can't decide on.
3. The reference to NPC ships scanning you is just in the same manner as now (i.e. random chance on approach) and not an arbitary event.


Thoughts/Opinions?

 

[anikaiful]

As addendum: whether the particular station cares about bounties should depend on their allegiance (or lack of it) and 'government' (or lack of it).

 

[Yaffle]

Should '>Hostile' read =/= hostile?

Otherwise it looks sensible to me.

Reducing the scan chances once you are 'friendly' and 'allied' would be a nice touch too.

 

[Weps]

I don't understand your proposal in full. Will the scan be carried out by a ship (random if the authority ship happens to be nearby and targets you) or by the tower (happens every time, the tower checks a list of known offenders)?

Either way, I agree that there needs to be a threshold under which the pilot is allowed to land, no questions asked, to prevent aggravating players in the following situations:

- bounty hunters accidentally hitting authority ships
- regular players defending themselves against aggressive faction pilots of that station
- any other "acceptable" situation which I can't think of right now

In my opinion a 150% value of the bounty value for murder would be fine. Only active bounties trigger the response, dormant bounties and legacy fines do not.

 

[Whiterose]

You should still be able to dock with fines and bounties. The best way for the station to get them paid is to refuse take off. Pay to fly. Then again, the station should remain totally neutral, it should really be up to the keystone cops.

 

[Goose4291]

As addendum: whether the particular station cares about bounties should depend on their allegiance (or lack of it) and 'government' (or lack of it).

Yep, that's what I meant.


So in other words, if you've been killing NPC's and comitting crimes in a Federal controlled system (System A), then trying to go to a neighbouring Federal system (System B), the bounties from A would be taken into account by the stations in B.
Of course at this point, you could then head to an anarchy, independent or Imperial station to dock up .

Should '>Hostile' read =/= hostile?


Otherwise it looks sensible to me.


Reducing the scan chances once you are 'friendly' and 'allied' would be a nice touch too.

Yep, you're right, it's meant to read better than hostile


I personally would like to see it go further so it takes into the government type, your faction relationship, power relationship and powerplay affilitation.


So a Federal Allied Admiral Player who is rank 5 with Hudson and allied with the controlling minor faction is considerably less likely to be NPC scanned than an independent trader who's docking at the same station, but I think that would be further complexity that could be added once we got some sort of realistic manner of station interaction nailed in place first .

I don't understand your proposal in full. Will the scan be carried out by a ship (random if the authority ship happens to be nearby and targets you) or by the tower (happens every time, the tower checks a list of known offenders)?


Either way, I agree that there needs to be a threshold under which the pilot is allowed to land, no questions asked, to prevent aggravating players in the following situations:


- bounty hunters accidentally hitting authority ships
- regular players defending themselves against aggressive faction pilots of that station
- any other "acceptable" situation which I can't think of right now


In my opinion a 150% value of the bounty value for murder would be fine. Only active bounties trigger the response, dormant bounties and legacy fines do not.

You're regular NPC Police Viper scan would result in the usual outcomes, except that if you had illegal goods onboard they'd deny you permission to land. The tower thing to check your outstanding fines, bounties etc with the faction controlling would happen automatically within a certain range (this is to avoid people exploiting round it by doing the inevitable boost away and try and come back in another instance, which would be the workaround they'd employ).


The Threshold bounty/fines figure is the hardest part to determine, because of course there are a few variables in place. Personally I'm leaning towards any figure greater than 400% the value of muder, so as to avoid having an issue where you have to defend yourself from a wing of 4. It's inclusion is for exactly the reasons you state .

 

[Jmanis]

The biggest issue with denying access is this:

If the system has just one station, controlled by the faction in control, and you've been actively working against that faction in order to overthrow it and put a new faction in power, which would generally result in being pushed over whatever (meaningful) threshold you set, there is literally no way to win the war that would result. You *must* hand in the combat bonds from war at the station in that system in order for them to have effect.

Given almost any effective method of trying to flip a system (almost) exclusively relies on an ability to dock (for handing in bounties, trading, finishing missions, handing in combat bonds etc), denying access in the case of high bounties or just being outright hostile would make the task unreasonably arduous, in my opinion. Sure, that could be fixed by reworking the way those mechanics work, but suddenly you're dramatically increasing the work needed to action the change.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see more realistic consequences (and more benefit) to being hostile/having a high bounty to a faction, but it needs to be done in a balanced way.

 

[Deathwatch]

Surely an anarchy would refuse access to people who were hostile to them anyway, you still won't let your enemies land on your stations if your a criminal faction.

 

[lysan]

Yep, that's what I meant.


So in other words, if you've been killing NPC's and comitting crimes in a Federal controlled system (System A), then trying to go to a neighbouring Federal system (System B), the bounties from A would be taken into account by the stations in B.
Of course at this point, you could then head to an anarchy, independent or Imperial station to dock up .





Yep, you're right, it's meant to read better than hostile


I personally would like to see it go further so it takes into the government type, your faction relationship, power relationship and powerplay affilitation.


So a Federal Allied Admiral Player who is rank 5 with Hudson and allied with the controlling minor faction is considerably less likely to be NPC scanned than an independent trader who's docking at the same station, but I think that would be further complexity that could be added once we got some sort of realistic manner of station interaction nailed in place first .





You're regular NPC Police Viper scan would result in the usual outcomes, except that if you had illegal goods onboard they'd deny you permission to land. The tower thing to check your outstanding fines, bounties etc with the faction controlling would happen automatically within a certain range (this is to avoid people exploiting round it by doing the inevitable boost away and try and come back in another instance, which would be the workaround they'd employ).


The Threshold bounty/fines figure is the hardest part to determine, because of course there are a few variables in place. Personally I'm leaning towards any figure greater than 400% the value of muder, so as to avoid having an issue where you have to defend yourself from a wing of 4. It's inclusion is for exactly the reasons you state .

I like it, it would bringe more consequences to the galaxy, and it would also be more immersive.

 

[anikaiful]

Surely an anarchy would refuse access to people who were hostile to them anyway, you still won't let your enemies land on your stations if your a criminal faction.

Oh, they'd let the enemies land alright... just to be shanked between the ribs the moment they leave their ship. Letting to land is one thing, letting to leave the dock is another

 

[Goose4291]

You should still be able to dock with fines and bounties. The best way for the station to get them paid is to refuse take off. Pay to fly. Then again, the station should remain totally neutral, it should really be up to the keystone cops.

I'm curious: Why do you think a station should just allow you to land regardless of what actions you've been carrying out against it's owners? If I've been embarking on a spot of Background sim murder death kill type antics, surely they'd want to clap you in irons the moment you stepped foot on the deck unless you had some sort of 'protective' reason to be there (see response to Deathwatch's comment below).


I dunno about the idea of them not letting you take off till you've cleared them (particularly since a Bounty can't be paid off, so you'd have to let it time out), and as amusing as it would be to watch people complain about the station griefing them by not letting them take off, or having to reset restart in a Sidey because they couldn't clear their fines but I think personally that'd be a step too far and unfair.

Surely an anarchy would refuse access to people who were hostile to them anyway, you still won't let your enemies land on your stations if your a criminal faction.

I like to think of in the above process that your contractor (mission giver) has arranged for you to visit the station in question, and you're pretty much on a "be on your best behaviour" sort of threat. It's mostly a way to work around the issue of limiting peoples abilities to complete missions.

The biggest issue with denying access is this:


If the system has just one station, controlled by the faction in control, and you've been actively working against that faction in order to overthrow it and put a new faction in power, which would generally result in being pushed over whatever (meaningful) threshold you set, there is literally no way to win the war that would result. You *must* hand in the combat bonds from war at the station in that system in order for them to have effect.


Given almost any effective method of trying to flip a system (almost) exclusively relies on an ability to dock (for handing in bounties, trading, finishing missions, handing in combat bonds etc), denying access in the case of high bounties or just being outright hostile would make the task unreasonably arduous, in my opinion. Sure, that could be fixed by reworking the way those mechanics work, but suddenly you're dramatically increasing the work needed to action the change.


Don't get me wrong, I would love to see more realistic consequences (and more benefit) to being hostile/having a high bounty to a faction, but it needs to be done in a balanced way.

To be fair the only way through station flipping you can get to that point in terms of relationship with the other faction (not counting the shooting in a warzone) is by the aforementioned MDK of System Authorities and Civilian ships, which you don't need to dock for, and if you're going to take the quick and easy path of system flipping, as you say you've got to accept the consequences I think.


However you have a point regarding combat bonds being required to be cashed in. What could work regarding this would either (i) if you've got bonds to hand in, it counts in the same way as having a mission for the flow chart, or (ii) for the duration of the conflict, a NPC similar to the seeking goods signal sources spawns in system, where you could cash your bonds in?

 

[anikaiful]

or (ii) for the duration of the conflict, a NPC similar to the seeking goods signal sources spawns in system, where you could cash your bonds in?

That'd be nice, as it's pretty illogical that you can cash in bonds at station which doesn't even belong to the faction you've raked the bonds for... Like, "Ok, you work against us, but anyhow - here's your credits"...

 

[insanephoton]

Just one thing to add. At outposts you sometimes get refused permission because they are full, even in solo. So I would suggest that the message makes it clear why you have been refused permission to dock. That way you can work out whether you just have to wait a few minutes for some dozy NPC./player to finish their business.

 

[Jmanis]

To be fair the only way through station flipping you can get to that point in terms of relationship with the other faction (not counting the shooting in a warzone) is by the aforementioned MDK of System Authorities and Civilian ships, which you don't need to dock for, and if you're going to take the quick and easy path of system flipping, as you say you've got to accept the consequences I think.

It's funny you call killing SA's and civilians the "quick and easy path"; truthfully it's far easier to actually flip a system via methods that make you *friendly* to the controlling faction than hostile, because there's zero (actually negative) benefit to being hostile, which is an underlying point inyour post. That makes far less sense to me than being allowed to dock while hostile; the last two systems I've flipped, I've ended up Allied with both factions I was fighting *against*. That makes no sense whatsoever. Fiercely and aggressively engaging a faction in a hostile manner should be the *most* effective method of bringing about a change in control, and it really isn't.

Again, this kinda goes back to your original post. Being hostile to a faction should *benefit* the aggression you put towards it, and if you want to deny docking, there must be some *major* benefits to being hostile, and currently there are none, same same for being wanted. There are only benefits to being allied, even if you're trying to overthrow that faction.

In fairness to ED and FD here though, this is the same story in most games. Putting in the effort to establish yourself as the scourge of a faction only ever has negative outcomes, and that's a missed opportunity for some engaging gameplay imo.

Edit: think i got two threads mixed up, so apologies if this makes no sense in some parts