The problem with the new C&P improvements

[znôrt]

There is a difference between RL & ED, and that's that you can destroy many ships but you cannot kill the Cmdr. They keep coming back.

there's rebuy (and it's fundamental piece of the game and afaik from the current c&p proposals).

the problem isn't even that money has not that much meaning because of inflation. it would add up, specially for gankers in big ships. at least it could force them to gank in small ships, which is something.

the real problem is a rebuy has hardly any effect if the perpetrator doesn't die. current game mechanics allows you to grief random people with zero risk, but makes it near impossible to affect a specific player if he doesn't want to. that's why other players don't bother to police any system: there's no point, it can't be done. you can put up a show on twitch or on the forum, but in the game it has zero impact.

The way to deal with this is to make them not want to play.

i'm probably not getting it. maybe because i have absolutely zero faith in the upcoming c&p system as described. by your own words, attempts to 'indirectly' address the issue have failed and have even made the fallout bigger. if you have a game where players can hide at will that just cuts both ways. by definition then there's no crime and no punishment possible.

i think the real possibility here are direct consequences, this would definitely engage players to do something about it, but that's just out of the question so ... apologies if i got something wrong or missed some detail in this thread but the whole discussion looks pretty much based on hopes and wishful thinking to me.

 

[kofeyh]

Neil, those psychopaths were told to fight in Anarchy. I've lost count of the numbers of threads demanding that. Just go do your thing in Anarchy and leave people alone. Yada yada. Anarchy this, Anarchy that.

Well, Frontier was told to keep the threat out of the bubble. So they put it on the edge, where it's mostly just anarchy and low-sec. That you suddenly don't like the resulting context is unfortunate. But I can't say I really care at this point. It's not illegal to shoot at things in Anarchy. You don't really get to have your cake (all bad things in Anarchy) and then eat it (no shooting people in Anarchy because suddenly you believe in context).

One day you'll realise Frontier isn't quite the white knight you think it is. They do like a little bit of conflict. Besides, they have done, exactly what they were told to do. That you don't like the outcome, is unfortunate; frontier has agreed to do what the community apparently asked them to do. There are consequences when you try to pidgeon-hole content. Always.

This? Is one of them. And I am not at all surprised people aren't learning anything from that at this point. Look I am by no means condoning what is happening, at least from an ethics standpoint but it is Anarchy and that's where all this stuff is just going to happen.

So people can either just get on with it, jump into whatever mode works for them for such encounters, or just uninstall the game, because frontier are going to keep doing this sort of thing. Mostly because people keep asking them to.

Either register a complaint, if needed, then get on with it. Or go elsewhere. Pick one. I'm tired of the debate that's long since lost any meaning.

 

[Riverside]

i think the real possibility here are direct consequences, this would definitely engage players to do something about it, but that's just out of the question so ... apologies if i got something wrong or missed some detail in this thread but the whole discussion looks pretty much based on hopes and wishful thinking to me.

Quote snipped for brevity.

Rebuy is a disincentive, but it is only money, and Credits are easy to obtain. One potential punishment I quite like is increased insurance up to complete removal, however there are plenty of ways to frustrate other players in a small ship so it's not a catch-all solution.

We probably share a similar view on the Karma system, but I'm happy to give it a chance. It seems like a logical next step given how events have unfolded over the past few years. What is and what isn't considered undesirable is up to FDev, it's their game after all, and our own hangups skew our views on this. It can be difficult to separate our subjective views based on our own playstyles in a discussion like this.

 

[NeilF]

there's rebuy (and it's fundamental piece of the game and afaik from the current c&p proposals).

the problem isn't even that money has not that much meaning because of inflation. it would add up, specially for gankers in big ships. at least it could force them to gank in small ships, which is something.

the real problem is a rebuy has hardly any effect if the perpetrator doesn't die. current game mechanics allows you to grief random people with zero risk, but makes it near impossible to affect a specific player if he doesn't want to. that's why other players don't bother to police any system: there's no point, it can't be done. you can put up a show on twitch or on the forum, but in the game it has zero impact.

Indeed... They could gank away for weeks and weeks (a new challenge) without a single rebuy?

But in FDs defense this is a small step, and we don't know what else the true C&P improvements will bring about in V3?

i'm probably not getting it. maybe because i have absolutely zero faith in the upcoming c&p system as described. by your own words, attempts to 'indirectly' address the issue have failed and have even made the fallout bigger. if you have a game where players can hide at will that just cuts both ways. by definition then there's no crime and no punishment possible.

i think the real possibility here are direct consequences, this would definitely engage players to do something about it, but that's just out of the question so ... apologies if i got something wrong or missed some detail in this thread but the whole discussion looks pretty much based on hopes and wishful thinking to me.

If you look at #696 I put in some noddy maths and examples whereby if a ganker ganks enough he starts losing access to stations. eg: Founders. He starts losing access to entire systems even just meaning moving about the bubble might be a pain. And indeed, a some point a PF bounty always on him no matter where, making him a target, and indeed a warning on other CMDRs sensors for a "psyho alert".

Once again, this proposal would not be aimed at preventing illegal destruction, but simply aiming at making CMDRs accountable after repeat illegal destructions of CMDRs (& NPCs) over a given period.

 

[NeilF]

Neil, those psychopaths were told to fight in Anarchy. I've lost count of the numbers of threads demanding that. Just go do your thing in Anarchy and leave people alone. Yada yada. Anarchy this, Anarchy that.

I don't count ganking as fighting? There's no skill? No real challenge? Nothing to be gained in game? It's generally an entirely one sided affair, done just the enjoyment gained out of the notion of causing another CMDR aggravation at how pointless and one sided their destruction is. All underlined with the knowledge not a single negative outcome will befall them.

Now if this activity started meaning penalties, I for one don't really see a problem with psychotic behaviour being held sensibly and logically accountable? Act like a psycho... Get treated like a psycho.

Either register a complaint, if needed, then get on with it. Or go elsewhere. Pick one. I'm tired of the debate that's long since lost any meaning.

Or... I'll just discuss it on these forums...?

 

[Riverside]

Of course not.

You want the game to do the griefing for you.

It is not my idea.

 

[CMDR_Elver]

Personally I think the "amount of negative reputation" you get from an illegal destruction of a CMDR (or NPC) should be the same no matter what system type. But I can understand calls for it to be scales according to system security? But I do not see how a C&P (karma) mechanic can achieve what it's trying to without including anarchy systems. ie: I don't see why seal clubbing in anarchy systems is some noble gameplay we need to "protect."

Yes the "maths" of this reputation is a debate all unto itself. ie: At what point do any penalties kick in? eg: The most limited amount of say just high security stations denying you docking? Personally? I can only see it working on a scale based on illegal kills per period. And this would have to be based on the worse value based on a number of parallel systems to capture what causes a significant enough "spike".

Here's some completely example maths for the lolz:-

PF Criminal Reputation Calculation. The highest value is taken from these:-

Daily spike: <no of illegal kills over past 24hrs> / 3
Weekly spike: <no of illegal kills over past 168hrs> / 7
Four weekly spike: <no of illegal kills over past 672hrs> / 10​

How the galaxy reacts to you is then deduced:-

Station/System Access
>=1 : Warnings from stations about your reputation
>1.25 : High security stations deny docking.
>1.5 : Medium security stations deny docking. High security system deny permit.
>1.75 : Low security stations deny dockings. Medium and above systems deny permit.
BTW: It wouldn't be as black and white as this I'd imagine, but you get the picture

Pilots Federation Bounty
>1.5 : You have a bounty of some calculated amount making you a viable/legal target for anyone, anywhere.

Pilots Federation Psycho Alert
>1.75 : You are highlighted on scanners as a known "psycho".

Other/alternative penalities
Lots of alternative penalties have been suggested. eg: From Rebuy increase... to OPEN only mode.​

Now those are just a pee-in-the-wind example of an approach. But the outcome would result in hopefully a predictable and fair outcome to habitual illegal destruction? Ultimately a PF Criminal Reputation you can see on your system panel going up each time you illegally destroy another CMDR (or NPC) and going down over time...

OK this sort of time based system has some merit but you are not lisentening to my criticisms or to where I'm in agreement with you for that matter!

I would say first, is the gameplay outcome desirable? Does the notion as you illegally destroy more and more CMDRs (or NPCs) resulting in more and more station saying "you're not welcome" seem a sensible/effective penalty?

If you say no, then fair enough, I'm more than happy to go with other penalties instead. If you (like me) think its an interesting/effective penalty to deter habitual illegal destruction, then we can surely come up with any number of hand wavium reasons for it? eg: It's the PF behind it - you are a member of the PF - and they are in bed with the insurance companies (& therefore the banks) and therefore have a rather significant voice in the ears of all stations etc?

OK Neil were are in some agreement on some of the broader issues.

I agree on PF bounty (and hopefully future PF reps) being universal.

I agree on having docking privileges limited or blocked, but by Faction/power reputation not PF.

However, I disagree on your ideas on how to impose/ implement them as you want to put the cart before the horse, i.e. make griefing and ganking impossible but not thinking of how the galaxy is fundamental setup and run now on logical principles, let alone lore etc. et.c. I have given examples of how gameplay is affected by your proposals in my last post but you seem to ignore these points again.

But I can see your point and if you can think of a better alternative penalty along these lines, I'm all ears

Have you read the thread I posted yet? It's all in there. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ting-the-(karmic)-wheel?p=5322317#post5322317

Agreed... But let's go with the noddy maths I've listed above... What gameplay would you propose if negatively, or more importantly, unfairly, affected by it?

Refer to my above comments and previous threads. If you are fundamentally changing the basic premises of the game how are you not affecting the gameplay. The BGS works by adding up all the interactions that goes on in the game positive and negative. Banning players by permits for all high security system for instance, will then artificially affect the BGS by affectively sanitising systems. Surley High security systems should spend more resources on security, thus making it more difficult to cause trouble in them, thus feeds back into the BGS. Not blanket bans that do not make any real sense from a faction/power perspective or completely change the nature of the PF. All this is gameplay related!

 

[Soopyyy]

Neil, those psychopaths were told to fight in Anarchy. I've lost count of the numbers of threads demanding that. Just go do your thing in Anarchy and leave people alone. Yada yada. Anarchy this, Anarchy that.

Well, Frontier was told to keep the threat out of the bubble. So they put it on the edge, where it's mostly just anarchy and low-sec. That you suddenly don't like the resulting context is unfortunate. But I can't say I really care at this point. It's not illegal to shoot at things in Anarchy. You don't really get to have your cake (all bad things in Anarchy) and then eat it (no shooting people in Anarchy because suddenly you believe in context).

One day you'll realise Frontier isn't quite the white knight you think it is. They do like a little bit of conflict. Besides, they have done, exactly what they were told to do. That you don't like the outcome, is unfortunate; frontier has agreed to do what the community apparently asked them to do. There are consequences when you try to pidgeon-hole content. Always.

This? Is one of them. And I am not at all surprised people aren't learning anything from that at this point. Look I am by no means condoning what is happening, at least from an ethics standpoint but it is Anarchy and that's where all this stuff is just going to happen.

So people can either just get on with it, jump into whatever mode works for them for such encounters, or just uninstall the game, because frontier are going to keep doing this sort of thing. Mostly because people keep asking them to.

Either register a complaint, if needed, then get on with it. Or go elsewhere. Pick one. I'm tired of the debate that's long since lost any meaning.

Anarchy systems aren't even on the outskirts of the bubble. There's hundreds not far from Sol. All really quite fair honestly.

 

[Soopyyy]

I don't count ganking as fighting? There's no skill? No real challenge? Nothing to be gained in game? It's generally an entirely one sided affair, done just the enjoyment gained out of the notion of causing another CMDR aggravation at how pointless and one sided their destruction is. All underlined with the knowledge not a single negative outcome will befall them.

Now if this activity started meaning penalties, I for one don't really see a problem with psychotic behaviour being held sensibly and logically accountable? Act like a psycho... Get treated like a psycho.


Or... I'll just discuss it on these forums...?

Ganking = Gang killing. It literally just means teaming up to kill someone. It's absolutely a fair and valid tactic. I'd venture to argue it's the smart thing to do.
Does it make the encounter easier? Absolutely, that's the point.

 

[Stigbob]

Anarchy systems should be either scary or exciting to jump into depending on your loadout/ability, and they should be safe docking havens for people with huge bounties/negative PF karma.

 

[alexxfox]

why not make wanted player ships who die pay more than 5% of the ship price on rebuy screen?
people who are clean and die pay 5% on rebuy, and people who are wanted have to take the risk and pay a higher percentage of their ship price which is scaling up with the bounty they have on their head.

 

[NeilF]

Ganking = Gang killing. It literally just means teaming up to kill someone. It's absolutely a fair and valid tactic. I'd venture to argue it's the smart thing to do.
Does it make the encounter easier? Absolutely, that's the point.

So a group of 3 or 4 engineered ships, turning up say at a Thargoid base, and destroying any/all CMDRs as they turn up to experience the site, is productive to whom? Is the activity of any worth/merit to anyone other than the (minority) who get a kick out of the grief it causes. And what is gained by it being completely ignored by the game?

And even if we make this tactic more noble and add some piracy to is, with a group of individuals quite sensibly pirating in a pack, if they are repeatedly destroying their victims, too often, what is unrealistic or unfair about them incurring penalties because of this?

I'd say in all these cases, repeat "illegal" destructions being penalised only add depth and importance to the choice to destoy another CMDRs (or NPC), and even more important will help rein in toxic griefing, ganking and seal clubbing etc.

Anarchy systems should be either scary or exciting to jump into depending on your loadout/ability, and they should be safe docking havens for people with huge bounties/negative PF karma.

Absolutely. Traders should be outfitting ships expecting trouble and in truth hiring NPC/CMDRs wings for protected (ideally paid for by the extra CRs earned via the dangerous trade run), especially as there would be no security to come to their rescue.

But this doesn't need to mean illegal destruction would be ignored in anarchy systems. ie: If psychopathic levels of destruction are being carried out by an individual, there's no reason why this would be ignored by organisations outside of the anarchy system...

Ignoring illegal destruction in anarchy systems is unrealistic IMHO, and worse still, means much of the toxic activity we currently witness in OPEN will just continue..

 

[Stigbob]

Absolutely. Traders should be outfitting ships expecting trouble and in truth hiring NPC/CMDRs wings for protected (ideally paid for by the extra CRs earned via the dangerous trade run), especially as there would be no security to come to their rescue.

But this doesn't need to mean illegal destruction would be ignored in anarchy systems. ie: If psychopathic levels of destruction are being carried out by an individual, there's no reason why this would be ignored by organisations outside of the anarchy system...

Ignoring illegal destruction in anarchy systems is unrealistic IMHO, and worse still, means much of the toxic activity we currently witness in OPEN will just continue..

It depends on your view of an anarchy, I'd say in any anarchy (as in real life) might makes right. So any killing at all is fine if you can carry it out.

From my perspective any enforcement within anarchies beyond galaxy wide PF insurance effects would be unrealistic. Bounties could be claimed but not accrued no fines issued, talking of which I play as a bounty hunter no pirate station should ever allow me within range of it's guns without opening fire. Traders could simply filter the route to avoid them as with traveling via scoopable stars, or fit a combat load to enter for a specific goal like a lucrative black-market commodity.

Station rammers should have nowhere to operate though, that's a playstyle like cheating with no justification at all.

 

[NeilF]

However, I disagree on your ideas on how to impose/ implement them as you want to put the cart before the horse, i.e. make griefing and ganking impossible but not thinking of how the galaxy is fundamental setup and run now on logical principles, let alone lore etc. et.c. I have given examples of how gameplay is affected by your proposals in my last post but you seem to ignore these points again.

These were the points where for example I suggested stations would start denying docking permission according to your PF Criminal Reputation? eg: As you get a worse reputation you loose access to more and more stations?

And your problem with this was how carte blanche or simplistic it was? ie: It paid no attention to factions or Empire or Federal reputations etc etc? That's a fair criticism, and I'm all up for adjusting the premise of it if the resultant gameplay works.

My fear would be that the primary goal of a karma system is to rein in illegal destruction and make players accountable for their choice to carry it out. If they can "work the system" to get around it they will. eg: Rotate from Federation areas to Empire areas to Alliance areas to allow more unwanted activity?

Similarly as your proposal suggests (if I recall) being able to work off your negative reputation by destroying wanted NPCs. All this will just mean some toxic individuals finding ways to streamline their ability to grief. Hence my proposal of a very flat mechanic with no way to improve a negative reputation other than the passing of time.

It's also important to maybe consider, the flatter and simpler the proposal the easier it is to implement. ie: There is no suggested change to factions rankings/behaviour etc etc.

Now I fully appreciate that there are probably alternative approaches, and that maybe do include faction behaviour. And these may well result in a better outcome. If so... Great!

But for the moment, I'll continue to discuss only the most simple approach if only as it's more to understand, and certainly easier to implement.

As for not addressing this issue, I did - maybe only briefly - in the next reply to you (#696) which said I will always put game play outcome ahead of game universe reasoning. eg: If the suggestion is stations across the bubble start becoming unavailable is not realistic as some are Federation, others are Empire, etc etc, if the outcome is good, I would use hand wavium to account for it. Which is exactly what I did with that post. eg: The PF is in bed with the insurance companies, who are in bed with the banks, and therefore have a significantly loud voice in the ears of those running stations.

ps: Apologies if after all this the point you think I didn't response to was another one?

Have you read the thread I posted yet? It's all in there. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ting-the-(karmic)-wheel?p=5322317#post5322317

I recall reading it when you first posted it. I must admit though, for a proposal aiming not to require lots of changes, it did seem to require lots of changes? At least to my thinking. Certainly more than what I've mentioned. eg: I don't go down to faction level/behaviour/changes?

Refer to my above comments and previous threads. If you are fundamentally changing the basic premises of the game how are you not affecting the gameplay. The BGS works by adding up all the interactions that goes on in the game positive and negative. Banning players by permits for all high security system for instance, will then artificially affect the BGS by affectively sanitising systems. Surley High security systems should spend more resources on security, thus making it more difficult to cause trouble in them, thus feeds back into the BGS. Not blanket bans that do not make any real sense from a faction/power perspective or completely change the nature of the PF. All this is gameplay related!

Agreed... And I did comment that the "example maths" for denying stations/systems, "BTW: It wouldn't be as black and white as this I'd imagine, but you get the picture."

ie: Yes it should not be as black and white as the example shows. It may well be that your reputation with powers/factions affects the point at which stations/systems become unavailable. Or something else. BUT, personally I believe it should be kept as simple as possible, at least from a discussion/premise point of view.

 

[Soopyyy]

So a group of 3 or 4 engineered ships, turning up say at a Thargoid base, and destroying any/all CMDRs as they turn up to experience the site, is productive to whom? Is the activity of any worth/merit to anyone other than the (minority) who get a kick out of the grief it causes. And what is gained by it being completely ignored by the game?

And even if we make this tactic more noble and add some piracy to is, with a group of individuals quite sensibly pirating in a pack, if they are repeatedly destroying their victims, too often, what is unrealistic or unfair about them incurring penalties because of this?

I'd say in all these cases, repeat "illegal" destructions being penalised only add depth and importance to the choice to destoy another CMDRs (or NPC), and even more important will help rein in toxic griefing, ganking and seal clubbing etc.

That's a lot of strawmen in one post.
What you've described is perfectly legitimate within the confines of the game. They might be RPing Thargoid sympathisers, they might be trying to halt potential research into the THargoids for what ever reason they so determine. So for that group, it is perfectly of worth. What the recipients percieve is completely irrelevant.

Frontier have stated they are working on a karma system to disuade or reasonably penalise people who wish to comit murder within the juridiction of governing bodies... won't help your alien scientists though. They're well beyond the limits of Human governance.

 

[NeilF]

It depends on your view of an anarchy, I'd say in any anarchy (as in real life) might makes right. So any killing at all is fine if you can carry it out.

From my perspective any enforcement within anarchies beyond galaxy wide PF insurance effects would be unrealistic. Bounties could be claimed but not accrued no fines issued, talking of which I play as a bounty hunter no pirate station should ever allow me within range of it's guns without opening fire. Traders could simply filter the route to avoid them as with traveling via scoopable stars, or fit a combat load to enter for a specific goal like a lucrative black-market commodity.

Station rammers should have nowhere to operate though, that's a playstyle like cheating with no justification at all.

Well let's address anarchy system from two points of view?

Gameplay
Do we want mindless griefing and ganking continuing at any/all locations that pop up? For example, at the first generation ships? Griefers turned up in OPEN to destroy others. And now at the Thargoid bases?

What is this activity achieving? What is gained by groups of engineered combat ships destroying generally exploration ships in one sided destructions in truth simply for the grief it causes due to the ones sided pointlessness of it?

How is it benefitial to the game, for this to be completely ignored?

How is it benefitial to the game, for more and more players, more and more often, to not do activities in OPEN?

Game Universe/Lore
Yes, there is no security in anarchy systems. If you are interdicted, no security force will come to help you.

BUT, if a Pilots Federation member is using such a location to simply act as a psychopath, it's not as if information on their behaviour is not going to reach organisation. Is it unrealistic to suppose the PF who have a "zero tolerance policy regarding dishonourable behaviour among its members" would take action against such an individual? For example by putting their own bounty out on the individual, paid no matter where they are found/destroyed? Is it unrealistic that insurance companies not keen on the cost the psychopath is incurring for them wouldn't like action taken against them?

Summary
No one is calling for illegal destruction to be impossible. Personally, I just want it held accountable to the extent that if you do it enough (no matter where) you then start incurring penalties, which are significant enough that habitual illegal destruction (of CMDRs and NPCs) starts to get unattractive...

I see this as both a positive outcome for the game, and wholy realistic within the game universe.

 

[Stigbob]

Well let's address anarchy system from two points of view?

Gameplay
Do we want mindless griefing and ganking continuing at any/all locations that pop up? For example, at the first generation ships? Griefers turned up in OPEN to destroy others. And now at the Thargoid bases?

What is this activity achieving? What is gained by groups of engineered combat ships destroying generally exploration ships in one sided destructions in truth simply for the grief it causes due to the ones sided pointlessness of it?

How is it benefitial to the game, for this to be completely ignored?

How is it benefitial to the game, for more and more players, more and more often, to not do activities in OPEN?

It would be very easy for FDEV to tag CG/newly discovered alien stuff systems as temporary non anarchies simply by adding checkpoints a few cap-ships and patrols. Superpowers showing an interest would be entirely believable.

CG's in anarchies should be hair raising endevours, anarchies next door to CG's would be great places for BH'ers to ambush naughty types on the way to rearm at the only place that will let them land.

It's not all about ganking, it's about sensible checks and balances which would limit ganking.

Game Universe/Lore
Yes, there is no security in anarchy systems. If you are interdicted, no security force will come to help you.

BUT, if a Pilots Federation member is using such a location to simply act as a psychopath, it's not as if information on their behaviour is not going to reach organisation. Is it unrealistic to suppose the PF who have a "zero tolerance policy regarding dishonourable behaviour among its members" would take action against such an individual? For example by putting their own bounty out on the individual, paid no matter where they are found/destroyed? Is it unrealistic that insurance companies not keen on the cost the psychopath is incurring for them wouldn't like action taken against them?

There's nothing dishonorable about a kill in an anarchy, it's unrealistic to expect the denizens of an anarchy to cooperate with any kind of external authority.

Summary
No one is calling for illegal destruction to be impossible. Personally, I just want it held accountable to the extent that if you do it enough (no matter where) you then start incurring penalties, which are significant enough that habitual illegal destruction (of CMDRs and NPCs) starts to get unattractive...

I see this as both a positive outcome for the game, and wholy realistic within the game universe.

By all means make it accountable, but there's no need to apply that to anarchies when they are supposed to be lawless.

 

[NeilF]

That's a lot of strawmen in one post.
What you've described is perfectly legitimate within the confines of the game. They might be RPing Thargoid sympathisers, they might be trying to halt potential research into the THargoids for what ever reason they so determine. So for that group, it is perfectly of worth. What the recipients percieve is completely irrelevant.

I think we're all grown enough to admit that this isn't the true reason for some/most of such activity. It may well be the contrived excuse... But it's not a real reason. Please let's not go there?

If we can't be honest that a lot of these individuals turn up to any/all of these location simply because they're busy with other CMDRs, with the sole objected of destroying them, then it's sort of the end of the converstion It doesn't really matter what the cause is, the reason is to destroy other CMDRs ideally less able to fight back, the better...

And we can't also accept that such one sided/toxic exchanges are risking ultimately pushing more and more CMDRs out of OPEN, then again, we have to agree to disagree and just move on.

Frontier have stated they are working on a karma system to disuade or reasonably penalise people who wish to comit murder within the juridiction of governing bodies... won't help your alien scientists though. They're well beyond the limits of Human governance.

Yes they have. And I'm pointing out why from a gameplay and game universe point of view (IMHO) why excluding anarchy systems is not ideal.

By all means make it accountable, but there's no need to apply that to anarchies when they are supposed to be lawless.

Why exclude anarchy systems when ignoring "illegal destruction" in them makes no sense from a game universe point of view (why would insurance companies be happy for a psychopath to throw their money away?), or for a gameplay point of view (pointless toxic one-sided griefing is simply pushing more and more players away)?

It would be very easy for FDEV to tag CG/newly discovered alien stuff systems as temporary non anarchies simply by adding checkpoints a few cap-ships and patrols. Superpowers showing an interest would be entirely believable.

CG's in anarchies should be hair raising endevours, anarchies next door to CG's would be great places for BH'ers to ambush naughty types on the way to rearm at the only place that will let them land.

It's not all about ganking, it's about sensible checks and balances which would limit ganking.

Yes, that might be a valid approach.

But if simply employing a sensible reasoned C&P (karma) mechanic to anarchy systems achieves the same outcome?

CGs in anarchy systems should be hair raising. But you're trying to achieve what outcome in the game? Allowing individuals to dish out as much one sided griefing as they like? Or actualy orchestrate some interesting PvP combat?

Just imagine if a CG in a system was actually for two outcomes and CMDRs could sign up to just one of them, and then fight away. This combat would then all be legal, and therefore not subject to the C&P (karma) mechanic.

 

[Truesilver]

Game Universe/Lore
Yes, there is no security in anarchy systems. If you are interdicted, no security force will come to help you.

BUT, if a Pilots Federation member is using such a location to simply act as a psychopath, it's not as if information on their behaviour is not going to reach organisation. Is it unrealistic to suppose the PF who have a "zero tolerance policy regarding dishonourable behaviour among its members" would take action against such an individual?

This is not directed against NeilF or any particular side or poster in the current debate, but I really don't think appeals to realism will ever win this debate for either side.

It's completely unrealistic to suppose that the Feds would ever permit me to buy and fly a Federal Corvette without retaining remote access to the ship's computers, meaning that if I used it to attack Federal authority ships, they'd just switch it off, take control of it or blow it up remotely. They wouldn't need guns or interdictors to get the job done.

Now, about the Pilots Federation, I don't have any difficulty imagining it as the sort of protective, see-all, Big Brother with realtime faster than light monitoring that NeilF proposes, with its own set of rules that supersede domestic law (or lack of it). But equally I don't have a problem imagining it as a rather more uncaring organisation having more of the mores featured in certain groups in Terry Pratchett's Discworld, or George Martin's Ice and Fire, or the TV show The Walking Dead, within which in certain situations it is accepted that nothing but might is right and serial killing is tacitly tolerated if not at times celebrated. The Braben/Sammarco PvE galaxy (look at the mission boards) is the most murderous milieu I have even heard of, vastly more than any of the citations I give, so it would fit.

But my point is, we could argue about which is more realistic until the cows come home. Until the Feds actually start switching off Corvettes that shoot at them, the whole thing is unrealistic.

 

[Stigbob]

Yes, that might be a valid approach.

But if simply employing a sensible reasoned C&P (karma) mechanic to anarchy systems achieves the same outcome?

Players role-playing as bad-guys need to be able to operate without having their game spoiled, just as players playing good-guys need the same. Hit the people who do nothing but cheat/exploit or try to spoil others fun by any means, in-game consequences, account resets to sidewinder, shadow bans or full perma bans I'd support all or any of them.

But punishing people who are simply playing as pirates for being pirates just helps the players the game would be better without to gather more salt.