Triggerlock Firmware - A lore Friendly way to improve C&P

[Chaparral]

Triggerlock Firmware - A lore Friendly way to improve C&P.

By INARA convention, all Commanders wishing to dock in High Security Systems must have Triggerlock Firmware installed in their ship IFF and docking protocols.

Triggerlock prevents commanders from firing weapons on scanned and unscanned unwanted targets in high security systems.

Triggerlock does not prevent commanders from firing on wanted targets.

Ships without the Triggerlock firmware may not dock within High Security Systems. Docking requests are denied without the appropriate installed Triggerlock firmware.

Commanders engaged in assassination or wetwork missions against clean targets may dock at the mission giving station, where the full station access remains intact. If the mission is completed or failed, full Triggerlock firmware is restored.

Commanders wishing to fire on clean targets within High Security systems, may have the Triggerlock firmware removed in an anarchy system, but will be unable to dock within a High Security System. Commanders wishing to return to full docking access in High Security Systems, may have the Triggerlock Firmware fully reinstalled within an anarchy system.

Commanders that represent a specific Powerplay or Political Faction, may have installed a Faction Limited version of Triggerlock Firmware, that allows them to dock in any High Security System within their faction - but not in opposing factions or independent stations. Systems that are dual controlled (Empire and Federation in the same system), are exceptions to Faction specific docking limitations (making those systems more dangerous).

Triggerlock has no impact on smuggling...

-Trying hard to figure out how to make everyone get what they want with this suggestion...

 

[Teh Smoo]

Interesting.

I don't really like the part about making it mandatory to dock places, though. I can't quite pin it down, but it feels like too much hand-holding.

Still, having a voluntary system (with an opt-out) that shows up to other pilots prominently? So you target someone, and if the icon shows up, you know they're not going to shoot first? ...Unless their friend in the Sidewinder burns into them, dies, and gives them a bounty, then they attack the now-legal target.

So you might also be underestimating the ability of people to find creative ways to attack each other. Never underestimate that.

 

[Wyldwiisel]

I just think frontier should adopt the Eve online system as we all know it works the karma system just seems to me like they are trying to reinvent the wheel
Have a security rating that goes down with crimes committed and up by running missions you get attacked on site by system security if you enter a higher sec system than your rating
And bountys added same as ship price you kill and bounty paid out on your death of your ship price when you die and add a multiplier for security rating of system to stop seal clubbing
You'll prob have to add an unarmed transport so that bad players don't get stranded places they can't get out of as elite doesn't have flyable escape pods

 

[StiTch]

Coming in the next episode of "gankor witch hunting weekly": we propose all combat is banned in non-anarchy systems!

-Trying hard to figure out how to make everyone get what they want with this suggestion...

That's the royal "everyone", yes?

 

[Galerak]

Commanders engaged in assassination or wetwork missions against clean targets may dock at the mission giving station, where the full station access remains intact. If the mission is completed or failed, full Triggerlock firmware is restored.

Well thought out idea however the work around for this part would be to accept an assassination or wetwork mission then business as usual. Once the mission expires go and pick up a fresh one (unless the triggerlock only disabled for mission targets).

 

[Galerak]

And bountys added same as ship price you kill and bounty paid out on your death of your ship price when you die and add a multiplier for security rating of system to stop seal clubbing

Maybe add the rebuy cost of your own ship to the bounty each time you kill another clean player ship. That should act as a deterrant but perhaps too harsh for Fdev to consider

 

[Teh Smoo]

I just think frontier should adopt the Eve online system as we all know it works the karma system just seems to me like they are trying to reinvent the wheel
Have a security rating that goes down with crimes committed and up by running missions you get attacked on site by system security if you enter a higher sec system than your rating
And bountys added same as ship price you kill and bounty paid out on your death of your ship price when you die and add a multiplier for security rating of system to stop seal clubbing
You'll prob have to add an unarmed transport so that bad players don't get stranded places they can't get out of as elite doesn't have flyable escape pods

Unfortunately, the EVE system is very, very stupid. Being naughty just means you have to go farm badguys for a while, then you fly back and resume being naughty. You also replenish your money doing it, which is convenient.

 

[Madrax573]

I just think frontier should adopt the Eve online system as we all know it works the karma system just seems to me like they are trying to reinvent the wheel
Have a security rating that goes down with crimes committed and up by running missions you get attacked on site by system security if you enter a higher sec system than your rating
And bountys added same as ship price you kill and bounty paid out on your death of your ship price when you die and add a multiplier for security rating of system to stop seal clubbing
You'll prob have to add an unarmed transport so that bad players don't get stranded places they can't get out of as elite doesn't have flyable escape pods

As a long term EVE criminal I can comfortably inform you at sec status has less than zero impact on my gameplay.

 

[Chaparral]

Well thought out idea however the work around for this part would be to accept an assassination or wetwork mission then business as usual. Once the mission expires go and pick up a fresh one (unless the triggerlock only disabled for mission targets).

Dang people are smart
I hope FDEV can come up with some kind of security model that makes sense with the environment - but you've shown just how easy it is to find loopholes with rule sets.

 

[Sitoutumaton]

I am liking this concept of hard lock in exchange of gaining access to high security stations. The most immediate result I can see from this, is that pirates and other aggressors who'd interdict just to kill for sake of it need to high wake for repairs, rearming, refueling and fencing off stolen goods.

I'd also like to suggest that system security in high security would encourage any commander found to not possess a triggerlock to high wake at threat of fine and eventual wanted status, for failure to heed instructions to vacate the system.

However player BGS activity can decrease (and increase) system security, so commanders so inclined could de-triggerlock systems with enough persistent work.

What I see as a problem however is that this system would interfere with BGS, if you're inclined by way of murdering the opposition's ships as every mission contact hints on stations. So, perhaps not so an elegant solution in the end.

 

[coca_fr]

This kind of firmware can be hacked and things will reverted back to where they were...

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I think there's a few more loopholes:

1) What if you fire with weapons untargeted?

2) What if you target a wanted ship and then fire (with fixed weapons) at a nearby clean ship?

3) What about weapons like mines which aren't targeted as such?

Also, how would the situation where an Anarchy faction controls a station within an otherwise high-security system work? (Or a non-Anarchy faction at war with the controlling faction? Or a non-Anarchy faction which just didn't like the controlling faction much?) Presumably at least some of them wouldn't refuse docking?

 

[Chaparral]

I think there's a few more loopholes:

1) What if you fire with weapons untargeted?

2) What if you target a wanted ship and then fire (with fixed weapons) at a nearby clean ship?

3) What about weapons like mines which aren't targeted as such?

Also, how would the situation where an Anarchy faction controls a station within an otherwise high-security system work? (Or a non-Anarchy faction at war with the controlling faction? Or a non-Anarchy faction which just didn't like the controlling faction much?) Presumably at least some of them wouldn't refuse docking?

All excellent and valid points. Not sure how to address them within a science rational, and lore consistent response. I have a couple ideas, but the coding would probably make the feature unworkable.

1) Untargeted firing is fine unless another ship comes within weapon range. Should a ship come within weapons range then Triggerlock engages.

2) Can't fix that. You'd end up getting a bounty on you as per the current game rules.

3) Mines are tough since they are not target specific. They are intended as defensive weapons even though they can be creatively used as offensive weapons. I believe you still incur a bounty if a mine hits a clean ship. If not, that might be a positive consideration for FDev.

I just realized that this approach would really mess with resource zone bounty hunting where friendlies are present. Ugh. Back to the drawing board...