General Update the Crime and Punishment to not be to heavy towards PVE

[varonica]

In the UK, there are no laws against jaywalking. Motorists have to give priority to more vulnerable road users and you're required to be alert to risks and hazards. You would fail your test if you're inattentive and ignorant to the potential of pedestrians stepping into the road without checking properly.

If you go to a gun range and someone is between you and your target, are you expected to carry on shooting or be alert and aware of risks and capable of holding fire?

Hang on let me get my freedom fries, this is starting to get interesting.

There are also no laws against jaywalking in Australia, but there are laws that govern how people and traffic should interact, and running people over isn't a valid way to get to your destination, in fact even if it's seemingly entirely the pedestrian's fault, they walked out into traffic with headphones on, you can end up in serious trouble. If there are pedestrians around then you need to adjust your driving habits to take into account the pedestrians.

 

[Drelthar]

If there are pedestrians around then you need to adjust your driving habits to take into account the pedestrians.

Kinda makes sense considering you are in control of a massive heavy chunk of metal travelling at ten times the speed of the pedestrians in question.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

In the UK, there are no laws against jaywalking. Motorists have to give priority to more vulnerable road users and you're required to be alert to risks and hazards. You would fail your test if you're inattentive and ignorant to the potential of pedestrians stepping into the road without checking properly.

If you go to a gun range and someone is between you and your target, are you expected to carry on shooting or be alert and aware of risks and capable of holding fire?

Well, i'm not typing out the same response again.

General - Update the Crime and Punishment to not be to heavy towards PVE

I have never yet deliberately shot at a Clean ship. If a pilot, NPC or otherwise, is dumb enough to fly into my line of fire, that should be on him, not me. And Notoriety wasn't the law until complaints about griefers and gankers pushed the devs into introducing a Crime and Punishment system...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Deleted member 192138]

Well, i'm not typing out the same response again.

General - Update the Crime and Punishment to not be to heavy towards PVE

I have never yet deliberately shot at a Clean ship. If a pilot, NPC or otherwise, is dumb enough to fly into my line of fire, that should be on him, not me. And Notoriety wasn't the law until complaints about griefers and gankers pushed the devs into introducing a Crime and Punishment system...

forums.frontier.co.uk

But what you're not addressing is how the principles translate. If you're shooting weapons, you should be aware of your surroundings and the potential for something be between you and your weapons. In a RES, which is formally a civilian mining location with high risk of piracy, if you fire at a wanted target you should be able to exercise awareness and responsibility with where your shots will land at the point of making them. If you fail in that, don't be surprised if you get in trouble for stray rounds hitting clean ships or system security.

 

[RamirezKurita]

I forgot what a riot this thread was. Imagine in the real world:

"I have never yet deliberately run over a pedestrian. If a person is dumb enough to cross the road when I'm driving, that should be on him, not me."

Well, it's not a super-apt analogy as that involves two normal civilians doing normal civilian things, and accidents happen. If a car hits a pedestrian, unless there is evidence that the driver was particularly negligent or unfit to drive (such as driving under the influence or using their phone at the time), then it's simply chalked up as an unfortunate accident rather than being criminal.

A better analogy would be a civilian joining a police shootout, uninvited, with a local gang and accidentally landing a hit on another civvie. Sure, the police might be somewhat tolerant to your help at first, but when you start landing hits on friendlies you become just a manslaughtering psychopathic cowboy-wannabe in their eyes. Someone who puts the public in danger through their own aggression and incompetence is a threat, plain and simple. It doesn't matter who you were aiming at, it's who you hit that matters.

In fact, I'd guess from how Elite has conflict zones deliberately placed away from any potential civilians that the protection of innocents is quite high priority; it probably takes quite a strong protective desire for two factions that want each other utterly annihilated to both agree to restrict armed conflict to remote pockets of space.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

That's your fault for not reporting the crime though.

The legal system doesn't care about self defence, it cares a out who committed a crime, and if you choose not to report a crime, then fire on someone who hasn't been reported as a criminal, they can report it.

Perhaps punish is the wrong word. It would muddy the waters though as you'd have a situation where a player could have this tag and actually not be a ganker. The boy who cried wolf and all that.

It would have to be absolutely cast iron that it didn't accidentally tag someone after consensual PvP. Although any actual gankers would probably hold it as a badge of honour, so to speak.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

But what you're not addressing is how the principles translate. If you're shooting weapons, you should be aware of your surroundings and the potential for something be between you and your weapons. In a RES, which is formally a civilian mining location with high risk of piracy, if you fire at a wanted target you should be able to exercise awareness and responsibility with where your shots will land at the point of making them. If you fail in that, don't be surprised if you get in trouble for stray rounds hitting clean ships or system security.

I absoloutely agree that people should fire carefully and fully on board with the whole thing about checking your target before shooting, yadda yadda.

I was just subverting the analogue made.

 

[Drelthar]

Perhaps punish is the wrong word. It would muddy the waters though as you'd have a situation where a player could have this tag and actually not be a ganker. The boy who cried wolf and all that.

It would have to be absolutely cast iron that it didn't accidentally tag someone after consensual PvP. Although any actual gankers would probably hold it as a badge of honour, so to speak.

Yep, well, that would work, so long as both players used the systems that already exist to do it.

Turn crimes off for both of you.

If you start shooting something in consensual PVP, and you get a bounty for hitting them (go to an anarchy for a start to avoid this anyway...) then just leave, and resolve the bounty, and tell the other person to remember to turn crimes off for consensual PVP in future.

All the tools are there.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

All the tools are there.

As they are to avoid being blown up by a ganker. No need for an additional tag to be implemented when Devs could be working on something else.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As they are to avoid being blown up by a ganker. No need for an additional tag to be implemented when Devs could be working on something else.

It'd be nice, at a glance, to differentiate between players that one might play co-operatively with from players who one would wish to avoid though - as it is the option is simply to avoid all unknown hollow scanner markers.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

It'd be nice, at a glance, to differentiate between players that one might play co-operatively with from players who one would wish to avoid though - as it is the option is simply to avoid all unknown hollow scanner markers.

In the majority of situations, having a good shield set up will give you enough time to determine which is which with enough time to escape if you encounter someone without your best interests at heart.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In the majority of situations, having a good shield set up will give you enough time to determine which is which with enough time to escape if you encounter someone without your best interests at heart.

What might constitute a "good shield setup" would likely also include thrusters capable of the running away bit too - both of which may be unwelcome compromises for the player - noting that the attacker does not need to compromise the role of their ship.

Better to avoid the "interaction" in the first place if it is unwelcome, in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

What might constitute a "good shield setup" would likely also include thrusters capable of the running away bit too - both of which may be unwelcome compromises for the player - noting that the attacker does not need to compromise the role of their ship.

Better to avoid the "interaction" in the first place if it is unwelcome, in my opinion.

If a player doesn't want to make compromises to be able to engage in player interactions, they're not obliged to play in open. It would be very easy to, for example, burn off notoriety so that one shows up as a trusted player CMDR. Any implementation to divide the player base within Open would likely be simple to circumvent and so only create a false sense of security. Seems more sensible to teach people how to respond to threats, than create the false impression they could be totally avoided except for by playing in Solo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If a player doesn't want to make compromises to be able to engage in player interactions, they're not obliged to play in open.

Indeed.

It would be very easy to, for example, burn off notoriety so that one shows up as a trusted player CMDR. Any implementation to divide the player base within Open would likely be simple to circumvent and so only create a false sense of security.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting using something so simple to remove as notoriety as the basis of the scanner highlight - clean CMDR kills in the last [insert time here] or time since last CMDR kill (or both) would seem to be more appropriate. Less trivial to circumvent.

Seems more sensible to teach people how to respond to threats, than create the false impression they could be totally avoided except for by playing in Solo.

Whether one wishes to play the gankers' game, or not, remains a choice for the individual.