200 credits bounty, 250M credits punishment

a. It generally does in ED. Ever done any bounty hunting? Ever been able to claim a bounty via not killing? Do you know any mechanism by which you can drag a wanted ship to a station and hand it in? (Not saying it wouldn't be good to be able to do that stuff, but it's more a point of whether it's possible at present.)

b. At present you can actually turn yourself in alive. You just need to ensure you don't get killed on the way - which means you need to make sure you don't get scanned.

Criminals can't directly pay the bounties. When you got to an Interstellar Factor, you are paying someone to essentially hack the system and clear you of your wanted status illicitly. If you hand yourself in then you are sent to a detention centre and charged the amount of the bounty.

(For reference, the hand yourself in was only added because people were using ships with FSDs too small to jump out of their current systems, getting bounties, and then finding themselves with no option other than to get themselves killed.)



On what grounds are you disputing it? The general principle of it is spot on. Without that principle you've not got bounties, you've just got fines.

Again, how do you claim a bounty in game other than killing a criminal? (Well destroying the ship technically.)

And an ally shouldn't be doing illegal things against their allies. Accidental in your case, but what were you doing scanning your ally's outpost anyway? - just making the point here that it could be taken further and considered an act of treachery as you're an ally, and thus making you considered much more of a criminal and more warranting of a termination order - maybe one of them should make you the target of an assassination mission.

Whether a bounty is worth the effort is down to the bounty hunter.

You were blown up by law enforcement anyway, so technically that's due to you being wanted rather than the bounty anyway.

Quick point on being allied - I think you said at some point you were allied with the Federation. As well as the points above, being an ally of the superpower doesn't mean you're an ally of every minor faction of that superpower.

It not working in a way that was favourable to you doesn't equal it being a poorly-thought game mechanic.

Disregarding that, there are a great many other things that could have happened. What if the planet you'd done the scan on had been a high G world and you hadn't noticed? What if you got interdicted and shot down? Etc. etc.

Ultimately you took a risky approach. That was your choice. If you hadn't done that you wouldn't have lost your exploration data (or at least you would have been less likely to).

.... That's not what it sounds like.

So at a very basic level we've got:

- Fines - work as fines. You owe money. You face a restriction in services when in the relevant jurisdiction until you pay it off.

- Bounties (and Wanted status) - You are wanted and someone is offering a reward for your death (ship destruction). You face being attacked (and potentially destroyed) by bounty hunters and law enforcement in the relevant jurisdiction.

Where is the lack of sense? Where's the lack of logic?

Oh wow, is that what you really think the situation is?

You think you're the first person to critique C&P? The first person to get on the wrong end of a bounty / wanted status?

You're not.

It's all come up before. And 'I've decided a bounty on me should be treated as a fine. The game doesn't treat it as a fine therefore C&P is stupid and broken.' is one of poorest critiques that comes up.

For reference, there was a big round of discussion prior to the implementation of the new C&P in 3.0. Many people provided feedback on FD's initial proposal, and gave their own proposals on how things should work (I know I did). 3.0 launched, player numbers hit a peak (as they always do around a big release) and further critique and feedback was given.

That sounds all well and good, but you you've spent a lot of time saying it's stupid and disagreeing with some pretty basic principles. Also, are you really saying you think it should be reworked so it makes sense to everyone? Or are you saying you think it should be reworked in a way that would have worked favourably for you personally in the particular circumstances you encountered?

It's a description of the manner you're accessing the station services. It's fine for what it is. I think what you're looking for is something different - i.e. something which tells you why you you're having to use anonymous access. But if you had a bounty you would already have had 'Wanted' displayed on your HUD.

Which is a good idea, but becomes totally redundant after the first time of being displayed. It's also partially there already - it's in the text if you click on the relevant item in the Transactions menu. - The text for Bounties is currently wrong though and needs sorting out. You can also find info on the Pilots Handbook. There's actually the basis for a good suggestion here though - see later in the post.

If docking wasn't allowed then that would completely remove the option of handing yourself in, which is something you appear to think there should be. There's already 'Wanted' on your HUD in red letters. Also the station isn't hostile to you until you're scanned - should it appear as red before or after? And would one way lead to some people getting confused for one reason and the other to some people getting confused for another reason? How would you avoid confusion over whether you have 'hostile' status with the faction in question, vs being wanted for a crime?


We've already got a simple system - fines, you don't get attacked; bounties/wanted, you get attacked.

That simple system results in confusion.

What makes you think that adding an extra level of complexity to bounties would eradicate the possibility of confusion?

All that would happen if your proposal was implemented is complaints from people who didn't realise things changed when they got higher bounties, and from people who disagreed with the response level their particular bounty received. As you'd have added more points for the confusion to happen (i.e. the change over points between every different level of bounty) there would more issues than there are now. It's all so predictable.



I think what I would say overall, is that the system is largely already fairly sensible and logical in terms of the basic principles we're talking about.


All that seems to be really needed is for there to be a bit of extra info provided on screen to a cmdr the first time they get a fine and the first time they get a bounty. (With it also appearing the first time a cmdr gets a fine or bounty the first time after any changes to the C&P system.)

That's a refinement of the suggestion you made above, and would seem to me to be a reasonable suggestion / feature request.



Anyway, as we're on, some extra info for you.

Things are now logged against your ship (including its component modules) rather than you. This makes sense when you think about it - it's the ship that's 'seen', not you directly.

This means that you can swap out to another ship. It also means that the ship that has the wanted status on it remains 'hot' until it's cleared, as do all the modules on the ship. If you swap the modules out to storage or another ship, they'll carry over the 'hot' status. If you put new modules onto the hot ship, they'll also become 'hot' You can clean the 'hot' status on modules individually but it's very expensive to do so. In your case it would be much more expensive to clean the modules then it would be to pay the bounty. This also makes sense as a general principle - for many ships the real value of the ship is not the ship itself but all the modules, and the investment that's been made in engineering them. Bounties would be meaningless if they could be avoided by just buying a new ship and swapping all the modules over to it.

I would advise having a read of the full info here so you know how C&P currently works and can avoid the risk of falling foul of incorrect assumptions: https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=423
Holy mother of replies, you managed to mention everything!
 
Last edited:
Yes, I can imagine quite a few modes the bounty can be claimed in a ship-to-ship encounter without killing the target. The fact that they are not implemented in-game is my point exactly.
Being able to imagine them isn't the point. We can all imagine things. The point was whether there were any in game at the moment.


I don't know of any way to avoid scanning except cold running. Never tried it before and I am sure I would botch it. After all, I effed up a scan job, so there's that.
Line up with the mailslot at a long distance. Fly very fast. Hit the brakes as you reach the mailslot. (Try in a cheap ship, with no cargo, data etc. first! :) )


In any number of ways. Say you find hem in space, you off their shields, destroy their engines and call local authority. The criminal then must pay the bounty and a hefty repair cost for their destroyed module. Just an example. There are many possible methods, this one is just off the top of my head.
The point wasn't about possible ways, it was about existing ways. Point being that as there aren't any existing ways, it's not sensible to expect that the rules would be applied to you as though there were.

Furthermore, would you bother hunting a ship for 200 credits bounty? Other than out of malevolence, that is. Even the meekest NPC carries a larger bounty.
It doesn't really matter whether I would. Someone might. Plus you got taken out by officials not bounty hunters - it was because of your Wanted status, not to claim the 200cr bounty.

TBH I don't even remember whether it was an allied outpost. It wasn't green on my radar, that's for sure.
Doesn't really matter, the point was just that the counterpoint to your assertion that an ally should be shown more tolerance/lenience was that actions by you might validly be construed as being worse by an ally.


As ststed above... when an NPC carries a bounty of 10K credits and a player ship carries a bounty of 200 credits, why even bother?
A bit of extra rep with a faction? A legal kill to count towards combat rank?

Point taken. It would make sense though for the ally status to roll down to minor factions, at least to some extent.
Would need to check, but I think it influences how quickly you gain/lose reputation with the minor factions. Can't say for sure. It was that way, but haven't paid attention to that for ages so it might have changed.

It was never about it being favorable to myself only. It was about it not being black or white, it was about it being clearer, it was about it being consistent (e.g. scanning upon docking request except when cold running).
See you say all that, but a lot of it seems more akin to changing it to match your personal take on how things should have worked based on one experience where things went abnormally badly. Things going abnormally badly for you means your take on things is going be abnormally bad. You're going off that one experience, and not taking into account other things that need to be taken into account. As a result you are making a very mixed bag of suggestions. The thing that brings them all together is that they would have been favourable for you in the particular situation you were in.

Not saying you're a terrible person for doing that or anything like that. It's understandable under the circumstances. It's also why I was saying you needed to take a step back and think about things.


those are known, straightforward risks and I accepted them as such.
Personally I would include 'planetary scan missions may get you in trouble with the law' as a known straightforward risk. They do say 'these actions may be considered illegal at the target destination'. <shrugs>


For the umpteenth time, losing exploration data was never the center of the issue. It was a side effect.
Ahem...

Thread title: "200 credits bounty, 250M credits punishment"

I lost 23 Hutton Mugs that I had in my cargo hold (no, I am not going to go get them again. EVER.), the ship itself (easily replaced through insurance), 3 Modular Terminals (and we all know how difficult it is to gather 25 for Marco Qwent)... and 250M worth of exploration data from my previous trip to Eta Carinae, Statue of Liberty and their surroundings.

...snip...

I lost 5 or 6 days of exploration, hundreds of solar systems worth, and I am a bit upset. So what gives? Is this something that would remain in the game, unchanged? It makes no sense to inflict such a disproportionate punishment for such a small mistake, when there are countless methods to properly punish a mistake according to its gravity.
I never said I didn't make mistakes. I know I did. But they were disproportionately small compared to the punishment, which ultimately prompted me to dispute the implementation of this game mechanic.
You're the one that made it centre of the issue. Don't get exasperated with others for treating it the way you set it out.

If you hadn't been carrying that exploration data around you wouldn't have lost it, and your losses would have been 250MCr less. That would hugely change the context of your post - you'd have to get rid of half the title for starters. You'd also have to drop most of the stuff about how much you were punished compared to the amount of the bounty.

You were pretty unlucky. You also really should have prioritised handing in that exploration data over doing missions with potentially illegal actions. But you've been construing the lost exploration data as part of your punishment. As much as it might feel that way, it wasn't. Your punishment was ship destruction.



Ok, on to some of the rest of it in terms of what you're suggesting. Rearranging to bring the relevant bit together. Please bear in mind what you said about wanting things to be clearer, consistent, working for everyone, etc.

1. Small fines should never become bounties. Ever. They should simply add up until a threshold is met and they become bounties then.
Small fines should never become bounties. Tick. Small fines don't become bounties. You've already got what you're asking for. However, asking for things to be the way they already are suggests a misunderstanding somewhere.
Also, you're saying small fines should never become bounties but then you're saying you want them to become bounties once you've got enough of them. Not the most clear or consistent there.

2. Wanted status should void docking rights being accepted. A station which does not make the connection between the ship (and its pilot) and the same pilot being wanted reeks of incompetence. We're in 3305, for god's sake, you would think database unification would be a thing.
By direct consequence you're therefore saying we should ditch any current or future gameplay which involves evading station security and docking somewhere illicitly.

Also some general points:
  • The setting for ED is very much not utopian - best to expect things in line with that.
  • While the technical capability for database unification probably very much is a thing, what makes you think that all the disparate and often warring factions would want to share their databases?
I'm saying it needs to be reworked to be generally favorable to everyone under certain circumstances.
You're saying that, but that's not what you're setting out.

For example a 200 credit fine should never become a bounty.
Again, this is already the situation. You're asking for things to be reworked to the way they are.

There should be a threshold. 10K credits, 50K credits, some sort of meaningful threshold.
What's the point. Just keep bounties as bounties and fines as fines.

Also, the station you are attempting to dock to should automatically reject your access if you have a bounty on your head. It could also notify nearby security ships, so they would come after you. That's fine.
Covered this already above.

But welcoming you, then scanning you as you are entering the slot, then changing its mind is a dirty tactic which has one reason: to trap unsuspecting players.
Wrong. But be my guest and go with the paranoia.

And guess who would those be? Not veterans, but newbies. Current implementation only punishes newbies.
Rubbish.

Believe me when I say it was totally not clear at that moment. "Destruction likely when scanned" would have been a much better warning, for exemple.
Because that's not what that message is for. That message is telling you the nature of your access to the station services. The message telling you what you needed to know was the 'Wanted' status message on your HUD.

- An entry under "request docking" called "turn in" - which will allow you to dock and be detained for processing would suffice. The station would appear red and would reject standard docking request (and notify nearby security ships). But if you choose the second option, they will guard you and allow you to dock and be processed.
Could work as an extra option beyond standard docking request, i.e. notify the station of your wanted status and turn yourself in. The current mechanism needs to remain though for reasons explained above.

The issue being it's too simple. For example: any fine value becomes a bounty after 24 hours.
Fines don't become bounties. Are you saying they should after 24 hours? Previously you were saying fines should never become bounties.

It's confusing because you are granted docking... but then you're denied docking. It's confusing because "Anonymous access" means nothing to the one who sees this for the first time. And so on.
Is it still confusing now that you know what happened? i.e. you were in a jurisdiction where you were Wanted, got scanned (revealing your wanted status), and had your docking privileges revoked because you were wanted?

ANY system, no matter how simple, can be confusing. Why do you think all DC powered electrical machines have the (+) wire marked differently from the (-) wire? There... simple system. Confusing if not marked appropriately.
Were you offences not labelled appropriately?

Here I disagree. Any change is confusing at first, does that mean we should never make changes anywhere because increasing complexity is bad?
That wasn't the point. It's not the change that's confusing. I'd be fine with it if it was just about me personally. It isn't though. The context for this was that you were setting out things for a system that would make sense to everyone. It's fairly simple; if system A has a point of confusion which results in complaints, then if you change to system B which has more points of confusion, then there'll be more complaints. In other words you've acted against the objective you set out to achieve.

I think you're just too used to it.
It wasn't hard. I just went 'ah, so fines work as fines. Bounties don't work as fines, they work as bounties. Fines don't become bounties and vice-versa. If I'm Wanted that'll show up if scanned and I'll be attacked by law enforcement or bounty hunters. Therefore, pay off fines at the station if I'm going there and don't go to stations I'm Wanted at.

Wow... just wow. But-but-but... you said it yourself: "We've already got a simple system" - does any of the above look simple to you? I admit I didn't know all this information, but my God it's a mess!
What I said was:

"We've already got a simple system - fines, you don't get attacked; bounties/wanted, you get attacked.

That simple system results in confusion."

That was in response to you suggesting introducing different levels of response to different levels of bounties.

That simple system - whereby fines don't result in you getting attacked and bounties/wanted status can - is part of the overall C&P system. Point being that the simple part results in confusion.

The whole thing looks a mess because there's a hell of a lot of stuff it needs to take into account. Expecting it not to appear a mess is massively underestimating what needs to be accounted for.

Take the necessary stuff into account and it makes a lot more sense. The problem with a lot of your critique as that you're only taking a very limited set of things (i.e. what just happened to you) into account.

That was not the critique. Are you missing the point on purpose?
It's what the whole thing boils down to. Deal with that one thing and what happened to you wouldn't have happened.

By the end of the last post, there was a reasonable suggestion for something fairly simple that FD could do to help avoid that situation in the future. It tackles what happened to you. It doesn't require any other changes.

You don't seem happy with that. I wish I could say that I'm in the slightest surprised.

So you tell me, am I missing the point?

Rhetorical question just in case it's not clear.

Seriously, as I said in the first post, take a step back and have a think about things. You need to recognise the massive abnormality in what you're construing as the your punishment and that it's a complete edge case scenario. Some of that was 100% under your control - take ownership of those bits. Don't seek to find ways to put the responsibility for that elsewhere. Get rid of the unreasonable, and keep the reasonable. Put in the suggestion for an info message/pop-up to appear when a cmdr first gets a fine or bounty. I'll support it, and I'm sure others will too.

Think I've said enough on this topic for the time being.

Hope that you ultimately manage to draw something positive out of all of this. Best of luck, cmdr.
 
I frequently find myself pestered by bounty hunters. Most of the time they find me in a system where I'm clean, so when they open up on me they get landed with a 500cr assault bounty. I now have carte blanche to open up on them and the local system won't just thank me for it, they'll actually help.

I have a 10,000cr bounty. The bounty hunter has 500cr, but I'm clean in that system so the bounty hunter is blown up for enforcing the law.

The moral- Shooting anything that doesn't have a bounty gets you wanted. Letting system authorities scan you when you're wanted gets you killed. Works to your advantage sometimes too.
Until he pulls a KWS.
 
...
ED isn't forgiving game. ...
It's just my opinion and all, but it's way too forgiving. About the only thing worth any real risk is months of exploration data. Not so much the credits, but the effort.

I play as a survivalist but often wonder why I bother when the game seems to mock me for it.
 
Until he pulls a KWS.
Doesn't work, I've tried this myself. If you kill a ship with a warrant that isn't wanted in that system you claim the bounty and don't gain notoriety, but system authorities still treat it like you killed a clean ship.

Whether this should be how the system works is something for another thread.
 
I'll just address this one thing, then I'm done. Already spent too much energy trying to make a point, unfortunately I hit a brick wall which boils down to "we got used to it, it's your fault" mentality. Not that I haven't seen it before, time and again, elsewhere.

Being able to imagine them isn't the point. We can all imagine things. The point was whether there were any in game at the moment.

The point wasn't about possible ways, it was about existing ways. Point being that as there aren't any existing ways, it's not sensible to expect that the rules would be applied to you as though there were.
The point is all about realizing something could be improved and thinking of ways to improve it. It's what drives everything forward, starting with evolution and ending with whatever game we play together, with everything in between. Dismissing attempts to improve things by ignoring them because they don't exist yet is obtuse.

That's all from me, I am going to move forward and have some fun.
Over and out.
 
I'll just address this one thing, then I'm done. Already spent too much energy trying to make a point, unfortunately I hit a brick wall which boils down to "we got used to it, it's your fault" mentality. Not that I haven't seen it before, time and again, elsewhere.



The point is all about realizing something could be improved and thinking of ways to improve it. It's what drives everything forward, starting with evolution and ending with whatever game we play together, with everything in between. Dismissing attempts to improve things by ignoring them because they don't exist yet is obtuse.

That's all from me, I am going to move forward and have some fun.
Over and out.
You are the one failing to accept: it was your fault.
You are the one flying around with a bounty on your head, the left and right panels have info on your misdeeds.

There is nothing to improve, unless you want to speak about your lack of self awareness and risk management, the system works as is and fine, get used to it and own it whenever you fly around with 250m and are blown because you alt-tabbed out while docking.

Lets see if you can "move forward" and "thats all", losing some make believe stuff in a video game must be draining, if you give it any weight that is...
 
I'll just address this one thing, then I'm done. Already spent too much energy trying to make a point, unfortunately I hit a brick wall which boils down to "we got used to it, it's your fault" mentality. Not that I haven't seen it before, time and again, elsewhere.



The point is all about realizing something could be improved and thinking of ways to improve it. It's what drives everything forward, starting with evolution and ending with whatever game we play together, with everything in between. Dismissing attempts to improve things by ignoring them because they don't exist yet is obtuse.

That's all from me, I am going to move forward and have some fun.
Over and out.
Nobody is against improvments but you are putting the cart before the horse. You don't want the game to change because you want to improve it but because you don't want to admit that you made a mistake. At least that's the idea I get when I read your posts.
 
I'll just address this one thing, then I'm done. Already spent too much energy trying to make a point, unfortunately I hit a brick wall which boils down to "we got used to it, it's your fault" mentality. Not that I haven't seen it before, time and again, elsewhere.



The point is all about realizing something could be improved and thinking of ways to improve it. It's what drives everything forward, starting with evolution and ending with whatever game we play together, with everything in between. Dismissing attempts to improve things by ignoring them because they don't exist yet is obtuse.

That's all from me, I am going to move forward and have some fun.
Over and out.
Its not a case of being used to it.

Can the system be improved? Yes.

Would your suggestions improve things? No, some of it was things we moved away from.

Being unable to dock while wanted, you've pretty much ruined smugglers already limited gameplay.

As mentioned before, fines dont turn into bounties, they used to but that changed along with everything else.

The system is logical and makes sense. The biggest issue is your perception that your crime doesnt fit the punishment. Its simple though, assume this future world is zero tolerance and it does fit. I mean as mentioned before it already is a case of Wanted Dead not Alive so its not a hard jump to make
 
I'll just address this one thing, then I'm done. Already spent too much energy trying to make a point, unfortunately I hit a brick wall which boils down to "we got used to it, it's your fault" mentality. Not that I haven't seen it before, time and again, elsewhere.



The point is all about realizing something could be improved and thinking of ways to improve it. It's what drives everything forward, starting with evolution and ending with whatever game we play together, with everything in between. Dismissing attempts to improve things by ignoring them because they don't exist yet is obtuse.

That's all from me, I am going to move forward and have some fun.
Over and out.
The problem is that it seems that you don't want to admit your ignorance. Either that or you want to ignore the rules of the game and expect the game to mysteriously understand and comply with the way you think it should work.

Point 1. You had a bounty on you and you had no idea of the consequences of that, nor what actions you were supposed to take to stay safe.
Point 2. Even with a bounty on you, there are still ways to get into the station, but you didn't use any of those procedures.
Point 3. You got all sorts of messages telling you not to go in the station, but you chose to ignore them.
Point 4. You got killed within 11 seconds of being scanned because you didn't take any avoiding action. That's like saying that it's unfair that you get killed within 11 seconds when you fly into a star. If you do something reckless, you have to accept the consequences.

Please accept that what happened was entirely reasonable and was due to ignorance of how the game works. You weren't innocent. You were a criminal, even though you were a small one. You can't expect privileges for being a criminal. Learn how to be a criminal. It's perfectly safe as long as you do it right.

All you needed to say was, "Thanks for explaining what I did wrong, and thanks for explaining about stealth tactics. I can now learn by my mistakes".
 
Top Bottom