Interdiction Disruptor - new defensive module idea

[rootsrat]

Behold: FSD Interdiction Disruptor!

What it is:

• An entirely new Optional module.

What it does:

• It makes interdiction minigame easier to win for the victim and more difficult to the attacker. Effectively, the bars fill faster/slower respectively for the same amount of sweet spot time.

How does it work?

• The bigger the difference between the victim's Interdiction Disruptor and attacker's FSD Interdictor module size, the bigger the bonus for the victim to the minigame. And vice versa.

Examples:

• Size 4 Disruptor vs Size 1 FSD Interdictor would make it nearly impossible for the attacker to win the minigame
• Size 2 Disruptor vs Size 2 FSD Interdictor make no difference at all, they both cancel each other out in terms of minigame bonus.
• Size 4 FSD Interdictor vs Size 1 Disruptor makes it nearly impossible for the victim to win the minigame.

What is the compromise:

• The victim has to compromise an Optional module slot. They need to compromise bigger slots if they want the minigame to be easier or small slots if they want just a bit of boost.
• The attacker has to compromise the bigger slots, if they want to mitigate this. Finally - some sensible use case for bigger FSD interdictors!

Benefits:

• It introduces better balance between the attacker and the victim, but not for free. There is compromise.
• For Open Play traders it introduces an alternative to outfitting HRP/MRP's, which would mean the trading ship does not sacrifices it's speed and manoeuvrability in addition to cargo space.
• It makes outfitting ships built for Open Play more interesting, as you need to make a decision what size of module you want to sacrifice (for both attacker and victim).

 

[Ozric]

Seems entirely reasonable. I've been wanting more actual active defensive modules since the game released. Coming from EvE when Elite started the biggest disparity for me was how overwhelmingly weighted things are in favour of the attacker. As an example in EvE you have Warp Core (FSD) Disruptor and Scrambler modules, they both serve to stop your target from using their jump drive to escape.

But you can also get a Warp Core Stabiliser, which help to protect you against such attacks. There are huge penalties to combat related stats while having one fitted, so it effectively makes them useless on combat ships too.

There are a whole host of trapping and counter-trapping modules in EvE that allow for a complex cat and mouse gameplay. In Elite you have an FSD interdictor (unavoidable), and Drag Munitions for the attacker, and nothing for the attackee

 

[PilotB]

It's a fitting tax and since it goes into an optional slot as designed makes it really hard to justify. You either make interdiction crazy hard to force it's use or people ignore it because it's taking valuable space for a maybe improvement against something we've already learnt to suffer.

Overall I think it fits badly into the ship customisation options and to make it work we'd need a fitting or engineering reward. As a utility would be better but then it'd be one size fits all and that has similar problems of it probably just being an auto include or auto ignore depending on balance.

 

[SteveWW57]

Good suggestion, but I can already hear the howls of outrage from PvPers.

Worth giving up 16 tons capacity for.

 

[Jmanis]

Behold: FSD Interdiction Disruptor!

What it is:

• An entirely new Optional module.

What it does:

• It makes interdiction minigame easier to win for the victim and more difficult to the attacker. Effectively, the bars fill faster/slower respectively for the same amount of sweet spot time.

How does it work?

• The bigger the difference between the victim's Interdiction Disruptor and attacker's FSD Interdictor module size, the bigger the bonus for the victim to the minigame. And vice versa.

Examples:

• Size 4 Disruptor vs Size 1 FSD Interdictor would make it nearly impossible for the attacker to win the minigame
• Size 2 Disruptor vs Size 2 FSD Interdictor make no difference at all, they both cancel each other out in terms of minigame bonus.
• Size 4 FSD Interdictor vs Size 1 Disruptor makes it nearly impossible for the victim to win the minigame.

What is the compromise:

• The victim has to compromise an Optional module slot. They need to compromise bigger slots if they want the minigame to be easier or small slots if they want just a bit of boost.
• The attacker has to compromise the bigger slots, if they want to mitigate this. Finally - some sensible use case for bigger FSD interdictors!

Benefits:

• It introduces better balance between the attacker and the victim, but not for free. There is compromise.
• For Open Play traders it introduces an alternative to outfitting HRP/MRP's, which would mean the trading ship does not sacrifices it's speed and manoeuvrability in addition to cargo space.
• It makes outfitting ships built for Open Play more interesting, as you need to make a decision what size of module you want to sacrifice (for both attacker and victim).

I'd make the case (and this means needing to think about the balance differently) that instead of an optional slot, it should fit in a hardpoint slot, and perhaps function slightly differently... such that it's not the size of the disruptor that matters, it's how much you can apply it/how strong the disruption is.

Rationale being if you want to avoid interdiction, it also means you don't want to fight. If you don't want to fight, you shouldn't care about sacrificing some damage dealing ability.

This is to avoid it being dual-purposed to perhaps make the attacker in PvP even more powerful by not only being able to win the fight, but also get away easier if needed and not get caught.

The game has a sore lack of non-dual-purpose fittings that lead into the trinity of Offense < Defense < EW < Offense

 

[rootsrat]

maybe improvement against something we've already learnt to suffer

Who's "we"?

 

[rootsrat]

I'd make the case (and this means needing to think about the balance differently) that instead of an optional slot, it should fit in a hardpoint slot, and perhaps function slightly differently... such that it's not the size of the disruptor that matters, it's how much you can apply it/how strong the disruption is.

Rationale being if you want to avoid interdiction, it also means you don't want to fight. If you don't want to fight, you shouldn't care about sacrificing some damage dealing ability.

This is to avoid it being dual-purposed to perhaps make the attacker in PvP even more powerful by not only being able to win the fight, but also get away easier if needed and not get caught.

That could work too!

 

[PilotB]

Who's "we"?

The player base as a generalisation. Interdictions aren't new.

 

[rootsrat]

The player base as a generalisation. Interdictions aren't new.

Super Cruise also wasn't new and yet when SCO was implemented as an improvement to it, "we" loved it.
Your argument is, as I underatand it, that just because something unbalanced is in the game for a long time and players are (by your claim) used to it, it should not be improved. Sounds pretty invalid to me.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The player base as a generalisation. Interdictions aren't new.

They're not - however the obvious bias towards the player-interdictor has been baked in from the beginning - so some choose to completely avoid playing a mini-game that is rarely, if ever, won by the targeted player.

 

[PilotB]

Your argument is, as I underatand it, that just because something unbalanced is in the game for a long time and players are (by your claim) used to it, it should not be improved. Sounds pretty invalid to me.

No you've misunderstood. My argument is that takes a slot that is valuable and doesn't actually provide any value. It does nothing to make the mini game actually fun. It will still be slower than actually just submitting and boosting. It's a bandaid on a bad mechanic and the mechanic needs a proper rework not an item that is either a mandatory fitting tax or a niche waste of space. Interdictions should be improved they should not be improved by the a mechanism that doesn't seem to have ever worked attempting to make players use a slot that takes away from their guaranteed effects for a maybe payoff.

Now if you combine this with some permanent value I could see it working and I would like to see combined items but you'd also likely just see it passively taken. It's not an interesting trade off is my entire argument against this. Interdictions need to be reviewed at a deeper level and I do not want to see this being a functional improvement given the limitations of the existing system.

 

[rootsrat]

No you've misunderstood. My argument is that takes a slot that is valuable and doesn't actually provide any value. It does nothing to make the mini game actually fun. It will still be slower than actually just submitting and boosting. It's a bandaid on a bad mechanic and the mechanic needs a proper rework not an item that is either a mandatory fitting tax or a niche waste of space. Interdictions should be improved they should not be improved by the a mechanism that doesn't seem to have ever worked attempting to make players use a slot that takes away from their guaranteed effects for a maybe payoff.

Now if you combine this with some permanent value I could see it working and I would like to see combined items but you'd also likely just see it passively taken. It's not an interesting trade off is my entire argument against this. Interdictions need to be reviewed at a deeper level and I do not want to see this being a functional improvement given the limitations of the existing system.

Thank you for detailed explanation. Should have posted that from the get go

Now I don't agree that it doesn't provide any value, because submitting and boosting is a much worse band aid, as it still allows for chain interdictions that pull you away from your target station.

This leads to indefinite and frustrating process.

Having a tool to actually avoid the interdiction - or multiple ones in a row - gives you MUCH better chance to arrive at your destination.

I fully agree that this is another band aid solution, but this entire root cause (or causes even) is very complex and would require a big overhaul to a few parts of the game, from pvp balance to crime and punishment to block function to bounty hunting missions to criminal type of gameplay.

I think there is much better chance to get a single new module which would improve things (imo) than to get all of the above.

Therefore I am of a strong opinion this suggestion is actually very worthwhile and beneficial if implemented

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Coming from EvE when Elite started the biggest disparity for me was how overwhelmingly weighted things are in favour of the attacker.

Interestingly, coming from Elite/FE2/FFE when Elite Dangerous started the biggest disparity for me was how overwhelmingly weighted things are in favour of the defender

In the previous games:
- you cannot meaningfully avoid the equivalent of an interdiction, by any of the three available methods in Elite Dangerous:
-- getting to your destination before the attacker spawns at all
-- managing your facing so that they can't start the mini-game
-- winning the mini-game (which is itself already really easy versus NPCs)
- if you do get attacked, which you will in 99% of systems, there is no equivalent to low-waking...
- ...and high-waking is strongly limited by much smaller fuel capacity compared with ED, and fuel scooping being both somewhat intrinsically dangerous and the hyperspace exit point being a long way from the star

So the design is very much there: if you get attacked, you either win, or you die. That was already completely - and to me, very surprisingly - different in Elite Dangerous from day 1. I was two weeks into the game before anything attacked me at all.

Since then we've also had added SCO (to make it even easier to reach the station before the attacker exists or notices you) and Fleet Carriers (to make it possible to only exist in supercruise for a few seconds total) and Wing Nav Lock (likewise useful for both of the above) added to make supercruise interdictions even less likely. I've been hauling back and forth for colonisation and Powerplay for a lot of the last four months, in low security systems ... and I've had an NPC successfully get as far as the tether-establishing stage a grand total of 3 times in that entire time. (One beaten by winning the mini-game, one beaten because it got the tether on half a second before I hit the orbital cruise line and auto-won, one where I submitted and high-waked to my next system on route before it had got as far as actually opening fire)


Now, I'm not suggesting [1] that Frontier should try to move Elite Dangerous in the direction of the Elite series where the combat balance is "can you win the fight?" - too much has already been designed around unarmed paper-thin freighters and combat being optional if you don't go to the Designated Combat POIs and so on. It'd be technically fixable to introduce Elite-style combat encounters to the trade routes, but I don't think Frontier wants the hassle and shouting it'd cause from a player base used to that not being how it works.


But I don't think we need yet another "combat is optional" module adding as a way of eliminating the remaining interdictions - the easier approach would be to remove the Interdictor module entirely from both players and NPCs:
- simplifies the outfitting interface slightly
- all combat where a player might need to use an interdictor already (some mission types, maybe Powerplay) also has a designated POI alternative already, so no change needed there
- keeps supercruise as a proper travel mode only, which it essentially already is
- more consistent with the rest of the game where to get gameplay of X type you choose to go to a location of X type.


[1] Any more. I spent the first few years going "what? surely this is a mistake?", definitely, but I've got used to it by now. I don't even have weapons or shields on my T-9, which I'd never have done five years ago.

 

[Ozric]

Interestingly, coming from Elite/FE2/FFE when Elite Dangerous started the biggest disparity for me was how overwhelmingly weighted things are in favour of the defender

In the previous games:
- you cannot meaningfully avoid the equivalent of an interdiction, by any of the three available methods in Elite Dangerous:
-- getting to your destination before the attacker spawns at all
-- managing your facing so that they can't start the mini-game
-- winning the mini-game (which is itself already really easy versus NPCs)
- if you do get attacked, which you will in 99% of systems, there is no equivalent to low-waking...
- ...and high-waking is strongly limited by much smaller fuel capacity compared with ED, and fuel scooping being both somewhat intrinsically dangerous and the hyperspace exit point being a long way from the star


So the design is very much there: if you get attacked, you either win, or you die. That was already completely - and to me, very surprisingly - different in Elite Dangerous from day 1. I was two weeks into the game before anything attacked me at all.

Whilst what you say is technically true, it's about avoiding the interdiction entirely not combating it. Managing your direction only works for the start of your journey to a station, you are far more vulnerable when you are approaching the station and need to slow down, unlike the attacker.

Old Elite games were also single player with save games

You're also lucky about not being attacked as I had an NPC pirate Eagle chase me all the way back from the Pleiades, making jumps that weren't possible for an Eagle, attacking me in every system

Since then we've also had added SCO (to make it even easier to reach the station before the attacker exists or notices you)

I'd argue SCO makes it easier for the attacker. As mentioned previously the slowdown for the approach to the station is the most vulnerable time and the SCO allows an attacker who spawns in potentially after the target, to close them down.

and Fleet Carriers (to make it possible to only exist in supercruise for a few seconds total) and Wing Nav Lock (likewise useful for both of the above) added to make supercruise interdictions even less likely.

5 billion plus upkeep is a steep entry price I don't think Nav Lock was added to make interdictions less likely.

But I don't think we need yet another "combat is optional" module adding as a way of eliminating the remaining interdictions

I don't think that's what this is. It's to level the playing field. It's about once the conflict has started what can you as a defender do about it.

 

[rootsrat]

But I don't think we need yet another "combat is optional" module adding as a way of eliminating the remaining interdictions - the easier approach would be to remove the Interdictor module entirely from both players and NPCs

Very bold suggestion! I don't think we have any chance of that happening though, realistically.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

• The bigger the difference between the victim's Interdiction Disruptor and attacker's FSD Interdictor module size, the bigger the bonus for the victim to the minigame. And vice versa.

Examples:

• Size 4 Disruptor vs Size 1 FSD Interdictor would make it nearly impossible for the attacker to win the minigame
• Size 2 Disruptor vs Size 2 FSD Interdictor make no difference at all, they both cancel each other out in terms of minigame bonus.
• Size 4 FSD Interdictor vs Size 1 Disruptor makes it nearly impossible for the victim to win the minigame.

No more 1A interdictors eh?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Whilst what you say is technically true, it's about avoiding the interdiction entirely not combating it. Managing your direction only works for the start of your journey to a station, you are far more vulnerable when you are approaching the station and need to slow down, unlike the attacker.

Yes - but equally if you're a long way out, you don't have many choices for approach direction because the station is over there. Close up you can constantly be turning on a spiral approach through the gravity well and it's not difficult to corkscrew side-on to a potential attacker coming from the star on the first loop.

(If you're following a 0:06 straight line approach, this is true that you're more vulnerable on slowdown, but I assume you're doing so because you want to be interdicted, and therefore aren't the market for an interdiction-resisting module anyway)

Old Elite games were also single player with save games

Rebuy is pretty close to load-last-save in terms of practical effect. No objections to making it less costly than that. The new Powerplay has done a lot of design work on making ship destruction entirely inconsequential in a lot of cases, which could provide a blueprint for adjustments to the game in general as well as removing a fair bit of busywork for the (hopefully more common!) cases where you don't die.

You're also lucky about not being attacked as I had an NPC pirate Eagle chase me all the way back from the Pleiades, making jumps that weren't possible for an Eagle, attacking me in every system

I had a lot more than 3 NPCs shout "tasty cargo" taunts in comms in supercruise (and a few even drop out to orbital construction sites to be vaporised by the station guns there). There was no shortage of ships around wanting to attack me. They just never got anywhere near as far as a "win the minigame" module being any use.

I'd argue SCO makes it easier for the attacker.

It might if NPCs were fitted with it in the first place, though I have my doubts as to whether they'd be able to use it effectively in most cases.

5 billion plus upkeep is a steep entry price I don't think Nav Lock was added to make interdictions less likely.

Of course it wasn't added for that purpose. But equally, that's what it can do, especially combined with SCO speeds.

My point is that it started out with huge advantages towards the defender as compared with previous games, and every change since has been neutral or positive for the defender. If that's still not been "enough", the solution is not more incremental change, it's disallowing attacks in supercruise entirely.

I don't think that's what this is. It's to level the playing field. It's about once the conflict has started what can you as a defender do about it.

Maybe fit some weapons and shields so you can fire back? It's not as if the average pirate-archetype NPC is even flying that tough a ship in the first place, and you often only need to hold on until a wing of system authority show up to flatten them rather than actually beat them.

 

[rootsrat]

@Ian Doncaster you seem to be interpreting this in terms of PVE only.
Where it is really with PVP (or ganking even to be precise) in mind.
Happy for the new module to only work on interdictions initiated by Cmdrs

Alternatively, happy for Cmdr interdictions be nerfed, so they are as easy to avoid as the NPC ones.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Alternatively, happy for Cmdr interdictions be nerfed, so they are as easy to avoid as the NPC ones.

Some have been disputing this even exists, but that's really the thing to do - remove the bias of that damn minigame. But then again... are you prepared for the outcry how ED doesn't cater to the PvP crowd?

 

[rootsrat]

Some have been disputing this even exists, but that's really the thing to do - remove the bias of that damn minigame. But then again... are you prepared for the outcry how ED doesn't cater to the PvP crowd?

As a player - yes.

As a moderator - absolutely not!