Interdiction Dodgers

[uberdude]

Don't know if this has been suggested already but perhaps the only time a player can interdict another player is if they..

Have a bounty on them.
Are in an anarchy system.
Are in a system that's owned by a known pirate faction and the interdicting player is apart of that pirate faction.
toggle an option in the game menu allowing open interdiction (because maybe they welcome all challengers?)


And fines should be changed too.

If you get a fine then you can pay it off.. if after 2 hours you haven't paid your fine you become wanted. If you become wanted then paying the fine and or bounty starts a timer.. for the duration of the timer you can still be interdicted by other players/NPCs and pewpewed

Certain crimes should be automatic wanted and bounties. not to make NPC slaughter trivial but the bounty placed on someone for freely stomping NPCs shouldn't be as great as doing the same to other players. Last I checked NPCs don't rage quit.

If you want to freely run around and kill people with no real consequence then go play Planetderp 2. There should be and hopefully will be (as in if you go and kill a trader just for lulz) consequences that include a fat 100k bounty placed on your head that ALL bounties hunters within a 100ly distance become aware of. a bounty that will only drop after you pay a FAT fine AND has come off a 24 cooldown. And this should be linear. I.E. you kill 1 trader is a 100k bounty with a 50k fine and the bounty isn't removed for 24 hours AFTER you pay the fine. kill another trader? 250k and 150k fine.up to a cap. I say a cap because I know some A hole multiscreener would love to run 1 account as a pirate and rack up some ridiculous bounty and then use his main account to collect.

 

[Dejay]

First though, a rationale as to why we have submission: we want authority ships to be able to drop players out of super cruise, in order that they can scan them. If authority ships can't do this, then smuggling loses some of its excitement. On the other hand, we don't want authority interdictions to damage the ships involved if the Commander is willing to submit to scanning. We also don't want to leave players with a significant cooldown afterwards.

Solution one is to allow the interdictor device to have some sort of FSD delaying attack in normal space, that is temporarily disabled when the device is used for a successful interdiction. So submitting Commanders would be at risk of this attack, whilst Commanders that fought the interdiction would not (but instead would have to contend with their frame shift cool down).

I think the biggest problem with interdictions or encounters in space (e.g. USS) is the time penalty. Almost all players want to optimize their performance. They don't just want to win the encounter they want to do it fast and use their skill to do so.

So you should look into the time it requires slowing down, dropping out of supercruise, speeding up etc. It probably takes 5 min to stop at a USS or getting interdicted, excluding any fighting! That has a big effect on how people play! It's just very costly.

My suggestion would be to make dropping out of supercruise and going back in much faster, similar to the release trailer cinematic video where the cobras jumped into supercruise almost immediately. I'd compare this to "horse mounting" in WoW. People would go crazy if you'd have to spend 30 seconds to mount your horse again just to stop and pick a flower.

It's also worth noting that a bounty is not simply a fine to pay (otherwise it would be called a fine). It is also a green light for you to be attacked. In fact, this is undoubtedly the more serious part of the punishment. I think we still have some way to go to tweak background events to pick up on Commander bounties more (as in, when you fly around with a bounty the game takes it into account when deciding what to generate in the game world near you).

I find the "reactive generating" extremely immersion breaking. The game world should work with logical rules not use "obviously unknowable" knowledge to create artificial events. Personally that goes against what I'd like from a sandbox / simulation game.

 

[DaveB]

They are not defenseless. They can push the button and disappear. With such an ability, installing weapons and shields is a bit silly.

So let 'em. If they want to start clucking and do a Sir Robin that's a win as far as I'm concerned even if it doesn't feature in my in-game stats. I'm primarily a (well armed) trader but if I want to give somebody a fight and they logoffski on me I'll probably put them on ignore so that I get to continue playing with folks who aren't that lame. Problem solved.

 

[Rennard]

Hello Commanders!


I'd just like to add this morsel to the debate, again to explain where we're coming from.

I'm not overly interested in the whole "who wins the encounter" discussion, especially when the encounters can be very lopsided. I'm interested in how game play is served for both parties:

So a combat-heavy ship interdicts a trader. What's interesting to me here is: how are the players' game play needs being served? My first thought is: is the frequency and mechanics of the interdiction process working? If it is, then great, I know that the trader is facing a threat that I believe traders need to create interesting and exciting journeys.

I know that if I asked a bunch of traders about their thoughts on this particular interdiction they would all likely cry out in despair - the odds are stacked against them. But I have faith that the potential of this encounter makes their overall game play experience better (of course, this assumes that the frequency and game play is correct, something which might need a number of tweaks).

I look at the combat ship. Regardless of what their intent is, at this point in the game play they have a material advantage. But I want to make sure that the length and options of the encounter mean that both parties have at least *some* tricks to employ (hence I want to make sure that the trader could have fitted modules that make life more difficult if used well, and that the combat ship has the means to potentially prevent instant escape and actually attack). If you fly a stripped down trader with no shields or means to defend yourself, I contend that you are taking a calculated risk and can't complain too much when you get interdicted.

All in all, the end result of this encounter is mostly likely that the trader suffers some amount of material loss (the extreme being that they are destroyed) and that the combat ship more than likely has a bounty. Depending on player skill and materials involved the result can swing one way or another, but this is most likely outcome.

At this point, the trader needs to recoup their losses (being traders, they'll likely trade to do this). I believe we currently have some issues linked to the severity of their potential loss, but I suspect we may be able to find ways of softening the extreme cases a little better (tweaks to the credit line, for example is something we're looking at, or some changes to overall ship costs). Importantly, to me it makes no sense for the trader to perceive that they somehow "lost" this encounter - because the deck was stacked against them from the start.

The only sensible way for traders to assess how well they did is to consider how much they lost. And in a nutshell, this is where we have to make sure that traders can *if they wish* alter their ships to mitigate the loss caused by loss. Tough shields, armour, point defence, weapons - these all make a difference. For sure it's no guarantee that the trader can defeat the combat ship, but - if we get the numbers to the right place - it may well mean the difference between some hull/module damage and complete ship loss, depending on the equipment and *how well* it's used.

And I have to say that this is a core concept for the trader's basic journey. It really has nothing to do with them "beating" or "losing" to ships that are designed specifically for combat. It's about the dangers and efficiencies of haulage.

For the combat ship Commander, who presumably wants to fight - they now have a bounty which allows anyone to attack them in the area. Both player and AI ships can take advantage of this, and, again, almost certainly through some ongoing balancing, they should get more fights, which is kind of what they want, I would hope. The idea we want to create here is that living by the sword means risk of dying by the sword, potentially quite often.

Now, for the combat ship pilot who targets weaker ships then pays off the bounty instantly, I don't believe the answer is in making trader ships invincible, or impossible to find or catch. I'd suggest we will get better results in increasing the likelihood of dangerous combat encounters for them, such as tweaking the frequency of more powerful authority ships, especially around stars and starports, increasing the bounty they accrue based on the imbalance between ships, making bounties they accrue sit around as debt once they've been claimed - basically making their infamy count against them wherever we can do so and in so doing increase the chance for combat.

Again, this isn't to make them "lose", it's to provide an entertaining experience for them to work through. The only time player versus player becomes a clear cut case of win/lose is when too evenly fitted ships decide to slap each other about (which they can do, I have no issues with that).

I'd say that possibly we should look into AI to make sure that the more experienced Commanders can feel challenged, without destroying newer players. I think that there is perhaps room to look at rewards in addition to credits, to minimise the perception/reality that trading is the path of least resistance to progression. I think we can look at improving AI goals and activities in super cruise (for example having AI more interested in players based on how the player acts, maybe AI that can use wakes). We will also have lots of interesting situations to monitor when player wings and other features come on-line.

This game is certainly an ongoing endeavour and we're committed! All I'm saying here is that, due to the nature of the game, Commanders are going to inevitably find themselves in situations that aren't necessarily balanced or fair.

What I want to be able to do is make sure that Commanders who employ skill and knowledge (which can include knowing how to outfit your ship) maximize their success in those encounters.

Of course, to caveat, no guarantee or ETA on stuffs that are discussed here, it's simply me trying to explain our current line of thinking (and therefore is in no way immune to change!) Hopefully though, there's some food for thought (and of course, just because you disagree does not instantly make you "wrong" or us "right").

I hope this proves at least an interesting read

This begs just one main question.....how the hell do you put spaces between paragraphs on this forum?

 

[whammo11224]

If I could give you +100 rep, Snakebite, I would. This issue is verging upon being a game-breaker.

Sits back, waiting for the, 'you can't force me to play your way' brigade, to chime in.......................

For the record, no one wants to force anything, upon anyone. Just make your minds up and choose to play EITHER Solo, OR Open!

Give him rep for what? For pulling "clean" ships out of SC because he's bored!

 

[Oddity]

The focus should not be to "protect" traders, as non-combat pilots. The point behind playing a non-combat role in a game like this is that you ARE the hunted.

This. Just create a material deterrence for solo mode trade or an incentive for open. No, adrenalin & glory don't suffice, that isn't what most traders are after. Give traders reason to play that role or else we're dimishing the trader->pirate->bounty hunter food chain at it's source.
33% tax on solo mode revenue? I'd be in as trader. Since that would create an outcry the reverse way is more promising, though.

 

[optiplex]

If I could give you +100 rep, Snakebite, I would. This issue is verging upon being a game-breaker.

Sits back, waiting for the, 'you can't force me to play your way' brigade, to chime in.......................

For the record, no one wants to force anything, upon anyone. Just make your minds up and choose to play EITHER Solo, OR Open!

And that's ^^^^^ why i play in solo

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I find the "reactive generating" extremely immersion breaking. The game world should work with logical rules not use "obviously unknowable" knowledge to create artificial events. Personally that goes against what I'd like from a sandbox / simulation game.

If you commit a crime, then depending upon who you are and if the authorities were notified (report crimes against me) that should put the system on alert, and if the government type supports it (so not Anarchy or small / poor worlds for example) the number of police ships should slowly start to increase .. If the bounty on your head is large enough to warrant special attention that should also put neighbouring systems on alert.

This begs just one main question.....how the hell do you put spaces between paragraphs on this forum?

Don't you just press enter twice at the end of the sentence.

Like this ?

And this perhaps ?

(Or were you making a joke and I failed ? )

 

[Taimaru]

As a trader I have only been interdicted by NPCs (and yes I play in open most of the time) and the trouble is that all NPCs want to kill me whether I have cargo or not. They don't even wait to find out whether I have cargo or whether I am going to drop some cargo. It seems that players make nicer pirates .

Whilst I don't mind psychotic murdering NPCs within the game, I think there should be more balancing done in that area otherwise people, like me, are just going to treat all interdictions as someone (NPC or player) "out to kill me yet again". This I think has given rise to people just wanting to escape every interdiction as they believe they are going to be killed no matter what.

When I get interdicted, either though submitting or from a successful interdiction, I usually scan them and then try and fight back, with most of the time winning the battle, but when I realise that the NPC is too powerful and I won't survive (after taking quite a bit of damage of course) I then try to escape. I hope the suggested changes won't remove the option of escaping in those scenarios.

I have never disconnected during an interdiction/battle and I can't believe that the majority of disconnections are from technical issues, although I could be wrong. Maybe if one disconnects during an interdiction/battle, either intentionally or from a technical issue, they become "Wanted" with a large bounty. That would discourage the people intentionally disconnecting but only be mildly annoying for the rare people suffering from technical problems.

 

[CMDR Bloodhawk]

Less people would combat log if they didn't care so much about losing their ship. Why do they care so much about losing their ship? Because it represents hours worth of time. And in the event you don't have enough to cover insurance, you could potentially lose weeks of progress due to another player.

A good way to reduce combat logging imo, would be to reduce the penalty of death. If someone lost a 4-5 million credit python / Type 9, that means an hour or two of trading to recover. An hour or two of trading is incredibly boring, and DEFINITELY on those commander's minds when as they combat log.

Solution 1 for the interdiction submission change, where you nerf submitting and escape, it would be okay if they can't fire while they hold you. If they can kill you while holding you after submission without any chance of escape, no more traders in open. This is bad for everyone.

Solution 2 where you are requested to drop out of SC is not wanted. That's just awful. I prefer being able to escape interdiction. If you're forced to stop doing in sc, else pay a fine just because random NPC123 came over to scan you, that sucks. Dropping out of sc and then ramping back up to sc is slow.

Please don't replace gameplay with tedium. Replace tedium with gameplay.

completely agree

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

As a trader I have only been interdicted by NPCs (and yes I play in open most of the time) and the trouble is that all NPCs want to kill me whether I have cargo or not. They don't even wait to find out whether I have cargo or whether I drop them. It seems that players make nicer pirates .

I was interdicted once and an npc started shooting .. I jettisoned some cargo and the response from the NPC was to say "That's not enough .." so I guess they do stop (I didn't hang around to find out though )

 

[Vincent Starson]

At this point, the trader needs to recoup their losses (being traders, they'll likely trade to do this). I believe we currently have some issues linked to the severity of their potential loss, but I suspect we may be able to find ways of softening the extreme cases a little better (tweaks to the credit line, for example is something we're looking at, or some changes to overall ship costs). Importantly, to me it makes no sense for the trader to perceive that they somehow "lost" this encounter - because the deck was stacked against them from the start.

I like the sound of this! Awesome to hear.

What I want to be able to do is make sure that Commanders who employ skill and knowledge (which can include knowing how to outfit your ship) maximize their success in those encounters.

I agree with everything you've said here. I can tell you all play this game and truly care about it.
Thank you.

 

[Chukk]

Hello Commanders!


I'd just like to add this morsel to the debate, again to explain where we're coming from.

I'm not overly interested in the whole "who wins the encounter" discussion, especially when the encounters can be very lopsided. I'm interested in how game play is served for both parties:

So a combat-heavy ship interdicts a trader. What's interesting to me here is: how are the players' game play needs being served? My first thought is: is the frequency and mechanics of the interdiction process working? If it is, then great, I know that the trader is facing a threat that I believe traders need to create interesting and exciting journeys.

I know that if I asked a bunch of traders about their thoughts on this particular interdiction they would all likely cry out in despair - the odds are stacked against them. But I have faith that the potential of this encounter makes their overall game play experience better (of course, this assumes that the frequency and game play is correct, something which might need a number of tweaks).

I look at the combat ship. Regardless of what their intent is, at this point in the game play they have a material advantage. But I want to make sure that the length and options of the encounter mean that both parties have at least *some* tricks to employ (hence I want to make sure that the trader could have fitted modules that make life more difficult if used well, and that the combat ship has the means to potentially prevent instant escape and actually attack). If you fly a stripped down trader with no shields or means to defend yourself, I contend that you are taking a calculated risk and can't complain too much when you get interdicted.

All in all, the end result of this encounter is mostly likely that the trader suffers some amount of material loss (the extreme being that they are destroyed) and that the combat ship more than likely has a bounty. Depending on player skill and materials involved the result can swing one way or another, but this is most likely outcome.

At this point, the trader needs to recoup their losses (being traders, they'll likely trade to do this). I believe we currently have some issues linked to the severity of their potential loss, but I suspect we may be able to find ways of softening the extreme cases a little better (tweaks to the credit line, for example is something we're looking at, or some changes to overall ship costs). Importantly, to me it makes no sense for the trader to perceive that they somehow "lost" this encounter - because the deck was stacked against them from the start.

The only sensible way for traders to assess how well they did is to consider how much they lost. And in a nutshell, this is where we have to make sure that traders can *if they wish* alter their ships to mitigate the loss caused by loss. Tough shields, armour, point defence, weapons - these all make a difference. For sure it's no guarantee that the trader can defeat the combat ship, but - if we get the numbers to the right place - it may well mean the difference between some hull/module damage and complete ship loss, depending on the equipment and *how well* it's used.

And I have to say that this is a core concept for the trader's basic journey. It really has nothing to do with them "beating" or "losing" to ships that are designed specifically for combat. It's about the dangers and efficiencies of haulage.

For the combat ship Commander, who presumably wants to fight - they now have a bounty which allows anyone to attack them in the area. Both player and AI ships can take advantage of this, and, again, almost certainly through some ongoing balancing, they should get more fights, which is kind of what they want, I would hope. The idea we want to create here is that living by the sword means risk of dying by the sword, potentially quite often.

Now, for the combat ship pilot who targets weaker ships then pays off the bounty instantly, I don't believe the answer is in making trader ships invincible, or impossible to find or catch. I'd suggest we will get better results in increasing the likelihood of dangerous combat encounters for them, such as tweaking the frequency of more powerful authority ships, especially around stars and starports, increasing the bounty they accrue based on the imbalance between ships, making bounties they accrue sit around as debt once they've been claimed - basically making their infamy count against them wherever we can do so and in so doing increase the chance for combat.

Again, this isn't to make them "lose", it's to provide an entertaining experience for them to work through. The only time player versus player becomes a clear cut case of win/lose is when too evenly fitted ships decide to slap each other about (which they can do, I have no issues with that).

I'd say that possibly we should look into AI to make sure that the more experienced Commanders can feel challenged, without destroying newer players. I think that there is perhaps room to look at rewards in addition to credits, to minimise the perception/reality that trading is the path of least resistance to progression. I think we can look at improving AI goals and activities in super cruise (for example having AI more interested in players based on how the player acts, maybe AI that can use wakes). We will also have lots of interesting situations to monitor when player wings and other features come on-line.

This game is certainly an ongoing endeavour and we're committed! All I'm saying here is that, due to the nature of the game, Commanders are going to inevitably find themselves in situations that aren't necessarily balanced or fair.

What I want to be able to do is make sure that Commanders who employ skill and knowledge (which can include knowing how to outfit your ship) maximize their success in those encounters.

Of course, to caveat, no guarantee or ETA on stuffs that are discussed here, it's simply me trying to explain our current line of thinking (and therefore is in no way immune to change!) Hopefully though, there's some food for thought (and of course, just because you disagree does not instantly make you "wrong" or us "right").

I hope this proves at least an interesting read

This is off topic, but one thing I have to say, regardless of whether or not I agree with you, the level of communication you guys have with community here on the forums is simply amazing. I don't think I've ever been involved with a game's forum where anyone from the development team had much of anything to do with the forum discussions.

Kudos to FD for such outstanding communication.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Taimaru!

You could try dumping cargo. Depending on its value and the power of the pirate, it should be enough for them to back off, even if they were attacking you. Interdicting pirates are generally a bit more aggressive that those encountered in normal space, who may be trailing other marks etc.

Hello Dejay!

Well, I really don't see a problem as long as the rules are logical and reasonable consistent. As in: if you're a black-hearted pirate who loves murdering their helpless victim after extorting all the cargo, then expect an increasing response in a system the longer you stay in it. I'm certainly not suggesting responses that are impossible to link to player activity - actually kind of the opposite.

Hope this makes sense!

 

[RealNC]

There's an interesting sentiment that keeps cropping up: if you make it harder to escape from aggressors, then I'll be forced back into solo. I'd like to ask, is this a player-only issue, or would it include NPCs. Because the idea we've always had for trading is that being attacked is the core game play risk.

In fact, I'd posit that one of the reasons (not the only one, obviously) trading is so much more profitable is because there's little risk of losing your ship or taking much damage, or losing cargo (feel free to disabuse me of this notion if you have evidence to the contrary!)

Now I certainly don't want to see traders getting slaughtered like lambs in an eternal spring, but I want to make it clear that being attacked/placed in significant danger has always been part of our plans for the trader role.

Trading is currently not dangerous, because it's easy to escape NPC pirates. This might be OK-ish in general, but not in Anarchy space. In Anarchies, pirates should probably hunt in packs and be well organized. Like being interdicted by two or three pirates, one of them preventing you from jumping away.

This could potentially have a very nice side effect: the traders would prefer safe routes, but that in turns would make those routes less profitable. Demand for goods in anarchy space would become very high due to this, making it way more profitable. Are you, as a trader, going to risk this? You could potentially double your profits, but there's a very high chance you'll get robbed and be forced to give up quite a big amount of your cargo.

Or this could force some traders to trade in Cobras, ASPs and Pythons, lowering their risk (since they can fight back) but also lowering their profit. This is like an emergent new in-game occupation: high-risk trader. (High-risk miner could also become a thing, if the game simulation would put the highest quality ores deep in Anarchy space.)

In any event, as it is right now, trading in Elite: Dangerous is very similar to Eurotruck Simulator 2. It's a nice game, btw, I enjoy it. But no one's going to point a gun at you there, demanding cargo ;-)

 

[Rennard]

@Sandro - Per your last reply:
.
Parts of the mechanic for trade vs. piracy that are missing for me are system security and trade risk/reward.
.
.
1) "High Security" systems should never yield more than average/low trade runs but should secure traders against almost all piracy. Imo security needs to be beefed up to protect traders but trading should be milk runs as these systems have heavy trade and should be marginalised.
.
2) Traders wanting high profits should find Anarchy systems the most lucrative and therefore run the risk of increased Piracy (player and AI).
.
3) Pirates need to seriously kit up and take huge risks to take on players in High Security systems and the rewards will be limited. Therefore this will be glory hunting and the added security will balance the poor trader (who gets free AI wingmen in the form of SecServ) against the combat ship.
.
4) Pirates that hunt Anarchy systems will be subject to more bounty hunting as they will be KWS'd for any bounty and BH's are free to engage at all times.
.
5) Hardcore traders are more likely to kit out their ships for the dangerous trade routes and accept the added risk whereas traders that want easy risk free trading are not maxing out their profit per run for the sake of safety.

 

[Chukk]

Less people would combat log if they didn't care so much about losing their ship. Why do they care so much about losing their ship? Because it represents hours worth of time. And in the event you don't have enough to cover insurance, you could potentially lose weeks of progress due to another player.

A good way to reduce combat logging imo, would be to reduce the penalty of death. If someone lost a 4-5 million credit python / Type 9, that means an hour or two of trading to recover. An hour or two of trading is incredibly boring, and DEFINITELY on those commander's minds when as they combat log.

Solution 1 for the interdiction submission change, where you nerf submitting and escape, it would be okay if they can't fire while they hold you. If they can kill you while holding you after submission without any chance of escape, no more traders in open. This is bad for everyone.

Solution 2 where you are requested to drop out of SC is not wanted. That's just awful. I prefer being able to escape interdiction. If you're forced to stop doing in sc, else pay a fine just because random NPC123 came over to scan you, that sucks. Dropping out of sc and then ramping back up to sc is slow.

Please don't replace gameplay with tedium. Replace tedium with gameplay.

If you're worried about losing your ship to pirates to the point that you would rather pull the plug than die......why the heck are you trading in Open Play?

 

[GimpstersGhost]

The underlying problem is that there is no significant penalty for murder in this game.

You can attack anyone and then simply pay of the puny fine...

Griefing is allowed by design...

They REALLY have got to get a grip on this game.... Killing an innocent trader should result in a wanted status being posted *permanently* at every system within 100ly

I have to disagree to a small degree here, the reality is that the issue is larger then you realize. The underlying issue is that this game was designed to be played as a co-op multiplayer experience with the possibility of PvP. They have said as much on many occasions. As a result the game has been balanced around that play style. Unfortunately Elite: Dangerous is attracting a lot of people who see things differently then the Dev team and the result is the situation we have now in Open Play where the balance is not optimised to handle PvP well. The issues are numerous. The penalty for caring illegal goods is higher then the penalty for killing another player. There is no cargo insurance. I can erase a PvP kill bounty with a single low profit cargo run, a single war zone kill or taking a single PvE bounty down. Crime and punishment is way out of balance.

This is something we all know. We have a means to avoid it, we can play in Private Groups or in Solo to avoid the players exploiting the current design balance issues. As such complaining when you knowingly launch in to open play and then become affected by the people doing this is pointless as you made the choice to put yourself in to this situation. All online games suffer from this issue, EVE is a prime example. It would bother me more if we did not also have Private Groups and Solo, but we do. I would love to see these issues worked out, but until the Devs realise that their game will be played not by their vision but by what players can get away with given the design constraints, I doubt it will change.

 

[SE-Apocalypse]

Never had this. I can usually track pitching vectors, and if I can't I assume the chap behind me as the same issue as I don't tend to lose out on them. It's the yawing ones that are tricky. Tigga's top tip for yawing ones is not to roll then pitch, but to do a big dip into a U shape. This requires a lot less work in the very sluggish yaw/roll modes of interdictions. Not sure this is your problem though.

You simply yaw, pitch and roll at the same time until you reach the point when you just pitch. You do something similar for those on pitch that are moving to fast, intercepting the vector with a diagonal movement that is 'shorter'. It is kind of dull in normally far to easy. But it is seems to be even easier when you do the interdiction and can use your throttle management to have a healthy distant to your target. So no idea if interdicting or evading is really easier. All I can say on the subject is that you see anything even trying to get on your six in supercruise way to early to allow it to interdict you. If you just evade before the interdiction it virtual impossible to interdict someone. It already a challenge against an npc that tries to interdict you, and those npcs fly like headless chicken.

 

[Faded Glory]

Hello Commanders!


I'd just like to add this morsel to the debate, again to explain where we're coming from.


I hope this proves at least an interesting read

It is an interesting read, thank you. I don't reproduce it all here as it's long.

It seems like you are giving this much thought, and that's great. I do have a question though... Presumably CMDRs who are trading in open want to be there, and that's presumably because they want some PvP interaction, not necessarily destruction, perhaps the fun of the chase, the interdiction and the negotiation with a living breathing pirate if it comes to it. Surely they'd be in solo or group mode otherwise. So, all your balancing work will indeed make it a better experience for both pirate and traders who wish to play in open, but doesn't entirely address the issue (if it really exists), of the player who drops a ship out of SC and then obliterates it with dumbfire missiles (or whatever weapons they use, it's hardly a dogfight or a player interaction if reports on this forum are to be believed) for whatever reason they may have to do this.

As this pertains to the original subject of the thread, players disconnecting to avoid interdictions, I just wonder why they are playing in open anyway? An NPC presumably wouldn't care so it wouldn't be an issue in solo play. I have no answer to this question, and if anyone else does, I'd be interested to hear it. I play solo and open, depending on my mood, but if I didn't want to interact with or be interdicted by a live CMDR I'd play solo. I submit to every interdiction, and either fight or flee. Haven't had to flee that often recently.

Anyway, I still think that the best way to go is to have consequences for actions, rather than try to balance all interactions, which may end up as a never ending compromise.

Good luck anyway. It's a great game, so thank you.