Interdiction Dodgers

[Mohrgan]

Its not semantics. People just like to mislabel things and then complain when called on it.

Getting blown up by another player is in no way shape or form any different from getting blown up by the AI. Complaints about it are unjustified and illogical. However if an individual is singled out and repeatedly destroyed by a player or group of players that would be griefing and the injured party should make a support complaint and block said attacker/s. Otherwise, its gameplay.

Do you complain and demand inreased penalties when the AI kills you? Why is it suddenly different because a human is in control?

You are just trying to muddy the waters. PK's pulling people out of Super-Cruise should put them at risk. It does not as it stands. This discussion has never been about NPC's. It's been about PC COmbat Loggers and the surrounding issues.
-
My comment about the Shield Cell Banks intended the class size as a maximum, not a minimum. So I should have said ...up to a Class 3...

 

[Darkwolf]

As said its a p2p system. There is no realistic way to stop someone with a configurable router disconnecting from one player while staying synchronised with the game. All these ideas for "penatly" systems simply wont be feasible.

This. You should be able to do, with some tomfoolery with a configurable router such as OpenWRT, have it force a disconnect from a specific player on demand. You could use this for much fun if there was a penalty system in place.

The other way to look at this, is that why do people care so much if someone logs off? Because you didn't get to see an explosion? Or because you didn't get to hurt someone? Either way, the person is gone from your local area (either destroyed or logged off).

If it's the former, simple solution is to just have the ship that's left behind explode spontaneously so people get to see nice fireworks (without the disconnectee's ship actually blowing up). If it's the latter, this game is specifically engineered to make that kind of thing hard. You don't get to kick people while they're down here to stop them getting back up again.

 

[CMDR Crustatious Cornelius Pig]

If I am interdicted which happens very little now it seems, I go out of my way to submit so I can fight the Cmdr or NPC looking for a fight. If I am out gunned(much better weaponry than I) I scram but if we are well matched(in hardware / skill or both) I will make by best effort to beat dat A $ $

 

[lexandro]

You are just trying to muddy the waters. PK's pulling people out of Super-Cruise should put them at risk. It does not as it stands. This discussion has never been about NPC's. It's been about PC COmbat Loggers and the surrounding issues.
-
My comment about the Shield Cell Banks intended the class size as a maximum, not a minimum. So I should have said ...up to a Class 3...

I am not "muddying the waters". I am specifically and repeatedly pointing out that pulling a player from SC is not a crime. I even earlier gave an exact example of how to use inderdiction in a game lore legal fashion (catching smugglers), yet you ignored it. "Combat logging" is ONLY a problem because people REFUSE to comprehend that Open play is both PvE AND PvP, and then make ridiculous assertions that PvP is somehow "bad" and we are "bad people" for engaging PvP with another player. And that for enaging in a core part of the game that we should be penalised over and above the current system just because *reasons*.

Yet when told that if they do not want PvP, they should play solo we get even more rediculous assertions that its a "grind" and "boring". Players are refusing to engage in a core part of the gameplay. If you are going to play in open you absolutely must accept PvP as part of that, with everything that entails, up to and including getting your backside handed to you on a plate for no reason. If you cannot accept that, you are playing the wrong game.

 

[Mohrgan]

I am not "muddying the waters". I am specifically and repeatedly pointing out that pulling a player from SC is not a crime. I even earlier gave an exact example of how to use inderdiction in a game lore legal fashion (catching smugglers), yet you ignored it. "Combat logging" is ONLY a problem because people REFUSE to comprehend that Open play is both PvE AND PvP, and then make ridiculous assertions that PvP is somehow "bad" and we are "bad people" for engaging PvP with another player.

Yet when told that if they do not want PvP, they should play solo we get even more rediculous assertions that its a "grind" and "boring". Players are refusing to engage in a core part of the gameplay. If you are going to play in open you absolutely must accept PvP as part of that, with everything that entails, up to and including getting your backside handed to you on a plate for no reason. If you cannot accept that, you are playing the wrong game.

Ok. Whatever you say.

 

[darshu]

Thanks as always Sandro for taking the time to post.

I don't suppose anything is being one to simply stop individuals close the ED executable when they are interdicted? ie: Spot they are repeatedly "dodging" at this point in the gane (durin ginterdictions) and do something?

Obviously a lot of people "dodge" even from NPCs too. Are you able to comment on how trustworthy NPCs are at pirating? ie: If you drop some cargo do they even pay attention (& do not then try and kill you)?

This sounds much like shield generators where it actually makes sense to own two (or more) of them to simply have a continual supply of chaff/shield cells.

And the premise of a bounty on an individual for murder that cannot be cleared until X (gameplay hours) after the (last) murder?

So if someone commits murder they can't just scoot off to a station and pay a fine to remove the bounty, but instead need to live X hours in the game with the bounty before they can pay it off? Note: Time docked does not count

If it does end up being a duration debuff it needs to be while online in open imo.

 

[Jordan Cobalt]

As said its a p2p system. There is no realistic way to stop someone with a configurable router disconnecting from one player while staying synchronised with the game. All these ideas for "penatly" systems simply wont be feasible.

Yea it may not be possible for it to stop everyone but it will stop most of the people doing it. I'm sure the majority if poeple disconnecting aren't some power users with a lot of network and scripting skills, they are regular people unplugging the the router cable or killing the game exe or even reseting their computer.

 

[darshu]

Nope. I think death should be penalised more. If you don't want to die, equip stuff so you don't die. If a human comes to steal your stuff, give him stuff and leg it. Many people chose death over dropping any cargo when I pirate, so I'd say death is clearly not punished enough.

Death in a big ship should certainly set you back more than an hour or two.

I like the idea of a more severe penalty too but i don't think many people would agree. My i idea of a better system would be lowering the insurance of a ship itself while increasing the insurance on all components or remove component insurance all together.

 

[darshu]

Solution two, I believe would unfairly punish traders, here's why...

My trading ship, with the A shields in class that came with, already can get killed by a viper in 10 seconds or less, and avoiding interdiction in this ship is not possible. To eliminate submission would be a death sentence, one-hundred percent of the time. Also the attackers fsd cooldown didn't stop them from being able to interdict me five times in a space of 120 LS. Which is my idea of balanced, an equal chance for both parties to be victorious. Removing submission would be a harsher punishment for traders than for the murderer themselves.

To those of you who say, well you can jump to another system to avoid the attacker, yes this is true, however make fsd cooldown longer than time to kill and this is no longer an option.

Trading for me is already the riskiest thing I can do, about 15 million worth of risk every time I run a route. Remove submission, and you'll be putting me back in a sidewinder in a matter of hours. Though, how about other traders, what do you say about solution two?

Solution one seems a bit better than solution two, however still swings the meter too far in the direction of the attacker. I hope that great consideration about making the delay to frameshift longer than the time to kill, my biggest issue with the possible change, is being given. Once wings are introduced, if solution one is the one chosen, and interdictors are able to increase cooldown, what is to stop multiple people from tagging the same ship, this on top of being mass restricted by other ships and you will never see a single trader escape again, I hope this isn't a goal of the proposed changes.

So upgrade your shields, put 4 pips to sys, use a shield cell, chaff, point defence and drop some cargo if you have to. You will last much longer then 10 seconds. If a wing interdicts a lone trader(s) they should be able to kill them rather easily. If 15 mil is too much for you to cover as a lot of people have said if you cant afford to lose it don't fly it. If you die in a system only to fly back to it and die again that's a playstyle issue. I say all of this as a trader in a type 7 that plays in open.

 

[darshu]

I think you're right. High bounties get exploited in every PvP game. What is needed are serious consequences that lead to more good game-play. A 'real' pirate, (as opposed to the Lulz types) would relish playing the hunted criminal, denied a safe haven in a ship that's slowly falling apart because anarchy ports lack high class modules. While all the time 'sightings' of them are posted on Galnet.

And allow them to pay a massive, massive bribe to clear their name.

Now that's the kind of pirate you can run up a gallows and salute. The Drive-By Sunday Psychopaths, not so much.

Make piracy a real career that requires real dedication.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



No, please. Make the NPC's more challenging. We'll cope. It's players who are unpredictable and in enough cases to spoil things, pointlessly psychopathic killers.

Maybe the longer any murder with a bounty is in any one system the authorities become more alerted to their presence.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Thankyou for your comments.

At present the problem is that, for the interdictee, there is little way to evade interdiction. The interdiction module is a consequence free module. By removing the last option for traders to escape the interdictor, the result will be to compel traders to move into PvE groups or go into Solo, I do not think that this is the result that the PvP players, or traders would truly seek.

The whole mechanism for interdictions needs a thorough overhaul, along with the consequences of crime. The interdiction mechanism leaves no place for the victim to hide, leaves no sense of anxiety for the person being interdicted, and no real risk for the interdictor. Some suggestions therefore.

Firstly, limit the range of the interdiction module to scan for targets in supercruise, similarly to the normal scanner. Ships outside the range cannot be seen, other than as the glowing points of light seen through the cockpit window. Without the module installed ships cannot see other ships in supercruise. Add a module, a supercruise scanner to allow tracking without the interdiction module for bounty hunters or traders with greater range. Add an ammunition requirement for the interdiction module. After the 4th or 5th interdiction by the same player, the interdictee is probably going to be somewhat ticked off and will probably decide to place the offending commander on their ignore list or leave the game. I am sure this is not a desired outcome in your eyes. Finally, for interdictions,remove the mini-game and go back to the sudden, jarring mechanism, that meant you would have no idea what you were about to meet. Multiple pirates, an authority ship, or someone who wants to communicate or trade.

Secondly, dealing with criminality. Introduce a persistent criminal record. I would suggest a points system, along side the bounty. The criminal player can pay off the bounty or fine, but after accruing sufficient points in a system they will be unable to dock except at unsanctioned outposts, receiving the docking denied warning. Further accrued points would result in the docking injunction extending to all systems under the major factions jurisdiction except independent and anarchy systems/stations. This would also deal with the station campers attacking ships inside the station and insta-docking to evade destruction. The points would be expunged over a period of time, if the player refrained from criminal behaviour.

Lastly, whilst I have your attention, and it is off-topic I am afraid, can Silent-Running vs Stealth through power management be looked at again. So many opportunities for emergent and subtle game play were discarded because of this decision. Ambush play in the asteroid belts, including cooperative assassination missions where your involvement must not be discovered. Photo-reconnaissance missions where the payout could be dependent on how close you could sneak up to the target. Even dealing with miscreants camping the station entrance from outside the no-fire zone by slipping behind them and unleashing righteous justice via railgun, into their thrusters and then shoving them into the no-fire zone for the station to obliterate them.

Thanks anyway.

+1 i think those are some good ideas

 

[Xntryk]

I got stuck twice today in perma-interdict... got interdicted twice, then outflew it....full bars on my side , empty on the other... and the interdiction video just went on and on,....kept going when I throttled down too. Finally had to go to menu and reload the game....twice. the peer to peer idea is not so great, the instancing every system idea is just as bad.

 

[CMDR Reza Malin]

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

Great communication, much appreciated.

 

[rj134]

I just think it would be too punishing to have bounties that kept on being active after respawning. Sure this would not be an issue for the tiny minority of super wealthy Commanders, but our data suggests that losing a ship is a non-trivial event for the majority of pilots - and having a more or less permanent target on your back would likely just stop people committing crimes. That's my current take, anyway.

We are considering bounty adjustments based on some difference metric between Commanders (for example, Elite Commanders getting slapped with a bigger bounty when attacking lower rated pilots, or perhaps based on ship strength).

Sticky bounties are actually the best solution to it all.

They would be an effective barrier against the random ganks you see happening all over the place right now.
When you know that attacking and killing a clean player incurs a bounty that you can't simply shake off you will think twice about actually doing it. And this should be the norm. Killing other, clean players should be something you only ever do out of necessity or because you're a pirate actively and consciously choosing the outlaw lifestyle.

Right now you have players moaning about insurance costs and the various issues around piracy based pvp because the penalty incurred by attacking other players is trivial enough to allow interdicting and killing traders left and right without immediate consequence.
When you know that killing a trader will have all of the bounty hunters and cops on your tail until the bounty is claimed you will definitely think twice before you shoot. That's a good thing, because piracy (or crime in general) shouldn't be the norm in non-anarchy systems. Traders shouldn't have to expect to deal with interdictions all day every day when you have jurisdiction in the system. They should be exceptions. Otherwise traders might aswell play solo.
On the other end, choosing the piracy lifestyle must have consequence. When you're a thug, independent and anarchy systems should be your home. You should have to expect to be someone they don't easily tolerate around Empire / Fed / Alliance systems. Notoriety should come with a cost, but you should also enjoy privileges when you ally yourself with the dark side. Cheaper stuff on pirate faction stations, piracy versions of certain ships, being mentioned in the news etc etc.

I know it sounds harsh at first, but when you think about the gameplay that would emerge from a sticky bounty system it's actually really good as long as you make sure that trivial things (like accidental friendly fire) are dealt with reasonably (fines).

 

[Rivka]

Sticky bounties are actually the best solution to it all.

They would be an effective barrier against the random ganks you see happening all over the place right now.
When you know that attacking and killing a clean player incurs a bounty that you can't simply shake off you will think twice about actually doing it. And this should be the norm. Killing other, clean players should be something you only ever do out of necessity or because you're a pirate actively and consciously choosing the outlaw lifestyle.

Right now you have players moaning about insurance costs and the various issues around piracy based pvp because the penalty incurred by attacking other players is trivial enough to allow interdicting and killing traders left and right without immediate consequence.
When you know that killing a trader will have all of the bounty hunters and cops on your tail until the bounty is claimed you will definitely think twice before you shoot. That's a good thing, because piracy (or crime in general) shouldn't be the norm in non-anarchy systems. Traders shouldn't have to expect to deal with interdictions all day every day when you have jurisdiction in the system. They should be exceptions. Otherwise they might aswell play solo.

I know it sounds harsh at first, but when you think about the gameplay that would emerge from a sticky bounty system it's actually really good as long as you make sure that trivial things (like accidental friendly fire) are dealt with reasonably (fines).

The biggest problem with "sticky bounties" is....what if I don't care about the bounty? What if I make having the highest bounty a point of pride?

That's the problem with trying to use in-game devices to curb player behaviour. If the player just doesn't care about the punishment, it has absolutely no effect on them. Try to "punish" them too hard, they'll just find a way to evade said punishment and continue on.

Take, for example, applying a heug sticky bounty to a ship kill, and changing system defense so that a ship kill causes massive police response. No prob. At that point, I'll just shoot the trader down to low hull percentage, take out the cargo hatch, and do my best to blow the canopy. Scoop any good loot, shoot the rest, then FSD away to my next victim. Hey, I never KILLED the ship, I'm in the clear.

Well, traders don't like THAT, complain, and get a buff to ship HP. Awesome, I'll go find some like-minded people, and fly in a gang, so I have enough combined firepower to overwhelm that hp. Guess it's time for another nerf.

Next nerf, Frontier puts in an undock timer for criminal actions. Not allowed to undock for 15 minutes after pulling a criminal act. No big, I've got disposable income, I'll just buy another account. While one is resting, the other is out shooting. By this time, I've gathered a bunch of like-minded souls to my banner, and a couple of them have decided to run trades for me, and funnel the cash to me. Guess I don't have to worry about ship cost no-more.

And so on, and so on....


This is the problem with using in-game "punishment" to deter behaviours. I don't see it as a deterrence. I see it as a gameplay challenge to overcome. It also smacks of "other person-itis" as in "Well, some other person will handle that big mean pirate, so long as we do X. I don't have to do anything to defend myself.

A better way to fix things, would be to ask for more ways to outsmart the hunters. Think outside the box. Decoys, to lead the pirates astray as you try to escape. False FSD wakes. Counter interdiction devices, that do small amounts of damage over time to the person interdicting. Now, fitting those things should cost you, when it comes to planning out your risk vs. reward. They may not work, they may be expensive, they might eat your cargo space, maybe system authority will consider some of the devices illegal.

Taking responsibility for your own protection is just much better in the longterm, gamewise. Depending on the devs and "other people" to handle your safety will quickly make a stagnant game.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

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!)

I'll chime in with some feedback on this. Since I only played open a couple of times, I'm an expert now on NPC pirates. NPC's don't present any real risk at present outside of the big bounty hunting missions. NPC pirates are easy to run away from after submission. If you stay and fight, I find some of them challenging enough.

Here's an observation though. A large portion of this games player base is significantly older than average, and a lot of us are drawn to solo and pve. I know I can't compete with a competent 19 year old's reflexes. The United States Navy, where I served, won't even let you become a pilot if you're over 26. Just as surely as I know that at my age I couldn't flight against a 25 year old me, I wouldn't want to dog fight against an NPC who dog fights like the 25 year old me. IMHO, solo cannot be as challenging as open, or there is just no point in playing, at all.

 

[Calenir Varrik]

Excellent points.

Very well said, I hope FD take your suggestions to heart and give us more choices rather than avoidable "penalties" which can be worked around. That's not to say that I don't think bounties and penalties need reworking but it all needs to be considered and made to work together.

 

[darlingm]

...As it happens, we've recently been discussing a "Reboot and Jury Rig" option that would allow you to bring dead systems back online with some minimal health (say a couple of percent) by "eating" an equivalent (or probably double amount) from other systems. This would allow you to come back from being crippled, but not save you from A) destruction at the hands of someone who really wanted you dead and B) further issues and malfunctions (but we think this could be a pretty cool aspect, actually).

Please, please, please! Third time I've had an Anaconda one shot my thrusters at virtually the same time my shields went out, leaving me spinning out of control. All 3 times he's been unable to finish me off for quite a while.

 

[Quineloe]

Solution two would be to remove submission and instead update the AI to be able to demand Commanders to drop of their own accord so that the authority ships could drop out onto them and scan.

Both solutions are non-trivial, both have pros and cons. No ETA, but we are working towards fixing this exploit.

Here's a major con:
If an interdiction can't be submitted to anymore, you'll have griefers in Sidewinders and Eagles interdict every big ship they see all the time with no intention of fighting them, because every time they win the interdiction, the big ship will suffer a six figure repair.
I've already seen people in other games that uses a similar system of instancing + open world attack players over and over out of the sheer inconvenience caused or to keep them from doing what they want to be doing, only to run away the moment combat started. Add a big repair bill to each attack and you'll see these people drawn here like flies to you know what. Nothing more satisfying than seeing an Anaconda limp into port at 80% hull, getting the checkbook out to pay millions to fix the damage you've caused without firing a single shot.

* Chaff is too powerful: Chaff launcher capacity is being reduced (and the munitions is being made more expensive). Like a few other modules that use resources, our initial numbers managed to get out of line with other module balancing passes.

What you need to add is an option to turn gimballing off, similar to what players already using a workaround for, removing the target lock for the duration of the Chaff.
I also don't see how you can balance anything through cost in a game in which a veteran will jump into his hauler for an hour and generate a few millions to pay for PVP again.

We already have a system that keeps bounties alive when you are killed but they are not claimed (dormant bounties). I just think it would be too punishing to have bounties that kept on being active after respawning. Sure this would not be an issue for the tiny minority of super wealthy Commanders, but our data suggests that losing a ship is a non-trivial event for the majority of pilots - and having a more or less permanent target on your back would likely just stop people committing crimes. That's my current take, anyway.

Keep in mind your game has been out for a month and we're already seeing Anacondas. This game is supposed to run for a few years I imagine, so expect that in the not-so-distant future you'll have a good number of veteran CMDR rich beyond their every need, forever. And that number will steadily increase. Especially since some of the PVP ships are so remarkably cheap to maintain, a bit of Type 9 trading will pay for an hour of dieing over and over in a Viper.

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.

Here's the issue with this. By doing so, the trader would just increase the rebuy cost he has to pay if the pirate decided to blow him up anyways. A type 6 is not going to be fighting back against a Viper, Cobra or Asp and somehow not get completely destroyed. If you want to reduce the penalty of a complete loss for the trader, you might want to look into your commodities market first, the one that makes trading anything other than the top 10 goods completely unviable. If goods no one ever purchased to trade with because the profit margin is barely 100 credits kept becoming cheaper and cheaper, traders would actually look for goods. If traders could mitigate their risk by shipping Fruit and Vegetables while still making decent profit you'd see them trading in open a lot more. However, that's simply not going to happen when a completely overfarmed Gold/ResSep Route pays 2500 credits per ton on the round trip while the same stations that are so eager to throw millions in your face for delivering something they already received thousands of units in the last hour go "meh, food? We don't need food here..." Low demand, buy price 90% of galaxy average, profit per ton 50 credits.

Honestly, Broderick Refinery should have starved to death by now. Of course I realize people will think of "high risk, high rewards", but we all know that only the most devoted Open Play players won't actually just trade high priced goods in Solo play with the risk reduction, because right now trading is not exactly fun and most of all a means to an end.


As for the combat logout, people here need to remember that unlike all the games they keep quoting, player combat happens client side (If I'm not completely mistaken on this, if I am please tell me), so if in a single player combat instance (ie interdicted by an AI pirate) the player pulls the plug, the encounter just ends right there because the computer that controlled the AI pirate is also now no longer connected to the game server. This should basically make it impossible to ever lose your ship in a disconnect or client crash when you're not fighting another player.

 

[Sanguisaevum]

This is ridiculous

Hello Commanders!

A few points to hopefully let you guys know what our feelings are currently on a few of the issues raised in this thread:

* Ghost interdiction: interdiction ending with no other vessels present - this sounds very much like a bug, so please ticket. In general, if an interdiction completes (either because of submission or the interdictor winning) then both ships should be pushed into the same space. I can't really think of any circumstance where this should not be the case.

Sandro, with the greatest respect... this particular bug was raised via ticket by me Once during Beta, and then again over a month ago.

Neither ticket was ever progressed past "new" stage (IE... never looked at)

I KNOW for a fact i am not the only person to ticket this issue (as well as a whole host of other bugs and issues that you are seemingly unaware of as Devs.

That you don't know this bug is actually happening, and are actually asking for tickets on it when you have had them for MONTHS, is beyond silly.

At this stage i still have 7 new tickets open and not touched that are a MONTH old.

I PM'ed Edward who said he would try to inveastigate... still nothing.

FD really, REALLY needs to sort it's ticketing and customer service process out!

It is unnacceptable!

 

[Rivka]

Very well said, I hope FD take your suggestions to heart and give us more choices rather than avoidable "penalties" which can be worked around. That's not to say that I don't think bounties and penalties need reworking but it all needs to be considered and made to work together.

I agree totally, bounties do need some working on. Bounties shouldn't be used in an attempt to curb player behaviour, they should be used to inspire further player interaction. The way I see it, the best thing a bounty could do is make someone say "Hmm, I've never PVPed, but I think I can take that guy. Let me roll the dice!"

An interesting idea I had was, keep bounties kind of like they are, but implement a "probation" scheme into the mix. If you want to pay the bounty off, that'll be 10% every X hours (adjustable for standings and such). The bounty doesn't just poof away instantly for rich people, BUT, it isn't impossible for the occasional pirate to do his thing then get "right with the law" again.