If we're playing that stupid game, Admiral Lütjens basically self destructed.
Interdiction Dodgers
- Thread starter Snakebite
- Start date
- Status
If we're playing that stupid game, Admiral Lütjens basically self destructed.
Id like to chime in my 2c here.
The issue as I see it is not one of intent or PvP, but actually ship imbalance in PvP. Specifically module imbalance and the like. Allow me to clarify...
Currently, the modules which benefit the combat ships, almost entirely neutralise the effective defenses of the trading ship:
Dumbfires -> Pd doesnt pick them up, and the fact you can fire them in lots of 10 also raises serious issues.
Chaff -> Affects the gimballed and turreted lasers that a multirole or trading ship would typically carry. If setting up for PvP I would used fixed guns to directly counter this threat.
Shield Cells -> This affects both, a trader may carry shield cells, but it is quite a compromise taking up a large internal compartment, on the other hand the combat ship does not make a large compromise when fitting a shield cell, it is a no brainer...
The way that I see it, an armed type9 should not be easy pickings for a pirate in his cobra or viper. Infact, the opposite. Against a type 9 the pirate should be forced into using cargo hatch breakers or similar techniques because getting in range of the type9 should simply overwhelm him. Im also happy for there to be a blind spot in the type 9 coverage such that if you come across an absolutely brilliant pilot he "may" be able to exploit this, but generally its a no go. A type 9 freighter should only be brought down by combined fire from multiple small ships.
I would argue as a main gripe that small combat ships have access to far too many defense based modules. Shield cells increase the defense of the combat ship, chaff increases the defense of the combat ship whilst the ability for certain loadouts allows for overwhelming firepower which is a little ridiculous.
The way I see it, the trading and freight ships should have more access to defense based modules, whereas the small combat ships should be able to fit more utility such as kill warrant scanners, heat sink launchers etc etc.
Balancing is one tricky issue but If I were to make some suggestions they would be the following:
Increase the tonnage for the freight ships of similar class to their combat counterparts, so that freight ships can equip larger powerplants and larger shield generators than their combat counterparts.
Shield Cells should have far fewer charges which are in line with their class, e.g a class 1 might have 1 charge, whereas a class 6 might have 4. This allows for a get out of jail free card for the PvPer should they make a mistake, but also gives the trader some defensive ability. No more vipers taking on anacondas by spamming shield cells.
Chaff should have fewer charges, and possibly a longer cycle time? or a greater powerplant drain? Essentially make it a compromise to fit, or make it a tactical tool, not a spammable one.
PD should work on dumbfires and cause considerable powerplant drain, it should be reserved for merchantmen, and large multirole and combat ships. Small Sidewinders and Vipers should not be fitting PD imo, give them a manual tactical tool with less power drain and limited charges like flares or something if missiles are really considered to be an issue.
Dumbfires need serious looking at...
I think something along those lines may help the balance issue of the engagements. Or at least be a starting point or prompt some discussion.
Last point I would like to make is regarding bounties etc and risk for the psycopathic murderers etc. This one, ill be honest, im not sure about due to the fact that pirating is not really a viable way to make money at the moment, but nevertheless ill throw it out there and see what people think. As you incur bounties for various illegal activities, your insurance cover should be affected. It should start to deteriorate. Over time (a fairly long time) it should get better again, and performing missions should also give a little boost to its replenish rate. This should be linked to the bounty you accumulate but not something that clearing your bounty or paying your fines will fix.
The idea would be to create more severe consequences for running around shooting anyone and anything. It also means that any form of illegal activity has a little side punishment.
If something like this was implemented though I would also like to see illegal careers given an income boost because at the moment the money you can make from them is laughable. They should be risky, but lucrative, yes I know thats a tough balance, but FD have been doing a v good job so far, so I reckon they are up to it.
Anyway sorry for the essay post
Cheers
Sidey
The issue as I see it is not one of intent or PvP, but actually ship imbalance in PvP. Specifically module imbalance and the like. Allow me to clarify...
Currently, the modules which benefit the combat ships, almost entirely neutralise the effective defenses of the trading ship:
Dumbfires -> Pd doesnt pick them up, and the fact you can fire them in lots of 10 also raises serious issues.
Chaff -> Affects the gimballed and turreted lasers that a multirole or trading ship would typically carry. If setting up for PvP I would used fixed guns to directly counter this threat.
Shield Cells -> This affects both, a trader may carry shield cells, but it is quite a compromise taking up a large internal compartment, on the other hand the combat ship does not make a large compromise when fitting a shield cell, it is a no brainer...
The way that I see it, an armed type9 should not be easy pickings for a pirate in his cobra or viper. Infact, the opposite. Against a type 9 the pirate should be forced into using cargo hatch breakers or similar techniques because getting in range of the type9 should simply overwhelm him. Im also happy for there to be a blind spot in the type 9 coverage such that if you come across an absolutely brilliant pilot he "may" be able to exploit this, but generally its a no go. A type 9 freighter should only be brought down by combined fire from multiple small ships.
I would argue as a main gripe that small combat ships have access to far too many defense based modules. Shield cells increase the defense of the combat ship, chaff increases the defense of the combat ship whilst the ability for certain loadouts allows for overwhelming firepower which is a little ridiculous.
The way I see it, the trading and freight ships should have more access to defense based modules, whereas the small combat ships should be able to fit more utility such as kill warrant scanners, heat sink launchers etc etc.
Balancing is one tricky issue but If I were to make some suggestions they would be the following:
Increase the tonnage for the freight ships of similar class to their combat counterparts, so that freight ships can equip larger powerplants and larger shield generators than their combat counterparts.
Shield Cells should have far fewer charges which are in line with their class, e.g a class 1 might have 1 charge, whereas a class 6 might have 4. This allows for a get out of jail free card for the PvPer should they make a mistake, but also gives the trader some defensive ability. No more vipers taking on anacondas by spamming shield cells.
Chaff should have fewer charges, and possibly a longer cycle time? or a greater powerplant drain? Essentially make it a compromise to fit, or make it a tactical tool, not a spammable one.
PD should work on dumbfires and cause considerable powerplant drain, it should be reserved for merchantmen, and large multirole and combat ships. Small Sidewinders and Vipers should not be fitting PD imo, give them a manual tactical tool with less power drain and limited charges like flares or something if missiles are really considered to be an issue.
Dumbfires need serious looking at...
I think something along those lines may help the balance issue of the engagements. Or at least be a starting point or prompt some discussion.
Last point I would like to make is regarding bounties etc and risk for the psycopathic murderers etc. This one, ill be honest, im not sure about due to the fact that pirating is not really a viable way to make money at the moment, but nevertheless ill throw it out there and see what people think. As you incur bounties for various illegal activities, your insurance cover should be affected. It should start to deteriorate. Over time (a fairly long time) it should get better again, and performing missions should also give a little boost to its replenish rate. This should be linked to the bounty you accumulate but not something that clearing your bounty or paying your fines will fix.
The idea would be to create more severe consequences for running around shooting anyone and anything. It also means that any form of illegal activity has a little side punishment.
If something like this was implemented though I would also like to see illegal careers given an income boost because at the moment the money you can make from them is laughable. They should be risky, but lucrative, yes I know thats a tough balance, but FD have been doing a v good job so far, so I reckon they are up to it.
Anyway sorry for the essay post
Cheers
Sidey
LOL
You did detect the slight sense of humour in my post? Admittedly, I did forget to add a smiley!
Hi Sandro,
Two points from your first post:
Do you or will you consider to make NON-Authority interdictors WANTED when the interdiction succeeds? Currently the interdictee has to wait for the bad guy to make his first move. While he's already probably on top considering weapons loadout. I think it makes sense to fine somebody when he's pulling up a roadblock don't you?
Owh yes, please! Let us have some fun together. I'm sure that the upcoming wings implementation will help a lot with this. I can imagine a functionality where we can post bulletin board requests for wingmen on a difficult or long trip/mission. Share loot or profit between players. These kind of things.
Two points from your first post:
Do you or will you consider to make NON-Authority interdictors WANTED when the interdiction succeeds? Currently the interdictee has to wait for the bad guy to make his first move. While he's already probably on top considering weapons loadout. I think it makes sense to fine somebody when he's pulling up a roadblock don't you?
Owh yes, please! Let us have some fun together. I'm sure that the upcoming wings implementation will help a lot with this. I can imagine a functionality where we can post bulletin board requests for wingmen on a difficult or long trip/mission. Share loot or profit between players. These kind of things.
Sorry, I took your post at face value. I will try not to do that in the future.
As I said, at present using an interdiction module is NOT instigating combat, therefore there should no complaint if the "Victim" decides to leave. On the other hand, if a penalty is desired for the person who leaves, then accept that using an interdiction module is an assault, therefore placing the player in danger.
I have argued repeatedly in various threads about the problems with the interdiction mechanism. I consider it simplistic, introduced with little or no consideration on it's effects within the game. The chasing the blue circle mini-game is something I would consider fit merely for a console game.
Interdiction should be traumatic, without warning, and definitely not consequence free for the player instigator. I have proposed changes to both the interdiction model and to dealing with criminal behaviour. I have not suggested sticky fines and bounties, just a restriction in docking privileges for the criminals. I would also like to see the safe drop out point increased to 25Km along with the mass-lock range. Allowing for Bounty hunters and pirates to patrol here, and also allowing players to provide escort facilities for traders into the station. It also could reward those players taking a risk and dropping out manually to shorten the run into the station. Surely, this would provide all of the Pew Pew PvPers want, with risk on both sides. Rather than the one-sided risk that traders endure at present along side the persistent complaints that it is too easy for them to escape.
The more restrictions demanded by PvP players to allow them to force their gameplay onto others, the more likely those "victims" will vote with their feet and play solo or in private groups. Then the wailing will begin DEMANDING that all players be forced into open play. There are, even in this thread, already such calls. It is a demand being made repeatedly, now, in the Open vs Solo thread.
+1 for this. Balancing around price is going to be problematic. Make chaff 10k/pop? No problem when you can make millions/hour. Same goes for shield cells. To make it actually expensive enough, you'd be forcing people to take up the trading game, something which a lot of people don't want to do.
It's a really tricky situation if you want:
1) People not be able to drag a random trader out of SC and kill him
2) People to be able to take cargo from random traders through piracy and earn something from it
If the trader can escape every time we avoid 1). Good! The trouble is, we also stop piracy, which is meant to be happening in this game. If I can't do enough damage to kill you, doing enough damage to cause cargo to spill or having time to attach a limpet won't exist. IMO we need to be somewhere in between: traders escape if they have the equipment and fly evasively, don't escape if they don't. IMO the balance should be in slightly favour of the attacker (ie. top tier attacker only just beats top tier freighter, assuming roughly even skills and ship sizes, eg. Cobra vs Type 6), as he won the interdiction minigame.
Disruptive mass comes in to this as well. In an Asp I can do whatever I like to a Type-6, no matter his loadout, submission or not, with time to spare. In a Cobra I can only scratch him up a bit if he's got a bad loadout and knows to submit/boost/jump. This is all because an Asp gives a large disruptive mass factor, while a Cobra gives none.
Commodities pricing I strongly disagree with, unless you're going to buff piracy income some other way. Pirates live on value, traders on margin. If value and margin don't go hand-in-hand, piracy stops working. The 1,000Cr/t commodities are 10x worse for the pirate than 10,000Cr/t commodities. Earnings with 10,000Cr/t commodities are pretty low (which is why most pirates go for rares). 1,000Cr/t commodities would be pointless. No way am I putting the work in to blast 20t out via hatch-breaking/cargo hatch popping and scoop them all for a 10k total haul.
Last edited:
That's what I mean by "other person-itis". The whole bounty scheme is just offloading the responsibility of protecting yourself to "some other person". "They" will kill the bad guy, "a bounty hunter" will clear the shipping lanes, I don't have to worry about flying defensively, fitting appropriate protection modules, and making life difficult for the hunters. If "they" won't acquiesce and kill the bad guys for you, well, bug Frontier for moar buffs.
I'm telling you, "they" never show up when you need them, regardless of the incentive. At best, a bounty hunter might roll up, maybe claim a few bounties, then be-bop off. It's MUCH more likely that said bounty hunter will go "huh, easy money", and start capping the people they were supposed to protect.
I'd much rather resources be spent to give traders ways to escape that enable interesting player interaction. Sure, you can pop this proverbial decoy to fake out a pirate on your six, but it costs a cool mil or so, and the pirate can scoop it and sell for himself when you leave. You might get a counter-interdiction device that does DoT to an interdicting ship, but the authorities really don't appreciate you cruising around with that hardware, and will fine you if they catch you with it.That hypothetical drone system you could use to attack the pirate, well that's going to cost you a big cargo slot to run.
The proverbial pirate isn't a dumb person. You put a huge bounty on ship kills, they won't kill you...they'll just hammer your hull to 5%, pop your cargo hatch, and take your stuff anyway. Or just disable your thrusters and blow your canopy. A bounty is just a game mechanic, and game mechanics like that are there to be mitigated as a part of gameplay.
Sure, why would I not, getting killed 10 times would be just 3 millions Oo
And no, my typ-6 build is not equal to a cobra, while I can one-shot a cobra with that outfit, I can only do it once. It a pure defensive trading outfit. Build around having as much cargo as possible (80 is still quite close to the max cargo of a typ-6) and still having 20% stronger shields than a cobra and enough shield cells to keep them up. The torpedoes are purely there to prevent dumb fire ships getting closed, because if you get close the torpedoes will blow you up.
The offensive power of that type-6 is not sufficient to go actually into real combat and it is cheaper than a properly fitted pirate cobra, which should have btw for that challenge have 40 cargo space to take half my cargo.
Oh and btw, most trader Asps will have weaker shields than a type-6, because you want that class 5 for another 32 cargo slot. If you keep that as shield slot than your shields are very impressive, but your cargo space is down to about the same as an type-6, close in price too with a cheap D grade fitting and fire-power that can one hit nearly everything for 50,000 credits per volley. So yeah, maybe it should change the challenge to something even more reasonable like a 13 million trader asp. Which has the option to stick a bunch of point defense on it and just spam seeker missiles after boosting away. Seekers have quite the range, but lack on smaller ships in firepower because of the limited ammo. Volleys of 6x6 might actually hurt anything up to a Python. Would be worth testing. Anyone up for that task?
Still the original challenge was taking about type-6, so I build a reasonable type-6 for trading with 80 cargo tons.
I'd rather skill-based solutions, but I also can't think of many.
Or, in the current system, they'll just run a huge bounty. People are more than happy to try their hardest to kill me for a 100k bounty, why should I care if it's 500k, or 5 million. Sure, it'll attract more people, but the added people it'll attract mostly will be "giving it a go" in ships that just can't do it. Right now it's rare enough to see wanted players, so people will go after you for pennies just because they "can".
Disabling thrusters does not work anymore btw and my canopy is very unimportant as my life support is always a good one (and deactivated in combat anyway ;-)).
I did not want to imply that traders don´t need to take care of themselves too, but consequences for deeds already done should be in place as well. It not about saving a trader that thinks space trucking without shields is a good idea. It about giving pirates a reason not to blow someone up and take the loot instead and giving bounty hunters like myself the tools and reason to hunt pirates. If there are no bounties than I stick for income for sure to npcs and do not care if players I attack have bounties or not. I want my carrot to hunt 'dangerous' players and I want my tools to do so.
Then with respect, the problem perhaps, lies within you, not the game, not the NPC and not the other players?
Edit: I seriously, really7 do not mean this in any offensive way. I genuinely say this as a question, not as an accusation. Perhaps Dark Walker would like to consider the question? Perhaps he may tell me to go away and do nasty things to myself? Either is fine.
Dark Walker, I hope that you see what I was asking, in direct reply to the statement you made, that I highlighted in bold, was not meant in a offensive way. If you do feel offended, please feel free to PM me and I will remove the post entirely.
Last edited:
Then that makes you a psychotic thug and a prime target for competent bounty hunters.
That's exactly the problem with the status quo. There being no tangible ingame consequence to what a player is doing just derails the game into a giant death match where you can blow people up and the universe just doesn't care as long as you pay the insignificant bills. Trust me, you would see a fraction of people killing "for the lulz" if the game incentivizes skilled hunters to track them down and claim the bounty.
The big problem with ED in general and open play in particular is that the choices you make as a player have little to no consequence.
The former is a valid tactic that can be prevented via some escorts. Remember, you can always hire protection if your cargo is of that much value to you. Another incentive to get some player interaction going in this game.
The latter case is simply a matter of game rules. Since blowing canopy and thrusters, right now, is 100% equal to killing someone you could simply incur a bounty for killing. Either that, or you introduce some kind of emergency repair mechanism that gets the thrusters going again.
This is probably one of the things FD have on their board for whenever they get to the "walking around your ship" expansion.
Last edited:
I enjoy how more than half of the commenters completely ignored what the developer kindly put in long posts for everyone to read -
People interdicting each other is intended.
Interdiction is not a form of aggression against "poor wittwe defenswess twadews", but a valid method for players and NPCs alike to police/pirate/bounty hunt.
Submission to interdiction for the sole purpose of abusing the FSD cooldown is an exploit and will be dealt with as such.
Combat logging is an exploit and will be reiterated/reimplemented or changed, but it is not an accepted and approved of behaviour.
The whole idea of trading is that a player is able to make much more money than any other "profession" line, but it is supposed to be a high risk profession.
Flying a defenseless trading barge without any modules such as shields, chaff, PD, etc. is basically asking to be shot because of your arrogance and greed to pack the last 2-3 tons of cargo. Such is the fate of the unprepared and will continue to be.
NPC actions and player actions are regarded as similar. I.e. people trying to put forth a childish argument such as "NPCs are not the same as players, because they are easier to escape from" only shows that the AI is lacking and will be improved upon, not that pirating actions against such people are "bad" or "ruining their experience".
Playing solo is the option for those who are afraid of pirates.
Done.
Now that we got those things off the table, let's get the discussion back on the right track.
People interdicting each other is intended.
Interdiction is not a form of aggression against "poor wittwe defenswess twadews", but a valid method for players and NPCs alike to police/pirate/bounty hunt.
Submission to interdiction for the sole purpose of abusing the FSD cooldown is an exploit and will be dealt with as such.
Combat logging is an exploit and will be reiterated/reimplemented or changed, but it is not an accepted and approved of behaviour.
The whole idea of trading is that a player is able to make much more money than any other "profession" line, but it is supposed to be a high risk profession.
Flying a defenseless trading barge without any modules such as shields, chaff, PD, etc. is basically asking to be shot because of your arrogance and greed to pack the last 2-3 tons of cargo. Such is the fate of the unprepared and will continue to be.
NPC actions and player actions are regarded as similar. I.e. people trying to put forth a childish argument such as "NPCs are not the same as players, because they are easier to escape from" only shows that the AI is lacking and will be improved upon, not that pirating actions against such people are "bad" or "ruining their experience".
Playing solo is the option for those who are afraid of pirates.
Done.
Now that we got those things off the table, let's get the discussion back on the right track.
In your case Tigger people are hunting you Not on how much bounty your worth Because your Hated in our system, You LIVE stream and boast about killing human traders, even when your text'ed and told good fight when you win, your so insulting to the looser, cocky, your a bully boy, probably was the school play ground bully. Only last night on T/S your name was mentioned..!!anyone seen Tigger on line. you Sir are a marked man in ALTAIR sys we don't tolerate Bullies.
^Somebody who can't distinguish between in-game and out-of-game. Another one.
Anyway, sounds fun! Looking forward to it. Just be aware you're going to have to work for it. I'm not streaming any more as people didn't want to work for it and were stream sniping. I will run if I don't have anything to gain, and I'm not against bouncing to different systems.
Last edited:
A dumbfire missile viper/cobra are basically bombers. If a Python or Anaconda is flying without fighter escort than by all means they should die to bombers. And you should see the results of torpedoes, they hurt even more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmU7go7whrQ 35%+ Hull of a combat Python gone in a single torpedo hit. I can not find more details, as far as I know a double hit kills cobras and vipers. Quadruple hits might actually one-shot pythons.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Not, it just sounds bitter and not fun at all. It sounds sick and not like playing to play cops and robbers. It sounds like people who belong to solo keep playing open.
I think this can easily be solved by giving traders a lot more hitpoints to the hull, so you can hammer away and won't have the hull drop % as fast as the cargo hatch.
This is indeed a problem, we have currently the issue that roughly 99% of all possible trade routes (according to in game data) are not worth running or even a loss because of the completely screwed supply/demand levels. If you buy something at medium supply, and you ship it blind to a station that supposedly demands this commodity according to commodity flavor text and has an export/import line for your current system as well, you might arrive and find the commodity in low demand bought at a price below what you paid for it.
I've made a blind trip yesterday with my type 7, not relying on Thrudd's or anything, and did a 200 LY journey, stopping at every jump (if possible) to trade with the stations there. I found wealthy, very large stations that had 9 out of 10 of their supposedly demanded goods on LOW demand, offering prices that would even make CMOT Dibbler blush. It was basically not possible to profitably trade with this station. This is why Thrudd's is so immensly popular, very few people enjoy looking for the needle in the haystack, and that's what it's like to look for profitable trade routes on your own without any tools.
So this means players only trade 6k+ commodities, which you pirates really like and which is why you prefer players over NPCs. One solution I can think of is make the high price - high profit commodities more limited in supply, so you can't actually fill your entire 200t hold with Gold. So the ships would have to diversify the cargo, and you could pick what you wanted from their hold, and you'd obviously choose the Gold, not the Tantalum.
Another would be to discard the whole notion above, and just add cargo insurance of 50%. If a legit container gets jettisoned out, marked as stolen, the player gets 50% of the Galaxy average as an insurance refund. To prevent exploitation, that container stays marked stolen for good, even if the player who bought it at first picks it up again.
You might want to reformulate this, it sounds more like an accusation than just stating the obvious. There is really nothing wrong with not enjoying pvp. That is that controlled pve groups and solo play is for. There is no benefit for those players in open at all.
People are more than happy to try their hardest to kill me for that 400cr accidental bounty I get when I shoot an NPC pirate before my scan completes!
- Status