Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[Rivka]

I think you've lost a very important distinction between players "who reject other players being able to influence their game" and players who prefer to have other players influence their game in a cooperative sense. I think that there are a great number of people who play in Mobius in order to have the cooperative influence and they love that people in open are also influencing their systems. Those same people might not want someone to influence their game in a negative way (you have to read that as what they deem as negative). Please at least know that there are many people that love player influence with the exception of PK'ing.

I disagree. In a competitive game like Elite, player action is, by it's nature, competitive. The difference is degree of abstraction placed between the two competing people.

Here's an example of that. Lets say both of us are playing PvE style in Mobius. We've both found a great trade route. You are in a faster ship than me, that's able to carry more cargo. You manage to make to make the trade run twice, in the time it takes me to make one. In doing so, you've driven the cost of the commodity I was after down.

In that example, we've engaged in a form of (albeit indirect) PvP. It's entirely possible that your trading set me back just as far as a pirate attack would have. The difference, abstraction of the sim between us. I would have suffered the exact same loss had you flown up in a ship, interdicted me, and blasted me to atoms.

In a way, you're drawing a false line in the sand, when you claim that "ship blowing up" PvP is different than any other sort of competition. It's not. One ship blowing up another is the most direct form of player interference in game. Even in a purely "PvE" world like the Mobius example, there is still plenty of competition going on. It's simply a lot less efficient. I could "cost" you the same amount of trade income, just by getting me and some buddies to occupy all the dock spots in the station you want to dock at. I could do it by flying like a loon around the mailslot, forcing you to take more time to get docked to trade. If I were rich, I could just sit in dock, and buy/trash whatever commodity you wanted, screwing with the prices.

You have to be careful when you mess with interconnected things like this. In-game "punishments" really can't be used as a way to discourage player activity, because after a certain point, people are just going to say "screw it" to the punishments and do what they like. Happened in Eve, when the devs there tried to discourage the ganking of miners by piling on in-game punishments. After enough of it, a subset of players just said "You know, screw it, I don't CARE about the in-game repercussions, I'm just going to go blow up miners." The same thing could happen here in Elite. Fines, bounties and those sorts of things should be used as a way to generate new and interesting forms of player interaction, not as a punishment to prod people into not performing an activity.

 

[Commander Silex]

I'll be honest Cowboy, whilst you can obviously do what you want in the manner you're describing, I can't see the point in players playing this way. To my mind the Open Private Group and Solo games could be likened to a game.. say rugby, for the sake of argument. It's not perfect, but bear with me on this one:

In Solo you have a simulated rugby game on a computer. It's got all the rules playing field and so on, but basically it's you vs the computer.
In Group let's say it's like touch rugby. People get tackled but there's no serious contact and it's all just for a laugh.
Then with Open you've got full contact, 'better strap your ears down with tape and wear a mouthshield rugby'.

Now in Elite we've got three games going on simulataneously but the end score is an aggregate. Some guys are in an arcade playing their simulated rugby, others are enjoying touch rugby, and the rest are in the full on contact game. Anyone can move between ptiches any time they like, but the limits of each ought to be respected - in the interests of fair play. Now some guys on the full contact and even the touch rugby pitches might foul. They're going to get sent off if they persist one way or another.

But to my mind going into Open, then banning every person who happens to play a little bit rougher than you like, is a bit like choosing to join the full contact game - then saying 'But anyone who gets me muddy is getting sent off.' It's not really in the spirit of it, is it?

 

[m00se11]

Increase NPC interdiction rates in SOLO play.

There are two clear disadvantages when playing open:

1) the risk of getting interdicted by a human player. I for one would have NEVER traded in a unshielded type 9 in OPEN. But in SOLO its not a problem as I know that no NPC can kill me faster than I can run away.

2) people can see your trade routes just by following you (happened to me).

Since we are all still playing in the same universe, those two advantages in OPEN should be countered in SOLO mode. I say the simplest and easiest thing to do is to increase the interdiction rate of NPC's. That way even in SOLO the inherent risk is still there.

I prefer PVP, but when trading, why should I take the risk of losing 10 million dollars worth of credits by playing open?

 

[Cowboy Bats]

To my mind the Open Private Group and Solo games could be likened to a game.. say rugby, for the sake of argument.

I don't know anything about rugby other than it's some game that people play in Europe because they don't have football. But I get your point.

Really, we see the game so differently, that we're not even playing the same game. I spend most of my time in the Mobius group these days, and I'm not competing with anyone. I share trade routes with anyone who asks (I think it has happened twice now), help players with npc battles making sure that I leave the kill for them etc. I have no sense of outdoing another player or having another player outdo me. I'm not keeping score. I try to help the other Mobius players I encounter (which have been few) have fun, nothing more.

 

[Daffan]

Again

- I'm not asking for PVP or nothing, I'm asking for meaningful PVP, and mechanics to support that. I've got no issues with solo/group play, but it needs to be handled properly. The current system doesn't really (but could be made to with tweaking)
- Many space sim games that aren't EVE online have released with a primarily PVE focus over the last 10 years, which treat PVP as 'opt-in'. Every single one of them has been a financial disaster and has failed to produce any staying power. EVE is the only one that has been a success -- there are sound reasons for tht, most of them come down to its sandbox nature and certain gameplay mechanics. Player interactions in EVE are meaningful, PVP or otherwise
- Some aspects of EVE's PVP mechanics are counter productive. The ones everyone seems to have a problem with are suicide ganking, and corp wardecs. I have stated numerous times that I am opposed to mechanics like those -- add to this that 'suicide ganking' is already a mechanic that is IN elite dangerous. Any decent player can kill you in most locations of secure space if they are willing to take a bounty hit.

I remember in BETA and other places people saying that ELITE was not going to be a 'grief' fest like EVE Online. However, how wrong that was

-YOu can murder anyone anywhere in Elite for no/little penalty

-There is no reward or bonus for killing other players

-Other players have no reason to play Open other than ganking

-The risk and reward is so bad people don't want to play open cause their is no point

-Everything done in Solo counters progress in Open making it an exercise in futility

TBH if they want Open to actually be viable. It needs

- It's own server

- A total rebalance of PVP and PVE mechanics (i've only touched on this a little bit)

Funny how everyone hated EVE style PVP yet it came out worse in Elite. Everyone got what they hated the most.

 

[Ghostickles]

I remember in BETA and other places people saying that ELITE was not going to be a 'grief' fest like EVE Online. However, how wrong that was

-YOu can murder anyone anywhere in Elite for no/little penalty

-There is no reward or bonus for killing other players

-Other players have no reason to play Open other than ganking

-The risk and reward is so bad people don't want to play open cause their is no point

-Everything done in Solo counters progress in Open making it an exercise in futility

TBH if they want Open to actually be viable. It needs

- It's own server

- A total rebalance of PVP and PVE mechanics (i've only touched on this a little bit)

Funny how everyone hated EVE style PVP yet it came out worse in Elite. Everyone got what they hated the most.

W/E you have solo and group modes, plus instancing. This is crying wolf.

 

[Antmax]

Some changes in the works. More penalties for murder etc from the games lead designer.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101378&page=15&p=1575950&viewfull=1#post1575950

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:


* Submission escape: we are looking into two potential solutions to the ability for ships to submit then charge their frame shift five seconds later.

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).

An added benefit would be that the interdictor could be used outside of interdiction.

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.

There's also one other interesting point to note. If you submit to interdiction simply to escape back to super cruise there is nothing preventing your assailant from repeatedly dragging you back down. If you fight and successfully evade interdiction, your aggressor is dropped into normal space with a forty second frame shift cool down...

* Murder is not serious enough: This is an interesting one that has a couple of different strands to unpick. Firstly, we are looking to add in a future update a change that will cause any bounty claimed to become a special, non-expiring fine for the perpetrator. The idea is that when you commit a crime you are expected to pay at some point. Currently some game play flow options remove the bounty completing when you are killed, which is not what we want.

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).

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.

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).

* Combat Logging: unfortunately there isn't a panacea we can apply to make it go away. We're investigating various options to mitigate the issue. I can't really add anything more at this point in time, other than to say that we're aware of the issue and we're looking at what we can do to both "escapee" and "victor" to improve the situation.

* Moar player interaction for players that aren't fans of PVP: We want to see more stuff that has players working together in some meaningful fashion, with meaningful game world responses, as much as the next Commander. Various options are in the "big list of cool stuff". We have to take things one step at a time though, making sure what we have works to the best of its ability and has the foundations to support additional game play.

So, I hope this helps clarify things a little for you folk! I'll finish with the note that just because we don't get into every thread on the forums doesn't mean we aren't aware or dismissive of issues raised. Forum interaction is actually relatively costly for us, so we have to pick our moments for maximum effect And remember, feedback (as long as it's polite) is always appreciated!

 

[Commander Silex]

Everyone got what they hated the most.

No some people are just blowing things out of proportion on the basis of the worst case scenarios, and are assuming that as it stands now is precisely how it is going to remain.

 

[Leopold Zgierz]

... I'm asking for meaningful PVP, and mechanics to support that....

Player interactions in EVE are meaningful, PVP or otherwise

I agree with you. What's even more amazing is that the PVE in EVE is more meaningful thanks to this unconsentual hardcore pvp in nullsec. Think about it. Thousands of ships blow up daily. Ships being produced by industrialists. From minerals mined in belts, from ore mined by corp-owned structures in moons, from commodities extracted from planets via player-owned planet-side structures, and finally from recycable circuits salvaged from dead wrecks of AI pirate NPC's killed in the equivalent of RES and NAV points. This is all PVE and it has a purpose. Think about how PVE and PVP feed each other. This is why EVE has been going strong for what, 11 years now? Do you want ED to flourish like EVE or to share the fate of the likes of Evochron Mercenary?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I'm looking forward to the changes.

I had this spiel in my head about asking what Commanders felt was 'Meaningful PvP' to the end of explaining why people are not happy with forced Open mode. However, it feels pointless with people appealing to conspiracy theory and conjecture-as-fact. I looked over the last two days of posts and can spot half a dozen new threads about people wanting to post bounties on players, and threads about players who interdict to kill with "Because I can" or "Because you have an anaconda." Some people can manage that. Others lost everything. Granted there are also some posts who

Not everyone sees mindless murder of clean marks as 'meaningful interaction.' Especially when you can lose 10M cr in one go, but the Pker just gets a slap on the wrist. Some people have even come to expect contact and demands, only to find that the other player just wants to take out something easier than himself for no reason attached to the Elite universe other than "He can."

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101678&p=1574299&viewfull=1#post1574299

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101771&p=1575988&viewfull=1#post1575988

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101000

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=102131

There are also examples of what I would see as meaningful: Such as https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=102144 and others where the experience of being robbed actually made both experiences richer.

So I'm happy about these new changes because these changes are what are going to draw more people into open, not restricting modes or changing the design of the game. If more people were like the later example, and not the former, that is what would make for a better PvP and Open experience.

 

[Commander Silex]

I don't know anything about rugby other than it's some game that people play in Europe because they don't have football. But I get your point.

Really, we see the game so differently, that we're not even playing the same game. I spend most of my time in the Mobius group these days, and I'm not competing with anyone. I share trade routes with anyone who asks (I think it has happened twice now), help players with npc battles making sure that I leave the kill for them etc. I have no sense of outdoing another player or having another player outdo me. I'm not keeping score. I try to help the other Mobius players I encounter (which have been few) have fun, nothing more.

I'd contend the notion that we see the game so entirely differently. I do the same things in Open, whilst also helping out players in trouble from piracy and defending myself from other players (both in my viper and Type 6 - both to different ends). Sometimes I'll even seek out players, either when I consider myself contracted to do so during a warzone or when I'm hunting bounties. Again it's my choice and similarly it is implied others might take those sorts of choices during Open play. The price of my own freedom to make that choice is the risk that others might exert their freedom more confrontationally. The big difference between myself and the typical solo or group only player is they don't accept that other player's right to express their freedom in this way. The big difference between myself and the hardcore competitive PvPer is they don't accept the Solo and Group only players right to move away from Open and still return at a later date. I don't particularly agree with either of these notions. As for keeping score... when I'm talking about an aggregate score I'm referring more to our collective effect on the galaxy some of which may include other player deaths. If killing players was a big part of my gaming needs you'd guarantee I'd have more than 4 player kills to my name.

In the end we're all here to enjoy the game, and just as was rightly pointed out by another Commander:

The only suffering being done is by the small subset of people that just can't stand the idea that there are people out there having fun in Solo and there is nothing they can do to ruin that fun.

I'd have to agree mostly with this statement but I think you could just as easily say the same about Open play. There are a lot of players accepting the higher level of consequence in play who are not on the forums every day with horror stories of interdiction by pirates. Whether there are balances and checks to be worked on to make the experience for both the prey and the hunter more meaningful is something that could clearly be debated, but it is disingenious to suggest people remaining in Open only want one thing i.e. to blow each other up. Not that I'm saying you specifically are doing so in your previous posts in this thread, just a general observation.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Just a point of order. A player that attacks another without making demands just to kill the other (clean) player, is not a pirate. Hence the horror stories tend not to be about pirates.

In fact I would say that the stories that are posted about Pirates are actually mostly positive and show the best of what Elite Dangerous can be.

 

[Commander Silex]

Just a point of order. A player that attacks another without making demands just to kill the other (clean) player, is not a pirate. Hence the horror stories tend not to be about pirates.

In fact I would say that the stories that are posted about Pirates are actually mostly positive and show the best of what Elite Dangerous can be.

That's debatable. Piracy can and may well include attempted destruction of the trader by default. Those taking this route aren't doing anything the lead designer wants to make prohibitive, but there are very likely to be tweaks to make the murderous choice more painful, and also to make the traders options more meaningful.

I think the bigger issue comes when a trader who has even gone to the effort of defending their ship with countermeasures and some shields can be practically instagibbed by one of the cheapest ships on the market loaded with missiles, unless they pull of some truly awe inspiring or flukey evasive manouevres in their brick. I think it's hard to deny that that can and does happen at the moment, although the scale of it is probably less than claimed, and avoiding it not as impossible as suggested either.

 

[mosh_er]

I don't know anything about rugby other than it's some game that people play in Europe because they don't have football. But I get your point.

Really, we see the game so differently, that we're not even playing the same game. I spend most of my time in the Mobius group these days, and I'm not competing with anyone. I share trade routes with anyone who asks (I think it has happened twice now), help players with npc battles making sure that I leave the kill for them etc. I have no sense of outdoing another player or having another player outdo me. I'm not keeping score. I try to help the other Mobius players I encounter (which have been few) have fun, nothing more.

Sorry i know its off topic but i couldn't let it go, we don't have football in europe?? Yes we do its the game where 2 opposing teams compete with a ball only using their feet - FOOT BALL

Not what you call football which at best should be call HAND EGG.

 

[CMDR Bansidhe]

Sorry i know its off topic but i couldn't let it go, we don't have football in europe?? Yes we do its the game where 2 opposing teams compete with a ball only using their feet - FOOT BALL

Not what you call football which at best should be call HAND EGG.

Well said. Although, to be honest it would better be described as HAND.... time out, I need a rest, I'm a little out of breath here, OK, we're good...EGG.

 

[mosh_er]

Well said. Although, to be honest it would better be described as HAND.... time out, I need a rest, I'm a little out of breath here, OK, we're good...EGG.

Good point

I would now like to return the thread back to topic, apologies for any lack of service

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

That's debatable. Piracy can and may well include attempted destruction of the trader by default. Those taking this route aren't doing anything the lead designer wants to make prohibitive, but there are very likely to be tweaks to make the murderous choice more painful, and also to make the traders options more meaningful.

I think the bigger issue comes when a trader who has even gone to the effort of defending their ship with countermeasures and some shields can be practically instagibbed by one of the cheapest ships on the market loaded with missiles, unless they pull of some truly awe inspiring or flukey evasive manouevres in their brick. I think it's hard to deny that that can and does happen at the moment, although the scale of it is probably less than claimed, and avoiding it not as impossible as suggested either.

Agree with the second paragraph and it appears that FDev have heard and are making changes to balance that out, I think.

Then let's debate, as you say. Which part of Piracy benefits the pirate when his mark is destroyed? I would suggest that it does him, and other pirates on that route, harm.

 

[Commander Silex]

Agree with the second paragraph and it appears that FDev have heard and are making changes to balance that out, I think.

Then let's debate, as you say. Which part of Piracy benefits the pirate when his mark is destroyed? I would suggest that it does him, and other pirates on that route, harm.

I would agree in the larger picture, but that won't stop them doing so as it wouldn't in life. 'Some people just want to see the world burn' as the quote goes, and they're just as happy picking up the pieces and selling them and probably wear their bounty as a badge of honour. This in itself isn't necessarily a prohibited from of gameplay, but the precise detriment to the player could do with some adjustment so long as it doesn't make murder completely prohibitive in a gameplay sense. Given the lack of social tools and methods of in game communication at present it would be currently hard for pirates with an interest in maintaining the flow of trade to enforce restraint effectively, but this might happen given time and better game systems. It's also the case that many pirates give terms which include death if the mark refuses. For that threat to be meaningful it must be carried out when pressed. Players have every right to refuse, and unfortunately some are aggrieved when the worst case plays out if they do. Of course if they escape those same players would probably see it as awesome and working fine, whereas the truth is the balance has to be somewhere between either eventuality occuring for balance to be fine.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I would agree in the larger picture, but that won't stop them doing so as it wouldn't in life. 'Some people just want to see the world burn' as the quote goes, and they're just as happy picking up the pieces and selling them and probably wear their bounty as a badge of honour. This in itself isn't necessarily a prohibited from of gameplay, but the precise detriment to the player could do with some adjustment so long as it doesn't make murder completely prohibitive in a gameplay sense. Given the lack of social tools and methods of in game communication at present it would be currently hard for pirates with an interest in maintaining the flow of trade to enforce restraint effectively, but this might happen given time and better game systems. It's also the case that many pirates give terms which include death if the mark refuses. For that threat to be meaningful it must be carried out when pressed. Players have every right to refuse, and unfortunately some are aggrieved when the worst case plays out if they do. Of course if they escape those same players would probably see it as awesome and working fine, whereas the truth is the balance has to be somewhere between either eventuality occuring for balance to be fine.

In the real world, such that "want to see the world burn" tend to be hunted down like dogs, thrown in to a cage and the key thrown away. The current little slap on the wrist they get at the moment is no deterrent and hopefully is going to change. Would we want to see it gone altogether? No, you are right. But it should at least be some sort of challenge. It's currently the easiest thing to do in game to hunt down someone in a lesser ship and blow them out of the sky, then pay off the insignificant fine and walk away whilst their prey pays 10m in insurance and loses another 10m in cargo. This alone is reported to have driven some people to leave Open, if their posts are to be believed.

You are right that these are probably the vocal exception, but the number of posts I counted in the last two days on "This is why I love open" appear to be outnumbered by the "This sucks, I can't even ask for revenge!" posts.

"Stand and Deliver, Oo Ee Oo Ee, Your money or your life." Adam Ant. It's all well making threats but the punishment for actual murder is soon to get much more... punishing. Whether you actually kill the mark or just bring the hull down to 50% for non-compliance makes a difference. One can actually remove a player from the game altogether, never mind from the trade route, or mode. A wrongly calculated gamble by a trader on meeting a PKer can be sent back from Type 7 to sidewinder with no recourse. If that happened to be 7 months worth of two hour slots on a Saturday evening you are not going to see that person back this side of heaven. That's not good for the game as a whole and not good for Pirates.

So just because you sing like Adam Ant does not mean you have to follow through, that's what limpets are for. Whether that needs to be made easier, or whether it is just that the skill needs to be practiced and learnt is, as you say, debatable.

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

Ok so im on a short Luxury good run.

Everything is going swimmingly having fun dodging the odd pirate and other players who are desperately eeking out as much trading before they go as possible.

Then I drop into the LG area and there is an Anaconda player who has destroyed the traders forcing players to goto another LG point, I've seen this a number of times in open now.

I don't trade often (mainly pirate/pvp/BH) but just wanted a boost of cash.

Making me go that much further to do the run is a bit churlish if you ask me.

So I went solo to trade, problem solved, but a real shame as I have never gone solo before.

To the various players I see destroying Luxury Good ships, I know it isn't pirating, so why do it apart from making it harder for other players?

Point in case!

 

[Commander Silex]

In the real world, such that "want to see the world burn" tend to be hunted down like dogs, thrown in to a cage and the key thrown away. The current little slap on the wrist they get at the moment is no deterrent and hopefully is going to change. Would we want to see it gone altogether? No, you are right. But it should at least be some sort of challenge. It's currently the easiest thing to do in game to hunt down someone in a lesser ship and blow them out of the sky, then pay off the insignificant fine and walk away whilst their prey pays 10m in insurance and loses another 10m in cargo. This alone is reported to have driven some people to leave Open, if their posts are to be believed.

You are right that these are probably the vocal exception, but the number of posts I counted in the last two days on "This is why I love open" appear to be outnumbered by the "This sucks, I can't even ask for revenge!" posts.

"Stand and Deliver, Oo Ee Oo Ee, Your money or your life." Adam Ant. It's all well making threats but the punishment for actual murder is soon to get much more... punishing. Whether you actually kill the mark or just bring the hull down to 50% for non-compliance makes a difference. One can actually remove a player from the game altogether, never mind from the trade route, or mode. A wrongly calculated gamble by a trader on meeting a PKer can be sent back from Type 7 to sidewinder with no recourse. If that happened to be 7 months worth of two hour slots on a Saturday evening you are not going to see that person back this side of heaven. That's not good for the game as a whole and not good for Pirates.

So just because you sing like Adam Ant does not mean you have to follow through, that's what limpets are for. Whether that needs to be made easier, or whether it is just that the skill needs to be practiced and learnt is, as you say, debatable.

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



Point in case!

I'm mostly in agreement to be honest, but traders shouldn't expect the highwayman's threats to be nothing more than bluster. If you want to call their bluff, that's perfectly reasonable. Just be sure you can take the loss if they turn out to be playing for keeps and your own hand turns out to be weaker. With adjustments to murder bounties the pirates might feel generally more inclined to bluff or resort to less terminal tactics too, and this all helps the game in the long run.

The problem is at present we have a game that lacks several really handy tools that should be there to offer a wider variety of options.

Pirate shoots out your drives and loots you leaving you for dead? As far as I'm aware even with an autorepair system this won't be repaired from module destruction, but given the ability move around ships and do EVA the trader could make repairs on his own ship and limp back home later. Afraid of taking on trade runs due to piracy? Bring some friends.. only... linking up with friends through all possible scenarios is a bit clunky and takes a lot of practice to master right now. FSD Interdicted trader? Trader submits and in many cases flies right out of there seconds later. So why bother negotiating? Just interdict and shoot, rinse repeat until either their cargo bay pops or they explode. With repeat interdictions that trader's hull is going to be a lot lower too. Chances of player death go up.

Also +1 for the Adam Ant reference


As for the Point in Case, there's a very funny scene from Team America that I'd post but it probably fails to meet forum guidelines.