Interdiction Dodgers

[Cmdr Effie Trinket]

You know, the more I read about this particular issue, the more I think its time to unsubscribe to the topic.

The whole problem is nothing to do with the game at all. The problem is with people who would chose to fly a flight simulator, and turn off cross-winds and ground collisions. These people think that the hour spent flying from Vancouver, to Campbell River is wasted, if they crash land when they get there.

Then there are people like me, who do not dumb-down the challenge and do not think that hour was wasted if I crash. If I crash, I try next time, not to crash, but at no time was the time spent trying, wasted.

I fear we are trying to mix oil with water here. There are two types of Elite players. I fit one group, but not both. I am not about to suggest that one group is better, or worse than the other, just that they are mutually incompatible.

FD: Please separate Solo and Open. No good will ever come from this particular, very bad marriage.

 

[Cmdr Sharky]

You know, the more I read about this particular issue, the more I think its time to unsubscribe to the topic...
I fear we are trying to mix oil with water here...
FD: Please separate Solo and Open. No good will ever come from this particular, very bad marriage.

I was right with you until the last sentence. I don't see how it follows on. Also, it's not going to happen. There's no way that FD are going to implement a second instance of the galaxy. Or did you just mean that "solo" and "group" should be a permanent change that cannot be set back to "open" without wiping save?

 

[Commander Silex]

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.

Sure. Just probably not in 10 seconds, certainly in the case of dumbfires. In any case it's fairly difficult to have a real debate until we see the same situation with working Point Defence. I've a lot less problem with this happening to a Python that chooses not to mount a point defence.. after all why wouldn't you?

I should also point out that the video seems to state little about the setup of the Python, although the comments suggest he was both geared for and inviting PvP. If that's the case he probably should have lasted a little longer than this. If this can happen to a combat ready pilot it's likely to happen more often to traders even if they do put some defensives in. This takes the cat and mouse out of the game and turns it into shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Jaeger]

If you want more commanders to take part in PvP there is a silver bullet.

Implement cargo insurance.

That's it, that's all you need do. Remove the massively unbalanced risk associated with trading. The insurance excess penalty is already in place for both interdictor and interdictee.

It takes weeks to earn enough to fill a hold with cargo. Real time invested that you don't get back. So take the grief out of PvP and more will take part.

 

[SE-Apocalypse]

I was right with you until the last sentence. I don't see how it follows on. Also, it's not going to happen. There's no way that FD are going to implement a second instance of the galaxy. Or did you just mean that "solo" and "group" should be a permanent change that cannot be set back to "open" without wiping save?

Even if he did meant his, players would decide to play open when they actually want to play mobius, just because they fear that they are missing out on something.

 

[Quineloe]

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.

Having actual enemies as opposed to just opponents can add a lot of spice. It's a shame there are no pirates streaming at all because of something so vague as "Stream sniping"... :/

 

[Cmdr Effie Trinket]

I was right with you until the last sentence. I don't see how it follows on. Also, it's not going to happen. There's no way that FD are going to implement a second instance of the galaxy. Or did you just mean that "solo" and "group" should be a permanent change that cannot be set back to "open" without wiping save?

yes, that is what I meant

 

[Cmdr Sharky]

yes, that is what I meant

I don't see how that helps with the problem of interdiction-dodgers and loser-loggers.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If you want more commanders to take part in PvP there is a silver bullet.

Implement cargo insurance.

That's it, that's all you need do. Remove the massively unbalanced risk associated with trading. The insurance excess penalty is already in place for both interdictor and interdictee.

It takes weeks to earn enough to fill a hold with cargo. Real time invested that you don't get back. So take the grief out of PvP and more will take part.

.... and if players required to pay for the cargo insurance for each trip then it would be a pro-active task that would be consciously undertaken by the player - and it would eat into profits. In this way, profits would be reduced, as would any losses incurred by losing cargo.

 

[rj134]

yes, that is what I meant

Not necessary, though.

I mean yeah you will have people metagame between solo and open but to open play it really doesn't make a difference at all as long as you have enough players around. IMO the opt-out of multiplay is actually good for open because it keeps players in the loop who would otherwise just not be present in multiplay at all. And it's always better to have more fish in the pond. Yes, there will be whiners and idiots who for some obscure reason want to play open and never interact with anybody unless it's 100% in their interest and to their benefit, but let's face it you can just ignore these people. There's always solo for them.
The challenge will be to structure the game in a way that incentivizes people enough to play open. At it all starts with, again, attaching some real consequences to what people are doing. Traders suffer the consequence when they fly unprotected barges and that's all good. However, the other end of the spectrum needs the same treatment lest you end up with a very unfair game where pirates can kill whoever they please at little to no cost.

 

[Tigga]

Having actual enemies as opposed to just opponents can add a lot of spice. It's a shame there are no pirates streaming at all because of something so vague as "Stream sniping"... :/

I can make it specific. I was chased using purely information from my stream for about 10 hours of gameplay over the weekend by four different groups intermittently. It wasn't really much fun. I think one group managed to get some shots to land while I was at a station, but they didn't make it through my sheilds, and that was all I didn't avoid/evade over the 10 hours. Fun for a little bit, not fun for a long time. Couldn't really play the game during that time, and constant avoidance when the other people know exactly where you are is not interesting. Got called a coward several times by a hoard of Asps/Cobras (4-5?), and some by some people in Pythons who thought I should fight them in my Asp, which I found funny. This is why I no longer stream.

 

[QSL]

No one replies about the CTDs and other connection problems. The real player doesn't cost more than a NPC. He wasn't killed - its frustrating but nothing special. If you suffer from sudden crash o disconnect from your provider just when your are in PvP and imagine, you did not began the fight and you don't have enough to pay the insurance after reestablishing the connection - what then? Sidewinder? Letters to the support? Moarning here in the forums? "Return it back, please!" And so on.
There are no good ways to solve this problem and I think the current situation is not that bad.
PS Pardon me my english)

 

[Cmdr Sharky]

.... and if players required to pay for the cargo insurance for each trip then it would be a pro-active task that would be consciously undertaken by the player - and it would eat into profits. In this way, profits would be reduced, as would any losses incurred by losing cargo.

Most traders would be more comfortable with a 1% reduction in margin than to see 1 in 100 cargo runs blown to smithereens and 100% lost. The problem arises when this pushes barely-profitable routes into being loss-making, and traders have to sharpen up their route finding to cover the new expense.

 

[tagos]

If you want more commanders to take part in PvP there is a silver bullet.

Implement cargo insurance.

That's it, that's all you need do. Remove the massively unbalanced risk associated with trading. The insurance excess penalty is already in place for both interdictor and interdictee.

It takes weeks to earn enough to fill a hold with cargo. Real time invested that you don't get back. So take the grief out of PvP and more will take part.

This would really help. My 64 hold trader ASP has a 1.8 million buy back which pretty much means that I need a 6 million credit cushion to feel comfortable about being in open. As a largely weekend player it takes quite a bit of real time to earn that kind of money. When 4 consecutive wipes could see you back in a Sidewinder that makes for very risk averse playing.

That is why forcing traders to choose a mode will not see a mass influx into Open. While the Trader stands to lose everything to a set of players who stand to lose very little the rational choice would be to not play in Open.

I'm one of those traders who like's the risk of combat but even I wouldn't play Open.

 

[Rivka]

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.

I see, sorry if I kind of lumped you in a class there! Tools, yes, the more toys Frontier sticks in the sandbox, the more fun we can have. What isn't fun is when frontier starts proverbially sectioning the sandbox off, or replacing the sand in some spots with gravel just to protect the "innocent".

In my ideal world, a competent trader vs pirate encounter would end up with the trader barely squeaking out after a long fight, with a repair bill, and maybe a little less cargo than what they started with. The bounty hunter vs.pirate fight should be a real brawl, with who-knows coming out the victor. The incompetent trader who doesn't care about defending themselves vs. pirate..they should lose their loot, and go popski even to a brand newbie yarrling.

A fun addition, I think, would be "pirate stations" out in anarchy areas. A place for the bad people to go, pull the "required" PvE style things to fundraise, base out of, stuff like that. Really good rates on Black market and such. Sys authirty ships in THOSE areas could go after people who DON'T have a bounty. It would give a place for "bad guys" to cluster, that isn't around the "good guy" stations.

 

[Tigga]

Most traders would be more comfortable with a 1% reduction in margin than to see 1 in 100 cargo runs blown to smithereens and 100% lost. The problem arises when this pushes barely-profitable routes into being loss-making, and traders have to sharpen up their route finding to cover the new expense.

I rob traders quite a lot. A suprising amount would rather die with all their cargo than survive with most of it. A suprising amount run shieldless (these ones are much more likely to quit in an interdiction).

Greed is strong!

 

[Robert Maynard]

Most traders would be more comfortable with a 1% reduction in margin than to see 1 in 100 cargo runs blown to smithereens and 100% lost. The problem arises when this pushes barely-profitable routes into being loss-making, and traders have to sharpen up their route finding to cover the new expense.

If a route is barely profitable then the astute trader will move about to find another more profitable route. As traders are already seen as making OP profits, something that gives and takes would seem to be in order - whihe at the same time mitigating ship loss - which might encourage solo / private group traders into open.

 

[tagos]

I don't see how that helps with the problem of interdiction-dodgers and loser-loggers.

There's no cure for these issues that aren't worse than the problem so you'll have to live with it or get Frontier to change their whole implementation.

 

[Commander Silex]

I can make it specific. I was chased using purely information from my stream for about 10 hours of gameplay over the weekend by four different groups intermittently. It wasn't really much fun. I think one group managed to get some shots to land while I was at a station, but they didn't make it through my sheilds, and that was all I didn't avoid/evade over the 10 hours. Fun for a little bit, not fun for a long time. Couldn't really play the game during that time, and constant avoidance when the other people know exactly where you are is not interesting. Got called a coward several times by a hoard of Asps/Cobras (4-5?), and some by some people in Pythons who thought I should fight them in my Asp, which I found funny. This is why I no longer stream.

Funny thing is, what you describe here is the very definition of Griefing. If they were only using in game systems to hunt you down in numbers I'd see no problem with it it all, and this sort of response ought to be expected. It's a shame to see the people posting on the other side of this coin spouting so much bile and vitriol. It's as unwelcome as the aggressive PvP lobby.

 

[Calenir Varrik]

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

It makes me so happy to see a Dev say this.
ive been arguing with a few stubborn commanders on these forums over the last few weeks who seem to think that even flying in OPEN they should have an iwin button and never experience any real danger because THEY want to play the game their way, (not in solo but in OPEN) and force the players who want danger and interaction to lose out on gameplay elements because THEY don't like danger/PvP in OPEN.