I think this is the most problematic misconception of them all, and at the bottom of many disagreements on this forum.
Interdiction Dodgers
- Thread starter Snakebite
- Start date
- Status
I think this is the most problematic misconception of them all, and at the bottom of many disagreements on this forum.
I want to optimise my performance, within boundaries.
Those boundaries are:
1) Doing PvP piracy.
2) Not being too much of a git while doing so (ie. I give people options to get out without any shooting at the start, and without them dying at the end).
3) Playing in open, obviously.
Optimisation doesn't mean "Make maximum profit". Solo trading is obviously the way to do this, but I don't think I'd actually enjoy the game without any risk. The potential for loss makes not losing much more fun.
It depends if you define an I Win button as 'something I have to use thought or skill to overcome' or not. I'm not aware of any I Win button a trader has. I'm aware of modules and techniques that help them escape or can give the less skilled and/or wrongly equipped interdictor a hard time though.
It's my experience that there's a lot of people who think it's their right to be be able to kill any trader so anything that thwarts them, like shield cells, chaff or dumb-fires requires the Nerf Hammer.
If being interdicted means certain death for a trader then Open will be empty of traders. Even without all the incoming module nerfs, if you're good enough and if you're properly equipped you stand a good chance of disabling a trader.
People just have to work towards that position rather than expect devs to keep making what is already a one-sided and for the attacker, consequence-lite activity even more one sided.
It's a good thing that traders can escape lesser skilled pilots with ill-considered loadouts.
Even larve has already pirate stations, anarchy stations of crime syndicates like the gold mafia or the crimson, etc are all exactly that. They don´t care about any bounties you have, they will not scan and fine you if you are a smuggler. They are still quite rudimentary implemented, like anything in this game, but they are already the perfect place for the bad guys AND there seem to be a lot of tears from traders that try to dock their and find out that the no fire zone is not really encourage at anarchy stations, even when the system itself has a high security rating. Traders dock their and complain when they get spawn camped ;-)
Ohh, excellent, I never noticed. Frontier needs to expand heavily on this concept. I got no problems with a "good guy" dock lockout, just as long as the bad guys have a spot to go to and take care of things.
Now, could you just imagine if Zaonce became the anarchy base for pirates in the Lave region, along with keeping it's rare. The bloodshed, ohh all the bloodshed!
Another thing I'd like to see, a "heat" system like GTA. You get heat, sys authority chases you. Every time they see you, it resets the timer. Spend enough time hiding, said "heat" wears off. Keep that time-frame reasonable, something well within one play session. That could help allay fears of "camping", while still allowing some daring raids and temporary pirate blockades.
Really, any form of "lock-out" or NPC chase should have a timeframe within one game session, max of say, 15 minutes.
Last edited:
Read the early "The Noob" comics and you get an idea of anti-pk players mentality ;-)
If tigga would have called a few buddies to even the odds he would have get even more hate for playing "unfair" and griefing his hunters. You gonna bet on it. The whole reason why I do not want to associate myself with this kind of players and rather help an honest pirate than an dishonest pve player. Not that this would stop me from shooting at pirates either. ;-)
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
The background simulation alreay allows this, just find 100 people and starting doing missions for the pirates in lave. You can eventually even overtake the whole system and make it a full scale anarchy. Expansion to neighbour system is still buggy (like so many things), but it is a worthwhile cause for pirates to turn all rare stations in the game into anarchies.
are you at least uploading?
I am inspired. Soon as Frontier gets most of the bugs ironed out of that chunk of the sim, I'm SO going to organize a pirate uprising. The entire Lave rare cluster, owned by pirates in full-on anarchy!
To address the wanted players issue, the developers should simply copy what eve online does. If you keep killing innocent players in faction space you take a hit to your security status (criminal rating). Once you reach a certain criminal rating, you are a permanent target and the only way to remove or deduce the criminal rating is to grind out faction missions.
Regarding disconnects. If you disconnect within X seconds of committing or being subjected to a criminal act, your ships stays on the server for N seconds so that your ship can be destroyed whilst you're offline.
Seems pretty simple to me...
Regarding disconnects. If you disconnect within X seconds of committing or being subjected to a criminal act, your ships stays on the server for N seconds so that your ship can be destroyed whilst you're offline.
Seems pretty simple to me...
The light bulb in my mind just went Halogen as to how the background works. Brilliant. All for it.
Oh god Eve ideas burn him at the stake!
Seriously though, the devs have said there are technical limitations to making ships stay in space after a disconnect. Since it can't be done, I think a different way could work. If you disconnect while your ship is being aggressed or interdicted, your ship suffers random, moderate amounts of damage across all systems. Something around 20-45% damage to hull and modules, like a supersized version of an emergency supercruise dump. They can keep the instant disappear with that.
Pretty sure a system like this is already in place. Bounties aren't the only punishment for criminality. You also damage your local rep and eventually will hit hostile. The only way out is grinding rep.
There is no server in elite. It all peer to peer and the guy who wants to disconnect might actually be the server and just blocks other players connecting to his server instance. ;-)
Only the persistant stuff is handled on frontier servers, station prices, your equipment (hopefully), etc
You can cheat and hack as much as you want in elite in the same way you can cheap and hack in titanfall.
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
I think the main issue with piracy atm is that even if you give up your cargo there is no real deterrent for the agressor to then blowing you up any way. The internal security forces that will show up after a small eternity are to trivial to deal with.
While I loathe to do it, the obvious comparison here is EVE Online, where while it is possible to make a profit from piracy in high security space shooting on an innocent always leads to 100% guaranteed death. CONCORD (eve's space police) has no mercy and is unbeatable. So piracy in practice is relegated to low and null security space or when it does happen in high security is a very careful cost/potential benefit analysis for the aggressor (I know because I've done it *a lot*). But there's the 100% guaranteed fact you will lose your ship as the aggressor so the question becomes are the potential drops worth it? And can I actually collect them? If both answers are yes, then ok, sorry mr hauler...
If aggression versus a non-wanted trader in Empire/Federation/Alliance carried serious repercussions like the navy showing up (and actually being scary unlike those adorable internal security muppets that will show up eventually after tea and crumpets) and doing serious damage to the point where you won't be scooping any cargo with them around... It might be more bearable for traders to actually jettison cargo some to get away in their ship. But if you tell somebody to hand over their valuables and then there's no guarantee they live anyway? Meh, no thanks I can't even blame them. And you can program the AI to be nice honourable pirates, but not players so if you want them to behave a certain way you'll need to incentivise it with either carrots or sticks, sticks tend to work best for discouraging negative behaviour I think.
So make a big a NPC stick that comes and hits people who blow up non-wanted CMDR's without provocation. Since currently there's no *sufficient* game mechanic enforcing bounty hunters to stick to wanted people and not dable in piracy and no real deterrent for piracy or simple wanton murder in general.
I have no problem with a crafty trader using his loadout and skills to avoid a pirate who isn't optimal (skills and loadout wise)
what I do have a problem with is traders who want to fly in OPEN without shields and then have a fit when a pirate pulls them over. I'm not a pirate myself and actually hunt them but my point still remains. Also without a real threat what use are real player bounty hunters?
I simply want the increased reward that traders (and pirates) get to be balanced with real risk, as right now an average player can pretty much escape from anyone.
OPEN should truly be dangerous, for everyone.
Wait... I did not say start a insurance company and collect premiums from traders. The 'insurance mechanics' in the ED universe are already in place, just include cargo and then more commanders will take part in PvP..... it's a no brainier.
Agreed. Well, they take their chances and if they get caught it's their own fault. However I'm on the forums a lot and don't see many people making that claim. I see people claiming there's lots of people like that. I see entire thread full of people wanting killing traders and anyone else made easier for them though.
But no matter how badly equipped a trader is - the attacker currently faces no real consequences.
I want killing other players to be hard. I want it to demand wit and hard work.
I fought an Asp who attacked me the other day. We tussled for a few minutes but neither could get though shields long enough to do real damage. I was slowly getting the upper hand and I guess he ran out of shield cells because he ran. If I'd been a better fighter I'd have got the kill but as it was it was a fun encounter even though it ended in a draw.
Currently I'm running with Rail Guns and Cannons so I can get good enough to knock shields down more quickly without having to worry about chaff and punch through armour.
But when it comes to games I see 'problems' like cells and chaff as a sign I should become a better player and not a signal to start a thread bemoaning them.
- Status