Cr5k to insure a cargo that's worth a million? That's pretty cheap. The cheaper you make the insurance, the easier it becomes to exploit it (sit there while your friend blows off your cargo hatch and then destroys you, he sells at black market).
Interdiction Dodgers
- Thread starter Snakebite
- Start date
- Status
Cr5k to insure a cargo that's worth a million? That's pretty cheap. The cheaper you make the insurance, the easier it becomes to exploit it (sit there while your friend blows off your cargo hatch and then destroys you, he sells at black market).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The 60,000 Cr. in the example would be paid before leaving dock with the cargo. If the cargo were then to be sold for 10% more than purchased for then that would be 120,000 Cr gross profit on the sale itself. Taking into account the cargo insurance cost the net profit (before fuel, repairs, wear and tear) would be 60,000 Cr.
If the 5% were to be taken at sale, what happens if the ship is destroyed and the cargo is not sold?
If the margins are too low then maybe insurance would not a profitable option - a bit like running without shields - it's a conscious risk taken by the player.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It would be 50k Cr. to insure a million credit cargo at 5%.
Good point about the potential exploit - dropped / abandoned cargo would need to be removed from the cargo insurance cover as soon as it left the ship.
Understood, but we're trying to put in a mechanic that traders will want to use? Losing half their profit on a run won't achieve this I suspect
? And potentially losing money if they only make 4% or less on a run?My suggestion is 5% of profit on sale:-
- This would be a small fee so traders won't mind.
- If you lose your cargo on route, you've paid nothing, but you (& others) have paid previously. ie: The premise is previous/other payments cover it. You sign up to the scheme on purchase. When that cargo is sold, 5% of the profit goes to the insurer (even if you give the cargo to someone else).
Last edited:
Ive made the suggestion several times that would solve combat logging: Have an AI take over. Its even easier if mixed in with client prediction.
After each update an AI is used to fly the players ship. The player is the authoritive on positioning in resolving any dispute - it should be closer than prediction. The AI will perform any action that the player was performing before but eventually its morale stance shifts towards survival and will attempt to run. Every update that the client receives resets this countdown.
This works for both combat logging and disconnects. If players are informed that they persist for a set period after disconnect they can't complain.
My two cents
Just wanted to pitch in. As a trader, I personally always play in Open Play because no risk (or a lesser risk, at least) of losing my cargo makes things less challenging/less exciting for me. Without any risk, going the trader route would be boring after the "holy crap I'm flying a space ship!!" goodness wore off. Having the trader path be a near-guaranteed-riches path would also be pretty imbalanced in regards to the other career paths/the game as a whole. I like the direction the devs are taking things and I love that they're listening to us. Thanks, Frontier!
Just wanted to pitch in. As a trader, I personally always play in Open Play because no risk (or a lesser risk, at least) of losing my cargo makes things less challenging/less exciting for me. Without any risk, going the trader route would be boring after the "holy crap I'm flying a space ship!!" goodness wore off. Having the trader path be a near-guaranteed-riches path would also be pretty imbalanced in regards to the other career paths/the game as a whole. I like the direction the devs are taking things and I love that they're listening to us. Thanks, Frontier!
I think the murder problem needs to be addressed according to system security level. High security should incur a strong armed response and a high bounty, perhaps flagging commanders so they stand out on the contacts tab to entice other commanders into tackling them. you're always going to get people in big ships killing newbs for kicks, but the armed response from the system is barely worth worrying about. I saw a guy in a clipper a while back hardly paying attention to the 2 system vipers buzzing around him...
But also adjust the commodity balance so that systems aren't a cookie cutter in terms of item value - which hardly vary between similar system types regardless of where they are.. any system in populous space you can find another system within 2 jumps that will give you very similar buy/sell values for commodity's. rares aside. make us work for our more lucrative booty.. take us into low sec space so that pirates have bait, but keep the high sec systems relatively safe. make the AI traders virtually ignore low sec space so that demand in those systems rises
But also adjust the commodity balance so that systems aren't a cookie cutter in terms of item value - which hardly vary between similar system types regardless of where they are.. any system in populous space you can find another system within 2 jumps that will give you very similar buy/sell values for commodity's. rares aside. make us work for our more lucrative booty.. take us into low sec space so that pirates have bait, but keep the high sec systems relatively safe. make the AI traders virtually ignore low sec space so that demand in those systems rises
Pff. CMDR BELUNTZ tried to interdict me in Ngaliba, I evaded it, interdicted again and I submitted. Then I tried to run away so he opened fire, I responded and left him with 25% hull and began to scan for cargo. I would have offered him that I let him live if he gives me all cargo. But then, *drum roll* he logged off.
Please. People who SEEK to fight but then logs off when they are losing and can't run away. Should this kind of behaviour be reported?
Please. People who SEEK to fight but then logs off when they are losing and can't run away. Should this kind of behaviour be reported?
Last edited:
Yes.
Had an Asp who I knocked down to 8% and was hoping would drop cargo cut out on me just now. He's now on the "kill on sight" list.
I think the game should note people whose game happens to end during combat or interdiction and warn them if it continues - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101696
Not sure what action should be taken but obviously it damages online play too much to ignore IMHO.
Tigga, I have that kind of list too.
Last edited:
"95% of all confirmed victories are caused by 5% of all pilots." That seems to be true even in gear heavy game like elite. Both pilots in the video are terrible pilots and it hurts to watch them
"95% of all confirmed victories are caused by 5% of all pilots." That seems to be true even in gear heavy game like elite. Both pilots in the video are terrible pilots and it hurts to watch them
Then you can almost definitely expect a primary trader to show similar levels of flight ability. Their defenses ought to count for a bit more than this guys defenses did otherwise tactics like these will definitely drive traders out of open and I couldn't blame them to be honest.
No need for the task manager, a one-line script will do this on a key press. That isn't even the real threat here. Wait until there are more elaborate tools who disconnect only a specific player from a hosted instance. Or even attack his computer. Bringing a possible future disconnect penalty unto him is the milder issue.
Sorry FDEV, but competitive PvP gaming with an underlying P2P architecture might lead to much more trouble than we have now. I hypothesise you will be compelled to build a pure server-client solution for the open mode, sooner or later. I'm willing to pay for it with micro-transaction buys or a subscription.
Whilst I totally take your point about disconnection issues and future exploits, please don't bring subscriptions into it. FD cannot legally put a sub model in now even if they wanted to (which they had said they will never do) as they will be in breach of contract with every customer who purchased the game up until their change of policy. They will owe a refund and I for one would be first in the queue as I don't play subscription games.
Fair point! I guess that's why we have no cargo coverage at all the moment... But even if it was 50%... There's still alot of money to "exploit" even there surely?
My point is that if the person wants to play one way for whatever amount of time and then switch to another mode then that is their decision and theirs alone and others shouldn't be whining about what mode others play in. To make our own decision is a freedom we enjoy.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
As I mentioned above, it would be 50,000 Cr. to insure a 1,000,000 Cr. cargo at 5%.
The proposed exploit could be mitigated by insurance self-cancelling on a canister-by-canister basis if they are dropped or abandoned by the ship. Cargo insurance would probably not cover theft either, i.e. by the use of cargo hatch damage or hatch-disruptors. That leaves the cargo insurance to pay out only on those canisters remaining in the ship when it got destroyed.
I understand your previous point about reduction in profit - however cargo insurance reduces financial risk and reduced risk should (probably) reasonably result in lower net profit.
Did you read my post? Persisting the player as an AI would make disconnecting counterproductive.
I posted something similar...
.
Making them invulnerable with a [DISCONNECTED] status for a set grace period and then making them vulnerable again to be killed will cover real disconnects and punish fake ones.
.
The odds of being genuinely disconnected mid combat are low (imo) and it will do away with deliberate discos quite quickly as its a guaranteed death if you don't come back in to defend your ship.
Wish I could find the post but the Lead Dev acknowledged the suggestion of AI takeover and said it was technically far more difficult than you'd think, so don't hold your breath.
- Status