Design 101 - Players must ALWAYS have choice to avoid or run instead of fight

[Yokai]

Hmm - if i remember that part of beeing forced right, it was "only" said that the FSD cooldown for submitting to the interdiction will be / might become the same as it would be in case you botched the minigame to escape the interdiction.

Right. And what does that mean for larger, slower ships being interdicted by faster, smaller ships. Especially player-piloted ships? Who are geared out specfically for interdiction with long range cannons and whatnot designed specifically to cripple the ship they're interdicting even at long ranges? In this case, the slower, larger, less maneuverable ship is at a distinct disadvantage and probably will suffer a bit of hull damage or worse before their FSD comes online. If they manage to escape at all.

Shields were nerfed, Shield cells were nerfed. A Python who takes damage down to 88% hull pays ~200K in repair cost. Just losing the interdiction mini-game itself will mean hull down to 90%. If they get their shields stripped (easy to do by a competent player in a Viper) and take more hull damage before the FSD spins up, well, the costs are far too great. With ZERO possibility of fighting back and earning enough money for a bounty or whatever to pay for the cost incurred by fighting in the first place instead of running.

 

[bassman]

I've been thinking for a while about FD's statements about intended changes to "make interdictions harder to avoid", and how to concisely say what I think is very fundamentally wrong about that from a design and player retention standpoint. I'm going to sidestep all the constant arguments about whether "pirate" mechanics should be in the game or whether the game is too easy to hack and grief with it's P2P networking design. Let's just focus on basic _design_ fundamentals that are firmly within FD's control.

Every single game I've ever seen, not just "massive multiplayer" ones, always revolve around a basic design fundamental that I seriously wonder if FD is planning to circumvent:

"A player should _always_ have the option to either run from a potential fight or to avoid a fight altogether"

Players need agency. They need choice. They need decisions. One such fundamental decision is whether to get into a fight or not. With other players. With NPCs. It doesn't matter. Fights can be "fun". They can also be "costly". The "fun" should be balanced against the "cost", and that balancing should be left 100% in the hands of the player, not the game.

The problem is that if you make fighting entirely optional then trading becomes a zero risk activity. I think there should always be an opportunity to avoid or escape given skill and tactical awareness (the tactical awareness may mean in some cases "dont go to the system in the first place because its too dangerous").

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

Right. And what does that mean for larger, slower ships being interdicted by faster, smaller ships. Especially player-piloted ships? Who are geared out specfically for interdiction with long range cannons and whatnot designed specifically to cripple the ship they're interdicting even at long ranges? In this case, the slower, larger, less maneuverable ship is at a distinct disadvantage and probably will suffer a bit of hull damage or worse before their FSD comes online. If they manage to escape at all.

Shields were nerfed, Shield cells were nerfed. A Python who takes damage down to 88% hull pays ~200K in repair cost. Just losing the interdiction mini-game itself will mean hull down to 90%. If they get their shields stripped (easy to do by a competent player in a Viper) and take more hull damage before the FSD spins up, well, the costs are far too great. With ZERO possibility of fighting back and earning enough money for a bounty or whatever to pay for the cost incurred by fighting in the first place instead of running.

If you want the risk of this happening then fly somewhere safer, or play solo ...

 

[Lobstris]

Yeah, I've never liked the interdiction mechanism as it currently is. It's aggressive and one sided with the advantage totally for the attacker, and to the OP's point there's no purchasble counter-mechanism (why? one buys the tool to "do this" so why is there nothing to purchase to resist this?). IMO this adds little to the game that something elses couldn't do better. The standard reply is "but... but... this is Elite : Dangerous" to somehow imply interdictions add danger to the game. Really? Are these really dangerous? They're annoying. And it simply drives players away as folks have posted. Would bet that this element alone probably keeps many players away from open play.

And your suggestion of 'something else' is?
.
Let's have a look at the design of the original Elite. It was a space combat game, to which trading was added to give meaning to the combat. You were a space trader, flying commodities from A to B, and if you chose the wrong system to do that in then you were attacked by pirates. Fact-of-game-life. If we are going to either remove interdictions completely, or make them avoidable (which they already are - by the mini game, or, if faced with someone with a good FSD interdictor, by the current ritual of submission then boost) what are we left with?
.
Now my ideas to make things more interesting would be to ramp up aspects of stealth when using supercruise - tie visibility of FSD to heat generation (faster = more visible), tie speed and acceleration to mass of ship and installed drive, allow certain modules to scramble position or present ghost FSD images (EM jammers effectively) to allow traders, smugglers and people who generally don't want to be noticed more options for evasion. But ultimately, there should always still be the possibility for things to go wrong, resulting in a fight for survival, or cargo contents.

 

[Amaze]

ALWAYS avoid no. Sometimes life sucks.
Players must have a mechanism to avoid even if that mechanism is "don't go into that system, there be dragons".

Some people will vote with their feet no matter what. Right now ED has a lot of bored people voting with their feet. If you are the type who will vote with their feet if they are not 100% in complete safety playing a game with "dangerous" in the title, I want you to leave. You like boring games and are a boring person who will accomplish nothing in life because you fear challenge.

yeah. I agree.
"don't go into that system, there be dragons"
This is what is missing from this game that was in always in other Elite games.

We had high security "safer" systems and dangerous systems.

Here there is very little difference between them so there is not that choice we had before to Not go there .
I guess there is a little of that with Open but talking about NPCs its pretty much all the same.

 

[ToniB]

yeah. I agree.
"don't go into that system, there be dragons"
This is what is missing from this game that was in always in other Elite games.

We had high security "safer" systems and dangerous systems.

Here there is very little difference between them so there is not that choice to Not go there we had before.
I guess there is a little of that with Open but talking about NPCs its pretty much all the same.

i agree, unfortunalty fd gave into the careless carebearers and made any zone same safe.

 

[knoppaz]

stuff

* In every MMO since the genre began, the game gives you plenty of visual cues or even visible mini-map "blips" to see potential trouble ahead _before you are detected by the game AI_ and you have the choice to try to find a different path to avoid the fight entirely. Or, some games might force you into "surprise attacks", but you always have the option and tools to simply try to run away successfully.

more stuff

You clearly have never played EverQuest back then..

 

[Lobstris]

Shields were nerfed, Shield cells were nerfed. A Python who takes damage down to 88% hull pays ~200K in repair cost. Just losing the interdiction mini-game itself will mean hull down to 90%. If they get their shields stripped (easy to do by a competent player in a Viper) and take more hull damage before the FSD spins up, well, the costs are far too great. With ZERO possibility of fighting back and earning enough money for a bounty or whatever to pay for the cost incurred by fighting in the first place instead of running.

Turrets! I'd like to see cheaper, less powerful, but far more accurate turrets. Also another option for the use of PDs to be used as turrets against ships as a last ditch defence. Also single shot EMPs - larger ship - more shielding = less vulnerable. Drop one - have some time to run and charge the drive. Deployable combat drones on larger ships too.
.
Regarding your MMO and maps comment, if Frame shift was slower and we could plot courses/vectors over time on a system map (hint, hint orrery), and some form of stealth in super-cruise was implemented combat evasion becomes a possibility. Would love to see that.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

You clearly have never played EverQuest back then..

He probably means from WoW onwards, as if WoW was the first mmorpg.....

Turrets! I'd like to see cheaper, less powerful, but far more accurate turrets. Also another option for the use of PDs to be used as turrets against ships as a last ditch defence. Also single shot EMPs - larger ship - more shielding = less vulnerable. Drop one - have some time to run and charge the drive. Deployable combat drones on larger ships too.

I remember hearing that FD eventually plan for larger ships to be able to carry smaller ones, which could be pretty awesome if you are in a T9 or Conda, get interdicted and then suddenly you deploy a load of sidewinders to fight for you.

 

[bassman]

I just posted this in another thread discussing pirate interdictions but I think it belongs here to.

This is what it boils down to. Most traders are not PvP savvy, heck I bet most of them don't particularly want to be, but even so they have to have an option in a PvP encounter where they can come out on top (ie, get away with their cargo intact).

I think it was in fact Sandro who said that traders have the option of beefing their ships up with armour, weapons, countermeasures and making a show against the pirate. Fine in theory but he is thinking with the mind of a combat pilot. Even with all the best armour, all the countermeasures and the biggest guns it can carry a type 6 or a hauler is NOT going to have a chance, especially if the trader just isn't into PvP anyway.

If you flying a pure hauler class ship you should only be running safe routes or be prepared/able to cope with a tough time, granted security levels are not very well implemented but thats the theory.

 

[Yokai]

You clearly have never played EverQuest back then..

I actually chose Asherson's Call 1 over EQ way back. And played on the FFA PvP server Darktide. No mini-map blips there either. No minimap blips today in GW2 either, where I have more than 1000 hours and play WvW PvP regularly even two years after launch.

But: in EQ, AC1, and GW2, etc. you could still _see_ the landscape and the monster/player models right in front of you, in the distance. With enough time to approach cautiously and decide whether to plunge ahead or try to sneak around. Or go back and get friends to help you get through an otherwise impassible chokepoint.

In FD, you cannot _see_ the landscape ahead of you. And don't say 'radar', because the radar does't serve that purpose adequately.

 

[Lobstris]

I remember hearing that FD eventually plan for larger ships to be able to carry smaller ones, which could be pretty awesome if you are in a T9 or Conda, get interdicted and then suddenly you deploy a load of sidewinders to fight for you.

Yup. The Anaconda is meant to be able to carry a single Sidewinder for defence. Another thing missing in the current game that will need balancing if/when it actually arrives. :/

 

[S'Rau]

Commercially speaking OP is right.
Many MMO's out there are making things easier to drain new players and they are successfull at it.
I don't want to be blunt but for MMOs, just like many business, getting new customers is more important than gaining loyalty of those currently playing since anyway a big % will go away.

 

[Yokai]

If you flying a pure hauler class ship you should only be running safe routes or be prepared/able to cope with a tough time, granted security levels are not very well implemented but thats the theory.

I'd be fine with this approach to the game design, but that's not the current nor intended design. You can be interdicted by NPCs or players in _any_ system. If, for example, only Anarchy systems or systems in a certain "war" state or whatever, then indeed players who weren't interested in fighting could simply avoid such systems. But that's not the case right now.

 

[CARLOS3]

The problem is that if you make fighting entirely optional then trading becomes a zero risk activity. I think there should always be an opportunity to avoid or escape given skill and tactical awareness (the tactical awareness may mean in some cases "dont go to the system in the first place because its too dangerous").

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



If you want the risk of this happening then fly somewhere safer, or play solo ...

People like you, they cry "play solo"
are the first to cry if all traders solo play and you've got nothing left to hunt.

 

[knoppaz]

He probably means from WoW onwards, as if WoW was the first mmorpg.....



I remember hearing that FD eventually plan for larger ships to be able to carry smaller ones, which could be pretty awesome if you are in a T9 or Conda, get interdicted and then suddenly you deploy a load of sidewinders to fight for you.

*snip* * In every MMO since the genre began, the game gives you plenty *snip*

This would even include UO which is looong before WoW. Even EQ is 5 years before WoW *shrug*

 

[Ralph Vargr]

op says nothing about PVP.

if you want to avoid PVP: play solo. its so simple.

Unfortunately, the NPC's in solo have been dialed up, along with their open counterparts. Solo does not equal safe (and should not), but the number of interdictions, and the class of opponents is being increased.

 

[Chris M Fortune]

I agree with the OP to a point, we should be able to make choices about how we play, what we prefer to do and what risks we take whilst doing it. The issue for me is when those choices should or can be made.

I primarily trade with a bit of exploration and fight only to defend myself, I made this choice as my style of play. However I have no idea how best to back up this choice as there is a screen of mystery around exactly how good or bad equipment is.

Let me give you a real life comparison and lets see how many people would actually go for it

I have a stab vest for sale, its a bit heavier than a leather jacket and costs about twice as much. I have no idea if it will actually protect you any better than the leather jacket would but it is more expensive and heavier and it is called a stab vest so that is enough information for you to base your choice on.

Any takers?

 

[bassman]

People like you, they cry "play solo"
are the first to cry if all traders solo play and you've got nothing left to hunt.

OK consider this post an open invitation for all traders who dont want any PvP to just stop bleating about being shot at and go play solo.

 

[Yokai]

Turrets! I'd like to see cheaper, less powerful, but far more accurate turrets. Also another option for the use of PDs to be used as turrets against ships as a last ditch defence. Also single shot EMPs - larger ship - more shielding = less vulnerable. Drop one - have some time to run and charge the drive. Deployable combat drones on larger ships too.
.
Regarding your MMO and maps comment, if Frame shift was slower and we could plot courses/vectors over time on a system map (hint, hint orrery), and some form of stealth in super-cruise was implemented combat evasion becomes a possibility. Would love to see that.

If turrets were improved _greatly_ over how they work now in 1.1, then I'd agree with you. I've been trying out a "trader with teeth" configuration and purposely submitting to every interdiction and fighting back as part of my research before making this post in the first place. I run with 4 turrets up top on my Python, and one fixed beam on the bottom. I know how to fly with throttle control and down-thrusters to keep the attacking ship in full sight and range of my four turrets with 95% uptime.

Against a Cobra or Sidewinder, they stand no chance and I rarely take any hull damage. But an Asp or larger? I'll take a minimum of 12% hull damage before the fight is over. That's a 200K loss. Too high.

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

OK consider this post an open invitation for all traders who dont want any PvP to just stop bleating about being shot at and go play solo.

You miss the point that interdictions happen quite frequently in solo too.

Unfortunately, the NPC's in solo have been dialed up, along with their open counterparts. Solo does not equal safe (and should not), but the number of interdictions, and the class of opponents is being increased.

This.

 

[MagmaiKH]

I think interdictions are pretty good the way they are unless recent changes b0rked 'em.

They need to be a contest so that it remains a (good) game arc.