I certainly understand your fears about balance and fd seems to swing wildly at these things. But keep in mind that intended mechanics are completely absent so it might feel more unbalanced than intended. If the economy worked for example the payoff may be worth it.
Design 101 - Players must ALWAYS have choice to avoid or run instead of fight
- Thread starter Yokai
- Start date
I certainly understand your fears about balance and fd seems to swing wildly at these things. But keep in mind that intended mechanics are completely absent so it might feel more unbalanced than intended. If the economy worked for example the payoff may be worth it.
Where are these safe systems? NPCs are interdicting over 100LYs out from populated space and in every system in populated space. Other playrs are interdicting everehere there are players. I've got no problem with PvP but if they make escape impossible they might as well delete the sidewinder, hauler, adder, type 6, 7 and 9. The Asp and the Clipper should probably go too.
Right now there is little to no reason for a trader to have anything more that the most basic shields, there needs to be ammo choices that can effect the effectiveness against different ship configurations an ammo that passes through shields with 90% success rate (on stock shields down to 50% with correct A shields 30% with a grade higher A shields) does massive damage to light Wight alloy armor mid damage to renforced/mirrored and very little to milspec/reactive armor. one that is blocked like normal ammo but has I high chance to pass through armor but does little damage to Hull high internal damage (depleted uranium rounds) higher grade balistic armor decreases chance to pass through. this will make all ships have to decide on correct level of protection and correct load out for the situation they are most likely to encounter.
I would disagree. For example, in the RPG genre, there are plenty of times you can't possibly avoid fights (either because it's just random when you're attacked, or scripted to happen at a key point). Many times you are unable to run (bosses almost always are no-run encounters) and when you can run, many times the run option just isn't worthwhile (like FF1, where the worse shape your party is in, the more chance Run is just a waste of your turn).
Or adventure games - how many times in Zelda series do you get locked into a room with monsters until you kill them all? Same thing happens at various times in Metroid, Castlevania, etc. There's often no flight there, just kill or be killed.
Last edited:
In my experience this is not true. I went through the normal progression of non-faction ships as a trader from Hauler to T9, and once I got to the T9 there was zero chance for me to evade interdictions... it's just too slow on the helm. But that doesn't bother me... that just means I run good shields and a bunch of guns and give whatever interdicts me a face full of pew pew. It's the risk one takes when flying a fat pig like the T9, but even if I lose one every so often it will still be a much faster money maker than the T7 was.
Also I don't think there is such a thing as "fly faster". Who is out there *not* running at 100% throttle unless they're in the decel phase or want to turn fast to get a target?
Anyways... I don't get why the OP doesn't think players have agency to avoid a fight in this game.
You can do all kinds of things to avoid a fight, but they are all trade-offs. If you want to max your money per trip, that comes at the cost of equipment to make an interdiction more survivable *or* at the cost of flying a smaller, more maneuverable ship. Those are your choices. That's risk and reward, and in an open world game I think that is the cornerstone of effective game design.
The only design bit I don't like is the hull damage from interdiction. I think it's a deterrent for players (traders or pvpers alike) to even try to partake of the interdiction minigame at all because (especially for bounty hunting or piracy) it will cost you way more than you're likely to make unless you never fly anything bigger than a cobra.
Also, I have to kind of laugh at the idea that "every game", even non MMO games give you options to choose not to fight. Themepark MMOs do, true... but someone is painting with a pretty broad brush wit hthat statement.
I've been hanging around sol and a the surrounding systems all of which are perfectly safe and I'm never interdicted. Plus I think under gov. type in the map you can see the safety of the system. It's been tested and verified in another thread. If players are the issue avoid them or die, it's really simple.
Whatever everyone else says... You are right. The players must be given a fair and real choice.
If this choice is taken... I for one will wander on to Solo. No... this is not a threat... it is commercial reality.
The elite are not the ones who are trigger- happy. The Elite are those who pull the trigger only at a last resort.
If trading becomes unprofitable because of excessive and unavoidable interdiction then there will be no more Traders and trading and the Pirates out there will have no one to rob any longer. No more pirates... no more bounty-hunting and everyone can just happily go back to Solo play.
The problem we're all having in the game at the moment is that the entire galaxy (or at least populated part) balance is off.
You need to encourage traders to come and play in open. Otherwise, as was said earlier; all you're going to find on open will be pirates, bounty hunters and kill junkies.
In my opinion I think FDev need to make certain parts of the galaxy safer than others. The obvious benchmark for this would be the difference between an anarchy system and a lawful system. However, I'm sure that FDev could add shades of grey into this. In the system map at the moment, it does show a security rating for the system. Surely this could be looked at to provide an adequate response to pirating or killing? For example, a high security rated system could have a 15 second response time from system security who will then send in 2 elite anacondas and 2 elite vipers per "criminal" player when a crime has been reported against a player. A low security system would have a 30 sec response time with maybe 1 elite asp. Anarchy would have no response (as normal).
Also, when it comes to weapon hardpoints, you could make defensive and offensive weapons for these points. Defensive types could be items like an EMP weapon that would disable your scanner, FSD, gimbals/turret aiming and flight assist for a certain amount of time or stealth modules to show up a false reading on the sensor display in super cruise (flying a T9, sending out the sensor return of a viper) to confuse pirates etc. And yes, the sensor display does need some love to make it more useful.
But, with the system the way it is, it just keeps pushing more and more players into groups or solo to avoid risk when trading. All systems should just be labelled anarchy in open at the moment. And face it, this is bad for all types of players.
You need to encourage traders to come and play in open. Otherwise, as was said earlier; all you're going to find on open will be pirates, bounty hunters and kill junkies.
In my opinion I think FDev need to make certain parts of the galaxy safer than others. The obvious benchmark for this would be the difference between an anarchy system and a lawful system. However, I'm sure that FDev could add shades of grey into this. In the system map at the moment, it does show a security rating for the system. Surely this could be looked at to provide an adequate response to pirating or killing? For example, a high security rated system could have a 15 second response time from system security who will then send in 2 elite anacondas and 2 elite vipers per "criminal" player when a crime has been reported against a player. A low security system would have a 30 sec response time with maybe 1 elite asp. Anarchy would have no response (as normal).
Also, when it comes to weapon hardpoints, you could make defensive and offensive weapons for these points. Defensive types could be items like an EMP weapon that would disable your scanner, FSD, gimbals/turret aiming and flight assist for a certain amount of time or stealth modules to show up a false reading on the sensor display in super cruise (flying a T9, sending out the sensor return of a viper) to confuse pirates etc. And yes, the sensor display does need some love to make it more useful.
But, with the system the way it is, it just keeps pushing more and more players into groups or solo to avoid risk when trading. All systems should just be labelled anarchy in open at the moment. And face it, this is bad for all types of players.
Last edited:
You are not cut out for open, and the people who enjoy it don't think like you. Open mode is popular because of this, we aren't putting up with it we are enjoying it.
So if traders aren't wrapped up in cotton wool and left alone to grind their billions they're going to go on strike by happily moving to Solo? Why say a 'commercial reality' Do you pay less in Solo due to the expansive MP element not being available?
The tone of your post, especially the last line, suggests you're probably already in Solo.
IT seems some systems should be more safe for traders (more dangerous for pirates) and others more difficult and violent. Make the trading more profitable in the more difficult systems . I remember the original Elite being this way . At this point I get killed every time I join open and that is no fun for me .
This is what's missing to me, traders need both safe systems and high value runs to both justify the equipment available currently, separate the bold from the safe and to give a much needed skill differential to an otherwise drudging profession, This would similarly work for the pirates by giving them a much riskier but target rich environment in high security systems, or slim pickings in anarchy zones.
Op is correct I feel, I like combat every once and awhile but right now its just annoying (or straight up depressing if the enemy actually is half decent at chasing me down in my uber fast "run away" ship).
Most of you are still missing the point. The reason that most players hide away in solo is not because they do not want to play with other players (though that is the case for some of them). It is because solo is EASIER. And it is easier because FD have not put the effort into AI to make the NPCs harder. Once they have done that, then we can have a sensible discussion about solo vs group vs open. Until then, players who want an easy life will just jump into solo, and it is just noobs and idiots like me who think solo is cheating who will stay in open, other than the PvPers, of course.
I sort of agree with you, but sort of not. I don't really follow Elite news much anymore. Nothing to fix the game is really coming out. But the other night I was trading and got interdicted 4 times in a row by commanders. It was the most fun trading I've had in a long time. I ran from them easy enough by submitting/boosting away. Kinda felt sorry for the poor fellows trying to rob me. There is really no threat in gameplay at all, and it's really dull. BUT If they are going to make your FSD recharge much slower, they had better let it be possible to hire npcs to escort you, and other players to escort you.
If I had one other current space sim alternative to play I would probably have uninstalled this by now due to sheer boredom. Increasing the amount of THINGS that happen is good. But they need to be careful to do it in the right way, and not a bandaid way, like making it impossible to run without ways to mitigate the increased threat. Running should still be possible, but not as effortless as it is now.
You said it
Trading and exploring need a gaming element that allows them to do this in open without massive risk, especially in lawful systems. At the moment, the risk/reward for trading and exploring on open are too varied. We need to make sure the fully kitted out trader or explorer have the ability to avoid combat damage/interdiction as much as possible (if they choose that load out). Otherwise the open mode on this game will just become a stale pew-pew, hackers environment.
You said it
Trading and exploring need a gaming element that allows them to do this in open without massive risk, especially in lawful systems. At the moment, the risk/reward for trading and exploring on open are too varied. We need to make sure the fully kitted out trader or explorer have the ability to avoid combat damage/interdiction as much as possible (if they choose that load out). Otherwise the open mode on this game will just become a stale pew-pew, hackers environment.
No it will be filled with like minded players. Which is where we need to be. Pirates and bounty hunters in open trade in open too. If you are having trouble getting from a to b without taking damage in open you are so hopelessly inept at this game no mechanic short of giving you invulnerabiluty will help you. Sure there are times when it's gonna happen but if it's stopping your progress you are doing something very wrong.
And this is why a fly a Clipper.
Interdict, and all you see are the back of my burners - Later suckers!
I don't rig my Clipper as a trader, so big shields and big guns - So sometimes I turn and fight, either way no Cargo fo you.
And what happens if the other player is hacking his client and can put 4 pips into every system and therefore catch up with you or run with permanent 60% hull or shield?
If you want honest game play, stick with group play. Ok, it won't provide you with the MP experience of open, but our instances in game can only give you 32 MP connections max, so there's no real loss; especially outside the busier systems.