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

[tagos]

What the cartoon girl says. +rep

 

[V3teran]

How many times do you think people used save/restore in Frontier Elite 2?

If that's not a crutch I don't know what to say...

Who cares, elite 2 was years ago. That was then, go play elite 2 now and I guarantee you will switch it off within 5 minutes.

 

[smsKONG]

A: you may not intentionally choose to be the prey, however, flying a defenseless ship is pretty much the definition of prey. It doesn't matter how you slice it, traders are the prey for pirates, not just in this game but in the real world too. Oil tankers are a prime RL example.

I can kind of understand cargo insurance, however, it completely negates the risk of hauling. The whole point here is that there is a risk/reward for everything in the game. Should pirates make as much as a hauler, of course not. Traders running 100tonnes of cargo, and a pirate hold 30, should have different yields. I don't think anyone here can argue that point.

The biggest problem with this thread, and no offence to the OP, but it's like talking to a brick wall. You have this it doesn't matter, I'm right attitude in all your posts, it makes discussing this pointless. If you can't understand the "ruthless galaxy" part of the description, you are in the wrong game. There are going to be pirates, you are going to get interdicted, it's part of the game. You have the choice to fight or flight, especially currently with the submit, and instant FSD charge problem.

I will say this though, the pirates bounties, and the ability to clear them so easily does need to be looked at. IMHO.

This.

And to the question from the op about risk/reward - it makes no difference: the rewards and risks were different but it has no bearing on anything. You asked who would want to play as prey - I answered you.

Just like the quote above answers you - you choose to be prey the minute you lower the shield class or remove them altogether - you do this to increase your reward and doing so increases the risk - which is currently nil in solo.
I welcome Sandros changes.
Btw I trade but don't consider myself prey - I have a class 6 shield on my Asp which reduces my risk and reward.
I have never failed to escape interdiction by players and npcs whenever I have chosen to run - and when I have chosen to run I have suffered no damage.

If there is no risk in interdiction then where is the comparable risk for the largest rewarding career in game - is it forgetting to insure yourself and falling asleep while docking with no shields...

 

[Roybe]

Actually, I mentioned you specifically and linked to your post in this thread.

Addressing a few of the general "Oh yeah? So how would you design it different, Einstein?" comments in the past page or two. Well, @Skuli has the right idea. There have been other good ideas floated by quite a few people so far on this thread. Here's my general take:

A. The notion of a "food chain" design where some players are the vegetarian "prey" animals and some players are the "top of the food chain" hunter carnivores is fundamentally flawed. Very few people (no one, actually), would really choose to be a prey animal. Nobody likes to feel they do all the work and other players get to "leech" off of their work by attacking them with superior mechanics in the attacker's favor and imbalanced "fight to survive" mechanics that favor that attacker. Nobody. In. Their. Right. Mind. Example of this basic design failure: ArcheAge. Just google "archeage financials" if you aren't already familiar with the huge mess.

B. Instead, you look to Arenanet and their game GW2 for stellar design examples. Their community is overall the most friendly, helpful, cooperative and supportive--while also being HIGHLY COMPETITIVE--game community I've seen in my entire history of gaming, and more than 50% of their total game is devoted to PvP interaction at the team level and the massive level. And pretty much 90% of their end game revolves entirely around PvP and WvW.

C. Various ideas off the top of my head:

1. Reduce ship maintenance/repair costs to a nearly flat curve across all classes of ships. Keep the steep curve for bootstrapping yourself into the next larger/more expensive class of ship, but make the cost of repair for a complete loss or hull damage relatively cheap and only slightly more expensive for the larger ships. Like a range from current 137K to replace an A-class viper to something like 400K to replace an A-class anaconda. Don't get too hung up on the numbers I threw out: just look at the time for an _average_ player to recoup a total loss of their ship and normalize it to a very flat range that sits around the 10-minute mark. Viper loses ship: 10 minutes of trading to recoup cost. Anaconda loses ship: 15 minutes of trading to recoup cost. Everything else falls in the middle of that curve. WHY: This improves the balance of the _cost_ portion for the TRADER of the risk-reward equation for PvP interaction.

2. As @Skuli suggests, introduce a defacto type of cargo insurance for the trader. This could be done in a variety of ways. You could simply allow the trader to rebuy any lost cargo for 5% of the amount they paid for the lost cargo in the first place. Or, you could simply add a "forced cargo hold ejection" mechanic to encounters that the trader loses to a pirate. Something like "an amount equal to the sum of your two smallest cargo holds are auto-ejected if you 'lose' the interdiction and subsequent combat. And if your ship is destroyed outright, when you rebuy it it comes back with the full cargo that was not auto-ejected because of losing the fight". WHY: This improves the _cost_ portion for the TRADER of improving the balance of the _cost_ portion of the risk-reward equation for PvP interaction.

3. When a pirate _attempts_ an interdiction, they get a 10K bounty just for that action alone. If they shoot at a player ship, they get another 10K bounty. If they murder a player ship, they get a 50K bounty. All bounties "stick" for 7 real-world days and cannot be paid off until the 7 days are up. You want danger? Play as a pirate and run around with a bounty you cannot easily unload. All the time. WHY: This adds a currently non-existent _cost_ portion for the PIRATE side of the risk-reward equation. Now, the pirate stands to lose something roughly equal to the 5% cargo loss of a trader. Again, don't get too hung up on my specific numbers: they're just WAGs. The point is to balance the financial losses of the trader to be roughly equal to the financial losses of the pirate. #1 equalizes the financial loss from hull/component damage of the fight. #2 and #3 balance the cargo loss of the trader versus the bounty cost of the pirate. My WAG numbers for #2 and #3 are based on a trader losing 2 8-slot cargo holds of a commodity worth 1300 per unit. That's 20,800 credits. So if a pirate needs to shoot the trader to make them drop 16 tons of cargo, the pirate gets the 20,800 to pay off the two 10K bounties they racked up from interdicting and then shooting. But if the player just outright murders the trader anyway, then the cost is MORE excessive for the pirate. As it should be.

4. Improve the "security rating" of systems in various ways: Make "high sec" systems roughly 50% of total, and set up the economies so that trading in the high-sec systems maxes out at around 12,000 cr/ton/hour for the "best" routes. Make the "low sec" systems roughly 40% of total, and set up the economies so that trading in the low sec systems maxes out at the current rate of 16,000 cr/ton/hour for the "best" routes. Make the "anarchy" or "zero sec" systes roughly 10% of total, and make the trading endpoints in zero sec systems worth much more than the best routes today. Like: 24,000 cr/ton/hour for the "best" routes. Finally, improve the AI response time and strength of NPC system authority vessels much faster/stronger in high sec systems, about the same as they are today in low sec systems, and of course non-existent in zero sec systems. WHY: This balances the _reward_ portion of the risk-reward equation. Traders will want that sweet sweet honey, and pirates will know where to lurk. Traders will be armed to fight more effectively, and they'll be fully aware they're going to get jumped a LOT if they want that sweet, sweet honey.

5. Balance the interdiction attempt minigame and also the post interdiction combat/escape mechanics to be BALANCED on the basis of both combat skill _and_ gearing choices. Since larger, fatter trade ships with larger, fatter automated cargo drops (larger "smallest" cargo slots) are also slower, and less maneuverable, they need some other counters to having their ship crippled by long range cannons and smart component targeting by the pirate. But they need BALANCED counters. WHY: Nobody wants lopsided combat, or why bother? That's the problem now.

6. Provide _other_ cooperative roleplay elements to piracy as a lifestyle. For example, "Pirates and Bounty Hunters" could be an entire mini-game to itself with different risk-reward mechanics. Bounty Hunters get to potentially cash in on the accumulated bounty of a pirate if they successfully nail the pirate. BUT! If a pirate gets interdicted by another COMBAT SHIP (aka, a bounty hunter), and the pirate wins the fight, they automatically get a huge payoff just for winning against a merciless bounty hunter who surprised the pirate and jumped the pirate first. How much? No clue. 50,000 cr? 100,000 cr? Some propotion of the current bounty on the pirate's head? SOMETHING. In this scenario, both the BH and the pirate _risk_ the same cost of a ship loss or ship damage (see #1 above), and they both share a proportionate potential reward. Balanced risk-reward. What a concept. WHY: Combat hungry players need MORE outlets and excuses for balanced PvP _without_ it all revolving around robbing traders at gunpoint. That just creates bad blood in the community. See ArcheAge for a cautionary tale.

I left GW2 to come here. This game would have to shut down, retool, and reboot in a year or 5 to make it play like GW2. That's not happening. What we have is what I've described. An ecosystem game with traders providing the food for all other play styles. Once people understand this they can actually make a proper decision on how and where to play. If you do not like the idea of being someones meal to make the game go round, please play in solo and stay out of PvP discussions.
So to your points:

1. Although these sound good on paper, they just remove most of the risk of trading. Cargo insurance means that paper planes become the rule. No choices to make for trading other than maximize the cargo space. Making interdiction more expensive means death to piracy under current rules...and even MORE protection to traders. Believe it or not I am a trader in open and hate it. There is no challenge, no sense of risk, nothing.

I have run rare routes, I have a few decent runs of regular commodities, and all interdictions work the same way. I submit, boost boost, jump. My shields take care of damage mitigation. Easy peasy. Now you want to help me out more. Thanks...

As far as why i do it? There is nothing else to do to keep ships flying. I bounty hunt, I do missions, I've even tried 'smuggling' and I can't be bothered to pirate. Ultimately though, to keep my ships in order I HAVE to trade. So understanding where ones place is in the world...you accept it, and tool for your job. Doing otherwise, makes your time in Open more risky...with some level of reward given...but on the bigger ships, that reward is mitigated by the running costs of those ships...so keep on trading.


Your high sec/low sec idea cannot work within E: D as there is really no such thing. I agree there are places where something should have less profit than others because..security...but all that will do is make the traders go to the higher profit areas and complain they are getting killed. Sorry, I have total faith in this because there are so many threads in this forum about NPC's 'griefing' traders, interdicting them to much, etc. Traders just want to increase the creds/hour. Anyone gets in the way of that precious number is playing the game wrong and needs to leave.

I agree there needs to be societal setups for the pirates/bounty hunters, places only they can go, with markets that trade in items they carry regularly with prices that are not discounted from the norm. I can also see a pirate organization...similar to the pilots one, that places rewards for the death of bounty hunters...if such an organization could exist. I believe this is promised in a future update.

Ultimately, I am in wait and see mode. RL has sucked a lot of my play time hours away, I see these discussions and wonder when people will understand what I've stated. Either everyone has to understand the nature of this game and accept it or the game just splinters into three different games with everyone pew pewing NPC's and playing space trucker. But it is a pretty game otherwise.

 

[Skuli]

Who cares, elite 2 was years ago. That was then, go play elite 2 now and I guarantee you will switch it off within 5 minutes.

I have Elite 2 installed right now.

I just think it's hilarious to point to the old elite games as being "hardcore" when you were never more than a few keypresses from recovering from the worst disaster.

 

[Dogoncrook]

I agree oh boo hoo to pirating being tough; it should be. I'm surprised they get paid in credits as their kind's usual payment preference is meth cigarettes and pizza.

Oh boo hoo "I interdicted someone and they didn't roll over like a puppy and poop gold and when I scratched their belly, they bit", hope you get rabies and die.

Interdiction submission does not mean someone is personally surrendering to you. The can still fight, run, surrender and maybe even lie cheat and steal from you. If they run and somehow their T9 or T7 spacepig happens to waddle off and out run you in your tricked out for death viper or cobra it's not a exploit, you're a crap pilot.

Yembo has been fun trying out different techniques to get by the pirates and the best revolve around good piloting and not letting anyone get on your 6, it is possible.

The dumbest thing I tried was dropping out of FSD into silent running in the hope they couldn't see me and would think I had used the alt-F4 exploit. That experiment cost me 3.5 mil credits. I suppose I should come here and whine about it in the one continual thread on these forums, "I did something dumb and it cost me credits! Whaaaaaaa"

Ya ya I know it's unfair people can out run me and fsd before I can kill them,
it's a hark luck life.

I haven't perfected it by any means but if you go silent it does sometimes work or at least it used to. Very very risky though lol. When it fails though it hurts more like you just handed yourself over trying to be clever lol.

 

[Darth Ender]

players always have a choice to avoid or escape combat in the current game. They just dont always get the ability to do so once it's begun. Which is the way it should be.

Traders aren't by default food for the other player types in open. Traders dont have to trade in high human player areas of the game. They make that choice because they're either lazy, like the combat, or want to risk combat for the profit. It's their choice, and it exists now.

I dont see the point to this thread. There's far more choice available right now to any player in any role than I would like to see in the game already.

Edit: No to nerfing the penalties of dying. I want to play with players afraid to get killed, and to be afraid to be killed myself. You can take the "i want death to not matter" nonsense to solo or other games. If anything, the game needs a buff to how detrimental dying is. If dying doesn't bring you to the verge of rage quitting or silent promises of unending vengeance and retribution then you're doing it wrong.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Yokai you keep coming at this as if balance is a good thing. It isn't here though, it isn't that type of game at all. It's trying to be realistic to a degree, and to what degree is debatable but what you are asking for is so wildly unrealistic I'm pretty sure it's just not a direction they intend to go.

You also keep saying it's unavoidable and that there are no safe systems, both of those are untrue. I have no problem avoiding this issue so maybe it's time to entertain you are doing something wrong so it seems more unfair to you? Safe systems with no interdictions exist, it is a fact and they are common enough near sol it's hard to find one that isn't.

Popping out of nowhere is likely a bug but It's pretty rare. It happens but it is rare that is unbeatable in the mini game, and even rarer that it's a fast large ship.

If any of your suggestions were implemented, on top of my 99% success rate of avoiding this situation, I could be sure I would never die again unless I went looking for trouble, as a trader I would never have to and that makes trading so boring I'd never consider it and you may as well just nerf all prices for ships because the only barrier is time.

The truth is you are doing something wrong, you are not listlening to people's advice or testing and training with it, and I'm sorry but your expeireinces are not in line with most of us.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Actually, I always fly well above or below the system ecliptic and approach every planet from a respective pole. I also rotate my ship constantly to spread out or clump the planet symbols to make whats around me as visible as possible. I also zoom the radar fully in to highlight the things near me (and its infuriating that it always defaults to fully zoomed out and I can't adjust it to full zoom in with a single button/keypress).

Look: player ships light up with big, blaring klaxons, metaphorically. It's easy to keep an eye on player ships and their relative position and vector. In solo, it's a different story. Absolutely nothing on radar and then BAM, interdiction attempt.

Once again, I feel like I'm playing a completely different game, because that isn't my experience at all. I have had a grand total of ONE actual interdiction attempt since 1.1. And that one was when I was approaching a busy station. I have always had plenty of warning to brush off attempts to get into position to interdict me, by PCs and NPCs alike. I have always had plenty of time to dodge USSs, so that they won't be on my six should they spawn a pirate.

 

[Dogoncrook]

Once again, I feel like I'm playing a completely different game, because that isn't my experience at all. I have had a grand total of ONE actual interdiction attempt since 1.1. And that one was when I was approaching a busy station. I have always had plenty of warning to brush off attempts to get into position to interdict me, by PCs and NPCs alike. I have always had plenty of time to dodge USSs, so that they won't be on my six should they spawn a pirate.

Well it doesn't work in a pirate controlled system but a trader that isn't friendly with that faction has no business being there anyways. But what I'm getting is that they are applying their expeireince in these systems across the board which is either dishonest or just really dense.

 

[ChrisUK27]

Actually, I mentioned you specifically and linked to your post in this thread.

1. Reduce ship maintenance/repair costs to a nearly flat curve across all classes of ships. Keep the steep curve for bootstrapping yourself into the next larger/more expensive class of ship, but make the cost of repair for a complete loss or hull damage relatively cheap and only slightly more expensive for the larger ships. Like a range from current 137K to replace an A-class viper to something like 400K to replace an A-class anaconda. Don't get too hung up on the numbers I threw out: just look at the time for an _average_ player to recoup a total loss of their ship and normalize it to a very flat range that sits around the 10-minute mark. Viper loses ship: 10 minutes of trading to recoup cost. Anaconda loses ship: 15 minutes of trading to recoup cost. Everything else falls in the middle of that curve. WHY: This improves the balance of the _cost_ portion for the TRADER of the risk-reward equation for PvP interaction.

3. When a pirate _attempts_ an interdiction, they get a 10K bounty just for that action alone. If they shoot at a player ship, they get another 10K bounty. If they murder a player ship, they get a 50K bounty. All bounties "stick" for 7 real-world days and cannot be paid off until the 7 days are up. You want danger? Play as a pirate and run around with a bounty you cannot easily unload. All the time. WHY: This adds a currently non-existent _cost_ portion for the PIRATE side of the risk-reward equation. Now, the pirate stands to lose something roughly equal to the 5% cargo loss of a trader. Again, don't get too hung up on my specific numbers: they're just WAGs. The point is to balance the financial losses of the trader to be roughly equal to the financial losses of the pirate. #1 equalizes the financial loss from hull/component damage of the fight. #2 and #3 balance the cargo loss of the trader versus the bounty cost of the pirate. My WAG numbers for #2 and #3 are based on a trader losing 2 8-slot cargo holds of a commodity worth 1300 per unit. That's 20,800 credits. So if a pirate needs to shoot the trader to make them drop 16 tons of cargo, the pirate gets the 20,800 to pay off the two 10K bounties they racked up from interdicting and then shooting. But if the player just outright murders the trader anyway, then the cost is MORE excessive for the pirate. As it should be.

5. Balance the interdiction attempt minigame and also the post interdiction combat/escape mechanics to be BALANCED on the basis of both combat skill _and_ gearing choices. Since larger, fatter trade ships with larger, fatter automated cargo drops (larger "smallest" cargo slots) are also slower, and less maneuverable, they need some other counters to having their ship crippled by long range cannons and smart component targeting by the pirate. But they need BALANCED counters. WHY: Nobody wants lopsided combat, or why bother? That's the problem now.

1. Reduce maintenance costs to a similar level? So to maintain a cessna I'd pay the same as an A380? Sold...

2. The lets price pirates out of work idea. Ok, they interdict you, attack and kill you 10k + 10k + 50k = 70k. Awesome, off they fly to their mate; shoot me please and here's 70k for your troubles. Plus these are not common occurrences despite all the posts claiming it's going on 24/7 all over Open.

3. A balanced interdiction: So you're suggesting a combat vessel has the same chance of interdicting a trader as any other vessel and even then the trader has a good chance to escape? I'd take the combat ship back to the manufacturer and ask for my money back! ps. 'Nobody wants lopsided combat'? Really, I'd imagine lots of pilots would like an edge over their opponent.

Finally, once again you use lots of credit per hour figures - these are pure speculation. In fact you seem so focused on the money aspects I wonder what it is you want from the game? More money?

 

[purecain]

got back on my bike again tonight, and loved it. I decided to just allow the interdictions immediately and then kill the cheeky runt... GET Gimballed!!!! HA ha ha ha haaaaaaaa revenge...lol

 

[Jimac]

Wrong scale. Different kettle of fish than the point of the OP. There are a large variety of balance issues across the entire game. Yes, they have to be solved. Yes, some of them, such as combat and exploration and mining don't make jack compared to trading is a HUGE problem. But it's not the point of the thread. The thread is about interdiction balance _now_ versus interdiction balance that would result from proposed changes stated by Sandro. Nothing more.

OK lets look at interdiction balance now and compare it to interdiction balance after proposed changes. I'm using myself as an example as all I have to go on is my experience.

Now: Whenever I've been interdicted trading I have escaped 100% of the time..That's countless NPCs and maybe 4 Cmdrs. (I've also been interdicted while bounty hunting but am ignoring those occasions as I didn't try to escape).

After changes: Well like you I have no idea how it will effect the balance but I think it's clear it does need rebalance.

Now maybe not all traders have been as lucky as me, but as it doesn't take much skill to escape I'd think escaping is probably the end result of 98%+ of all interdictions. If people are honest they know that's true.

 

[Oddball_E8]

Wrong scale. Different kettle of fish than the point of the OP. There are a large variety of balance issues across the entire game. Yes, they have to be solved. Yes, some of them, such as combat and exploration and mining don't make jack compared to trading is a HUGE problem. But it's not the point of the thread. The thread is about interdiction balance _now_ versus interdiction balance that would result from proposed changes stated by Sandro. Nothing more.

This most certainly is pertinent to the thread.

How does a Pirate make their money?
By interdicting Traders.
If interdiction is broken (as it is now) then they don't make money.

Now, if interdiction gets fixed (so that Traders don't have a 99% chance of just jumping away without damage or risk), then Piracy might not be that far down the list of profitable careers.
But Trading will still be on the top of the list even with the fix.

 

[Spacey25]

I agree with OP. There are far too many times where I have been interdicted by a much more powerful ship. If you take my choice to avoid the fight because obviously I will be outgunned and be forced to lose all my cargo and ship, I rather not even keep getting into the game. No matter how good you are there will always be some one out there who will be better or just have a better advantage at you, or simply gets a few lucky shots that will destroy you. Either way it seems like we will be forced to lose. By doing this they will be taking away our choice to fight or run. This will greatly affect exploration for those who just want to fly away and explore. Miners will be affected as well. Those who enjoy PvP or PvE fundamentally will probably like this but will also suffer in the long run. Really bad move from FD. If this change happens I will immediately uninstall. For me its that simple.

 

[Spacey25]

This most certainly is pertinent to the thread.

How does a Pirate make their money?
By interdicting Traders.
If interdiction is broken (as it is now) then they don't make money.




Now, if interdiction gets fixed (so that Traders don't have a 99% chance of just jumping away without damage or risk), then Piracy might not be that far down the list of profitable careers.
But Trading will still be on the top of the list even with the fix.

For those who decide to be pirate and just steal, consequences should be as hard as they are now. Yeah, the game is made to have all of these mechanics blah, blah, blah but don't expect me or most players to have pity for anyone sitting outside of a ducking base just to steal their cargo and destroy their ships. Is just as low as low can get even for a game. That's how I see it.

 

[ChrisUK27]

No matter how good you are there will always be some one out there who will be better or just have a better advantage at you, or simply gets a few lucky shots that will destroy you. Either way it seems like we will be forced to lose. By doing this they will be taking away our choice to fight or run. This will greatly affect exploration for those who just want to fly away and explore. Miners will be affected as well. Those who enjoy PvP or PvE fundamentally will probably like this but will also suffer in the long run. Really bad move from FD. If this change happens I will immediately uninstall. For me its that simple.

Someone else will always (Most likely) be better than you. A lucky shot, is just that, that's life!

 

[Mohrgan]

I think the Dev's were shooting for a bit higher than a '100 level' course. When you get to '601', or so, you come back and give us another lesson.

 

[Joe Spivey]

This most certainly is pertinent to the thread.

How does a Pirate make their money?
By interdicting Traders.
If interdiction is broken (as it is now) then they don't make money.

Now, if interdiction gets fixed (so that Traders don't have a 99% chance of just jumping away without damage or risk), then Piracy might not be that far down the list of profitable careers.
But Trading will still be on the top of the list even with the fix.

Of course trading will still be on the top of the list, because most of them will be in Group or Solo play.

 

[Kyokushin]

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

I totally disagree.
Players should think. Fly in safe places or not. Make jump to other system before he will be interdicted or not.

If every player will be able to flee at demand game will completely have no sense because there will not possible to engage anyone. Everybody will flee.
And if you made misscalculation and attack more powerful players you will be able to flee.

Decisions should have consequences. If you will able to avoid fight at demand you will be able to reverse attack decision, so your decision will be without consequences.

No risk, no fun.

I hope this never happen.